A lack of reward is not punishment

[Koo Rehtorb]

XP for kills encourages players to kill anything and everything they can. You can still have plenty of combat without PCs looking for excuses to kill things.

The rules for non-lethal combat in D&D are a poorly designed afterthought. They're also not the focus of the system.

Take for example a Batman or Superman comic, they spend a lot of time punching bad guys, but only kill them if there is no other option, and they certainly dont go out of their way picking fights with people whom they have no real quarrel with or could resolve their quarrels without violence.

Batman and Superman are not D&D characters, it's a radically different genre. D&D characters are Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, and other various sword and sorcery characters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When I said D&D I was more talking about 3-5e, for clarity.

D&D is about killing things, though, because that's what 95% of the rules are devoted to. You can certainly change the reward structure, but you're not changing the actual game itself by doing that, all you're doing is making the game design incoherent.

That is a common error--judging the importance of something by the page count devoted to it (and doing so in a tendentious manner). Yes, combat is important. No, the game isn't "about killing things". It's about much more than that. It's about (by its own terms) heroic people doing heroic things in a heroic fantasy world. Just because you focus on combat doesn't mean anyone else does or that by not doing so you're making the game design somehow incoherent.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That is a common error--judging the importance of something by the page count devoted to it (and doing so in a tendentious manner). Yes, combat is important. No, the game isn't "about killing things". It's about much more than that. It's about (by its own terms) heroic people doing heroic things in a heroic fantasy world. Just because you focus on combat doesn't mean anyone else does or that by not doing so you're making the game design somehow incoherent.

The game is about the things the rules are about.

Monopoly is a game about rolling dice, buying properties, charging people money, making trades, etc. It's not a game about criticizing monopolies, despite Elizabeth Magie's design intent. A game doesn't get credit for things that aren't in the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The game is about the things the rules are about.

Monopoly is a game about rolling dice, buying properties, charging people money, making trades, etc. It's not a game about criticizing monopolies, despite Elizabeth Magie's design intent. A game doesn't get credit for things that aren't in the rules.

...

I give up. I guess some people have viewpoints I'll never understand. And this is one of them. Yes, if you ignore all the parts that aren't about combat, it's all about combat. And counting pages is always the wrong way to judge these things. For any system.

[Tanarii]

...

I give up. I guess some people have viewpoints I'll never understand. And this is one of them. Yes, if you ignore all the parts that aren't about combat, it's all about combat. And counting pages is always the wrong way to judge these things. For any system.

By page count most editions of D&D are about magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

By page count most editions of D&D are about magic.

Exactly. Except some of those are about magic in combat. Or magic in non combat. Even in the same page. Or paragraph. Hence, "page count" is a horrible way of judging anything, one that is completely based on how you draw those imaginary lines.

[Koo Rehtorb]

By page count most editions of D&D are about magic.

I mean, it's a fair argument to make. There's a reason caster supremacy is a thing.

[NichG]

By page count most editions of D&D are about magic.

1ed D&D is probably around a 50/50 blend of 'magical safari' and 'a game about getting killed by things' rather than 'a game about killing things' by this metric. Bees? Save or die if they sting you. Some lichen on the dungeon wall? Touch it and you become a moss person. Giraffes? No save, just die - you can't fight giraffes.

[Koo Rehtorb]

1ed D&D is probably around a 50/50 blend of 'magical safari' and 'a game about getting killed by things' rather than 'a game about killing things' by this metric. Bees? Save or die if they sting you. Some lichen on the dungeon wall? Touch it and you become a moss person. Giraffes? No save, just die - you can't fight giraffes.

I specifically clarified that I was more talking about 3-5e D&D. 1-2e definitely do have a different feel to them.

[Tanarii]

1ed D&D is probably around a 50/50 blend of 'magical safari' and 'a game about getting killed by things' rather than 'a game about killing things' by this metric. Bees? Save or die if they sting you. Some lichen on the dungeon wall? Touch it and you become a moss person. Giraffes? No save, just die - you can't fight giraffes.

I prefer to think of D&D as "fantasy Indiana Jones" personally.

[Talakeal]

Thinking more closely about XP for missing sessions, I think the only style of game where I would use individual XP would be an old school meatgrinder where death was common, in which case people who miss a session dont get xp, but are also safe from dying and having to start over at level one.

I obviously wouldnt use it in a modern group of the same 4-6 friends who meet once every week or two, rarely if ever change characters, and play through plots, but I also dont think I would do it if I was running a more old school game where people came and went as they pleased and there was no long term plot simply because it feels so much better on both sides of the table to run a "balanced" game.

[ImNotTrevor]

The DM is absolutely NOT intentionally makin any concious decision to deny XP, so as to cause a negative association.

The association already exists and is a natural consequence of the action.

