So... let me get this straight. All people who have attendance issues are desperately needed medical personnel who make NO EFFORT to let the group know what hours he will not be available due to work?! Yes OBVIOUSLY it makes more sense in your eyes to give this person full XP and game WITHOUT him than to do the common courtesy of moving the game time to accommodate him (which is what I would do).
99% of the time when people have long term attendance issues it is because they have a habit of taking friends for granted. They probably don't even know this is inconvenient for others. A simple XP nudge is often more diplomatic than "Sorry Pete, show up or we will give your seat to someone else."
You're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence.
Single parents in my gaming groups have needed to miss, on short notice, because their kids got sick. All of us who work in games have had to miss at some time or another because of emergency meetings that went until after midnight, or crunch time unexpected weekend hours. I get migraines. I can't predict when they're going to happen, and I can't drive with them because I get intense visual distortion (nor can I really focus enough to play a game when I'm in that much pain). I also can't drive after I've taken medication for them, but often times by the time I know if the medication is working enough that I'd be able to play, it's too late to carpool.
99% of the time it's because we're "taking friends for granted," and we're not even aware it's inconvenient for others?
A lot of assumptions there.
I empathize, I used to get severe migraines in high school to the point where I went effectively blind a couple times. Thankfully I grew out of them and now I only get headaches that severe very very rarely like once every few years.
Um... as for your post? I was talking about long term attendance issues. You know... where a player frequently shows up late or not at all. The things you are talking about are "one off" missed sessions... two completely different creatures. No one expects an XP bonus to change "one off" missed sessions. I would be very worried indeed if a player was not showing up to many many sessions in a row due to sudden work meetings or a sick child. Especially the sick child excuse, I would be worried they had cancer or something equally horrible. In fact if the only missed sessions in your group are "one off" types then I wouldn't recommend the XP bonus for attendance at all, there would be no point. XP is a tool, and that would be the wrong tool for the job... like driving a screw in with a hammer, not very effective. The best fix for "one off" missed sessions as I stated earlier is to reschedule the game. Better to do something else fun with the people you do have.
So... let me get this straight. All people who have attendance issues are desperately needed medical personnel who make NO EFFORT to let the group know what hours he will not be available due to work?!I don't see how you draw those conclusions.
If a player has genuine reasons...If you're wrong...
If you don't know where I drew those conclusions then you haven't been paying attention. I was directly using snorter's example of someone with long term attendance issues. This example is a person who offered to play a game during a time he frequently wasn't going to be available... very silly in my view. He should have been up front and told the group he needed a better time to play. This wasn't a genuine reason it was a player over booking his time.
Well, those one-offs were frequent enough that it was more common for us to be playing one player down than it was with a full group, and eventually we had to postpone the campaign for several months until people's schedules cleared up. So I would actually classify them as "long-term attendance issues." They certainly weren't about taking friends for granted, however. I'd say that it was more about the fact that it's difficult to get 6 adults all of whom have jobs and lives together regularly for 4+ hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'see, Jess, your problem was that you were playing with people with jobs and lives; I play with jobless dead-beats, and level disparity due to missed XP has never been a problem! :P
Full disclosure, I track XP, but I think the level disparity is more symptomatic of attendance issues that a problem with XP advancement. I also think that level disparity isn't really a handicap unless you're playing an entire AP, at each and every session, all the way through. Full disclosure again, I prefer sandboxes; I was trying to remember the last off the shelf campaign I played all the way through, and honest to God, I think it was the old TSR U1-3 (The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh/Danger at Dunwater/The Final Enemy) series. Definitely wasn't Dragonlance: I bought all those modules like a good little consumer and played at most three of them.
Well, those one-offs were frequent enough that it was more common for us to be playing one player down than it was with a full group, and eventually we had to postpone the campaign for several months until people's schedules cleared up. So I would actually classify them as "long-term attendance issues." They certainly weren't about taking friends for granted, however. I'd say that it was more about the fact that it's difficult to get 6 adults all of whom have jobs and lives together regularly for 4+ hours.
This isn't the sort of problem that can be solved by pro or con XP discussions. You did the right thing by postponing the game. If scheduling is that big an issue then you need bigger solutions... a time management coach or an alternate play venue that isn't schedule intensive like Play-by-Post for example.
I once played in a game where the spread between characters became so severe that there was a level 11 adventuring alongside some levels 4-6.I recall a game where I was ECL 7-8 from showing up every week, while the rest of the group ranged on down to 1st level with the new guys.
