In the D&D5 group I play in, we have one player whose job now forces him to travel regularly. He is not at all a flake, and is a good player, but he just can't maintain our weekly schedule at this time because of his travel schedule. So far, he has only made it to about half the sessions, and thus he lags far behind everyone else on XP.
We've boosted him up so that he's up to the player with the next-lowest XP. Still, it seems a bit unfair.
In some other systems, the effect is still there but can be less glaring. So, for example, in GURPS or Amber the difference between a 115 point character and a 130 point character isn't all that glaring - but the difference between 3rd level and 6th level in D&D is.
How do other people deal with a situation like this?
Quote from: jhkim;813881In the D&D5 group I play in, we have one player whose job now forces him to travel regularly. He is not at all a flake, and is a good player, but he just can't maintain our weekly schedule at this time because of his travel schedule. So far, he has only made it to about half the sessions, and thus he lags far behind everyone else on XP.
We've boosted him up so that he's up to the player with the next-lowest XP. Still, it seems a bit unfair.
What about it do you think is unfair? Who do you think is getting the short end of the stick?
Some possible solutions:
1. Play something less reliant on characters being at the same level of experience / capability
2. Say "fuck it" and just give him the average XP the group earns
3. Say "fuck it" and just give everyone the same amount of XP
If everyone involved is cool with it, I'd just let the player's character always get levelled up to:
- the party average, if everyone has different levels
- one level lower than everyone else, if they're all at the same level
That way they should still be able to keep up and the rest of the players still feel like their regular attendance meant something.
EDIT: As Ladybird suggested with option 2 or 3 and simply give other kinds of rewards to players who are present (loot, reputation etc...).
Coincidentally, there was a promotion for this product on the front page:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/143849/Called-Away
Not sure how useful it might be for you.
Quote from: Necrozius;813887give other kinds of rewards to players who are present (loot, reputation etc...).
That works too (And it'll happen inevitably anyway), but I'm also kinda of the opinion that getting to play more is it's own good reward.
If the player was a flake, this would be different.
I split experience evenly even for absent players. I figure it sucks enough they can't play. I don't see how "Earning" Imaginary experience is unfair to everyone. I have been in the same situation and it is enough that you feel like you are missing everything important.
Is the character still available to the players? If they are then it is easily justified.
I think that the Player having fun is the important part and as long as he is not hurting anyone else's fun then keep him even.
To clarify: Right now, we have individual XP. You get XP when you show up for the adventure you participated in. So players who miss sessions normally get less XP. It's a casual weekly game, and everyone is reasonably reliable but we do have misses, so people are different levels - but this player is the outlier.
If we give reliable-but-traveling-player XP equal to the rest of the group's average, that means that he gets more XP than another player who has missed fewer sessions. That seems weird, and feels like we're judging his work travel as being more valid than someone else's reason for missing.
Quote from: Necrozius;813887As Ladybird suggested with option 2 or 3 and simply give other kinds of rewards to players who are present (loot, reputation etc...).
I like this a lot, and will suggest it to the group. XP can be a group thing where we just advance everyone, and there can be individual rewards of other stuff.
Quote from: jhkim;813895If we give reliable-but-traveling-player XP equal to the rest of the group's average, that means that he gets more XP than another player who has missed fewer sessions. That seems weird, and feels like we're judging his work travel as being more valid than someone else's reason for missing.
Glad to see you caught that.
What it could have said was give him (and anyone else who missed the session) the minimum XP received by anyone who attended the session. Presumably different people receive the minimum award at different sessions. So this ensures that over time, missing sessions is less lucrative XP-wise than attending sessions.
Or just go with the suggestion you liked.
Yeah, stuff like this really makes you consider/reconsider the point and place of XP in your games.
3e was a major breaking point for us, because the power disparities were so severe. A game like Call of Cthulhu, not so much, because 'power' is kind of a joke when anyone might be '1d6 investigators eaten per round' and whatnot.
I think in a heavily power-by-level game, XP by achievement/by character really fails.
What sort of campaign are you running? Sandboxes tend to handle a Stable of PCs better than other forms.
Oh, one approach we've sometimes used is that a missing player, their character is assumed to 'be there' and affects events to a degree. But they just are mostly out of the spotlight and don't do anything super special.
