XP and Players Missing Sessions

[Kanthalion]

After a long break, I'll be running a game starting next week. My gaming group is all adults that have lives, jobs, and families. This, of course, makes people missing sessions (sometimes a couple in a row) inevitable. I don't want people to get discouraged or frustrated as their character falls further and further behind or have to modify for lower and higher level characters, but I also want to reward people for coming.

What I'm thinking is award characters who's players couldn't make it half XP for that session. Any better ideas or advice?

[hymer]

In one of my campaigns, we have an XP floor for the party. This means you can't be more than two levels behind those who are the highest level. If ever you were to be more behind than that, you get awarded enough XP to get to next level. The presumption is that people are doing other (albeit less XP-awarding) things when they aren't there for the game.

[Sploggle1]

Personally the way i do it so it doesn't make my players feel like there being forced to play is give them monster xp at full, but they will lose the bonus in xp i give them for role playing as their character, finding something, or changing an event while they are npced.

[some guy]

I usually give missing players the choice of either having their character participate in the session and get full xp and all the risks that it entails or have their character set them camp (or whatever, stay in a village or HQ) and not get xp and also no risks.

Really though, the best reward for for present players is playing, missing players are missing enough by not being available to play. Playing is it's own reward and all that.

[John Longarrow]

Normally I give the party XP based on what they accomplish.
I don't penalize for missing sessions. That is an OOC issue that is best dealt with OOC.

If you do limit their XPs, they will fall behind. As they fall behind, they become less useful during game and often will have less fun. If they are not having fun, they will want to drop out of the game.

The best way I've found to keep players coming back is to make sure they like the game and to work with them when they can't make it.

[LordBlades]

From my experience, it's best to just keep everyone at the same xp total. It eliminates the 'pressure' to come to the game (it sucks having people with different levels of RL commitment in the same group) and also cuts down on people thinking ' I must say somethong clever IC this sesdion to get spme xp'

[Brookshw]

I give missing players the same xp, the party also tends to set aside some good loot for them. In terms of rewarding players that make it, well, they got to play which is presumably the reward they're looking for in the first place. This approach may not appeal to others of course. One caution, people who have to miss then end up falling behind can feel disenfranchised and possibly stop all together.

[Telonius]

When I DM, the penalty for missing a session is ... missing a session. I start from the premise that everybody wants to play, and usually won't miss it without a good reason. If absences are frequent enough to become an issue, usually a (no-pressure) conversation is enough to fix things; if not, we write out the character for a while until whatever situation the player's dealing with has passed.

[hymer]

In terms of rewarding players that make it, well, they got to play which is presumably the reward they're looking for in the first place.


Playing is it's own reward and all that.

To a large extent I agree with this, but XP is a reward too. My players eagerly await my XP-mail after the game (I've known a few to stay up for a while to catch it, e.g.), and talk about how close they are to advancing. And to a considerable degree they act in the game with an eye to what will get them XP and what will not.

[NichG]

I would say that the only reason not to give XP for a missed session is if you have players who are being flaky about attendance but have no real reason to be missing games. Basically, its sort of like this:

- Can I increase attendance by doing this?
-- If yes -> there's a reason to do it!
-- If no (losing XP will not drive someone to attend in case of RL emergencies) -> I'm just punishing my players and unbalancing my game with no expected benefit.

[Nibbens]

1) Total the EXP they would have gained if they were there.
2) Ask everyone at the table if they a) should receive EXP for the sessions they missed? or b) shouldn't receive EXP for the sessions they missed. (This would be better done over the phone, one at a time so people don't get offended)
3) Tally the results, and turn into a percentage (ie 80% of my players want you to get experience, 20% don't).
4) Distribute EXP to missing player in accordance with the percentage. (in my example where 80% of the players wanted him to get the EXP, you give him 80% of the experience he would have received)
5) If 100% of players want him to received EXP - give him full EXP.

LOL.

In truth, i'd say award them full EXP. They will be missing gold, items, and loot for starters. There's no reason to punish them further by making them less effective in combat as well.
However, you may have some players who find fault with this logic, claiming that they didn't do any work, etc etc. So I find the above method fair and satisfying for all involved.

[KorbeltheReader]

I was in exactly the same situation a couple of years ago. Here's what we decided:

we ditched XP altogether.

