Sharing GM credits

[Velmont]

Sharing gold is allowed, as long as you don't do it between your character (that include you can give it to anotehr character so he can give it to your second character after...)

I think DH have a point that it might open teh door to some kind of favoritism, but at the same time, what would have happen if DH would have three 4th level character, and her girls would have wanted to join at that moment? That modification would be a nice way to allow to join teh game, maybe with a higher level character, so the difference between the two would be less, and her girl's character could think to follow her father's character.

Seen like that, it is a two sided coin I think.

 

[LiL'Hauptman]

oops

 

[DerHauptman]

Hmm...My character's first and only use of gold was when she lent 25 gold to another character she met in the RDI to summon a familiar. Would you have been against that too?

I don't even consider that a legitimate question - you know the two are apples and oranges, no apples and cows.

Of course I would have no problem with that scenario - because it was an exchange between two characters who each earned their gold in game legitimately.

I am not particularly overly concerned about the wealth issue - since two characters can exchange wealth anyway.​

It is the exchange of XP that distresses me a good deal.

"I know an over active GM so now I can start at level 3 - I don't have to earn my levels like everyone else."

I am sadly not a big fan of low level play (for me 1-3) because of the frailty of characters and the overall lack of options, skills and abilities. Ideally, a game for me would start at level 4. Incidentally, I dislike high level play a good bit more than low level - anything over level 15 is like an excruciating math quiz.

Fair for you to give me the ability to start where I like because you are my friend? Because you are my spouse etc. It will soon become about who you know not starting and playing on a level field.​

The bottom line is this....

One game, one community, one set of rules one standard - your character doesn't earn it IN GAME, you don't have it.

Role playing for gold from a party member = earning it I'm game.

Getting the level boost from a retired character = earning it in game.

Rewarding GM's and their characters for their efforts (GM is in game IMO) = earning it in game.​

Easy enough for me to understand.

I say for once we don't go down the slippery slope of letting GM's reward their favorite players with XP so they can participate in higher level play without earning it.

Also, lets not digress (as we often do) into the "we are the Judges and GM's we are above any cliquish behavior or favoritism line" - we are all people and people reward the people they know and like - period. I don't think anyone would maliciously screw anyone here in LEW.

Just remember, even if you'd (and I mean any you, not RA or anyone in particular) never do it doesn't anyone else thinks the same....

Letting someone choose to give a free head start to anyone else just because - is just like any other preferential program in the world. (Avoiding politics, please)

Regardless of the reason or how much thought one puts into it to give someone an advantage over others because of their association or relationship is favoritism - it breeds cliques - period.

 

[Bront]

The specific reason for this request was to potentialy turn an NPC into a PC played by the GM, and the required XP to do that were not available, so the only way to do it would have been to give credits to him. (Unfortunately, it would have required getting to 4th level, and we couldn't get much past half way to 2nd).

As Velmont and RA have pointed out, sharing gold is already allowed, so there realy isn't any way to stop that.

Again, I'll remind you, it takes 20 credits (IE, 20 months of GMing) to credit a full level. So the effect is minemal.

And honestly, if you prevent every rule from being used simply because it "might become clickish", you're not giving players enough credit.

 

[Bront]

I say for once we don't go down the slippery slope of letting GM's reward their favorite players with XP so they can participate in higher level play without earning it.

Also, lets not digress (as we often do) into the "we are the Judges and GM's we are above any cliquish behavior or favoritism line" - we are all people and people reward the people they know and like - period. I don't think anyone would maliciously screw anyone here in LEW.

Just remember, even if you'd (and I mean any you, not RA or anyone in particular) never do it doesn't anyone else thinks the same....

Letting someone choose to give a free head start to anyone else just because - is just like any other preferential program in the world. (Avoiding politics, please)

Regardless of the reason or how much thought one puts into it to give someone an advantage over others because of their association or relationship is favoritism - it breeds cliques - period.

I'll also remind you that use of GM credits is still subject to approval. But I'd have no problem with you giving GM credits to LiL'Hauptman, as an example.

 

[IcyCool]

Derhauptman has a point (in that this could easily create little cliques and not only appears to lead to favoritism, it is designed for it). However, as anyone can get DM credits, and they are time based, I think I can get behind it.

Now, the real question is what is the average levelling time in LEW? If it is longer than 20 months, which of you kind GM's needs a toady?

 

[Someone]

Now, the real question is what is the average levelling time in LEW? If it is longer than 20 months, which of you kind GM's needs a toady?

I've found that leveling times are quite variable, to the point that it's misleading to talk about an "average leveling time" in the same way that having your head in the oven and your feet in the fridge does not make on average a comfortable temperature. It can run from arond 2 months or even less for 1st levels joining an adventure for higher levels onward to 4, 5 or 6 months.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I've found that leveling times are quite variable, to the point that it's misleading to talk about an "average leveling time" in the same way that having your head in the oven and your feet in the fridge does not make on average a comfortable temperature. It can run from arond 2 months or even less for 1st levels joining an adventure for higher levels onward to 4, 5 or 6 months.

Most recently, I had one of my adventures which got stuck for a while and didn't post much, staying at level 3 (and almost 4) for almost a year, and then it went into a frenzy of activity and leveled to 4, then 5, then 6 all in a short timespan, as the plot of the adventure unravelled and lots of encounters occurred.

For my own PCs, they are level 3 after something like a year and a half of playing--I think they are significantly below the curve, but they always wind up in adventures that stall for one reason or another

 

[Velmont]

Rinaldo have level every 6 month in average. My other characters are a bit slower, but taht because Opale died once (just as she gained a new level ) and Ridik is stuck in a slow pace adventure.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Rinaldo have level every 6 month in average. My other characters are a bit slower, but taht because Opale died once (just as she gained a new level ) and Ridik is stuck in a slow pace adventure.

Hmmm...in my opinion, dying just when you gain a level is the absolute best time, and dying right before you gain a level is the worst (this is because you lose all the XP towards the next level, plus half the level before, so dying just after leveling takes away only half a level, where as dying just before takes away almost 1.5)