RPGs, Fairness and Fun


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

As of last weekend, I have rage-quit another tabletop gaming group. I've had to leave gaming groups for multiple reasons: moving out of town, time constraints, problems with players, just not enjoying the setting. However, the ones I actually rage-quit from all had one feature in common: the game masters (GM's from here on out) had truly f#*&ed up notions of what makes for a fair and fun gaming experience; to date, I've rage-quit four such groups. Hmm, come to think of it, there are two other common features: they've all been in the Houston area, and the offending GM's have all been staunchly conservative. Rather than go over what was wrong with each GM, I'll just deal with the primary offense with the pair of GMs in my latest group.

Both of the GM's in question had the standard traditional practice of giving out experience only to those who attended the games in question. They also gave out bonus experience for excellent (in their opinion) role-playing, for writing up campaign logs, for bringing snacks, for cooking, and so on. It's fairly standard practice for many games and gaming groups, and on the surface it may look like a good one. After all, it makes sense to reward extra effort!

However, in practice, it doesn't tend to work out so well, and it didn't work out well in this group. Sometimes, players couldn't contribute with cooking, food and so on, and so they fell behind. Sometimes, players couldn't attend a gaming session, and they fell further behind. By the end of one campaign, one player's character had become a demigod, and I don't mean that in terms of hyperbole; my and my friend's character were getting by on the middle tier; meanwhile the two latecomers to the campaign, whom I might add began at zero experience, were getting overwhelmed on a regular basis. This same GM had started a new game in a different system and setting, and due to the particulars, most of us needed to keep multiple characters and play only one of them in a session; the result was that each player with multiple characters got proportionately less experience per character, while those who could stick with one had a clear advantage. The other GM had similar practices, and as could be expected, played favorites with his good role-playing bonus awards.

I eventually (and recently) got into an intense argument over what I consider to be bad practices. One GM was at least lukewarm on my idea of giving the experience to each player rather than each character, and letting each character have the full benefit of said experience, thus eliminating the multiple character experience issue. However, they steadfastly refused to budge an inch when I said that the only way to be fair about experience was to give every player the same experience, no matter what. They said it was unfair to those who did more work, that only powergamers and the weak gamers would favor it, and it them. I strongly suspect that their staunch conservatism was at the heart of their intransigence. It didn't even matter to them when I suggested that the bonus experience be shared. Between that and other issues, I quit with much rage.

Just how hard is it to get that preferential awards actually get in the way of the fun and the fairness in non-competitive games such as role-playing games?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Cougar... several separate issues going on here. Not even sure I want to address some of them...

First, you have identified some of the reasons I stopped giving out XP at all some time ago and level up my players now as a group and according to story needs.

However, I've never been part of a gaming group that gave out XP for bringing snacks or cooking or other non-gaming related activities. Doing so would just exacerbate my concerns with how XP is used.

So I'm with you on the whole XP is done in ways that are actually detrimental to the game play thing.

But rage-quitting multiple times? For any reason? Claiming that a GM is somehow a worse GM due to geography or political ideology?

Dude.

Issues.


Ignoring the uncalled for "political commentary"...

Yeah it's a bad practice. It benefits nobody but someone who likes to see players struggle and gets off on their frustration.

Also anyone who uses the phrase "weak gamers" should be thwacked upside the head. That's just...really?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't show, why should you get any experience? That makes no sense.
That being said, I think bribing people who bring food with experience is bad form. XP are earned for in game activity, not meta activity.
However, if you have "rage quit" four groups, I would strongly suggest looking in the mirror for the primary source of your problem.
And perhaps consider a new hobby.


Cougar wrote:
As of last weekend, I have rage-quit another tabletop gaming group. I've had to leave gaming groups for multiple reasons: moving out of town, time constraints, problems with players, just not enjoying the setting. However, the ones I actually rage-quit from all had one feature in common: the game masters (GM's from here on out) had truly f&&~ed up notions of what makes for a fair and fun gaming experience; to date, I've rage-quit four such groups. Hmm, come to think of it, there are two other common features: they've all been in the Houston area, and the offending GM's have all been staunchly conservative. Rather than go over what was wrong with each GM, I'll just deal with the primary offense with the pair of GMs in my latest group.

It sounds like you had a string of pretty lackluster GMs who believed that a game played with friends should operate under the same set of rules that they believe real life ought to operate. So not only do they have a deeply flawed set of personal beliefs, they then chose to apply those beliefs to a game and actually thought that was for the best.

Now, while I'm glad to hear you got out, I don't know that I like the idea of rage-quitting anything. We don't know the details, so I'm imagining everything from a civil separation masking internal anger (which is totally fine) to a straight up table flip and slam the door routine. Be mindful of your own reactions; someone being a terrible GM isn't an excuse for poor behavior.


