|
In short, when I miss a game, I'm denied my experience of the game. There's no need to deny my character its own experience of its own life.
'findel
Preach it 'findel!
If you have an issue with a player's attendance, skip the passive aggressive docking of XP and get right to the talking it out.
When my player cancelled an hour before to watch a basketball game, I emailed him directly after and explained the issues I had with the way he went about it.
He replied with an apology and promised to give a days warning. We haven't had a problem since.
One level difference does not make a character incapable of meaningful contributions. XP isn't based on degrees of contributional meaningfulness.This.
One level.... even two, makes very little difference in an actual game. That's what DICE are for.
One or two levels can make a big difference earlier on in the game. Just like age, one of two years don't make a big difference when you're 30, but it makes a HUGE difference when you're 5 years old.
For example, +/-1 BAB is relatively meaningless, but access or denial of 3rd level spells is significant. As far as hit points go, the difference between a 2nd and 3rd level character is about 30%, give or take a few % from the random part of rolling hp. Still, 30% is significant. For a fighter-type character, the difference between 5th and 6th level is a whole extra attack, which allows damage output to increase by about 30%, and so forth.
I agree that past level 12 or so, the difference is not as obvious.
|
I don't use xp any more. It's too niggly. If players can't show up because they got other responsibilities to deal with then so be it. All of my friends are bummed to miss out on a session, I don't want to punish them in game for it too.
The only way I'd do xp is "party xp" (take the xp values to level and multiply by the number of players in the campaign - when the party reaches that xp level the party levels up!)
One or two levels can make a big difference earlier on in the game. Just like age, one of two years don't make a big difference when you're 30, but it makes a HUGE difference when you're 5 years old.
For example, +/-1 BAB is relatively meaningless, but access or denial of 3rd level spells is significant. As far as hit points go, the difference between a 2nd and 3rd level character is about 30%, give or take a few % from the random part of rolling hp. Still, 30% is significant. For a fighter-type character, the difference between 5th and 6th level is a whole extra attack, which allows damage output to increase by about 30%, and so forth.
I agree that past level 12 or so, the difference is not as obvious.
I'll agree that more HP are always welcome... But I'm not sure how MUCH... Melee characters get more HP ANYWAY... so even at a level or 2 lower, They should still be on par with the d8 rolling characters.
Besides, this is another situation where dice are making the difference. A 4th level fighter who rolls great for HP should be about even (if not higher) then a 6th level fighter who rolled like crap a couple of times.
He'll also have about the same HP and a better BAB then the rogue of the group who's 2 levels higher...
I'll agree is nice if everyone is the same... but I don't see it as game ending catastrophies if they aren't.
Granted... Most of my mindset is around lvl 5+... I don't think I'd really like to bring in 1st level character into a 4th level group or anything...
But at that level, it's not such a big deal just handwaving a few levels to the new guy. There really haven't been any situations of 'HEY... "I" fought the uber-lich demigod and rescued the kingdom... What did YOU do to get that level??'
It's easy to work a couple of orcs and a barfight into a backstory... Level 6+... It starts to feel a bit cheap.
(...)
Granted... Most of my mindset is around lvl 5+... I don't think I'd really like to bring in 1st level character into a 4th level group or anything...But at that level, it's not such a big deal just handwaving a few levels to the new guy.
(...)
A 3rd level character will feel weak around a bunch of 5th level character. Even a 8th level character will feel the difference besides a few 10th level character, although its survival may be less compromised.
And yes, you can handwave it but that not the point. You wouldn't have to handwave it if you gave the XPs in the first place.
A difference in level can raise interesting situations, ensue good roleplay and turn the game in an unexpected (but great!) direction. I'm not against it per se. Only, I'm against the principle of ducking (or not awarding) XPs for missing out a session.
What are "xp"? Sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm not sure I've seen them since '85 or so...
I'm totally glad there's no, "This is why hate you" button :P
|
|
The result of not showing up to play D&D is that you didn't get to play D&D. Anything beyond that is imposed/controlled by the DM. You don't have to give him less experience. You can keep him in-line with the rest of the party, so that when he does show up he doesn't feel like a second-stringer. I mean, if your goal is to get people to show up who were already not invested enough in your game to attend, how is making their play experience less enjoyable going to convince them to attend?
+1
I don't give XP. The party levels based on story progression or after a set number of sessions.Good roleplaying/individual accomplishment get roleplay rewards, such as NPC favors or mechanical boons.
Same.
Works really well!
