Tell me Veeky Forums if a player can't make to a session do you give them full xp, half xp or no xp?

Stay mad cucks.

My players told me this week that my game is the highlight of their week.

Open world is garbage, ive played it and its been some of the most no effort non-games weve ever played. Basically an uncompelling time waster, its like saying a game with a setting and no story is better than a game with a setting and a story.

Players drive the story. You must just be a bad roleplayer

I have never found a player when given a world actually makes their own goals. I give people options, directions, even ask, and without being lead by the hand everyone will sit themselves down and do nothing.

>Open world is garbage, ive played it and its been some of the most no effort non-games weve ever played.

How was it bad? How does a DM make a bad open-world game, does he just drop players in a forest and say have fun or something?

If you give them and intresting world then yes they will if. If you give them a shit generic world they will just sit there. Railroading storys are the worst games.

I give full XP because the game is already imbalanced enough without tying power level to how many times you bother showing up, especially if it's a mixed party of casters and martials.

Also, it's less bookkeeping for me if everyone is at the same level as one another.

Did your GM award xp for finding artifacts/accomplishing goals? Because, taking 5e DnD if you only get XP from killing stiff then yeah it will probably be excruciating. But that's far from ideal

Bad players.

I literally had my players play a game inside a wizarding school (magic system shamelessly stolen from dominions) and sat them down and had them pick classes.

Then, I kept a timer running until a ritual would be completed and slowly dropped hints that the world would change (symbol showing up in maps, reflections, what can only be described as glitches happening, people repeating sentences without realizing it, etc) and then gave them the chance to figure it out themselves.
>two notes in blood saying “only drink salt water 3 days from now” and “eat a bunch of iron on the eclipse”
>if either of them had picked history they could have learned about the ritual before signs showed up
>they could get jobs in cooking to have access to salt and iron.
>they got to pick their roommates

Best part is that they got to pick which country they started in.

And then when the ritual was done and the apocalypse hit, it was basically them against the world, with whatever stuff they learned in the starting area.

One of them is trying to conquer an island right now, and the other is trying to learn water magic.

Different solutions for different games, depending on the tone and focus.

I generally prefer advancement at GM discretion, with power ups at appropriate and reasonable intervals. This works better when the campaign isn't comprised primarily of discrete challenges to be overcome for experience.

>I've played a bad open world game
>Therefore everything without rails is garbage

Depends on system. For example, Shadowrun and Dark Heresy both are highly-lethal systems. The difference between levels isn't all that massive. As such, players who swap characters or miss sessions don't get XP for them.

Depends on how far in advance they have informed me they wouldn't make it, the severity of the emergency if they didn't inform me and how much I have been trying to boot them of the game in a diplomatic way that wont anger the table that keep excusing their shit.

Give a group lvl up when it makes sense. Give a solo level up or boon for great accomplishments.

Like I wanna keep track of more shit.

>Give a group lvl up when it makes sense
>Give a solo level up or boon for great accomplishments

See, I'm not one to tell people that they are not running games the "right" way, but you are running games the wrong way.

Cool, so the fucktard whose willing to risk his character the most ends up receiving the most levels by the end of it.

I love being a side character in a game of pretend while Johnny fucktard over here is two levels higher because he got a NAT 20 for fucking the dragon to death.

No EXP unless they're far enough behind the other players to where it'd be a problem.

Having to miss a session due to legitimate reasons is already bad enough to go through, there's no need to punish a player for circumstances they cna't control.

And if they're being flaky? You just talk with them about their bullshit. If they persist? They're kicked. No need to be passive aggressive and dock whatever system of advancement in a game.

Yeah. It's funny how merit-based rewards work like that.

Yeah, it's funny how being chaotic stupid only works in games where stupidity is rewarded over being smart.

Nobody is ever gonna be able to beat the story in your mind. Personally that's why I start with open world and head into story based on players interest in the open world.

Stupid fucking anime poster, please kill yourself.

I just hand out levels when it feels right.

The only time I've considered leaving anyone out is the event of someone missing multiple sessions, but it feels petty without addressing the core issue. (Although these retards are sure to pitch a fit if I actually told them to schedule things like adults.)

Yeah you just have shit players.
One of my players wants to run his own business in the gameworld.
Another wants to find powerful elementals an bend them to his will
Still another wants to kill a troll who destroyed his home and become a holy warrior in the process.
The last guy just wants to be the cleric. But he's good at roleplaying that.

All within my shitty generic fantasy setting because fuck you and your derision on tropes that I know you pour on thick, you stupid faggot anime poster.

