PDA

View Full Version : Player can't assist to session. What about XP and loot? [Please close this. Thx]



Fenryr
2011-10-01, 01:23 PM
Hello! This is D&D but maybe it will work with other systems.

Today 'm gonna have an intense session. Lots of treasure and enemies for my players. But two of the players will be unable to join us. So, my question is, what happens with the XP and loot?

They're unable to come because A needs to study for exams and B has family business. I can't "punish" them. Like I said before, the session will be a lil' bit hardcore. It's ok if they fall behind in treasure and XP? Should I give the party treasure that must belong to A and B? A is a Gunslinger and B is a Wizard, obvious treasure is pretty obvious.

Jeraa
2011-10-01, 01:46 PM
In my games, if you don't show up, you don't get experience or loot (unless the other players want to share the loot they got).

If the missing players want to, they can let their characters be controlled for that session by other players. That way, the characters still get loot/xp. Or if the missing players don't want others to control their characters, hold a second session for the missing players. While the rest of the party is off with your original adventure, what are the two missing members doing? Giving them their own seperate adventure will keep them in line with the parties wealth and experience level.

Or, simply play a different game this week. Or watch a movie. Continue the adventure while everyone is there. Just ask your players what they want to do.

jindra34
2011-10-01, 01:47 PM
Let the other players decide how to distribute the treasure but leave it there. On XP unless someone else plays their character for them (which involves them not keeping their sheets) don't give them any, and even if another player does reduce it by maybe 5-10%. One session of this shouldn't make a difference but will if its repeat performance, in which case the loss of ability is fair.

Geddoe
2011-10-01, 02:12 PM
We always give full exp to everybody in the group. Partly because it is easier to keep a running exp total that way, and partly because we realize that having real life stuff is no reason to punish somebody who can't make it.

The systems we are playing now don't really care that much about looting most of the time, but when we played D&D the person got a share too. Loot kind of retroactively came into being next time the person showed up.

My perspective is that if they aren't coming, they have 1 of 2 major reasons: 1. Real life stuff going on or 2. They just didn't feel like playing.

Punishing(and not giving them exp or loot while everybody else gets new powers and phat lewts is punishing) somebody for reason 1 isn't going to stop real life from happening in the future.

And if they start falling behind everybody else, people who might be a bit burnt out on your game are even more likely to get totally burnt out faster and just drop your game altogether.

Shpadoinkle
2011-10-01, 02:28 PM
I usually go with the PCs of absent players get half XP for the session, and loot is distributed evenly (or however else the players decide to distribute it, but I encourage them to do that) but the players who are present get first pick when it comes to magic items.

Anderlith
2011-10-01, 02:36 PM
You only get XP if you were there & you only get loot if the party lets you have it.

Jeraa
2011-10-01, 02:39 PM
Punishing (and not giving them exp or loot while everybody else gets new powers and phat lewts is punishing)

I (and many others I'm sure) don't see it that way. Your not taking anything away that they rightfully earned - you're just not giving them anything for free. Yes real life takes precedence over the game, but getting in-game rewards (loot and experience) for doing nothing in-game isn't the answer.

Getting experience and loot isn't a right - its a reward for actions in the game. Which is why I suggested a seperate little adventure for the missing players sometime during the week. It still gives them their loot and XP, but they actually have to earn it. And it gives a reason why the characters wern't with the rest of the party for the main adventure.

Medic!
2011-10-01, 02:48 PM
Games are played for funsies, when I DM and someone has to miss an occassional session I usually arrange for an off-stage mini-venture for them to participate in away from the party. It's usually just a "Hey you did this while the party did that and I'll find a logical way to re-insert you when you get back" and I give them some loot and full missed xp when they get back. The loot isn't always on par with what they would have gotten, usually it's a character-specific chosen thing of lesser value. Nobody likes falling behind just because they have other responsibilities, and it serves as a great way to grab an extra plot hook or accomplish something off-screen to make for a nice story twist/push.

Defiant
2011-10-01, 02:55 PM
Gaming is supposed to be fun. D&D is supposed to be done "for fun" (and social). It's not something you work at to get rewards - that's completely the wrong attitude.

Sometimes life gets in the way understandably. Some things in life are more important than "fun", especially when they are pressing matters. Players should not be disadvantaged because they assign their life priorities properly.

A player who has less XP and less loot in the D&D game is disadvantaged from the others. This can make the game less for fun for them, and ruin the entire purpose of it. D&D is not about "working" at it. It's about having fun, and getting various rewards that are fun.

I mean, even the idea of "no xp or loot, but if their characters are controlled by someone else, then they get xp and loot" completely misses the point if you step back from the concept of this is a game you play for fun. What the character does in-game (whether it be absence or presence) should have no impact on the player's ability to have fun in the game.

I understand where it's coming from. It doesn't make sense for a character who isn't there to get XP and loot (and maybe it does if they're controlled by someone else). But step back for a bit, and this what makes best sense from a player perspective.

Anderlith
2011-10-01, 03:16 PM
Yes, D&D is supposed to be fun, but look at your X-Box. Do you have anymore Achievements just because you wanted to play but couldn't?

Defiant
2011-10-01, 03:36 PM
Yes, D&D is supposed to be fun, but look at your X-Box. Do you have anymore Achievements just because you wanted to play but couldn't?

Poor comparison. Again, missing the point. XboX, World of Warcraft, etc. are all made so that they keep you hooked. See here. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html)

And it's not really an applicable comparison either. If you don't get XboX achievements, you're not all of a sudden disadvantaged compared to other players. If you don't level up your WoW character, you're not disadvantaged - you just play with other people of the same level while the ones you would have played with carry on to a higher level.

