Political ideology and play / GM style

[Numerian]

My DMing style is influenced, DM is God, that means as much as I can I give them free will and what they want.

[Sissyl]

No, they can't. As you yourself have repeatedly stated, Scott, the only votes that matter are those that say (r) or (d). If the public doesn't like being spied on, the only recourse a democrat has to "punish" his party is to vote republican... and they also think spying is the s%$$. And vice versa. Meanwhile, both political parties together have more than enough influence to make sure no serious challenge to unchecked spying gets anywhere.

[Cap. Darling]

For hwa tit worth i think that someones idea of fairness is a Big influence on both GM style and on political veiws ( however that is spelled)

[Haladir]

Sissyl wrote:

No, they can't. As you yourself have repeatedly stated, Scott, the only votes that matter are those that say (r) or (d). If the public doesn't like being spied on, the only recourse a democrat has to "punish" his party is to vote republican... and they also think spying is the s%#&. And vice versa. Meanwhile, both political parties together have more than enough influence to make sure no serious challenge to unchecked spying gets anywhere.

Not true. Members of a party can influence the candidates a party nominates for general elections by primary challenges. These are usually challenges from the fringes of the party against perceived "centrists" or vice-versa. E.g. Far-right "Tea Party" Republicans challenging more centrist Republican incumbents.

The Tea Party has been successful in pushing the GOP as a whole father to the right by painting moderates as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only). Most of the centrists in the GOP have been successfully removed by primary challengers-- or have realized they would lose a primary and decline to run for reelection. (This is, IMAO, a major reason of the total paralysis in DC for the past six years )

There has not been a successful similar movement from the Left in recent years. Probably the most recent was in the late '80s / early '90s from the more centrist Clintonian "New Democrats" who successfully moved the party closer to the center. Remember that it was Clinton who stated, "The era of Big Government is over" back in the mid-'90s. Perhaps the Occupy movement will challenge incumbent New Democrats (now 25 years entrenched) to move the party back left. Or not.

[Scott Betts]

Sissyl wrote:

No, they can't. As you yourself have repeatedly stated, Scott, the only votes that matter are those that say (r) or (d). If the public doesn't like being spied on, the only recourse a democrat has to "punish" his party is to vote republican...

Or vote in a primary, like you're supposed to. It's like you didn't even see the Tea Party happen.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Haladir.

[Sissyl]

As a Swede, I exercise every right I have to vote. I wasn't aware I was supposed to vote in American primaries, however. In Sweden we just need to deal with American demands on both our parties, such as what was spilled in Cablegate: That our intelligence agencies get the right to unchecked spying on us and the right to send it on to the NSA. This was a demand from the US diplomatically, and both major coalitions of parties worked their asses off to push it through our parliament. Sound familiar?

[Scott Betts]

Sissyl wrote:

As a Swede, I exercise every right I have to vote. I wasn't aware I was supposed to vote in American primaries, however. In Sweden we just need to deal with American demands on both our parties, such as what was spilled in Cablegate: That our intelligence agencies get the right to unchecked spying on us and the right to send it on to the NSA. This was a demand from the US diplomatically, and both major coalitions of parties worked their asses off to push it through our parliament. Sound familiar?

I think you probably need to do some additional reading up on how the American political system works, in practice. There are some key elements that you're missing or skipping over along the way, and it's contributing to your unnecessarily cynical take on how our politics work and how people here are represented. We don't have things perfect, and we have some flaws that may never get dealt with, but things aren't anywhere near as bleak or dystopian as you seem to want them to be.

[Haladir]

Well, as a Swede, I guess you don't vote in any American elections...

This was perhaps America-centric of me, but I had assumed you were another US citizen, and were speaking first-hand about US politics.

Believe me that anti-surveillance sentiments are starting to gain mainstream traction over here. It has taken too long IMO, but at least it's now being talked about in the mainstream media. While it's certainly hurt the reputation of the US abroad, I think the Snowden leaks may be just what the American public needed to hear so that we can set our government back on the right track. I think the NSA has significantly breached the public's trust, and that we're finally seeing the real-life implications of the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2002.