When the GM decides we've played enough at the current level, we gain a level. Doesn't matter if you've been to every session or not. XP costs are translated to GP costs, which so far in two games has been enough to prevent abuse of XP costing mechanics. There have been absolutely zero complaints about the change and the GM is grateful to have the burden of calculating XP off his back.

[Eanow]

After the first few sessions with my group, where I (as DM) kept track of xp per monster and trap and such, I ended up ditching it. None of the players were keeping track to that level, and trying to figure out whether one player tripping a trap and another recognizing it and staying out of the way meant different xp for each, I realized that the better way of thinking about xp was to use it as a metric for determining if I'd put enough 'stuff' into a session. Generally I try to run 3 sessions per level, so I take the total XP needed to go from one level to another, divide by three, and for the next three sessions I try to have about that much 'stuff', be it monsters to fight, traps to avoid, or RP opportunities.

We're playing Pathfinder, which doesn't have the XP cost mechanic, so abstracting it away like that was easier than a group that's playing 3.5e.

I decided early on that having players at different levels would be more book keeping than I wanted to do, so if a person misses the session, I usually have someone else play the character in addition to their own, which hasn't caused any friction as of yet, but we've been friends much longer than we've played tabletop RPGs together.

[Adverb]

I would say that the only reason not to give XP for a missed session is if you have players who are being flaky about attendance but have no real reason to be missing games. Basically, its sort of like this:

- Can I increase attendance by doing this?
-- If yes -> there's a reason to do it!
-- If no (losing XP will not drive someone to attend in case of RL emergencies) -> I'm just punishing my players and unbalancing my game with no expected benefit.

This is a pretty good rubric. Ditching XP all together also works, but needs more workarounds.

I like to give full XP (keeping everyone at the same pace is good) but distribution of loot is "whoever's here today splits it", with the option to be nice and give the absent player stuff later.

[DR27]

XP is a tricky thing. Why do you think XP is important to your players? Do they need to track it in detail because they are casting a lot of spells with XP components, crafting, etc? Or is it just a metagame reward "Yes, roleplaying XP, take that suckers!" type thing? Not that there is anything wrong with the second way if it helps your group have fun, but I think that's the type that people most commonly end up saying "you know what, let's just level up after a few sessions, or encounters, or whatever is appropriate - and XP stops being a thing. The first though, makes sense from a practical point of view, and typically requires pretty precise awarding by the DM, as opposed to ad hoc "great story, have 100XP!"

So, ask yourself why your players are interested in XP. If it's the second, it probably won't hurt to just keep the players that miss a session up to some minimum level and stop tracking so closely. If it's the first - maybe they still keep up in level, but don't get any of that sweet, sweet crafting resource that everybody else is earning during play. But your mileage may vary.

[Alikat]

I was in exactly the same situation a couple of years ago. Here's what we decided:

we ditched XP altogether.

When the GM decides we've played enough at the current level, we gain a level. Doesn't matter if you've been to every session or not. XP costs are translated to GP costs, which so far in two games has been enough to prevent abuse of XP costing mechanics. There have been absolutely zero complaints about the change and the GM is grateful to have the burden of calculating XP off his back.

We do this too!

Usually goes: "Ok we had a good couple sessions, every level from 5 to 6 now"

First few levels is typically a level a session, then slows down. Some times we stay at the same level a long time then take two at once.

[BWR]

Why is this ever a problem?
From the very beginning, when we were 12, the obvious solution was the absent player's character is taken over by another player, played as the original player would play him, and all loot and xp is shared normally. The surrogate player and DM are a bit more careful than usual to avoid killing the PC, but sometimes **** happens.
It works beautifully.

[ElenionAncalima]

If you do limit their XPs, they will fall behind. As they fall behind, they become less useful during game and often will have less fun. If they are not having fun, they will want to drop out of the game.




When I DM, the penalty for missing a session is ... missing a session. I start from the premise that everybody wants to play, and usually won't miss it without a good reason. If absences are frequent enough to become an issue, usually a (no-pressure) conversation is enough to fix things; if not, we write out the character for a while until whatever situation the player's dealing with has passed.

I agree with the posters above. As you said, your players are all adults with jobs, lives and families. Your game is something that they participate in for fun.

If they are enjoying the games they are going to make it as often as they can. There is nothing fun about falling behind the party because your sister is getting married on a game day. If they aren't enjoying the game, an OOC conversation/solution is probably needed. Reducing their XP will probably just further reduce their enjoyment.

[Segev]

If you're using PF rules for spells and magic item creation, there is nothing on which to "spend" XP other than leveling up.