Quote from: Ladybird;813891That works too (And it'll happen inevitably anyway), but I'm also kinda of the opinion that getting to play more is it's own good reward.
Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;813893I split experience evenly even for absent players. I figure it sucks enough they can't play. I don't see how "Earning" Imaginary experience is unfair to everyone. I have been in the same situation and it is enough that you feel like you are missing everything important.
What these folks said.
Everyone in our group has to be away sometimes, for some reason or another, usually work. I'd never bitch that the guy who wasn't there got the same XP.
Truthfully, the accumulation of XP is the part of the game that I really could care less about... I've never been a big fan of the zero-to-hero... but I know I'm over in the corner by myself on that one.
Simlasa: Well, in a system where power level isn't quite so exponentiating, getting more XP would be a perk rather than turning the game into The BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoner.
Witness all the commentary about random chargen and so on.
Yes, the privilege of actually gaming at all is it's own reward.
Right now, I just level up all the characters after each session (my campaigns never last that long). If someone misses a game, they'll keep up, but won't auto-magically receive loot, connections or reputation bonuses just because the others did. They earn that stuff while actually playing. This isn't a punishment for missing a game, for christ's sake.
I like the idea of in game rewards favoring your most reliable players, or those who play their character well. The way D&D works, you get too much disparity in levels and things start to become hard to eyeball. Frankly, I want everyone to enjoy their characters at the same level, tier of play, etc. as it makes it easier for me to create encounters on the fly.
What could some different in game rewards for D&D? I'm running 5e right now. Inspiration is nice to a small extent but it's a switch (you either have it or you don't). Awards need to be more granular to differentiate between 6 players at the table.
(By the way, I keep having this vision of a player who winks in and out of existence as you play...)
To me XP is a pacing mechanism more than a reward system.
Rewards are generally in-game things be it cool stuff, friends and allies, fiefdoms, titles, or just having changed the the game world in a meaningful way. We recall stories of the time the PCs saved the city or befriended the count or found a strange artifact or slew the giant terrorizing the area. I don't recall anyone ever reminiscing about the time they got 500 or whatever XP.
So I wouldn't sweat it. If awarding XP in absentia is working, then keep it. They may get XP like the others, but they're missing out on all those cool things that they can only get in play.
Quote from: Will;813923(By the way, I keep having this vision of a player who winks in and out of existence as you play...)
Sounds like bad wiring. Keep a multimeter at the table.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;813929We recall stories of the time the PCs saved the city or befriended the count or found a strange artifact or slew the giant terrorizing the area. I don't recall anyone ever reminiscing about the time they got 500 or whatever XP.
Yeah, I generally have no clue how much XP I need till next level and neither am I jonesing for what perks will come 2, 3, 5 levels future. I'm thinking in terms of the setting and our goals... not my bonuses and hit points and 'feats'.
Quote from: Will;813913Simlasa: Well, in a system where power level isn't quite so exponentiating, getting more XP would be a perk rather than turning the game into The BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoner.
I've always favored RPGs with low power ramps... where the wild dogs stay dangerous and the farmgirl with a bit of luck can take out the big bad villain. Generally I prefer gains in 'power' to be within the setting, rather than increasing stats and 'powerz'.
For my D&D campaign, I use my usual approach - XP is earned by session for the group as a whole, with each person there getting a share and each person not there getting half a share (which I do not apply any prime requisite bonus to since it is "XP by association" rather than action).
Of course, I'm using the old school D&D XP tables that are individual by class and double every level, so this approach doesn't really lead to as disparate of power levels because people can catch up.
For example, right now I have four PCs in my campaign and we've had five sessions.
* The rogue PC has been at every session. He has around 3350 XP and is level 3.
* The sorcerer PC has also been at every session. He has around 3500 XP because of his higher prime requisite bonus, but is only level 2 because his class needs a lot more to gain levels.
* The priest PC has missed two sessions, so his total is just over 2900 XP. But because he is a priest, he is nearly at 3rd level.
* The warrior PC has missed one session, but it was a big one. He has just under 2700 XP and is level 2.
I've used a similar approach in my various past D&D campaigns as well as my Rifts campaign (where I used more individual XP, so the "base award" for a session was half of what the person who earned the lowest XP for the session was).
In our Cthulubusters campaign, you didn't get any experience if you didn't show up, but as someone else said experience is rather incidental in CoC rules anyhow.
