Absent player [Archive] - Wizards Community

Absent player [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
trismegistus
11-11-03, 06:17 PM I currently have four players in my gaming group (I, as DM, makes five). We run at one of the players' house, and we've only had to cancel once due to his absence.
Another player is my gf who lives with me, and since she started playing, she hasn't missed a game.
The third is a friend of mine who goes to school two hours away and drives here every weekend, usually just to play DnD for a few hours, then head home again. 3 has missed once or maybe twice due to a school conflict.
Now, the fourth player has missed 70% of the recent games (4 got a new job since we started playing and can almost never get weekends off now).
We haven't been able to find a new time where everyone can make it (usually the conflict is between players 3 and 4, but due to the dedication that 3 has shown, 3 usually wins out). Player four doesn't think it's fair that they don't get xp when they miss a game - a player's character is taken over by one of the other players when a person misses a session - (at half a level behind the other characters, 4 thinks they are being penalized too much...) and I have been awarding extra xp to anyone who has had to play a second char (only for the session they play that char). Anyway, I wanted peoples opinions on what I should do about this situation. I doubt we will be able to find a time where everyone can always make it, so mostly I'm curious about what other DMs do when a player misses a game, what they do with their character, both in the game and xp wise.
Goldberry
11-11-03, 06:56 PM If you have a player who is only showing up 30% of the time then it's unfair to the other players in the adventure. If number four has a constant schedule conflict, and the other player have to play his character for him, then perhaps this isn't the adventure for him. He would probably do better on one-shot adventures. Occasionally I have a player who misses a session and I allow another member of the party to play their character, but it does not happen very often.
Edymnion
11-11-03, 07:01 PM Its not fair, nor logical, for the character to not gain experience if they are being played as an active part of the team. If they aren't getting xp, they shouldn't be played, just sorta shoved into the background "I'm not really helping today" sort of thing. If the character is getting played, then they are fighting, and learning, and they should be getting xp normally.

Denying xp to a character who's player isn't there, and extra xp to someone else's character just because the player is doing double duty isn't fair. At most, the character should only be penalized down to half the xp of normal (giving them the same xp per combat as a cohort would recieve), and only activly played during combat.

I agree with #4, you're penalizing characters far too much for something that is out of the player's control. #4 can't find time to play a game because he has to work, thats not something he can control. If he was missing sessions just to go party, that might be one thing, but he isn't. He's trying to play as much as he can, and from what you say, he shows up whenever he can. By not giving his character xp to keep him up with the rest of the party, you're probably going to end up driving him away as a player since he's so far behind and you don't seem to care.

While I agree with you schedualling around Player #3 because of the HUGE time investment they're putting in, you really do need to cut #4 some slack. Work is more important than playing a game, after all.
Gavril
11-11-03, 07:10 PM While I can't agree that work is always more important than gaming (might explain why I'm not rich, heheh), I do agree that players who lag behind others in level tend to lose interest in the game rather than struggle valiantly to catch up (after all, how can they?).

By no means do I claim that the system I use is "right" it has worked for us. I role-play the character for any player who is absent and they get full xp. Simple. Wheneven possible, I do try to have absent PCs a little less involved, but sometimes that just can't happen, particularly if you have a habit of ending a session by saying "ok everyone roll initiative."

My theory is that the gaming experience is about fun. Your player is already missing out on the social comraderie of the gaming group as well as the enjoyment of a well-run (we hope) session. Do you really think he'd rather be working than gaming? So why penalize him further. As long as he's trying to make it whenever possible, let his character stay current.

And it does seem a little peculiar to give bonus xp to a player doing double duty. I think you should either have absent PCs sit out of the session, or you should play them.
spasheridan
11-11-03, 07:21 PM My game has 6 players. We play if any 3 + the cleric can make it. Thankfully we play at the clerics place so if we're playing then he's there.

Characters not there disapear. They reapear when the player comes back. Bad side: No XP. Very little loot. Good side: You don't die. once we played with 5 of the six in attendance and there was a TPK. The 6th player kept their 3rd level character and the rest of us started over as 1st levels.

For your situation, I think you (as DM) should take over the missing player's character OR have that character not participate. I wouldn't let another player run my character, using up my potions and expendable items....

