Quote from: jhkim;814080Well, it isn't like this - but as I said in the OP, the player in question is currently having to travel for his job - so he is actually hundreds of miles out of town when he can't make it.

Is this something that everone would be willing to solve via skype/etc? Assuming that this friend can find enough time during the time he is away to sit down and do it. That's a big IF.

Quote from: Old Geezer;814017How do I deal with it?

We live with it.  Not there, no XP.  And I hate "everyone levels up together" with the blazing heat of a billion exploding galaxies.

Why? I'm not being an ass. I'm honestly curious.

-----------
Everyone:

I asked earlier, but I was trampled over...  :-)

What things could you offer "in game" that might make better rewards than XP?

I really liked Fantasy Craft's take on this using Renown, Reputation and Awards like favors, services, items, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;814081If I did that then we'd never get a game in.

Yeah, I could get away with that in my younger years. When you have adults with career and family obligations that always come first (as they should), it's challenging to be able get everyone together, even as a small group.

I often say I have two manager jobs - my RPG group is the one that doesn't pay me to manage people.

Quote from: trechriron;814085Why? I'm not being an ass. I'm honestly curious.

OG can speak for himself, but I hate the concept as well. I want experience to be gained based on what people actually accomplished, not just some random thing that happens every X sessions.

Kind of like Ravenwing said, why should people who contribute less get the same reward as everyone else. I think showing up less should give you a disadvantage.

I also don't like "everyone has the same XP table" because then all the powers get fiddled with to try and maintain some sort of balance. The XP table difference is the balance - some PCs will gain quicker than others and that's a good thing (it makes the class choice meaningful).

I'm not overly fond of balanced PCs, either. I like games like Palladium or Marvel Supers where PCs might have very disparate power levels because it feels less artificial and more challenging to me.

Quote from: trechriron;814085Why? I'm not being an ass. I'm honestly curious.

Because among other things it reinforces the "ONE GROUP OF HEROES" idea.  I want a game of individuals who team up from time to time in various combinations.  And if somebody can't make it one night, they don't, and the game doesn't fall apart.

For the first three years I played there was never a single adventure where everyone was the same level, and I don't think there was a single adventure where we had the same group of players twice.

I also hate the idea of predetermined "plot" like "take Sorhed's Ring of Power to the Zazu Pitts of Fordor."

Quote from: Old Geezer;814095I also hate the idea of predetermined "plot" like "take Sorhed's Ring of Power to the Zazu Pitts of Fordor."

Tell the truth, you are fine with quests. You just don't like Sorhed or Frito. If it plot was go to the Kingdom of Giant Ta Tas and steal Queen Hatshepsut's Hootercups of Continual Concupiscence you'd love the plot.

Also I tend to mostly consider experience as what it says on the can. Experience isn't some pacing mechanic. Experience is something the PC earns for what the character does and experiences.

Quote from: Bren;814097Tell the truth, you are fine with quests. You just don't like Sorhed or Frito. If it plot was go to the Kingdom of Giant Ta Tas and steal Queen Hatshepsut's Hootercups of Continual Concupiscence you'd love the plot.

Nailed it!

I don't see that as a quest so much as a character alignment...

I jerry-rigged a separate reward system for attendance, personally. I grant a player's character a single "coin" for session attendance. During sessions, as the players interact with stuff and agitate the world, I create new quest hooks — with kitsch titles and all — for players to view and 'purchase' in between sessions. More expensive quests tend to come with greater XP, time, and danger.

This is convenient when running a stable of PCs as it can let several characters run fallow while schedules are adjusting. Meanwhile it also rewards interacting and investing in the environment as that is what stirs up more potential adventures to choose from. And finally greater attendance is rewarded in a separate manner with greater quest flexibility for a PC. If you spread the love between a stable of PCs, you spread quest coins; if you concentrate your love on a singular PC (due to life's demands on attendance), you concentrate quest coins.

I feel it is a happy compromise to let players feel a form of control with the complexities of attendance. I'm perfectly fine putting material on hold and resuming a party later, as long as the stakes are not apocalyptic. By keeping a working calendar for each PC I can allow such temporal dislocation in and out of game.

