I think I agree with you that skill-based advancement is more "realistic" than levels, but I'm not sure I can see any version of D&D working that way.
Wait wait, I mean, keep going!!
Skills vs. levels is an old school scream-at-the-walls, gamer-on-gamer-violence issue, and if we keep this thing going past New Year's I may just win the sadness scavenger hunt!
...I don't know and I don't care? :P
We're going to need separate pizzas mdt. :)
No help for it, I'm allergic to pork.
There is competition in dnd games all the time, and it isn't necessarily a negative.
I never said it is.
And Tequila Sunrise, seriously, I don't know how else to say it, my group's tracking xp is NOT about one-upping anyone else in the group. It's not a competition. All it is to us is a measure of character advancement, and tells us how soon til we level up again. That's it. We have players who join up for a while and take breaks, everyone at the table are good friends who just enjoy the game. There is no competition. I really don't know how else to say it, or why you keep looking for things that are not there.
My previous response to you regarding one-upsmanship wasn't a unilateral statement, nor directed at you. I think it is about one-upsmanship for some players, but if you say it ain't so in your group I believe you.
PS: Didn't they make someone eat M&M pizza on Fear Factor? I don't even care for M&Ms on their own!
|
You people are destroying my diet!
Luther burger.
Take a Crispy Kreme donut, cut it in half, grill the halves cut-side down. Make the burger small enough to fit on the "buns". When done, insert burger and condiments between donut halve, with the cut sides outward.
Approx. 1000 calories per burger after the usual suggested condiments.
Do note that its inventor, Luther Vandross, did pass from heart failure.
|
We're going to need separate pizzas mdt. :)
Jerry: XP is just as metagame as levels. Realistic is 'the skill you're using improves' regardless of being a class skill or what. Having to wait for a set number of experience to accrue before any improvement shows is unrealistic.
Ever played Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, or any other game that uses Chaosium's BRP system? Skills work exactly like that. You put a check next to skills that you use during an adventure, and after the adventure is over, you roll a skill check. If you succeed, then it stays the same. If you fail, then it shows that you've learned enough during your experiences during the adventure to improve the skill by a bit.
No, really. I don't want to read what you're saying the wrong way, but the structure of what you're saying makes it hard.
I'll translate for you.
Shorter 3.5L : Umbral would be SOL in my game.
|
For a fighter: It's not hard to hit AC 10 to assist someone in combat.Boy, that's how I want to spend my D&D time - rolling against AC 10 to give the party fighter a +2 bonus to his attack.
Woohoo.
I mean, really. That's the support? "Being two levels behind isn't bad! Sure, you might end up doing nothing but giving the fighter little bonuses to attack now and then, but hey, at least you're rolling a die!"
If that's the limit of your ability to contribute, then the problem's not with your level. And that was just one example, for perhaps meleeing a AC that's high for you to hit.
FASA Star Trek worked the same way. All d100 rolls. Skills went from 1 to 99.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...That’s a pretty heavy-handed assumption. It’s not about one-upping other party members at all. It’s about putting time into the hobby and seeing your character progress for it. Just because some of us track XP doesn’t mean we are trying to out-do the other players, maybe we just like keeping marks for things accomplished, like a personal high-score.What’s clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.
Clearly you folks aren’t thinking of XP as a competition, but that’s what it is. If you’re doing it as a personal high-score thing, like Monica’s Thanksgiving self-competition*, that’s fine too. But it’s competition all the same, and I’m not sure it’s any cooler than the one-upsmanship kind.
Anyway, some of the comments on this thread have convinced me that it is about one-upsmanship for some players. I mean c’mon, 3.5L commented that “D&D isn’t a welfare state, you have to earn XP” and mdt says “if you’re going to play then man up and play”! Those comments make no sense -- welfare and manliness have nothing to do with D&D. (Well maybe the latter quality has an inverse relationship with D&D, but I digress.) I’m sure people on this thread don’t have screaming matches or fist fights over XP, but these are the kind of totally irrational claims that the really competitive sports players and fans use to justify their desire for competition.
You yourself talk about putting time, effort and investment in the game as if playing requires some kind of work ethic. As if playing the game isn’t its own reward. I’m sure your game is a lot of fun, but these kind of comments make it sound like work.