I think that the missing players character should earn minimal XP, 1/2 rate is probably about right. BUT, the question is, whats the long term effect of this? The player wont be up to speed on campaign events, wont know NPC's, and then behind the party in loot and XP.

If you want to keep the player around try an occasional 1 on 1 adventure with just the missing player. Give him a chance to RP for XP, take on some side missions, and earn some special loot.
Shadowslayer_Canada
11-11-03, 07:26 PM Originally posted by Edymnion
Work is more important than playing a game, after all.
:OMG!:

BLASPHEMER!

OK all kidding aside. Edymnion is right. You have to ask yourself how much it all really means. Are your players actually in COMPETITION to see who gets the most experience points? As long as that character is along for the ride and helping, give him the equal share of the XP. So the guy's character will be the same level as everyone else's. Big deal.

Better than being able to finally fit a game night in with your buds, and having to have an underpowered character because someone got persnickety about how your real life got in the way of their good time.

Examine what the priorities are. Is it in game realism? Or is it everyone having a good time? I would suggest any player who had a real serious problem with the absentee friend getting equal XP needs to get reality check.
Nephet
11-11-03, 08:03 PM One of the other players runs the character or if it's not in the middle of an adventure, the character is just absent. If the character is absent, they still get full xp (I don't use xp but that's the idea). I figure the character is off doing something else getting experience.

The kind of group we have doesn't feel it's a contest and when it's important to keep the members of the party close to same level no one minds if everybody advances at a similar pace - even if the player is occasionally absent.
trismegistus
11-12-03, 02:04 AM Well, I have to admit I'm a little surprised by the response I've gotten so far since in every single DnD game I've played in (including one run by a man who has been DMing since he playtested 1st edition), absent players don't get xp. Granted, normally in those games the characters did fade into the background when the player wasn't there, but I already run hordes of NPC's; taking on another persons character would slow things down too much for the people who ARE there (in my opinion). I absolutely see the point about a person playing someone elses character, though. The only thing is, the rest of the group suffers from that characters absence, and even if the player isn't there, at least they get treasure (if not xp).

If this person weren't missing sooo often, this wouldn't be a problem at all, but between that and the fact that she's a problem player to begin with, I admit I do feel biased against her (which is why I'm asking for the outside opinions). She's really rude when other people try to roleplay (as in non-combat) because she doesn't enjoy that aspect of the game, she's disagreeable in general - stealing from other PCs (shes not a rogue, and Chaotic Good), starting arguments... And if I suggested that perhaps she's not able to devote time to the campaign right now, I know she'd throw a fit.

So, any way. I will probably start giving out half xp to her and divide that extra half share among the other PCs (as it is, bty, when I said another player rolplayed her character, I meant in combat only, and as an Avariel sorcerer, she doen't have to worry much about dying - not that she'd risk herself for any of the other characters any way, as she's shown multiple times...) and remove her from combat etc entirely when she's not there, as suggested. I'm just trying to keep an incentive for the players who DO show up all the time (besides the fun, of course). As I said before, she's not even a full level behind the other PCs now, and the way the CR/xp charts work, I doubt she'll fall further behind.

I guess the other guys will get more treasure this way too *shrug*
Vaarkheef
11-12-03, 06:46 AM Originally posted by spasheridan
My game has 6 players. We play if any 3 + the cleric can make it.

Hahahaha some good words of wisdom there... I say this because in the now "high-level" campaign I play there is no cleric and never have been (been playing for more than 1½ year now); there was a sorc (dead and buried), there is a barb, a bard, a bladesinger sorta fighter-ess and me the wizard.

Anyways, about that xp awarding for extra duty... I wouldn't do that. If you find absent players are absent too often (like our sorc was...) then have the PCs killed, posessed by the BBEG or whatever -- don't be unfair to players who are willing to play.

My $0.02.
Kronk LaSworda
11-12-03, 03:18 PM Missing 70% of the sessions is not fair to the rest of the group. Playing his character nearly 3 times out of every 4 sessions is too much of a burden to ask anyone. Playing someone else's character should be an exception, not the rule. If he can't show up for those games, frankly, it's either time for him to move on or time for you to start making solo adventures for him on a different day. I'd suggest the former over the latter.