I, for one, am starting to be more afraid of the US government than I am of any terrorists. And to me, that means the terrorists are winning. This issue is making me much more politically active than I have been since the start of the Iraq War. (Which I protested, predicting we'd get into a decade-long quagmire that would destabilize the region and besmirch our own reputation. Once the bombs started falling in the desert, I was hoping I'd be wrong. But that's probably a discussion for another thread...)

The actions of the government over the last decade have made me question whether we are truly "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Our freedoms are eroding, and the saber-rattling of our government speak more of fear and cowardice than bravery. Or maybe we've just gotten too complacent and want easy answers to hard questions and elect people who tell us what they think we want to hear.

[captain yesterday]

no scott im an american and i think she got it right! Maybe you need to take off your rose colored glasses:)

[Hama]

Haladir wrote:

I think the NSA has significantly breached the public's trust, and that we're finally seeing the real-life implications of the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2002.

It took you 11 years to see what everyone else in the world saw in 2002?

[Sissyl]

So, now that we know each other a bit better, what say we get back to the implications of NSA asshattery on GMing practice?

[Haladir]

Hama wrote:

Haladir wrote:

I think the NSA has significantly breached the public's trust, and that we're finally seeing the real-life implications of the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2002.

It took you 11 years to see what everyone else in the world saw in 2002?

No, I predicted this back in 2002, and vehemently opposed it then. The general public, though, was a different story. As a people, we were still reeling from the 9/11 attacks-- it's hard to describe how devastating a blow those were to the national psyche. President Bush falsely presented the USA-PATRIOT Act as our best means of protecting the country from more attacks, and most of the country believed him. (I wrote an op-ed against the USA-PATRIOT Act for my local newspaper in 2002, and was cut to ribbons in the letters column over the next week. I had one defender for every five opponents.)

What I meant was that the media is FINALLY taking notice that the USA-PATRIOT Act set up a de facto surveillance state, and this has placed significant limitations on the civil liberties of American citizens.

It doesn't have full traction yet, but as more horror stories come to light, the zeitgeist is changing. I have a strong feeling that the surveillance state will be a matter of discussion in the mid-term elections next year, and will be a major issue in the 2016 elections. (Assuming of course that entrenched forces don't manage to obfuscate the discussion with relatively unimportant wedge issues. Which is a tactic that has, unfortunately, worked well in the past.)

Historically, it usually takes five to fifteen years for US government overreach to be rectified at the ballot box. Look at examples like the Espionage Act of 1917 (repealed in 1921); the Second Red Scare and the the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s (mostly ended with Sen. McCarthy's censure in 1954); the FBI harassment of political dissidents in the 1960s and 70s (ended after Nixon resigned in disgrace post-Watergate); etc.

The inherent tension between the government and the governed is baked into the Constitution-- the government was designed to be inefficient from the start, in order to protect the people from tyrrany. A central role of any government is to protect its populace from threats, and the government can be a great force for good. But both sides need to remember that rights come with responsibilities. Both US government officials and the citizens of the United States often forget that the government is accountable to the people, not the other way around. And when officials get too big for their britches, they need to be removed from power, peacefully, at the ballot box.

Right now, I think that a LOT of people in power, on both sides of the aisle, need to be voted out.

"Those that would give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin, speaking to the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1775.

[Sissyl]

And voting for the other party doesn't help.

[Haladir]

Okay, and to get back to original topic...

I lean pretty far to the left politically, as least by US standards. That said, I have great faith in the fundamental principles of the American system as defined in the Constitution of the United States (even if in practice we fall far short of the goal.)

Tabletop role-playing is, for me, ultimately an exercise in collective storytelling. As a GM, I prefer to emphasize plot, role-playing opportunities, and telling a good and satisfying story over adherence to the letter of the rules. I will never let a bad dice roll overrule good storytelling. That said, Pathfinder is a game that's focused on combat, and for the most part, combats do indeed go the way the dice decide. (Except, of course, when the dice decide to tell a lousy story...)

