RPGs, Fairness and Fun


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Cougar wrote:

Sorry for the multiple aliases; my message board kung fu is weak.

Let's see, the first group I quit had a GM who insisted we roll 3d6, place where you like, no re-rolls. When the characters all turned out to be weak, the GM added NPCs to the party who were all better then our PCs.

The second group I quit involved a situation where I was playing a race and a class the GM didn't like. I agreed to compromise and swap out characters with one with an acceptable race, and doing so as an in-game passing of the torch, and the GM wanted to dock me a level because some other player was fickle and kept killing off his characters so he could get new ones.

The third time I quit was because the GM actually manipulated me into giving my best friend grief over a character which wasn't working out, but was the GM's idea in the first place.

So, yeah. I'm considering either quitting the hobby, or running a game myself and seeing if I can at least do better than the GMs I've mentioned.

Yeah, these all strike me as red flags. I don't know that any one of them by itself would cause me to quit a game I was otherwise enjoying, but they would certainly make me cautious of other policies the GMs had. One of the things that you tend to find after you've played in a few different games is that there are a lot of good GMs who are in it for the right reasons, and a lot of not-so-good GMs in it for the wrong ones.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In games where I do use XP, I use group XP.

The entire GROUP contributes to a single XP pool and when the XP hits certain benchmarks then the GROUP levels up.

"But why should players who miss games get XP?"

Because maybe real life needs to take precidence due to kids, work, illness, family obligations. Players who fall behind on character levels are being punished because they can't contribute meaningfully to encounters balanced against a higher powered party.

"Why not get rid of XP all together?"

Sometimes it makes more sense to do that. I got rid of XP in Kingmaker after the players became kings specifically so we could play in the mid-levels for longer and speed through the high levels when they come around.
For other games though players like to see their progression. They like to see a bar go up, and if everybody's contribution adds to the XP pool then the players feel like their effort matters not just for themselves but for their comrades.

"What in game justification do you have for characters gaining XP if they weren't adventuring with the other PCs?"

Just handwave it away, perhaps they did a solo quest elsewhere, maybe you play the PC as an NPC. It doesn't really matter. The point is when you're at the table you should be enjoying a cooperative story.

Seriously, if you like XP then give shared XP a try. :-D

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've never awarded XP to a player. I award it to characters. I don't think I've ever had a character miss a game.

-Skeld

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Removed a bunch of political baiting. Political debate goes in the off-topic forum. Please stop doing it here.

2) Disagreement is not automatically a personal attack. Please don't react to disagreement with positions with insults/derogatory language about the position-holder. However, while something may not actually be a personal attack, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate in a non-political thread. Please keep the politics to the off-topic thread.

3) If you believe a post contains insults or personal attacks, is taking the thread off-topic or starting a flamewar, etc. please flag it and move on. Don't respond to it.


I should have known that mentioning conservatism would lead to problems. Sorry, folks.


Cougar wrote:
I should have known that mentioning conservatism would lead to problems. Sorry, folks.

It's cool, there are just more restrictions on the sorts of things that can be discussed in this sub-forum than in Off Topic. If you want to have a discussion about political influences on playstyles or DMing policies, Off Topic would be the best place to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Grognard alert:
I think the trouble with the 'no shows' and even the trouble with the 'bonus eeps' situation is that although both seem like good practice from a fairness standpoint

  • if you don't show, why reward you
  • rewarding you for extra effort begets extra effort

    The trouble is the game isn't like 2e... You don't have a team that spends 40 hours of gametime on a level.... On the fast xp track a focused group can get from first to 20th level in an adventure path in 20 days easily.... so now if you miss a day, you've missed a level. not just 'fallen a little behind'.

    And missing a level is now huge where it didn't use to be because the difference between a cr+3 and a cr+4 is the difference between oh god this is going to suck and 'no chance.... I die now...'

    Quadratic leveling is what kills this beast. Any reward or penalty to experience is now between 3 and 20 times more 'extreme' than it ever used to feel like.

  • missing player problem:
    We had a guy who had trouble making it to the game...