Except that you don't want the skipping to continue, no?
The penalty is a decision made by the DM in response to a behavior they'd rather not have, yes?

If the DM at no point decides to not award XP, then the player receives XP as normal. So you can't honestly argue that it isn't a choice the DM is making.

AND if you KNOW the player will have a negative association (which you do. See your own post for proof) and you DO IT ANYWAY then you have NO GROUNDS to say it's not 100% intended for the association to go along with it. If you didn't want the association, you'd do something else.

DOUBLE AND, Intent doesn't matter for a thing being a punishment.
Touch hot stove, burn hand, stop touching stoves.
The stove delivered a Positive Punishment, which produced behavior change.

So even still, your own definition makes it a punishment. 10/10

ON ENTITLEMENT:
The system already states that characters receive XP for overcoming obstacles.
That my 2-year-old needs to go to the doctor suddenly would, apparently, be grounds to permanently put me behind the rest of the group, who did receive XP during the session I missed.
Which is especially bizaare reasoning.
"Oh, a thing happened which is out of your control but you must personally attend to because it involves your actual offspring? Guess you get to fall behind, too!"

Hard not to feel like the DM is dropping a solid deuce on your head along with all the other BS that's happening. (Because not rewarding XP is a decision, let's recall.) And the DM is, indeed, dropping a solid deuce on your head, knowingly.

[EGplay]

Is it really?

My understanding of very early editions that it was about getting treasure and only fighting when neccessary.

When I played D&D it was very much in the Dragonlance tradition where the goal was usually to have epic adventures and save the princess / kingdom / world / multiverse along the way, and only killing the really evil things.

The "kill everything that moves" style of gameplay is, imo, a sort of ludonarrative disonance that emerged in later editions when they pulled away from XP for GP and storyline rewards (every AD&D module I ever played had lucrative storyline awards, a precursor to milestone leveling) and it was really only the munchkins and borderline sociopaths who actually wanted to kill everything, and that usually resulted in Knights of the Dinner Table style antics that annoyed the DM and the other players and quickly killed the campaign.

3E tried to pull away from this model by stating that it is overcoming challenges, not killing, that gives XP, and while this has a host of its own problems it certainly shows that the designers of D&D didnt want to force players into a mindless muder simulator.

Isn't milestone xp an official rule in 5e?

Funny thing, compared to standard D&D (what I use it for):
The proposed system gives less than usual XP for kills, more than that for not killing at first opportunity, and all the missing XP as a completion reward (which a storyline reward, or milestone, is).
It also accounts for non-combat XP, and even XP for bypassing challenges. And it gives some amount of XP when not attending.

Obviously, what links challenges into a 'scenario' (or arc, segment, whatever) is not arbitrary, they are planned that way.

[Lorsa]

It's a matter of consequence and intent.

For something to be a punishment:
1) The consequences must be bad for the person they happen to.
2) Someone must intentionally inflict the bad consequences on the person that wouldn't normally happen as a consequence of an action, in order to cause the negative association with the action.

Punishments can be inflicted without intent but even if there's intent...

Oh wait, someone already responded to this with flawless logic.

Punishment doesn't require intent, but by this definition not rewarding XP works fits 100%

1) Is the consequence bad? Yes. Losing out on XP is a net negative.

2) Is it intentional? Yes. DM makes a conscious decision to deny XP. Would it normally happen? No. You usually receive XP for the session. Will it cause a negative association with the act of non-attendance? Yes, in most cases.


You literally proved it was a punishment with your own requirements. 10/10.

Thanks NotTrevor. You saved me the time to write just that. Even under Tanarii's own definition, it's a punishment. Case end.

The DM is absolutely NOT intentionally makin any concious decision to deny XP, so as to cause a negative association.

The association already exists and is a natural consequence of the action.

Uh, this is a weird way to wiggle yourself out of your own definition. And frankly, I have a hard time to understand what you mean by "the association already exists and is a natural consequence of the action, therefore I am not making a conscious decision to cause it".

If the association exists, and you make a decision to do the thing, then you are using the association. Intentionally. Otherwise it's equivalent as you standing on court saying "oh no, I didn't murder anyone, I only intended to shoot him in the head, it's not my fault there's a negative association with getting shot in the head and dying, I certainly didn't intend for him to die - only get shot in the head". That's just ****ed up logic.

Secondly, it is not a "natural consequence of the action". It's a consequence you, the DM, decided should be there. You can't just wash your hands and claim innocence here. You made the decision not to grant XP, noone else. And, as NotTrevor said, it is XP they would have otherwise gotten. Ergo, punishment (by your own slightly weird definition).

Except that you don't want the skipping to continue, no?
The penalty is a decision made by the DM in response to a behavior they'd rather not have, yes?

