Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;814133I'm just starting any newcomers at level 1 right now. But everybody else is level 2-3.

I like that the log-like curve of xp:level in 5e makes that totally workable. And from my experience so far ( ~7th level ), being +/- 1 level later than that isn't a big deal.

Quote from: rawma;814139So what do you do in the meantime, this week?

"You guys can decide to try one of the adventure hooks this week and for the next few, or we can break for the night and go get a beer."

The game not happening is not the greatest evil.

On the other hand, I've never had a situation where the players don't like the taste of any of the adventure hooks; I'm prepared for the possibility, though.

Quote from: Will;814137This 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.

That's one reason I use the phrase "multiple adventure hooks, none of which are mandatory."

Also, the adventure hooks do not come to players; none of this "you are approached by a mysterious hooded stranger in a tavern" bullshit.  If you want adventure, go out and look for it.  Want to be a caravan guard?  Go down to the merchants' quarter and talk to some merchants.

Et cetera.

Quote from: Old Geezer;814160"You guys can decide to try one of the adventure hooks this week and for the next few, or we can break for the night and go get a beer."

The game not happening is not the greatest evil.

Net, the group prefers playing to the beer, or your normal activity would be getting a beer. So there's a cost, however slight, to rejecting the adventures on offer to pursue something the referee hasn't prepared. It's not meaningful from the point of view of the player characters - they can't tell that the game continued next week instead of this week, since there's no delay from their point of view - so they made a decision for out-of-character reasons.

QuoteOn the other hand, I've never had a situation where the players don't like the taste of any of the adventure hooks; I'm prepared for the possibility, though.

The players might call it "settling".

Quote from: rawma;814170Net, the group prefers playing to the beer, or your normal activity would be getting a beer. So there's a cost, however slight, to rejecting the adventures on offer to pursue something the referee hasn't prepared. It's not meaningful from the point of view of the player characters - they can't tell that the game continued next week instead of this week, since there's no delay from their point of view - so they made a decision for out-of-character reasons.



The players might call it "settling".

So?

You're taking a hypothetical and turning it into a catastrophe.  Do you actually have a point or are you merely wallowing in theoretical angst?

I think what Rawma is saying is that he wants to play a half-dragon klingon.

Quote from: Will;814174I think what Rawma is saying is that he wants to play a half-dragon klingon.

Better roll randomly for it or someone will throw a fit.

I let the player who is going to be absent decide if they want their character to participate in a session they cannot attend or not.

If they wish, then their character is run by someone whom they designate. The character earns rewards with the group but is at risk.

If they want their character to refrain from participation then they earn no XP but their character is safely out of play for the session.

If the player fails to leave their character sheet for someone to run, then they have defaulted to the out of play option.

So players have the option to weigh missing out on XP vs having someone else possibly get their character killed.

Quote from: Will;814174I think what Rawma is saying is that he wants to play a half-dragon klingon.

Okay, he's a first level half-dragon Klingon.  Since he's part Klingon he gets a +1 to his CON roll.  As a half-dragon at first level he can breathe fire with a range of ten feet one time a day for 1-6 points of damage, one target only.

Quote from: rawma;814170Net, the group prefers playing to the beer, or your normal activity would be getting a beer. So there's a cost, however slight, to rejecting the adventures on offer to pursue something the referee hasn't prepared. It's not meaningful from the point of view of the player characters - they can't tell that the game continued next week instead of this week, since there's no delay from their point of view - so they made a decision for out-of-character reasons.

The players might call it "settling".

I think that's a dumb way to look at things. Sure, you are supposed to play your character; but there's kind of an implicit contract in the game that you play your character in a way that goes along with the setting you are provided.

It's not a bad thing to choose one of the adventure hooks that is provided to you - that is part of playing the game (just like hanging out with the other PCs regardless of personality conflicts is part of the game). If I'm DM and you decide you don't want to engage in the game as presented then either we negotiate a new direction (which will require cancelling the game for likely several weeks while I plan up the new direction) or you can go find somewhere else to game.

What is the alternative, exactly? The DM is not a dancing monkey there to amuse you. His fun is likely in planning out the game and seeing the players engage with what he planned (mine certainly is). Even DMs who can make quite a bit up on the fly don't necessarily want to try and generate an entire new campaign direction with no notice.