    We tried give him no xp for not showing up
    - and when he did show up he was so far behind he was useless
    We tried 'give him xp while he's missing' instead
    - so he had no incentive to show up and we had to win cr+3 encounters one man down
    - and still got 33% less experience for doing so...
    We tried splitting the xp 3 ways so we don't fall 1cr below where we should be at each specific point of an an adventure path
    - but on the day he showed up now the group is far too powerful...

    Eventually we just kicked him for our own piece of mind. Walk right side, safe... Walk left side safe... Walk middle... Squish.. Just like grape.

    I gotta say: Missing player syndrome kicks this system's a$$...

    Extra xp for good behavior has the equal but opposite effect. Sure it encourages extra effort, but at the same time creates a similar divide that just beats the tar out of a system that escalates so quickly.


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

    Because not being able to play is bad enough? This way you punish the one double. When you are in a gaming group it should be because you like it and thus missing a session is bad.

    If you give out XP for being there you treat the game as something boring that players have to be paid for with xp to take part in.

    You can look at it from the other side: Lots of games I've been in have the "If one can't come, we don't play." policy. Other games decided to play even if one can't make it but even they are not selfish enough to punish the missing player in addition to playing without him.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vincent Takeda wrote:
    if you don't show, why reward you

    Experience points are not a reward for a player hanging out with his friends and playing a game together.

    Quote:
    so he had no incentive to show up and we had to win cr+3 encounters one man down

    No incentive? You mean besides playing a game with his friends? So what you're saying is that you don't think anyone would show up to play D&D if they knew their character would get experience either way?

    Don't be ridiculous. He had plenty of incentive. If playing D&D with his friends wasn't an incentive, how would docking him experience points suddenly be an incentive?

    Come on.

    Here's a thought. If you think one of your players has no incentive to play unless you threaten to dock his character's experience points, maybe he's just not that into your game.

    (As a side note, why was your GM throwing encounters designed for a full party at you if you were missing a person? That's pretty poor form.)

    Sovereign Court

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Honestly, it depends why the player is missing. If he has a completely legit reason not to attend, ergo "Real life" stuff more important then rolling dice, its perfectly fine.
    But, if he just skips the session because he can't force himself to get his ass from the chair, or because is to lazy to go across town to come, then i feel perfectly justified in docking his exp. If the party levels, then i get his exp up to a few points below that level and leave him there, so he is then less useful and on more danger then the rest of the party. But not critically so.
    And also, i talk to him and ask him for reasons of his tardiness. If it is because he didn't feel like coming to the session, fine, he doesn't need to come to sessions any more. If it is a legit reason, its perfectly fine, and i just ask that if he can, he should inform me beforehand so that i can tweak the game to account for his absence.
    I hate autopilot characters or other players running another player's character.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    Yeah, I do. Totally. XP sucks. It's a terrible system that does more to hurt the game than help it. It only exists because it was the way D&D started and people have a need to hang onto things for "traditions" sake. This is supposed to be a "cooperative game". The last thing it needs is something that encourages players to compete against each other to advance their own characters faster.

    It's not a terrible system - you just don't like it. We don't use it for all games, but we do for some and it's worked just fine for us.

    Don't mistake your own personal perspective for everybody's or for objectivity. There's a bit too much of that going on around here.


    Umbranus wrote:


    Because not being able to play is bad enough? This way you punish the one double. When you are in a gaming group it should be because you like it and thus missing a session is bad.

    When did lack of a reward become a punishment? A reward is a reward. Let it be a reward. On the flip side, the way we play, if you're going to be punished, you'll know and it won't be the status quo.

    Umbranus wrote:
    If you give out XP for being there you treat the game as something boring that players have to be paid for with xp to take part in.

    I'm really starting to miss the days in which people thought an XP reward was your just deserts for doing fantastic things in a fantastic way rather than a bribe to show up to the table. That seems awfully jaded to me. Thankfully, that seems to be a function more of the players' attitudes.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    When did lack of a reward become a punishment?

    I don't see XP as a reward.


    Bill Dunn wrote:
    It's not a terrible system - you just don't like it. We don't use it for all games, but we do for some and it's worked just fine for us.