If the DM at no point decides to not award XP, then the player receives XP as normal. So you can't honestly argue that it isn't a choice the DM is making.

AND if you KNOW the player will have a negative association (which you do. See your own post for proof) and you DO IT ANYWAY then you have NO GROUNDS to say it's not 100% intended for the association to go along with it. If you didn't want the association, you'd do something else.

DOUBLE AND, Intent doesn't matter for a thing being a punishment.
Touch hot stove, burn hand, stop touching stoves.
The stove delivered a Positive Punishment, which produced behavior change.

So even still, your own definition makes it a punishment. 10/10

ON ENTITLEMENT:
The system already states that characters receive XP for overcoming obstacles.
That my 2-year-old needs to go to the doctor suddenly would, apparently, be grounds to permanently put me behind the rest of the group, who did receive XP during the session I missed.
Which is especially bizaare reasoning.
"Oh, a thing happened which is out of your control but you must personally attend to because it involves your actual offspring? Guess you get to fall behind, too!"

Hard not to feel like the DM is dropping a solid deuce on your head along with all the other BS that's happening. (Because not rewarding XP is a decision, let's recall.) And the DM is, indeed, dropping a solid deuce on your head, knowingly.

Also this. Seems like He'sNotTrevor is arguing this far better than I could.

Even so, an added scenario for you Tanarii.

Imagine the DM has a roommate who is also part of the group. Both the DM and the roommate are unemployed. Whenever they are home together, they decide to play the campaign (which can include the middle of the night). They always send out messages to invite everyone else "the session starts in 30 minutes!". Only those that come to the sessions are rewarded with XP.

How is this:

A) Not punishing people for having jobs.
B) Not punishing people for not being available at a moments notice.

This is basically what you are doing. You are saying "hey, if you're not able to come to my session, I will NOT cancel it and set up another session when everyone can come, and I will ALSO not give your character any XP". You are, in essence, punishing people for not being able to come at whatever arbitrary time you decided there is a session on.

In some systems, like Pendragon for example, only those abilities that you use in play have a chance to improve. That fits the soccer analogy much better than general xp systems like D&D. Gaining experience while a player in absent in that system requires that some other player take over running the character for that session.

Then there's Mongoose Traveller, where improving skills is based on practice and study during downtime, not on adventure activities.

The example of Pendragon improvement is actually the one I dislike the most. And no, it doesn't actually fit the soccer analogy. If you compare soccer to RPGs, the time spent in the session is like the main match. The important games. Which misses the entire point of all the hours and hours spent on practice (and lesser important games). People get better from practice as well.

There's also a problem if you can ONLY get better during downtime. Does that mean that if your GM decides to have a quite detailed game with little downtime, no characters will ever get better? That's equally weird.

Logically speaking, characters should get better due to many factors. Unless we want to get really nitty-gritty about it, we could simply abstract it to "time has passed -> experience is gained". Doesn't matter if that time is "downtime" or "action time".

[NichG]

Even so, an added scenario for you Tanarii.

Imagine the DM has a roommate who is also part of the group. Both the DM and the roommate are unemployed. Whenever they are home together, they decide to play the campaign (which can include the middle of the night). They always send out messages to invite everyone else "the session starts in 30 minutes!". Only those that come to the sessions are rewarded with XP.

How is this:

A) Not punishing people for having jobs.
B) Not punishing people for not being available at a moments notice.

This is basically what you are doing. You are saying "hey, if you're not able to come to my session, I will NOT cancel it and set up another session when everyone can come, and I will ALSO not give your character any XP". You are, in essence, punishing people for not being able to come at whatever arbitrary time you decided there is a session on.

While the other case (milestone XP denial) reads pretty clearly as punishment to me, this case actually reads as reward to me instead. That's because the expectation is going to be that most people won't be able to attend, so the unusual thing is obtaining extra XP for making yourself available for a pick-up game. For example, I could imagine a campaign which runs on a nightly basis, and anyone who shows up and plays gets XP, with no expectation as far as a minimum degree of participation. If we were talking about an MMO instead of a tabletop game, it'd be a fairly straightforward reward proportional to elapsed playtime setup.

So I think this goes in the wrong direction if you want to make a case for missed XP for missed sessions as punishment.

[JoeJ]

There's also a problem if you can ONLY get better during downtime. Does that mean that if your GM decides to have a quite detailed game with little downtime, no characters will ever get better? That's equally weird.

Theoretically yes, but a Traveller game without down time would very difficult to do. There just aren't a lot of adventure opportunities during the weeks that your ship spends in jump space, isolated from the rest of the universe.