In the context of 5e, I would probably do something similar to what we're doing for bringing in new characters after a death. The character wouldn't accrue xp if they don't participate, but to not let them lag more than the xp floor of the minimum level otherwise present in the party.

Quote from: Old Geezer;814095Because among other things it reinforces the "ONE GROUP OF HEROES" idea.  I want a game of individuals who team up from time to time in various combinations.  And if somebody can't make it one night, they don't, and the game doesn't fall apart.

From that angle, I agree. Part of the reason I like the idea of troupe play and having stables of 'PCs'.
Our Pathfinder GM won't run the game anymore if we don't have at least 3 players... yet my favorite game sessions under him remain the ones where there were just a couple of us trying to do mundane 'down time' things like hunt for a marauding grizzly bear.
Still, I don't think any of that fun depended on whether the missing Players were getting XP or not. Did we two lone Players get XP for hunting that bear? I don't remember or care.
In general I think there's too much striving for large groups and EPIC gameplay... but it's probably just a matter of taste.

QuoteFor the first three years I played there was never a single adventure where everyone was the same level, and I don't think there was a single adventure where we had the same group of players twice.

That all sounds fine to me... I'm just not interested in using XP as punishment or a reward... especially on Players who have legitimate reasons for not making it to the game. If it's going to bother them that they're 'falling behind' somehow and they're otherwise good Players I'd want at the table I'd say let them level up along with everyone else.

Before my current group. One of the things I did to handle intermittent players was to try and get a handle on when they were not going to be able to show, and then try and end the session such that that character can be sidelined with what 5e calls "downtime". The character is off training, working a day job, visiting family, crafting, or just recouperating from a really serious battle. And most often it was the PCs recouperating since in AD&D it took a while to heal back up naturally without assistance. That was pretty much our go-to reason for why Dev was not present for this adventure since he was back in town bandaged up and taking it easy. At least twice that I remember. We were out on a quest to find some healing potions to speed up a party members recovery.
(We rarely had a Cleric in the group.)

Quote from: Bren;814097Tell the truth, you are fine with quests. You just don't like Sorhed or Frito. If it plot was go to the Kingdom of Giant Ta Tas and steal Queen Hatshepsut's Hootercups of Continual Concupiscence you'd love the plot.

Actually, to be fair to myself, if that was the ONLY choice I'd be just as pissed.  I'd applaud the referee for knowing my tastes, though.

I want multiple adventures/quests available, any of which the players can choose or not choose to take.  With the clear understanding if they say "Bugger all of these, let's hire a ship and set sail for the Isles of Langerhans" the referee says "Okay, but give me a week to get ready for that."

Quote from: Natty Bodak;814106In the context of 5e, I would probably do something similar to what we're doing for bringing in new characters after a death. The character wouldn't accrue xp if they don't participate, but to not let them lag more than the xp floor of the minimum level otherwise present in the party.

I'm just starting any newcomers at level 1 right now. But everybody else is level 2-3.

Quote from: Old Geezer;814128I want multiple adventures/quests available, any of which the players can choose or not choose to take.  With the clear understanding if they say "Bugger all of these, let's hire a ship and set sail for the Isles of Langerhans" the referee says "Okay, but give me a week to get ready for that."

This is one area where story and sandbox folks can bridge a bit. Most story folks don't insist on only one storyline, and most sandbox folks don't mind there being identifiable 'things we could go do' polished a little and strewn about.

Quote from: Old Geezer;814128I want multiple adventures/quests available, any of which the players can choose or not choose to take.  With the clear understanding if they say "Bugger all of these, let's hire a ship and set sail for the Isles of Langerhans" the referee says "Okay, but give me a week to get ready for that."

So what do you do in the meantime, this week?

If you make preparations and they take the whole session, then it seems artificially hard to get going on something just because the referee didn't prepare it (if the hiring and setting sail would take minutes if the referee were ready); otherwise you have to take what's available or not play.

Ideally, the referee has some generic challenges to adapt quickly, and even a prepared destination would still present comparable obstacles, but then there's no reason to say "give me a week", is there?