Not to mention that if the achievements are a great source of "unfun" - i.e. you play only for the achievements and if you have problems getting them you get frustrated and annoyed - then you really should stop playing, and try something else.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that D&D is a game and it's for fun. Making it such that you have to "work" for the XP and loot as a principle, misses the entire point of playing it. Keep things fair, yes, as in players who constantly miss sessions don't have the greatest of items... but don't disadvantage players who can't attend as frequently.

If a DM came to me about XP and loot saying "well you didn't do any work for these, you didn't do anything to earn them, why should I just give them to you", I'll promptly point out that I'm here to have fun, not to work (and probably find a different DM who realizes why I'm playing).

Jeraa
2011-10-01, 03:45 PM
If you don't level up your WoW character, you're not disadvantaged - you just play with other people of the same level while the ones you would have played with carry on to a higher level.

Only half true. Yes, you can play with other people. But if you prefer to play with a group of your friends, they can now go to higher level instances and quests then you. Sure, you can go with them, but you don't get credit for those quests, and you will have to do them again when you are the appropriate level. So, you are partially punished by not being there - you can still play, but you can't do all the same stuff as your friends.

And since when does more experience and more loot = more fun? The level of fun should have no connection to your experience level or loot.

Howler Dagger
2011-10-01, 03:51 PM
And since when does more experience and more loot = more fun? The level of fun should have no connection to your experience level or loot.
I think it is a situation of less loot=less fun, expecially in the situation you described.

I prefer to give missing players experience and loot, and make a justifiable in game reason for it.

Defiant
2011-10-01, 03:58 PM
Only half true. Yes, you can play with other people. But if you prefer to play with a group of your friends, they can now go to higher level instances and quests then you. Sure, you can go with them, but you don't get credit for those quests, and you will have to do them again when you are the appropriate level. So, you are partially punished by not being there - you can still play, but you can't do all the same stuff as your friends.

Again, I don't like using video games as good examples, because they're actually made to get you to keep playing and want to keep playing - whether or not you're having fun. You get the fun, but the thing that makes you do things that aren't fun (like grinding or farming) is usually the addictive nature of the game made so that you have to spend tedious time before you can have fun again.


And since when does more experience and more loot = more fun? The level of fun should have no connection to your experience level or loot.

Three ways:

1. Bonuses. The other players get to enjoy new levels and new items, lots of perks that can be pretty fun. You don't. Why? Because your girlfriend needed your help moving in. You didn't "work" at the game, and were working at something much more important (heavy lifting for your loved one) - you obviously don't deserve the same benefits, right?

2. Relative Power. The other players are one level higher and have better items or gold to buy items. You don't, and are thus a bit weaker than the other players (which might also lead to some frustration), and can't contribute to the team effort as much. Why? Your dad asked for your help painting your parents' new place, and you were happy to assist because of all the help they've given you, like all the money they spent putting you through college/university. You didn't "work" at the game, and were working at something much more important (helping your beloved parents) - you obviously shouldn't be on the same level as the other players, right?

3. Attitude. If you have to do other important things making you miss the session, you won't get the XP and loot. This attitude can be quite detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, since it makes it look like more of a competitive nature, more of a "work at it" nature, and less of a "let's have fun" concept. Knowing you're missing out on XP and loot if you're missing a session, on top of the fact that you're missing out having fun times with your friend, can really suck. Again, it's about having fun, not working at it to get "deserved" in-game rewards - they are there only to augment the fun. And if you get called in to work, and want to keep your job so that you can continue to pay the rent and buy food, and so you go in to do your shift, you shouldn't also have to think about the fact that you'll start getting in-game disadvantaged for not attending the D&D session.

Defiant
2011-10-01, 04:15 PM
I guess I should probably also give a suggestion on how to proceed to Fenryr (and other interested parties).

Defiant's suggestion:

If the player is missing due to legitimate reasons, then proceed as I noted below. If the player keeps missing due to laziness or poor reasons, you should probably talk to them before starting to cut into their in-game characters. Ideally get a group of properly interested and motivated players, who want to be there.

XP: Award the same amount of XP for the player who is missing. If you like to maintain specific character XPs and they vary, then award the average, or the lowest-amount gained by a character for that session.

Loot: Ideally place the appropriate items on the bosses for the other players to loot. They'll go "hey, this gun would be perfect for our gunslinger!" Alternatively, give the same level of loot, but less flashy. If the fighter got The Excalibur (named) sword from the boss, and the wizard got Hat of Power from the boss's cohort, then maybe give the gunslinger Well-Built Musket that was picked up from one of the guards, that's still about on the same level of the others, but not so "flashy".

Note that if you start cutting in to the XP and loot of another player (like if you want to do that since they're missing sessions without good reason), then you'll probably foster resentment. Best thing is to try to talk it out, and ultimately get a dedicated player.

DrBurr
2011-10-01, 04:39 PM
This is a problem I had just last night, one of my player's couldn't attend, usually we play a different campaign while hes absent but he agreed to let us continue this one without him simply because he knew this was essentially just a dungeon run and he wouldn't miss any plot. So what should we do about his character's experience and loot?

I kind of agree with Defiant, its not my friend's fault that he had class at that time and couldn't come. So I plan to give him a fair share of XP even though his character didn't fight during the session, but maybe instead he was protecting the groups caravan. This way his character doesn't fall behind and get slaughtered later on because he missed a couple dungeon runs.

As for loot though, the majority of treasure my players get is going to be gold and maybe some equipment off the bodies of their foes. Thats up to the player's at the table to decide how to divide up, if they decide to give him some great, if not he simply doesn't have as much gold.

Of course I plan to discuss this with my players next week to get their opinions on the situation because after all its their game too

Anderlith
2011-10-01, 05:29 PM
If you were talking about board games I would agree with you. But we are talking about a game with multiple people. I've never seen a problem with Achievements. Also you took my example out of context. There is no singular game in question. You either contribute to completing them or you do not. X-box doesn't give everyone high gamer scores just because you feel left out. You did not contribute to making the cake so you do not get to eat it just because you were doing something else. Gaming is not work but it requires effort, effort that you did not put in. So no cake for you. If anyone can miss sessions & it not hamper game then why not just skip 5 or 5? Let someone else earn a few level ups & get cool stuff. Then you can show up & ask for it all to be given to you.