*XP for anyone who saw that Friends episode!
Really, go with the party
Remember the damage competition between Choi and Haru? Good times.
There is nothing wrong with being a support character. Look at bards.
Bards are support characters with cool things to do.
A character reduced to having to roll Aid Another checks in combat in order to contribute does not have cool things to do.
That's the difference.
Scott talks about "punishing" a player that doesn't get the same xp's despite not being present to get them, but what about "punishing" the players that DID show up; those players that hired babysitters, rescheduled work, rescheduled practice, etc, who made themselves available to fulfill that social contract, who are treated on the same level as the player who might as well have been sitting home watching football?
Except that they're not treated on the same level as the other player. They got to play D&D. The other guy didn't.
To me, THAT is punishment.
Why? For not getting a special imaginary bonus for showing up to a social activity? That's punishment to you, but playing a character reduced to sidekick status because of real-life scheduling conflicts isn't?
The mind boggles.
"Gee guys, I know you went through a lot to be here tonight, and Billy decided playing Call of Duty was more important than your time, so I'm gonna go ahead and give Billy equal xp and loot. Deal?"
First: Why do you let Billy play in your game in the first place?
Second: Why do your players care? They get to play D&D!
Having had a player who was battling stage 4 colon cancer, I can say truthfully that I sympathize fully, and would never give someone in a medical issue issues about their disabilities affecting their gameplay or their ability to be at the game.
There is a huge difference between being disabled/fighting cancer/fibromyalgia/etc and just wanting to go to the movies this week, or forgetting about the game (yes, I have had people forget about a weekly game).
I know this get's bandied about a bit, but.. find a new GM. Seriously. You need one who has some human empathy.
Let me get this straight.
It's not punishment when you don't get XP for missing a game.
But if you have a medical issue, we'll give you the XP anyway. I mean, it's not punishment to miss out on XP, but it would be mean not to give it to you.
Is that the logic, here?
It's not punishment, but if you're sick it is so we shouldn't do it?
I don't allow level differences in the party.
This, I also don't hold a gaming session if one or more of the members can't make it. If that means we only play once or twice every two months then so be it, but the order of importance for my games is as follows:
1)Making sure the game is fun
2)Telling my (the party's) story
If I meet both of those then everything else is usually fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you have a medical issue, we'll give you the XP anyway. I mean, it's not punishment to miss out on XP, but it would be mean not to give it to you.
Is that the logic, here?
It's not punishment, but if you're sick it is so we shouldn't do it?
Because someone who blows off a game occasionally to go play x-box is not missing many games. If they're missing every other game to go play x-box, or go to a movie, or whatever, I'll just ask them to stop showing up at all.
Someone who is battling an illness, on the other hand, is not missing the game because they want to do something else. They are missing the game because they are battling an illness. I don't penalize that because someone battling an illness is going to miss regularly, and they may only get to do one thing a month that is fun for them.
And yes, it's not a punishment. The giving extra xp to the person who is battling an illness is a courtesy and a bit of charitable compassion. I can have charitable compassion without someone claiming my not giving compassion to someone else being punishment.
Or at least, I had assumed I could, until this conversation. Apparently not.
I don't penalize that because someone battling an illness is going to miss regularly, and they may only get to do one thing a month that is fun for them.
I'll note the word "penalize" here. That will be important in about five...four...
And yes, it's not a punishment.
And here's the cognitive dissonance!
When you elect to give full XP to the character of a sick person who misses a game, by your own admission you are electing not to penalize them!
But when you prevent a character from gaining XP because his player chose not to show up, it's not punishment!
Clearly, to your mind, penalizing someone and punishing someone are not at all alike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem with arguing with people, you end up using their terms and then they say 'Ah, see, you agree with me'.
|
[old codger] I could not have even fathomed having this kind of discussion back when teachers were able to mark a big fat red "F" on their student's homework (when they deserved it) without fear of ostracizing the student, nor back when all little-league and kid's soccer games around the country actually kept score...
Times have certainly changed...
