Players Falling Behind

[Calinero]

I'm currently playing in a PF game where the GM follows the XP rules by the book--no arbitrary leveling, all the encounters give the xp they're supposed to and you level when you level. I have no problem with this.

My problems come in with the fact that the game is every week, but not everyone can make it every week. However, some players do come every week. Players who are absent do not receive xp. Players who are there do. This has led to a gap, both in xp and treasure, that is only growing wider. Currently the party includes people ranging from a level 8 to level 6's who are barely halfway through their level. The highest ranked person in the party has more than 20,000 xp more than me.

The GM is taking some steps to deal with the XP disparity, if not really the treasure one--the lowest leveled members of the party, if they are outliers, get a bonus 20% xp, while anyone who is way higher (like the level 8) gets 20% less. This doesn't do a whole lot, though.

My question is this--how would you handle it? I understand wanting to reward players for attendance, and giving actual xp values makes leveling a lot more rewarding and less arbitrary. However, as one of the characters with the least xp, it is growing frustrating to see others with much more xp and loot than I have just because I have a busier schedule. Do you guys think a system where absent players still receive half xp or something could work? If nothing else, it would make the gap narrower.

Edit: also complicating issue is the policy that new characters come in at a level below the party average. This means you can easily lose a level if a character dies--or at least all the xp you had currently earned on that character.

[Red Fel]

It seems like your GM is imposing an xp and loot penalty for absentees. That creates a problem, as you've identified - players who miss a few sessions may fall far enough behind that the palpable gap renders the game un-fun, ultimately driving those players away, shrinking the party, which may reduce fun for those who remain behind while making the game harder.

Saying that PCs don't earn xp or loot when the players are absent may work when there is in-character justification for the PCs to be absent. For example, if the party just completed the Dungeon of a Thousand Screams, and is doing an in-town session, we can just hand-wave the absent players' characters to be doing something else. But if the PCs were present when we entered the Cavern of One Hundred Ways to Die, and then the session ended, and at the next session you're still in the cavern, we can't hand-wave the PCs' absence. It is safe to assume that they are present, and earning xp and loot.

Further, even if they are absent, wouldn't the rest of the PCs want to save them a share of the loot, both for in-character and out-of-character reasons? In-character, out of a sense of loyalty or responsibility; out-of-character, to keep them current with everyone else?

My suggestion is not to impose penalties, but rather to impart bonuses. Attendance earns you a small xp bonus, maybe increased if your attendance is extremely consistent. This incentivizes attendance without punishing the inevitable (and frequently non-preventable) absence.

Remember also that lower-level characters, facing higher-level threats with the higher-level party, should be earning more xp, and should therefore be catching up more quickly.

Loot, being an in-game reward as opposed to a purely mechanical one, should not be subject to the DM saying "absent players don't get any," but rather should be subject to how the present players divide up treasure. In other words, if the PCs find a Holy Avenger, and the Paladin's player is absent, they may choose to save it for him, or not, their call. If they're annoyed that the Bard has missed three sessions straight, they may simply call dibs on the best pieces of loot, and leave him the dregs, again their call. And if the Rogue finds the secret treasure cache himself, he should naturally keep it all to himself, because you never let that **** thief out of sight.

[Telonius]

It seems like the DM was trying to solve an out-of-game problem by using an in-game solution. That rarely works out well. I completely understand the desire to respect everybody's time (including the DM), but this isn't work or school. Nobody's forcing anybody to attend, and life's emergencies do happen. (Just a couple weeks ago, one of my players had to leave in the middle of a session to take his kid to urgent care). If you miss a session, you've missed an enjoyable evening gaming with your friends. IMO, that's "punishment" enough.

In games I DM, if one person is absent, we keep the character active. (I have a small mini of Ned Flanders; the character with the missing player is represented by Ned for the duration of the session). I think it's not fair to the attending players to be a man down while facing the encounters planned for that session. Because the character is still in harm's way, he's still gaining regular XP. (Again, I think it's not fair for the present players that they walk into the next encounter weaker just because someone was absent and fell behind on levels). But, if a player is absent, there's no chance for them to gain bonus XP for great roleplay.