Tengu_temp
2011-10-01, 06:40 PM
Let the party handle the loot among themselves - if they're good buddies, they will give the missing people their share. As for XP, either give the missing people full experience or give them more experience during the next several sessions until they even out with everyone else. Being weaker because you couldn't attend the game due to important RL reasons is no fun.

Defiant
2011-10-01, 06:47 PM
You did not contribute to making the cake so you do not get to eat it just because you were doing something else. Gaming is not work but it requires effort, effort that you did not put in. So no cake for you. If anyone can miss sessions & it not hamper game then why not just skip 5 or 5? Let someone else earn a few level ups & get cool stuff. Then you can show up & ask for it all to be given to you.

This is a question of merit.

A person did not put in the "effort" into the game, because they were not there. They instead put effort into helping their girlfriend move, or helping their parents paint, or what have you. Does this mean the person does not deserve the "cake"? Just because this effort was placed into something far more real-life important (and likely far more effort and work) rather than the game itself?

If a player starts having the mentality of "hey, I'll level up and get cool stuff even if I'm not there - so I should stop being there as much because I can get away with less effort", then they have the completely wrong attitude. There are so many things wrong with that, that I can't even start to list them. It's the journey, not the destination. I mean, they could probably get 5 extra levels and double their wealth just by joining a different game that's starting at a different level - what's the point?

If I miss a session, I'll feel like I missed out on a lot of fun, even though I still get the XP and loot. The point of D&D is to have fun with your friends. If you want to play a game where all you're trying to do is make a number go up (or multiple numbers), play something like WoW, or XboX games for the gamerscore. [Or this game (http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=210).]

D&D is not about getting XP or loot. Those are simply ways in which the game is played - but not they are not the game itself. A player who is happy with missing 5 sessions because they still get the XP and loot is missing the point of playing D&D. And ideally, you would not play with such players.

Anderlith
2011-10-01, 09:16 PM
Effort to make a cake gets you cake. Effort to help your girlfriend move gets you admiration. Effort to make it to D&D gets you XP, fun & of course phat lootz. It's all about where you invest it.


From my experience, one missed game will not impact your character very much.

Defiant
2011-10-01, 10:18 PM
Effort to make a cake gets you cake.

Nope. My dad does the cooking, while my mom does the baking. My dad puts no effort into making a cake, yet he gets the cake. :smallwink:

And I get the cake, even though all I do all day is study in university! :smallbiggrin:

Merit can be transferable.

Emmerask
2011-10-01, 10:35 PM
no loot (of course the other players can opt to give them what they have found)

full basic xp, however if you hand out roleplaying xp, puzzle xp or other situational xp boni these are of course for those participating in the game.

Being able to participate in a fun game instead of going to work, to the hospital etcetc is reward enough. There is no need to punish the player and decrease his incentive to even join the campaign again...

Shadowknight12
2011-10-01, 10:42 PM
XP and loot belong to the characters, not to the players. If the characters went with the rest of the party (even if they were being NPC'd or didn't contribute at all), they get their share of XP and loot, as normal. If they're left behind in the town/HQ/secret lair, then it's something to discuss OOCly with the players themselves.

HunterOfJello
2011-10-02, 12:11 AM
An extremely important rule of thumb for me as a DM is that loot distribution has absolutely nothing to do with the DM in any way shape or form. As a DM, it is a great idea to volunteer strategies to deal with things and encourage methods for deciding distribution like setting up a Party Contract that everyone can agree upon, but the actual distribution itself has absolutely nothing to do with you.

If a character or two stops participating in a quest, then the group may allow those characters to receive an equal portion in the total gp earned/found, but it's up to the party members who find magical items to decide what to do with them.