1xp per 1gp

Full xp. I want to keep the players the same level, and I'd like to think that if someone misses the session it's because he has more important responsibilities and shouldn't be punished for it. I understand the arguments for not using xp, but I still use it because it seems like more challenging fights should have greater rewards.

>Give a solo level up or boon for great accomplishments
>great accomplishments
>HURR CHAOTIC STUPID DURR
How did you even conflate these things?

>Implying they're mutually exclusive

Pleb GM detected, do not pass go do not gain 200 neetbucks

Because he only got those two levels for
>Rolling a NAT 20
>Fucking the dragon to death
Aren't you paying attention?

You hyperbolically invented an imaginary dragonfucker. That doesn't mean a merit-based xp economy is bad. In fact, attempting to fuck a dragon to death would result in said character's death, even with a natural twenty because at best a penis is an improvised weapon and is going to max out at, with a crit, at MAYBE 7 damage...

>You hyperbolically invented an imaginary dragonfucker.
traditional_games.txt

Merit based xp economy is shit if the GM turns it into a game to see who can entertain the GM the most. Because the guy who acts the most retarded ends up being rewarded the most if the dice gods favor them enough.

Mekton Zeta/thread.

..Ok, to clarify: Essentially there's no levels in MZ. Instead you get a number of skill points based on certain factors, your Int, your Education, and any jobs you have had prior to the start of the game, alternatively you can forego said jobs/skill points/resources(such as allies) and start off as a rookie.

During each session, the GM makes notes of skills that the character actually uses, even if they have no points in it. At the end of the session, each character gets a certain amount of EXP for each skill, depending on how much they used it, whether it was used prominently(Using Wardrobe to impress your boss that you've known for a year VS using it to impress an important contractor that you don't know at all), etc. Basically, the better you use a skill, the better you become with it. If you're a rookie, any EXP you earn is doubled, since you started off with far less skill points than a "Veteran".

You can also, during downtime, train with someone equally/more skilled than you, or seek out a teacher, this'll give a strong boost to your related skill's EXP

It's honestly my favorite way of "leveling" and I'm disappointed no other game really does it.

XP is earned for doing things, so if a player can't make the session, they are penalized 1 GP for every mile away from the closest settlement and don't gain any XP.

Artesia: Adventures in the known world uses this system as well. (Tri-stat or fuzion games do this, I can't remember which one specifically.)

I use objective-based milestones.
Doesn't matter how you solve the problem, just so long as it gets solved. I do use XP calcs for approximating how difficult objectives are, though. I also stole skill challenges from 4th because obviously not all obstacles are enemies, though I did modify them because the original version was shoddy.

And I keep all players at the same level unless I'm running some kind of Westmarches style game or if the skill gap is story relevant, which is the only place separate XP shines. Otherwise it's just a nuisance to DM and players both.
If somebody is missing so many games I don't feel like they're really participating, then I talk to them about attendance and try to solve any scheduling issues. If scheduling simply cannot be fixed, then I suggest they drop back to reoccuring character rather than main cast. If it's a case of disinterest/lack of investment or their scheduling is too austere even for fairweather attendance I suggest they drop for now and try again later under different circumstances.

I let my players level up after every session. A player who isn't there misses a level, not a big deal really. I think this only works because we only play every other month or so

a
there's rules for the other kinds in Unearthed Arcana.

Fucking A+, thank you. Mekton Zeta is my favorite system.

Open World can still have plot threads ya dink.

In fact, I'd say it typically has them more-so. All of them ticking away. Protected this village form orcs? The vizier's coup is one step closer to completion because you weren't there to stop that instead. Stopped the vizier? Great, but what research did you do on the snake god cult that's about to rain vipers from the sky in that time?
Some event tracks you don't want to start until the players catch wind of/cause them. But

That plus facing players with the consequences of their choices and actions makes open-world games practically write themselves, and do way better than any single-story railroad read: trainwreck, pun intended "masterpiece" I've ever been in.

To be fair, I've literally been in that kind of campaign, and it's frankly one of the most fun times I've had in the hobby. Of course, our characters had goals. Slayne wanted to command a fleet to kill the pirates that murdered his crew and Aggie wanted to help her Aboleth patron overthrow the island gods and take over the entire archipelago. If our characters had all been murderhobos the game would have died in three single session.
Then again, that's also just kind of describing your average westmarches game, "murderhobos handed an empty map and told 'have fun'", so... eh? Still seems fine.

Have you asked them what kind of things they want out of a game?
They may not jive with a self-directed style well.

As much as we deride the playstyle for not being deep enough, some people just want to come home and be handed an excuse to kill orcs after a hard days work. It's not Kino, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate style of play. The issue is when DM's-Player's-OtherPlayers' styles mismatch.