If two people are absent, the session is canceled.

Anyway, that's how I handle it in my game, but each table has its own rules. If you know the houserules going in, and you know that your schedule is going to be busy, you should talk with the DM beforehand or be prepared to live with the XP loss. It's very good that the DM is recognizing the situation isn't turning out well for more than just you, and is trying to take steps to fix it. I'd suggest getting everybody together and having a respectful discussion about how you want to handle player absence.

[Spore]

Get yourself a craft feat and craft gear in your absence. This should deal with the gear disparity. If others want something crafted, they can always trade in loot items for resell value.

Other than that, talk to your DM. If you grow around 10th level, being 2 levels behind can create nasty insta death scenarios. Just dealing with Half-Fiendish creatures makes your characters entirely useless in the fight if you underscore a certain HD margin.

[Yora]

In my current C&C campaign a wider range of levels isn't that much of a problem, so I am going to stick with no-xp for absent characters for the time being.

An easy solution to decrease the gap is to give half-xp for characters that havn't participated in the session. In most games, the number of XP needed to get to the next level always gets bigger, so even if you constantly get only half xp, you still don't fall very much behind. In Pathfinder, a character with half as many XP only lags behind 2 levels. Which really isn't much and matters less and less the higher levels you get.

I think it's quite justified, since characters who didn't participate in the last adventure didn't spend the whole time sitting around, but have been somewhere else doing other things.

[mucat]

I understand wanting to reward players for attendance
I don't.

The reward of playing a session is that you got to play the session, not that your character should be able to outshine the other PCs at future sessions.

Now, if a player has said they would be there, and flakes repeatedly, that may be a problem. (Or may not, depending on the group dynamics.) But it's an out-of-game problem. Dealing with it by in-game consequences is essentially telling the player "It's all right to flake on social commitments and disrupt your friends' schedules, as long as you're willing to play a slightly lower-level character as a result."

And if the player is not flaking -- if they said "You play on Tuesdays? I'll only be able to make every other session" and everyone was all right with that -- then it makes no sense at all to say they should play a less capable character than the others. (Less plot-centric, sure.)

Look at it this way: if a new player joined, you would let them start at the same level as everyone else, despite having "missed" the entire campaign thus far. Why not extend that courtesy to the person who has been there all along, as regularly as their schedule allows?

[Lord of Shadows]

Good ideas by everyone so far. I will add my two coppers.

Our group has a few of ways of dealing with this, some of which have already been mentioned. Other solutions we use are to have another player pick up the absent player's character and play two PC's for the night. This "subbing" works best only if both players are on board with it and the player handling two PC's is able to do so. With these modern, fiddly RPG's (3.x, Pathfinder, et al), sometimes even a "simple" fighter isn't so simple. Especially at higher levels.

We have also put absent player's PC's on what we call "Campfire Duty." This hearkens back to the early days of D&D when adventuring parties often had an army of Henchmen and Hirelings along for the ride, who established a camp near the dungeon and stayed there, presumably out of harm's way. Though not always... In a current adventure two PC's have mounts, which cannot go into the dungeon (an Auroch and a Hippogriff), so there is reason to have a camp. They also have acquired a Dretch (minor Lower Planes creature) though they don't know quite what to do with it...

As for treasure, if something is found "in-adventure" that a party member can obviously use, like a scroll or potion, that is given to that party member, and can be used on the adventure at no penalty later when loot is divided. (Some people seem to think that if the Cleric gets a scroll of Heal and then uses it on a party member, the value of that scroll comes out of the Cleric's share of loot later. We happen to disagree with that point of view) This goes all the way up to things like Holy Avengers going to the party Paladin.

We do not "officially" divide loot until a session is possible with all players present. Or, lately, we have also been doing that in a forum we set up online for out of game discussions and down-time play.

There is a penalty for not being present. One of our DM's uses a "token" system, which are just poker chips, but players earn them for major achievements and such. If the player is not present, their character cannot earn tokens. Similarly, a player must be present in order to redeem tokens. Since one function of the tokens is to stabilize a dying character, that can be important. If the PC is being played by a substitute player, as described above, that player can use one of their tokens on any PC they are playing, so there is still that to fall back on as far as avoiding PC death.

