| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott,
People might pay more attention to your views, or at least respect them more, if you didn't marginalize everyone who doesn't agree with you with every single post you make. You insult everyone who doesn't agree with you with every post, yet you take the moral high ground of saying you don't like to marginalize people in your games. Apparently marginalizing them in every single post you make is ok though.
I believe the appropriate quote is, remove the plank from thine own eye, before thou condemn the splinter in thy brother's eye.
Scott,
People might pay more attention to your views, or at least respect them more, if you didn't marginalize everyone who doesn't agree with you with every single post you make. You insult everyone who doesn't agree with you with every post, yet you take the moral high ground of saying you don't like to marginalize people in your games. Apparently marginalizing them in every single post you make is ok though.I believe the appropriate quote is, remove the plank from thine own eye, before thou condemn the splinter in thy brother's eye.
We're not going to make this about individual posters' conduct, are we?
If you feel that I've insulted anyone, you are absolutely free to use the flag function. I take great care, however, to avoid personal attacks (for an example of what a personal attack looks like, see: your post). People don't like that I disagree with them, and they don't like that I enjoy dismantling arguments and refuting claims. A lot of people confuse that with personal attack or insult, but that's fine.
|
I got rid of xp because I hate bookkeeping. I discovered there are so many advantages, now I can just write adventures and expansions for adventure paths I run without worrying the PCs aren't going to get ahead of the expected level progression.
My players have maintained the game really came alive when I got rid of xp. I have an ensemble group of about 10 players and 15 characters between them. We couldn't do this with xp, because a single stray fireball, or angry Bullette could kill a lower level
PC. The reward for playing the game is playing the game. The punishment for missing a game is missing a game.
Here's the thing, you see games with characters with different amounts of XP and other rewards as showing an inter-player competitiveness. I don't. I can accept when someone's PC has done well (or been played more) and gotten rewarded more than my PC has. He was there, he got the benefit of being there. No problem. I can be happy for him.
Nope, don't see it that way. I have no problem with differing rewards. I don't see that as competitiveness unless the players start acting like it. That can be a problem, real fast. However, by leaving the xp rewards OUT of the equation it is easier for players to accept, "I wasn't here, I missed out."
But the trend has been for everybody to have their hands in everything all the time because nobody seems to be willing to be happy for anybody else getting spotlight time without them. There's a middle ground here in which we don't have to sweat differences in rewards, XPs, short term differences in spotlight time, or fun.
One way I circumvent this is by making it plain that sometimes a player will have the spotlight. I also make it my job to make sure everyone gets a spotlight opportunity also. Usually it is a 5min "opening vignette" or "prologue" at the end of session so everyone gets a shot at the spot.
The players you're marginalizing will feel like it's punishment, no matter what you think it is.It's clear that from your experience, the majority of the players that you've met feel like you do...
Conversely, believe it or not, the majority of players that I've met do not share your sentiments on the matter...
It is not a universal feeling that players feel marginalized, and I think it would be extremely arrogant of somebody to claim that the majority of gamers (in general) feel that way on the matter. I know that am not going to be so arrogant as to believe that the gamers that I've met that feel the same way I do represent the majority of gamers in general (and I've met a heck of a lot of gamers in the last 30 years)...
Ah ha! An old guard. It is chaps like you that taught me 2nd ed.
I was trying to persuade Scott with the, it is not always punishment point before. He really thinks the way I run it is a negative and is surely going to hurt feelings. Scott, I've got better things to do, like making fiendishly nasty traps, bosses, npcs and dungeons/castles. Which may indeed, hurt feelings if the players don't get their way and don't succeed at everything they do, and it isn't actually a challenge. Yep, there are some players it is just so easy to offend, or whom can flip-flop between angry and furious, and praising your game in one session. Lot of different folks out there!
Once, a character died underground, and there wasn't so much of an opportunity to throw in his new character right then and there. As they trekked and got closer to the character "spawn point" I thought, hmm, that guy needs more gaming, so I let him play and control a giant lizard which almost defeated the party single-handedly (it sort of had hands, but more giant clawed hands). Player thought it was great, then, threatened me in an annex because he wasn't playing his new character yet.
The party was in an underground desert unseen by surface humans! Anyway, he got introduced when they got to a surface point and tied to nearby npcs and a very Indiana Jones looting of a temple. Then he was happy again.