Mine was one where if you died or retired a character, you came back one level lower, at the baseline for that level's XP.
I was the only one that managed to keep a character alive through most of the campaign. Challenges were... skewed.
|
Over the years I've tried several of these out. In my first big 3.5 campaign, it eventually went to epic levels. During that game we used a rule where if you brought in a new character, you were one level lower than the lowest level player present. It was implemented in response to one particular player who constantly would miss 2-3 sessions, show up and want to try something different. So we'd have to remove his old character and bring in a new one. Occasionally it was handwaved, but it started to impact the story (to the point we began working it into the story). Now trying to be fair, everyone was held to it. This ended up resulting when a new friend was brought into the game, we had an 18th level character besides an 11th level character. He's still upset about that.
That rule was scrapped as being terrible and not-fun. Now we pretty much game with no XP, leveling up as the story demands. There's a couple who like XP as a means of tracking leveling, but it seems like everyone just ends up with different totals anyway.
|
I was talking about long term attendance issues. You know... where a player frequently shows up late or not at all. The things you are talking about are "one off" missed sessions... two completely different creatures. No one expects an XP bonus to change "one off" missed sessions. I would be very worried indeed if a player was not showing up to many many sessions in a row due to sudden work meetings or a sick child. Especially the sick child excuse, I would be worried they had cancer or something equally horrible. In fact if the only missed sessions in your group are "one off" types then I wouldn't recommend the XP bonus for attendance at all, there would be no point. XP is a tool, and that would be the wrong tool for the job... like driving a screw in with a hammer, not very effective. The best fix for "one off" missed sessions as I stated earlier is to reschedule the game. Better to do something else fun with the people you do have.
It's okay, I think we're closer in agreement than it first sounded.
There have been so many absolutes thrown about in this thread, which seemed to imply no-one could possibly have any valid reason for being late or bailing, it was getting grating.
|
|
I recall a game where I was ECL 7-8 from showing up every week, while the rest of the group ranged on down to 1st level with the new guys.
Whoah, that is old-school.
"All new characters start at 1st level" is something I remember.
Don't know if it was an official ruling, or one of Gary's pontifications in the DMG, but I'd say it was only barely possible in 1st/2nd Edition, since the benefits of levelling didn't scale that much.
A 5th level Fighter was simply a 1st level fighter with +4 to hit, and a few more hp. Virtually no-one had any magical gear worth mentioning*, no-one got stat increases, so there was no way for the enemies to distinguish the old hands from the new guy. He had the same AC, and fought almost as well.
Much of the emphasis of the older game was challenging the players, rather than the characters**, so a well-played low level character could be more effective than a high level character played by a relative novice.
You could not pull off the same results in 3E/PF, with more than a one level difference.
*Check out the pre-gens in any of the AD&D tournament modules. Most of them would be considered impoverished by the standards of a 3E NPC of half their level. 10th level Lords, with only +1 platemail (not even full plate!) and a +1 sword to their name.
**The prime example being trap disabling and puzzle solving.
PF is not the first edition to sideline the Rogue/Thief; it is a feature of every edition of D&D. If you allow players to use their real life analytical skills to bypass obstacles, there is no reason to have a 'Remove Traps' skill. If you refuse to allow non-Rogues to deal with obstacles via obvious and effective means, then you crack disbelief. "Blocking the gas jets would totally disarm the trap. Why are you not allowing me to do it? Because I'm not a Thief? That's ridiculous."
God it was good taking level 5s as a level 2.
right now, I run the Slumbering Tsar Saga. It is a big game with about 8 PC's, some with cohorts. Two other players are guest show-ups.
Since we got into the city, the entry level is 11th.
If you don't show, you get zero xp. Everyone has responsibilities, but I run when I have four people who are present and ready. Some people are going to be higher level than others. That doesn't mean that they are the most powerful, just merely higher level.
My friend with the witch who shows up late? He still manages to have a high damage per round stat. He also has save-or-cripple things at his behest.
Greg, the Magus, has a sick combo if he can get it off. Sometimes he can't show, so he's 12th level. No biggie.
But everyone knows that this series will be attempted to be played when we can all get here (or most of us be present). It takes place in a game store. We have other entertainment as well. But we would rather play this.
I run two games during my twelve day rotation usually. TS is capped at 8 players plus the two extra should they be in town. Curse of the Crimson Throne is capped at 6.
I still have a lot of people who are asking me to run more. Who aren't in my games. Who would be socially acceptable in a music store, college class, or church.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was the game where the 1st level characters were getting caught in 5d6 fireballs.