In the worst case scenario, where no one offers to play an absent player's PC, and if Campfire Duty isn't an option, the DM takes over the PC for the night and it becomes basically an NPC that is of limited use to the party.

In all cases the character continues to earn XP and everyone stays within a level of each other.

We also use a rotating schedule for those who can make it only every other week. We have two games going on now, on alternate weekends, plus a third that can stand in where needed. There are still cases where people can't make it, but at least the effects of that are reduced.

Hope this helps.

[ElenionAncalima]

Its not entirely unreasonable to reduce XP of absent players, but it seems in your situation the XP loss isn't motivate less absenses. If anything it is probably making the absent players feel less invested in the game. Perhaps you could suggest a bonus session for the members of the group that are furthest behind to catch everyone up a bit.

The treasure loss concerns me more. It shouldn't really be up to the GM where the treasure goes. I should be up to the other PCs who, if you are technically present, shouldn't have a good in-game reason to sleight your character. It is understandable that absense would cost you first dibs at any loot, but it shouldn't net you no loot. I know as a player, I would never take or sell an item that would serve greater benefit to another PC or deny them their share of the gold, unless I had a good in-game reason to do so. I would talk this other with your DM and the other players.

[Jay R]

Playing D&D has risks and rewards. You can have both, or neither.

In my game, an absent player makes a choice.

He* can allow somebody else to run their character, for full benefits and full chance of negative results, up to and including death.

Or he can decide to say that nothing bad can happen to his character - and he won't get any loot or xps, either.

That way, the player is in control of the decision.

*So far, neither woman has missed a game.

[Slipperychicken]

My question is this--how would you handle it

My current thought? Absent players' PCs get the average experience earned that session, as their characters presumably overcame some manner of encounters.

[Calinero]

To clarify: the DM isn't saying absent players can't have treasure. The party just tends not to hold on to treasure just because someone who isn't there might be able to use it--not unless the gear is something clearly useful to that person and only that person. For example, when I was playing a monk, they probably would have held on to a Monk's Robe for me until the next time I was there. With a fairly fluid player pool, it just doesn't always work to hold on to shares of loot for other players who aren't there.

[Kalmageddon]

Loot might be an issue, but doesn't the xp system already takes care of the level dispairty?
Meaning, they take the same xp but require less to level up, in theory that should narrow the level gap, unless these players are being absent like 50% of the times... In which case, I don't even know if the DM should do something about it.

[valadil]

When exactly does the penalty happen? Any time someone can't make a session or only when a player no-shows? I don't think the penalty should apply to someone who knows in advance that he can't make it, since that's the fault of the person scheduling the game and the GM has time to write around the situation.

One of my friends used to use catch up XP. Players who fell behind got an XP bonus depending on the margin between them and the highest level player. This worked pretty well but there were definitely players who no showed at a rate higher than their catch up XP could keep them afloat.

In my last game I did something a little different. If you didn't show up you'd get half the session's XP next session, and the other half the session after. If you didn't show up for either of those, the XP was lost forever. This was enough to hold a player back during a level up session, but not enough to screw anybody over. This also only applied to XP by the book - bonus XP for good RP couldn't go to these players.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Loot might be an issue, but doesn't the xp system already takes care of the level dispairty?
Meaning, they take the same xp but require less to level up, in theory that should narrow the level gap, unless these players are being absent like 50% of the times... In which case, I don't even know if the DM should do something about it.
Yeah, this one. Experience is a river and all that.

[Calinero]

There's not a penalty being applied to people. It's just that the people who aren't there for the game aren't getting xp. The reason why they aren't there is irrelevant--the GM just gives xp to the people whose characters are there.

As far as the level system in place, yes, that does take care of at least some of it. I don't think I've missed half the games, but I've definitely missed a decent number. The scheduling is kind of erratic, unfortunately.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

There's not a penalty being applied to people. It's just that the people who aren't there for the game aren't getting xp. The reason why they aren't there is irrelevant--the GM just gives xp to the people whose characters are there.