If a person only misses once every 4 or 5 games, then having someone else run his character is no big deal. If you want to severely penalize his character in XP or give him none, that's your perrogative. I wouldn't give bonus XP to the other player(s), though. Personally, I'd rather fade that character completely out for that session. Make him disappear for that session (urgent call home, guild meeting, whatever). This way, he misses XP and treasure, but doesn't die or lose valuables.
Dancing Gnome
11-12-03, 04:29 PM I would cut this player from your game. You don't like her and she can never show. Why bother keeping her? If you do keep[ her, give her full XP. It makes no sense for one character to be falling behind everyone else when the character is always there.

I've been on the recieving end of an XP penalty before for missing a few sessions before. It sucks. Badly. We had 8 people, so even if I gave a week and a half notice, they would still have a game if most of the other players showed.

I ended up over a full level behind one of the other players. This player also happened to be the DM's brother. (Strangely enough we never had a game when the DM's brother couldn't make it, even though we'd play if 2 other people were missing.)

Anyway, The missing character falls behind a level or two and now they're weaker than everyone else. They aren't having as much fun, and, to top it off, he/she is more likely to die, causeing them to fall yet another level behind.

So ditch the player or keep the player, whatver you want. WHatever you do, drop the XP penalty. It's just sowing discord and ruining the game.
Thrashmage
11-12-03, 06:07 PM :teach:

Why not play two campaigns? I know most people don't like to have more than one at a time, but if one player is only there 30% of the time, why not have one game for the three who are consistently there, and a second game with different characters for all four players when they can all get together?

This would allow the three who are there more often to play when they normally play, without having to play more than one character. The absentee member would then be present at ALL the games his character is in, because that would be a different game, and everyone would be playing that one.

No one would be penalized in any way (by either playing more than one character or by missing games or xp). Plus, who wouldn't like to build another character?