Heck, even as a player I prefer it when we're doing something the DM has plans for. I've found most DMs who try to make up too much on the fly to be dreadful to play with; stopping the game for 15 min or more while they look through the monster manual to figure out what we encountered, being incredibly inconsistent about setting or plot details from hour to hour and leaving the PCs frustrated because they based their plans on details that changed, etc.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;814202I let the player who is going to be absent decide if they want their character to participate in a session they cannot attend or not.

I've allowed this only once in my entire GMing career.  The situation, where we left off at the previous session, was that three of the PCs had surprised a group of assassins who'd successfully waxed a NPC the group was supposed to be protecting.  The much more combat-oriented PC stayed behind to hold the two surviving assassins with a loaded crossbow, while one PC went to get the city watch, and the other went to get the other two PCs.  

Only that PC, at the time the set director for the Harvard/Radcliffe student theater group, had a loadout suddenly scheduled for the next session.  He couldn't possibly make it.  We couldn't possibly reschedule.  I figured that the assassins were absolutely going to try to make a break for it (them reasoning, accurately, that having slit the throat of a 12-year-old nobleman after gelding him by way of torture -- and being caught altogether too literally red-handed -- wasn't going to work out too well for them at the hands of the law), so Todd asked one of the other players to play his character for the time it took for other PCs to arrive.  I signed off on it.

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.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the excuse for a player who can't reliably make my sessions is.

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

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

On the first, Bren's answer speaks for me: I believe XP should be for achievement, not as a pacing mechanic.  Just like I despised "Everyone in the group gets the same grade," which inevitably had the lazy members cheerfully letting the disgruntled overachievers do all the work, thems that do should get, and thems that don't should get a good bit less.  There are plenty of campaigns out there that cater to players with entitlement mentalities likely to obsess about "falling behind" without actually bothering to do what's necessary to keep up, and I wish them well with one another.

On the second, I have a radical idea: why hand out XP at all?

Between 1989 and 2002, I was in a combat fantasy LARP.  But even when I started, I was the oldest player in the game.  I was 43 years old when I stopped, and well before then I had to do two three-hour fight practices a week just to keep my skills from deteriorating; I certainly was never going to improve.  I'd hit the maximum number of spells the system allowed by 1994; I wasn't going to improve there either.

Somehow, even though character improvement was denied me, I managed to have fun for many years.  I'm not sure what makes constant and measurable improvement an ironclad necessity for tabletop either.

Quote from: Ravenswing;814255I'm not sure what makes constant and measurable improvement an ironclad necessity for tabletop either.

It isn't.*

However it is overwhelmingly popular.




* The original TSR rules for Boot Hill didn't include much in the improvement category. No levels. Not much improvement occurred overall, though you did get a bonus to accuracy (I think) for having survived a certain number of gunfights. But it wasn't a game focused on continual improvement. Similarly, the original rules for Traveller didn't include much in the way of improvement once you finished background character generation. We played Star Trek FASA version for years with almost no change in character abilities. About the only changes that occurred were for characters who went off to Command or Tactical schools.

I blame video games and the youth of today.





(I am joking)

Quote from: Ravenswing;814255I believe XP should be for achievement, not as a pacing mechanic.  Just like I despised "Everyone in the group gets the same grade," which inevitably had the lazy members cheerfully letting the disgruntled overachievers do all the work, thems that do should get, and thems that don't should get a good bit less.  There are plenty of campaigns out there that cater to players with entitlement mentalities likely to obsess about "falling behind" without actually bothering to do what's necessary to keep up, and I wish them well with one another.

OK, that's your preference. As a player, I don't want to be graded on my gameplay - any more than I want to be graded by drinking buddies for how much I'm contributing to the fun of the party, or graded for my contributions to a communal project. I have fun playing and doing things for their own sake. Getting a good grade from a GM with this attitude is an anti-motivator for me, if anything.

I see XP mainly as a way to change things up, not a mark of how good a player someone is. I usually cringe when a player beams with accomplishment at their 15th level wizard or similar, because it seems like a very poor measure.

That said, there are of course many other ways to change things up / pace your game, so XP are not necessary. In the longest campaign I've played in, a Call of Cthulhu campaign, we haven't been doing experience checks at all.