You could just run his character as an NPC and let him earn experience and keep pace. He would probably fall only a little behind the others. Is level all that big a deal? Never has been in my games.
The good news is that in 5e a difference of say 3 levels is not a game breaker usually.
If the player is missing sessions then they are missing sessions. You can buffer them a little by having the group use the character as an NPC, but not too much.
You could do away with EXP totally and use the optional milestone system where X progress through the campaign means everyone is Y level no matter. The missing PC could be off on some side quest or otherwise weaved into the story why they are not there.
I hand out XP for achievement, not for just showing up. (And really especially truly NOT for not showing up.) I see no reason why I should screw the creative problem-solvers, the brilliant roleplayers and the skilled tacticians by proclaiming their contributions no different from the wallflowers who limit their involvement to rolling dice when it's their round in combat.
Folks who've openly demonstrated that they've felt slighted by not getting every benny everyone else gets have been, historically, invited to either step up their game, live with getting less XP, or seek a gaming group more likely to give them what they want.
As far as attendance goes, a player who misses as much as a third of my sessions is on thin ice, and the only exception I've ever made was for my oldest friend, who was dying of diabetes and missed sessions for things like "Bob? Dave won't be able to make it this weekend. He had a heart attack during his procedure day before yesterday, died on the table, and is still in ICU." § For anyone else, chronic and frequent absences provoke me to invite the player to give me a call when he or she can commit to regular attendance again.
That being said ... really, is the level disparity THAT bad? Jhkim suggests that a 15-pt gap in GURPS is nothing much, and it isn't: the largest gap there's ever been in my GURPS campaign is over a hundred points, which at the rate I hand out XP represents roughly two years' worth of sessions. (Players switch groups, they come, they go, they retire characters, they ask to play old characters from decades ago.) And I've no problem with that ... the nature of GURPS means that the grizzled veteran and the untried rookie can compete without either one feeling hard done by.
§ - Wish I was making that up. I'm not. Thank heaven for the wild success of his double transplant.
It depends on a system for me, I'd say. In ones where the character progression is slow anyway, such as CoC, I just don't bother and play as it is - if he's around, he gets the XP. In case of D&D or say, Warhammer, I'd probably give him same XP as everyone else, if I use the "count everyone's xp and divide equally" method, or give him lowest earned XP minus X if I count XP individually.
How 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.
I don't hand out XP, I hand out levels. Survive X adventures, gain a level. Its worked fine for me.
I also agree with Doctor Jest. The in-game rewards are more important than XP and those can only be gained by attendance.
I have one consistently intermittent player who has missed about half of the sessions of the current campaign. I equally divide experience for everyone who shows up, whether they show up late or leave early. For anyone who can't make it they get half of a share of experience. So far with the 6 way split with full attendance and half of a 5 way split when he can't game, and no experience for the first two sessions, his character is only a single level behind the rest of the group, rest of which finally all leveled to the same level.
More importantly no one seems unhappy with this state of affairs.
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.
Welcome to the club. But not all DMs roll that way.
Actually, my current policy is that if one player doesnt show then I just call off till next week. The group really shines with everyone there.
Quote from: Ravenswing;814001As far as attendance goes, a player who misses as much as a third of my sessions is on thin ice, and the only exception I've ever made was for my oldest friend, who was dying of diabetes and missed sessions for things like "Bob? Dave won't be able to make it this weekend. He had a heart attack during his procedure day before yesterday, died on the table, and is still in ICU." § For anyone else, chronic and frequent absences provoke me to invite the player to give me a call when he or she can commit to regular attendance again.
Well, 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.
Quote from: Omega;814032Welcome to the club. But not all DMs roll that way.
Actually, my current policy is that if one player doesnt show then I just call off till next week. The group really shines with everyone there.
If I did that then we'd never get a game in.
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. :p
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. :p
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. :p
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?
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.
Quote from: jhkim;814473OK, 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.
OK, that's your preference.
I suppose if we all did this the threads would just be too short and insufficiently contentious.
^It can be educational to see why people have certain preferences compared to other ones at least.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;814554^It can be educational to see why people have certain preferences compared to other ones at least.