When I GM, I restrict the allowed ruleset to rules that I am personally familiar with and approve of. Which means I run a "Core Rules Plus" game-- the Core Rules, plus what I've okayed. (I've okayed most of the APG, for example.) If a player wants to use a rule from another source, that specific thing needs to be approved by me before I allow it in play. I also usually set some campaign-specific restrictions as well. A common one is "PCs cannot be evil or worshipers of evil deities."

In play, I tend to let the players do what they want. Much like in improv comedy, I try very hard for my reaction to what the players say be "Yes, and..." I have a few players that aren't terribly up on the rules, so I have them describe what they want to do, and I'll tell them what happens (or what dice to roll).

I am also of the opinion that a good GM can use most any ruleset to tell whatever story he or she wants to tell, although some systems lend themselves better to specific types of stories.

[Lloyd Jackson]

Getting back to the OP, I think it does. Not entirely sure how, perhaps in my constant attempts to get my players to build a standing army.

[The black raven]

I believe that how we play and GM is in a far closer connection to who we are than what our political leanings may be.

I have met many great people who had VERY different political opinions. Still I would trust them with my life one and all.

On the other hand, I am sure that there are people out there who have the same political leanings as I do and that we would still despise each other completely.

Life is far more than politics.

[Angry Wiggles]

I'd say my political beliefs are relevant to my GMing style.

I believe in maximizing the fun for the most players using the most efficient means at my disposal. I am an exceedingly permissive GM in that I will allow every concept to play as long as it is both not expressly uncomfortable to another player at the table and presented early enough for the necessary rules to be learned, footnoted and potentially adjusted. I tend towards very open-world gameplay with plots driven equally by the players and the environment. I make the actual gameplay fairly difficult and will scale enemies to keep the players winning by the skin of their teeth. I believe that, regardless of rules or plot progress, any session where everyone had fun was a success, and any session where someone didn't enjoy themselves was a failure.

Everything else is details and will vary with the group and the individual players.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Haladir wrote:

Look at examples like the Espionage Act of 1917 (repealed in 1921);

Small (well, actually big) point: The Espionage Act is still on the books. It wasn't repealed, it was modified in 1921.

[TriOmegaZero]

Sissyl wrote:

So, now that we know each other a bit better, what say we get back to the implications of NSA asshattery on GMing practice?

I regularly practice misinformation and spying on PCs as the GM.

[Sissyl]

That way ends with your players classifying what they do...

[TOZ]

Drone strikes for everyone!

[Jess Door]

Drone strikes are overkill.

I prefer tradition (maybe I"m too conservative...).

Rocks fall. Everyone dies.

[MYTHIC TOZ]

Balors, balors everywhere!

[LazarX]

Scott Betts wrote:

Justin Rocket wrote:

You assume that they are, in fact, two parties. They are one party - the big government party. They act like they are fighting each other so as to let the masses deceive themselves into thinking they have some control over their government. They don't care if you vote for Republican or Democrat, as long as you vote for one of the two and keep up the charade.

That is so incredibly false. This is a fashionably cynical myth that no one actually involved in major party politics actually believes. Believing in it displays a startling level of political ignorance.

Most myths have their basis in fact. The big corporations contribute heavily to both parties. Many of Obama's staff who've left the administration came from and returned to the same buisness estabishment that Bush drew his people from.

Democrats and Republicans do use very different rhetoric and do have some minor differences in policies. But substantively their effected policies aren't that much different. Both Democrat and Republican Presidents pursued a war in Vietnam. The Affordable Care Act known today as "Obamacare" had it's genesis in a major conservative think tank and was first enacted by the Republican candidate for President in his home state of Massachusetts.

