So I had a quest written out, and one of the players was lacking in magic items so I had the quest give a magic sword to my fighter. The quest was a short one, I was expecting it to be completed in a single session but the players managed to drag it out for 2 sessions. The reward for completing the quest was a +1 greatsword, which I had planned out, I like to play that what I have planned is what happens, whether it's a fight that could be a TPK they choose not to run from or if the choice of the players dictates where the story goes, I feel like that gives player agency (I'm not a dick and trying to kill them, but I want them to feel threatened if they make bad choices).
Well, this quest the fighter didn't show up for either session as he was working, so the other guys played on as normal and got the magic item and it turned out to be for the fighter. I think that one of the players was a bit miffed that this was the reward, a magic item for a guy who didn't show up.
So my question to you guys who are all most likely a more experienced DM than me (I only started in January!), should I have modified the reward to give to a player who was there, or keep to my pre-written script which helps balances the party?
Further info, most other players have magic items, the fighter was lacking a bit in the "pizazz" department.
Player agency means not everyone gets what they want. If they aren't happy to give the sword to the fighter when they come back, they may be a problem and you should all talk it over. If only one player was "a bit miffed", that's nothing to worry about. I have decided that in my own games, the threshold is two. I get two complains, we deal with it from there.
ok, thanks man. I was happy to stand by what was written, considering they already have several magic items (as they looted first and decided to keep the item for themselves and not hand it out).
I don't believe in rewarding people that show up, I try to keep it fair down the line so we have complete balance, and thats what I was going for, it was just unfortunate that the other guys dealt with something that resulted in the player not there being rewarded. But they got the story and nearly had an NPC talking crab join their party :)
I only have what you wrote to go on, but it sounds like the other players are being childish. If the fighter hits more and does more damage, that helps the entire party. They should be happy for their friend, and glad that a party member is now going to be more effective. And it's doubly bad they're annoyed at a guy who had to work. It' not like he was just home lying on the couch and didn't feel like coming. He had a very good reason.
To answer your question. No, I wouldn't change what was available based on who was there. I try to give out goodies to everyone about evenly, and I never penalize someone for missing a session. Life happens.
It sounds like this situation would have benefitted from some additional foreshadowing. The problem wasn't that they got a reward they couldn't use, but rather that they had expectations that didn't align with reality. If they knew early on that there was a chance of obtaining a magical sword, then they would have had the opportunity to make an informed decision. By continuing the quest with this knowledge, supporting their friend would have been part of the reward, as opposed to a consolation prize.
Half the challenge of telling a good story is managing expectations.
The other issue may be that you and your players aren't on the same page. You are attempting to maintain a sense of continuity throughout the campaign, while your players seem to be focusing on an episodic quest-by-quest "game". Giving them reasons to establish long term goals could help considerably.
Edit: If you know that something isn't going to have the right impact, for whatever reason, you can also use it as a lead-up to something else. If the sword was given to the party by an NPC, then the NPC could reveal something that the rest of the part would care about. For example, maybe the sword is rumored to serve as a key to a lost vault. Then, it becomes a Wonderous Item, that the fighter just happens to be able to swing around.
If you can make an item useful for everyone, but more useful for one particular character, then you can conceal your true intentions by letting them come to natural conclusions.
I don't think you did anything "wrong" but I think players being miffed about some relatively low powered characters finding the "cool thing" going to the player who's missed two session is understandable. It's not a game ender but especially events like that sort of "tell" that the game is "constructed" and since everyone would have clearly recognized this treasure was like the fighter's moment, envy or not they know the game's tonally off. Basically there's a "wow, you should've been there" enthusiastic recounting of the session and there's "well, you should have been there" that sorta implies some of the fun of the game was diluted for the player missing their moment.
Yes life happens and mature players understand real life takes precedence. You identified the fighter's need for a sword. That's fair, though I imagine everyone including the fighter would have thought it would have been better had the PC actually earned it fully present. So I'd have found some way to defer the awarding till a session the fighter was actually there for. I mean, don't you think the fighter's player would have enjoyed the moment of discovery and possession actually in game rather than an administrative note at the start of the session "you'll see you now have a +1 sword."
