| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
You want xp and advancement of your character, for not attending?
Bwahahahahahaha. My sides. That is a good one.
Oh you are serious, you think you shouldn't have fallen behind because you missed games?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
You are against meritocracy and xp, and they are for it. It is that simple. Sad you got the short end of the stick, but the dms clearly felt not everyone should be equal and ability should correspond to effort and time invested (and a few other factors are involved as well).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I have had that policy for 30 years of gaming, and I won't be changing it anytime soon.
Plus, in the dozens of campaigns I've played in, pretty much the same policy was in effect.
For example, I missed a crucial encounter with a dragon's hoard last year due to food poisoning. Missed out on dragon XP and some nice treasure. Did I expect any experience? Hell, no. If anything, I felt bad about not being able to help my party out.
Hey there seasoned adventurer. Some would consider your stance of you get what you earn horribly retrograde. I support it though.
The only time a player has asked me for xp when they weren't there, they were the worst sort of player: lazy, entitled and prone to emotional outbursts. They could go on about what they deserved for not rocking up, and I was having none of it. This isn't easy street, let others do the work and you get a few free levels.
We're bringing up being grown-up now?
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.
I only brought up being grown up because of the suggestions Justin Rocket gave what we can do if we give xp to players who can't make it to a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old off topic, but I don't consider emails "rage-quitting." I've seen "rage-quitting;" it isn't pretty. It's even worse when the game is taking place in the rage-quitters house...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gaming is a privilege, not a right. If you look to "earn" anything beyond having fun with friends, maybe a little creative expression, then I think further expectations are a little unrealistic.
If you view your expectations the same as you would your 9-5 grind of a job, then I suggest finding a better game. There are seriously sessions where we've had a ton of fun, become so engrossed in the game that we have even forgot about divying up XP's until much later.
XP is simply a unit of measure until the next level-up. That's it. The play itself is what's important. That is what you should be seeking reward from. If missing a session is not punishment enough for you, then once again, find a more fun game and it will be.
I'm part of an awesome Star Wars Saga game, and we only game every other friday. Everyone at the table is heavily invested in this game, and it's the most fun I've had in many years.It's also the first game I've played where we don't track any XP; we level up when at story points when the GM says so. For us to miss a session really, truly is punishment, and for this I'm glad; if I couldn't care less if I miss a session of a game or not, then it's time to find a different game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, now, again, if somebody is running the character for you and they are contributing to the benefit of the party, then they should get some XP.
If they were left behind in the inn/tavern/rope trick, they get squat.
So your PC getting XP depending on what the other players decide to do with him? Hmmmm this is suddenly not a GM issue.
Reading stuff like this makes me even more convinced that XP sucks - its gone from my current game, the first time I have ever done that, and it will never return.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conservative DM here, and yes - I use merit based xp awards to the PCs -with the following breakdowns:
Someone can't show due to life reasons but we still play and his character is used as an NPC - he gets all the baseline xp based upon fights and encounters, but shares the same risk of death of all the active players. If he knows he will be missing the session in advance and we are still going play, he may write up a short directive for me and the other players to follow based on the circumstances. He is not played like a chump. Never had an incident where the player would come back after the session and complained about what his character did while he was out and generally the trust is there within the group for the other players and DM to run him “right”.
- They don't get exception XP (Idea/problem solving or RP xp)
- They don't get hero factor points unless they were to be rewarded for the entire scenario and the player missed just that one session, if that's the case they get the HF points I was going to award to the whole group
- They do not get individual HF points for heroic actions while they are out (and generally do not perform heroic "aka" suicidal actions while being run as an NPC).
That being said, when we were much younger and had a less stable group of gamers going in and out of sessions - the tolerance for who got what for being out was more of an issue. Most of the times it was the players who complained that they were taking the time and showing up, putting their characters lives in direct action and risk (vs. fading into the background or just "disappearing" for a session) and they brought their A game to the session (full involvement).
Back in those days points were NOT given, and in many cases some people were kicked from the group. As time passed I filtered out the riff-raff and made efforts to accommodate people who wanted to play but had conflicting schedules with the main group that were the source of much of their attendence problems.
On politics and DMing
I don't let my political views cloud my DM/GM style - I have bad guys of all stripes and the BBEG often transcends what would be considered Right/Left nonsensical political views (and if a spider web leader/puppet master type he would play those views and fears on all sides he was attacking). I have made evil conservative bad guys and liberal good guys. My personal politics are always overridden by my disdain for human constructs like politics; as such my monsters and bad guys are extremely removed from the mundane concerns and traditional left/right problems and in fact exploit much of traditional human conflict to reach their own ends.