Don't cry, save your tears. It was a game with insta-death, and real risk.
From the risk came the fun, and a real sense of accomplishment.
I am not responsible for your fellow pc burning your char to death.
Nor should you blame the game.
How much damage could a pc hit your char with in PF? A lot more that is for sure.
In other news, a lot of AD&D and early D&D stuff is getting republished. There is a market for it and plenty yearn for the older stuff and simpler times.
So your opinion is just your opinion champ. No risk? That must be a joke, or just uninformed.
|
The GM didn't let anyone die unless it was obvious. 'You're unconscious' was the usual reaction when we told him what our HP was after the monster hit us and before the damage was announced. Obviously, he couldn't do that when the PC announced the damage.
I am not responsible for your fellow pc burning your char to death.
Nor should you blame the game.
This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. I'm not sure what conversation you're having, but it isn't with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not responsible for your fellow pc burning your char to death.This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. I'm not sure what conversation you're having, but it isn't with me.
I claim full responsibility for burning TOZ's char to ashes.
It brought no feeling of accomplishment whatsoever, but it was diabolically satisfying...
In other news, a lot of AD&D and early D&D stuff is getting republished. There is a market for it and plenty yearn for the older stuff and simpler times.
Because they grew up with that, that's what they're comfortable with, and nostalgia is a hell of a drug. Not because it was a better game. It's pretty silly to argue that a game that has existed for nearly the entirety of the modern game design renaissance hasn't made substantial, objective improvements to its playability.
So your opinion is just your opinion champ. No risk? That must be a joke, or just uninformed.
Meaningful "risk" in games is when the risk makes the situation more difficult without being impossible, and puts it in the players' hands to manage. Stupid "risk" happens when you have a 50% chance of losing on any given round of combat, and there's not really anything that you can do to change that.
|
|
I claim full responsibility for burning TOZ's char to ashes.I am not responsible for your fellow pc burning your char to death.This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. I'm not sure what conversation you're having, but it isn't with me.
My character was ECL 7 at the time. I could have killed the whole party had I wanted to. Also, evasion. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My character was ECL 7 at the time. I could have killed the whole party had I wanted to. Also, evasion. :PI claim full responsibility for burning TOZ's char to ashes.I am not responsible for your fellow pc burning your char to death.This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. I'm not sure what conversation you're having, but it isn't with me.
Braggart!
;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other news, a lot of AD&D and early D&D stuff is getting republished. There is a market for it and plenty yearn for the older stuff and simpler times.Because they grew up with that, that's what they're comfortable with, and nostalgia is a hell of a drug. Not because it was a better game. It's pretty silly to argue that a game that has existed for nearly the entirety of the modern game design renaissance hasn't made substantial, objective improvements to its playability.
Newer is not always necessarily better. Most of the posters here consider 3.X to be better than 4E. Stephen King's novels over the last couple of decades can't even begin to compare with those from the first 20 years of his career. Twilight is not a more definitive vampire movie than 1931's Dracula. I could go on and on.
Newer is not always necessarily better.
Not always, no. But no one claimed it was.
But when an entire industry goes from the fumbling-in-the-dark infant stage to figurative adulthood in the space of four decades (as game design has done), it would be astonishing to see a lack of objective improvement.
Yeah, some nice added simplicity (but I never had trouble with THAC0, I grew up with it). The DC for disarming traps got really screwy 3.5 on (didn't get much into traps in 3.0 so cannot comment), and it was must simpler and straightforward in AD&D, where thieves did a better job at dealing with traps than rogues contrasting AD&D to 3.5 to pf. Also x for backstab. That was true joy (and backstab will always sound better than sneak attack, and less syllables, :P).
I've been looking over some of the AD&D stuff recently and saying, this is great, why do we have to have giant equation modifiers attached to a d20? Let's just run some skills off of d100. Revived the old, and you know what, it worked. Cleanly.
Might run a full AD&D game soon, a friend is threatening a robin hood game with the 3.0 material, but run with AD&D.
Keep gaming folks.
I once played in a game where the spread between characters became so severe that there was a level 11 adventuring alongside some levels 4-6.I recall a game where I was ECL 7-8 from showing up every week, while the rest of the group ranged on down to 1st level with the new guys.Mine was one where if you died or retired a character, you came back one level lower, at the baseline for that level's XP.
I was the only one that managed to keep a character alive through most of the campaign. Challenges were... skewed.