But most above all, they are both beholden to the same masters as Ralph Nader relates below in this article from The Nation

Early in 2012, I asked a number of high-ranking House Democrats the same question: “If you believe that on their record this is the worst Republican Party ever, why aren’t you landsliding them?” Their replies, preceded by wistful smiles, ranged from citing the difficulty of regaining gerrymandered districts to big-money support for the Republican Party. But the most candid response came from a high-ranking Democrat, who blurted, “Because we’d raise less money.” In other words, the Democrats are so beholden to their own big-money contributors that they can’t fight on issues that they know have overwhelming public support. Plainly, the House Democrats raised enough money. They benefited from their gerrymandering, too. On the issues, the Democrats had a huge advantage. Yet instead of confronting Republicans in district after district with the vicious Ryan budget and the Boehner Band’s voting record, the Democrats displayed open defeatism.

When I asked veteran House Democrats in the spring of 2012 how many seats they thought they would gain in November, the highest estimate was twelve to fifteen (they needed twenty-five to win the House but gained only eight). So even six months or more before the November elections, they were predicting defeat. Defeatism with no offensive agenda is not a winning strategy. Granted, they did call for protecting Social Security and Medicare. But they kept harping, repeatedly and vaguely, on the “middle class,” as if 100 million poor and near-poor Americans didn’t need to hear from them.

In June, former presidential candidate and Senator Gary Hart told me that in Denver, where he lives, “Democrats don’t know what the party stands for.” A few weeks later, Hart received confirmation of his observation. Joining nineteen other prominent Democrats, including former New York Mayor David Dinkins and Public Advocate Mark Green, Hart signed a letter to House and Senate Democratic leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, beseeching them to be more aggressive in giving people concrete reasons to vote for Democratic candidates. They never received a response.

The decay of the Democratic Party can’t be better confirmed than by the actions of its leader. During his 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama championed a federal minimum wage—but after winning, he fell silent. The 1968 minimum, its historic peak in real-dollar terms, would be the equivalent now of $10.50 per hour, compared with the present minimum, $7.25, one of the lowest among major Western nations. Thirty million working Americans laboring between those two hourly rates are making less than workers made in 1968.

Tens of billions of overdue dollars annually for these hard-pressed workers would be a very effective stimulus program; the increased purchasing power for a stressed and indebted working class would immediately increase consumer demand and thus create more jobs. At least 70 percent of Americans polled favor a minimum wage adjusted to inflation—but so indentured, so cautious, so distant from these workers and their children are today’s Democrats that none of them would push the issue unless President Obama championed it. Obama finally lifted the party taboo in his recent State of the Union address, when he proposed a $9 federal minimum wage by 2015—a weak contrast to his 2008 proposal for a $9.50 minimum by 2011.

After the elections, Democrats privately blamed Obama for not running with the congressional Democrats and refusing to share campaign money from the president’s $1 billion stash. Truly, Obama ran a very selfish campaign. He knew he could get votes and money for Democrats in close races, and he knew he really could not achieve much at all unless the Democrats won the House. But his electoral strategy was all about Numero Uno. Obama’s relations with his party in Congress— including the Congressional Black Caucus—are terrible, even though the strain has usually not erupted in public. On a radio show with me last October, Representative Maxine Waters did sadly acknowledge that “unlike Clinton,” Obama did not campaign with the congressional Democrats.

Democratic defeatism has continued into the New Year. There are no signs of a leadership-driven progressive agenda for workers, consumers, the environment or corporate reform. The diluted and marginalized Progressive Caucus in the House has put forth good proposals, but it has no organized power in the party’s hierarchy. The leadership is still reluctant to represent the more than three-quarters of the American people who want big business to be held accountable for its special privileges, reckless behavior and disregard for people’s livelihoods. Many senior Democrats are settled in their own safe seats and care little about the overall prospects of the party winning a majority in the House.

There is no effort by the Democratic leadership to question the failed strategies of 2010 and 2012. For 2014, it is likely to be more of the same: raising the money and taking care not to offend business interests by talking vaguely about the middle class and ignoring the growing poorer classes that are the Democratic Party’s natural constituency. What all this presages is another loss in 2014—unless the Republican Party takes an even more extremist stand for the rich and powerful and saves the Democrats from their own unprecedented stagnation.

Ralph Nader, "Why Are Democrats So Defeatist?" March 2013

[Comrade Anklebiter]

LazarX wrote:

big awesome post with op-ed piece by--hee hee!--Ralph Nader

I take back everything bad I've ever said about you, Comrade X.