I've seen the best results of this 'bonus' exp happen only when it directly came from the game. As I've found it, players and gm have to value the game, and each other to get maximum enjoyment. that's what rewards should be given out for. When I've run strong homebrew games, I learned from a friend gm about rewarding excellent RP, making the game great. I only penalized someone for missing games consecutively. If they missed one, they earned the group share, but if they bugger off, then they deserve to miss out because other people are relying on them. A person who has the group in gales of laughter from a simple statement deserves rewards. What I had tried to do is make the reward a separate exp track, wherein they earned the rights to open up race options, special powers, or spend it much like hero points are used nowdays.

The problem lies in the effort to accrue that extra exp, where the players ham it up for no real purpose. Everything falls down to cheesey play so it again, becomes burdensome.

one rule has proven true. Keep it Simple and Stupid. Don't do anything extra, and if players can't show for a game don't penalize them, but don't overvalue them either. If they stop going, move on and maybe invite another friend to jump in.

As far as you suffering from this, maybe try running a few games, address the issues you have by demonstrating your approach to it. Sometimes it really is up to you to master your own world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Kirsch wrote:
If you don't show, why should you get any experience? That makes no sense.

Because sometimes s%!! happens and you can't make a game. Have to work that day. Family emergency. You're sick as a dog. Whatever.

It already sucks that you've missed a session of something you enjoy, and missed out on all the interactions with your friends and characters and all the events that happened in said session.

No reason to kick a man while he's down by also saying "Yeah your character is a level behind everyone else now".


Bill Kirsch wrote:
If you don't show, why should you get any experience? That makes no sense.

Because this is a game, not your work life. The game is much less enjoyable for people who are not able to make every game, especially in the long run as the experience gap becomes wide enough to result in a multiple-level gap.

It takes, like, ten seconds of serious thought to figure out why it's a bad policy.


Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Kirsch wrote:
If you don't show, why should you get any experience? That makes no sense.

Because this is a game, not your work life. The game is much less enjoyable for people who are not able to make every game, especially in the long run as the experience gap becomes wide enough to result in a multiple-level gap.

It takes, like, ten seconds of serious thought to figure out why it's a bad policy.

I think it sounds like a problematic policy if taken completely as written here. I wouldn't like it for *my* game.

That said, you have no way of knowing whether or not it is an awesome policy creating a ton of fun for that specific group. The choice between losing a habitual rage-quitter and changing their system to suite on person seems an easy selection. One I think I could make in far less than 10 seconds even without being a fan of the specific in question for my own game.


Rynjin wrote:
Bill Kirsch wrote:
If you don't show, why should you get any experience? That makes no sense.

Because sometimes s$~* happens and you can't make a game. Have to work that day. Family emergency. You're sick as a dog. Whatever.

It already sucks that you've missed a session of something you enjoy, and missed out on all the interactions with your friends and characters and all the events that happened in said session.

No reason to kick a man while he's down by also saying "Yeah your character is a level behind everyone else now".

And that is unfortunate. But giving them the same XP as the people who did show up is unfair to them. So you are a little behind now. Life is unfair sometimes. Suck it up, role-play harder and earn back the XP you lost. You will catch up again eventually.


Scott Betts wrote:


Yes, I do. It caused one of the players to quit the group. It is patently obvious that it is not working out for the group as a whole. Now, you could make the continuing argument that it's good for all the people remaining in the group (which you don't know either), but you'd be forced to admit that that's argumentatively equivalent to saying, "It's a good policy for all the people who think it's a good policy," which holds very little meaning.

On balance, it's a terrible policy for your typical group that does much more harm than good.

It's not a huge change, and it will make the game run more smoothly. It is also very likely that, in one of those groups, there has been at least one other player who has not rage quit, but for whom the game is becoming steadily less enjoyable as he sees his ability to influence the game rapidly outpaced by others who are able to show up to every single game.

You know that this person has quite FOUR different groups by his own words.

You know nothing about these groups other than the words of someone who self-describes as emotional.

You don't know that your policies are best for them.


BryonD wrote:
A little thoughtfulness and consideration of the source and context.

Which I've given. If my thoughtfulness and consideration don't meet your standards, you'll have to live with that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Kirsch wrote:


And that is unfortunate. But giving them the same XP as the people who did show up is unfair to them.

How so? IN WHAT WAY is not being ahead (not behind, just not AHEAD) of someone unfair to another?

And even if it were, as you said yourself:

Bill Kirsch wrote:
Life is unfair sometimes.

But hey, you know what? Everybody being on even footing doesn't hurt anyone's enjoyment of the game. Unless they're a selfish prick. And if they are, why are you playing with them?