We played like this for years, but the level loss was just an unfun kick-in-the-junk after a while. We got tired of effectively "leveling backwards"(get just enough XP to level up, die right after, and start that level all over again). Sometimes, we die so often in a given adventure, that we'd come out of the module at lower ECL than when we started it.
We eventually ditched the level loss altogether. Now, we come back at the same level, just at base XP. So far, it's been a lot more fun and engaging, so we can worry more about the game at hand, not about "oh crap I don't want to lose my level!"
|
|
I'm actually thinking of creating my own highly modified Swords and Wizardry Complete, but add the skill system from BRP (and taking the actual skills themselves as a modified list from Pathfinder). Skills would increase just as in BRP, with use....leveling wouldn't add skill points. The only part I haven't really decided is what to replace Vancian magic with....I waver between spontaneous casting for all casters, or looking into something more radical such as BESM's Dynamic Sorcery. Might think about adding a few elements from other games as well.
In other news, a lot of AD&D and early D&D stuff is getting republished. There is a market for it and plenty yearn for the older stuff and simpler times.Because they grew up with that, that's what they're comfortable with, and nostalgia is a hell of a drug. Not because it was a better game. It's pretty silly to argue that a game that has existed for nearly the entirety of the modern game design renaissance hasn't made substantial, objective improvements to its playability.
So your opinion is just your opinion champ. No risk? That must be a joke, or just uninformed.Meaningful "risk" in games is when the risk makes the situation more difficult without being impossible, and puts it in the players' hands to manage. Stupid "risk" happens when you have a 50% chance of losing on any given round of combat, and there's not really anything that you can do to change that.I don't get the last paragraph here, and it makes me curious, almost curious enough to start a new thread.
Why is a 50% chance for failure (which I think, hold on let me do the math, hmmm, carry the two, okay is also a 50% chance for success) "Stupid risk"? Is it stupid just because it is 50%, is 60% less stupid, I don't understand.
And what constitutes meaningful risk? What "target" roll are we supposed to be aiming for? Is an encounter with attack rolls and saves around 15+ necessary for a win too high? Is needing 7+ on the rolls too low?
The percentage isn't important. What's important is whether the players are capable of managing the value of that percentage through effective play of the game. In the fireball example, there's probably very little that 1st level characters are capable of doing to avoid the chance of dying to that fireball. Even if they knew it was coming they don't have the resources or abilities to negate it. They just have to hope they make their save. They have no agency. Their decisions do not meaningfully impact their chance of success. It's just left to the dice, which is uninteresting (not to mention unnecessarily punitive).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other news, a lot of AD&D and early D&D stuff is getting republished. There is a market for it and plenty yearn for the older stuff and simpler times.Except it wasn't really that simple, it hardly seems to be selling spectacularly well (check the RPGNow/DriveThruRPG top 100 sales if you don't believe me), and most of the people who really yearn for it have been able to get hold of it. There are some exceptions to that last, the D&D Rules Cyclopedia is hard to get hold of and is the best selling D&D item on both sites.
I think he's talking about the actual print products more than PDFs. WotC has fairly recently released the core books for 1e, 2e, and 3.5, as well as two adventure collections for 1e and two supplements for 3.5, and the release of Original D&D with the supplements in a wooden box is coming in about a month and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if the release more legacy stuff before D&D Next comes out, either.
|
|
How many OSR players are actually buying this stuff new, and how many are blowing the dust off the books in their attic?
Having a pdf could be useful, especially if it's the only way to replace that book that the dog ate, or was destroyed by a burst water pipe.
But is that a relevant sector of the market?
I get the impression that old edition games are only appealing to those who played them when they were new. How would you explain AD&D to a young player who's only known 3E? How would you justify the convoluted, anti-intuitive mechanics, subsystems bolted onto subsystems, with no unifying core mechanic?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other news, a lot of AD&D and early D&D stuff is getting republished. There is a market for it and plenty yearn for the older stuff and simpler times.Because they grew up with that, that's what they're comfortable with, and nostalgia is a hell of a drug. Not because it was a better game. It's pretty silly to argue that a game that has existed for nearly the entirety of the modern game design renaissance hasn't made substantial, objective improvements to its playability.
So your opinion is just your opinion champ. No risk? That must be a joke, or just uninformed.Meaningful "risk" in games is when the risk makes the situation more difficult without being impossible, and puts it in the players' hands to manage. Stupid "risk" happens when you have a 50% chance of losing on any given round of combat, and there's not really anything that you can do to change that.I don't get the last paragraph here, and it makes me curious, almost curious enough to start a new thread.