I have players with a very demanding real life job and lives too, it's understood those lives take precedence over game, like most I presume. However, it's also understood, sort of our social contract I guess, that no "major moments" including acquisitions are going to happen during those absences. Basically they're de facto DMPCs during such sessions and more so are back-seating it unless the table calls onto some capacity of the character and/or combat (which they'll largely "phone in"). When I have "designs" for a particular character and they're not there, I'll defer or stall or transpose. They used to call these pencil and paper RPGs, literally not set in stone.
I see a couple different things I’d like to touch on here:
First and foremost, nobody can really tell you what you “should have done,” least of all me. What I can tell you is what I think I would have done in that situation given the facts you have provided.
In my experience, it doesn’t really matter in the long run if you change something like that or keep it the same. I have found that what it might be is way more important than what it is. Do they know it’s a +1 Greatsword? If so, do they know that’s all it is? Could it possibly turn out to be a tiny bit more and therefore a future plot device two or three adventures from now? Maybe it’s something they would actively wish to keep away from some as yet unknown BBE? Is it possibly cursed? Remember, they have absolutely no idea what anything is until you tell them.
I have found that “pre-written” anythings, specifically “scripts” are like kryptonite for my campaigns. I have outlines and overall plot points, but that’s as far as I write anything until I’m planning for the next session. Almost nothing is set in stone until I open a session with the same question I always use: “who remembers where we were when last we left our heroes?” And even after that very little is set in stone until it actually happens. (Not even stuff like Monster HP. They have no idea how many it had at the start of combat, only how many it lost by the end. If those two numbers aren’t the same, they will never know.)
For your the disappointed players don’t have to give it to the fighter. They could always try to sell it, or use it as a potential gift or bribe to butter up an NPC, or something.
Whenever I toss in magic items with the specific intention of giving a specific PC a personal little boost, I have a system to help minimize potential circumstances such as the one you describe:
I include those items as early-mid quest finds, not main quest rewards. After all, such items are intentional power-up included for the express purpose of bringing a specific character up to balance with the rest of the party. So I try to get those items to the party relatively quickly to bring about such balance before the iniquity becomes an issue.
I mentally keep those items as “floating rewards” I can include at an opportune time to make sure the intended character can’t miss it. The player would basically have to actively choose to not take it at that point.
Instead of something “off the rack,” I either tailor an official item , or else create one custom. I do so with both that PC and the player in mind. I try to make it specifically appealing to that person and that character to make sure the chances of them choosing to not claim that item as low as I possibly can. That frequently means creating something that at least appears mechanically unique(ish), but not always. Lots of times a little bit of “flavor” can accomplish the same goal without the extra work.z For example, give the exact same sword a name the player or character will love and maybe include a sentence or two of narrative text. Maybe that PC has something in their backstory about a family member being killed by scarabs or something. Name a sword “Verminslayer” and give it little feature that relates, but isn’t too powerful. Maybe Once/day it can be activated and grant resistance to damage from swarms for 1 minute. 🤷♂️
Do you remember “Sting” from TLotR? Gandalf basically handed it off to Bilbo almost as an afterthought. They fount it halfway through the book, right next to two much more powerful and legendary weapons. It was something fairly low-grade that nobody else really wanted or needed, so they let the tiny little burglar have it as a souvenir. If that were a D&D party, what had happened was….
The DM realized that Bilbo was at most a 3rd-level Halfling Rogue with nothing but his britches and a large appetite. The rest of the party included 13 other PCs, and a Party NPC. The PCs were all Dwarves, a mix of Fighters & Barbarians, ranging from 6th-10th level, and each already had at least one common and one uncommon magic item or two uncommon magic items, maybe Thorin had an uncommon and a rare. And the party had also just found another rare and a very rare in the same cave. (The DM probably put the PNPC in there as means of at least trying to keep al 14 players somewhat pointed in roughly the same direction. Oh yeah, and as a piece of emergency glass in case of apparent TPK. Probably thought they might need it since all 14 PCs were martial classes characters ofrom to fight an ancient red dragon.) But this was Bilbo’s very first magic item and the DM wanted to make something special. Maybe something like this:
Sting
Weapon (shortsword), common
Being the work of Elvish smiths in the Elder Days this magic swords shines with a cold light, if any Orcs or Goblins are near at hand. Such creatures instinctively know to be wary of this sting.
The blade sheds 5-feet of dim light whenever one or more Orcs or Goblinoids are within 30 feet.
In addition, while wielding this magic weapon, you have advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks against Orcs and Goblinoids.