    That doesn't make it a good system. All that means is you've learned to accept it as it is.

    Experience points are a game mechanic, and game mechanics have design goals behind them. It is possible to measure the strength of a game mechanic, therefore, by how well it accomplishes those design goals, relative to the other possible solutions. There are a lot of people with a lot of experience with a lot of other mechanics for measuring advancement or progress that feel that experience points represent an advancement mechanic with very little to recommend itself. It's likely we'll have to deal with it for a very long time for no other reason than that people are very comfortable with experience points and there would probably be a great hue and cry throughout the gaming community for whatever designer eventually decides to give axing XP a shot.


    Bill Dunn wrote:
    When did lack of a reward become a punishment? A reward is a reward. Let it be a reward.

    That strikes me as a willfully ignorant thing to say. Experience points aren't a nice little reward for a job well done. They are the expected result of a play session. Especially since the only context in which experience points are at all important is the relative power level of the party. Players have a (rightful) expectation that they will be able to participate with roughly the same level of agency on the events of the game as the other characters, and that expectation is violated when their character does not receive experience points as a result of their inability to be present for every play session.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    In our early years of gaming, XP was a hard-earned currency. It was a badge you wore. Players lied, cheated, and stole to get more xp.

    Nowadays? Meh. I can sort of understand the "idea" of being a hard@$$ about "earning" xp, but really, I'm with Scott on this one. It's a game amongst friends. Keep everybody equal. Purposely keeping players behind on XP never results in anything fun. I've seen players fall off and leave the game. This is not boot camp. "Suck it up" doesn't happen.

    If someone does something cool and earns extra xp, give everyone the extra xp. I've done this a lot, and found that it encourages everyone at the table to get involved. No favoritism involved, since the whole group benefits.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Is XP necessary? Not really. BUT it is a useful tool. Let's face it XP IS a reward. And unless you have one of these utopian play groups I hear about online where everyone is exactly on the same page and no conflict ever arises... personally I have never SEEN a utopian play group in action online or IRL, so I suspect in reality they are simply faked to support some arguments. Er, I digress. Unless you have this utopian play group then it helps as a GM to have a tool as useful as XP to reward the type of play your group wishes to see.

    Lets look at some examples:
    - Group not working as a team? Give teamwork XP awards and watch that fix itself.
    - Attendance an issue? Give bonus XP for being there each session on time and ready to go. Problem fixed.
    - Some people refuse to role play with the others? Give role play XP awards and watch the numbers people step up and make the effort to play their role.
    I can keep going but I believe the point is made.

    Now like I said IF you have a group that NEVER has issues then don't bother with XP as it would simply be wasted effort. BUT most(I dare say even ALL) groups have issues, so why toss out a valuable GMing tool?

    --=*=--

    NOTE: If you do give no XP for missing sessions (something I don't recommend) or give different ad hoc awards then by all means balance this with a 20% boost to earned XP on the people who do fall behind. This will keep people from falling TOO far behind and causing issues that way. [I use missing player's characters as NPCs till they return with ALL the rewards and risks that entails.]


    Scott Betts wrote:


    That strikes me as a willfully ignorant thing to say. Experience points aren't a nice little reward for a job well done. They are the expected result of a play session.

    That's a problem with player expectations, not with the XP award system. If they expect to get XPs for showing up at game night, then their expectations aren't in alignment with the mechanic. If player expectations are that the more difficult the challenge, the more XP they get and the faster they advance in power, then their expectations are aligned correctly with the game mechanic.


    Cougar wrote:
    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.

    Were the other players okay with it (and it was just you who had a problem)? If so... then the problem lies with you.

    If not... I wonder how those DMs are lasting being DMs?

    In any case, I'm not going to get on my high horse and start declaring badwrongfun nonsense, like a few others are attempting to.

    The Exchange

    Cougar - Once you quit four groups in a row, you should look for the reason you are getting filled with such rage. I'm not saying you are in the wrong - nor that your former GMs are right. Until you determine what provokes you to respond to house rules you dislike with a permanent departure, you should be prepared for the possibility of suddenly bailing on group #5 as well...


