What! Limper has a gripe?

[barsoomcore]

The point of the disagreement was that the analogy itself was flawed./b]

Not falwed at all. Money for good performance is equated to XP for good performance. Therein is the analogy. It is simply that prfessional sports offers the simplest manner in which to make a comparison to the general circumstance of recieveing a reward for good performances.

Okay, so I'll accept that one can make an analogy of money for XP (note that this has NOTHING to do with sports). I'll still argue that it's a flawed analogy. Flawed because gaming is not a job. People get paid to do their jobs -- that is, to do that which otherwise they might not bother to do. People do the things they love REGARDLESS of whether or not they get any money. Your analogy only provides useful insight if we assume people play D&D primarily in order to write ever-larger numbers in the "Experience Points" box on their character sheet. I don't believe that they do, hence your analogy is flawed.

Name one sport that NOBODY watches which supports professional athletes.

That is not what I meant either. It is only partially true because drawing a crowd is only a part of why they get paid., but that would be a rather capitolistic analogy involving investment in what amounts to a human stock market fed by the crowds hungry for low brow physical entertainment.

Sorry, what? You're going to have to repeat that one if you want me to respond -- I have no idea what you're talking about. Why else do athletes get paid then?

Pro athletes get paid ONLY because they draw a crowd.

That is an argument of which came first, the athelete's talent or the money hungry manager and public relations person whoring him for cash and making him appear far more talented or lucrative than his actual abilites allow for.

What? How do you do this? Where does the manager and PR people come into this?

*shakes head*

Okay, you know what? Let's forget about the athletes/role-player analogy, okay? It makes no sense at all and your efforts to drag in stock markets, public relations and who knows what else is only making it worse. The question of whether or not it's a good analogy is unimportant to the actual issue which is are individual XP awards a good idea?

I say they are not. I say this because they demonstratably provide reasons for players to compete rather than complement, to argue about who received which award and why, and provide yet another management task for the DM.

You say they are good because they reward the superior player.

Alright, my counter to that is that truly superior players find their reward within the game itself, not in a set of numbers. Great play results in great roles in great stories, and that's why people play well in the first place. Not so that a number can be made larger.

So, assuming I missed all your careful points previously, can you refute either my reasons for opposing individual awards, or my rebuttal to your reason? Or do you have other reasons that I have failed to include?

 

[Silverthrone]

There is no logical connection. Hordes of people play sports every day for no cash whatsoever. Children, teens, and yes, even fully grown adults engage in thes activities for the sheer enjoyment of playing the game, with no prospect of financial reward of any kind.

Pro athletes are in an entirely different category, not because they are the best, but because people are willing to pay money to see them play. Saying that people need XP rewards for good roleplaying is not analogous to saying people need financial rewards to play baseball, people play baseball all the time with no prospect of any kind of financial reward.

And you continue to either not understand the analogy I was making or feign it to try and discredit my analogy in the first place thus making me look bad in the process. Either denotes a lack of understanding (Or intelligence.) or some truly deplorable debate tactics.

Yeah. Sure. Nothing elitest about that attitude. So terribly sorry that RPG's are no longer "the province of the intelligent." I'll be sure to keep all of my lip-drooling vidkiddy friends away from your yachting events, too.

Please do.


That same argument was raised when 3rd edition first came out. "WHAT A POWERGAMEY PIECE OF CRAP! This absolutely kills roleplaying!"

The argument was as flawed then as it is now. The diplomacy skill is not a replacement for roleplaying. It represents the nonverbal things that can effect the outcome of a conversation - body language, demeanor, etc - things that can't really be roleplayed effectively but definitely are important.

THose they can most certainly be role played out and done so quite well by a group willing to role play. Those skills are not needed except by those who lack the skills to be paticipating in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "capitalistic analogy," but yes, it is 100% true. If a crowd doesn't show up, there's NO MONEY TO PAY THE PLAYERS WITH. Drawing a crowd is the ONLY reason professional sports exist.

Making money is the reason they exist. Drawing a crowd is a large portion of how that is accomplished. Not the only portion, but a large one. Others have to do with marketing and licensing agreements to which products from breakfast cereals to shoes are marketed to an audience of teenagers who jump right into the next trendy thing hoping to garner some respect and sense of self from a group of equally clueless and low brow peers instead of honestly spending sometime souls searching and establishing who they are without trying to find it in becoming one of the collective unimind of teenage society.


There's nothing in the system that encourages any type of behavior. It's a set of rules. What you do with them is your own business.

The very way the rules are laid out, the method for rewards, advancement, and play is designed around numbers and randomn luck over true role playing skills and thius designed to appeal to the new or the unskilled or unintelligent.