It's the little plus on the right side of his post. :DWhat are "xp"? Sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm not sure I've seen them since '85 or so...I'm totally glad there's no, "This is why hate you" button :P
No insult, but this is exactly why I HATE you /wink
The whole "You did not show up for game, so you get punished!" notion worked when we were kids and the most common reason people did not show up was because they opted to do something else (party/drinking, play videogames, hang out with other people etc) when we had stuff planned. Which is just rude, and leaves the rest of the group in a pickle.
But now that we are grown up, I am not gonna punish someone for being home with a sick child, having to work overtime, prioritize family matters, etc. That is just silly.
I don't allow level differences in the party.Toz, you're saying that as if people show up saying, "Can I play two levels below the rest of the party? Can I!?"
The result of not showing up for a play-date (yes, that's what it's called) is that your character didn't get any XP for those encounters; the result of having less XP after a few sessions is that you have to play at a lower level or roll up a new PC. If you can't do either of those things, you probably don't really enjoy playing RPGs.
That said (Looking at you Marius), requiring a new player to start at a lower level is just hazing and/or the worst kind of bias.
Hazing? In some editions, it's the rules.
"But now that we are grown up, I am not gonna punish someone for being home with a sick child, having to work overtime, prioritize family matters, etc. That is just silly."
I hear your point. I don't see it as punishment, it is about what they earned. Punitive actions and playing a meritocratic game are different. I have heard players try to ask for xp when not being there (and their characters not earning the xp of the others), but I also have heard players say, that player does not deserve the xp, they weren't here.
I find myself siding with the latter, and I too abide by such rulings, so that if I miss a game, I will not ask for xp, demand it, or complain about it. If it was given to me, I actually wouldn't take it, I haven't earned it (and the character hasn't either). A bit back, someone mentioned entitlement, well dnd isn't the welfare state. You don't get rewards of levels in my game for doing nothing and not pulling your weight.
The whole "You did not show up for game, so you get punished!" notion worked when we were kids and the most common reason people did not show up was because they opted to do something else (party/drinking, play videogames, hang out with other people etc) when we had stuff planned. Which is just rude, and leaves the rest of the group in a pickle.
But now that we are grown up, I am not gonna punish someone for being home with a sick child, having to work overtime, prioritize family matters, etc. That is just silly.
Exactly. Not handing out eps and instead leveling also stops the horrid metagaming (ala Knights of the Dinner Table) where PCs kill things just for the xp.
It is true that being a level behind isn't so bad. When a PC is brought back from the dead, we usually have him be a level behind (and less gear ) than the rest of the party, same with new Characters. But after a set period, they become the same level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that the main negative consequence to not being present at a game session is you miss out on the fun of the game, I also don't give out xp for players that are gone (note I still pay 3.5ed, so xp has additional uses in that system besides merely leveling). The missed xp isn't that much of a deal that someone that really doesn't want to be there will make it just to get the xp, it is really the fun of playing that they don't want to miss.
Yet, a part of the fun of D&D/PF/d20 is seeing your character develop and gain new abilities. The putting off of those gains can also be a motivating factor to regular attend a game session. Again, not the biggest factor (the fun of playing and seeing the story unfold is that) but a factor none the less.
Now I don't allow more than three levels difference between the highest and the lowest character (usually all characters are within one level of one another). Because if there is too much of a difference between characters it starts to feel like the lower characters are dead weight. But a level or even two isn't going to be too bad. Also, as I noted above, I play 3.5, which means that lower level characters get more xp than higher level characters. In fact in very rare cases they could even over take the higher level character. So it is not like a player that misses a session here or there is going to end up as a permanent side kick or something.
Also, I only give group (for everyone present) xp awards, rogues that sneak off to rob people don't get extra xp for such. The group gets rewarded since it is the group's time being used to roleplay it.
I know some have mentioned that not rewarding xp is metagaming since the character is not being rewarded/punished for the player's ability to play or not. I don't disagree, but xp, class level, etc, are all metagame concepts. A character develops more slowly than their companions within the game setting is not something unusual. We all know people that have picked up something faster than ourselves. And there are times when we pick something up faster than another.
But since when is lack of a reward considered to be a punishment?
When some people get it and others don't.
You need to stop looking at this in terms of game mechanics. Like, full stop.
This is a social dynamics issue.
If you give experience to some characters and not others, some characters will be less awesome than others. This can make playing that character less enjoyable.
If you're sitting at a table with friends, and some of them are awesome, and you're not, it's really easy to feel as though you are suffering through a kind of social punishment. You feel like a second-stringer, a supporting castmember, a sidekick, or a tagalong. At worst, a guest star. You feel less a part of the group, and more isolated.
