Nothing good will come of punishing players in-game for out-of-game choices.
That said, this kind of behavior is annoying. 3 sessions missed in a row can possibly happen by bad luck. . . but it's extremely unlikely. It usually shows that they guy gives attending the session a very low priority.
I'd probably kick him out of the group unless there's a reasonable explanation for the missed sessions. For every guy that constantly blows off sessions, there's another guy who would be *thrilled* to be at that game. . . even if the GM sounds like a n00b.
If it's the GM's (girl)friend though, the GM should just suck it up and keep things the way they are. The APL will drop significantly and encounters will be overall easier. Experience gain will be slower. Eventually one of the following things will happen:
1) The difference between the frequently-absent PC and the rest of the party will not be too large. The difference between 5th level and 8th is 36,000 xp. He'll be the same level as the PCs between 10th and 11th level if he shows up at every future session.
2) The PC dies because he's simply too low level to survive. Then have him roll up a new character and have the GM pick his starting gear.
I have not read the whole tread so forgive me if this has been said.
Figure out what the character has been doing that could have earned him the xp, then do not give him loot/gp.
That is what got me to look at DMing PFS. My group had some personal issues arise and we can't always have an optimal number, but enough for a PFS module. Its plug and play, so I can have any mix of modules, been kind of nice.
I guess my situation isn't the norm. I game with other folks who are married, have jobs that require overtime or late night work, have kids and in general just have lives.
We work around schedules as best as we can. If someone misses a session we say "Dang! Wish you were there" but we don't penalize them in any way.
We have one member who has missed a lot of sessions. There was some talk about booting him from the group, but after talking it through with the GM we decided that there was no real benefit from doing so. We have learned to play when he's not there, and when he is there, it's more fun.
So when he shows up we all say "Hey! Great to see you!" And we play.
It sounds like there are two things going on here. One the game falls on a day that doesnt work for one of the players and he tends to choose the other things when they come up. There is nothing wrong with this. However He and the Dm need to talk to find out if the game stil works for him or not.
The part that always surprises me, (and honestly when i have talked to younger players they expressed stuff some of the players int he thread have) is when players try to use the game as some sort of punishment tool.
Example If he isnt there we NPC his char but he doesnt get any of the loot. Well.. Distribution of loot is an in character thing, if his character is present...
Or using XP as some sort of punishment tool.
After a while the punishment tool is why he isnt showing up, personally i wouldnt play in a game that used any of the above methods.
But then, if i consistantly couldnt show up to a game i would withdraw myself from it anyways, because if i have other priorities theres no point in comiting to a game.
Really its a time management, DMS shouldnt try to act like baby sitters.
What I am considering for the next campaign:
Not bestowing xps.
Just giving all the PC's levels based on how far they have gone through the adventures.
Players/PC's divide loot, so I'm not involved.
If a player can't make it, we assume he is 'off doing something else' so he doesn't fall behind on levels. If the others don't want to save any of the loot for him that is the way it goes. If he is fall ing way behind I will assume he had some income from his 'something else' and will give him a bit of gear or cash.
I will see what my group thinks about this.
Any time the world punish comes to the mind or lips of a DM, he or she is wrong. Period. End of story. Whatever it was that you wanted to do, you are doing it wrong. By all means deal with issues at and away from the table, but do it like human beings dealing with other human beings. You are all there to have fun. There shouldnt be hard feelings over a game. If there are, you are doing it wrong. It might mean giving a player experience he didnt 'earn', or it may mean asking the player not to play as he cant make the game regularly. But regardless, the 'dont be a jerk' rule applies. If you feel the need to punish a player's character for something they did, you are being a jerk.
Personally I keep everyone at the same xp, and have removed wealth from being a major factor in the game. Mostly because revolving schedules and that pesky life thing mean that not all of my group will be at every session. I am out to have fun with my friends when i game. So I approach it from that way. It really troubles me how often people dont approach the game that way sometimes.
There's something to be said for actually earning your xp. That's how it was done, exclusively, back in the day. And it was very common to have PCs of different levels in the same group, for the same reason.
Maybe a lot of the posters above feel that this is WAY less fun. Maybe it is. But the definition of 'fun' is going to vary from group to group.
You've really got three options here:
1) Players may come and go, but characters do not. Someone else plays your character. This has the advantages of keeping all characters on track for gold and xp. The disadvantage is that other people tend to play your character less well than you do, so being absent is a risk.
2) As players come and go, characters do as well. The advantage is that all experience and treasure is earned, and this provides an incentive to show up. Disadvantage is that levels will spread out over time. Also breaks in game realism.
3) As #2, but everyone levels together. Advantage is simplicity, both for players and GM. Disadvantage is even less game realism.
*) How your group handles character death also factors into this.
For example: If new characters come in on par with the rest of the group, then the best thing your monk could do would be to get killed. Then, his twin brother, a higher level monk, could join the party.
|
3) As #2, but everyone levels together. Advantage is simplicity, both for players and GM. Disadvantage is even less game realism.
I don't think we use the term 'game realism' in the same way.
Me personally, I don't find it 'realistic' that an imaginary character fails to progress himself because a real person outside the game world didn't show up for a few hours.