BTW: I agree with Goldberry above. If the game is held every week and this person isn't available, then it really isn't the game for them. That's nothing bad about the person who has other engagements. It just means that this one campaign isn't suited to their needs.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trismegistus 11-11-03, 06:17 PM	I currently have four players in my gaming group (I, as DM, makes five). We run at one of the players' house, and we've only had to cancel once due to his absence. Another player is my gf who lives with me, and since she started playing, she hasn't missed a game. The third is a friend of mine who goes to school two hours away and drives here every weekend, usually just to play DnD for a few hours, then head home again. 3 has missed once or maybe twice due to a school conflict. Now, the fourth player has missed 70% of the recent games (4 got a new job since we started playing and can almost never get weekends off now). We haven't been able to find a new time where everyone can make it (usually the conflict is between players 3 and 4, but due to the dedication that 3 has shown, 3 usually wins out). Player four doesn't think it's fair that they don't get xp when they miss a game - a player's character is taken over by one of the other players when a person misses a session - (at half a level behind the other characters, 4 thinks they are being penalized too much...) and I have been awarding extra xp to anyone who has had to play a second char (only for the session they play that char). Anyway, I wanted peoples opinions on what I should do about this situation. I doubt we will be able to find a time where everyone can always make it, so mostly I'm curious about what other DMs do when a player misses a game, what they do with their character, both in the game and xp wise.
Goldberry 11-11-03, 06:56 PM	If you have a player who is only showing up 30% of the time then it's unfair to the other players in the adventure. If number four has a constant schedule conflict, and the other player have to play his character for him, then perhaps this isn't the adventure for him. He would probably do better on one-shot adventures. Occasionally I have a player who misses a session and I allow another member of the party to play their character, but it does not happen very often.
Edymnion 11-11-03, 07:01 PM	Its not fair, nor logical, for the character to not gain experience if they are being played as an active part of the team. If they aren't getting xp, they shouldn't be played, just sorta shoved into the background "I'm not really helping today" sort of thing. If the character is getting played, then they are fighting, and learning, and they should be getting xp normally. Denying xp to a character who's player isn't there, and extra xp to someone else's character just because the player is doing double duty isn't fair. At most, the character should only be penalized down to half the xp of normal (giving them the same xp per combat as a cohort would recieve), and only activly played during combat. I agree with #4, you're penalizing characters far too much for something that is out of the player's control. #4 can't find time to play a game because he has to work, thats not something he can control. If he was missing sessions just to go party, that might be one thing, but he isn't. He's trying to play as much as he can, and from what you say, he shows up whenever he can. By not giving his character xp to keep him up with the rest of the party, you're probably going to end up driving him away as a player since he's so far behind and you don't seem to care. While I agree with you schedualling around Player #3 because of the HUGE time investment they're putting in, you really do need to cut #4 some slack. Work is more important than playing a game, after all.
Gavril 11-11-03, 07:10 PM	While I can't agree that work is always more important than gaming (might explain why I'm not rich, heheh), I do agree that players who lag behind others in level tend to lose interest in the game rather than struggle valiantly to catch up (after all, how can they?). By no means do I claim that the system I use is "right" it has worked for us. I role-play the character for any player who is absent and they get full xp. Simple. Wheneven possible, I do try to have absent PCs a little less involved, but sometimes that just can't happen, particularly if you have a habit of ending a session by saying "ok everyone roll initiative." My theory is that the gaming experience is about fun. Your player is already missing out on the social comraderie of the gaming group as well as the enjoyment of a well-run (we hope) session. Do you really think he'd rather be working than gaming? So why penalize him further. As long as he's trying to make it whenever possible, let his character stay current. And it does seem a little peculiar to give bonus xp to a player doing double duty. I think you should either have absent PCs sit out of the session, or you should play them.
spasheridan 11-11-03, 07:21 PM	My game has 6 players. We play if any 3 + the cleric can make it. Thankfully we play at the clerics place so if we're playing then he's there. Characters not there disapear. They reapear when the player comes back. Bad side: No XP. Very little loot. Good side: You don't die. once we played with 5 of the six in attendance and there was a TPK. The 6th player kept their 3rd level character and the rest of us started over as 1st levels. For your situation, I think you (as DM) should take over the missing player's character OR have that character not participate. I wouldn't let another player run my character, using up my potions and expendable items.... I think that the missing players character should earn minimal XP, 1/2 rate is probably about right. BUT, the question is, whats the long term effect of this? The player wont be up to speed on campaign events, wont know NPC's, and then behind the party in loot and XP. If you want to keep the player around try an occasional 1 on 1 adventure with just the missing player. Give him a chance to RP for XP, take on some side missions, and earn some special loot.
Shadowslayer_Canada 11-11-03, 07:26 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion Work is more important than playing a game, after all. :OMG!: BLASPHEMER! OK all kidding aside. Edymnion is right. You have to ask yourself how much it all really means. Are your players actually in COMPETITION to see who gets the most experience points? As long as that character is along for the ride and helping, give him the equal share of the XP. So the guy's character will be the same level as everyone else's. Big deal. Better than being able to finally fit a game night in with your buds, and having to have an underpowered character because someone got persnickety about how your real life got in the way of their good time. Examine what the priorities are. Is it in game realism? Or is it everyone having a good time? I would suggest any player who had a real serious problem with the absentee friend getting equal XP needs to get reality check.