My group is composed of: a hard right conservative (fiscal more so), a social conservative, left centrist and a liberal player.
Extra XP
I reward extra xp based upon action, ideas and RP - full well knowing that the most outgoing and vocal guy shouldn't get all the points because he is the most outgoing and vocal. I reward xp for going through the encounter and making efforts to go around or even negate encounters.
Creative problem resolution and heroics generally yield the highest amounts of XP - and since this is based off of individual action and contribution I do not just give out flat session xp. There is an XP baseline (encounters, etc), and then there is additional personalized xp based on session contribution. I try to make myself situationally aware that if a player is doing some downtime stuff (research, background puzzle solving, using resources, etc) that is not sexy/exciting, but critical to the success of the group that they should get a healthy reward of xp as if it was a problem that was solved (re: decent reward).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Aranna's ideas, kinda wants me to use EXP again.
Thank you!
:D
|
Isn't having fun with your friends supposed to be the only benefit when adults play roleplaying games? I understood it back when we were kids. But seriously, if my GM honestly told me that he would be docking me EXP because i couldn't come on account of my kid being sick or any other LIFE happens stuff, i would respond with a few well chosen words and never play with them again.
Like people said, not being to the session is punishment enough.
But for me as a GM, its immaterial.
I am most probably not using EXP ever again, even though Aranna sparked in me the idea of granting good RP exp and maybe awesome combat exp. And then they can use that exp to buy hero points or extra stuff, like a single skill point etc....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Because the benefits of showing up are getting to play a game with your friends. The rest of it is just window dressing. The idea of docking someone's imaginary character experience and eventually producing a situation where they cannot affect the game to the same degree because their real life got in the way and prevented them from hanging out with their friends strikes me as pretty damned childish.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I don't use XP in my games. PCs level up when it makes sense with the story. If the group is throwing me a challenge -- e.g. not working as a team -- I address it with story elements. Similarly, players who come up with really cool ideas or take risks or do something heroic get rewarded by the story and the world: NPCs respond differently to them, more plot points turn on their actions, etc.
And if someone can't come, they can't come. I'm not interested in being punitive because real life got in the way of their recreation. If they start not showing more than they show, I'll have a talk with them about whether it makes sense for them to continue in the campaign, but I'm not going to attempt to make their experience less rewarding/fun. This is something we all get together to do as fun and escapism and an excuse to hang out and roll dice. That's the top priority -- everything else, including rules elements, takes a backseat to everyone doing their best to ensure we're all enjoying ourselves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a few points:
1. If a "rage-quit" doesn't involve flipping a table, an arm-sweep that sends books and dice flying, or at least some colorful language and a door slamming as you exit, then it's not a rage-quit.
2. XP is awarded to the character, not to the player. If the character is still in play, whether in NPC mode controlled by the GM, or being played as a second character by another player during the session, then XP should still be awarded.
3. Not awarding XP to punish the player for not showing up is uncool and a bully tactic. Not being able to game on a game day is usually punishment enough. Life happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next time one of my characters fails a critical save and dies, I'm going to try the line, 'its unfair because the only reason Scott Bett's character didn't die is because he's not here! His character should die too.'.
1) That's how you would handle things as an adult?
2) If I were there, you wouldn't have died.
Immortal Greed,
An underlying assumption of a merit-based reward system is that everyone has the same potential and it's their fault if they don't reach it. It's just not true. Some people have career obligations. Other people have familial obligations. Me, I have Parkinson's; the symptoms started showing up exactly three years ago.
It hurts bad enough to be missing out on the fun, especially when I don't have any real choice in the matter. Denying me the same benefits which the others get when I am there, that's just insulting. Especially when I know my days of gaming are numbered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're doing the same thing when you argue that every PC should get equal rewards even though every PC is not shouldering an equal burden.
Playing a game with friends is not a burden. If it is, you are doing it wrong.
... especially if that's what you are always looking for....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 leaningIt's pretty rare to find something significant that doesn't correlate with political leaning.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.
It's also true that the existence of a correlation does not prove causation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if a character you are roleplaying is more important than real life friendship, there is probably something wrong in your gaming group.
if a character you are roleplaying is more important than real life friendship, there is probably something wrong in your gaming group.