To underscore this for clarity, as it doesn't seem like it's getting received as clearly as it might be...

The XP isn't being awarded because the characters aren't overcoming the encounter, correct? You want XP, you have to beat an encounter. If you're not in the session, you can't beat the encounter, ergo you can't get XP from it.

I like Jay R's solution: if they can find someone to run their character, they get XP because their character was beating on encounters.

[Rhynn]

In my current C&C campaign a wider range of levels isn't that much of a problem, so I am going to stick with no-xp for absent characters for the time being.

I ran D&D 3.0 and 3.5 in a single campaign for probably 6-8 years, and attendance varied greatly. The PCs had wide level differences, but there honestly wasn't that much of a difference between the fighter, the paladin, and the monk even when they had 3-4 levels difference. No, the only unbalancing thing was the druid... of course that was exacerbated by the fact he made it to epic levels before anyone else got to 20 (I had the foresight to ban Epic Spellcasting, though), but it wasn't the XP difference that caused the problem - it was the fact he was a druid.

Right now, I'm running ACKS (first link in sig!) and things will be done the same way: PCs get experience by the book, which means that (until they get domains or start running caravans or operating syndicates, or doing any of the many other possibly off-screen activities that award XP) players have to be present for their PCs to be involved and getting XP. The party's double-mage (mage PC with mage henchman) was absent for one session and didn't get loot or XP (but being the only survivor from the first session, he was already ahead, and remained ahead after that session). I make sure to stop sessions in some kind of safe place so that PCs' absences can be explained easier.

Edit:

Yeah, this one. Experience is a river and all that.

Actually...


I'm currently playing in a PF game

Pathfinder doesn't adjust XP from monsters, at least, by your level; monsters are worth flat XP awards. So no, XP isn't a river in Pathfinder. If you get left behind, you stay behind.

This will mostly be a problem if some players are consistently present more than others, though, and as the party levels up, the problem will get smaller. Being 20,000 XP behind isn't going to be that big of a deal at 15th level, and if the player who's ahead misses a session at higher levels, everyone else might easily catch up.

[Darksword]

If I was the DM I'd nothing. The game is built to handle this. I like the above mention idea that you can find some one else to run your character taking all the risks. A character who misses a few games will be caught with most of the party after the show up to a few games constantly.

[Thrudd]

There's not a penalty being applied to people. It's just that the people who aren't there for the game aren't getting xp. The reason why they aren't there is irrelevant--the GM just gives xp to the people whose characters are there.

As far as the level system in place, yes, that does take care of at least some of it. I don't think I've missed half the games, but I've definitely missed a decent number. The scheduling is kind of erratic, unfortunately.

Is your character still involved in the adventure as an DM/NPC when you are not there? If not, then maybe suggest to the DM that this be the case. Let your PC become an NPC controlled by one of the other players or the DM while you are away. Then the character can still receive at least a henchmen's share of XP and treasure. Of course, doing this carries the risk that your character could get killed while you aren't there. You need to trust the other players and the DM not to do anything with the character you wouldn't do.

[BWR]

I've never understood the seemingly common idea that an absent player equals an absent PC. Ever since we started gaming, all my groups have handled absentee players by having someone else take over their character for purposes of combat. There are too many situations where having one PC absent makes absolutely no sense, and the aforementioned problem of missing out on loot and xp can lead to some serious power disparity if it happens often.
For the most part, players in my groups are familiar enough with the other PCs to know how to handle them in combat and in what few roleplaying encounters we can't handwave them past.

This is especially useful for people who are gone a lot. One of my friends is a father of two small kids and is lucky if he gets to play once a month (once every other is more likely). Kicking him out of the group is out of the question because he likes gaming and we don't really get to see him apart from gaming and like having him with us when he can show up. So his characters tag along, we know how to play them, and rather than penalize someone who has real life obligations and preferences (oddly enough, he likes spending time with his kids) we just give his characters less non-combat time in the spotlight and maybe don't target them quite so much in combat (because it sucks to die when you aren't there, even if this does happen on occasion).

[some guy]

Playing D&D has risks and rewards. You can have both, or neither.

In my game, an absent player makes a choice.

