I'm finally running my first Dark Heresy campaign that might last more than one session and I've run into a bit of a conundrum.

I have one player who may be forced to miss sessions from time to time. Also, at the moment, I have one character who is badly injured (burned his only Fate point to be not-dead in fact) and probably shouldn't be able to take part in the next part of the campaign due to the need for prolonged serious medical attention. Given the way experience is earned and spent in DH, it seems that missing out a sessions exp would make a character less capable than his peers.

So, to all you DH GMs out there... have you found this to be a problem and if so, how do you deal with it? Is it even a big deal if Derrac the Assassin has 1000 exp and the Dav the Scum only has 600?

It's honestly not that big a deal. I've decided/ruled that a player who is significantly (ie: as determined by me) far behind (either because they join late or because they have been unavoidably abesnt for several sessions) can, at the start of a new mission, gain 5/9ths of the difference between their current XP, and the average earned XP of the group, as such a massive gap in ability levels can be problematic in terms of judging adventures, encounters and scenarios to the group you're running. That said, the DH system counteracts/offsets that to a degree, thanks to the various differences built into the system as-is (ie: you can't simply guess what would be fatal to a 3rd rank guardsman [for example] the same way you could to a 3rd level fighter in D&D, and the number of options a player has in advancing his character in DH make it much harder to guess what the average group can accomplish/survive), so it isn't necessarily as much of a problem as it might be in other systems (or rather, it may be a problem, but it's one you're facing already just by the nature of the system, the difference is just a minor matter of scale)

Don't worry about XP differences... especially anything less then 1000 and even a 2000 point difference really isn't all that much after 3rd rank. The PC's in the group I've been running for over a year now haven't been the same rank much less in the same xp range for almost a year now and, truth be told, it's hardly noticeable. The scum will still be some crazy gunslinger and outshoot the adept (unless he doesn't) and the adept will still know more lores and how to pilot just about anything thrown at him better then the scum (unless he doesn't). The arbiter, when she's here will still cause more head injuries then the two of them combined (unless she doesn't) and, no matter what her xp amount, she sill has a badge...

This isn't D&D. The character's surroundings and how they use them, their equipment, and what choices they make will have a heck of a lot more to do with whether they succeed or fail at something then their stat line, skills, and talents. Once you and your group find your grove, you'll find that those number things just seem to be more guidelines and suggestions for what you might expect possibly from the character, maybe, more then hard facts and absolutes regarding a character's capabilities in this game. After all, the modifiers for any action can swing as much as 60 pts in either direction, more then most stats will ever be. A healthy helping of creative problem solving will take the characters further then any base stat ever will ;-)

I have 2 XP totals. A regular XP total and a bonus XP total.

Only the regular XP total drives your career. All characters earn regular xp even if they miss a game. This lets me keep everyone in the same career rank, and not penalize people for matters often beyond their control. (Many die hard players feel just missing game is penalty enough!) It also makes the question of what total to give new characters an easy one.

Then bonus XP (which is usually spent by me, not the players, though I usually try to buy things I know they want) is awarded for good roleplay, detailed backstory, and attendance. So players that always show up on time and put more work into the game will be rewarded by having additional abilities that are still level-appropriate that the others don't.

Aethel that is a great idea! I think I will steal it for my games.

Interesting idea Aethal, but how is that really any different from them having varied XP rewards? Those with more xp are gonig to be stronger, more prepared, have better equipment/abilities, whathaveyou in either system. If all the pcs are rank 3, but the pcs who make it to every session have better weapons and armor because they earned those extra points, where does that differ from simple not giving pcs who fail to arrive at the game any xp for that session?

>>This isn't D&D. The character's surroundings and how they use them, their equipment, and what choices they make will have a heck of a lot more to do with whether they succeed or fail at something then their stat line, skills, and talents.<<

Be careful how people throw around disparaging remarks about DnD - whether you like it or not it is the predicessor to the systems you use now and without it you'd never likely have a Dark Heresy rpg. I know many excellent gamers who began their careers in DnD and still go back to it from time to time. It isn't the system alone which makes a game, but the people who play it.

Jack of Tears said:

That wasn't a disparaging remark, just a statement of fact. In D&D, a character's raw stat numbers and recorded abilities are more important to what a character can and can't do. In Dark Heresy, the raw stat numbers and abilities are less important then situational modifiers which lessens the difference between low xp characters and higher xp characters.

Sorry that my last post wasn't too clear in that regard.

Fair enough - I just get sick of seeing DnD playing the part of everyone's kicking dog. And, really, if you want a game which puts far more emphasis on stats, take a look at Rolemaster sometime ... were one bad stat can cripple a character.

Jack of Tears said:

Well first off, everyone also always accrues income, so gear isn't much of a factor. I discourage over the top looting, so usually gear is coming from the Inquisitor or monthly income. Hence, attendances has little effect.

As far as the outcome of the bonus XP, there are a few distinctions (in my mind anyway).

1) My goal is to prevent people from falling behind the pace of the campaign, not to prevent people from getting ahead. So you are right that those who play more will be more powerful. But not to the extent they would be if I only awarded XP to those who played, since bonus XP is earned slower.