It can, in the same way that knowing my friend likes very hoppy beers and that I don't tells me that we will sometimes prefer to drink different beers. But framing preferences in leisure activity as some bigger philosophical issue of egalitarianism, fairness, promoting friendship, inclusivity or whatever other reason someone wants to use to justify why their preference in XP systems is morally or philosophically better is just idiotic twaddle.
Just tell me
what you like. Don’t bother trying to justify
why you like what you like. Almost every choice or preference in gaming is simply a matter of taste, not of morality.
I mean this as a general comment. It is not directed solely at jhkim, his post just provided a convenient vehicle for my comment.
mAcular Chaotic, the juxtaposition of your post and the last line of your sig is kind of funny.
Quote from: Bren;814557Just tell me what you like. Don't bother trying to justify why you like what you like. Almost every choice or preference in gaming is simply a matter of taste, not of morality.
(not talking about jhkim here, more in general)
Yet I get a LOT of shit for "we made up some shit we thought would be fun." I've had people badgering me about "why did we think it fun"?
Well, you know what, we didn't talk about it! Somebody would come up with an idea and say "Hey, you know what would be cool? Call this brown critter a Rust Monster and when it hits you your armor rusts away!" And people would say "COOL!" or "SHITTY!" and the idea would either be incorporated or not.
Gary liked polearms. No shit. Why? Never asked, he never said, and I bet a beer the answer would have been "because."
We simply didn't engage in the intensive navel-gazing that seems to be common in some parts.
Of course, this is also influenced by the fact that "Greyhawk," as proto-D&D was called in Lake Geneva, was only one of a myriad of games we were playing. When in the course of a month you play "Greyhawk" three or four times, two TRACTICS WW2 battles, a CHAINMAIL fantasy miniatures battle, a Civil War battle, Milton Bradley's STRATEGO, and a game or two of Afrika Korps by Avalon Hill, things look different.
Oh, yeah I forgot a couple playtest sessions of "Boot Hill" too. Yes, that's right, Gary was writing Boot Hill AS HE WAS ALSO WRITING D&D.
Quote from: Old Geezer;814207Okay, 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.
(http://www.thelastdragontribute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/GIF-Bruce-Leroy-gets-The-Glow.gif)
:D
We have a core of about 4 people who always show up and a handful of players who come and go. What we have done is the core group just plays all the characters when the intermittent players are not present. Really not that hard for someone to play 2 characters at one time. XP is awarded based on what happened during the session and is split per normal rules. The two "advantages" to showing up every session are you get to make the choices as to what the party does and get first pick of any treasure that the party gets that session. This solves the problem for our group fine.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;814554^It can be educational to see why people have certain preferences compared to other ones at least.
Yeah, my take too. Heck, I spend a lot of time and trouble arguing why I think the way I do. Sometimes I agree that things are matters of preference, and no harm no foul either way, much of the time I argue why I'm right and those who disagree with me aren't.
And sure, I know I seldom convince anyone of anything, just like all of you seldom convince me of anything. But Bren's right: this'd be a pretty boring board if we didn't rant on.
Well, even convincing someone of the other side isn't necessarily the most beneficial part. By arguing your case, you become more familiar with the reasons that you hold your position, and become familiar with alternative viewpoints as well.
Quote from: Old Geezer;814173You're taking a hypothetical and turning it into a catastrophe. Do you actually have a point or are you merely wallowing in theoretical angst?
This thread started off about intermittent players; if you turn into an intermittent GM when the players take you up on promised freedom, then maybe you need to recognize that "any of which the players can choose or not choose to take" is a hollow boast. If the intermittent GM isn't bad, then why should anyone worry about the intermittent player?
Quote from: jgants;814234I think that's a dumb way to look at things.
If you offer the players freedom and then penalize them for taking it by cancelling the session, a penalty that isn't even comprehensible to the characters,
that's dumb. There are plenty of penalties available that make sense in the game world if you want to discourage them.
Without any indication of why the players decide to head to the Isles of Langerhans (hormonal imbalance, probably) instead of taking the existing adventuring opportunities, I guess I can't say anything more.
QuoteWhat is the alternative, exactly?
I'll stand by my original suggestion of having easily repurposed challenges available; any new direction is probably going to be distant enough or uncertain enough that the players shouldn't expect to get into it without running a gauntlet of likely hazards, enough for one game session. And that easy-to-improvise initial barrier may discourage both players and characters in a sensible way. If you make possible a new direction that's easy to take up and don't prepare even one session of it, that's on you as a DM.