In that case, it's probably best to just award everybody the same XP. Or, do what a friend of mine does in his games, and just let people level up when you feel they should. This will usually be timed with when you want to up the level of their encounters or feel it is dramatically appropriate.

[Firechanter]

When I DM, the penalty for missing a session is ... missing a session. I start from the premise that everybody wants to play, and usually won't miss it without a good reason.

I'm also with this. Or as I like to put it, "having to miss a session is bad enough, no need to punish the player on top of it".

So, normally, either we drag along the character, or if that's not an option, the character is assumed to be on a personal sidequest, which in turn will net them about the same XP as the main party gains on the main quest.

This is for my main group. However, I know several other groups that are much more restrictive in that regard. I.e. if you don't attend you don't get XP. Which of course is problematic for all the previously mentioned reasons; at some point it becomes a vicious circle of reduced effectiveness and diminishing motivation to attend at all.

[molten_dragon]

After a long break, I'll be running a game starting next week. My gaming group is all adults that have lives, jobs, and families. This, of course, makes people missing sessions (sometimes a couple in a row) inevitable. I don't want people to get discouraged or frustrated as their character falls further and further behind or have to modify for lower and higher level characters, but I also want to reward people for coming.

What I'm thinking is award characters who's players couldn't make it half XP for that session. Any better ideas or advice?

Just give them full XP. Unless you have people who aren't showing up just because they don't feel like it, you aren't really rewarding people for coming, you're just punishing them for having obligations that are more important than a game of D&D. And you're only making it harder on yourself, since you have to account for characters that are different levels.

Look at it this way. The whole point of being there is to have fun. Does keeping the people who have busy lives and can't make it as often at a lower level than the rest of the party make the game more fun for anyone?

[Madara]

I usually give missing players the choice of either having their character participate in the session and get full xp and all the risks that it entails or have their character set them camp (or whatever, stay in a village or HQ) and not get xp and also no risks.

Really though, the best reward for for present players is playing, missing players are missing enough by not being available to play. Playing is it's own reward and all that.

That's the same thing I do. I let the player choose another player to control their character though, so the DM doesn't get any of the guilt or blame if the worst happens.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'll echo the sentiment that the penalty for missing a session is not getting to play. I've also been in a game where I ended up ~4 levels behind because of some odd rules the DM had for players who started in the middle of the game*, and the only reason it didn't suck terribly is because I played a relatively optimized conjurer (well, that and the DM ran a great campaign other than a couple old school type rules). I was in another game where I was 3-4 levels behind at any particular point due to missing a couple of sessions (which also happened to be the sessions where the party got tons of loot it only shared with existing participants...), and it was even more painful since the other characters were optimized, so I really did fall seriously behind. Truly annoying and not worth it. If you have a known flake, then deal with the flakiness problem. But if you have someone missing a session or two due to real life reasons, don't punish that.

*Basically the APL was 7, and players could start at level 5, but literally had 0 XP. That is, they had to earn 15k XP to level to 6th, and then they progressed as normal. By the time I caught up to actual 5th level XP, the highest level character was 9th.

[Firechanter]

*Basically the APL was 7, and players could start at level 5, but literally had 0 XP. That is, they had to earn 15k XP to level to 6th, and then they progressed as normal. By the time I caught up to actual 5th level XP, the highest level character was 9th.

Ha, haven't heard that one before. Must have been an awesome experience.
In an old group of mine, the DM had everyone start at level 3. And didn't calculate the XP the way you're supposed to in 3.5 -- basically everyone always got the same share. So any latecomers were never able to catch up all the way. (It was my first 3.5 group so I didn't even know that was wrong.) However, when one player wanted to change characters at level 8, she got to do that without level penalty.

That's also one of the things where Pathfinder has dropped the ball. "Even share" is default again, so once you lag behind, you can never ever catch up, except by DM fiat (individual ad hoc XP).

[JusticeZero]

I don't give individual XP. I track group XP and everyone levels together.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Ha, haven't heard that one before. Must have been an awesome experience.Since I was a wizard and the level 9 character was a rogue, it was almost 2e-ish. I think the only one who liked the rule was the level 9 rogue's player, unsurprisingly, but like I said the DM ran a good game otherwise.

[Azraile]

usaly around my groups they get half exp when they miss

[Alex12]

My group assumes that overcoming whatever prevented you from accompanying the rest of the party was enough to keep you in equal XP, or you were actually there, and were just doing your own thing that got XP.