How is this good for your game?
So someone couldn't make it to your game. Fine. You aren't their boss. You have no power over them. You barely have pretend power over them. Suck it up, accept that there might be more important things than your game, and make your game as enjoyable as you can possibly make it. Negative reinforcement is a sucker's game and has no place at game night.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear your point. I don't see it as punishment, it is about what they earned.
D&D ISN'T A JOB.
It is a game. You are there to have fun. Why should anyone have to earn anything? Ask yourself if docking XP for missing a game is good for the game and makes it more fun for everyone. If you really, really think the answer is, "Yes," then by all means, continue. But the answer probably isn't yes. Docking XP for missing a game probably isn't good for your game. It probably makes someone (or multiple people) feel less a part of your game, and it probably doesn't make things more fun for them. Cut it out, and people will enjoy your game more.
Heck, they might actually show up regularly.
Also, if you're one of those people who likes to earn XP because you see it as a reward, you should be asking yourself why you feel you need a reward beyond the enjoyment you derive from playing D&D.
Also, having differences in level makes it harder for the GM to plan encounters. Deny it all you want, but there are some HUGE differences in power when you are even a single level ahead between 4 and 9. At 6, the dual-wielding fighter or ranger gets TWO more attacks. At 5 the wizard gets some of the biggest game-changing spells. At 7 the cleric can hold his own in a fight. Etc.
It is hard enough to find a balance when challenging a party where everyone is the same level. If someone were 1-2 levels apart, the stuff that challenges the higher level one will make the lower level one feel useless.
The game, and the playing of it, is fun. Players complaining they are a level behind because they died or missed multiple sessions is the players deliberately whining and bringing everyone else down. This is done in the hope of being elevated to what everyone else has earned through their in-game actions, as they say, fair and square. I know a con when I see one, I wasn't born yesterday and I've been a power-gamer, and a cheating dodgy player in the far past.
Now, I've had some say, hmm, how can I address the gap, catch up, earn more xp than the other players and get ahead. Catching up is fine with me, if they earn it. Some have proposed a system of percentages where their xp would be counted differently to the parties, so not all added up, checked to the average party level, divided and so on. No, they wanted to get what everyone else got, with an added bonus on top. So they could catch up (and yes it is always a race with these people, I've seen their brows furrowed as they focus on this mundane part of the game).
Well my response is usually, kill some things, solve quests, befriend/recruit npcs, roleplay your character, move the plot forward, succeed at tasks you set for yourself, in sum, earn the xp. Oh no, this isn't enough for these entitled chaps, no, they deserve more.
The same type of people complaining about level differences in my experiences, are also the type of people that don't want to abide by the rules for the wider group as well. So, if it is a low magic game, as they bring in their new character they want more magic items than the rest. Damn the restrictions the dm clearly stated as an important factor of this dnd survival game, no, they think they deserve to start with their rings of sustenance, magic plate and magic weapons, potions all the shabang; when everyone else had to gather their gear and only have the smallest amount of magic items after a number of levels, if that (depending on level of course) which they earned in and during the game.
Scott good man, yes you spoke out against the idea of earning: "Why should anyone have to earn anything?"
Well, the pcs do earn a large number of things already. They earn their coin from jobs (or they take it with cunning/force), they earn the magic items they pry from the cold dead fingers of their enemies, they earn in-game renown, they can earn followers/squires/allies they persuade to their cause. In some games dms may even add extra achievements which give small bonuses (I do). All this is earned, all these can be earned. XP is just like them. You earn them through the game, if you are not there, you do not earn them, as I see it. Or, you can give it away when they haven't earned it. Match it even, to those players who have put in the time, played the heroes, plundered their enemies and their characters who have learned through real trials and advanced as appropriate.
"Also, if you're one of those people who likes to earn XP because you see it as a reward, you should be asking yourself why you feel you need a reward beyond the enjoyment you derive from playing D&D."
Advancing quicker because you really got into the game, and did well-enough to be unusually impressive, has a number of benefits. Yeah, you got the fun, but a level earned a little quicker can be just so damn exciting. For example, not just a "party thief". No, got a lot of jobs on the side, really getting into the world and its npcs, perfecting the sneak-thief's craft, solved a number of problems on their own, working towards starting a guild. That to me signals someone who deserves some serious extra xp. "He's gonna be guild-master one-day" say the old pickpockets.
While I agree that the main negative consequence to not being present at a game session is you miss out on the fun of the game, I also don't give out xp for players that are gone (note I still pay 3.5ed, so xp has additional uses in that system besides merely leveling). The missed xp isn't that much of a deal that someone that really doesn't want to be there will make it just to get the xp, it is really the fun of playing that they don't want to miss.