Quote from: Will;814174I think what Rawma is saying is that he wants to play a half-dragon klingon.
Quote from: Old Geezer;814207Okay, 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.
Your paltry bribes will not sway me from principled defense of the freedom of sandbox campaigns from being befouled by the stray cats of almost-semi-railroading! :rant:
But replace Klingon with green Barsoomian, throw on wings for short range flight and then I'm good. :cool:
Quote from: rawma;814599This thread started off about intermittent players; if you turn into an intermittent GM when the players take you up on promised freedom, then maybe you need to recognize that "any of which the players can choose or not choose to take" is a hollow boast. If the intermittent GM isn't bad, then why should anyone worry about the intermittent player?
I would point out that if you read this thread carefully I have never said that an intermittent player is a problem. If they are present they play, if they are not they do not. Easy peasy.
However, your mindless blather about intermittent GM and hollow boasts is simply inane and has nothing to do with anything.
Quote from: rawma;814599If you offer the players freedom and then penalize them for taking it by cancelling the session, a penalty that isn't even comprehensible to the characters, that's dumb. There are plenty of penalties available that make sense in the game world if you want to discourage them.
I don't think Old Geezer or I were saying anything about penalizing the group for not following an adventure hook. Not getting to play for a couple of weeks isn't a penalty, it's just something that happens.
Having to push back a session or two of the campaign isn't to dick around the players, it's because as DM I
need time to plan out adventures for the new location.
I can't whip up an interesting dungeon to explore or a cool villain with a plot in motion or a whole host of interesting NPCs out of my ass, I spend weeks planning that kind of stuff so the game flows smoothly when we have it. I
don't like making stuff up on the fly so I don't do that.
Otherwise, a whole lot of the game session would be everyone sitting around waiting while I have to look stuff up, roll on charts, etc. That won't be fun for me or the players.
I create the typical sandbox for the PCs to interact with. If they want to step outside the sandbox, I'm going to need more time to create more things. Just because there might be a delay in moving forward with the new direction doesn't make it railroading. Sometimes you just have to wait for what you want.
Quote from: jgants;814697I don't think Old Geezer or I were saying anything about penalizing the group for not following an adventure hook. Not getting to play for a couple of weeks isn't a penalty, it's just something that happens.
Well, that's the problem: neither of you is recognizing that this is a penalty or cost to at least some players. For them, it's a cost they can avoid by taking on what you've already prepared; they may even be fine with paying it in order to pursue something else that really interests them. But some of those players may have been discouraged from exploring off the path because of that cost.
I recognize that suspending for further preparation can be necessary despite my best effort to avoid it. The distance and routine dangers I have prepared thinking it will keep the players from an unprepared location until I can prepare, doesn't always work.
QuoteHaving to push back a session or two of the campaign isn't to dick around the players
Given Old Geezer's usual style of posting, he might view that as an added benefit. But he's probably nicer to his players than to this forum.
The "monolithic party" game form is what basically makes this an issue, but i.m.e. it's not a big one in TSR-era D&D because of the rough doubling of xp totals per level up to 'name'.
One thing we did back in the day was use the Arduin Grimoire III hp system. That gave a lot more at 1st and much slower gains, so the ratios for character levels were a lot smaller. (Monsters stayed the same.) Hackmaster gave a 'kicker' (to monsters as well), which accomplishes the same kind of thing.
Quote from: rawma;814729Given Old Geezer's usual style of posting, he might view that as an added benefit. But he's probably nicer to his players than to this forum.
That's because I play with people who can actually read.
You've turned "none of the players want to do any of the things I have ready so I need time to get something else ready" into "arbitrarily cancelling the game just to make players unhappy."
Which says nothing about gaming, or about my game, but says a lot about you.
Quote from: Old Geezer;814778Which says nothing about gaming, or about my game, but says a lot about you.
Your defensiveness, even in the face of a joke, says more about you than I needed to know.
Rawma, you're being a prat.
Quote from: rawma;814781Your defensiveness, even in the face of a joke, says more about you than I needed to know.
That's not defensiveness, that's sarcasm. DO try to keep up.
Quote from: rawma;814729Well, that's the problem: neither of you is recognizing that this is a penalty or cost to at least some players.