Really a dm should just run the game, be clear on the rules and how things are, especially how xp goes if you are slack or not available for gaming, and concentrate on said running of the game and making it prosper. Giving xp for nothing is a lovely discussion topic, as is ensuring there is never a single level disparity, but it just seems nonsensical to me (would a party of heroes really always be the exact same level of ability, no matter what they had done, or that some seemed determined to develop their abilities faster?) so I don't steer the helm in that direction.
Now, in my home campaigns, and most every other campaign I've run, I keep levelling the same.
But some recent experiences with online games have led me to see the merits of a reward system that varies xp, and, if you want, punishment heirarchy for missed play.
This is the system I'm using for my upcoming game:
** spoiler omitted **Essentially it comes down to the difference between online play and face-to-face play. I don't want my time and the time of considerate attententive players wasted. I've been in some very interesting online games with totally spacey players and it detracts from everyone's fun. Mostly, I'm hoping advanced posting of these rules will thin out or eliminate these people from even applying.
Great ideas Reckless. Truly you are sagely, not reckless. I like the right on time bonus especially.
I'm with TOZ and Scott Betts. I can't be bothered with XP anymore, and I find that "Everyone level up!" is generally more fun anyway.
No call no show gets no XP. <---annoys me to no end.Me too! I find that talking to the player helps.
You know I have had to think on this a lot since it happened recently, and it was a friend that did it.
I think I am going with no XP and just let people level up at certain points. As to those who don't show up and dont call which is my real issue I just have to give them a reason to show up. In my case I don't flip out if someone can't make it, nor do I demand to know why a player can't make it. A simple "I can't make it" is good enough for me, but I could not even get that, and there is no good explanation. I have even received texts or calls 2 or 3 hours before the game started to make sure things were still going to go as planned. There was no reason to though. I always cancel 2 weeks in advance if I have to do so. Maybe I should take those game day calls as a hint next time. Knowing I had to drive an hour and not let me know he was not going to make it is not cool at all.The only thing I can think of now is to hold them back a level or just put enough gold in for those that actually show up.
|
Giving xp for nothing is a lovely discussion topic, as is ensuring there is never a single level disparity, but it just seems nonsensical to me (would a party of heroes really always be the exact same level of ability, no matter what they had done, or that some seemed determined to develop their abilities faster?) so I don't steer the helm in that direction.
Even characters of the same level are not at the same level of ability, thanks to different classes, ability scores, skill and feat selections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what this discussion reminds me of? This Canadian short called "Farador D&D", where the two insane guys have been playing forever and are Level 60 or whatever, and insists the guy who rolled a new dude begins at lv1.
Guess I should put an NSFW tag in there, for implied sodomy.
Don't give anyone any ideas TOZ :P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott,
People might pay more attention to your views, or at least respect them more, if you didn't marginalize everyone who doesn't agree with you with every single post you make. You insult everyone who doesn't agree with you with every post, yet you take the moral high ground of saying you don't like to marginalize people in your games. Apparently marginalizing them in every single post you make is ok though.I believe the appropriate quote is, remove the plank from thine own eye, before thou condemn the splinter in thy brother's eye.
We're not going to make this about individual posters' conduct, are we?
If you feel that I've insulted anyone, you are absolutely free to use the flag function. I take great care, however, to avoid personal attacks (for an example of what a personal attack looks like, see: your post). People don't like that I disagree with them, and they don't like that I enjoy dismantling arguments and refuting claims. A lot of people confuse that with personal attack or insult, but that's fine.
You make sweeping statements, saying that anyone who doesn't give everyone the same XP is a 'misguided power tripping DM'. Obviously everyone who doesn't agree with you is having BadWrongFun (TM, Patent Pending). So yes, that is insulting, you marginalize everyone who has an opinion other than yours in a series of sweeping statements, setting yourself up as the judge of everyone else's gaming style. So yeah, that's insulting. Is it a personal insult, like, 'Hey, you stink!'. No, it's not a personal insult. Never said you posted a personal insult, only that you had insulted people with just about every post you made in the last 30 or so.
I will turn your statement back on you, you do not like people disagreeing with you, and you get insulting in response. You cloak it in a passive aggressive 'you people' rather than calling out a specific person and calling them a power tripping DM, but that is a cop out. The behaviour is still as insulting when you blanket sweep everyone you disagree with, and it just hides behind the facade of 'I did not insult you, I insulted everyone that does not agree with me'.