2) There is a definite progression of competency in terms of what talents are available as careers progress. No one gets lightning attack at Rank 1. Psykers careers and psy talents/rating, melee characters and the extra attack talents, ranged characters and the 2-handed/penalty reducing ranged talents... My system at least ensures that everyone is in the same rank, so they all have the same tier of abilities available to them at the same time. Even if some have more XP to spend on said abilities

3) I spend bonus XP, not the players (though granted they get input). But this means I can make sure someone doesn't use it to get completely out of balance. Quite frankly, most of the time requests are for "neat" roleplay stuff that they otherwise might not have taken, and towards the higher costs of elite advances we'd already agreed they could have. I also often use it for Sound Constitution, since none of them ever seem to want to purchase it for themselves. (I know, it is not very exciting.)

But this is just my preferred method. To each their own.

My group has a reasonable xp gap between themselves.

The Adept, was present every session has 2500xp and the Tech Priest missed several and has only 1500xp, this might seem to be a lot but it is all relative.
Each member in my group has his own specialty and unique set of skills.

No problems as of yet...

Maybe its just the way i GM, but i don't have any problem with my players being at different tiers in their careers. I too think that the way the players go around and solve the mysteries and/or fight has much more to do with them planing, than any xp and stats can ever do.

For this reason i give xp for those who are coming to the sesons, while those who can't don't get any. Also when one charecter dies, the new one the player make only has 400 xp and must just work their way up again. My group knows and accept this so its just a matter of them trying not to die, and working together to get the best results they can.

Maybe I'm just a communist;), but I give all my players the same rate of experience points even if they make a game or not. To explain, I have a core of three players and we keep a couple of spots open for people that want to guest play an acolyte when they are in town or have the time. The time spent away from the cell represents time they spent on other missions and I plan to send one of the characters back with a missing hand, some interesting stories and the same xp as the rest of the players.

Reasons for this is because I think it's a pretty fair solution, my players respond well and I have only withdrawn xp after one game that was completely atrocious, phones, people not being focused etc. Next session they all played their characters brilliantly and I awarded them double xp. I don’t feel that being left behind on the xp curve or such is as fun for the players, I mean, I don’t really want to punish a player for having more obligations in the real world the others. Then I prefer that everyone is equal when we play together.

On the whole xp note tho, I have a pretty funny story from DnD a couple of years back. Our DM ran a campaign where xp was based on encounters and after finishing off a powerful lizardman we realized he had prisoners. So my lawful god paladin went to the prison and took care of the starving and de-hydrated prisoners and used the last of his spells and lay on hands to heal them. A couple of others in the group ran off for treasures and ended up in a fight which they won, since my character wasn’t a part of the fight but rather acting like a paladin, while the other two wanted magic items my character didn’t get any reward. To be fair tho, the DM figured that it was a pretty lousy idea after I asked him if I should be “punished” for playing my character and gave me the same xp.

>>the DM figured that it was a pretty lousy idea after I asked him if I should be “punished” for playing my character and gave me the same xp. <<

There is a fairly important note here as well. I have fairly well ceased giving xp based upon success or failure in a session - if the player is there and into his character, he receives a reward. Now, those who put more effort into rp and making the game fun are going to receive better rewards than those who do not, but this is no different from awarding points based on use of skills or monsters killed.

My reasoning behind this is simple enough: we are all here to have fun. I have seen, however, that people sometimes get so caught up in the belief that they have to succeed no matter what they'll behave out of character, play the "chaotic everywhere" card more often, and even become stressed over the idea that they're going to mess up. This does not lend itself to an overall fun game, so I have taken the emphasis off of "winning" and placed it on good game play ... be that rp, or simply making the game fun for everyone else. (sometimes you'll get people who don't rp well, but their characters inject humor to the game, or the individual adds something else of value) Win or lose, the PCs are learning SOMETHING, after all.

That said, there are still all the story repercussions for failing a mission ... so while your xp doesn't ride on it, the lives of those cultists might ... not to mention your Inquisitors opinion of his servants. (and consequently, how he treats them)

I have found this approach makes people feel more relaxed at the table and allows the game to remain fun for everyone.

Jack of Tears said:

That's a pretty good idea, to reward them for roleplaying instead of success makes them more focused on their characters, pretty nifty trick, that I would use too if the group was getting out of hand.

All my players have the same Total XP, regardless of whether or not they made all the games, but only players who attend a given game can get Fate Points or gifted high quality loot from that session.

On injured characters- someone who spends a Fate Point goes to 0 Critical Damage, and is simply Heavily Wounded. They're capable of acting as much as any other character, though obviously are more likely to get killed since any damage recieved is automatically on the Crit Table.

hmm if a player is going to miss the next part of the campaign, maybe you should stall the game by playing a mini-adventure. You know like finding the molerat thats gnawing its way through the the ship.

I always try to have a mini adventure or two ready just in case some players are going to miss out. In that way the present players would still have a great time (since many of the mini adventures are quite different, or odd or just surprising), and the missing player wont miss much from the main campaign.

with players lagging too much behind with XP, I usually award them 10% or 20% extra until they catch up.