[Lorsa]

While the other case (milestone XP denial) reads pretty clearly as punishment to me, this case actually reads as reward to me instead. That's because the expectation is going to be that most people won't be able to attend, so the unusual thing is obtaining extra XP for making yourself available for a pick-up game. For example, I could imagine a campaign which runs on a nightly basis, and anyone who shows up and plays gets XP, with no expectation as far as a minimum degree of participation. If we were talking about an MMO instead of a tabletop game, it'd be a fairly straightforward reward proportional to elapsed playtime setup.

So I think this goes in the wrong direction if you want to make a case for missed XP for missed sessions as punishment.

Technically, many people can be punished, it doesn't have to be just one.

I do understand your point, but I think my example shows fairly well how "only awarding one person" can be equal to "punishing all the rest".

But we can change the scenario to a case where all players but one are unemployed and are living with the DM. Would that be better in your view?

[Pelle]

...

I give up. I guess some people have viewpoints I'll never understand. And this is one of them. Yes, if you ignore all the parts that aren't about combat, it's all about combat. And counting pages is always the wrong way to judge these things. For any system.

I would say that in playing D&D, one of the players' goals is to have fun combats, that's why people choose this particular game over others. However, the characters' goal is rarely combat for its own sake. They have something else they want to accomplish, but often combat is necessary to achieve what they want. It's risky, so it's best to avoid it, but when you have to fight it is exciting.

I usually use milestone leveling, and I like it because my players are clever and avoid fights if they can. What I notice though, is if the players are too clever and are able to avoid combats all together, because it is strategically the best for their characters, the players themselves can be "unhappy" with the session. If I instead put them in situations where a combat is unavoidable, but still feel natural and consistent, the players are more satisfied with the session. So in doing what is best for their characters, the players will be less happy if that means there will be no fights at all.

So I think you can maybe say that "D&D is about combat", and you should probably include/facilitate combats when playing D&D, but you shouldn't necessarily reward it. You should reward what you think the goal of the characters should be about.

[Pelle]

Except that you don't want the skipping to continue, no?
The penalty is a decision made by the DM in response to a behavior they'd rather not have, yes?

No, not necessarily. The DM can run games for a table where the number of players are not permanent, and there's no fixed party of characters. Whoever is able to shows up and plays. Lets say you have 10 players, who show up roughly 50% of the time on average, so you can expect to have 4-6 different players each session. Each player might have multiple characters, and each attending player use 1 character for the adventure of session, which will be finished during the session.

In these cases the DM doesn't care if a particular player shows up or not, so it is not an attempt to change behaviour. It is just acknowledged that players have a life and can't join every session, and the game is structered accordingly.

If the DM at no point decides to not award XP, then the player receives XP as normal. So you can't honestly argue that it isn't a choice the DM is making.

Usually, according to the rules, the character is awarded xp for doing things, not the players. If there is a fixed party, with the same characters always present, one might associate the xp gained with the player. That's really a metagame concern though, and depends on the group and how the game is structured.

If each player has multiple characters and only one in the current party of the session, it does probably not make sense go give xp to all the characters not part of the adventure. If so, it doesn't make sense to give it to the characters of absent players either. And if it does, which should get xp, one or all of them? In these types of groups, xp is only associated with the characters, not players. And for them, it is just a natural consequence that characters not going on adventures is not getting xp, the DM does not make a decision. I think the OP belong to such a group, and can understand why he doesn't see it as a punishment.

[Tanarii]

Except that you don't want the skipping to continue, no?
The penalty is a decision made by the DM in response to a behavior they'd rather not have, yes?

No and No.

You're ascribing intent where there is none.

Skipping a session results in not earning awarded XP, because XP is awarded for doing stuff in the game. Not getting an opportunity to do stuff in the game is a natural consequence of skipping sessions, and thus not getting XP is a natural consequence of the action.

The DM has no intent to deny XP. XP is not awarded because of the player's action. No intent to punish, it cannot be punishment.

And no, a hot stove burning someone who touches it is not punishing them. That's utterly ridiculous.

On entitlement: You are entitled to XP if you do thing thing that the system awards XP for. You are not entitled to XP if you do not do the thing the system awards XP for. And of course, the DM or table may at their discretion change what the system awards XP for, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them choosing to do so. It is NOT badwrongfun to modify the rules at your table and award XP to a player that misses a session when the system would normal not award it.

The only thing that's ... seriously off? An attitude problem? A sense of entitlement? (not to be confused with actual entitlement) ... is claiming everyone should be entitled to XP that a system does not by default award XP for, and that it's badwrongfun punishment if you don't do it, especially if you do it to the person making this claim.

[Lorsa]

No and No.

You're ascribing intent where there is none.

Skipping a session results in not earning awarded XP, because XP is awarded for doing stuff in the game. Not getting an opportunity to do stuff in the game is a natural consequence of skipping sessions, and thus not getting XP is a natural consequence of the action.

