How do I handle sessions where 1 person couldn't make it. After that session should I still give that character XP? If I don't, I'm afraid of the group becoming lopsided in strengths.

(Right now I'm going to handle the missing person's PC by having someone else roll for them and I'm even thinking about having the missing person's character be there only narratively so that they don't get messed up.)

If you don't normally use individual experience (ie, +1 for bonus for roleplaying, or w/e) I'd just let the character advance anyway.

I'd also strongly recommend against having another player roll for the missing player. If you can, find a narrative reason to drop them out of the adventure (guarding the ship, passed out in the casino, on a date with an old flame, etc.). If this doesn't work, I'd run the character yourself as an NPC, and minimize their impact on the story. We have missing players fairly often in our group, and have found this to be far less disruptive to the existing players then having another Player running 2 PCs for a game.

I don't generally award XP to absent PCs - it doesn't feel like we'd really get into the same sort of imbalance we might with other systems. In the past I've had absent PCS come down with something like Hyperspace Flu or the Gammorean Squirts to explain why they're not there. This doesn't ALWAYS work, but it works often enough.

While I understand that RL happens, I don't want to reward absenteeism. Since the very first Star Wars movie featured a boy fresh from the farm, a Jedi Master, a well-known-smuggler and his partner, as well as a princess active in politics it seems okay to have radically different skill levels across PCs and still have a good story. It also points out that Luke squandered his youth.

In our games I give a flat XP bonus to all the characters regardless if they were present for the game, but I also allow the players to write an adventure log between each session to gain bonus XP. Since the players had to be there to experience the previous session and write about it, any absent players will miss the bonus XP.

Depending on your point of view, however, you're not rewarding absenteeism, but rather avoiding punishing them for having Real Life. Every time they look at their character sheet to see if they're up to date it'll be "oh right, i'm 20xp down because I had to go to a wedding last year."

10 or 20xp isn't going to make a character useless or unbalanced, but the cumulative effect can be far more dramatic. 100 xp between the guy whos always there, and the guy who has the most difficulties getting to games can become noticeable - even if the party is in the 500s

I would base it on why they were absent and how far behind they would be. Obviously we can be a little more forgiving of "my sister was in the hospital" than "I was watching a movie I've seen three times already," and if it isn't a constant thing you can probably overlook it on rare occasions.

Be wary of letting anyone fall too far behind. I played a D&D adventure where most of us were level 6 and one of us was a brand new character that insisted on earning his way to our level. After he was useless in two fights and killed in the third the table unanimously agreed that dead weight isn't fun for anyone at the table. That said, we were almost completely a combat group and most of us were in it for the combat mechanics so being underlevelled was a huge issue for our playstyle. A more story oriented group wouldn't find the problem as severe.

Just give it to them and avoid the headache imo. It's not like it turns a game on its head to just have everyone on equal footing and use kaosoe's suggestion of bonus xp potential tied to having been present.

Depending on your point of view, however, you're not rewarding absenteeism, but rather avoiding punishing them for having Real Life. Every time they look at their character sheet to see if they're up to date it'll be "oh right, i'm 20xp down because I had to go to a wedding last year."

10 or 20xp isn't going to make a character useless or unbalanced, but the cumulative effect can be far more dramatic. 100 xp between the guy whos always there, and the guy who has the most difficulties getting to games can become noticeable - even if the party is in the 500s

Ahh yes, I should clarify: rarely did anyone ever miss more than one session at a time, and since our sessions are short and far between, I tend to award 10XP per hour when we do play so nobody stays behind long.

If we did have a player that had consistent RL scheduling issues, we'd look at trying to play another time rather than let XP disparity become a huge issue. However, if I did arrive at this situation it would be up to me as the GM to make sure everyone has a good time regardless of their XP expenditures. You are right, though - without careful consideration it could be a big problem.

This speaks back to personal responsibility in my book - sure, I have invitations to play every night of the week, but I know I can't handle that so I don't commit to something I can't make. If I need to focus on RL, it seems the polite thing to do is to step away from the game instead of constantly not showing up when expected. Far be it for me to tell someone else how to be, but this is how I like to handle it when I am faced with RL vs. Funtimes.

