I DM a group of four to six players on a weekly basis. Last week a player missed a session due to vacation (which is perfectly fine, of course) and is a bit irritated this week when due to missing out on a reward from an NPC.
For a bit more information, I hand out experience to all characters equally whether they are there at a session or not so everyone is at the same level constantly (the character in question did level up from the last session like everyone else, despite not being there). When people miss sessions, what they do miss out on is possible hero points (awarded for roleplay and heroic actions) and shares of loot and items. They were made aware of this when the campaign started.
The reward in question is a boon granted by a fairly influential NPC in the city as the party played a huge part in wiping out an infernal cult in the last session (basically organizing several groups and leading a crusade against their base). Each character involved was to be granted a single request from the NPC which he would fulfill if he was capable.
The character in question is probably one of the better geared members of the party and likely a little ahead of the WBL table on a guess if that makes any difference. The cult in question was not tied very much to his character and was a plotline mostly centered around the party's inquisitor. Long story short he didn't have much involvement in it at all even before the session in question.
In any case, I personally was under the impression this was more than fair considering some groups I have been in, but I'd like to hear other opinions on it. Missing one week of possible boon/loot/items I don't think would make a huge difference (and the party is very good about making sure everyone is equipped as they can be overall).
So am I being unfair or is he perhaps being a bit greedy (or somewhere between the two extremes)?
So is the PC still in play when the player isn't at the session? If not, then I don't see the problem.
If they're being run by the GM or another player, then the PC should still be entitled to any share of the rewards. The absence of the player is a moot point. Personally, missing gaming is bad enough; I wouldn't want to lose out on loot too.
@LazarX
Likely true. Thought I would try get some other points of view though all the same.
If I postponed every time someone missed though we would literally not be able to meet more than once every few months probably. I put four to six because we usually have four and once a blue moon everyone can make it and we have six. *edit* We don't meet if there are fewer than three.
@Shadowborn
PCs are expected to being doing their own thing on weeks they aren't there in the background. The PC in question has an inn that he manages in his off time so he was assumed to be busy with that. All the characters have similar hobbies or whatnot in cases like these. The players have the option to hire NPCs or ask their NPC allies for assistance if they don't think they can handle the challenge coming up (they're part of an adventuring guild so it is relatively easy to do).
Running all the NPCs and monsters keeps me busy enough so I don't try take over their characters for them unless some sort of very unusual circumstance in the game. Also want to avoid the situation where I dictate what a character does when they aren't there and they disagree with it later.
You have a good point on the missing gaming and loot part.
In my group, there is the agreement that if a player can't be at a session then his PC just "tags" along with the group (maybe having a bad day...).
Personally, I would give him the reward and gloss his absence over rather than play the hard-liner in this case. That is, if the player isn't the greedy type that would only want to get the reward to pursue his 'almighty super pc' status... As LazarX said, you know your players best. But even more importantly: It's supposed to be fun, so I would probably roll with it...
You've done nothing "wrong". It's your game, run it how you like.
I am not sure after reading your post - was this the end of a weeks-long adventure that this character contributed to all but the end? If so, then I would have the NPC make his offer for everyone, something like "You all did me such a service that I shall grant you a boon, and make sure that other fellow who isn't here comes to see me for a boon too, I know how much he helped your group."
But, if was an adventure that started and stopped on that day, well, tough luck. I mean really, how often has this player stood up for some other player who missed a session? How often has this player said "Gosh, GM, I know Dave wasn't here this week, but don't you think we should divide our gold by 6 instead of only 5, and maybe give him this lovely magic item we found." If he's never said that, well, then he has no business expecting rewards from a game session that he missed. If he has said that, then I'd probably give him this one (maybe the NPC shows up at the guy's inn and says "I know you hang out with those guys that helped me and I'm not sure why you weren't there when I gave them a boon, so I'm here offering you the same boon."