The DM has no intent to deny XP. XP is not awarded because of the player's action. No intent to punish, it cannot be punishment.

And no, a hot stove burning someone who touches it is not punishing them. That's utterly ridiculous.

So you don't believe the world itself can inflict punishments, but game systems can grant rewards? Can a game system punish people? I will assume yes. If it can reward people, it can punish people.

You claim "not getting the XP is a natural consequence of skipping sessions". Well, it isn't. YOU are the one that decides that this is the consequence. As I said before, you can't simply wash your hands from your decisions as a DM. It is your intention not to grant XP to absent players. That's simply a fact, and I'm not sure why you are trying to weasel your way out of it.

I will also note your telling choice of words "skipping sessions". When you claim people are "skipping" things, you ascribe intent to them. You assume they could come, but choose not to. This is simply not true. Sometimes people are unable to come. But it's good that your unspoken assumption is brought to light.

On entitlement: You are entitled to XP if you do thing thing that the system awards XP for. You are not entitled to XP if you do not do the thing the system awards XP for. And of course, the DM or table may at their discretion change what the system awards XP for, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them choosing to do so. It is NOT badwrongfun to modify the rules at your table and award XP to a player that misses a session when the system would normal not award it.

The only thing that's ... seriously off? An attitude problem? A sense of entitlement? (not to be confused with actual entitlement) ... is claiming everyone should be entitled to XP that a system does not by default award XP for, and that it's badwrongfun punishment if you don't do it, especially if you do it to the person making this claim.

Well, first off, game systems can also punish behaviors. In fact, a game system which only awards XP for characters whose players are present are punishing those that can't make it to the session. If you choose to play with such a system, you are in effect also punishing such an action, as you intentionally choose to go along with a system that has this punitive structure built into it.

Secondly, why is it an attitude problem to properly acknowledge when a system is punishing certain behaviors? Of course, if you know of this in advance and choose to play with the group anyway, you can't complain afterwards. Then you made a choice to go along with it.

You are the only one in this discussion who says that the pro-punishment people argue that it is badwrongfun. A group may very well feel it is perfectly acceptable to punish absent players. Nothing wrong with that. It will certainly make sure people resort to potentially unhealthy behaviors in order to make it to the sessions. If that's the goal then mission accomplished.

[Tanarii]

So you don't believe the world itself can inflict punishments, but game systems can grant rewards? Can a game system punish people? I will assume yes. If it can reward people, it can punish people.

Sure. The game system can punish people. For example, it could deduct XP for taking certain actions, and make clear that the developer intent is to create an association between losing of XP and the action. Some game designers in the past have specifically written punishments into their system.

But that's not the same as not getting the reward being a punishment. The intent is you do the thing, you get the reward. Not that you do the other thing, and you are penalized. They're typically pretty clear about this.

You claim "not getting the XP is a natural consequence of skipping sessions". Well, it isn't. YOU are the one that decides that this is the consequence.

No. No matter how many times you guys try to claim this is true, it remains false. If you get awards for doing things, then the natural consequence of not being there is you cannot do the things.

I will also note your telling choice of words "skipping sessions".

It was not my choice of words. It was ImNotTrevor. So do not try to ascribe to me intent that belongs to him.

edit:

You are the only one in this discussion who says that the pro-punishment people argue that it is badwrongfun. A group may very well feel it is perfectly acceptable to punish absent players. Nothing wrong with that. It will certainly make sure people resort to potentially unhealthy behaviors in order to make it to the sessions. If that's the goal then mission accomplished.

A group may decide to punish absent players if they want. They can certainly make a rule to deduct XP from their characters, for example.

The badwrongfun & entitlement attitude is claiming that it is globally a punishment to not grant the system-specified reward when:
1) The system rewards for the player/character doing things in game.
2) The player (and we must assume the character) are not there to do the things in game.

That's not a punishment. It's a natural consequence.

[Alberic Strein]

As a GM, I make a point to give XP evenly to all my players, even if one couldn't make it to the session. Life comes first, and missing a session should be its own punishment. And if your players would rather go for a couple of drinks than sit at your table, then slapping them with an XP penalty relative to the other players isn't going to make it better. Though yeah, I suppose that if we look at if we look at the definition of punishment:

a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

then saying "the rules say you get XP for doing things, you did not do things so you don't get XP" wouldn't technically fit as a punishment.

Though my experiences as a player definitely tell me that being underlevelled compared to everybody else is the unfunniest thing at a table. Some GMs really like having players be on different levels and being on the bottom end of that hurts. When at least, and I'm being generous, one hour each session is dedicated to combat and one of the players has a spell that destroys everything because he was the one player who had a PC survive to the end of the previous campaign, then you spend one hour pretending to be useful until the player decides to use a tactical nuke on the encounter. Problem solved. Or when other players have a bonus secondary class, hidden classes, etc... And the new guys get jack sh*t. Watching another dude do cool stuff isn't fun.