As to me insulting you, you can choose to take my calling you out on your behaviour as an insult. This is a free world, and we are all entitled to our opinions, including you. I suggest you take that to heart though, and realize that people who have an opinion other than yours have just as much right to it as you have to yours. Nor are you the judge of what is 'badwrongfun', despite your attempt to do so. If you don't like how someone runs their games, that's fine, don't play in it. If you want them to change it, give logical reasoned responses. Leave the sweeping 'You are a powertripping DM' insults at home, nobody cares about your opinion when you deliver it in insulting terms.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the appropriate quote is, remove the plank from thine own eye, before thou condemn the splinter in thy brother's eye.You should know by now that Scott is who he is and won't compromise that for anyone. :)
Actually, I don't think I've encountered him on the boards prior to this thread, or I've never noticed him. I just get PO'd when someone starts posting as if they were Moses on high passing judgement on all the BadWrongFun sinners.
You can argue rules interpretations until you're blue in the face, perfectly fine with people disagreeing over rules. And I'm more than willing to admit that I get PO'd sometimes at people and make over sweeping statements. I'm human. But I also see no reason not to call people on it. People call me on it when I do it.
However, in this thread we're not arguing rules, we're arguing philosophy on how to play the game, and the argument even is over house rules (not using XP or giving it out to someone who wasn't there is a house rule), and someone pontificating and making sweeping insults that everyone who doesn't do exactly what they say is a power tripping DM, or is playing the game wrong, or is just trying to punish players, is wrong wrong wrong wrong. Not wrong for arguing what they believe, but for denigrating someone else's playstyle! I'm not really into monty haul games, but if groups enjoy that, then more power to them. It's not WRONG to play that way, it's just wrong for me.
Scott is spouting out that anyone that doesn't play the way he says is playing the game wrong, and nobody has that right. I don't give a flip who they are, or how self righteous they think they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should know by now that Scott is who he is and won't compromise that for anyone. :)
Hmmm, seems I have read something similar before.
Because he holds his position and ignores anything he doesn't have an answer for? At least it seems that way to me. But if he's got nothing else to say, that's fine too.
And? Did you think my comment about Scott was a positive one?
Just an observation. Birds of a feather perhaps. :D
(would a party of heroes really always be the exact same level of ability, no matter what they had done, or that some seemed determined to develop their abilities faster?)
I don't see why not. It's a game. You're not mimicking real life. You're trying to have fun with your friends.
You make sweeping statements, saying that anyone who doesn't give everyone the same XP is a 'misguided power tripping DM'. Obviously everyone who doesn't agree with you is having BadWrongFun (TM, Patent Pending).
I'm not saying that everyone who does things differently from me is misguided and power-tripping. There are probably some DMs who use those policies because their players encourage them to, and that's fine. I'm saying that such a policy is potentially indicative of a power-hungry DM. I stand by that.
So yes, that is insulting, you marginalize everyone who has an opinion other than yours in a series of sweeping statements, setting yourself up as the judge of everyone else's gaming style. So yeah, that's insulting. Is it a personal insult, like, 'Hey, you stink!'. No, it's not a personal insult. Never said you posted a personal insult, only that you had insulted people with just about every post you made in the last 30 or so.
It's not at all my job to avoid accidentally offending anyone on the internet. I am not in control of how people react to argumentation. I try to conduct myself civilly, and I expect the same in return.
I will turn your statement back on you, you do not like people disagreeing with you,
If I didn't enjoy disagreement, I'd probably participate in controversial discussions like this less often.
and you get insulting in response. You cloak it in a passive aggressive 'you people' rather than calling out a specific person and calling them a power tripping DM, but that is a cop out.
I'm letting people decide for themselves which group they feel best describes them. That's not necessarily the most accurate way to go about things, but it is the safest and most equitable.
The behaviour is still as insulting when you blanket sweep everyone you disagree with, and it just hides behind the facade of 'I did not insult you, I insulted everyone that does not agree with me'.
Again, if you choose to be insulted by a valid observation, that's on you. But you're dragging this whole thing wildly off topic for the sake of your own personal moral crusade. You can either use the flag function, or go elsewhere, but I think you've done more than enough thread-crapping in here.
However, in this thread we're not arguing rules, we're arguing philosophy on how to play the game, and the argument even is over house rules (not using XP or giving it out to someone who wasn't there is a house rule),
Not in my system of choice, it's not. Careful, that almost sounded like a sweeping generalization! Maybe I should get offended!
and someone pontificating and making sweeping insults that everyone who doesn't do exactly what they say is a power tripping DM, or is playing the game wrong, or is just trying to punish players, is wrong wrong wrong wrong. Not wrong for arguing what they believe, but for denigrating someone else's playstyle! I'm not really into monty haul games, but if groups enjoy that, then more power to them. It's not WRONG to play that way, it's just wrong for me.
