The Fine Art of Quitting a Bad Game

[Mark]

The Fine Art of Quitting a Bad Game?

Just be polite.

 

[Storm Raven]

You missed the point. DnD should be fun, regardless of the treasure award.

And, for many people, the acquisition of wealth for their character is part of the fun. Without it, you sap their game of an element of fun. Perhaps you should think about what it is that makes you so hostile to the idea that characters would desire to engage in endeavors that would be financially benefiicial.

You seem to fall into the kick the door, kill the monster, get the gold kind of gamer. Which is fine. In the end, thats pretty much what the game is about. What I am saying is, the players shouldn't play for the satisfaction of getting the gold.

Having never played a game with me (or most of the other people here), I think you have no idea what kind of gamer I am, or what kind of gamer just about anyone else here is. The desire to earn rewards as a result of the risks one runs is applicable to a huge variety of styles of gaming.

If your life sucks so much that you need a pretend character earning pretend gold to have fun and make yourself and your character cool and that the game isn't fun and the character isn't good without said reward, well then you need to examine what you can do IRL to bolster your self esteem.

Who said anything about "need". D&D is an FRPG, with part of the name being "fantasy", and that doesn't necessarily apply to the genre. Part of playing the game is to have fun, and for a lot of people, having fun means finding treasure. I find your amatuer psychoanalysis to be the mark of an extreme control freak DM desperately trying to justify his campaign preferences as "right" and denigrate everyone else's as "wrong".

Why not just goto Vegas and put nickels in slot machines? Because thats not why people should play these games. Again, I ask the question...what if the game were a blast every week....would you quit because the treasure pay out was small?

If the treasure obtained was miniscule compared to the risk my character was running, my character would often times have little incentive to adventure as opposed to opening a brewery, or farming, or something less dangerous to life and limb. You see, viewing things from the character's point of view is part and parcel of role-playing, something you claim to advocate.

And, once again, you decide to tell people how they "should" play the game. People should play these games because they find them fun. For a lot of people, part of the fun is having, using, and obtaining treasure, cool items, and interesting magical powers.

In characted yes, sometimes you would question why you are risking life and limb for some gold. Unless your character was a paladin or altruistic. Remember that 1 GP = what...50 bucks? so players killing bugbears and getting 100 gp is like finding 5000 bucks.

Except that the 50 bucks comparison isn't really valid, and never really has been. Look at the prices of items to get a real comparison. Thieves' tools are not worth the equivalent of $250, a dagger isn't worth $100. Which makes your entire argument on those lines fall apart.

Am I pigeonholing what and how I think people should play DnD? Maybe. But I'll stand by my statement. You don't need large amounts of treasure or magic items awarded to you to have fun in the game, and if its the payout of an adventure that defines whether a game is fun to you, then you need to examine what is lacking in your real life and fix that.

I think that all you have really done by declaring how people "should" play the game, and your thinly veiled insults about the "shortcomings" of those who don't agree with your play style is confirm that AO was probably being quite generous and polite when he descibed your campaign.

And by the way, talking about how you "run a game in a game shop" as if it is some sort of special thing just makes you look pretentious and like you have a puffed up ego.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

There must be, 50 ways to leave the party.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

What's the Problem?

So, I want to quit.

So, quit. Baltimore is a metropolis; you should be able to find and/or start another gaming group fairly quickly.

-Samir

 

[Conaill]

The game was probably not fun because the treasure obtained was so minimal. If I want to work at making ends meet on moderate income, I don't have to play D&D to do that, and neither do most other people. Players, quite reasonably, expect that the rewards they earn will be commensurate with the risks their characters take. A low payout will kill a game if the players believe this is not the case.

As someone who didn't start out roleplaying in D&D, it still strikes me as odd that D&D players expect to be rewarded with "loot" whenever they accomplish an adventure. Or that someone would claim categorically that "a low payout will kill a game". Guess we must not have been playing correctly all these years.