Now, sometimes being underlevelled is a choice. In 3.5 when you're one level behind everyone, but everybody uses the magical gear you crafted for them, or when one of your scrolls save a team-mate, you feel cool. You feel proud. You don't care you're weaker than everybody else. Your missing XP is there, helping your whole team and making them feel good about themselves. That's choice.

The GM enforcing a reading of the rules that mean that returning absentee players are forced into a situation were they are here to make the other players feel better about themselves is the GM punishing the players who miss game sessions.

We all come to games to have a good time. Making part of your players feel like they're not "real" PCs is not going to make for an enjoyable game. When your understanding of the rules mean a subset of your players are going to feel left out, compared to other players, during your games is a punishment.

I know I may be particularly touchy about the subject because I hate that damn campaign where the GM went for a recruitment mid second campaign and proceeded to make the two new players, including me, like useless waste of game time, but it still sounds like you are playing on words, Tanarii. At this point, wouldn't it be simpler if you honestly asked yourself "Am I really not punishing my irregular players?"

[Tanarii]

Though my experiences as a player definitely tell me that being underlevelled compared to everybody else is the unfunniest thing at a table.

I currently run a 5e campaign that has different sessions for Tier 1 (levels 1-4) and Tier 2 (levels 5-10). The campaign is like official play, the players come to whatever sessions they can, and bring any character that fits the level range for the session. The players don't seem to have any problems except at the extremes. I've definitely heard complaints from players of a single character at the bottom of a Tier in a party full of characters near the top of the Tier. But other than that they're usually heavily engaged.

In previous editions, I've run and been in games many times with characters 3-4 levels apart in the mid-levels range. In fact, in the earliest editions it was impossible not to have level differences. Players didn't worry about power disparity from level differences of that magnitude. And of course, for many editions power disparity has less to do with level difference and more to do with class or build/optimization.

But ... I only offer this as a counter example of views. There's nothing wrong with a specific table or player saying a single level of difference makes them feel unhappy. Your unhappy feelings are your own, and it's not my place to say they're wrong. And there's nothing wrong with modifying rules when something makes you unhappy, although of course it's usually worth considering the other consequences before you do so. Because they may make you unhappier in the long run.

What's wrong is making global claims that aren't globally true due to unhappiness. And that's what it is to call a failure to get a system reward due to natural consequences of an action (or lack of action) a punishment.

[Blackjackg]

I currently run a 5e campaign that has different sessions for Tier 1 (levels 1-4) and Tier 2 (levels 5-10). The campaign is like official play, the players come to whatever sessions they can, and bring any character that fits the level range for the session. The players don't seem to have any problems except at the extremes. I've definitely heard complaints from players of a single character at the bottom of a Tier in a party full of characters near the top of the Tier. But other than that they're usually heavily engaged.

In previous editions, I've run and been in games many times with characters 3-4 levels apart in the mid-levels range. In fact, in the earliest editions it was impossible not to have level differences. Players didn't worry about power disparity from level differences of that magnitude. And of course, for many editions power disparity has less to do with level difference and more to do with class or build/optimization.

That's cool, but it can't have escaped your attention that this is a very different style of play than the one that many people on this thread are talking about. In a drop-in game that approximates official play, wherein each session is a self-contained adventure, not giving out XP to absent players absolutely makes sense. It would be strange to play any other way.

Several people on this thread are talking about a different style of play. A regular group of players playing a regular cast of characters, engaged in a continuous storyline that may or may not be driven by the characters themselves (e.g., they are exploring this dungeon because they want to rescue Fighter Joe's dearly loved granny). In games like this, allowing characters to fall behind because of player absence is not obviously the best choice, and may in fact be the wrong choice.

But ... I only offer this as a counter example of views. There's nothing wrong with a specific table or player saying a single level of difference makes them feel unhappy. Your unhappy feelings are your own, and it's not my place to say they're wrong. And there's nothing wrong with modifying rules when something makes you unhappy, although of course it's usually worth considering the other consequences before you do so. Because they may make you unhappier in the long run.

What's wrong is making global claims that aren't globally true due to unhappiness. And that's what it is to call a failure to get a system reward due to natural consequences of an action (or lack of action) a punishment.

It looks like you've got an olive branch there, but why are you trying to poke people in the eye with it? The process of deciding how characters should advance in a given game doesn't need to be infantilized by describing it as a soothing of sad feelings.