Easy Answer: Loot Distribution is both not your problem and completely outside your job as a DM.

~~~~


As for XP, only give it to participating characters. The XP system in D&D is designed to give lower level characters signifigantly more xp from an ecounter than higher level characters. If one party member falls behind in levels, they will quickly gain ground again.

icefractal
2011-10-02, 04:00 AM
You did not contribute to making the cake so you do not get to eat it just because you were doing something else. Gaming is not work but it requires effort, effort that you did not put in. So no cake for you. If anyone can miss sessions & it not hamper game then why not just skip 5 or 5? Let someone else earn a few level ups & get cool stuff. Then you can show up & ask for it all to be given to you.But what if a player shows up and half-asses it? Maybe they didn't bring much to the RP. Maybe they made stupid moves in combat. Do they get less XP? Generally, no, and certainly not zero. Let's be honest - a really good player can bring as much contribution to the game in a single session as a mediocre player does in five. But unless you want to start rating (and alienating) your friends, XP is not a good way to measure that.

So why pretend that people are really "earning" anything?
1) The actual players didn't face any danger or defeat any foes. They played a game that was presumably enjoyable. You wouldn't give an award for watching TV or eating a tasty meal, would you?
2) Why would all foes give consistent XP anyway? If we're trying to be "realistic", then one character might learn as much from one fight with an ogre as another did from facing a horde of demons. And what do XP measure, anyway? Learning? Accomplishment? Slaying Stuff? They're pretty damn arbitrary in most games.

So we have XP as a pacing mechanism, and/or a reward for certain behavior. In neither case does penalizing people for things they cannot (or should not) change make any sense.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 05:33 AM
You get xp for defeating monsters. If you didn't help slay it then you don't get it.

Defiant
2011-10-02, 08:09 AM
You get xp for defeating monsters. If you didn't help slay it then you don't get it.

I've tried my best, but you keep missing the point.

A character's XP and wealth totals should be irrelevant of their gameplay contributions and session presence/absence.

jindra34
2011-10-02, 08:54 AM
Just for the sake of example I'll explain how I handle (I run GURPS 4ed).

Loot is either distributed by jobs and everyone who aids in the job gets an even cut of the reward or loot is pretty much dropped and I let players distribute it.

Experience is 1 point for showing up and 1-3 points for good RP, meaning if you can come up with a good reason for why your character disappeared/didn't help you can still get the RP points, per session, with another 10-15 per arc (depending on arc) for everyone who meaningfully helped during the arc regardless of the number of sessions they showed up. In general it would take missing 2-3 sessions to meaningfully impact a characters power, and a pattern of missing to fall behind in overall capability at which point there should already be a discussion of absences.

Fenryr
2011-10-02, 10:48 AM
Thanks for all the responses. I will take some measures if they miss more thay one session again (like fixing treasure or lowering the CR or some good posts here). Thanks again.

Geddoe
2011-10-02, 12:49 PM
You get xp for defeating monsters. If you didn't help slay it then you don't get it.

So if I create a 3.5 Iaijutsu Master/ubercharger and always go first and one shot everything before anybody else moves, I don't need to split exp with others. I mean, they aren't actually helping right?

What if the battle starts and your character is affected by the monster's powerful area fear effect. You spend the rest of the fight cowering in the corner while your group fights the monster. You were there, but contributed nothing because you flubbed a resistance roll. Do you get exp?

P&P rpgs aren't Xbox rpgs, there is no real achievement. The GM can "win" at anytime, but chooses not to.

ClockShock
2011-10-02, 01:29 PM
Two players are missing - you've been given warning of this and you consider their reasons acceptable.

You also have an awesome session planned out.

Stop worrying about loot - just run a one-shot adventure for this session. Let the people who can make chill out and do something different for a change of pace, then come back to your awesome session when everyone is available.

If people are disappearing without warning, or have poor excuses, then you can start looking into ways to give players incentives to show up.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 02:02 PM
So if I create a 3.5 Iaijutsu Master/ubercharger and always go first and one shot everything before anybody else moves, I don't need to split exp with others. I mean, they aren't actually helping right?

What if the battle starts and your character is affected by the monster's powerful area fear effect. You spend the rest of the fight cowering in the corner while your group fights the monster. You were there, but contributed nothing because you flubbed a resistance roll. Do you get exp?

P&P rpgs aren't Xbox rpgs, there is no real achievement. The GM can "win" at anytime, but chooses not to.

The GM can't win. If he attempts to "win" he will lose... his gaming group.

If you character did so alone without any party members to back him up or to heal him or buff him or any other paraphernalia. So yes, if your character left town alone to storm a castle he would get XP for himself. But the rest of the party will be doing something else why he is doing his little side quest. If you were to bring the rest of the group with you as "back up" they would still get XP because you are unwilling to do such feats yourself & therefore they have contributed.

As for the dragon. Going down to neg HP from a dragon's bite & running away in fear are basically the same thing. You aren't able to attack. Just because you aren't able to swing doesn't mean you didn't contribute. There is something to say about psychology & morale. That is why anyone who goes up against a creature gets XP when it is defeated, you don't have to do it yourself.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 02:12 PM
I've tried my best, but you keep missing the point.

A character's XP and wealth totals should be irrelevant of their gameplay contributions and session presence/absence.

No they represent how the character has grown & evolved & what the character did to get to where he is now. Ask a veteran how he got so wise, He'll tell you about his battles in Nam. As a doctor where she learned about the methods used by Aboriginal Medicine, she'll tell you about her time doing charity work in third world countries. Ask Indiana how he got his whip. Ask Han where he got the Millenium Falcon. Ask Aragon where that shiny sword on his hip came from. XP & loot are a way of showing what you have accomplished & what you have done.

DrBurr
2011-10-02, 02:34 PM
No they represent how the character has grown & evolved & what the character did to get to where he is now. Ask a veteran how he got so wise, He'll tell you about his battles in Nam. As a doctor where she learned about the methods used by Aboriginal Medicine, she'll tell you about her time doing charity work in third world countries. Ask Indiana how he got his whip. Ask Han where he got the Millenium Falcon. Ask Aragon where that shiny sword on his hip came from. XP & loot are a way of showing what you have accomplished & what you have done.

Wait Aragorn got his sword for free, its an heirloom he didn't win it
Han cheated Lando out of the Falcon in a game of Sabbac
I'm pretty sure Indiana bought his whip (not exactly sure)