RTToEE, Manual of the Planes, Fiend Folio, Greyhawk as the default setting...yeah...they've certainly forgotten their roots.

Indeed. Those were quality works back in the day. Now they are unworthy mockeries not worth the paper they are printed on in terms of quality. We found RTToEE made a good coaster though.

Sounds to me like you're the generation devoted to stats, if this whole XP thing is so "unfair" to you. Those of us who are "enlightened" enough to realize it's just a game are perfectly happy with everyone showing up, eating some pretzels and drinking a few beers, and just having a good time. We don't worry about "picking up the slack" for another player or competing to see who has the most XP. We just have a fun time.

It is not a competition for role players, your trying, and rather unsuccessfully, to reverse the situation when it is infact the new generation of players who are obsessed with competition and playing D&D as if it were table top War Craft.

 

[barsoomcore]

Oh, please...

Wow, you really showed me.

When have I asked for that? Find a single post of mine where I have done so? In this thread? In any thread?

Oh, how about that. I've supported RP awards, awards based on effort and not on ability.

That's elitism, BN. Saying that a group deserves to be rewarded for their superiority. Nobody's saying that superiority has to be undeserved. Superiority based on effort is still superiority.

Why do you think there's something wrong with being elitist? I certainly don't. I'm elitist myself about lots of things. I'm elitist about the books I read (only read good ones), I'm elitist about the friends I keep (only keep the smart ones), and aren't we all?

When I get an apology for being called a slanderous term by a bigot.

Whoah. I am certainly willing to apologize for a misunderstanding between us. I'm willing to take my half of the blame -- we used different definitions of the word "elitist". Which is why I posted the definition in the first place -- trying to avoid this problem.

I did deliberately call you elitist. I still think that you are. I hope I've illustrated why I do, and I hope you understand that I meant no offense. If you still find the term offensive, I'm amenable to using any term you like. If you think that the definition I supplied does not apply to you, I'll be kind of surprised since I'm of the opinion that everyone is elitist about many things. I will admit to not knowing you at all, of course, so it's possible that you are different from every other person I've ever met in my life. Unlikely, but possible.

I would like an explanation for being called a bigot, however.

I've actually stated that a universal rule doesn't work, so prompting me for one is yet again an invalid attempt to discredit me for a stance I'm not making.

Nice try.

Good grief, I'm not trying to discredit you! I'm asking you about your ideas on implementing RP-based XP awards. You seem to have pretty strong notions on this subject. You have mentioned that you think there's room for optional rules on this affair -- I've interpreted your remarks to mean that you think the DMG should have included some such.

I understand that my attitude has become rather flippant. I feel like there's much more effort being spent on shrieking at each other rather than actually discussing an issue I'm sort of interested in. Can we talk about this? Or would you rather not?

EDIT: Added the word "us"

 

[Mark Chance]

Sending Messages

in Limper's case it would work wonderfully. the lousy player would be spending all his time training. the rest of the group could then find a hireling, henchman, cohort, whatever to replace him.

it would send a message to both the DM and the player to try and get him to do more...

I haven't been to a gaming convention in such a long time that I was forgetting why so many gamers have reputations for being social mutants.

Then I run across a post where a gamer has to use the game to "send a message" to other people.

I'm so glad that the people I game with can actually send messages by talking reasonably like adults. Heck, most of the players in my group even bathe regularly.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Wow, you really showed me.

I aim to please.

That's elitism, BN. Saying that a group deserves to be rewarded for their superiority. Nobody's saying that superiority has to be undeserved. Superiority based on effort is still superiority.

No, that's the basics of life.

People that don't forth effort at school flunk. People that don't put forth effort at work get fired. People that don't put forth effort at life end up lonely and miserable.

The only people I know that think that lack of effort should be rewarded or that effort shouldn't be rewarded are those that lack the desire to put forth the effort.

Why do you think there's something wrong with being elitist? I certainly don't. I'm elitist myself about lots of things. I'm elitist about the books I read (only read good ones), I'm elitist about the friends I keep (only keep the smart ones), and aren't we all?

"I don't pretend to be a man of the people, but I do try to be a man for the people."

Consequently, I've read lots of bad books. Trick is not to reread them like you do the good ones.

Whoah. I am certainly willing to apologize for a misunderstanding between us. I'm willing to take my half of the blame -- we used different definitions of the word "elitist". Which is why I posted the definition in the first place -- trying to avoid this problem.

I don't take to it very well, as I see your definition as little more than a cop out.

I did deliberately call you elitist. I still think that you are. I hope I've illustrated why I do, and I hope you understand that I meant no offense. If you still find the term offensive, I'm amenable to using any term you like.