He* can allow somebody else to run their character, for full benefits and full chance of negative results, up to and including death.

Or he can decide to say that nothing bad can happen to his character - and he won't get any loot or xps, either.

That way, the player is in control of the decision.

*So far, neither woman has missed a game.

This is also how I do it.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I'd say I was really confused about the loot disparity, as I usually view all loot as going to whoever can use it the best. However, I have been playing with a party where whoever screams "I grab X" gets the thing from the loot, so much that people have had to haggle with the person that decides they want to just throw any loot into their bag before other people have a chance to react.

As for XP, seriously just DMPC or have another player run that character. Unless it is a long term absence, the character shouldn't be missing from the game. It's not like mid dungeon you disappear, and then reappear a few days later. But I also don't really like counting XP anyway.

[Krazzman]

In our Pathfinder game we handled it this way:

Playing the TSAR Saga or whatever, pregen.
Group consists of 5 (rarely 6) players and the DM.

XP is shared as the characters are sometimes in the midst of dungeons with them but are not affected by anything. XP is shared but adjusted. If we are only with 3 people there obviously the encounter is harder and therefor yields more XP. This leads to the funny interaction of it being better if people are missing. The loot on the other hand is pregenerated and 2 mages and a healer can only drag this much loot along. Most of the times we just sell anything we don't need and craft new stuff.

[Lorsa]

I usually don't run my roleplaying games like MMORPGs. People should come because they want to play not because they're forced to attend in order not to fall behind the rest of the group.

If someone has the flu I'd rather they stay at home and not infect me rather than come and ruin the game by their inability to play properly and make me sick afterwards.

I've been in a World of Warcraft raid group that had raids 4 times a week, every week, for almost 5 years. I had over 90% attendance so I have no problems with attending events regularly. That isn't the way I want my roleplaying groups to function though.

Some people might like it another way, but if you decide to only award XP and loot to the players present then you can't come and complain that there's a problem with level disparity between the characters. That's not a problem, it's a feature.

[prufock]

Pathfinder doesn't adjust XP from monsters, at least, by your level; monsters are worth flat XP awards. So no, XP isn't a river in Pathfinder. If you get left behind, you stay behind.

This right here is a problem. Ask your DM if he would use the 3.5 DMG experience table instead. Players who miss sessions will still fall behind, but it will be far easier for them to make up that difference.

[Rhynn]

This right here is a problem. Ask your DM if he would use the 3.5 DMG experience table instead. Players who miss sessions will still fall behind, but it will be far easier for them to make up that difference.

That's not gonna work, either: in D&D 3.5, you need 190,000 XP for 20th level. In Pathfinder, you need 2,400,000, 3,600,000, or 5,350,000 XP for 20th level, depending on which advancement scheme the GM has chosen. A lot more work is required to convert the scaling table. I don't know if PF presents any kind of alternative XP systems anywhere...

[Minitroll]

What I and my friends always do is the DM meets with the absent players and decides what happened- what they dealt when they weren't there. They make a few rolls to see what condition they hop in after, and retain the xp that they ended up not getting. We always find reasons they weren't in a battle. In town, they did magic side-adventures. If it's large enough absences, make a date that the ones that are there every week don't show up- time it with the plot, and the behind players availability. Add lots of story CR's, and lots of smaller traps- they add up. This'll provide for a unique story, with the party realizing their less used abilities and such. In addition, they'll get lots of xp, as there're less players. It'll be a tough GM day, but it'll make the rest easier. Also, if it's a story CR he awards in the future, if any player helped that story at any point, even if they weren't there for the conclusion or the final battle of that arc.

Sorry if this is a bit jumpy- ask me if this sounds decent and you have any questions.

[mucat]

So all this has me wondering -- for those who do not give XP when the player is absent, what do you do with a player who leaves the campaign for quite a while, then returns?