That the kind of thing I would drop in to add some “pizazz” for a particular PC, and under a similar situation too. As a magic weapon it automatically overcomes “resistance to B, P, and S from nonmagical attacks.” But otherwise it’s a itty bitty baby version of a Weapon of Warning flavored a little like a moon-touched sword, and offers a simple bump to something still useful during combat, but not attack/damage related. It was literally pushed into Bilbo’s possession without a peep from the other PCs. The only way that noob hobbit wasn’t gonna own that sword would be if he had intentionally ditched it or flat out refused.
I try to keep it fair down the line so we have complete balance….
If I can help you with nothing else, I hope I can at least help with this one thing:
Even if every player had an identical character, there is absolutely no possible way, at all, under any circumstances ever that you can achieve anything even remotely resembling something that can pass for existing in the same galaxy as “complete balance.” The best you can ever truly hope for is “sortakinda mostly balanced… ish… at least for a few sessions.”
Don’t fall into the trap of chasing a white whale that doesn’t really exist.
I would look at how likely that player is to consistently play, and whether that reward would be better served going to someone else. If it is unlikely that the player is going to return, or will be inconsistent, I can understand the other players feeling disappointed, especially if it is an item only that player can really use. I would change it to something else on the spot, If I wasn't sure, I might do as others suggested and let it be a tie-in to another part of the quest.
I let the dice decide what magic is given. There is a world of magic out there, and they are bound to find stuff that they can't use or don't want.
As for the things must happen as I write them. They call this term 'Railroading" as it leaves the players with little choice but to go down that path. The important thing with railroading is the players don't know they are being railroaded.
DM is like having a plan. The number one rule of a plan is, it doesn't survive contact with the enemy. In this case imagination and role play are the 'enemy'. Also happen to be exactly what the game is about.
Be flexible and go with what they do. Have a few mini encounters or mini adventures planned that you can drop where they go, and that brings them back to your goal.
The issue is that you sent them on a sub-quest, that turned into 8-12 hours worth of gameplay, for a reward that nobody who went on the quest could use. I'm afraid to say that this is a mistake, if there was seemingly no reward to doing all that work and taking those risks. It may have felt to your players like you were giving a reward to a character who was not present for any of the action, and they have not earned it, whilst the rest of the party did the work and earned nothing.
When you found that the player was going to miss not one, but two sessions in a row, you should have changed the magic item reward. What you should have done was change the weapon type to any other +1 item that someone in the party could use.
Normally I would not say "you should have done" anything specific, but in this specific case, you rewarded a character who was not present for the work that the rest of the party, who had put in the time, had done. Your players may well feel that this is favouritism - and it was. You put in a whole quest and reward for one specific character. A +1 weapon is just a basic Uncommon item, and it could easily be included just by giving it to an enemy NPC who gets despatched along the way, and claimed by the party.
When I include treasure like this, it's either used by an enemy, or it's random stuff that I rolled up. I also include powerful, tailor made weapons and other items that are story-driven and tailored for specific characters (these are the most powerful items they find), but they are connected to big plot points that won't happen when someone is away.
I ought to know better. I was just reading the last post and I saw the mistake I made. I had a good therapist point out that the word "should" means "I knew better, but I did it anyway" when you apply it to yourself. It's a subtle point, but when you see people do that a lot, it means they know they were wrong and they are trying to justify that.
"So my question to you guys who are all most likely a more experienced DM than me (I only started in January!), should I have modified the reward to give to a player who was there, or keep to my pre-written script which helps balances the party?
Further info, most other players have magic items, the fighter was lacking a bit in the "pizazz" department."
I doubt the person asking the question was familiar with the subtle distinction between should and "ought" but I do, so it's likely that they realized to some degree that they had made a mistake, or they would not have asked. What I ought to have said is that it's not a good idea to give out a magic item intended for a given single player just for "pizazz".
I ought to know better than to that. I apologize to everyone, including the original poster.
The issue is that you sent them on a sub-quest, that turned into 8-12 hours worth of gameplay, for a reward that nobody who went on the quest could use. I'm afraid to say that this is a mistake, if there was seemingly no reward to doing all that work and taking those risks. It may have felt to your players like you were giving a reward to a character who was not present for any of the action, and they have not earned it, whilst the rest of the party did the work and earned nothing.
When you found that the player was going to miss not one, but two sessions in a row, you should have changed the magic item reward. What you should have done was change the weapon type to any other +1 item that someone in the party could use.