Is this a "I'm disappointed because I was looking forward to the game but I'm fine with playing a board game or watching a movie or I could stay home and take care of something around the house so it's cool." type of penalty?
Or is it a "I'm getting the shakes because I need my D&D fix and nothing else will do! Why are you ruining my life?" type of penalty?
Because one of those players is not the type of person I would want to interact with (socially or otherwise).
Quote from: jgants;814869Is this a "I'm disappointed because I was looking forward to the game but I'm fine with playing a board game or watching a movie or I could stay home and take care of something around the house so it's cool." type of penalty?
Or is it a "I'm getting the shakes because I need my D&D fix and nothing else will do! Why are you ruining my life?" type of penalty?
Because one of those players is not the type of person I would want to interact with (socially or otherwise).
Which one?
Quote from: soltakss;814884Which one?
Obviously it's the former. We all want players who are committed don't we.
And yes that pun was intended.
I mean, EITHER players do exactly the adventure prepared for them, OR players decide what to do, OR something in between.
There's the potential for any player to be disappointed or frustrated by any point on this continuum. There is the potential for the GM to be a dick about it along any point on this continuum.
Big fucking whoopdeedoo.
We used to have 1 GM and 3 players and 1 NPC in the party. Our campaign is Gloranthan RuneQuest 3ish, but with Hero Points acting as Experience Points, as in HeroQuest.
One of the players had to work away a couple of times, for extended periods (6 months at a time) and had to go to France for a year. So, when he is away, we treat his PC as a pseudo-NPC and make decisions without him. If he can Skype in, or is available, then he plays.
What we tended to do was to give his PC some experience that kept him roughly on par with the rest of the party.
It seems to work for us.
Now, we have 1 GM and 4 players, with the 4th player playing the old NPC, so it isn't too bad when the other player cannot make it.
What we have found is that ideas flow more freely when there are more players involved, but the game can trundle along quite happily with 2 players.
Quote from: Will;814886I mean, EITHER players do exactly the adventure prepared for them, OR players decide what to do, OR something in between.
There's the potential for any player to be disappointed or frustrated by any point on this continuum. There is the potential for the GM to be a dick about it along any point on this continuum.
Big fucking whoopdeedoo.
Oh, there you go being all calm again.
Also, I'm actually amused how "I have several things for my players to do. If they don't like any of them, which has never happened, it might take me time to come up with something else" has turned into "AN INTERNET THING" about frustrated players being abused by a dickish referee.
The Internet. You can check out any time, but you can never leave.
Quote from: jgants;814869Is this a "I'm disappointed because I was looking forward to the game but I'm fine with playing a board game or watching a movie or I could stay home and take care of something around the house so it's cool." type of penalty?
Like this, but perhaps a little bit more "What, I drove all the way over here just to find out the game is off? But it's on if we choose to go with what the GM wants, even though it makes no sense for any of our characters?" But yes, having a fallback board game or alternate RPG is probably a solution for many groups, if they can agree on it.
QuoteOr is it a "I'm getting the shakes because I need my D&D fix and nothing else will do! Why are you ruining my life?" type of penalty?
Because one of those players is not the type of person I would want to interact with (socially or otherwise).
I agree, don't game with strawmen. Fire hazard.
Quote from: rawma;814968"What, I drove all the way over here just to find out the game is off? But it's on if we choose to go with what the GM wants, even though it makes no sense for any of our characters?" .
Jesus H. tapdancing Christ on a bagel. If you got that from what I originally wrote, you need intensive mental health therapy.
How the fuck did you get that from "I've got five or six things we can do, and if you don't like any of them it may take me a bit of time to come up with something else.
Fuck. You are really, truly going out of your way to get your pecker twisted in a knot. What an assmunch.
Yeah, it's time for you to tongue my pee hole.
I lost the topic's train of thought for the past few pages. So fuck it, I now vote public crucifixion of the intermittent player. Does that make things better?
:D
No Opaopajr that doesn't help becuase we have to then decide on the style of crucifixion and do we send invites out since it is public, We have to do announcements and it becomes a Big Hellabaloo!! ;)
Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;815076No Opaopajr that doesn't help becuase we have to then decide on the style of crucifixion and do we send invites out since it is public, We have to do announcements and it becomes a Big Hellabaloo!! ;)
And I don't know where the nails or the damn rope are which means a trip to wander the endless aisle of the Home Despot.