In other news, our candidate in Boston got 3,000 votes. Yay us!

We hope to do much better in Seattle (40,000ish votes in the primary) and in Irontruth's neighborhood (comrades seem to think we're going to win 'cuz the SEIU endorsed us or something.)

Spoiler:

Voting is still for ninnies.

[Haladir]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Look at examples like the Espionage Act of 1917 (repealed in 1921);

Small (well, actually big) point: The Espionage Act is still on the books. It wasn't repealed, it was modified in 1921.

You're right-- I was thinking of the Sedition Act.

[Callous Jack]

Sebastian wrote:

Politely asking someone to explain why your b!$@@%*+ smells like b&##$!~! doesn't magically make it into chocolate ice cream.

Only ponies can make magical ice cream!

Just don't ask where it came from...

[Scott Betts]

captain yesterday wrote:

no scott im an american and i think she got it right!

Because of reasons, presumably?

[Universally Hated Pundit]

Reasons are for the weak.

[meatrace]

Kryzbyn wrote:

This is funny...

I'm conservative, but when I run a game, I give out the same xp rewards regardless of involvement, or level of RP.

I'm in a game run by 2 liberal folks, and if I miss a game night, no matter the reason (but most of the time it's becasue I'm on-call, and I have work to do), I am given no points.

Everyone in the game group I've run for save one is a conservative.
Everyone in the game group I play in save one (me) is a liberal.

Anecdotal, for sure.

I don't get it. Why would you give someone XP if they weren't present and participating?

I don't care if your newborn baby is in the hospital enduring surgery you get your g%$~&+n priorities straight if you ever want to see 6th level.

But in all seriousness, I usually give half XP for people who let me know ahead of time and allow another player to play their character for the session.

[Irontruth]

We do two things:

1) if you show up for part of the session, you get all the XP for that session. You make the effort to show and participate, you get credit for it.
2) if you're behind on XP, you earn double until you catch up.

We use our own XP system that alters the math some and don't use standard CR rewards. It works for us and we've been using it for over a decade.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

So, as I said, if you don't make it, you don't get xp, but what I forgot to mention is: if even one person can't make it, we usually just cancel.

That's probably why our campaigns take so long.

[LazarX]

meatrace wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

This is funny...

I'm conservative, but when I run a game, I give out the same xp rewards regardless of involvement, or level of RP.

I'm in a game run by 2 liberal folks, and if I miss a game night, no matter the reason (but most of the time it's becasue I'm on-call, and I have work to do), I am given no points.

Everyone in the game group I've run for save one is a conservative.
Everyone in the game group I play in save one (me) is a liberal.

Anecdotal, for sure.

I don't get it. Why would you give someone XP if they weren't present and participating?

I don't care if your newborn baby is in the hospital enduring surgery you get your g~&&+&n priorities straight if you ever want to see 6th level.

But in all seriousness, I usually give half XP for people who let me know ahead of time and allow another player to play their character for the session.

Ever since I've played Amber Diceless, I'm more inclined to level characters by fiat rather than worry about niggling exp numbers. I've found that the kill only exp route tends to drive players into motivating their characters by the numbers than by story goals. I'm not worried about people who "freeload" since I'm very selective about who I GM for. Quite frankly I like 3 XP/level rule of PFS, it suits network play rather well, and it's a good plan for people who want to do a 1-20 campaign in a relatively short timespan. I'm not sure I have that many decades left in me to commit a whole decade to a campaign any more.

[Charlie Bell]

I strongly believe in both individual responsibility and individual rights.

I nonetheless give the same XP to everybody regardless of whether or not they're actually at the session. It's too much of a pain to track XP for 6 different players and figure who's higher level and who's lower level. Everybody is same same. If somebody does something awesome and gets bonus XP, the whole group gets it.

[Krensky]

Fit another point, I'm fairly liberal and I give everyone the same XP because I find mixed level groups a pain to run and they make a number of systems in my game go wonky.