Yet, a part of the fun of D&D/PF/d20 is seeing your character develop and gain new abilities. The putting off of those gains can also be a motivating factor to regular attend a game session. Again, not the biggest factor (the fun of playing and seeing the story unfold is that) but a factor none the less.
Now I don't allow more than three levels difference between the highest and the lowest character (usually all characters are within one level of one another). Because if there is too much of a difference between characters it starts to feel like the lower characters are dead weight. But a level or even two isn't going to be too bad. Also, as I noted above, I play 3.5, which means that lower level characters get more xp than higher level characters. In fact in very rare cases they could even over take the higher level character. So it is not like a player that misses a session here or there is going to end up as a permanent side kick or something.
Also, I only give group (for everyone present) xp awards, rogues that sneak off to rob people don't get extra xp for such. The group gets rewarded since it is the group's time being used to roleplay it.
I know some have mentioned that not rewarding xp is metagaming since the character is not being rewarded/punished for the player's ability to play or not. I don't disagree, but xp, class level, etc, are all metagame concepts. A character develops more slowly than their companions within the game setting is not something unusual. We all know people that have picked up something faster than ourselves. And there...
Ah pres man. Good good. Yeah I do xp in 3.5 a little differently. I don't do the xp for each character separately. If a lower level character is in the party, that lowers the average character level. Which means, everyone actually gets a little more xp. I see from what you say, you are doing xp for each of the character, but me, the character level is an average, then look at the rewards for the CRs, add all that up, then divide by the number of players.
Up above we can see those that don't allow a difference, or players to spread out and break off, but I do use story rewards, noncombat rewards and roleplaying rewards. I once had a player come in playing a rogue, whom was following the suspicious pcs. Now he didn't join them, he followed them through their raids, picked up what they missed, avoided the players and witnessed the horror they inflicted on the local thieves. I gave that truly ninja-thief player, a chunky amount of xp, and the cunning blighter also managed to get so much wealth, without even fighting! What a champ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't have a problem with this. I mean, it never comes up as a discussion.
My players just want to play. They don't care if they are different levels. I've had games where the group spread form 2nd to 7th level in the same group, The 2nd level characters were more careful, and the 7th level were bolder. And, of course, since the 2nd level players just needed 4,500 xp to get to 3rd, and the 7th level character needed 24,000 to get to 8th, the problem fixed itself in time. Even with more missed games, by the time the 7th level character was 8th, the lowest level PC was 5th and halfway to 6th.
I understand what people are saying when they say "When you dont get to play D&D a given week, the punishment is you didn't get to play D&D. You dont also need to dock the xp."
But for my players, getting to play D&D is the reward, and it doesnt mater what level they are at.
On the other hand, it also doesn't come up often except by design. (I played in a game with a 9th level wizard and a bunch of 2nd level characters he was trying to keep alive. That was a blast, but it's obviously a special case.) Our players rarely miss games, and if too many are going to miss one we break out a boardgame instead.
The few people we've run into who ever seemed touchy about how level differences were going to be handled weren't a good match for us anyway, although they dropped out of our games before there was any level difference in their characters. (One dropped out because the PCs wanted to give out magic items to whoever could use them best, rather than use on of her complex guild-loot-division systems that tracked value to the cp and used a MVP system to decided who got to pick items how often. The other refused to play if the GM wouldn't roll all dice in the open. Their issues with our play style seemed deeper than level differentials.)
But if a player we otherwise got along with did have a major issue with level differences in PCs, I'm sure we'd work something out. So far I just seem to attract people who think trying to be heroic as the underdogs is a fun as heck challenge, rather than worry about being "behind" somehow.
I just don't have a problem with this. I mean, it never comes up as a discussion.
My players just want to play. They don't care if they are different levels. I've had games where the group spread form 2nd to 7th level in the same group, The 2nd level characters were more careful, and the 7th level were bolder. And, of course, since the 2nd level players just needed 4,500 xp to get to 3rd, and the 7th level character needed 24,000 to get to 8th, the problem fixed itself in time. Even with more missed games, by the time the 7th level character was 8th, the lowest level PC was 5th and halfway to 6th.
I understand what people are saying when they say "When you dont get to play D&D a given week, the punishment is you didn't get to play D&D. You dont also need to dock the xp."
But for my players, getting to play D&D is the reward, and it doesnt mater what level they are at.