Now you kids GET OFF MY LAWN! [/old codger] ;-P
Scott talks about "punishing" a player that doesn't get the same xp's despite not being present to get them, but what about "punishing" the players that DID show up; those players that hired babysitters, rescheduled work, rescheduled practice, etc, who made themselves available to fulfill that social contract, who are treated on the same level as the player who might as well have been sitting home watching football?Except that they're not treated on the same level as the other player. They got to play D&D. The other guy didn't.
Life sucks like that sometimes. Things come up and we don't get to play our imaginary board game. Life goes on.
To me, THAT is punishment.Why? For not getting a special imaginary bonus for showing up to a social activity? That's punishment to you, but playing a character reduced to sidekick status because of real-life scheduling conflicts isn't?
The mind boggles.
What "bonus" are we talking about here? Because the people who actually made it to the game got what they would normally get for playing the game?
For the Nth time, special cases can be made. If someone indeed has to work, has a sick kid, whatever the case may be, 99% of the time I put the whole game on hold. That way nobody misses out. No "bonuses" or whatever it is you're talking about. If someone has to miss multiple sessions, other arrangements will be made so they can keep up with the party.
Missing one session once in a long while will not set a player back "multiple levels, etc." Even if we have a full evening of encounters, the level difference is practically negligible. I'm a player in a group with players at various xp/character levels and we get along just fine.
You have a weird way of considering normal game xp a "bonus", and players not getting what they didn't play to get a "penalty". The mind boggles indeed. If My Call of Duty clan/group plays a night without me, the game doesn't automatically give me bonus xp's just because the group played. I don't expect any game to automatically do that, tablet-top, video, etc.
Can I call off work(not use a sick day/personal day) and expect my boss to give me full-pay for not being there? Gaming is supposed to be fun, but there IS work involved. And work can actually be very fun and fulfilling(sorry if yours is not). There is a time investment, a creative investment, and a social contract.
"Gee guys, I know you went through a lot to be here tonight, and Billy decided playing Call of Duty was more important than your time, so I'm gonna go ahead and give Billy equal xp and loot. Deal?"First: Why do you let Billy play in your game in the first place?
Second: Why do your players care? They get to play D&D!
If you're going to go there...
I like how you left out the part where I used it as an extreme example. Why let "Billy" play in the first place? Maybe he's a close friend, maybe he's an awesome role-player. Maybe his character is the one carrying the magical McGuffin and took his character sheet home with him. Maybe he's carrying the hand-drawn map. Maybe he just got a new game he pre-ordered 6 months ago and wants to play it that night(happened with Skyrim and my entire group). I can do this all day.
My players would care for all the above reasons, in addition to the fact that they set aside time in their personal lives for gaming. Put off other people, worked around plans, hired babysitters, spent gas money and time getting to the game just to find out there's no gaming, the works. If the game can go on without his character, and he's fine with it, then we just might proceed to game without him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[old codger] I could not have even fathomed having this kind of discussion back when teachers were able to mark a big fat red "F" on their student's homework (when they deserved it) without fear of ostracizing the student, nor back when all little-league and kid's soccer games around the country actually kept score...
Times have certainly changed...
Now you kids GET OFF MY LAWN! [/old codger] ;-P
People here just like to argue and type big werds actin' all smarty 'n stuff. It could be over what kind of cheese people prefer on their sandwiches, and you'd get a 10 page debate with people copy/pasting wiki, flaunting obscure cheese lore, and as many opinions they can force as facts as possible.
People like to argue and inflate their egos. Hell, I've said probably 5 times in this thread; NONE of this even matters, just go with what works best for your group.
Nope, lets' fight over preferences. It's just about the only thing left that isn't politics or religion.
|
XP is tedious, but necessary still. 3 of my campaigns track XP, 1 does not. None of them are severely out of wack, although one of them might get there.
XP is about players being rewarded for doing things and contributing, and I personally hate when other players get the same rewards that I do when they don't show up. It's entitlement, and I hate entitlement.
I wish I can just have my PFS Venture-Captain give me levels when I miss a game, but it doesn't work that way. It's a commitment to have fun sure, but other people are still affected by the commitment.
|
|
That's the problem with arguing with people, you end up using their terms and then they say 'Ah, see, you agree with me'.