Why is a 50% chance for failure (which I think, hold on let me do the math, hmmm, carry the two, okay is also a 50% chance for success) "Stupid risk"? Is it stupid just because it is 50%, is 60% less stupid, I don't understand.
And what constitutes meaningful risk? What "target" roll are we supposed to be aiming for? Is an encounter with attack rolls and saves around 15+ necessary for a win too high? Is needing 7+ on the rolls too low?
It's not necessarily that a 50% chance for failure is "stupid risk." For a game to feel fun, though, there's a calculus of not just risk-reward (I take the risk of not wearing armor because it allows me to cast powerful spells which can kill a monster in one blow), but chance of failure-stakes (I have a high chance of failure, but my investment is low -- e.g. arcade games -- vs. I have a lower chance of failure but my investment is high -- e.g. Skyrim), and control-stakes (death is permanent, but I can choose to try to fight the dragon when I'm lower level, or I can choose to prepare and level up; the stakes are high but I control my level of risk).
If at almost all times, you have a 50% chance of losing everything you've invested time earning, your choices and preparation don't factor much into whether you lose it, and the time you've invested is high, the game feels punishing rather than rewarding.
Essentially, it's teaching learned helplessness (which is a major component of depression), which is counter to a sense of mastery, which is one of the major components of enjoyment of an activity. In other words, learned helplessness = the anti-fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you explain AD&D to a young player who's only known 3E? How would you justify the convoluted, anti-intuitive mechanics, subsystems bolted onto subsystems, with no unifying core mechanic?
It's a system that, once you learn the basics, is actually much simpler. Unlike 3.X/PFRPG, it rarely lets mechanics get in the way of creativity. And you can both pick your nose and scratch your ass at first level, whereas in those other games, you need a bonus feat if you want to do that.
That was quite an entertaining comment Kthulhu. Cheers for the amusement.
Pick your nose? You'll need to take this feat!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was quite an entertaining comment Kthulhu. Cheers for the amusement.
Pick your nose? You'll need to take this feat!
It speaks to one of my biggest problems with 3.0 and it's legacy...feats, which are supposed to expand options, really do more to shut them down than anything. I can't wait untimely my character gets to 4th level so I can take the feat ass-wiping...the penalty to charisma is killing my sorcerer. :P
It speaks to one of my biggest problems with 3.0 and it's legacy...feats, which are supposed to expand options, really do more to shut them down than anything. I can't wait untimely my character gets to 4th level so I can take the feat ass-wiping...the penalty to charisma is killing my sorcerer. :P
Specifics - where do feats shut you down?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each feat they add to the game is another thing you can't do until you take the feat.
So?
And don't give me any crap about "Ass-wiping Feats hurr durr" and other nonsense.
Feats reflect your training in various techniques. Reflecting spells with your shield, that sort of thing.
They at NO POINT prevent you from doing things any normal human could do, that I can think of.
Do you REALLY think it's better design if everyone from level 1 can say "Nuh-uh, he didn't hit me! I totally used my shield and *BOOSH* it zoomed right back at him hahaha my guy beats everything".
That just turns it into a less active version of when you ran around as a kid and shot fake lasers at each other and one kid was like "Laser reflecting shield, nyeh nyeh!".
Do you REALLY think it's better design if everyone from level 1 can say "Nuh-uh, he didn't hit me! I totally used my shield and *BOOSH* it zoomed right back at him hahaha my guy beats everything"
Wow, I really don't remember how AD&D plays!
Do you REALLY think it's better design if everyone from level 1 can say "Nuh-uh, he didn't hit me! I totally used my shield and *BOOSH* it zoomed right back at him hahaha my guy beats everything"Wow, I really don't remember how AD&D plays!
Context is important.
Kthulhu is complaining that Feats constrain him.
I pointed out that they actually provide options (reflecting spells being the example, since it is a real Feat, Ray Shield).
Unless, of course, you were in the habit of allowing people to do stuff like that whenever they wanted to anyway.
Which, IMO, is the mark of both an overly permissive GM and a poorly designed game for allowing such things with no investment anyway.
The many options given to the thief, bam, first level, you know this, go you good thing. I do miss that in a pf game. No feats required, no build necessary. Given. Good times.
And fighters could bend bars and lift gates. No DC 25 or 30 str check necessary. Just an appropriate percentage roll, which you were good at, since you FOUGHT and LIFTED PORTCULLISES!
I'm backing Kthulhu because I have been stuck on the dm side of the d20 screen, and had to say to a player, you need the feat for that.
Which never came up in AD&D, as it was more rules light.