Bill Kirsch wrote:
Suck it up, role-play harder

So you assume they're worse at roleplaying and need to do better if they miss a session?

What?

Bill Kirsch wrote:
and earn back the XP you lost. You will catch up again eventually.

Catching up "eventually" isn't an issue in groups which don't implement this asinine rule.

I'm not saying these groups are superior...but man they sure do make less problems for themselves.


BryonD wrote:
You know nothing about these groups other than the words of someone who self-describes as emotional.

And I am operating under the assumption that he is telling the truth. Which seems like the correct way to operate, to me. You, on the other hand, are operating under the assumption that he is lying until proven otherwise. That seems counter-productive and unnecessarily hostile.


Oh good, this thread again.

For the record, my groups seem to enjoy the party XP method I use.


Here is why it is unfair:

1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, RPed, risked their characters, used consumables such as potions and wand charges. They earn 333 XP each for their effort.

Versus

1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, one didn't. His character is on auto pilot and did nothing to help because they left him at the inn. They now earn 250 XP each instead to support the free loader.

That is unfair.

Now, if somebody is playing the absentee character during the adventure and thus the character is supporting the party in their efforts, then they should get some XP.


Did the dms explain to u how they run their games? If they explained before hand before u gotstarted then...shrug u knew what u was getting into. If they just popped it up during play outta nowhere then I'd say u have a right to be upset.
BUT sadly its the dms rules. Their might be a reason why they play the way they have and it might have ran flawlessly before u showed up or whatever. Key thing is, a dm is allowed to runvthe ganevthey see fit and as a player u are allowed to either take it on the chin, relax about it, or find another group.
It is only a game and that point should be taken from both sides of the arguement. Dm shouldrun a game that is fun for everybody or the majority and themselves andbthe players should realize its just a gane to have fun with. If either sidebisnt having fun, then either changes need to be made or at the very worse the player needs to leave and find a grp that theybare having fun with or the dm needs to find a grp that enjoysbtbeir style of dming.

If all else fails, be a dm urself and start ur own grps.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


"Suck it up, work harder, earn back the money you want. You will catch up eventually," is, like, the bedrock foundation of conservative economic ideology.

I have always discovered, when I dig deeply enough, that most people form opinions of other people not from having interacted with those people, but from accepting stereotypes and prejudice about them based on their own personal perspectives.

Thanks for demonstrating the process so clearly Scott.

Done here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Kirsch wrote:
That is unfair.

That's why I don't do individual XP.

Hey, where did Jeff go? This is his first post in years, he should stick around!


Bill Kirsch wrote:

Here is why it is unfair:

1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, RPed, risked their characters, used consumables such as potions and wand charges. They earn 333 XP each for their effort.

Versus

1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, one didn't. His character is on auto pilot and did nothing to help because they left him at the inn. They now earn 250 XP each instead to support the free loader.

That is unfair.

No, it's not. Give them all 333 XP, and then when the missing player returns give him enough XP to bring him up to the same value as the rest of the party.


BryonD wrote:

Hah!

So person A accuses group B of something with no evidence.
Group B is guilty until proven innocent.
To claim otherwise is the terrible crime of finding person A guilty until proven innocent. Interesting system there.

No, someone claimed something and I'm taking them at their word in the absence of my suspicions being aroused otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


"Suck it up, work harder, earn back the money you want. You will catch up eventually," is, like, the bedrock foundation of conservative economic ideology.

I have always discovered, when I dig deeply enough, that most people form opinions of other people not from having interacted with those people, but from accepting stereotypes and prejudice about them based on their own personal perspectives.

Thanks for demonstrating the process so clearly Scott.

Done here.

Make that four personal attacks.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Kirsch wrote:

Here is why it is unfair:

1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, RPed, risked their characters, used consumables such as potions and wand charges. They earn 333 XP each for their effort.

Versus

1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, one didn't. His character is on auto pilot and did nothing to help because they left him at the inn. They now earn 250 XP each instead to support the free loader.

That is unfair.

And in exchange, the guy didn't get to play the game. It's not like this is some kind of chore, where he's being rewarded for not coming, it's a GAME.

You'd think missing hours of hanging out with his friends would be punishment enough without his so called friends calling him a freeloader and making his character fall behind because they're too selfish to let him have some numbers on his sheet.


For doing nothing?

I don't think so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Kirsch wrote:

For doing nothing?

I don't think so.

Do you seriously believe that your players have an obligation to earn their ability to participate on even footing in a cooperative game they play with their friends?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Kirsch wrote:
For doing nothing?

'Missing the game' is nothing?


i think everyone can agree that progressives and conservatives are all full of it:)

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / RPGs, Fairness and Fun All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.