So you don't give XP to someone that chooses not to show up, but you give it to those unable to show up. The difference being that one had a choice, and was aware he would not receive XP, and accepted that result.
|
|
I don't allow level differences in the party.This, I also don't hold a gaming session if one or more of the members can't make it. If that means we only play once or twice every two months then so be it
I find I can't do that, since I'm running an adventure path, and in the military, so there is no guarantee we'll be able to finish it if we don't play every chance we get. The fact I have 6-8 players at any one time also makes it hard to avoid someone being gone each week.
I find I can't do that, since I'm running an adventure path, and in the military, so there is no guarantee we'll be able to finish it if we don't play every chance we get. The fact I have 6-8 players at any one time also makes it hard to avoid someone being gone each week.I don't allow level differences in the party.This, I also don't hold a gaming session if one or more of the members can't make it. If that means we only play once or twice every two months then so be it
I guess it is a luxury of only having 4 players so that its actually possible to schedule something everybody can attend. It also helps that we are all pretty young so no kids or full time jobs. It just irks me when somebody has to miss out on the story and I fight tooth and nail to avoid it.
|
|
That's another issue in itself. The couple who host the group (since my house is an hour away from everyone elses) are recently married and just had their first child. One player is married with a 3 year old and a newborn. One is married with at least one kid. I'm not sure about the two new players that just joined while I was away, but I think at least one of them is married. And our last player brought his girlfriend to the group, and has since married her.
Dang, the married population in my group just exploded when I wasn't looking.
That's the problem with arguing with people, you end up using their terms and then they say 'Ah, see, you agree with me'.So you don't give XP to someone that chooses not to show up, but you give it to those unable to show up. The difference being that one had a choice, and was aware he would not receive XP, and accepted that result.
Yeah, thanks TOZ. It's been a long week. :) The cedar count caught me by surprise, I ended up using a sick day thursday. Feel like I got beat by the bad news bears baseball bats. :) Although it's usually half given out to those who chose not to show up.
On a bright side, wife and I got the greenlight today from the mortage comapny, so we're going house hunting next month. :) :) :)
PS: Sent you an e-mail a few days ago, let me know if you didn't get it.
No problem, just wanted to make sure it got through. :)
Alternate weeks aren't a problem for me.
It depends on the campaign if a level difference matters. If the campaign is almost entirely combat, it will matter more than if the campaign is more balanced. If the campaign is mostly roleplay, it won't matter at all. The other big difference is how well the DM works the characters into the world; the more he works the characters into the story, the more circumstances, story, and player decisions will determine who has the spotlight at any given time, not level or mechanics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the campaign if a level difference matters. If the campaign is almost entirely combat, it will matter more than if the campaign is more balanced. If the campaign is mostly roleplay, it won't matter at all. The other big difference is how well the DM works the characters into the world; the more he works the characters into the story, the more circumstances, story, and player decisions will determine who has the spotlight at any given time, not level or mechanics.
Rational well thought out points have not place on the internet.
Now pick a side and get your flame thrower. :)
I loved those old rules. Every gold piece counts as an xp. IIRC, a 1st level Thief needed 1250 xp and at least 1500 gold to level. More if the DM didn't like how he played his character.
It also assumes a certain play style. Short adventures with lots of down time at a home base. Certainly no world-spanning quests with lots of time-pressure.
That kind of thing is why we dropped the training rules early on. We didn't want to play "murderous hobos" looting dungeons for profit, we wanted to play fantasy heroes, saving the world or at least the town.
I loved the old rules about xp as well, and have been pondering bringing them in and refreshing them a little.
[old codger] I could not have even fathomed having this kind of discussion back when teachers were able to mark a big fat red "F" on their student's homework (when they deserved it) without fear of ostracizing the student, nor back when all little-league and kid's soccer games around the country actually kept score...
Times have certainly changed...
Now you kids GET OFF MY LAWN! [/old codger] ;-P
The times, they are a changin.
D&D is effected by changes in culture, the ideas of self esteem, fair play, not punishing or ostracising people. Interesting that the culture sides with the... victim, even if nothing truly negative is implemented--to not give something for free becomes an evil. Curious (sociologist-tard here).