Normally I would not say "you should have done" anything specific, but in this specific case, you rewarded a character who was not present for the work that the rest of the party, who had put in the time, had done. Your players may well feel that this is favouritism - and it was. You put in a whole quest and reward for one specific character. A +1 weapon is just a basic Uncommon item, and it could easily be included just by giving it to an enemy NPC who gets despatched along the way, and claimed by the party.
When I include treasure like this, it's either used by an enemy, or it's random stuff that I rolled up. I also include powerful, tailor made weapons and other items that are story-driven and tailored for specific characters (these are the most powerful items they find), but they are connected to big plot points that won't happen when someone is away.
This is pretty harsh to throw at a new DM. OP is learning how to adjust on the fly...
Hey guys, thanks for all the input, some really interesting points there. A couple of bits of detail I suppose I should have added was that they didn't know there was a reward for completing the quest, it was actually the "miffed" player that was being charmed by a cursed book he has been reading to approach an eery pulsing light from a lighthouse (the tower of storms quest from DOIP). This fit in perfect with the overall story of the campaign, they are trying to take out followers of Talos, and that was a shrine to him. The player actually enjoyed the concept of the quest and enjoyed wanting to protect the light when the other members of the party wanted to destroy it.
Theres a talking crab at the start of the quest that says he can get them something from one of the sunken ships if he helps a wraith, that was planned to be the sword. I didn't know until about 20 minutes before each of the sessions that he wouldn't be turning up, and I haven't quite got there yet with being able to think of things on the spot.
One lesson I'm learning is that players love to be rewarded, but what I'm still trying to grasp is the best way to reward them whilst keeping it fair to all! I suppose "fairness" comes in different forms, whether it be everyone has a magic item and they each get them in turn, or the player who deserves it most gets one. In my original post I mentioned complete balance, I'm not referring to balancing the combat as such, but more the coolness of a character or variety they can have. By no means is it an optimised party, but they are all characters the guys think are fun to play, so I balance my fights based on their AC and Damage that I think they can handle, and have been doing that pretty well so far with close fights when Iexpect them to be and a small string of easy-ish but slowly draining encounters at other times.
In the real world, we are, all of us, Human, and we make mistakes from time to time. I don't know of anyone who is all that good at predicting the future. It may have been a mistake to have an item intended of a specific player, but what ended up happening wasn't your fault, and if someone else felt "miffed" that's fine too.
As far as how to give out loot? It's your game, do as you like. In my games I tend to run things by the seat of my pants, so I'll roll randomly before the fight if I can, let the monsters use any magic items they are able to use, and let the party decide, without my input, who gets what. If I don't have time, I just roll randomly after the fight, and let the players decide. If someone asks me about why that +1 greatsword wasn't used, I'll say "Hey, random roll, argue with the dice if you want to, but mine never seem to listen to me."
So in the end, my vote is to modify things, and let the players figure it out.
As a DM, I have objects that are there for certain players, or sometimes objects that are useful for anyone, or sometimes stuff that is just there. I usually let the players figure out how to distribute the community objects, but it is not hard to make objects that only certain players will want. problem comes when you have weapons/objects that multiple players really want. I think it best to leave it to the party. But I will modify things sometimes so if the module has a potion of healing, I might make it one for each PC, but if it has a +4 Sword of World Domination...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I had a quest written out, and one of the players was lacking in magic items so I had the quest give a magic sword to my fighter. The quest was a short one, I was expecting it to be completed in a single session but the players managed to drag it out for 2 sessions. The reward for completing the quest was a +1 greatsword, which I had planned out, I like to play that what I have planned is what happens, whether it's a fight that could be a TPK they choose not to run from or if the choice of the players dictates where the story goes, I feel like that gives player agency (I'm not a dick and trying to kill them, but I want them to feel threatened if they make bad choices).
Well, this quest the fighter didn't show up for either session as he was working, so the other guys played on as normal and got the magic item and it turned out to be for the fighter. I think that one of the players was a bit miffed that this was the reward, a magic item for a guy who didn't show up.
So my question to you guys who are all most likely a more experienced DM than me (I only started in January!), should I have modified the reward to give to a player who was there, or keep to my pre-written script which helps balances the party?
Further info, most other players have magic items, the fighter was lacking a bit in the "pizazz" department.