On the other hand, it also doesn't come up often except by design. (I played in a game with a 9th level wizard and a bunch of 2nd level characters he was trying to keep alive. That was a blast, but it's obviously a special case.) Our players rarely miss games, and if too many are going to miss one we break out a boardgame instead.
The few people we've run into who ever seemed touchy about how level differences were going to be handled weren't a good match for us anyway, although they dropped out of our games before there was any level difference in their characters. (One dropped out because the PCs wanted to give out magic items to whoever could use them best, rather than use on of her complex guild-loot-division systems that tracked value to the cp and used a MVP system to decided who got to pick items how often. The other refused to play if the GM wouldn't roll all dice in the open. Their issues with our play style seemed deeper than level differentials.)
But if a player we otherwise got along with did have a major issue with level differences in PCs, I'm sure we'd work something out. So far I just seem to attract people who...
Those players sound awful. Gaming can bring out the worst in people.
And daring to tell the GM how to roll their dice? Wow, that is truly arrogant.
The game, and the playing of it, is fun. Players complaining they are a level behind because they died or missed multiple sessions is the players deliberately whining and bringing everyone else down. This is done in the hope of being elevated to what everyone else has earned through their in-game actions, as they say, fair and square. I know a con when I see one, I wasn't born yesterday and I've been a power-gamer, and a cheating dodgy player in the far past.So how do you react in a situation similar to what I said above with a player on shift work who can only make half the sessions? From your statements above it seems like your only options would be 'suck it up and be satisfied being half the level of everybody else' or 'leave the game'. I's fine if that works for you and your group, but personally I'd do everything I could to ensure that my friend still got to participate equally in the games while he was there.
Yep. Yeah I am really quite unsympathetic sometimes. For some people everything is just too hard you know?
Their character is still half the level (if it goes that far), because pcs dont level when not played by their owners and if they are not full npcs, they are not the dms responsibility to level (he has other s#*$ to do, and plainly, it is their character).
I couldn't be there, balance me (oh now they talk about balance), give me rewards. No xp for you (although the players may throw items at them so they can be more effective).
One example comes to mind. I was the pc actually, but the dm was also unsympathetic to people begging for levels or trying to present it as right. So I played a fast skirmisher called Ryzard, and increased my speed, took powerful charge. So, the problem player was a friend playing a merchant-wizard. He wanted to take it slow, never use all his spells, take it careful. My character was the opposite, charge in, track, keep fighting, rest only as much as he needed, not 8 hours + memorisation time. It was a pairing that didn't mix. So we stayed at the same amount of xp for a while, then he had two weeks off. In that time Ryzard was free to go kill things in the Greenbelt, team up with the other pc, npcs, and just generally be a badass hero. The other player, the merchant wizard fell behind in levels. When he got back, and here is the kicker, he wanted to play all of the days he had missed in game, so he could catch up to what he had missed. It was really frustrating. Two hours later, he was back to our timeline as it were, and still a great deal of xp behind, because a solo wizard is a pretty lame party, and very vulnerable. So, that was a horrible experience, and if he had been given the xp to balance with the other two players, I would have asked, "how?". Because the smaller non wizard group was out solving all the emerging quests of the region as quick as possible, the merchant wizard more wanted to trade and try to make some money. Yeah, a real hero.
Have a great few days off people! I sure am.
So how do you react in a situation similar to what I said above with a player on shift work who can only make half the sessions? From your statements above it seems like your only options would be 'suck it up and be satisfied being half the level of everybody else' or 'leave the game'. I's fine if that works for you and your group, but personally I'd do everything I could to ensure that my friend still got to participate equally in the games while he was there.
For myself, my initial reaction would be that any player that knew they were going to be missing roughly 50% of the game sessions should not expect to be treated as a regular party member. They are a guest star as it were. So, sure I think they should be ok with the fact that their character isn't as powerful as the others. I don't know about "half" their level (I mean yeah, they might be 1st level and the party 2nd level, but they wouldn't be 5th level and the party being 10th level), as that is something I try to keep a rein on (allowing too much level difference) and the system I use deals with it (lower level characters get more xp for the same encounter so can catch up to higher level ones).
But really, I would be nervous bumping such player's characters up too fast. I mean if they are not playing regularly, then they might not be totally familiar with their character's abilities. I mean, what is worse, being as effective as you can be for the your abilities or being more powerful but inept? I would think that players would have more fun being able to have their characters do things they know how it works, then to keep having to stop and say, "Hey, I should probably use ability X, how does that work again?"