Of course, I do agree that players come to a game with certain expectations, and if those expectations are being squashed on a regular basis, they're not likely to stick around. It's just that our expectations tended to be more along the lines of "save the maiden", "save the world", or simply "be a hero" (or maybe "be celebrated as a hero"), rather than "... and get rich while doing so".

Still can't quite wrap my mind around seeing slavering monsters as a good source for treasure either.

 

[Montague68]

As someone who didn't start out roleplaying in D&D, it still strikes me as odd that D&D players expect to be rewarded with "loot" whenever they accomplish an adventure. Or that someone would claim categorically that "a low payout will kill a game". Guess we must not have been playing correctly all these years.

Of course, I do agree that players come to a game with certain expectations, and if those expectations are being squashed on a regular basis, they're not likely to stick around. It's just that our expectations tended to be more along the lines of "save the maiden", "save the world", or simply "be a hero" (or maybe "be celebrated as a hero"), rather than "... and get rich while doing so".

Still can't quite wrap my mind around seeing slavering monsters as a good source for treasure either.

Gold and loot can function as another means of character progression. It's true some DM's don't get it. Suspension of disbelief problems - "Why the heck would an Ankheg keep 200 gp in its burrow???" coupled with a disinclination for selling magic items = why do the characters need gold?

As characters progress in power, it's only natural for the player to want to see the character rise in stature in the campaign world. Gold and treasure offers a way to do that. The character can buy land. Build a stronghold, laboratory, castle, what have you. The character can become active in politics, which in any pseudo-medieval culture would surely involve some level of bribery. Perhaps the character will create a shipping company and try to become mega-rich. Savvy DM's can provide all sorts of money sinks for the character to blow gold on. IMO loot = good. It provides incentive for the character and reward at the same time.

 

[Conaill]

The character can buy land. Build a stronghold, laboratory, castle, what have you. The character can become active in politics, which in any pseudo-medieval culture would surely involve some level of bribery. Perhaps the character will create a shipping company and try to become mega-rich.

Or alternatively:

The character can be given land in reward. Acquire a stronghold, laboratory, castle, what have you. The character can become active in politics, for which in any pseudo-medieval culture a hero's renown would surely come in handy. Perhaps the character will inherit or take over a shipping company from some BBEG and try to become mega-rich. But then why would they bother to keep adventuring?

 

[Felix]

As someone who didn't start out roleplaying in D&D, it still strikes me as odd that D&D players expect to be rewarded with "loot" whenever they accomplish an adventure.

D&D 101

Step 1: Kill things.
Step 2: Take their stuff.
Step 3: Get paid.
Step 4: Buy new stuff.
Step 5: See Step 1.

 

[Montague68]

Or alternatively:

The character can be given land in reward. Acquire a stronghold, laboratory, castle, what have you. The character can become active in politics, for which in any pseudo-medieval culture a hero's renown would surely come in handy. Perhaps the character will inherit or take over a shipping company from some BBEG and try to become mega-rich. But then why would they bother to keep adventuring?

Six of one, a half dozen of the other. I choose to ignore the absurdity of finding gold in ruins or on monsters, you choose to ignore the usefulness of gold in a campaign world. As long as it floats you and your players' boats, it's all good.

Edit: Though if you'll notice, most of your scenarios require the DM to "give" the reward to the character. The character can't take the initiative to bring about those conditions (with the exception of politics). Sure, the player can request the DM to hand out such a reward but isn't making your own permanent mark on the campaign world more rewarding than waiting for the DM to hand it out to you like another magic item?

 

[Conaill]

Though if you'll notice, most of your scenarios require the DM to "give" the reward to the character.

Oh, and yours don't?

The only real difference in how "pro-active" the character can be about such a reward is that in your scenario, the heroes have to take the initiative to loot corpses. In mine, they have to take the initiative to be heroes. In both scenarios, it's still up to the DM to decide exactly how much reward they get in response.