    Another point to consider Cougar: What is more important to YOU? Perfectly even XP distribution OR having friends to hang out with and enjoy your time with? It is a fair question. There is always going to be something you don't agree with. Part of getting friends is learning to accept them as they are.


    I don't see the point in EXP anymore. It's a headache to calculate when you have to/choose to throw things together on the fly. There are basically two ways it can go:

    1). EXP is divided equally among all party members, in which case they're all leveling up at the same time anyway, so why bother?
    2) EXP is given based on the "amount of contribution" which can be arbitrary, hard to determine, and ultimately create a power imbalance if it's significant enough to be any different from the previous scenario.

    Instead I grant levels based on attendance. We only play every other week (about twice a month), and I award a level for every other game attended (so 1 level per month on average). If you miss enough sessions that you end up being more than a single level behind, I think you should reevaluate if you can support the hobby with your workload) we're all in college fyi).

    Of course, if 50% of the ends up missing I just postpone the game, and no one gets hurt. That tends to happen as finals week approaches.

    Sovereign Court

    I like Aranna's ideas, kinda wants me to use EXP again.


    This thread makes me want to to start a poll to see if there's any correlation between game opinions and frequency of gaming/political leaning/nationality/gender/age/marital status/astrological sign/hair color/favorite breakfast cereal.

    ...Okay maybe not all of those, to have a somewhat serious poll. :)

    Liberty's Edge

    I have much to consider. The actual situation is by its nature more complex than I can convey with mere text, and even in the abstract, the matter of XP awards isn't simple, and inventive approaches are needed. Right now I am considering the likelihood that my exact choices in responding to the issue only made people angry.


    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    This thread makes me want to to start a poll to see if there's any correlation between game opinions and frequency of gaming/political leaning

    It's pretty rare to find something significant that doesn't correlate with political leaning.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Scott Betts wrote:
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    This thread makes me want to to start a poll to see if there's any correlation between game opinions and frequency of gaming/political leaning
    It's pretty rare to find something significant that doesn't correlate with political leaning.

    ... especially if that's what you are always looking for....


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Scott Betts wrote:
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    This thread makes me want to to start a poll to see if there's any correlation between game opinions and frequency of gaming/political leaning
    It's pretty rare to find something significant that doesn't correlate with political leaning.
    ... especially if that's what you are always looking for....

    The cool thing about correlations is that they exist whether you want them to or not, or whether you're looking for them or not.

    It's understandable that you'd be reluctant to explore them, though.

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    If I want to reward players for attending a session I give them candy. Then they associate candy with my game and will want to attend my game more often because there is candy. That's how you reward a player for attending.

    XP are just an invisible number, completely meaningless beyond the context of "level ups". If a player falls behind it's unlikely they'll ever catch up (it's not like they can make up for missed sessions with homework). Thus the game becomes less fun and thus the player feels too discouraged to attend the next session, thus falling further behind it's a vicious cycle.

    XP is one of the worst ways to reward player participation. Its best use is to use as a yard stick to judge how much longer the players will be of a certain level. It's not a reward it's a measuring stick.

    Some posters think it should be a stick to whack players with too, but I don't think that's too good an idea.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Been playing since '84 or so. My current group has 5 of the 8 players who have been part of the group for about 20 years now.

    I use group xp.
    Will cancel a session if more than 3 are unable to show, and absent players are run as a second character by those who are there.
    Loot earned is assigned on a 'use by X til official split when everyone is all here next time."

    I've in the past played campaigns with the individual xp, even in systems other then D&D. It never felt like a positive aspect system wise to me once the separate level rates of the earliest editions were no longer played. (1st and 2nd edition) I find that i land myself on the side of those saying that it's a social and fun gathering in intent, and punishing a player for not being able to make it by withholding XP or loot for the character feels unduly penalizing.

    I also realize that my preferences are colored by several factors that are not present in all groups. A very long standing player set who is very comfortable with each other and all put forth what i consider reasonable efforts to make the games. A shared player preference for the above status quo. Myself not wishing to 'punish' my friends when life happens, even tho i 'could' technically.