And at no point have I ever said anything like "You should play this way even if your entire group wants to play the other way!"
My argument is that giving all character experience equally, regardless of player attendance, is the best way to go in general. It causes fewer problems, stands less of a chance of putting players off, and has basically no drawbacks whatsoever.
Remember, it's opposites that attract. ;)
James Carville and Mary Matalin must have the angriest, wrinkliest sex on the planet.
How about being called 'ridiculous' and 'cheesy'?
Yep, I have used those to describe rules interpretations. I stand by them to. An individual interpretation can be ridiculous and cheesy. If people want to play with a bunch of cheesy interpretations, and everyone in the group is fine with that, then more power to them. It's not BadWrongFun, it's just cheesy.
Heck, I love Godzilla movies (the Japanese ones) and other B monster movies. They're UNGODLY cheesy, doesn't mean I'm a bad person, just that I have cheesy tastes in movies. If I enjoy them, and I'm not tieing people down and forcing them to watch them, then it's all well and good.
I even watch, gasp, Saturday morning cartoons, which is probably pretty ridiculous for a man of my age. But since I don't force other people to do so, nor do I tell them they're BadWrong for not doing it, I see no issues, nor any hypocrisy.
You are, of course, entitled to think otherwise. :)
How about being called 'ridiculous' and 'cheesy'?Yep, I have used those to describe rules interpretations. I stand by them to. An individual interpretation can be ridiculous and cheesy. If people want to play with a bunch of cheesy interpretations, and everyone in the group is fine with that, then more power to them. It's not BadWrongFun, it's just cheesy.
"It's not BadWrongFun, it's just cheesy."
"It's not BadWrongFun, it's just more likely to marginalize players."
I'd love for you to point out the semantic difference between those two statements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See that's good. With: "I'm saying that such a policy is potentially indicative of a power-hungry DM" and "I'm letting people decide for themselves which group they feel best describes them. That's not necessarily the most accurate way to go about things, but it is the safest and most equitable."
Now you are balancing out. Your hardline stance of the earlier pages is getting a little more open, as you encounter more disagreement and respond to mdt's points on divergent xp not actually being badwrongfun, however you present it. Mdt is now also mainly discussing the tone of your earlier discourse.
To be clear though, you haven't actually been saying "I'm letting people decide for themselves which group they feel best describes them", your opinions have been very firm and convinced. Some call it arrogance when you refuse to see the other point of view, and refuse to see your contrary opinion as even partially valid. As mdt is focused on telling you back in turn, using xp, allowing players to diverge is not a sign of pure evil, or a bad dm play style. I have been adding that players really get easily offended, and it is best to run the game as best as you can, and not always worry about offence. Because while you might want everyone equal, and never want to seem to punish a player, fragile players really exist, and another player that really contributes can feel really ripped off, if they never get any additional xp rewards over a n in-active, uncommitted or half-there player.
Now you can claim you are making "valid observations" and try to rhetorically go for the validity argument. As mdt and I have been saying, it is not actually a giant problem for all players, and a non xp system isn't actually abiding by the ruleset. In 3.5, in pathfinder, there are ways for xp levels between players to become separated--non-attendance, being a better role-player, one character furthering the story through their effors, while others don't. That sort of thing. To use an analogy above, if players want to play a minor character like Geordi, then they can't expect to be the same level as Picard.
What we can learn is simple. If you want to throw stones and try to take the moral high ground and call those below you bad or wrong, then people will attack your high position, throw stones back and attempt to cast you down--because you tried to stand above them. Praise be to Chaotic Good.
And Scott, we are still on topic. How you discuss the topic and what has been said on the topic, is still on topic.
As an aside, I also will have to make a monk of the Badwrongfun style, who tries to uses oratory and goad in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about being called 'ridiculous' and 'cheesy'?Yep, I have used those to describe rules interpretations. I stand by them to. An individual interpretation can be ridiculous and cheesy. If people want to play with a bunch of cheesy interpretations, and everyone in the group is fine with that, then more power to them. It's not BadWrongFun, it's just cheesy."It's not BadWrongFun, it's just cheesy."
"It's not BadWrongFun, it's just more likely to marginalize players."
I'd love for you to point out the semantic difference between those two statements.
chees·y (chz)
adj. chees·i·er, chees·i·est
1. Containing or resembling cheese.
2. Informal Of poor quality; shoddy.
marginalize, marginalise [ˈmɑːdʒɪnəˌlaɪz]
vb
(tr) to relegate to the fringes, out of the mainstream; make seem unimportant
"It's not BadWrongFun, it's just a poorly thought out and shoddy rules interpretation."