Your examples aren't really valid, because this isn't real life its a game So if a player has a legitimate reason that they can't make it their character shouldn't be punished because technically their character is still on the adventure but twiddling their thumbs instead of casting spells or swinging a sword. You can't punish a character for a player's actions thats like killing a character off because you don't like their player.

Really its up to the group to decide how to go about it, but theirs no reason to penalize a player because his car broke down. Now if a player frequently no shows a game then you need to talk to that player to see why their not coming, and ultimately if you must cut them because they are no longer interested in playing.

Defiant
2011-10-02, 02:34 PM
No they represent how the character has grown & evolved & what the character did to get to where he is now. Ask a veteran how he got so wise, He'll tell you about his battles in Nam. As a doctor where she learned about the methods used by Aboriginal Medicine, she'll tell you about her time doing charity work in third world countries. Ask Indiana how he got his whip. Ask Han where he got the Millenium Falcon. Ask Aragon where that shiny sword on his hip came from. XP & loot are a way of showing what you have accomplished & what you have done.

You're using in-game logic and reasoning to resolve an outside-of-game issue.

Of course, it makes sense that a character who did not attend a dungeon run should not get any experience from it... but that's irrelevant and missing the point.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 03:15 PM
Wait Aragorn got his sword for free, its an heirloom he didn't win it
Han cheated Lando out of the Falcon in a game of Sabbac
I'm pretty sure Indiana bought his whip (not exactly sure)

Your examples aren't really valid, because this isn't real life its a game So if a player has a legitimate reason that they can't make it their character shouldn't be punished because technically their character is still on the adventure but twiddling their thumbs instead of casting spells or swinging a sword. You can't punish a character for a player's actions thats like killing a character off because you don't like their player.

Really its up to the group to decide how to go about it, but theirs no reason to penalize a player because his car broke down. Now if a player frequently no shows a game then you need to talk to that player to see why their not coming, and ultimately if you must cut them because they are no longer interested in playing. You keep viewing it as a penalty but it's not. You are just not rewarding them

Emmerask
2011-10-02, 03:32 PM
You're using in-game logic and reasoning to resolve an outside-of-game issue.

Of course, it makes sense that a character who did not attend a dungeon run should not get any experience from it... but that's irrelevant and missing the point.

Its not even logical, because it assumes that all this time the pc just sat there idle and twiddling his thumbs which is highly unlikely especially since during one session a whole lot of time can pass, days, weeks even months...

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 03:33 PM
You keep viewing it as a penalty but it's not. You are just not rewarding them

I would just like to point out (while staying out of the debate itself) that XP and loot are NOT rewards. Rewards are things that are, by definition, strictly unnecessary. A paycheck for doing your job is not a reward. Extra money, on top of your paycheck, IS a reward. In D&D, XP and loot are not rewards because they are strictly necessary to overcome challenges. You NEED XP to gain levels, and you need levels to get class features and/or spells, and you need loot to complement (or outright compensate for your lack of) class features. And these things are needed to overcome future encounters.

Now, if you make sure that your players get enough XP and loot from another source, and the stuff they find at the dungeon is on top of what the game expects you to have at any given level, then yes, those are rewards. But that's not the way it was implied by the OP at all.

So yes, not giving the players the tool they need to overcome challenges (challenges built on the assumption that the characters will have those tools in the first place) IS, in fact, a penalty.

DrBurr
2011-10-02, 03:56 PM
You keep viewing it as a penalty but it's not. You are just not rewarding them

Penalty-a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation.

By preventing a player from receiving XP you are infact penalizing them

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 04:18 PM
I would just like to point out (while staying out of the debate itself) that XP and loot are NOT rewards. Rewards are things that are, by definition, strictly unnecessary. A paycheck for doing your job is not a reward. Extra money, on top of your paycheck, IS a reward. In D&D, XP and loot are not rewards because they are strictly necessary to overcome challenges. You NEED XP to gain levels, and you need levels to get class features and/or spells, and you need loot to complement (or outright compensate for your lack of) class features. And these things are needed to overcome future encounters.

Now, if you make sure that your players get enough XP and loot from another source, and the stuff they find at the dungeon is on top of what the game expects you to have at any given level, then yes, those are rewards. But that's not the way it was implied by the OP at all.

So yes, not giving the players the tool they need to overcome challenges (challenges built on the assumption that the characters will have those tools in the first place) IS, in fact, a penalty.

They only need XP & loot to kill things that are harder. If they do not need to kill more dangerous things then they do not need XP or loot. As a DM you move the plot, they are not going to suddenly fight tougher & stronger things if you do not let them.

PersonMan
2011-10-02, 04:22 PM
You did not contribute to making the cake so you do not get to eat it just because you were doing something else. Gaming is not work but it requires effort, effort that you did not put in. So no cake for you. If anyone can miss sessions & it not hamper game then why not just skip 5 or 5? Let someone else earn a few level ups & get cool stuff. Then you can show up & ask for it all to be given to you.

Although the discussion has moved on, I want to say that the cake analogy makes no sense.

Assuming that 4 people make cake, and person 5 says 'no, I'll read this magazine instead'. Persons 1-4 eat cake, and person 5 is left out, even if he later wants some, because persons 1-4 made the cake, and 'earned' it.

However, the main reason(unless they're the kind of person I've never met) they only refuse to give person 5 cake because it's reduce their own amount of cake. If you could just make cake appear and give them some, then I doubt that you'd refuse to do so because they didn't work for it(especially if they were working on something else).

In this case, other characters don't get less XP because the absent people do, so why deny them it?

This is of course assuming that the group is more likely to say 'yeah, due to a reality bend Bob and Yelv were gone for one in-game hour for some reason, but they suddenly reappeared later' rather than 'Bob and Yelv were a bit out of it, as if they had to split their concentration and weren't as experienced with their own abilities'. That is to say, that the missing people's characters just poof rather than being played by others.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 04:29 PM
They only need XP & loot to kill things that are harder. If they do not need to kill more dangerous things then they do not need XP or loot. As a DM you move the plot, they are not going to suddenly fight tougher & stronger things if you do not let them.