So how do you react in a situation similar to what I said above with a player on shift work who can only make half the sessions? From your statements above it seems like your only options would be 'suck it up and be satisfied being half the level of everybody else'
The thing is, missing half the sessions WON'T normally result in a character being half the level of everyone else. Normally you'll be at most 2 levels below everyone else, as that's what 1/2 the xp means.
Even better, even if you have half the wealth of everyone else, you'll average almost exactly the right gp of gear for the level you are at.
I mean, look at the charts. If everyone else is 8th (77k, 51k, or 34k) and youve missed half the games and have half the xp, you;d be at 6th level (with 38.5k, 25.5k, or 17k xp).
And if you manage to start playing regulraly again, you'll hit 7th before everyone else hits 9th.
|
In our group the players have a choice if they can't make the game. Leave their PC or make sure another player or GM has it. Then it gets run like a NPC, controlled by one of the other players. They then earn xp but run the risk of dieing. Or choose not to let their PC by ran like a NPC in which case they don't earn xp.
Worse case if they choose option two is they end up a level or two behind the main group and that was with a guy that missed a lot. Like DG said even if you earn half the xp that is still roughly only 2 levels behind, with how XP works.
Mmm, I ran one game where I held onto the character sheets, for convenience. Now if a player wasn't there, they still might get loot, second dibs as it were. DM runs them if they are in the position to help and go with the party. This one player though, what I would call a problem player wanted full xp for not being there, and being a marginal support character.
The conversation after some missed games was hilarious.
"Hey, I'll need your sheet for the next game, you took it back with you."
"Not unless I get xp."
"How much?"
"Full."
"Are you serious? You aren't playing."
"But my character is, he should get full xp."
"He is not a normal npc, not mine, he is your character, you have to play him to level up."
"Full xp when I'm not there, or I drop out of the game."
"...? That is not how xp works."
"Fine! I'm leaving."
No joke.
That I just can't abide.
:)
In this specific situation, he was left to mop up mooks, cause trouble and guard camp. Perfectly suited to the terrain (as a desert druid) he could flee from superior enemies with ease. So there was no threat of death in this situation.
One of the present players that went into the pyramid without all his back-up, did however die. Another solved the puzzles, killed a demon, saved the cheerleader and saved the world (not really the last two).
The game, and the playing of it, is fun. Players complaining they are a level behind because they died or missed multiple sessions is the players deliberately whining and bringing everyone else down.
I could just as easily say that "DMs who dock PCs experience for not showing up are power-tripping and just being jerks," but that would be equally myopic.
Consider that, perhaps, the players are complaining about being behind because it makes them feel like they are able to contribute less, are less a part of the "main story," or are being reduced to backup duty.
I mean really, how dare you call them whiners, and decry them for trying to bring everyone else down? Docking them XP is a deliberate choice on your part. The only person purposefully bringing anyone else down in this scenario is you.
Scott good man, yes you spoke out against the idea of earning: "Why should anyone have to earn anything?"
Well, the pcs do earn a large number of things already. They earn their coin from jobs (or they take it with cunning/force), they earn the magic items they pry from the cold dead fingers of their enemies, they earn in-game renown, they can earn followers/squires/allies they persuade to their cause. In some games dms may even add extra achievements which give small bonuses (I do). All this is earned, all these can be earned. XP is just like them. You earn them through the game, if you are not there, you do not earn them, as I see it.
Yes. As you see it.
Or, you can give it away when they haven't earned it. Match it even, to those players who have put in the time, played the heroes, plundered their enemies and their characters who have learned through real trials and advanced as appropriate.
EXACTLY. Here is the crux of it all.
Players who have "put in the time" deserve nice things, and players who haven't "put in the time" don't.
This is very different from the mentality that playing D&D with friends is its own reward, and that missing out is its own punishment. You feel like showing up and participating means that you deserve nice things in the game, and that not showing up and not participating means that you don't deserve nice things.
This has the end effect of the players who miss some games feeling like they don't deserve nice things because they were unable to play D&D. Now they not only feel bad about missing game, and not being able to play, but you're also delivering a clear message to them: "You don't deserve the things that everyone else got."
Not their character. The player. That's the mentality here. It really ought to stop.
We are getting a bit meta here, but the player was not there taking risks with their character, not rolling dice and making decisions, so I am not inclined to give any xp out.
The player was so completely absent of the game's events, that they would be unable to describe to me (without aid from those attending) what the character did and achieved, so all the possibility of gaining experience is lost. A guest star, a bot with a few lines of dialogue, alas no xp.
All xp is of benefit to the player, so the player accruing benefits for doing nothing in game, seems quite off.