"It's not BadWrongFun, it's just relegating players to the the outer fringes to make them seem unimportant, you're way out of the main stream"
Hmm, one passes judgement on a specific interpretation of the rules, the other passes judgement on someone and tells them they are a bad person. I wonder what the difference could be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our group the players have a choice if they can't make the game. Leave their PC or make sure another player or GM has it. Then it gets run like a NPC, controlled by one of the other players. They then earn xp but run the risk of dieing. Or choose not to let their PC by ran like a NPC in which case they don't earn xp.Neither of these options is good. They both suck. You either run the risk of losing a character you're invested in without any narrative control, or you end up lagging behind the party.
Why offer these choices?
Why not just give them the experience and move on with your game? No one's going to complain. And if they complain, they're awful people who would rather feel superior to their friends than allow their friends to feel like as much a part of the group as everyone else at every available opportunity.
Worse case if they choose option two is they end up a level or two behind the main group and that was with a guy that missed a lot. Like DG said even if you earn half the xp that is still roughly only 2 levels behind, with how XP works.For many, many groups (those that play at level 7 or below), 2 levels is the difference between a hero and a cohort.
In the above quote, on page 2, you said the opinions and options (xp for not being there) of someone even of a similar opinion to yourself "suck", and that if players complain about an always equal xp system, they are, and I quote "awful people who would rather feel superior to their friends than allow their friends to feel like as much a part of the group as everyone else at every available opportunity."
So I hope this doesn't get repeated.
Hmm, one passes judgement on a specific interpretation of the rules, the other passes judgement on someone and tells them they are a bad person. I wonder what the difference could be.
Oh good lord.
How does telling someone that their policy stands a chance of marginalizing players count as "passing judgment" on them any more than telling them that their rules interpretation is "cheesy" passes judgment on them?
Because while you might want everyone equal, and never want to seem to punish a player, fragile players really exist, and another player that really contributes can feel really ripped off, if they never get any additional xp rewards over a n in-active, uncommitted or half-there player.
I would be one of those players.
I have been in a game with a GM that gave everyone exactly the same XP, whether they were there or not. It didn't matter how much you contributed to the game, you got the same XP. I tell you it is frustrating to be contributing, roleplaying, going back and forth with other people at the table, and all the while there is one guy at the end of the table who shows up late all the time, who never get's into discussions, who reads the books and surfs the internet during the game, and only looks up when combat starts. And yet, despite his basically being an NPC, of never contributing (oh, but god does he complain if a decision is made that ends up ending badly, even though he never contributed to the decision making), he expects all the same xp, expects a share of the rewards even when he's not there at the game, and doesn't contribute anything. And the GM just rolled over and gave everyone the same XP, no matter what. Even when he was gone, or showed up late, or watched the basketball game on his portable TV during the game.
The result? I gave up playing. I just sat there, shrugged, let the GM control everything, and so did everyone else. We went from having fun and RPing with each other and the GM, going out of our way to find new things to explore, to just showing up to move die counters during combats.
You know what? I NEVER want to play in that sort of 'everyone gets the same thing' again. NEVER! I really really hate the idea that equality has to be in the results instead of the equality of opportunities.
EDIT : Actually, I take part of that back. He wasn't surfing, he was playing games on his portable PC. This was back in the early 90's, so the internet wasn't there to be surfed on. Just so used to saying 'surfing' when someone is spending time on a computer instead of paying attention.
This game actually caused me to quit playing for nearly 2 years, it was that bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, one passes judgement on a specific interpretation of the rules, the other passes judgement on someone and tells them they are a bad person. I wonder what the difference could be.Oh good lord.
How does telling someone that their policy stands a chance of marginalizing players count as "passing judgment" on them any more than telling them that their rules interpretation is "cheesy" passes judgment on them?
The specific statement you used was fairly moderate. It was not your original stance, and I used your original stance, not your now moderated one. See 3.5L's quote above to get an idea of your original stance, or at least how you came across.
I would add, calm down man, it is just some levels.
I've seen some players fixate on level differences, and while they are doing that, they are not closing the gap of the level differences!
:)
Some swordsmen are better than others, some wizards are more powerful than others, some rogues have robbed more people, slit more throats and conned to greater benefit. It is very easy to justify level differences. Such is the way of the world, and the party is just another group within a hopefully believable world.