[Pelle]

That's cool, but it can't have escaped your attention that this is a very different style of play than the one that many people on this thread are talking about. In a drop-in game that approximates official play, wherein each session is a self-contained adventure, not giving out XP to absent players absolutely makes sense. It would be strange to play any other way.

Tanarii hasn't been so clear about it here, but his different style has been evident. You say yourself that giving out xp to absent players would be strange in this situation. Thus, it is understandable that he doesn't like calling it a punishment. Which I guess is due to the negative connotations of the word, attributing intent (see discussions on if you should call it "punishment" or "natural consequences" when you have the world react negatively to murderhobos).

Several people on this thread are talking about a different style of play. A regular group of players playing a regular cast of characters, engaged in a continuous storyline that may or may not be driven by the characters themselves (e.g., they are exploring this dungeon because they want to rescue Fighter Joe's dearly loved granny). In games like this, allowing characters to fall behind because of player absence is not obviously the best choice, and may in fact be the wrong choice.

Agreed, but so what? That's not a given assumption for all tables.

It looks like you've got an olive branch there, but why are you trying to poke people in the eye with it? The process of deciding how characters should advance in a given game doesn't need to be infantilized by describing it as a soothing of sad feelings.

? Calling it lack or reward or punishment doesn't really matter. The problem is if people are unhappy about having a lower level character than the other players. Changing the advancement rules to accomodate that is the whole point.

[Tanarii]

It looks like you've got an olive branch there, but why are you trying to poke people in the eye with it? The process of deciding how characters should advance in a given game doesn't need to be infantilized by describing it as a soothing of sad feelings.

I'm poking people back who are poking people in the eye in the first place.

If you're unhappy about something, do something about it for your group. That's great!

Don't try to cast it so that anyone that does the thing the way it's supposed to be, and it perfectly happy with it, is punishing. Intentionally inflicting negative things on others to make them associate their actions with the negative thing, when the thing that they're personally unhappy about is a natural consequence. Instead of casting others as villains, instead change the thing you don't like, for your game.

[Alberic Strein]

Again, as a GM, making a campaign that purposefully plays with levels is an enticing idea. Like making the party woefully underlevelled to force the players to think and react more like adventurers and less like heroes (of might and magic), or having a player get a level penalty due to having a high social status, which would counter-balance the huge social boon they get with less efficiency in the field in spite of their formal training. But from a player's point of view, it can feel unfun and it's easy to misinterpret your GM's thought process because you're not used to it and it can feel unfair. That's just the kind of thing that sounds a lot more appealing to a GM compared to a player.

But sometimes being on the low end of the level spectrum as a player can be fun. We've all seen that video about a level 1 rogue joining a high levelled fighter and wizard. In general I find that skill monkeys, face type characters and other archetypes that are not supposed to shine in combat will take their level difference with the rest of the group a lot better. Or experienced players who rolled a caster and have that one spell that can utterly wreck an encounter they choose. The rest of the time they do nothing useful, but they relish that one moment of extreme power they get. While melee characters usually take a level difference really badly. When your fighter has less hp and defences than the backline spellcaster and gets constantly wrecked, then things become less to not fun.

Of course we reach the party balance subject, where much more than levels come into account. I actually had to explicitely ban 3rd party material in Pathfinder today because a first level fighter was trouncing two cockatrices, and if I start a co- erm, chicken fight with him, I'd either run out of CR before he ran out of levels, or I'd end up murdering the rest of the party. Seriously, I've seen that guy clear an encounter with one CR 12 and one CR 14 monsters as a 7 or 8 PC.

Anyway, back on track. Levels are already finicky as is, with different classes in different systems peaking at different levels. Back at Pathfinder, you have the obvious level 6 and 11 for full BAB classes, but there is a big difference between a level 1 and a level 2 Magus, and it can be irritating to see your teammates reach their goodies while yours remain out of reach.

Of course all that is anecdotal evidence, some players will be fine with anything as long as they get to roll dice, others as long as they get to bed the barmaid, and others will be absolutely livid internally but pretend they're fine.

As for global claims, it really depend how widespread that claim is. For example nowadays everybody will consider technically optional rules in 5th edition as mandatory, like feats and variant human and will expect any and all campaign to include them. In other cases, players can disagree with a GM's decision and I think it's prudent to listen to them. In 5th edition, while playing Storm King's Thunder as a storm priest, I took my horse and attacked a fort by the lake side and by myself to provide a distraction while the stealthier guys did the all important reconnaissance of the fort. During that distraction I took down half a dozen hobgoblins and a watchtower, running away before the wyvern tamer could give chase. The recon team did its job and came back. At the end of the session, they got barely anything while I almost got a level, due to sharing none of the XP for the hobgoblins. Which... irked... the recon team, since they did the job, they made the story go forward, they mattered. While I just went murder hobo and won. I reckon a GM should be open to the criticism of their players and be open to making changes in the spirit of everybody having a good time.