That's another issue in itself. The couple who host the group (since my house is an hour away from everyone elses) are recently married and just had their first child. One player is married with a 3 year old and a newborn. One is married with at least one kid. I'm not sure about the two new players that just joined while I was away, but I think at least one of them is married. And our last player brought his girlfriend to the group, and has since married her.
Dang, the married population in my group just exploded when I wasn't looking.
Ha ha, turns out the alignment of the actual players was orthodox breeder neutral .
Do they say to you "one of usss, become one of ussss."
I strongly dislike the increased emphasis on loot those rules inspire. Not only can gold be traded for better gear, but just getting it makes you tougher too.
Contrast emphasis on loot with emphasis on killing stuff. Which is better? The former allows PCs to advance by avoiding dangerous encounters to still get to the goals of the adventure. Fortune and glory. The latter, you have to beat everything up.
The latter really isn't better than the former.
I strongly dislike the increased emphasis on loot those rules inspire. Not only can gold be traded for better gear, but just getting it makes you tougher too.
Contrast emphasis on loot with emphasis on killing stuff. Which is better? The former allows PCs to advance by avoiding dangerous encounters to still get to the goals of the adventure. Fortune and glory. The latter, you have to beat everything up.
The latter really isn't better than the former.
How is this relevant?
In every recent version of D&D, including 3rd, Pathfinder, and 4th, PCs receive experience for overcoming challenges, even if they manage to overcome the challenge in a way other than killing all the monsters in combat.
I think thejeff is saying that a system that rewards the characters for overcoming challenges (like modern D&D) is superior to a system that rewards them for getting their greedy hands on more gold.
Which it is, unless you're trying to emphasize the sort of "murderous hobo" gameplay thejeff described earlier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I'm pretty much in the camp of "no show, no xp."
Secondly: the players in my games have no idea how much xp their characters actually have. I keep track of it behind the scenes. They get xp for encounters, for staying focus and in character, for doing cool stuff during the game, I also give out bonus xp for work put in outside of the game. This includes game journals, art work, coming up with a background for a person/place/thing in the game world. It is extra credit and is rewarded as such.
I'll tell them when they are close to leveling up. But they have no idea what their exact total xp is. If a player doesn't show up he get's no xp. They know this and if they had a problem, well they probably wouldn't play in my games. I'm ok with that. I'm a pretty fair tempered DM anyway and I never with hold XP to punish people. I do understand that things come up, and people have to miss, no biggie, but you're not getting xp if you do. Though how much you missed you'll never know for sure.
I have never played in a game where if somebody missed the game session they still received XP. To me the notion is ridiculous. Is my way the only way? No. But it's the way I run my games, and I'm very clear and upfront about it from the get go.
First off, I'm pretty much in the camp of "no show, no xp."
Secondly: the players in my games have no idea how much xp their characters actually have. I keep track of it behind the scenes. They get xp for encounters, for staying focus and in character, for doing cool stuff during the game, I also give out bonus xp for work put in outside of the game. This includes game journals, art work, coming up with a background for a person/place/thing in the game world. It is extra credit and is rewarded as such.
I'll tell them when they are close to leveling up. But they have no idea what their exact total xp is. If a player doesn't show up he get's no xp. They know this and if they had a problem, well they probably wouldn't play in my games. I'm ok with that. I'm a pretty fair tempered DM anyway and I never with hold XP to punish people. I do understand that things come up, and people have to miss, no biggie, but you're not getting xp if you do. Though how much you missed you'll never know for sure.
I have never played in a game where if somebody missed the game session they still received XP. To me the notion is ridiculous. Is my way the only way? No. But it's the way I run my games, and I'm very clear and upfront about it from the get go.
So you clearly view XP as a reward for the players, and not a reward for their characters, then?
The whole "I'd never withhold XP to punish anyone, you just won't get as much if you don't show up and don't do as much work as some other players, that's all!" argument strikes me as the same sort of "logic" that people use when they want to stiff their waiter on a tip. "It's a reward for exceptionally good service!" they'll say, ignoring the fact that it's not actually a reward for exceptionally good service, and is actually expected for normal service, especially since it is designed to make up for otherwise paltry wages. In their mind, they're not punishing the waiter by not giving them a tip, they're just not rewarding the waiter. In the waiter's mind, however, he's just realized he made less than minimum wage while he was serving you.