That assumes you play with your friends. There are groups that meet in public places, game clubs, student unions, who take all sorts of players at the table and in differing mix/match groups. In such cases, the relationship as gamers at the table may be all you've got.
It's diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks - not a question of adultness nor valuing friendships.
Yes, yes. Our fun is badwrongfun.
This statement assumes that adopting a policy of punishing people you play with for attending to things more important or urgent than the game somehow increases fun.
I fail to see how this is possible in the slightest.
I don't think not awarding people XP for not attending...ugh, triple negative. Let me try again.
I don't think that the withheld XP rule is necessarily bad. It doesn't work for players who can't predict their schedules, obviously, so it should only be used by a case-by-case basis. The OP acting like it's an awful policy just because it doesn't work for him is simply unreasonable.
Some groups struggle because players are lazy, not busy, and choose not to schedule around a game which they could schedule around if they'd put a few minutes of effort into it. Those groups benefit from the rule.
Other groups contain players who honestly have trouble attending, and those groups would suffer.
And the rule works no matter what if used in a game that isn't torn apart by level disparities.
It's not a rule I'd use, but it's a rule I've considered.
This statement assumes that adopting a policy of punishing people you play with for attending to things more important or urgent than the game somehow increases fun.I fail to see how this is possible in the slightest.
"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago."
I'm not sure what you mean by "a game that isn't torn apart by level disparities". Wouldn't the policy introduce (or at least increase) level disparity and thus increase the odds of the game being torn apart by level disparity?
Sorry, I'll clarify. I meant a game that would not be torn apart if level disparities were present. So games that have more roleplaying than combat, or have combats that allow people one or two levels lower to get involved.
Like I said, I only considered instating the policy. It's a hit-and-miss tactic as disciplinary tricks go.
I award bonus experience points to players who tell me they think I'm pretty.
Ooh, I like this rule!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the argument of not getting enough xp = be the same level as everyone else in the party as being an issue is really dependent on the DM in the group.
Coming from an older AD&D background it was really rare for any all of the PCs to be the same level at the same time and as the DM I adjusted for that fact when setting up challenges, as I would hope any DM would do. I don't know each group and how other DMs run things. If it's a game of fall behind means you're dead, then yeah penalizing xp for no-shows can be a fatal practice.
I do feel that individual xp is a reward for exceptional or stand out play. So maybe the Fighter in the group breaks to level 7 before everyone else - if he earned some extra xp to do so, and if the group is not all of a sudden encountering CR 7 creatures as the baseline (while they are all 6th level) then I don't see it as a problem. In effect what you really are doing is letting that player, who played exceptionally enough to get extra credits, advance and get some extra tricks/features early. If I feel that a pure xp award for one player would take him too far away from his group then I reward him with single use perks/hero factor points.
As I said in my earlier post - I think baseline xp should be given out, if not just due to math/game expectations concerning overall group progression. One guy getting his level up a few sessions before everyone else won't end the game unless the DM makes it so (by throwing higher level encounters and not using APL to determine encounter types).
Mixed level parties are also fun if the DM runs it as a mixed level party.
I personally feel that exceptional xp is a fun feature in gaming. What I do for my group is before we start the next session is that I assign xp. I do it at the beginning of the next session because by the time we knock off it's midnight or 1 in the morning and everyone is beat.
So I break out the normal encounter/set piece xp (base xp). Then I put out the question to the group "Ok, who gets bonus xp? What happened last time that stood out to any of you?"
Then they will pitch their reasons why x player should get something, 95% of the time they are asking on behalf of another players actions. It serves as a good recap for the last session. Sometimes I need to make a note to reserve some points for a character who is coming up with the right ideas/guessing at the menace but before we have the complete reveal. I give him something (xp) to know he's on the right track - just not enough to give the whole plot away.
TL;DR version - I give baseline xp based on what happened in the session. Exceptional players and actions of all types (heroics, bravery, ideas, workarounds, RP) will get bonus xp and may allow him to level up before everyone else or get some minor perk as a reward. I do not punish the other players for level disparity that may arise from this situation - as the DM I adapt things for fun and not punishment - that is my job after all.
And KC sort of ninja's me! That's what I get for writing out a TL;DR version!
|
Sorry, I'll clarify. I meant a game that would not be torn apart if level disparities were present. So games that have more roleplaying than combat, or have combats that allow people one or two levels lower to get involved.
I'm not opposed to mixed level games in theory, but the ones I've seen have never been great. 1st level characters getting caught in 5d6 fireballs and the like.