Player agency means not everyone gets what they want. If they aren't happy to give the sword to the fighter when they come back, they may be a problem and you should all talk it over. If only one player was "a bit miffed", that's nothing to worry about. I have decided that in my own games, the threshold is two. I get two complains, we deal with it from there.
<Insert clever signature here>
ok, thanks man. I was happy to stand by what was written, considering they already have several magic items (as they looted first and decided to keep the item for themselves and not hand it out).
I don't believe in rewarding people that show up, I try to keep it fair down the line so we have complete balance, and thats what I was going for, it was just unfortunate that the other guys dealt with something that resulted in the player not there being rewarded. But they got the story and nearly had an NPC talking crab join their party :)
I only have what you wrote to go on, but it sounds like the other players are being childish. If the fighter hits more and does more damage, that helps the entire party. They should be happy for their friend, and glad that a party member is now going to be more effective. And it's doubly bad they're annoyed at a guy who had to work. It' not like he was just home lying on the couch and didn't feel like coming. He had a very good reason.
To answer your question. No, I wouldn't change what was available based on who was there. I try to give out goodies to everyone about evenly, and I never penalize someone for missing a session. Life happens.
It sounds like this situation would have benefitted from some additional foreshadowing. The problem wasn't that they got a reward they couldn't use, but rather that they had expectations that didn't align with reality. If they knew early on that there was a chance of obtaining a magical sword, then they would have had the opportunity to make an informed decision. By continuing the quest with this knowledge, supporting their friend would have been part of the reward, as opposed to a consolation prize.
Half the challenge of telling a good story is managing expectations.
The other issue may be that you and your players aren't on the same page. You are attempting to maintain a sense of continuity throughout the campaign, while your players seem to be focusing on an episodic quest-by-quest "game". Giving them reasons to establish long term goals could help considerably.
Edit: If you know that something isn't going to have the right impact, for whatever reason, you can also use it as a lead-up to something else. If the sword was given to the party by an NPC, then the NPC could reveal something that the rest of the part would care about. For example, maybe the sword is rumored to serve as a key to a lost vault. Then, it becomes a Wonderous Item, that the fighter just happens to be able to swing around.
If you can make an item useful for everyone, but more useful for one particular character, then you can conceal your true intentions by letting them come to natural conclusions.
I don't think you did anything "wrong" but I think players being miffed about some relatively low powered characters finding the "cool thing" going to the player who's missed two session is understandable. It's not a game ender but especially events like that sort of "tell" that the game is "constructed" and since everyone would have clearly recognized this treasure was like the fighter's moment, envy or not they know the game's tonally off. Basically there's a "wow, you should've been there" enthusiastic recounting of the session and there's "well, you should have been there" that sorta implies some of the fun of the game was diluted for the player missing their moment.
Yes life happens and mature players understand real life takes precedence. You identified the fighter's need for a sword. That's fair, though I imagine everyone including the fighter would have thought it would have been better had the PC actually earned it fully present. So I'd have found some way to defer the awarding till a session the fighter was actually there for. I mean, don't you think the fighter's player would have enjoyed the moment of discovery and possession actually in game rather than an administrative note at the start of the session "you'll see you now have a +1 sword."
I have players with a very demanding real life job and lives too, it's understood those lives take precedence over game, like most I presume. However, it's also understood, sort of our social contract I guess, that no "major moments" including acquisitions are going to happen during those absences. Basically they're de facto DMPCs during such sessions and more so are back-seating it unless the table calls onto some capacity of the character and/or combat (which they'll largely "phone in"). When I have "designs" for a particular character and they're not there, I'll defer or stall or transpose. They used to call these pencil and paper RPGs, literally not set in stone.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I see a couple different things I’d like to touch on here:
First and foremost, nobody can really tell you what you “should have done,” least of all me. What I can tell you is what I think I would have done in that situation given the facts you have provided.
In my experience, it doesn’t really matter in the long run if you change something like that or keep it the same. I have found that what it might be is way more important than what it is. Do they know it’s a +1 Greatsword? If so, do they know that’s all it is? Could it possibly turn out to be a tiny bit more and therefore a future plot device two or three adventures from now? Maybe it’s something they would actively wish to keep away from some as yet unknown BBE? Is it possibly cursed? Remember, they have absolutely no idea what anything is until you tell them.