I just consider the common good of the story. If a player cannot assist to often it will be a problem everytime the player reapers with a "lower level" on the new scene.

As other said, give general XP (for example 15 per session) that will be given to every player without considering if it's present or not. Apar from that fixed progression XP value, you al always give that extra XP (+5, +10, other) to those player who plays exceptionally well.

So, in general, I would mantain the base XP for the common good of the group.

In my games, if a player doesn't show up they don't get the experience. It's unfair to the other who did show up and actually role-played. Not to say that real-life is not important. It's all about choices and time management.

That being said, I've never had a problem with discrepancies between character's levels of experience. The uniqueness of this system is that there are no levels. I've had a guy with 200 experience play with a group of people that had 50- 60 experience and he wasn't OP at all. I feel the key to making this work is to have variety amongst the players (in terms of character role) and good GMing.

I am currently experimenting with awarding XP to the player not a character. I'm running a bunch of episodic type adventures and I have people drop in and out constantly. So what I found helpful is to give the player a grand total pool of experience to spend and let him make 2 to 3 characters with that.

IE Joe has 200 experience total, and he makes a gunslinger with 200 experience, a bounty Hunter with the 200xp. Next game he will earn 20 experience In the grand total is 220 for both characters. He can only play 1 at a time but now he has more options on game day.

In my games, if a player doesn't show up they don't get the experience. It's unfair to the other who did show up and actually role-played. Not to say that real-life is not important. It's all about choices and time management.

This is generally my attitude as well. Granted, if they're not there due to an unforeseen emergency or because I screwed up with the reminder e-mails, then I'm wiling to award them 10 XP. Otherwise, if they're not doing the work, they don't get the reward.

Depending on how long they're absent and how it fits into the current narrative, though, I'll sometimes let players make up XP with a creative effort. Perhaps they write a short story that explains why their character wasn't there.

I agree with the philosophy of rewarding XP to the player, not the character, but I'm not sure I would have anything carry over between campaigns. Despite my view on rewarding XP, I'm not a fan of power gaps and definitely wouldn't want to start off a new campaign with an imbalance that I didn't plan.

A large chunk of it depends on what kind of campiagn people are expected to have: I currently have a 700 EXP character and a knight level alt (180 exp atm) and I find it jarring to switch between them, a fact made difficult that my main (Bounty hunter Ga/Ass, Force Emer and Artisan) actually can cover a lot of basis's quite generally (being the emerging force user being trained by a sith artifact.). The former is highly lethal with his pistols and lightsaber, yet relies on dodge bonus's and sense bonus's in heavy combat situations (with 5 soak, he is far from invincable). He has a 4 in agility, a 5 in int (he was orignally the machanic when I first joined up because I didn't expect him to remain that long!) and a 3 in cunning, so while he's broad he's unfavourable as a talker (though with influence, that no longer is an issue.).

Needless to say a hard life of revenge and being instructed by a sith artifact has lead to him being a very efficent killer. In his last two combats with inquistors both undereastimated him, needless to say one ended up dead in one direct hit after a breif scuffle and the other was serverely wounded from a blaster bolt from a dueling pistol as he causally escaped with the jewel of Yavin on Nah Shedar, not taking Tobin seriously almost meant the end of him, though he gave a begrudging nod of respect as he made his getaway.

The other character? An entrphener with a multi-class into agitator. A trandosian with 3's in everything excluding agility and int. It's a very different game because with only melee the combat situations he can engage in is limited and he isn't very good at killing. However, thankfully his career path makes him killer in face to face nagiations. However unfortunately he is still very limited even given his speciality; he can't really be used where he can't readiably find information, which makes certain encounters highly unfavourable considering other talkers that I have remained around for longer.

In my games, if a player doesn't show up they don't get the experience. It's unfair to the other who did show up and actually role-played. Not to say that real-life is not important. It's all about choices and time management.