    I suspect that i could see the withholding aspect being more desirable in the cases where you were trying to come up with reasons for making players want to be there more...but the flipsides of that have also been pointed out above by others. All in all, i am comfortable with my way, and it works for my group. Hopefully the other ways are what the players of the other groups wish for as well, and not just the DM 'laying down the law."


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    Scott Betts wrote:


    That strikes me as a willfully ignorant thing to say. Experience points aren't a nice little reward for a job well done. They are the expected result of a play session.

    That's a problem with player expectations, not with the XP award system. If they expect to get XPs for showing up at game night, then their expectations aren't in alignment with the mechanic. If player expectations are that the more difficult the challenge, the more XP they get and the faster they advance in power, then their expectations are aligned correctly with the game mechanic.

    It isn't so much that the players expect it. It's that the system expects it.

    3e/Pathfinder doesn't really have the party flexibility to allow for people falling behind and still being able to fit in the same group. In that respect, it's as bad as playing an MMO with friends that have more hours to play each week than you do.

    Unlike an MMO, though, our hobby has GMs that are placed in a position of power in order to deal with the "people stuff" that the rules don't cover (and yes, I say that tongue-in-cheek with MMOs having "GMs".) When there's a problem, they're able to do whatever needs doing to make things work.

    Back in the day, characters earned XP as a reward for doing things (and sometimes things their player did for them) and as long as they were within say two or three levels of each other it all worked out because an extra +1/+2 here or there didn't really make all that difference. Handing out small "RP Rewards" and such worked nicely, because they were relatively small and usually just meant a player hit their next level a session or two earlier than the majority of the group, gained some extra hit points, and maybe got some other kind of bonus too.

    Nowadays, characters earn XP as a mark of progress along a power track between 1 and 20 to decide what level of opposition they're likely to have thrown at them, and as others have pointed out an extra level makes a much bigger difference now (to the point where personally I'm thinking of using sub-level increments to break things up more). This seems to be mostly down to the changes that ensured everyone gets something new at every new level, and personally I'm not sure the cost was worth it just for that extra feelgood factor. On this, I'm solidly with the growing number of people forgetting XP altogether and setting level-up points (or using the predefined ones in APs) instead.

    If you're going to use a system that levels players at different rates nowadays, you also have to be prepared to deal with the other issues that is going to cause. If you don't have something in place to balance it all out, you're going to end up with players feeling relatively useless - and rather than put in extra effort to make up the shortfall, they're more likely to just think this isn't the right game for them.


    Bill Dunn wrote:
    When did lack of a reward become a punishment?

    As Vincent above said, when the game transitioned to 3.0. As missing a single session could mean the difference in levels.


    Our gm never used xp as a reward system for showing up.
    We were just having a hard time finding any system where continuing to use the xp mechanic at all wasn't troublesome when one player only showed up half the time...

    In truth the player's actual problem was he has a classic ball and chain who never wants him to leave the house, so any weekend he wanted to get free he'd have to fight for it, and he just got tired of fighting for his own freedom one night a week. There was no question he wanted to join us.

    We mourn his loss but its way better for us for him to just be in or out than 'maybe he'll be here tonight, maybe he won't.... Until he grows some more hair of the 'not on top of his head variety' his gaming days are done. Its a shame. But he made his choices.

    As to why the gm throws AP designed for 4 against us as a party of 3... welll. for one I'm a summoner so we're still kinda 4... Now we're that way full time, spreading xp for 4 but spreading it among 3... so we're nearly a level ahead of where we should be and that gives us the power of the missing 4th wheel. That's been working surprisngly well.

    And for another well.... that just how we do.

    But the above is right... Thats the whole point... They system expects very tightly grouped levels... Being only one level down can be a huge deal, and you can quickly be a level up or a level down in the span of one game day. If that happens 3 times i an adventure path boom. You're 3 levels down and you might as well retire your character.


    You claim that if you aren't there for the adventure, you should get a full share of the XP, right?

    Do you also believe that, if you aren't there, the GM should calculate the percentage chance that your character would have died if you were there and (depending on a die roll) potentially tear up your character sheet?