In that case, we should only progress our characters the number of hours we gamed, but I don't think people want to be playing the same character for their entire life. We kind of already have one for that.
There's something to be said for actually earning your xp. That's how it was done, exclusively, back in the day. And it was very common to have PCs of different levels in the same group, for the same reason.
Maybe a lot of the posters above feel that this is WAY less fun. Maybe it is. But the definition of 'fun' is going to vary from group to group...
As I recall back in the dark ages of 1st edition DnD:
We could have a 4th level character in a 7th level group and he could still survive (as long as he wasn't a wizard) and contribute. It seemed to often be the case that there was a huge scatter in levels. For one thing the different classes leveled at different rates and got different experience for different things. The rogues seemed to be almost twice the level of the wizards for example.I'm not sure exactly when that changed, but at some point it seems to have happened. Now if I try and have a level 4 PC in a level 7 group, he will probably die and is unlikely to contribute much of anything unless he is a buffing support character.
Example a level 4 bard can still use his group buff and cast some individual buffs that will help some even if not as much as a level 7 bard. But a level 4 monk that gets into melee with level 7 opps is probably going to be dead very shortly since his AC and hit points are probably not high enough. His BAB is too low to hit all that often. And his damage will be lower.
I don't think we use the term 'game realism' in the same way.
We might be closer than you think. The key is: What happens to the character when the player isn't there? IF the character also vanishes, and reappears when the player returns, then to me, 'game realism' suggests no risk, no reward.
If the character is still assumed to be present, then yes, I agree with your method.
My main point is, the characters life doesn't stop just because the player isn't present. So saying he doesn't progress doesn't make sense.
I've been in many groups that don't assume he stops existing, but say he is guarding the camp or sick at home with the flu. So he hasn't done anything to gain significant experience.
Personally I don't like that as well, but it seems to be fairly common.
There's something to be said for actually earning your xp. That's how it was done, exclusively, back in the day. And it was very common to have PCs of different levels in the same group, for the same reason.
Maybe a lot of the posters above feel that this is WAY less fun. Maybe it is. But the definition of 'fun' is going to vary from group to group...
As I recall back in the dark ages of 1st edition DnD:
We could have a 4th level character in a 7th level group and he could still survive (as long as he wasn't a wizard) and contribute. It seemed to often be the case that there was a huge scatter in levels. For one thing the different classes leveled at different rates and got different experience for different things. The rogues seemed to be almost twice the level of the wizards for example.I'm not sure exactly when that changed, but at some point it seems to have happened. Now if I try and have a level 4 PC in a level 7 group, he will probably die and is unlikely to contribute much of anything unless he is a buffing support character.
Example a level 4 bard can still use his group buff and cast some individual buffs that will help some even if not as much as a level 7 bard. But a level 4 monk that gets into melee with level 7 opps is probably going to be dead very shortly since his AC and hit points are probably not high enough. His BAB is too low to hit all that often. And his damage will be lower.
The structure of the game was different back then. If you remember in first edition, the 'classes' did not level at the same pace. Characters who did each and everything together were not expected to be the same 'level'. But in the current game, things are far more standardized. Hit points, saves, attack bonuses, armor classes are expected to be within certain norms at a certain level. Different specializations have variations, but there is still a 'normal' for a given level that is the basis for the current CR system. If you are outside the normal you create problems for the game, whether its too high or too low.
In 1E the wizards armor class was irrelevant, if he was getting attacked he was likely dead anyway (if the thing attacking was any threat). Today, its expected that the monsters get a few shots in even at the wizard who hides in the back, and that he has the tools to survive it most of the time
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe instead of trying to punish the infrequent player, you should call him a guest star!!!
If you know he's showing up, make that session special for him. Maybe throw an encounter or two where he can really shine, maybe throw some encounters at him that really challenge him. Don't ignore the other players, but try to set up situations where the synergy between the guest star and the regular players really gets the juices flowing.
"We couldn't have done it without you!" should be exclaimed from the hilltops! As should "I haven't had this much fun in forever! I should show up to more sessions!"
|
I guess my situation isn't the norm. I game with other folks who are married, have jobs that require overtime or late night work, have kids and in general just have lives.
We work around schedules as best as we can. If someone misses a session we say "Dang! Wish you were there" but we don't penalize them in any way.
We have one member who has missed a lot of sessions. There was some talk about booting him from the group, but after talking it through with the GM we decided that there was no real benefit from doing so. We have learned to play when he's not there, and when he is there, it's more fun.
So when he shows up we all say "Hey! Great to see you!" And we play.
You aren't the only one. One of my old time friends miss half of the gaming sessions and that is a bit of a pain, but meting him at the gaming table is almost the only way to see him at all (his life obligation keep him decidedly busy). So we keep him in the group giving full XP and loot. When he is not here some other player run his character.
I know it is less fun for him as it could be if he was playing full time as his character isn't as well developed and integrated in the game as the others but it is the best way we have found to keep in touch.There's something to be said for actually earning your xp. That's how it was done, exclusively, back in the day. And it was very common to have PCs of different levels in the same group, for the same reason.
1st and 2nd edition were build in a way that embraced XP and level differences.
3rd edition was build in a way that was meant to overcome level differences.Pathfinder is neither. You never recover the lost XP unless you go on solo adventures and a level difference matter.