In a roll20.net campaign I'm involved in right now, we've got several players whose work schedules no longer mesh with the game...and of course, they've got an open invitation to return any time. Their old PCs have faded to NPC status and still hang around the fringes of the action. The engineer still keeps our airship running, the Constable vanishes into the city at each port of call, and returns just before we take flight again. ("I solved it! The Councilman's murderer was Old Man Jenkins, wearing a gorilla suit!") The arrogant, larcenous chef...just kind of faded from the narrative. Until plot dictates otherwise, I consider it semi-canon that we got fed up and dropped him from a great height. :smallwink:

If any of these players return, we would hand them their characters back and say "Advance to level 8" (or wherever the rest of the party is), pretty much regardless of how the character had been depicted as spending his/her time. Is there any school of thought that says "Welcome back, but you'll be three levels behind for the foreseeable future"?

[prufock]

That's not gonna work, either: in D&D 3.5, you need 190,000 XP for 20th level. In Pathfinder, you need 2,400,000, 3,600,000, or 5,350,000 XP for 20th level, depending on which advancement scheme the GM has chosen. A lot more work is required to convert the scaling table. I don't know if PF presents any kind of alternative XP systems anywhere...

I don't understand why your DM giving 20% over or under isn't working. I'll explain by example:
4-man group, level 6 to 8. Assume level 7 encounters for the "medium" advancement.
6th level gets 960xp, he needs 12K, takes 12.5 encounters.
7th level gets 800xp, he needs 16K, takes 20.0 encounters.
8th level gets 640xp, he needs 24K, takes 37.5 encounters.

The lower-level characters should be catching up by virtue of getting more xp and needing less!

Personally, I would do this:
XPGain=EncounterLevel/CharacterLevel*XP

[Actana]

If you're going on a strictly by the books approach, Pathfinder has Ultimate Campaign, where there are rules for downtime activities. One of those activities is meant for characters who have fallen behind in XP.

Speaking from memory, I believe the rate of XP was one level appropriate encounter per day of downtime, but you can't advance your character past the PC with the most experience. It's not much especially if you're strapped for time, but certainly better than nothing with a by the books approach..


I'd personally still recommend working out an alternative XP system for characters whose players aren't able to make it, as many people have been talking about already.

[Jay R]

So all this has me wondering -- for those who do not give XP when the player is absent, what do you do with a player who leaves the campaign for quite a while, then returns?

The only time I've seen that happen, he rolled up a new character who could fit in with what we were doing at the time, and started one level behind everyone else. (In 2E, a one level difference becomes much less than that very quickly.)

[Rhynn]

I don't understand why your DM giving 20% over or under isn't working.

Something like that could work, yeah; a percentage bonus based on how far behind you are. That will need to be carefully calibrated for PF, though; a 20% bonus on some of the monsters is thousands of XP points.


Personally, I would do this:
XPGain=EncounterLevel/CharacterLevel*XP

That's going to change all the XP rewards for all monsters for all PCs, though. I'm not sure off-hand how well that'll work with PF XP totals and XP awards.


The only time I've seen that happen, he rolled up a new character who could fit in with what we were doing at the time, and started one level behind everyone else. (In 2E, a one level difference becomes much less than that very quickly.)

I'm running ACKS, and all brand-spanking new PCs will be level 1 with 0 XP, regardless of party level. (A good reason get henchmen and to use the XP reserve rules, which require blowing gold on things that don't give you any in-game benefit.) Of course it helps that up to 8th level, you always require twice your previous XP requirement to level up.

[Jay R]

I don't understand why your DM giving 20% over or under isn't working. I'll explain by example:
4-man group, level 6 to 8. Assume level 7 encounters for the "medium" advancement.
6th level gets 960xp, he needs 12K, takes 12.5 encounters.
7th level gets 800xp, he needs 16K, takes 20.0 encounters.
8th level gets 640xp, he needs 24K, takes 37.5 encounters.

The lower-level characters should be catching up by virtue of getting more xp and needing less!

Because by definition, the person needing to catch up is also the person missing the most games, and will presumably continue to do so.

The lower level character needs anywhere from 67% to 85% as many points to level up. And he's earning 20% more per adventure - if he's present. But he's in that position because he's missing adventures. If he misses half the adventures, he gets 50% the xps, with a 20% bonus, or 60% what the others get. If he needs 67-82%, he's still falling behind.