    Should he remove gear from your character sheet to reflect stuff you would have used if you were there?


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Justin Rocket wrote:

    You claim that if you aren't there for the adventure, you should get a full share of the XP, right?

    Do you also believe that, if you aren't there, the GM should calculate the percentage chance that your character would have died if you were there and (depending on a die roll) potentially tear up your character sheet?

    Should he remove gear from your character sheet to reflect stuff you would have used if you were there?

    No, we suggest (or at least I do) to behave like grown ups and aim for every one to have fun when we juggle around gaming, family, work, household chores, sports acitvities, health issues and the like.

    If a buddy can't show up because his wife and little daughter are ill or because he has to work late to save his business or the like I will not tell him that he will be a level lower from then on.
    I will regret not seeing him and wish him all the best for his real life.

    Back in school xp have never been a problem. But back then we didn't have other problems, too. Except learning and marks and evil teachers, that is. You know: real problems.

    Shadow Lodge

    How about I suggest a happy medium? If a player misses a session, he gets the same XP as everyone else, but doesn't get a share of the loot found in that session.


    Justin Rocket wrote:

    You claim that if you aren't there for the adventure, you should get a full share of the XP, right?

    Do you also believe that, if you aren't there, the GM should calculate the percentage chance that your character would have died if you were there and (depending on a die roll) potentially tear up your character sheet?

    Should he remove gear from your character sheet to reflect stuff you would have used if you were there?

    No, because that would suck and we try to avoid things sucking whenever possible.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Someone misses a session:

    "Blackleaf, we do not feel that you are showing the proper levels of commitment to the campaign..."


    Umbranus wrote:


    Back in school xp have never been a problem. But back then we didn't have other problems, too. Except learning and marks and evil teachers, that is. You know: real problems.

    This is the crux of it for me. Back when my group first really got into RPG's together, only 1 or 2 out of the 8 of us had any real responsibilities. The rest of us were early 20's, or fresh out of high school, with literally nothing else going on. We'd play D&D 6 nights out of the week(and twice on Saturdays). Individual XP was almost a necessity to keep track of which character was where and whatnot.

    Fast forward 13 years, and now we struggle to meet up once a week. Several of us have spouses, children, mortgages, etc, and gaming takes a back seat much of the time.

    I'm not saying every group the uses individual XP doesn't have responsibilities, but just for my anecdotal example, that's what happened to us. With gaming happening less and less often, actual XP means a whole lot less than just being happy that we can get most of the crew together and enjoy each others company.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Sissyl wrote:

    Someone misses a session:

    "Blackleaf, we do not feel that you are showing the proper levels of commitment to the campaign..."

    Dear god, imagine if they played Call of Ctulhu. There'd be a lot more suicides.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Umbranus wrote:


    No, we suggest (or at least I do) to behave like grown ups and aim for every one to have fun when we juggle around gaming, family, work, household chores, sports acitvities, health issues and the like.

    We're bringing up being grown-up now? How about we behave like grown-ups and accept that if we miss a game session, we don't reap the same benefits as showing up? Or that we recognize that lack of a bonus isn't a penalty?

    It's not, nor has it ever really been, an issue of being grown up. It's a question of the style of game the group plays.


    I'm disabled. There are times I can't make it to the game because of my disability. I have no problem with those who make it to the game getting stuff I don't because I'm not there. That's because they get the good and the bad (such as potential character death).


    It has been my experience that punishing someone for not showing up for reasons beyond their control does nothing but make them less inclined to show up in the future.

    Actions have consequences. Some are arbitrary, some are natural human reactions. Penalizing someone for missing a game session is an arbitrary consequence. Feeling less inclined to play a game when your contribution is reduced through no fault of your own is a natural human reaction.

    Play as you like, but realize what you are doing.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    Play as you like, but realize what you are doing.

    Yes, yes. Our fun is badwrongfun.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Sissyl wrote:

    Someone misses a session:

    "Blackleaf, we do not feel that you are showing the proper levels of commitment to the campaign..."

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.


    Good to see you at least understand that, Bill. =)

    151 to 200 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.