Individual rewards come on the form of Acton Dice.

[meatrace]

LazarX wrote:

Ever since I've played Amber Diceless, I'm more inclined to level characters by fiat rather than worry about niggling exp numbers. I've found that the kill only exp route tends to drive players into motivating their characters by the numbers than by story goals. I'm not worried about people who "freeload" since I'm very selective about who I GM for. Quite frankly I like 3 XP/level rule of PFS, it suits network play rather well, and it's a good plan for people who want to do a 1-20 campaign in a relatively short timespan. I'm not sure I have that many decades left in me to commit a whole decade to a campaign any more.

There are pros and cons to leveling by fiat. In my experience, limited as it may be, it disincentivizes chance taking and exploration, and also disconnects players from the reward structure/ladder.

When there's an XP system, there's something to hand out every week, even if there's no treasure. Players feel more engaged when they feel their character is progressing, at least mechanically, and they know how far until the next level. At least for me, when the DM says "ok go ahead and level to 7" I rarely feel like I've earned it, and that's backed up by feedback I've gotten from players.

On the other hand, if you have a relatively small, dedicated group who is engaged in the game, especially if it is an Adventure Path or something relatively rails-ey, fiat works fine because, among other things, you can expect there to be other weekly rewards.

My compromise, as I mentioned, is to allow people who know they're not going to be able to show to give or transmit their character sheet to another player. The absent player gets half XP for stuff done specifically in that session, and all XP from "quest" or "adventure" completion ad hoc rewards, which tend to be plentiful. I also give players a set number of action points each week, but they have to show up to use them. If someone plays your character, their reward is a bonus action point. And action points can be pretty powerful.

[Kryzbyn]

So it doesn't seem to have anything to do with political leaning, but more ease of play?

[Justin Rocket]

Sebastian wrote:

Politely asking someone to explain why your b#&!&#%+ smells like b+$*~&&+ doesn't magically make it into chocolate ice cream.

I don't think "conservatives believe 'you get what you put into it' except for the disabled" is b#*%@+*%. I just think its different from what liberals believe.

[Vincent Takeda]

I definitely don't think the two are connected in any way... I've also had the experience of a staunch republico/constitutionalist/total economic freedom kinda guy who flat out tried to fiat crafting for profit and frowns heavily on free will of any kind...

Racial selection, core only... you name it... if there's an arbitrary restriction, despite being a staunch supporter of free market capitalism and free market lifestyle... He's strongly supported restriction in the games he runs.

We have had a laugh at the contrast... I think in a lot of people their playstyle matches their ideology and in others their playstyle is to escape from what they perceive to be real world truths that perhaps they feel force an ideological view to live by on, and wish to escape from....

Fun little observations but we also try to keep the game table away from religion and politics.

Knowing what a republican he's been I did like throwing them into an alaska campaign where Sarah Palin was the mastermind of an organization that hunted mutants and enslaved them for the 'good of the country'...

It sort of blended well with his philosophy of 'patriotism' plus 'put you to work doing what you do best' and his wierd sort of 'stalinist leanings' when the dice hit the table..

Was really jazzed to see what happened when he finally figured out what was going on... Would he join the resistance or join the empire.

[thejeff]

meatrace wrote:

There are pros and cons to leveling by fiat. In my experience, limited as it may be, it disincentivizes chance taking and exploration, and also disconnects players from the reward structure/ladder.

When there's an XP system, there's something to hand out every week, even if there's no treasure. Players feel more engaged when they feel their character is progressing, at least mechanically, and they know how far until the next level. At least for me, when the DM says "ok go ahead and level to 7" I rarely feel like I've earned it, and that's backed up by feedback I've gotten from players.

On the other hand, if you have a relatively small, dedicated group who is engaged in the game, especially if it is an Adventure Path or something relatively rails-ey, fiat works fine because, among other things, you can expect there to be other weekly rewards.

OTOH, even when we've played with tracking experience, it was rarely handed out every week. We'd play for a bunch of sessions and either reach a natural break point (or sometimes just before a climactic battle session) and the GM would pass out a bunch of experience and see if we'd gone up. Sometimes we'd have to remind him and we'd find out we were well past a level.