I have found that “pre-written” anythings, specifically “scripts” are like kryptonite for my campaigns. I have outlines and overall plot points, but that’s as far as I write anything until I’m planning for the next session. Almost nothing is set in stone until I open a session with the same question I always use: “who remembers where we were when last we left our heroes?” And even after that very little is set in stone until it actually happens. (Not even stuff like Monster HP. They have no idea how many it had at the start of combat, only how many it lost by the end. If those two numbers aren’t the same, they will never know.)
For your the disappointed players don’t have to give it to the fighter. They could always try to sell it, or use it as a potential gift or bribe to butter up an NPC, or something.
Whenever I toss in magic items with the specific intention of giving a specific PC a personal little boost, I have a system to help minimize potential circumstances such as the one you describe:
For example, give the exact same sword a name the player or character will love and maybe include a sentence or two of narrative text. Maybe that PC has something in their backstory about a family member being killed by scarabs or something. Name a sword “Verminslayer” and give it little feature that relates, but isn’t too powerful. Maybe Once/day it can be activated and grant resistance to damage from swarms for 1 minute. 🤷♂️
Do you remember “Sting” from TLotR? Gandalf basically handed it off to Bilbo almost as an afterthought. They fount it halfway through the book, right next to two much more powerful and legendary weapons. It was something fairly low-grade that nobody else really wanted or needed, so they let the tiny little burglar have it as a souvenir. If that were a D&D party, what had happened was….
The DM realized that Bilbo was at most a 3rd-level Halfling Rogue with nothing but his britches and a large appetite. The rest of the party included 13 other PCs, and a Party NPC. The PCs were all Dwarves, a mix of Fighters & Barbarians, ranging from 6th-10th level, and each already had at least one common and one uncommon magic item or two uncommon magic items, maybe Thorin had an uncommon and a rare. And the party had also just found another rare and a very rare in the same cave. (The DM probably put the PNPC in there as means of at least trying to keep al 14 players somewhat pointed in roughly the same direction. Oh yeah, and as a piece of emergency glass in case of apparent TPK. Probably thought they might need it since all 14 PCs were martial classes characters ofrom to fight an ancient red dragon.)
But this was Bilbo’s very first magic item and the DM wanted to make something special. Maybe something like this:
Sting
Being the work of Elvish smiths in the Elder Days this magic swords shines with a cold light, if any Orcs or Goblins are near at hand. Such creatures instinctively know to be wary of this sting.
The blade sheds 5-feet of dim light whenever one or more Orcs or Goblinoids are within 30 feet.
In addition, while wielding this magic weapon, you have advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks against Orcs and Goblinoids.
That the kind of thing I would drop in to add some “pizazz” for a particular PC, and under a similar situation too. As a magic weapon it automatically overcomes “resistance to B, P, and S from nonmagical attacks.” But otherwise it’s a itty bitty baby version of a Weapon of Warning flavored a little like a moon-touched sword, and offers a simple bump to something still useful during combat, but not attack/damage related. It was literally pushed into Bilbo’s possession without a peep from the other PCs. The only way that noob hobbit wasn’t gonna own that sword would be if he had intentionally ditched it or flat out refused.
See what I mean?
I hope at least some of that helps.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If I can help you with nothing else, I hope I can at least help with this one thing:
Don’t fall into the trap of chasing a white whale that doesn’t really exist.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would look at how likely that player is to consistently play, and whether that reward would be better served going to someone else. If it is unlikely that the player is going to return, or will be inconsistent, I can understand the other players feeling disappointed, especially if it is an item only that player can really use. I would change it to something else on the spot, If I wasn't sure, I might do as others suggested and let it be a tie-in to another part of the quest.
I let the dice decide what magic is given. There is a world of magic out there, and they are bound to find stuff that they can't use or don't want.
As for the things must happen as I write them. They call this term 'Railroading" as it leaves the players with little choice but to go down that path. The important thing with railroading is the players don't know they are being railroaded.
DM is like having a plan. The number one rule of a plan is, it doesn't survive contact with the enemy. In this case imagination and role play are the 'enemy'. Also happen to be exactly what the game is about.
Be flexible and go with what they do. Have a few mini encounters or mini adventures planned that you can drop where they go, and that brings them back to your goal.
The issue is that you sent them on a sub-quest, that turned into 8-12 hours worth of gameplay, for a reward that nobody who went on the quest could use. I'm afraid to say that this is a mistake, if there was seemingly no reward to doing all that work and taking those risks. It may have felt to your players like you were giving a reward to a character who was not present for any of the action, and they have not earned it, whilst the rest of the party did the work and earned nothing.