I will say though, upon meeting at the same level, if they never split, never do anything separate, with one never contributing more than any other, then yes, they should be the same level. Otherwise, divergence.
Because while you might want everyone equal, and never want to seem to punish a player, fragile players really exist, and another player that really contributes can feel really ripped off, if they never get any additional xp rewards over a n in-active, uncommitted or half-there player.I would be one of those players.
I have been in a game with a GM that gave everyone exactly the same XP, whether they were there or not. It didn't matter how much you contributed to the game, you got the same XP. I tell you it is frustrating to be contributing, roleplaying, going back and forth with other people at the table, and all the while there is one guy at the end of the table who shows up late all the time, who never get's into discussions, who reads the books and surfs the internet during the game, and only looks up when combat starts. And yet, despite his basically being an NPC, of never contributing (oh, but god does he complain if a decision is made that ends up ending badly, even though he never contributed to the decision making), he expects all the same xp, expects a share of the rewards even when he's not there at the game, and doesn't contribute anything. And the GM just rolled over and gave everyone the same XP, no matter what. Even when he was gone, or showed up late, or watched the basketball game on his portable TV during the game.
The result? I gave up playing. I just sat there, shrugged, let the GM control everything, and so did everyone else. We went from having fun and RPing with each other and the GM, going out of our way to find new things to explore, to just showing up to move die counters during combats.
You know what? I NEVER want to play in that sort of 'everyone gets the same thing' again. NEVER! I really really hate the idea that equality has to be in the results instead of the equality of opportunities.
I have too mdt, I have too. Come here, I'll pat your snow tiger head. Theeeere, that's good isn't it?
The late arrival, the one who gives less, it is in their interests to oppose any sort of level gap.
I would be one of those players.
I have been in a game with a GM that gave everyone exactly the same XP, whether they were there or not. It didn't matter how much you contributed to the game, you got the same XP. I tell you it is frustrating to be contributing, roleplaying, going back and forth with other people at the table, and all the while there is one guy at the end of the table who shows up late all the time, who never get's into discussions, who reads the books and surfs the internet during the game, and only looks up when combat starts. And yet, despite his basically being an NPC, of never contributing (oh, but god does he complain if a decision is made that ends up ending badly, even though he never contributed to the decision making), he expects all the same xp, expects a share of the rewards even when he's not there at the game, and doesn't contribute anything. And the GM just rolled over and gave everyone the same XP, no matter what. Even when he was gone, or showed up late, or watched the basketball game on his portable TV during the game.
The result? I gave up playing. I just sat there, shrugged, let the GM control everything, and so did everyone else. We went from having fun and RPing with each other and the GM, going out of our way to find new things to explore, to just showing up to move die counters during combats.
You know what? I NEVER want to play in that sort of 'everyone gets the same thing' again. NEVER! I really really hate the idea that equality has to be in the results instead of the equality of opportunities.
EDIT : Actually, I take part of that back. He wasn't surfing, he was playing games on his portable PC. This was back in the early 90's, so the internet wasn't there to be surfed on. Just so used to saying 'surfing' when someone is spending time on a computer instead of paying attention.
This game actually caused me to quit playing for nearly 2 years, it was that bad.
It's clear that you've had a very negative experience that you're chalking up to this very issue, but I want to propose the idea that you're upset with the wrong thing.
Consider that it may not have been the experience policy that bothered you, but rather the fact that you had a clear problem player that the DM refused to address.
Also, it's concerning that your response to the removal of experience points as an incentive was to stop interacting with the game.
He wasn't getting what he deserved. To quote Tyrion Lannister "where is the King's justice?!"
I've been gaming with a dm for some time now, who is against divergent levels. He thinks those below should get more, to catch up quicker. He calls it a balancing mechanic.
Anyway, I have been trying to flog this dm, in the face with all my characters activities. Trying to get more xp, push the game forward, be a total badass rogue (I like playing rogues). And the gap didn't eventuate, it didn't matter what I did.
Until last Thursday, when absences meant the two heroes set off to be cool monster ra***** and move the plot ahead (finally) by finding some important npcs. Now there is divergence, and it has been earned. The characters almost died trying to do their buddy hero thing and breaking from the party. And that is how you become a Lethal Weapon, and above the rest of the group (with two doing more than the other three). We'll see how the dm takes it from here.
As stated in an earlier post, fragile players exist. There have been a couple of examples of such players pointed out. mdt, no argument there. I have come across such players who make at least one of three things their obsession, sometimes all three.
1)Magic item upgrades through shopping or crafting.