>DM wants a down-to-earth character-driven narrative, but Player1 wants to play the OC Donut Steel fantasy they always play but it doesn't remotely fit the setting, and players 2 and 3 have heavily optimized stat blocks, not characters, stat blocks, they even forgot names to write names, with no real goals other than accrue wealth and XP, and Player 4 has a bad cliche hastily scribbled on paper, with subpar mechanical choices that drive 2 and 3 up the wall, and ignores all dialogue and solves all problems through violence because he just wants to slay some heckin' orcs can we get on with it already this games is so boring.

>DM wants GoT intrigue, and player 4 wanted zelda dungeoncrawl creative puzzle-solving but having been provided no real puzzles to tinker with he started tinkering with your setting instead and now 5 story important heads-of-state have explosive runes letterbombs headed their way, semi-preemptively solving your entire campaign's planned problems at once in one foul blow, while generating even larger headaches because he basically just turned a minor european monarchy mexican standoff into world war 3 now with magic nukes, and you have no idea how to solve this.

>DM wants grueling tactical combat while players 1-3 want powertrip-hugbox and nearly die every combat because they do stupid things that only make sense under rule of cool and player 4 feels like she has no control because any time she wants to solve a problem through RP there are conspicuously no provisions for it.

Many styles to run. Make sure you're on the same page.

>and how much I have been trying to boot them of the game in a diplomatic way that wont anger the table that keep excusing their shit.
Right?

I was so happy when one of my players ragequit after getting crit one-hit. I was so sick of dealing with him, but everybody else was being too (over)polite for me to kick him.
And the fact it was the dice and he left of his own volition absolved me of all responsiblity.

>Cool, so the fucktard whose willing to risk his character the most ends up receiving the most levels by the end of it.

1. GREAT accomplishments. If its not something that would change who they are as a person, that's not GREAT.
Exiled prince overthrows his tyrant father? That's a great accomplishment.
A humble historian gets knighted for personally stopping an interdimensional invasionary force by recovering a stolen artifact which coincidentally then restores sunlight to Not!London for the first time in four decades by clearing out the fog that at night steals people away to worlds unknown? Great accomplishment.
"rolling a nat 20 & fucking a dragon to death" is not an accomplishment. It is, at best, the final action taken of an accomplishment, but unless he's the meme-taphorical omnisexual Bard marking the last sentient species off his list, it actually was just something done on a whim, thus not really an accomplishment at all. An action of legend, perhaps, but he had no goals to do such, no story arc surrounding it, no growth or redefinition. None of this Bender "ever since 5 minutes ago my lifelong dream was to..."

2. Even if that wasn't the case, still seems fine boss. Risk your characters a lot, they grow faster but also die more often, averaging to party level, but they end up being maybe three times as many characters by the end of the campaign due to increased deaths. Don't risk your characters a lot because you actually care about their well-being, they grow slower but survive for longer, thus are more integrated into the story.

The ADHD idiot gets new toys every so often.
The pet character creampuffs get to keep their pets safe and watch them grow and have the most permenant story relevance.
Everybody happy.

Right? Like, that comment is EASILY next border competition material.

1. What you deem as an accomplishment seems very arbitrary.
2. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a fucktard because eventually, people are going to realize that being a fucktard, especially in a story based game where a rotating cast of characters will weaken the narrative overall.

>What you deem as an accomplishment seems very arbitrary.
Did this character have a stated goal to complete this task prior to its undertaking which took multiple steps to accomplish? Yes? Accomplishment. Average quests would be accomplishments.

Has this character had a long-standing goal to complete this task which took multiple steps to accomplish, and did completing it end an era in their life, such that they now have new longstanding goals? Yes? *Great* accomplishment.

Reaching the surface? GREAT accomplishment.
Hijacking Gurren? Accomplishment.
Capturing Dai-Gunzan? Accomplishment.
Each of the generals? 4 accomplishments.
Defeating Lordgenome? GREAT accomplishment.

Basically anything that would make the player have to stop and think to themselves "Well, damn. I finally did it. Now what?"

If they don't come to the session, they get less XP or no XP at all. They can get XP however, if they tell an in-game reason for their character to be absent, and tell the story of how it happened.

They get xp, but they also roll on the "where the fuck were you" table that has a bunch of complications for them

Since we're talking about systems, I've been going without XP. I've been giving characters +1 to all rolls on a very particular subject if they do something radical or scholarly related to the subject and then pass an INT test. For example, one of my players dissected a corpse's hands and rolled a critical success, so passing an INT roll let him get a permanent +1 to rolls related specifically to the anatomy of hands. Aside from that, the world is open, but segregated into tiers. If they get up a tier, they gain an attribute point.