In that way, we're different in our group - we don't really view XP as payment for work put in, like getting a paycheck at the end of the work week. Experience is a maker for the advancement of the characters in the story and the general development of 'new tricks' for the protagonists of the series. As such, we generally refer to things such as "the game is at 350xp" rather than dealing with the life or free time commitments of the players in question.

I can see where you're coming from, but I wanted to point out that there is value the other method (besides bookkeeping simplicity) depending on group nature. We are a group of friends that meet weekly, even if Star Wars is only once a month. In the case of our group, friends are why we show up, the game is just what we're doing together that day, so XP doesn't need to be a bribe and would instead serve to countermand the feeling and advice of "real life first" and "what to play this week".

If you run a good table, players already feel punished by not being able to make it. I see no reason to add to their disappointment.

If you run a good table, players already feel punished by not being able to make it. I see no reason to add to their disappointment.

^ I don't get how people are worried about "rewarding" absenteeism, when being present and playing the game is the reward itself.

Are people slogging through lame sessions just to get their hands on a few XP?

If you run a good table, players already feel punished by not being able to make it. I see no reason to add to their disappointment.

^ I don't get how people are worried about "rewarding" absenteeism, when being present and playing the game is the reward itself.

Are people slogging through lame sessions just to get their hands on a few XP?

I guess I'm just lucky. My guys get @$$ed up when they can't make it. There's no need for sanctions beyond missing out.

We are doing a second game nite a week starting in a month or so, and one was stessing and wanted me to flip nites occasionally with the other DM, who runs D&D5E so he can play my EoE and the other D&D both.

Another guy landed from a biz trip one Friday and drove straight from the airport to my house and didn't even go home first because he didn't want to miss out.

Generally my default position is to not grant XP to absent players in other RPGs. I find there are ultimately few balance issues. However, in EotE my group has been asking to award XP on a group level so all characters get their share even if the don't make it. In the end I want everyone to feel good, feel like winners, and be happy so it's no problem for me to just give absent PC's the XP too.

If you run a good table, players already feel punished by not being able to make it. I see no reason to add to their disappointment.

^ I don't get how people are worried about "rewarding" absenteeism, when being present and playing the game is the reward itself.

Are people slogging through lame sessions just to get their hands on a few XP?

I think the phrase "rewarding absenteeism" came out of my mouth, so I'll respond - I agree the reward is the chance to play, but XP comes from playing. Absent players also miss out on the jokes, the snacks, the beer, and the good time. I don't think any of us cares that much about XP in the end, it's the cherry on top so to speak. Thus far there's been no heiney-hurt over it and if there was we'd talk about it and figure it out.

I like to see xp a little more for the character than the player. Its a symbol of life expience rather than a measure of time invested by the player. If the character had an epiphany during the campaign, say something bout his obligation, they may earn more xp for the group as a whole. It's not the player, but the character. If the character isn't out there dealing with the plot then how could he learn and grow?

That being said, I have let players write up something that their character did during their absence from the table for some xp. If they put the effort into creating the story with the group I don't see a reason why I wouldn't give the character xp. The xp is tied to the character, and that's probably from a d20 mindset I may have. I dunno. So while the player is gone, the character can still earn xp and grow. It's a collaborative effort, story telling is.

If you have ever seen "The Gamers," that's exactly what I do. Character kind of just fades out and stands like a statue only to come up for key plot discussions. Gains the same base adventure Exp as the rest of the party but obviously misses out on the bonus Exp from good roleplaying, bringing snacks, etc.

If you have ever seen "The Gamers," that's exactly what I do. Character kind of just fades out and stands like a statue only to come up for key plot discussions. Gains the same base adventure Exp as the rest of the party but obviously misses out on the bonus Exp from good roleplaying, bringing snacks, etc.

I often times pull a "Mark the Red" with our missing PCs. We jokingly refer to putting a character on "Auto follow"

Good movie

Sequels are pretty good too.

I have other players run the characters of the missing players, and they get the full XP if both the character and their character sheet is present. I have 6 players (formerly 7, one dropped out) so the chances that they'll all be there for any given session is slim, and I really can't have PCs dropping out of and back into the story for no good reason (and it would have to be a heluva good reason)

7 players? Phew, brave soul, brave soul indeed.