Anyway, all that is about players doing things at a table, and characters being rewarded accordingly. But a player missing a session is an exception to that. It's an out of game concern that has consequences in game, but is not justified in game. The group's fighter won't stop doing his job because his player went to the movies with a lady friend instead of showing up to the session. Denying characters some XP (I know you disagree with the way I word that, but let's not stop at that) just widens the divide. It would make more sens to have a "designated player" that will take care of one or more characters when some players miss a session. I mean in the case where there are reasons for the PC to be there, like the last session having ended in the middle of a dungeon. I understand you don't want players to feel entitled to XP, but denying said XP widens a divide that stands to worsen the players' incentive to grab beers instead of getting to the session.

Also, while it is purely semantics, if you take a group, give something to some and nothing to others, then yes, you in your position of authority, just punished those you gave nothing to.

I suck at quoting the Bible, but there was this one anecdote about Jesus leaving and telling some of his servants to watch his money while he was gone. All the servants got one gold piece. One servant used that money to buy, sell, and by the time Jesus came back he had five gold pieces to give his master. Jesus gave him five cities. Another servant did the same thing, but was less successful, giving back only three pieces. He got three cities. A third servant was even less successful, not only he made no profit, but he lost his starting funds so he had no gold to give back his master. Jesus pretty much said "Meh, you tried." and gave hm a city. The last servant had dug a hole in the ground and hidden the gold piece, so he just unearthed it, cleaned it, and presented to his master. Jesus didn't like how he did nothing with the wealth, and gave him no city. I am pretty bloody sure that counts as getting punished.

Technically in that example there was a "game" and the last servant was punished for not playing it. It's pretty clearly a punishment to me. Do you disagree? It's okay if you don't disagree, nobody's saying Jesus doesn't have the right to punish servants, and I feel nobody has the right to tell you how to run your table, and whether or not you have the right to punish players. Though I'd find it healthier if you would agree that this behaviour may very well, and for perfectly valid reasons, be felt as a punishment by your players and I do hope I gave you decent reasons why people would hold that point of view.

[Frozen_Feet]

Imagine the DM has a roommate who is also part of the group. Both the DM and the roommate are unemployed. Whenever they are home together, they decide to play the campaign (which can include the middle of the night). They always send out messages to invite everyone else "the session starts in 30 minutes!". Only those that come to the sessions are rewarded with XP.

How is this:

A) Not punishing people for having jobs.
B) Not punishing people for not being available at a moments notice.

This is basically what you are doing. You are saying "hey, if you're not able to come to my session, I will NOT cancel it and set up another session when everyone can come, and I will ALSO not give your character any XP". You are, in essence, punishing people for not being able to come at whatever arbitrary time you decided there is a session on.

Okay, stop right here.

This is the kind of tortured logic which Tanarii, or any other person, would be right to be upset at.

The reason it's not punishment is because it is not the ones who hold the game who ascribe priority to work over game. The game does not make the decision "people who have jobs are punished". The people who have jobs and prioritize it over game decide to not participate.

[Talakeal]

Hmm, I wonder to what extent the reasons for abandoning mechanised XP are because of the activities rewarded by said XP.

What if earning XP is set up as follows:

- All monsters/NPC's/etc award half XP when overcome permanently, half that if overcome non-permanently (awarded 'once per' only).

- monsters/NPC's/etc can be linked, through background or otherwise, in something I'll call a scenario for now.
When such a scenario is resolved, XP is rewarded equal to half the XP value of all monsters/NPC's/etc that are part of said scenario, regardless of whether they were encountered or not.


Does that seem more agreeable? And what if the first point is dependant on character presence?

Funny thing, compared to standard D&D (what I use it for):
The proposed system gives less than usual XP for kills, more than that for not killing at first opportunity, and all the missing XP as a completion reward (which a storyline reward, or milestone, is).
It also accounts for non-combat XP, and even XP for bypassing challenges. And it gives some amount of XP when not attending.

Obviously, what links challenges into a 'scenario' (or arc, segment, whatever) is not arbitrary, they are planned that way.

So by raw you get full xp for overcoming a challenge.

Afaict In this system you get half xp for "permanently overcoming" a challenge and half for bypassing it. This means that you are encouraged to kill everything as that is the only way to be absolutely sure you get the full xp.

But you still need to complete the scenario to get the other half.

So, you have even stronger incentive to kill than standard d&d and you also have the DM deciding what constitutes finishing the scenario.

As I said, it seems worst of both worlds to me, as one of the most commom complaints about xp for kills is encouraging murder hobo behavior and one of the most common complaints of milestone xp is it gives the dm too much power by allowing them to arbitrarily decide when a scenario has been completed.