[the_other_gm]

When it comes to D&D, or at least games where XP is simply a rather broad metric to define how strong you are (as opposed to something like GURPS where XP is spent to upgrade individual skills) as others said, I long quit caring about individual XP and even group XP totals, leveling up the PCs when the story deems appropriate since the difference between an XP total of 500 and 600 often means very little.

Plus it's not like most DMs aren't really doing so subconsciously anyways: You generally setup dungeons or adventures with a certain expectation of party power... You know full well (or at least well enough) that the party isn't going to be reaching level 7 before the end of the adventure and build your encounters/bosses/whatnot with that in mind.

GMs like me just tend to take it to the next step: I simply know that the party is entering the adventure at level X and leaving it at level Y (even if it ends up that X=Y).

I generally feel that 4th ed D&D handles XP, partly anyways, in the way I like best: as a sort of encounter-building tool, where a party of X level Y PCs should be facing Z XP worth of enemies.

in games like GURPS, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, where you have an XP-like substitute to level up individual skills and whatnot, I keep the party at the same level for the sake of fairness.

Plus, as others have said: Gaming is something you do for fun. Real-Life issues are far more serious and demand your time first and foremost and one shouldn't be penalized in their funtime for getting their life in order.

[LordBlades]

Plus, as others have said: Gaming is something you do for fun. Real-Life issues are far more serious and demand your time first and foremost and one shouldn't be penalized in their funtime for getting their life in order.

This. Also, somethong to ponder: I've seen people complain about differentiated XP (for RP, missing sessions or whatever). I've seen people complain about having to play an extra character or having to leave their char to somebody else. Yet I haven't seen anyone complain about everyone having the same xp yet.

[NichG]

This. Also, somethong to ponder: I've seen people complain about differentiated XP (for RP, missing sessions or whatever). I've seen people complain about having to play an extra character or having to leave their char to somebody else. Yet I haven't seen anyone complain about everyone having the same xp yet.

To be fair, if your goal is to make sure that you only have players who make it to every session, then pissing off/driving away the players who consistently miss games is not necessarily inconsistent with that goal.

[Andezzar]

I don't give individual XP. I track group XP and everyone levels together.How do you accomodate peple how want to craft stuff or cast spells with XP components?

[Zombimode]

I don't think that there is a definite answer that fits all circumstances. It depends on the people in the group, the power level of the campaign, the general style and so on.

In my current campaign which is a E6 sword&sorcery style setting, exp is a measure for "crap I've gone through". That is risky and/or exciting experiences. The character of a player who is absent will not participate in this sessions actions. At the most, the character will be delegated to some menial tasks like "guard the camp". The deal is: what ever happens, in your absence your character is safe*, but that also means no risky and exciting experiences for your character and thus no exp.

Since all characters start at level 3 in this campaign, the max level difference is 3, which is of course noticeable, but not problematic.

It works very well for this campaign, but it might no be suitable for other campaigns.


* This can actually be relevant. Say, for instance, the sessions ends with the party being captured. The absent player's character will NOT be captured. As you can imagine, this is a very important fact for the next session.

[hymer]

I don't give individual XP. I track group XP and everyone levels together.


How do you accomodate peple how want to craft stuff or cast spells with XP components?

And level loss due to raise dead and level drain?

[molten_dragon]

To be fair, if your goal is to make sure that you only have players who make it to every session, then pissing off/driving away the players who consistently miss games is not necessarily inconsistent with that goal.

As with a lot of things though, if your goal is to have a group of players that make it to every session, it's better to deal with it out of game. Just talk to the player and tell them that if they can't make it to every session, you'd prefer they not be part of the group.

[nedz]

Traditionally we have awarded xp based on what the character did, which means that missing a session may, or may not, have an xp cost. The question of player's missing sessions has rarely come up though we did have one guy who missed a few and ended up a couple of levels behind — which should be OK since he will catch up — in the end he dropped out altogether so the issue became moot.

We also deliberately mis-read the rules about dying and being raised: so that you lose 1,000 xp the first time, 2,000 xp the second etc.

We do have an issue in one group in that we run with rotating DMs. Not wanting to have DMPCs this would mean that DMing puts your character behind. We award average xp and wealth to the DM's PC and assume that they have been doing something else off camera. In principle we could run a one on one, but that would be dull so we just hand wave it.