2)Having equal xp with everyone else despite contributing the least (choosing the safest and sometimes cowardly route)
3)Expecting to be able to abuse their power and push over ALL npcs with zero consequences.
1)I'll paint an example of each point. In the second darkness campaign run, I was invited by the DM to play certain npcs which I was more than happy to do (supporting cast instead of lead actor/actress). The abjurer in the party started off so cool. Gained a couple of levels and went into crafting. This I could deal with but it reached the point where just deciding what to craft for himself and the party took something like over half an hour. Hence began second darkness, the accounting chronicles.
2)In the kingmaker campaign run, One PC was a ranger while the other was a wizard. The ranger was off killing nasties, rescuing the damsel in distress etc. The other PC was a wizard who went to brevoy to do the merchant thing. I tried to push for him to explore the city, get afew side quests, even enter into potential discussions with sages (social encounters). He was very clear on what he did. Sold the wares, bought stuff to take back to the recently formed community of Freemia. Nothing wrong with that but he later said there was a discrepancy in xp and frowned. Another example would be the warlock who said "you guys go ahead, I'll support you from 200 feet back." (lol)
3) There was a crimson throne campaign run where a necromancer killed the seneschal but didn't properly dispose of the body or tie up loose ends. Had to make certain rolls and such but because of the sloppy attempt, he was arrested and lets just say it didn't end well. The player didn't chuck a huge fuss but he tried the other thing of trying to garner sympathy and saying he had to go. Sheesh. Fragile indeed.
You make the rust monster cry, equalizer. True words have been typed above.
To be fair, I did let one of the damsels die equaliser. Because I was trying to kill MOAR monsters!
|
In the above quote, on page 2, you said the opinions and options (xp for not being there) of someone even of a similar opinion to yourself "suck", and that if players complain about an always equal xp system, they are, and I quote "awful people who would rather feel superior to their friends than allow their friends to feel like as much a part of the group as everyone else at every available opportunity."
So I hope this doesn't get repeated.
I wouldn't say I had a similar view to Scott. My views and opinion on the subject falls somewhere between the two opposed views. To be more clear for our group. There is the base xp you get for killing stuff. Then their is some bonus xp for doing other stuff. Either RPing, coming up with a good tactic or what have you. In the case of someone not showing if they leave their PC with the group to be NPCed, they earn the base xp which is most of the xp earned. But can't earn the other xp. The group also votes by the players after each game session on who they thought RPed the best and said player gets bonus xp.
The way we do xp as a group was discussed and decided long ago as a group and who ever GM's abids by the same xp rules, cause that's how we as a group like it.
Just wanted to be clear on my stance since I got quoted. :)
I'm with TOZ and Scott Betts. I can't be bothered with XP anymore, and I find that "Everyone level up!" is generally more fun anyway.
No call no show gets no XP. <---annoys me to no end.Me too! I find that talking to the player helps.You know I have had to think on this a lot since it happened recently, and it was a friend that did it.
I think I am going with no XP and just let people level up at certain points. As to those who don't show up and dont call which is my real issue I just have to give them a reason to show up. In my case I don't flip out if someone can't make it, nor do I demand to know why a player can't make it. A simple "I can't make it" is good enough for me, but I could not even get that, and there is no good explanation. I have even received texts or calls 2 or 3 hours before the game started to make sure things were still going to go as planned. There was no reason to though. I always cancel 2 weeks in advance if I have to do so. Maybe I should take those game day calls as a hint next time. Knowing I had to drive an hour and not let me know he was not going to make it is not cool at all.The only thing I can think of now is to hold them back a level or just put enough gold in for those that actually show up.
Oh that sucks dude! Especially a friend pulling the no-show sh*t and wasting two hours of your time...I've seen friends break up over less.
I've had fraintances (friend-acquaintances) who swear up and down they'll be at the game...and then flake out without telling anyone. Eventually I had to file them in my Non-D&D Friends file, or sometimes I just had to find better friends. Sometimes talking works, sometimes ya gotta move on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty close to Dark_Mistress.
If you have a good reason for not showing up (sick kid, out of town for work, sick) then no harm no foul. I don't punish people for such things. Or at least I try not to (sometimes I might forget when doing xp a week later or something, but if it's called out, I fix it). But having a regularly scheduled game is a social contract. Other people make time in their schedules to be there. If you can't be bothered to show up because you'd rather play X-Box with your coworkers, or you want to go to a poker tournament, or you're going hunting for deer, then you have said that your time is more important than everyone elses that week. And that is a perfectly valid statement (my time is more important to me than yours, we all feel that way at times).