In our group the players have a choice if they can't make the game. Leave their PC or make sure another player or GM has it. Then it gets run like a NPC, controlled by one of the other players. They then earn xp but run the risk of dieing. Or choose not to let their PC by ran like a NPC in which case they don't earn xp.
Neither of these options is good. They both suck. You either run the risk of losing a character you're invested in without any narrative control, or you end up lagging behind the party.
Why offer these choices?
Why not just give them the experience and move on with your game? No one's going to complain. And if they complain, they're awful people who would rather feel superior to their friends than allow their friends to feel like as much a part of the group as everyone else at every available opportunity.
Worse case if they choose option two is they end up a level or two behind the main group and that was with a guy that missed a lot. Like DG said even if you earn half the xp that is still roughly only 2 levels behind, with how XP works.
For many, many groups (those that play at level 7 or below), 2 levels is the difference between a hero and a cohort.
We are getting a bit meta here, but the player was not there taking risks with their character, not rolling dice and making decisions, so I am not inclined to give any xp out.
Yeah, but why not?
All xp is of benefit to the player, so the player accruing benefits for doing nothing in game, seems quite off.
XP is a benefit the character receives. The reward a player receives is getting to play D&D. That's the reward. Missing out on it is the punishment. Turning XP into a player reward rather than a character reward isn't going to accomplish anything good for your game.
The game, and the playing of it, is fun. Players complaining they are a level behind because they died or missed multiple sessions is the players deliberately whining and bringing everyone else down.I could just as easily say that "DMs who dock PCs experience for not showing up are power-tripping and just being jerks," but that would be equally myopic.
Consider that, perhaps, the players are complaining about being behind because it makes them feel like they are able to contribute less, are less a part of the "main story," or are being reduced to backup duty.
I mean really, how dare you call them whiners, and decry them for trying to bring everyone else down? Docking them XP is a deliberate choice on your part. The only person purposefully bringing anyone else down in this scenario is you.
Scott good man, yes you spoke out against the idea of earning: "Why should anyone have to earn anything?"
Well, the pcs do earn a large number of things already. They earn their coin from jobs (or they take it with cunning/force), they earn the magic items they pry from the cold dead fingers of their enemies, they earn in-game renown, they can earn followers/squires/allies they persuade to their cause. In some games dms may even add extra achievements which give small bonuses (I do). All this is earned, all these can be earned. XP is just like them. You earn them through the game, if you are not there, you do not earn them, as I see it.
Yes. As you see it.
Or, you can give it away when they haven't earned it. Match it even, to those players who have put in the time, played the heroes, plundered their enemies and their characters who have learned through real trials and advanced as appropriate.EXACTLY. Here is the crux of it all.
Players who have "put in the time" deserve nice things, and players who haven't "put in the time" don't.
This is very different from the mentality that playing...
There is nothing docked by the dm, because the player didn't set sail.
Xp isn't about how much you contribute on its own, that is up to the player. When they are there, they can contribute and get rewards, if part of this equation is missing...
"Yes. As you see it."
Eh? That is how it goes. Or are you going to say the pcs never earn anything? I zeroed in on your use of language, because active players do earn a lot of things in game, through playing their characters (and winning or surviving). Often the earnings are unequal. If you are playing a greedy rogue or thief, it is in your interest to make the material earnings unequal as you role-play a thief character.
Scott, I am not going to stop my mentality which you criticise. It is simple. You don't get the xp from defeating a CR 10, if you don't defeat/out-wit/capture the CR 10. You talk about the game as if all are buddies so in the interest of fun all should get the same xp. I have never been in a game where all deserved the exact same amount of xp. Never, and I've seen absolute xp equality pushed by some dms, and it was bull and forced (yes, you did more, no you don't get xp, sorry).
Because I practice role-playing, story and mission rewards.
It is not as serious as some present it as. It is not massive numbers of levels, but yes, someone pulls ahead, and someone falls behind. If someone dwells on it, and says, hey, that guy did extra missions, role-played well, moved the story along and got more xp! (as if anyone would ever be so honest). I am just going to say, yes, that is how it goes, check the DMG. We are using such a reward system as is suggested on pages 39-40.
You talk about the game as if all are buddies so in the interest of fun all should get the same xp.
You're damn right I do.
Arguing for purely the same level and points of xp, in spite of this not making sense in light of the players differing accomplishments?
I'll give you one example, see what you say. The players really fall for an ambush. Three of four goes down. Now one barbarian who is careful with the use of his rage, finally cuts loose as all his allies have fallen. Some damn fine rolls come out, and the barb slays a number of opponents single-handedly, and saves the party.