Nephet 11-11-03, 08:03 PM	One of the other players runs the character or if it's not in the middle of an adventure, the character is just absent. If the character is absent, they still get full xp (I don't use xp but that's the idea). I figure the character is off doing something else getting experience. The kind of group we have doesn't feel it's a contest and when it's important to keep the members of the party close to same level no one minds if everybody advances at a similar pace - even if the player is occasionally absent.
trismegistus 11-12-03, 02:04 AM	Well, I have to admit I'm a little surprised by the response I've gotten so far since in every single DnD game I've played in (including one run by a man who has been DMing since he playtested 1st edition), absent players don't get xp. Granted, normally in those games the characters did fade into the background when the player wasn't there, but I already run hordes of NPC's; taking on another persons character would slow things down too much for the people who ARE there (in my opinion). I absolutely see the point about a person playing someone elses character, though. The only thing is, the rest of the group suffers from that characters absence, and even if the player isn't there, at least they get treasure (if not xp). If this person weren't missing sooo often, this wouldn't be a problem at all, but between that and the fact that she's a problem player to begin with, I admit I do feel biased against her (which is why I'm asking for the outside opinions). She's really rude when other people try to roleplay (as in non-combat) because she doesn't enjoy that aspect of the game, she's disagreeable in general - stealing from other PCs (shes not a rogue, and Chaotic Good), starting arguments... And if I suggested that perhaps she's not able to devote time to the campaign right now, I know she'd throw a fit. So, any way. I will probably start giving out half xp to her and divide that extra half share among the other PCs (as it is, bty, when I said another player rolplayed her character, I meant in combat only, and as an Avariel sorcerer, she doen't have to worry much about dying - not that she'd risk herself for any of the other characters any way, as she's shown multiple times...) and remove her from combat etc entirely when she's not there, as suggested. I'm just trying to keep an incentive for the players who DO show up all the time (besides the fun, of course). As I said before, she's not even a full level behind the other PCs now, and the way the CR/xp charts work, I doubt she'll fall further behind. I guess the other guys will get more treasure this way too shrug
Vaarkheef 11-12-03, 06:46 AM	Originally posted by spasheridan My game has 6 players. We play if any 3 + the cleric can make it. Hahahaha some good words of wisdom there... I say this because in the now "high-level" campaign I play there is no cleric and never have been (been playing for more than 1½ year now); there was a sorc (dead and buried), there is a barb, a bard, a bladesinger sorta fighter-ess and me the wizard. Anyways, about that xp awarding for extra duty... I wouldn't do that. If you find absent players are absent too often (like our sorc was...) then have the PCs killed, posessed by the BBEG or whatever -- don't be unfair to players who are willing to play. My $0.02.
Kronk LaSworda 11-12-03, 03:18 PM	Missing 70% of the sessions is not fair to the rest of the group. Playing his character nearly 3 times out of every 4 sessions is too much of a burden to ask anyone. Playing someone else's character should be an exception, not the rule. If he can't show up for those games, frankly, it's either time for him to move on or time for you to start making solo adventures for him on a different day. I'd suggest the former over the latter. If a person only misses once every 4 or 5 games, then having someone else run his character is no big deal. If you want to severely penalize his character in XP or give him none, that's your perrogative. I wouldn't give bonus XP to the other player(s), though. Personally, I'd rather fade that character completely out for that session. Make him disappear for that session (urgent call home, guild meeting, whatever). This way, he misses XP and treasure, but doesn't die or lose valuables.
Dancing Gnome 11-12-03, 04:29 PM	I would cut this player from your game. You don't like her and she can never show. Why bother keeping her? If you do keep[ her, give her full XP. It makes no sense for one character to be falling behind everyone else when the character is always there. I've been on the recieving end of an XP penalty before for missing a few sessions before. It sucks. Badly. We had 8 people, so even if I gave a week and a half notice, they would still have a game if most of the other players showed. I ended up over a full level behind one of the other players. This player also happened to be the DM's brother. (Strangely enough we never had a game when the DM's brother couldn't make it, even though we'd play if 2 other people were missing.) Anyway, The missing character falls behind a level or two and now they're weaker than everyone else. They aren't having as much fun, and, to top it off, he/she is more likely to die, causeing them to fall yet another level behind. So ditch the player or keep the player, whatver you want. WHatever you do, drop the XP penalty. It's just sowing discord and ruining the game.
Thrashmage 11-12-03, 06:07 PM	:teach: Why not play two campaigns? I know most people don't like to have more than one at a time, but if one player is only there 30% of the time, why not have one game for the three who are consistently there, and a second game with different characters for all four players when they can all get together? This would allow the three who are there more often to play when they normally play, without having to play more than one character. The absentee member would then be present at ALL the games his character is in, because that would be a different game, and everyone would be playing that one. No one would be penalized in any way (by either playing more than one character or by missing games or xp). Plus, who wouldn't like to build another character? BTW: I agree with Goldberry above. If the game is held every week and this person isn't available, then it really isn't the game for them. That's nothing bad about the person who has other engagements. It just means that this one campaign isn't suited to their needs.