Quote from: Old Geezer;815047Jesus H. tapdancing Christ on a bagel. If you got that from what I originally wrote, you need intensive mental health therapy.
How the fuck did you get that from "I've got five or six things we can do, and if you don't like any of them it may take me a bit of time to come up with something else.
Fuck. You are really, truly going out of your way to get your pecker twisted in a knot. What an assmunch.
Yeah, it's time for you to tongue my pee hole.
Are you
still riding the waaaaaaaambulance, now over a post that has nothing at all to do with you, your posts or your games?
Quote from: Bren;814885Obviously it's the former. We all want players who are committed don't we.
Well I have a few that may have been committed at one time, but they have obviously escaped now.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;815298Well I have a few that may have been committed at one time, but they have obviously escaped now.
Those make the best Call of Cthulhu players.
As an aside, I was once in an asylum and the break room was playing... Hellraiser II on the TV.
Yes, the one in an asylum where one of the psychiatrists was a murderous psycho and summoned a bunch of demons before becoming a cenobite.
(I was visiting, for what it's worth)
Quote from: jhkim;813881In the D&D5 group I play in, we have one player whose job now forces him to travel regularly. He is not at all a flake, and is a good player, but he just can't maintain our weekly schedule at this time because of his travel schedule. So far, he has only made it to about half the sessions, and thus he lags far behind everyone else on XP.
We've boosted him up so that he's up to the player with the next-lowest XP. Still, it seems a bit unfair.
In some other systems, the effect is still there but can be less glaring. So, for example, in GURPS or Amber the difference between a 115 point character and a 130 point character isn't all that glaring - but the difference between 3rd level and 6th level in D&D is.
How do other people deal with a situation like this?
Since my campaigns tend to involve large parties and both PCs and NPCs kept in rotation, this is a little easier to handle. If the group finds a good stopping point, the character of the absent player is simply left on the ship, at camp, in the home base or some other secure location. If the player shows up, fine. If not, that's fine too. If the group isn't at a good place to stop when the session ends, the player has to designate another player to run his PC in his absence, subject to DM veto. In this case, the PC is basically treated as a henchman. As a DM, I try to make sure the PC is played as the absent player would want, and that the character isn't used as a total patsy.
This way the PC can keep up with the others to a large degree and I don't have to shoot SoD all to hell.
Quote from: Old Geezer;814128Actually, 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."
One of my fondest gaming memories was when our party of 1st to 3rd level PCs took over the Sea Ghost ship from one of the U modules and put out to sea. Took the DM by surprise but he was able to wing it -something every self-respecting DM needs to be able to do.
Quote from: rawma;814139So 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?
Preparing for an expedition can be almost as interesting as the expedition itself. Don't believe me? Watch
Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
There is also the option of a few random encounters (monsters, storms, etc).
Quote from: Bren;815079And I don't know where the nails or the damn rope are which means a trip to wander the endless aisle of the Home Despot.
Also, if we're playing 3.5 or Pathfinder, none of us have "Use Rope" or "Hammer Nails" or "Knowledge: Crucifixion."
Quote from: Old Geezer;817296Also, if we're playing 3.5 or Pathfinder, none of us have "Use Rope" or "Hammer Nails" or "Knowledge: Crucifixion."
Do you really need a "Use Hammer" skill to hit yourself in the head? 'cause that sounds like it would be about as much fun.
3.x/PF Organized Play has bequeathed us all a remarkably pedantic crop of community players/GMs. You thought rules lawyering in your day was bad...
:rolleyes: fuggedaboudit.
But fugg 'em, take da goddamn untrained, offhand penalty an' crucify da sunzabitches anyway. Take 20 if's yah has to. Next time dey'll think twice 'bout cuttin' out on yah game.
Quote from: Opaopajr;8174063.x/PF Organized Play has bequeathed us all a remarkably pedantic crop of community players/GMs. You thought rules lawyering in your day was bad...
I never thought rules lawyering was particular bad back in the day. Of course we argued about rules interpretations in RPGs just like we did when playing wargames. Discussing the rules seldom bogged the game down all that much; it never wrecked the game; and it seemed a natural outcome of playing a game with rules and with human players.