[Clumsyninja23]

For my group, it usually goes like this. If someone can't make it, we decide whether to play or not. If we do, I ask the missing player if another can play his character, and if any other players would be interested in it. If both are yes, we all trust each other to play them well to normal.

If either is no, the character is busy with things in town/off in la-la land. They get same xp either way, and gold/items I leave up to the party. Since we're all friends, it's usually "who needs this most?" or split profit evenly.

Missing a session here and there is one thing. Even a few in a row. Stuff happens. But if it becomes frequent or a problem, I agree with the others. Talk to them with no pressure. If they need some time off, give it to them. When they come back, level their character or even let them remake.

Being behind is not fun, and this is a game. If others have a problem with the player keeping up, remind them of this. But perhaps gained gold/loot should be separate from present players.

[Firechanter]

A little comment of one player controlling an absent player's character:
While it's generally an option, it works better for some classes and worse for others. Of course it is easy to have a Fighter or Barb or somesuch tag along like that. It gets more difficult with increasing options. Like, if the missing one is the only Wizard in the party, and nobody else is familiar with playing Wizards, that might not work out so well.

Currently, one of our players has to miss a couple of sessions. But since she plays a straightforward Beatstick, it's no problem for the Priest player to roll those attacks for her. It would be much more difficult the other way round.

[jjcrpntr]

In the game that I dm currently our rule is if you miss a session you get the xp but none of the loot. If you miss multiple sessions you don't get xp or any missed sessions past the first one. Everyone in the group agreed to the rule. We all agreed that if someone wasn't here to do the adventuring they shouldn't get all the xp. But we have the miss one session get xp rule in for situations where someone has something come up on the fly. But if someone just decides to go out of town for a month they do so understanding their game character will fall a bit behind.

[JusticeZero]

In 3.x, I added various materia as a treasure drop which was essentially bottled XP. That was used for crafting, with quirks and restrictions. As regards level loss/drain, that was a set of penalties that worked as a status condition - either repair it or it'd go away after a certain amount of adventuring, as would happen from differential xp awards anyways.

[Synar]

To be fair, if your goal is to make sure that you only have players who make it to every session, then pissing off/driving away the players who consistently miss games is not necessarily inconsistent with that goal.

But that is quite the jerk way to do it.

[Chester]

I was in exactly the same situation a couple of years ago. Here's what we decided:

we ditched XP altogether.

When the GM decides we've played enough at the current level, we gain a level. Doesn't matter if you've been to every session or not. XP costs are translated to GP costs, which so far in two games has been enough to prevent abuse of XP costing mechanics. There have been absolutely zero complaints about the change and the GM is grateful to have the burden of calculating XP off his back.

This is what we do. XP costs haven't been an issue yet, but if your group ignores them, nobody can tell you "you're doing it wrong." Rules are flexible.


That's the same thing I do. I let the player choose another player to control their character though, so the DM doesn't get any of the guilt or blame if the worst happens.

This can work with a player who knows your PC well.


I don't give individual XP. I track group XP and everyone levels together.

Also a good idea.

Don't penalize people for putting real life ahead of the D&D session. Period.

[Angelalex242]

Most of all, though, if you're the dude missing a session, at least call somebody to let them know you won't make it. If you're a responsible enough adult to have a job and a family, you're a responsible enough adult to take 10-30 seconds out of you day to text the GM with, "I can't make it today."

[Kanthalion]

Thanks for all the input. I took a poll of my players during the first session, explaining the sides and pros and cons and we decided to keep XP the same for everyone, but that treasure/magic items gotten in a session that a player missed would be up to the largess of the players who were there what they shared. I still might give out occasional ad hoc/role playing XP, but that shouldn't be enough to make a significant difference in character levels.

[CombatOwl]

After a long break, I'll be running a game starting next week. My gaming group is all adults that have lives, jobs, and families. This, of course, makes people missing sessions (sometimes a couple in a row) inevitable. I don't want people to get discouraged or frustrated as their character falls further and further behind or have to modify for lower and higher level characters, but I also want to reward people for coming.

What I'm thinking is award characters who's players couldn't make it half XP for that session. Any better ideas or advice?

I usually decide either that the party has an XP total or individuals do. If the party has XP, it's easier bookkeeping and more fair to players who can't make it for various reasons (for example, if one of the players has a work schedule that shifts frequently). If individuals have XP, you have to give XP indexed to their individual level.