When you found that the player was going to miss not one, but two sessions in a row, you should have changed the magic item reward. What you should have done was change the weapon type to any other +1 item that someone in the party could use.
Normally I would not say "you should have done" anything specific, but in this specific case, you rewarded a character who was not present for the work that the rest of the party, who had put in the time, had done. Your players may well feel that this is favouritism - and it was. You put in a whole quest and reward for one specific character. A +1 weapon is just a basic Uncommon item, and it could easily be included just by giving it to an enemy NPC who gets despatched along the way, and claimed by the party.
When I include treasure like this, it's either used by an enemy, or it's random stuff that I rolled up. I also include powerful, tailor made weapons and other items that are story-driven and tailored for specific characters (these are the most powerful items they find), but they are connected to big plot points that won't happen when someone is away.
I ought to know better. I was just reading the last post and I saw the mistake I made. I had a good therapist point out that the word "should" means "I knew better, but I did it anyway" when you apply it to yourself. It's a subtle point, but when you see people do that a lot, it means they know they were wrong and they are trying to justify that.
"So my question to you guys who are all most likely a more experienced DM than me (I only started in January!), should I have modified the reward to give to a player who was there, or keep to my pre-written script which helps balances the party?
Further info, most other players have magic items, the fighter was lacking a bit in the "pizazz" department."
I doubt the person asking the question was familiar with the subtle distinction between should and "ought" but I do, so it's likely that they realized to some degree that they had made a mistake, or they would not have asked. What I ought to have said is that it's not a good idea to give out a magic item intended for a given single player just for "pizazz".
I ought to know better than to that. I apologize to everyone, including the original poster.
<Insert clever signature here>
This is pretty harsh to throw at a new DM. OP is learning how to adjust on the fly...
Hey guys, thanks for all the input, some really interesting points there. A couple of bits of detail I suppose I should have added was that they didn't know there was a reward for completing the quest, it was actually the "miffed" player that was being charmed by a cursed book he has been reading to approach an eery pulsing light from a lighthouse (the tower of storms quest from DOIP). This fit in perfect with the overall story of the campaign, they are trying to take out followers of Talos, and that was a shrine to him. The player actually enjoyed the concept of the quest and enjoyed wanting to protect the light when the other members of the party wanted to destroy it.
Theres a talking crab at the start of the quest that says he can get them something from one of the sunken ships if he helps a wraith, that was planned to be the sword. I didn't know until about 20 minutes before each of the sessions that he wouldn't be turning up, and I haven't quite got there yet with being able to think of things on the spot.
One lesson I'm learning is that players love to be rewarded, but what I'm still trying to grasp is the best way to reward them whilst keeping it fair to all! I suppose "fairness" comes in different forms, whether it be everyone has a magic item and they each get them in turn, or the player who deserves it most gets one. In my original post I mentioned complete balance, I'm not referring to balancing the combat as such, but more the coolness of a character or variety they can have. By no means is it an optimised party, but they are all characters the guys think are fun to play, so I balance my fights based on their AC and Damage that I think they can handle, and have been doing that pretty well so far with close fights when Iexpect them to be and a small string of easy-ish but slowly draining encounters at other times.
In the real world, we are, all of us, Human, and we make mistakes from time to time. I don't know of anyone who is all that good at predicting the future. It may have been a mistake to have an item intended of a specific player, but what ended up happening wasn't your fault, and if someone else felt "miffed" that's fine too.
As far as how to give out loot? It's your game, do as you like. In my games I tend to run things by the seat of my pants, so I'll roll randomly before the fight if I can, let the monsters use any magic items they are able to use, and let the party decide, without my input, who gets what. If I don't have time, I just roll randomly after the fight, and let the players decide. If someone asks me about why that +1 greatsword wasn't used, I'll say "Hey, random roll, argue with the dice if you want to, but mine never seem to listen to me."
So in the end, my vote is to modify things, and let the players figure it out.
<Insert clever signature here>
As a DM, I have objects that are there for certain players, or sometimes objects that are useful for anyone, or sometimes stuff that is just there. I usually let the players figure out how to distribute the community objects, but it is not hard to make objects that only certain players will want. problem comes when you have weapons/objects that multiple players really want. I think it best to leave it to the party. But I will modify things sometimes so if the module has a potion of healing, I might make it one for each PC, but if it has a +4 Sword of World Domination...