Ultimately, your call, but it sounds like everyone in the group already knew the rules, miss a session and get XP but no other rewards, so you're perfectly justified in running this however you like.
I would have had the boon be granted 'to every member of the party', meaning since he's an official member, he gets one. Obviously, even if the player wasn't there, the character probably was, even if he didn't contribute 'on camera'.
The player was already penalized by not getting to play. No reason to pile on, IMHO.
|
You could make it up to the player by granting his character a boon that is tied to his inn that he was working at instead of one tied to the NPC in question.
Maybe his character was finally able to persuade that talented young bard in town to sing her lovely songs in his common room one night a week?
Did he inherit his aunt's recipe book, including her famous baked flatbread with tomato sauce and white cheese?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you are more than fair. You don't show up, you don't play. He is lucky he got experience. Sometimes if this happens with one of my players I allow them to make up the session a bit with their character and do a little one on one time before or after a session to catch them up, but I do not think they should be irritated with you. It was them who didn't show up.
The plotline with the cult has been ongoing since the very start of the campaign (about six levels or so). That said, the party and the cult were just vaguely inconviencing each other until last week (basically the cult was happy to ignore them for the most part, while they wanted to act but didn't have proof or the help they needed for it).
Long story short, last week is when actions escalated to the point the party snuck into their base, got proof, and organized their allies to wipe them out (cult targetted family members of one of the PCs). As for the character in question, I can't actually recall any point before this where said player/character took part in the squabbles with the cult or the plotline in any major way, hence some of my leeriness.
In any case, this has so far been very insightful so thanks to everyone that has chimed in. More thoughts are welcome too, of course.
I'm currently leaning toward letting him make his case in front of myself and the other players (letting them weigh in too since they've been playing under the same rules) and seeing what exact reasons he believes his character should also get the boon. Perhaps I'm missing some of what he played in the plotline to date.
|
I agree with DM_Blake, but you seem to be leaning that way as well.
In the group I play in, you don't earn XP either during absences; which I'm recently starting to question because some of the players are absent more often than others, and it's starting to tell. I myself tend to always show up, and not wanting to fall behind (or lose my lead) is part of that on some days. This system has never struck us as unfair, but even as the highest-level PC, it can be annoying if some other PCs are lagging behind significantly. Hence, I'm questioning our system.
I'd also like to make a note about player absence vs. significant sessions. It's happened to me a couple of times; in a three-year campaign every other week, I'd been absent only three times, and the third time the other players invaded the end-boss stronghold (and crashed it into a volcano) and basically won the campaign. I was rather bummed that I missed that.
Now, I'm not saying that every session should depend on everyone showing up, but if it's a climactic session you've been building up to for quite a while, that should be different.
I think it's ok, how you handled it. Should you want to compromise I have some idea: You said the players could choose something and would be granted that if possible.
You could tell the player that his PC has chosen his reward when he had to and have the npcs give him something that fits his PC, telling him that was what he's chosen.
That way the players who attended still have a bigger boon because they could choose but he gets something, too.
|
|
I agree with the idea that, if it was a multi-session adventure, giving him a share seems right. If it was a single session, he's SOL.
Similarly, would you take equipment from him if the others somehow lost some of theirs? If so, then he deserves to take part in the reward. If not, then once again, he is SOL.
|
|
We tend to handle absent players as in "you don't benefit, but nothing is lost either". They're in the background, not contributing meaningfully but also avoiding risks. Theoretically in the case of TPK they might be in trouble, but that hasn't come up yet.
As for rewards: rewards are for those who contribute. If you were there in some of the sessions of a multi-session quest, you deserve the reward. If you were absent on a one-session quest, you don't.
If the reward is something really important that the PC can't do without (like a Plane Shift ticket because the party is going on a journey outbound), I might allow him to "owe one" to the reward-giver; some later favor to be performed by the PC in exchange for sharing in the reward now. (Assuming the PC doesn't have a bad reputation.)