He patches up their wounds and watches over them, till they recover. He does not rest or regain his rage abilities, he cannot afford to. He must stand vigil.
Do you think he should get any extra xp? Or that all the players should get the same? Something rather similar to this happened in one game I was in.
Nope I find no rules saying that doing ones job as a cohesive group of adventures nets one more gain than those who fell in the line of duty.
Also can't find any that say i should hold a player back based on the fact that he has a life. This is one of the biggest issues i have with some gaming groups and with some groups in online games. The failure to realize that punishing me for having a child who can get sick a job that can call me in and a wife who wants my attention is a punishment on top of the fact that i missed out on a night of enjoyment with my closest friends.
|
|
Do you think he should get any extra xp? Or that all the players should get the same? Something rather similar to this happened in one game I was in.
I think they should all get the same XP. Because the player got a damn fine story about how his character singlehandedly saved the party. Something the other players didn't.
Arguing for purely the same level and points of xp, in spite of this not making sense in light of the players differing accomplishments?
You're playing D&D. The very idea of needing to keep "score" between the various players is awful.
I'll give you one example, see what you say. The players really fall for an ambush. Three of four goes down. Now one barbarian who is careful with the use of his rage, finally cuts loose as all his allies have fallen. Some damn fine rolls come out, and the barb slays a number of opponents single-handedly, and saves the party.
He patches up their wounds and watches over them, till they recover. He does not rest or regain his rage abilities, he cannot afford to. He must stand vigil.
Do you think he should get any extra xp? Or that all the players should get the same? Something rather similar to this happened in one game I was in.
They should all get the same XP. If you thought for a second I would have said anything different, you don't understand the argument as well as you think.
The badass barbarian should get a nice xp bonus, and level a bit quicker. Badassery is a justified reason for levelling at a faster rate. Killing a sh*t-load of enemies on your own is also a good reason to get some tasty xp--tastes like victory.
If you want to get really technical. When all are down and it is one versus the many, it is just a party of one (I don't see the bleeding wizard helping! *bleed bleed*). Anything he does solo should be all for him. How I'd do it though, is more give out the xp for all, the others fought hard, and then give him a nice xp topping.
If he went into the next corridor, drove off/killed whatever was there and came back to guard the party, he would also get the xp as a party of one.
"Also can't find any that say i should hold a player back based on the fact that he has a life. This is one of the biggest issues i have with some gaming groups and with some groups in online games. The failure to realize that punishing me for having a child who can get sick a job that can call me in and a wife who wants my attention is a punishment on top of the fact that i missed out on a night of enjoyment with my closest friends."
It is not punishment. You didn't earn it, you weren't there.
Arguing for purely the same level and points of xp, in spite of this not making sense in light of the players differing accomplishments?You're playing D&D. The very idea of needing to keep "score" between the various players is awful.
They should all get the same XP. If you thought for a second I would have said anything different, you don't understand the argument as well as you think.I'll give you one example, see what you say. The players really fall for an ambush. Three of four goes down. Now one barbarian who is careful with the use of his rage, finally cuts loose as all his allies have fallen. Some damn fine rolls come out, and the barb slays a number of opponents single-handedly, and saves the party.
He patches up their wounds and watches over them, till they recover. He does not rest or regain his rage abilities, he cannot afford to. He must stand vigil.
Do you think he should get any extra xp? Or that all the players should get the same? Something rather similar to this happened in one game I was in.
I get your argument, it just doesn't make much sense. There is no "justice" (to sound very lawful for a moment) and it doesn't adequately represent what has happened in game. To the victors go the spoils. :P
Nope your right i wasn't and when no one is there after a while you DM experience will be solo.
The badass barbarian should get a nice xp bonus, and level a bit quicker. Badassery is a justified reason for levelling at a faster rate.
Yeah...we don't think it is.
It is not punishment. You didn't earn it, you weren't there.
If your decision as a DM to give one PC less experience than the others by virtue of the fact that his player wasn't present leads that player to enjoy the game less than your other players because he feels marginalized, then yes, it's a punishment, and you should feel bad for it.
I get your argument, it just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, when you stop looking at D&D as something that needs to follow the strict guidelines of your personal reality and start looking at D&D as a social activity where everyone is supposed to have fun.
|
|
The badass barbarian should get a nice xp bonus, and level a bit quicker. Badassery is a justified reason for levelling at a faster rate. Killing a sh*t-load of enemies on your own is also a good reason to get some tasty xp--tastes like victory.
Nah, he's just doing what barbarians do. Kill things. I don't get bonuses for doing what I was hired to do every day.