How do you award roleplaying XP, I let the players themselves chose. Every player including the GM gets one vote each. the voting is done democratic, and totally anyonumous. Which means you scribble the name of the player character you think deserve the roleplaying XP on a pieace of paper. There is one rule however, you cannot vote for yourself. Once done the GM (meaning I) collects the paper bits and write down the result. the player, or the two players that got the most votes get maximum roleplaying XP. all the others get the average.

pretty neat heh?

As for mini adventures I have a side game that I run based loosely off of Left 4 Dead. Any time a player misses a regular game I pull out the infected and survivor sheets and run them through to the next safe house.

I just give out exp for whoever is there. I give flat rate to the group depending on whether they passed or failed the mission and then small rewards on top of that for any other noteworthy acts. So far no one has missed a session so it hasn't mattered but someone is starting the next session with a new character who will have less expericance than the rest of the group. I dont see much of a problem in Dark Heresy of people being at different ranks or having less xp, as someone else pointed out the effect of your rank aren't as noticeable as D&D where it makes a much bigger difference. It just seems too false to add in systems to keep people at the same lvl when the characters havn't done the same amount of work.

Anyway whatever you and your group decide is fair is the best way to go, every group has their own dynamic and what works for me wont work for everyone.

Kaihlik

GM fiat of who can and can't play a character due to injuries for an extended period of time is dangerous ground. I find it puts too much real-world reliance on a dice roll. What's your option for someone who's out healing for weeks? Sit there and listen? Come back after a month has passed real-time?

Unless there's a huge pressure to finish something in X hours/days, let them heal and continue on. If there is a pressure, give them a useable NPC to play, and let that experience accumulated roll over to the PC.

As far as missing a session, I skip the XP unless the power level is ungodly imbalanced. Often a well-played character can overcome such issues.

Case in point, I started a World of Darkness game last week, and have 3/4 of the XP that the other players do. My character is well designed enough, and is roleplayed well enough, that he's actually one of the most capable members of the party.

If you have a character who is behind the rest of the party, tailor a few encounters to their strengths. Even if there is a power level difference, the ability to do something the rest of the party can't will go a long way to alleviate that.

Hmm...

In my group, we seem to have a very negative viewpoint on missing XP. I know players are usually complaining if they both miss a session and miss out on XP, especially if they can't help it. In our past campaigns, this has usually turned out to giving the players the same XP, either directly, or by being "bumped up" to the same level as the players at the end of the next session.

A lot of people here seem to run with giving XP for attendence. I wouldn't dock a player XP for having his character sickbound for a session, but I'm weighting whether giving XP for missed sessions or not. On one hand it encourages people to be there, on the other hand, it's a real downside if you can't be there. And I think 90% of the cases in my group, if you can't attend a session, it's because they simply can't! (by having a very **** work time or other obligations calling them away). So it sounds mostly like an uncesery punishment.

What do you think?

I play with some pretty easy going people that really don't care if everyone's got the same xp or not which ironically usually means the only differences end up coming from bonuses for really good rp. I like to give players bonuses for really getting in character, or coming up with some ridiculously creative but still effective methods for solving given problems.

aethel said:

Oh yes. But then again I guess I dont have to say much to confirm my current "die hard"-status in the group, don't you agree?

Anyway, I've taken to use this awarding method in my games too, and it works really good. Feels both fair and functional to everyone.

If you're there, your character will get some XP, even if he's lain up in hospital all session.

If You are not there, you get very little if your character was present and useful, none if he's not actively involved.

Your absence along with the Character Sheet, you get nothing.

Another problem I've had with not giving equal amounts of XP is that when a character dies, you can't put them on the same XP level as their peers, because then they can use death to cheat their way to free XP. But if you dock them XP, that's an unecesery punishment for dying, when losing your character and it's plot and backstory should be enough of a punishment.

We have a table of six players, and one GM (nice big group, loads of fun!), with a a few "table" rules. First: Everyone GM's. All players must GM a game of their choice. That way, each game stays fresh, GM's have time to develop new material, and no one GM is eternally stuck behind the screen. Second: Absentee-ism. You must let people know you're going to be absent. At least two people. Since we've been together for over ten years, we know each others phone number and email. That isn't a prob. Now that you know the group, our XP rules are easier to go over. If you're there and you play, you get a flat rate of XP plus a bonus depending on roleplay, staying in character and advancing the plot. Constantly disrupting the game is generally a bad thing. We had to take a hard line on this, as we have a player who sometimes thinks it's more fun to start inter-party conflict (usually to an extreme. Like "bullets flying" extreme). So if you start a party fight you usually get a xp penalty. If you miss a session, you get half xp (and no bonus) for making the GM (or another player) piggy-back you. It works well enough for us. Hope it helps you guys.

EDIT: in reply to Giantmoth. Player death and new character generation. Player takes half the xp from is previous character's total and uses that for his new character. They usually get a higher bonus xp relative to the difficulty of the adventure and their current level/rank/whatever until they are within one level/rank/whatever of the party average.