That works perfectly well if the entire party misses a session or if the players who do show up prefer to spend the session roleplaying or otherwise not gaining XP and loot.

When you have half the party with XP and loot high enough to tackle more difficult encounters and half the party still barely able to fight the same CR encounters as last week, you have two choices: either you continue escalating the encounters as normal, or you keep up with the same CR encounters. In practice, you are punishing the missing players either way, because in the first case, their lives just got a hell of a lot harder, and in the second case, the players with the higher XP and loot will cakewalk over the encounter and the other players will feel pretty useless.

So yes, it's a punishment any way you look at it.

Defiant
2011-10-02, 04:31 PM
They only need XP & loot to kill things that are harder. If they do not need to kill more dangerous things then they do not need XP or loot. As a DM you move the plot, they are not going to suddenly fight tougher & stronger things if you do not let them.

So instead of just awarding some XP and loot to the absent players, you're going to waste everyone's time fighting weaker and pointless monsters just so the previously-absent players can catch up?

razark
2011-10-02, 05:43 PM
So if a player has a legitimate reason that they can't make it their character shouldn't be punished...
You can't punish a character for a player's actions thats like killing a character off because you don't like their player.
Why is it punishment? If I show up to work, I get paid. If I don't show up, I won't get paid. Not getting paid for not being their is not a punishment. Getting a paycheck for not doing my job makes no sense.


...theirs no reason to penalize a player because his car broke down.
I'll try that one on my boss. "Sorry, I can't come in today. Just go ahead and mark my timesheet, and we'll pretend I was there, but doing something else for 8 hours today."


By the way, why does it matter if everyone is the same level/amount of loot/experience? I'll admit that I haven't been playing long, but our party is made up of everything from level 1 to level 7. There's something for everyone to do, each player gets their turn at the table. Some can do more. Some can't. The rogues get more loot, the fighters do more killing, but everyone does something to advance the party. Even the level 1s do what they can when they can, and when we're not in combat, everyone roleplays, without worrying that A is not the same level as B, or Joe has more gold than Bill, etc.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 05:55 PM
Why is it punishment? If I show up to work, I get paid. If I don't show up, I won't get paid. Not getting paid for not being their is not a punishment. Getting a paycheck for not doing my job makes no sense.

Firstly, a leisure activity is not a job. Secondly, the player is getting exactly the same thing whether he shows up or not: nothing. The XP and the loot belong to the characters, who are still around whether their players show up or not. Thirdly, even if the job analogy held up, you still have sick days at work, maternity leaves and other forms of "don't show up to work, still get paid" occurrences.


I'll try that one on my boss. "Sorry, I can't come in today. Just go ahead and mark my timesheet, and we'll pretend I was there, but doing something else for 8 hours today."

Why, you're completely right! That sounds utterly unbelievable! Why, he might even be bedridden for those 8 hours! Or at a close relative's funeral! Or at his wife's childbirth! That certainly wouldn't fly at all with one's boss, no sir.


By the way, why does it matter if everyone is the same level/amount of loot/experience? I'll admit that I haven't been playing long, but our party is made up of everything from level 1 to level 7. There's something for everyone to do, each player gets their turn at the table. Some can do more. Some can't. The rogues get more loot, the fighters do more killing, but everyone does something to advance the party. Even the level 1s do what they can when they can, and when we're not in combat, everyone roleplays, without worrying that A is not the same level as B, or Joe has more gold than Bill, etc.

Yeah, let me put it in the most sensitive way I can: In most games, the fighters don't get to do all the killing. Or any killing at all, actually. And the rogues certainly don't get that much loot. In fact, every aspect of a dungeon crawl is dominated by the player playing the highest-tiered character, with only empathy for his fellow players as his only reason to let them "have their turn at the table."

Let it just be said that your way of playing is nowhere near the norm. So yes, keeping players at roughly the same level of XP and loot actually does matter quite a bit in most people's games.

Medic!
2011-10-02, 06:00 PM
DnD isn't a job, it's a game. Comparing it to work isn't really a fair comparison. Of course, just say the word and I will move to your neighborhood and show up faithfully to each session if you're willing to cut me a paycheck :smallsmile:

Denying a party member loot and/or xp isn't fair to anyone at the table. If someone's attendance isn't bad enough to justify asking them to step down from the group, then it isn't bad enough to punish the entire party.

When I say that it isn't fair to anyone for a character to be denied loot/xp for the player not being able to make it to the game, I view it like this: If one character falls behind the rest of the party in wealth or experience, they can't make the contribution to the party as expected by the CR of the encounters they face. They don't have access to a certain magic item because they couldn't afford it after all, or don't have a class ability because they aren't high enough level. This leaves you at a crossroads. Down one path, the CR of encounters drop to accomodate the player left behind, resulting in the higher leveled/better equipped party members trivializing or dominating the encounters. The other path leads to a character who can't hit the monster, can't beat its spell resistance, make the save against its ability, survive the fireball, etc without extraordinary rolls, if at all. If the character falls far enough behind, surviving an encounter becomes the only goal, then it becomes an impossible dream.

Sometimes a character will fall behind for in-game reasons, which is part of the game. Placing a player in that position unneccessarily will just lead to them falling farther and farther behind as they die/quit trying, or even worse, start taking actions in game to disrupt the campaign out of spite.

Never ever ever ever ever forget that a DM is a facilitator, not a dictator. Your job isn't to mete out justice as you see it or reward/punish behavior. Your job is to give the players at your table an environment to have fun in.

Awarding off-stage xp/loot for an occassional missing member costs you nothing and hurts no feelings. If the affected parties have the time and want to, a quick side-session during down time/off time is a great way to further a plot line or add some intrigue to a game, or play-test/forshadow events you have planned for later. (Heck, it might even be fun! And fun is the name of the game!)

Maryring
2011-10-02, 06:23 PM
The amount of "work" analogies that pop up in this discussion is fascinating. It tells a lot about how grind-based games can be so popular.

Emmerask
2011-10-02, 07:06 PM
The you wont get payed if you donīt go to work analogy not only does not fit it also is completely wrong because you do get payed holidays and payed Sick leave...

The way I see it is if you have to force your players to participate regularly with the "else you fall behind" damocles sword above their heads then
a) you have the wrong players
b) you are doing something wrong as a dm