Assuming an average of 75% advantage from the advancement table, the person needs to be present at least 62.5% of the time (with a 20% bonus) just to stay even, at roughly one level back.

[HMS Invincible]

Because by definition, the person needing to catch up is also the person missing the most games, and will presumably continue to do so.

The lower level character needs anywhere from 67% to 85% as many points to level up. And he's earning 20% more per adventure - if he's present. But he's in that position because he's missing adventures. If he misses half the adventures, he gets 50% the xps, with a 20% bonus, or 60% what the others get. If he needs 67-82%, he's still falling behind.

Assuming an average of 75% advantage from the advancement table, the person needs to be present at least 62.5% of the time (with a 20% bonus) just to stay even, at roughly one level back.

Even though this isn't my campaign, This will make a good houserule for people who don't show up. Alternately, just making sure that nobody is more than 1-2 levels behind helps a lot.

[Mr Beer]

My house rules are:

- Player is there = full xp
- Player is absent but character is present = 1/2 XP
- Player is absent but character is absent = 0 XP

As far as the stated problem goes, if the character is present (risking death), they should get XP and if not, they should not. I think it's fair for regular players to level harder than people who miss games.

Maybe a friend of the absentees can run their characters if the GM doesn't want to?

[Aolbain]

That's why I don't like xp.

[Rhynn]

That's why I don't like xp.

Do you mean D&D-style XP, or does that include similar mechanics in levelless systems like WoD?

I'm not sure the other options help any more than that: I can think of precious few RPGs where advancement doesn't primarily depend on showing up to play! (Or, at least, having your character be involved.) Games with use-based skill improvement (RuneQuest, Mouse Guard, countless others) are no better for this dilemma; probably worse, because if you're not there to play your character, he's less likely to do things (even if played by someone else).

[Zharradan Marr]

My question is this--how would you handle it? I understand wanting to reward players for attendance, and giving actual xp values makes leveling a lot more rewarding and less arbitrary. However, as one of the characters with the least xp, it is growing frustrating to see others with much more xp and loot than I have just because I have a busier schedule. Do you guys think a system where absent players still receive half xp or something could work? If nothing else, it would make the gap narrower.I just wanted to quip this: players who show up for the game are already rewarded for their attendance in that they get to play, while the players who didn't show up don't get to play. Assuming the DM runs a reasonably competent game, that alone should be sufficient.
Therefore, I would never consider enforcing any bonuses for showing up or penalties for not showing up (beyond the fact that the former get to play and the latter don't). Everyone can level up at the same time for what I'm concerned.

[prufock]

Because by definition, the person needing to catch up is also the person missing the most games, and will presumably continue to do so.

That's true, if he's missing 37.5% or more of the encounters he won't catch up ever. One possible fix is to increase the bonus xp %. Instead of 20, howe about 50, or 100. At a certain point you're just giving an arbitrary number of bonus xp.

[Rosstin]

As long as we're talking about absent PCs, this is an interesting point. I've always been uncomfortable when there are PCs absent in a game, from a logical perspective. Usually, we just don't think about them and then later retcon the most logical explanation depending on when they come back. (We left them at the fork in the road because of a premonition, or, actually they were around last session but nothing particularly notable happened with them, etcetera.)

[Rhynn]

I've always been uncomfortable when there are PCs absent in a game, from a logical perspective.

I try to make sure I always end my sessions in a "safe haven." I'm running B4 The Lost City on ACKS lately, and one player had to miss a session that covered about a week of game-time, during which his characters (PC mage and henchman mage) stayed with the Brotherhood and scribed each others' spells in their spellbooks - which, conveniently enough, took up exactly the amount of days in between the previous session and the next session. They didn't get any XP (which allowed the rest of the party to catch up to them a bit, since both of the other players had lost their PCs last session).

Later on in the campaign, this will be even easier: PCs are going to have domains, magical research, etc. to keep them busy, and that will actually involve gaining XP; one session could cover a month of game time, but if a player misses it, I simply get in touch with them and work out what they were doing during that month instead of adventuring with their party, and they get XP accordingly (since ACKS gives you XP for magical research, creating magical items, domain income, trading income, criminal syndicate income, etc.).