It's also true that the existence of a correlation does not prove causation.... especially if that's what you are always looking for....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 leaningIt's pretty rare to find something significant that doesn't correlate with political leaning.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.
I'm not interested in causation at this point. I'm not trying to show that one causes the other, only that they are related.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the whole thread here, but I'm going to jump in anyway. I play in a group with (usually) 7 other players, sometimes a couple more. Usually I DM, though lately my protege has taken over a bit and I've gotten to sit on the other side of the screen for the first time in ages (awesome). Everyone likes each other (I'm pretty sure) and much of the pleasure of the game is having the chance to enjoy each others' company. Everybody's busy with RL stuff, so everybody has trouble making sessions sometimes. And sometimes people can't make it for a long time. But we still want them to play with us and feel like they can make a contribution, so whether we've been tracking XP or not (depends on the campaign), we level them up to average party level and get them back in the game. (There's even a downtime mechanic in the new Ultimate Campaign book to justify this in-game.) The point is to have a good time together, and we'd think it's crazy to play the game in a way that gets in the way of that. If people are making special contributions (snacks, cooking, whatever) that we want to recognize, we can always give them a fate point (or whatever you want to call it) to give them a free reroll, but mostly people in the group don't expect special rewards for being, you know, friendly. And when I do track XP, it's because I think it's fun to see your xp pile up till you get a new level; whenever it stops being fun, we quit worrying about it and move to leveling up at story points, which works great too.
Short version: this game is supposed to be fun. Friends are the best part of the fun. Find a group that finds fun in the same place you do, and don't let them go.
I personally use hero points in the way my old group used to use experience for an award. Seems easier and more fair to everyone since the power level stays pretty even since the levels are consistent between the party.
I found the 7th Sea/ Lot5R interesting in that the "bennies" could either become a bonus dice or extra XP.
Of course, really this was a slight annoyance for my group as you were left deciding if you wanted instant gratification or better skills later. Which although fair generally meant that no-one used the 'bennies', thus less were given out.
I'm not interested in causation at this point. I'm not trying to show that one causes the other, only that they are related.It's also true that the existence of a correlation does not prove causation.... especially if that's what you are always looking for....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 leaningIt's pretty rare to find something significant that doesn't correlate with political leaning.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.
At this point I'm left wondering what exactly the correlation is, because I realize now looking at the whole string of comments none were actually listed.
Hard to talk about when there are no specific examples, but proving that two things are directly related simply by having a positive correlation is a bit murky, and proving that they are meaningfully related is even harder.
Such a relationship can be purely coincidence, influence by the specific sample (only polling people in Texas, for example), or there could a completely separate variable that may contribute to both but does not necessarily contribute to either, like the correlation between how often one goes to church and how often one goes to the dentist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ellis Mirari -- they're referencing political arguments we asked them to take elsewhere. Please keep the discussion on the game. Thanks!
Such a relationship can be purely coincidence, influence by the specific sample (only polling people in Texas, for example),
I'll address this in a neutral fashion so as not to further bring politics into this thread, but both of the criticisms you level above are dealt with by proper research methodology. We target high confidence intervals to avoid purely chance-based coincidence, and sampling methodology ensures that the results properly generalize.
or there could a completely separate variable that may contribute to both but does not necessarily contribute to either, like the correlation between how often one goes to church and how often one goes to the dentist.
While certainly a possibility, this is often what correlations measure. It doesn't mean the two factors are not linked; rather, it simply means that there are a few pieces of chain separating them.
Gaming is a privilege, not a right. If you look to "earn" anything beyond having fun with friends, maybe a little creative expression, then I think further expectations are a little unrealistic.
If you view your expectations the same as you would your 9-5 grind of a job, then I suggest finding a better game. There are seriously sessions where we've had a ton of fun, become so engrossed in the game that we have even forgot about divying up XP's until much later.
XP is simply a unit of measure until the next level-up. That's it. The play itself is what's important. That is what you should be seeking reward from. If missing a session is not punishment enough for you, then once again, find a more fun game and it will be.
I'm part of an awesome Star Wars Saga game, and we only game every other friday. Everyone at the table is heavily invested in this game, and it's the most fun I've had in many years.It's also the first game I've played where we don't track any XP; we level up when at story points when the GM says so. For us to miss a session really, truly is punishment, and for this I'm glad; if I couldn't care less if I miss a session of a game or not, then it's time to find a different game.
Lol, you know it is a good game, when you are truly detached from the xp hunt.