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 07:20 PM
Firstly, a leisure activity is not a job. Secondly, the player is getting exactly the same thing whether he shows up or not: nothing. The XP and the loot belong to the characters, who are still around whether their players show up or not. Thirdly, even if the job analogy held up, you still have sick days at work, maternity leaves and other forms of "don't show up to work, still get paid" occurrences.



Why, you're completely right! That sounds utterly unbelievable! Why, he might even be bedridden for those 8 hours! Or at a close relative's funeral! Or at his wife's childbirth! That certainly wouldn't fly at all with one's boss, no sir.



Yeah, let me put it in the most sensitive way I can: In most games, the fighters don't get to do all the killing. Or any killing at all, actually. And the rogues certainly don't get that much loot. In fact, every aspect of a dungeon crawl is dominated by the player playing the highest-tiered character, with only empathy for his fellow players as his only reason to let them "have their turn at the table."

Let it just be said that your way of playing is nowhere near the norm. So yes, keeping players at roughly the same level of XP and loot actually does matter quite a bit in most people's games.

Actually this is the norm. At least for my entire associated gaming group which contains about 20 people. So maybe you're the abnormality? My last game, people were from 1st to 8th & we maybe had one magic item each. We had this because our DM is awesome & makes us work for what we want. If you just want to reward people don't worry about Challenge Ratings & such, just say " I killed it with mah super sword that I got from that dungeon that I missed out on cause I had to go raiding in WoW, & then I'm going to be awesome & backflip to the tresure chest & open it with my mind powers! cause I'm a barbarian & a wizard & a cleric!" "Wait what? I can't be a super man? But that isn't fun! don't ruin my fun!"

Knaight
2011-10-02, 07:41 PM
If anyone can miss sessions & it not hamper game then why not just skip 5 or 5? Let someone else earn a few level ups & get cool stuff. Then you can show up & ask for it all to be given to you.

The reason you don't just skip a bunch of sessions is because the entire point of the game is going to the sessions and having fun. If skipping the game to level up and get cool stuff is something that players might want to do, then the game probably sucks anyways. Experience and loot are not the "reward" for playing, the reward for playing is the play itself.

Defiant
2011-10-02, 07:52 PM
The reason you don't just skip a bunch of sessions is because the entire point of the game is going to the sessions and having fun. If skipping the game to level up and get cool stuff is something that players might want to do, then the game probably sucks anyways. Experience and loot are not the "reward" for playing, the reward for playing is the play itself.

Skip all the sessions. Then come at the very last session and proclaim: "Aha! I have achieved level 20! :smallbiggrin:"

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 08:04 PM
Actually this is the norm. At least for my entire associated gaming group which contains about 20 people. So maybe you're the abnormality?

Nope, you're pretty much solidly in the minority here. You won't be the only one with that playstyle, but you're definitely not the majority. That's not to say that your playstyle is innately inferior or any such nonsense, it's just that it's not the most popular.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 10:31 PM
Nope, you're pretty much solidly in the minority here. You won't be the only one with that playstyle, but you're definitely not the majority. That's not to say that your playstyle is innately inferior or any such nonsense, it's just that it's not the most popular.

Mind if I ask for some data on that viewpoint?

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 10:38 PM
Mind if I ask for some data on that viewpoint?

Not at all. Start here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59). Read enough threads and you'll get a great grasp of how prevalent your playstyle is in relation to the rest of the community.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 10:57 PM
So no data, okay then. Are you going to tell me that Elvis is alive on an alien spacecraft next?

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 11:15 PM
So no data, okay then. Are you going to tell me that Elvis is alive on an alien spacecraft next?

Oh, you hilarious you. It's like you don't know what data means! I'll give you a hint: Data doesn't stand for "compiled data." It stands for data! Compiled data stands for compiled data!

Man, it's like I gave you exactly what you asked for and then you complained about it. Crazy, huh?

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 11:25 PM
Oh, you hilarious you. It's like you don't know what data means! I'll give you a hint: Data doesn't stand for "compiled data." It stands for data! Compiled data stands for compiled data!

Man, it's like I gave you exactly what you asked for and then you complained about it. Crazy, huh?

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. Do you have any relevant data compiled by a neutral third party that supports you assertions?

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 11:31 PM
Sorry I wasn't specific enough. Do you have any relevant data compiled by a neutral third party that supports you assertions?

Of course not, do you? After all, it was you who suggested I was the abnormality in the first place. You backed up your assertions with personal experiences, I back them up with my own. See the forum I linked you? I've been lurking it for years, and the data that supports my assertions is there. Hundreds of posts where different people play in very similar ways. Granted, I haven't compiled them (and why would I?), but you can see that at the very least I provide you tangible sources for you to draw your own conclusions.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 11:38 PM
Please read the second sentence of my post stating my assertion.

Knaight
2011-10-02, 11:47 PM
Please read the second sentence of my post stating my assertion.

20 people in one group is a single data point. This forum is a whole host of them, and it suggests that you use a minority view point in play.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-02, 11:50 PM
Please read the second sentence of my post stating my assertion.

Your gaming group has 20 people. This forum has over 1000. In over 75% of those cases, those people have at least one other person with whom they play, tripling or quadrupling that number if we take them into consideration as well.

There really isn't a comparison.


20 people in one group is a single data point. This forum is a whole host of them, and it suggests that you use a minority view point in play.

Knaight puts it even better.

Anderlith
2011-10-02, 11:57 PM
No,no, no, no, see when I posed my counter point I made it clear that I was not dealing in absolutes. You on the other hand are. You keep saying that lots of people on this forum keep your beliefs, but you cannot prove it, nor does this forum account for the many more gamers that do not post on this forum, therefore being unaccountable. I am not saying you are wrong with your assertion. I am saying you are wrong in your belief that you are right. Just because you may not be wrong does not make you right. Do you understand?

Knaight
2011-10-03, 12:07 AM
...nor does this forum account for the many more gamers that do not post on this forum, therefore being unaccountable.

There are some fifty thousand members in this forum. That is more than enough to be a useful sample size. Or are studies on people in general that involve less than seven billion useless?