We were never really reward motivated. :)
Maybe that's why all the "Use xp to reward people for showing up" stuff never really made any sense to me.

[LazarX]

meatrace wrote:

On the other hand, if you have a relatively small, dedicated group who is engaged in the game, especially if it is an Adventure Path or something relatively rails-ey, fiat works fine because, among other things, you can expect there to be other weekly rewards.

That's pretty much the way I work. I only GM for close personal friends. I do Judge PFS, but that's not GMing, as the campaign only has one GM, Mike Brock. As far as PFS goes, I'm very strict when it comes to mechanics, and of varying degrees in other aspects of the game.

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, even when we've played with tracking experience, it was rarely handed out every week. We'd play for a bunch of sessions and either reach a natural break point (or sometimes just before a climactic battle session) and the GM would pass out a bunch of experience and see if we'd gone up. Sometimes we'd have to remind him and we'd find out we were well past a level.

We were never really reward motivated. :)
Maybe that's why all the "Use xp to reward people for showing up" stuff never really made any sense to me.

Yeah we get XP every week. It's always the last thing we do before we pack our things up, and we do it so that the DM doesn't forget what we've killed/accomplished which he most certainly will by the next session.

[Sissyl]

There is a very practical reason for letting people get xp even if they don't show: My job as a GM is still to make sure everyone has fun, and that job gets more difficult if PCs are of different levels.

[137ben]

LazarX wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

This is funny...

I'm conservative, but when I run a game, I give out the same xp rewards regardless of involvement, or level of RP.

I'm in a game run by 2 liberal folks, and if I miss a game night, no matter the reason (but most of the time it's becasue I'm on-call, and I have work to do), I am given no points.

Everyone in the game group I've run for save one is a conservative.
Everyone in the game group I play in save one (me) is a liberal.

Anecdotal, for sure.

I don't get it. Why would you give someone XP if they weren't present and participating?

I don't care if your newborn baby is in the hospital enduring surgery you get your g~&&+&n priorities straight if you ever want to see 6th level.

But in all seriousness, I usually give half XP for people who let me know ahead of time and allow another player to play their character for the session.

I still track xp, but I stopped tracking individual xp a long time ago (even back in 3.0, we never played with spell/crafting xp costs, although we played crafting cost 2/3 the market price instead of 1/2 like in PF, so it was easy to stop keeping track of individual xp). I'd be perfectly happy to play without xp, too.

Everyone always complains about the problems that come up when the PCs are different levels. Even if you want to keep track of xp (and in many systems, the default assumption is that you don't, like in GURPS), I don't see any reason, every, where the game would benefit from having different-level PCs. And if the PCs are always going to be the same level, why bother keeping separate xp totals?

It makes the discussion of how much xp to award a missing player moot:)
Ever since I've played Amber Diceless, I'm more inclined to level characters by fiat rather than worry about niggling exp numbers. I've found that the kill only exp route tends to drive players into motivating their characters by the numbers than by story goals. I'm not worried about people who "freeload" since I'm very selective about who I GM for. Quite frankly I like 3 XP/level rule of PFS, it suits network play rather well, and it's a good plan for people who want to do a 1-20 campaign in a relatively short timespan. I'm not sure I have that many decades left in me to commit a whole decade to a campaign any more.

[Sebastian]

Next time I DM, I'm going to show off my banana republic ideology by selling xp.

[Krensky]

For hookers and blow?

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Sissyl wrote:

There is a very practical reason for letting people get xp even if they don't show: My job as a GM is still to make sure everyone has fun, and that job gets more difficult if PCs are of different levels.

Also I am lazy, and balancing encounters is easier if everyone is the same level.

[MYTHIC TOZ]

Here here!

[Charlie Bell]

Exactly.

[Adamantine Dragon]

MYTHIC TOZ wrote:

Here here!

where? where?

One of my pet peeves.... The phrase is "Hear! Hear!" not "Here, here!"

Grrrr.....