However, your contract with me was broken, and expecting to gain all the benefits of fulfilling that social commitment without actually doing it makes me feel as if you are minimalizing my time and efforts, whether I am GM or player. Basically, to me, you're saying you are more important than anyone, and that your character must get all the shinies or else, because you're the wonderful golden child, and the other people can go suck it.
I have no problem with other people getting more XP than me. I have no problem with other people getting less xp than me. So long as we both have equal opportunity for XP/goodies/etc. Again, the idea that eventualities must be equal, rather than opportunities, is anathema to me.
To Scott, yes, the GM was part of the problem. So was his policy, and so was the player. You talk about punishing people by not giving xp, I say it is not punishment. I say that if you give the same XP to everyone, you are instead rewarding those who do not put forth a reasonable effort to fulfill their half of the social contract we entered into.
I should point out that my point of view is from a game that does not use XP at all. So there is nothing to be earned in the first place.
I think most of us are talking from a point of view from Pathfinder, or at least other standard RPGs. I don't think I've ever run a game that didn't use XP to track character advancement. Might not have been called xp (Character points, build points, xp, etc). The only one that comes close is Star Trek by FASA. They didn't have XP per say, but they did have pts that defined what skills/attributes you had, and you rolled after each game to see if you went up a skill point (percentile based, so if you used a skill, and it was at 75, and you rolled 78, then you went up to 76). But that's still exp of a type, it's just randomized.
Yeah, 3.5 D&D, just no XP given, tracked, nothing.
Then all due respect TOZ, your view is not from a game that doesn't use XP. Your point of view is from your own houseruled version of a game that does use XP. There is a difference.
If I might point out though, there is no difference between a game with no xp and one in which everyone get's the same xp. Everyone still levels up whenever the GM feels like them leveling up. It's six tokens vs half a dozen counters.
|
Two levels below is a lot, unless you are playing at really high levels. The difference between a level 7 pc and a level 9 pc is HUGE, especially if you have the appropriate wealth for your level. I don't think that anyone in my group except for the most experienced players would survive (or be able to usefully contribute) at 2 levels less than the others (heck, just contributing at parity requires that the most experienced players have to pull their punches).
Unless the guy two levels lower is a total idiot, this is usually not the case. I often game with a lower level character, and while some combats can be tougher, playing well at a lower level is not really a handicap. Common sense will apply for both the DM and the group; if you're unsure you can melee a creature the other members are engaging, switch to ranged attacks, etc, etc. ANY level of player can make useful contributions. For a fighter: It's not hard to hit AC 10 to assist someone in combat. And unless you're fighting something the highest level character is truly in danger from, you should be able to take a few hits while making yourself useful. Plus as has beens ated, new characters are often more streamlined toward a single role.
In a game I played in a while back the DM brought every new player in at EXP equal to the highest player, the game itself had a high attrition rate and had a lot of people coming and going but the premise was sound and I had fun playing. That was until close to when I left, at that point there were only two people from the original party (at least from where I started, he himself was the sole survivor from the first group), myself and one other. The other fellow had been in the game a bit longer than I and he had a bit of a gap going for him so it made sense that he would hit the next level before me. The party setup when I left was 4 PC's at level 7-8 and myself at level 5, I was playing a druid and because my attempts to help were so minuscule in comparison to the level 7 fighter and the level 8 sorc/ranger it just came down to me being the guy carrying the bags.
I'm telling you right now, being a lower level player in a game where everyone's higher than you is a huge letdown. You end up feeling useless and as someone said before it's a viscous cycle. You get in the mindset where you yourself think you're useless and so you're less proactive in combat and roleplay.
I do get that some people should be rewarded for showing up or not but it'd be better that it's awarded in the form of wealth, not exp.
Well your level doesn't determine how productive you are in roleplaying--you aren't stopped from talking because you are a level or two below. A level 4 with skill focus diplomacy and max ranks is better at diplomacy than a level 6 with max ranks, assuming charisma is the same.
Emphasise bluff, dip or intimidate and you can always add something to the non combat parts of the game, no matter your level.
If weaker, skirmish more, support the other players and you should level up just fine. Become really involved with the plot and npcs and you can make yourself feel indispensable even if you are technically weaker than any other party member.
If the game runs by the old 3.5 rule of new characters start 1 level lower, simply out last the other players. There are plenty of ways to do this. Then they will come in one level below you, and you will be at the top. Near tpk for the ROFLMAO turn of events.