Shadowknight12
2011-10-03, 12:14 AM
No,no, no, no, see when I posed my counter point I made it clear that I was not dealing in absolutes. You on the other hand are. You keep saying that lots of people on this forum keep your beliefs, but you cannot prove it, nor does this forum account for the many more gamers that do not post on this forum, therefore being unaccountable. I am not saying you are wrong with your assertion. I am saying you are wrong in your belief that you are right. Just because you may not be wrong does not make you right. Do you understand?

I do understand. However, what you don't understand is that you have no way to prove me wrong. You see, my personal experience supports my belief that my views are right, and a hefty pile of logic arguments helps reduce the odds of me being wrong to a bare minimum. And since all the things we hold as facts or absolutes are also not exempt of a minimal odd of being wrong, I feel free to treat this belief as an actual absolute fact until I'm proven wrong. And since you have to prove the actual belief wrong in order to prove my absolute reliance on it wrong, you can't have it both ways. Either you admit I might be right and I continue treating it like a fact, or you prove me wrong and I stop treating it like a fact and treat the new discovery as a fact.

Anderlith
2011-10-03, 12:32 AM
No, no, no, see you've gotten confused & switched me places on this argument. You are the one that is supposed to be the pedantic troll & I'm the one arguing the logic that you have woefully ignored.

I do not believe I am right but I don't think you are either. If I come up with proof then I will add assurance to my position in this argument. I will also accept proof that you are right but until that happens I will continue to believe what I believe. (that most D&D players are not narcissistic, self-congratulatory people that play D&D solely for a self-congratulatory, non failure, masturbatory experience, & they are rather people who wish to use a medium to express themes & experiences that they may not find in other media & all the while making it a social interaction)

faceroll
2011-10-03, 12:36 AM
Yes, D&D is supposed to be fun, but look at your X-Box. Do you have anymore Achievements just because you wanted to play but couldn't?

Look at your xbox. Can it unfriend you?


Actually this is the norm. At least for my entire associated gaming group which contains about 20 people.


Mind if I ask for some data on that viewpoint?

The plural of anecdote is not data.


The amount of "work" analogies that pop up in this discussion is fascinating. It tells a lot about how grind-based games can be so popular.

Yeah, no kidding. It also explains why these forums tend to offer HORRIBLE real life gaming advice. Everyone here's a teenager or 20-something whose major gaming experience centers around world of warcraft or something.

Knaight
2011-10-03, 12:45 AM
That most D&D players are not narcissistic, self-congratulatory people that play D&D solely for a self-congratulatory, non failure, masturbatory experience, & they are rather people who wish to use a medium to express themes & experiences that they may not find in other media & all the while making it a social interaction
This is a shared perspective. Moreover, the only person who has suggested that D&D may have any goal other than storytelling and social interaction was you, with a statement that suggested that one would have incentive to skip games, as long as one still got loot and experience. Keeping experience about on line for all players is not making it important, its keeping it on the side while one focuses on something else, which may well be storytelling.

It seems to me that you are the only person here who sees loot and experience as rewards, and not just elements of a game being played. As I said before, the "reward" is playing the game in the first place.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-03, 01:04 AM
No, no, no, see you've gotten confused & switched me places on this argument. You are the one that is supposed to be the pedantic troll & I'm the one arguing the logic that you have woefully ignored.

Hilarious, considering I've been nothing but logical throughout the argument.


I do not believe I am right but I don't think you are either. If I come up with proof then I will add assurance to my position in this argument. I will also accept proof that you are right but until that happens I will continue to believe what I believe.

That's fine, we can agree to disagree. However, I do believe I'm right because I've seen hundreds of posts over the years from people all over the world sporting similar tastes and beliefs when it comes to gaming. Statistics and logic support my belief. I understand that there are people that do not fit the majority, because I have seen them post as well, but the numbers place them as a minority. That's why I'm so sure of my stance, because unless you bring me an entire city's worth of opposing opinions, you can't match the sheer amount of samples I've seen with my own eyes.


(that most D&D players are not narcissistic, self-congratulatory people that play D&D solely for a self-congratulatory, non failure, masturbatory experience, & they are rather people who wish to use a medium to express themes & experiences that they may not find in other media & all the while making it a social interaction)

Amusing misconceptions! Why, you'd think that was a purposeful misconstruction of my intended message!

But no, what I actually meant was that most people are in fact very concerned with balance in their games, because to them, balance dictates who gets to have fun. If the wizard in the group sweeps in, summons an army and wipes the floor with the encounter while the rest of the party stares, that's a huge balance discrepancy that cost them spotlight moments and fun at the table. Being level 2 while the rest of the party is level 4 and not being able to get too close to the enemies without being torn to shreds has cost the player spotlight and fun as well.

Hilarious misconceptions aside, you are very wrong as to what my argument actually entails.

And just like Knaight says, that perspective doesn't include storytelling or social interaction, because I never addressed any of that.

Fenryr
2011-10-03, 01:23 AM
... My question was answered. Should I close this to avoid further insults, trolling and the like?

Defiant
2011-10-03, 01:26 AM
... My question was answered. Should I close this to avoid further insults, trolling and the like?

Probably for the best. Ask your local mod.

Defiant
2011-10-03, 01:30 AM
I'm going to revisit this issue one last time, starting with the first post that started it all.


Yes, D&D is supposed to be fun, but look at your X-Box. Do you have anymore Achievements just because you wanted to play but couldn't?

No, because the XboX was not set up that way. But yes, you should.

If you do not play the XboX because you're being a good grandson and helping your grandmother by mowing her lawn and pulling weeds, then you should get an achievement. The fact that you don't has no bearing on whether you should or not.


Yes, even an in-game super achievement. You deserve getting a super-powerful sword for your World of Warcraft character. You deserve it even more than the people who got it by grinding the WoW servers for missions, because you actually helped someone and did something that matters.

You don't actually get it in real life, because the game was not set up that way, and life isn't fair. But you should.

faceroll
2011-10-03, 01:42 AM
... My question was answered. Should I close this to avoid further insults, trolling and the like?

Not your thread to close. You can report posts to the mods, though.

[edit]
Or is it?

The Glyphstone
2011-10-03, 07:52 AM
Great Modthulhu: Question answered, thread closed by request of OP.