"People that believe RP should be important in an RPG" should do nicely.

If you think that the definition I supplied does not apply to you, I'll be kind of surprised since I'm of the opinion that everyone is elitist about many things. I will admit to not knowing you at all, of course, so it's possible that you are different from every other person I've ever met in my life. Unlikely, but possible.

Quite likely, but I have little time to go through the intricacies of my past experiences.

I would like an explanation for being called a bigot, however.

Simple: Elitist is a term meant to inspire a negative view. I could make comparisons to other words, but I don't like using such terms in public. As such, however, the word contains negative connotations, having taken a meaning in the gaming community akin to "Person that looks down at those that don't RP and thus can't be taken seriously aside from directing scorn".

I find its use offensive, since it usually only gets used in conversations like this as they start to turn sour (as your use of it perfectly illustrates).

Good grief, I'm not trying to discredit you! I'm asking you about your ideas on implementing RP-based XP awards. You seem to have pretty strong notions on this subject. You have mentioned that you think there's room for optional rules on this affair -- I've interpreted your remarks to mean that you think the DMG should have included some such.

No, I stated that I agree that such are optional in the DMG, as they are. I've also directly stated that a universal system for such wouldn't work, for reasons that those opposed to such systems have made clear. The difference remains, however, that I support such systems on a by-group basis, as the DMG intends for them to be, while those opposed to such are universally opposed, despite what the DMG says on the matter.

I understand that my attitude has become rather flippant. I feel like there's much more effort being spent on shrieking at each other rather than actually discussing an issue I'm sort of interested in. Can we talk about this? Or would you rather not?

I'm willing to talk, but stay clear of that Elitist remark. It riles my goat.

But, to be social again, and to help stear this conversation on track, I present this:

I give experience per the adventure, not after encounters or at the end of the session. The exception to this is long quests, where I'll generally provide "interludes" of rest when leveling-up may occur.

If, during the adventure or "phase" of the quest, a Player has participated well, presented character interaction and behavior in a manner both consistant to previous play as well as evolving to reflect recent occurances, and who treats their PC as a person or, more accurately, as a character in a book or novel, as opposed to just a sheet of paper with numbers, I'll grant a 10%-20% bonus, depending on level and avoidance of meta-game thinking in preference of "in-character" thinking and decision making.

While I agree that in some regards, some Players may perform the aforementioned issues of stealing from other members, one-up-manship, etc., I've not encountered this particular issue in over 10 years, and attribute it to greed and lack of maturity. If these problems have arissen, but you are interested in granting such rewards, a simple guideline should suffice: D&D is a group participation game and any behavior that disrupts the "group initiative" will not be rewarded, arguements of Chaotic Alignment being irrelevant since it's been proven time and again that Chaotics can and will work together.

 

[barsoomcore]

People that don't forth effort at school flunk. People that don't put forth effort at work get fired. People that don't put forth effort at life end up lonely and miserable.

The only people I know that think that lack of effort should be rewarded or that effort shouldn't be rewarded are those that lack the desire to put forth the effort.

Right. So people who are superior in terms of effort made should be rewarded. Explain to me how this does not fit the definition of elitist -- which, let's be clear, I did not introduce into the conversation, and the definition of which I got from dictionary.com, not in some mealy-mouthed effort to make you look bad but just to clear the air over what the word ACTUALLY means.

Once more: I am NOT trying to make you look bad. I have never been trying to make you look bad. I disagree with you. I think you're wrong. But I am trying to understand what you mean so that I can better figure WHAT I think is wrong with your position.

Consequently, I've read lots of bad books. Trick is not to reread them like you do the good ones.

Right. Again. And again, an example of what I'm talking about with my use of the word elitist. You prefer good books to bad ones. This, I would argue, is a good thing. A rational thing. And also an elitist thing.

Elitist is a term meant to inspire a negative view. I could make comparisons to other words, but I don't like using such terms in public. As such, however, the word contains negative connotations, having taken a meaning in the gaming community akin to "Person that looks down at those that don't RP and thus can't be taken seriously aside from directing scorn".

Okay, I've tried to make VERY clear that this is exactly what I don't mean. Fine, let's not use THATWORD. I don't care what word we use. I only ever brought it up because ForceUser said that you and two others were presenting yourselves as THATWORD and you took exception. I thought perhaps you had misunderstood what he meant and sought only to point out that "THATWORD" did not have in itself any negative connotations. I did not call you a THATWORD in any context other than to state that all people make distinctions based on what they think is superior and thus everyone can be considered, as such, THATWORD. So all I have ever meant by calling you THATWORD is "You determine between items by deciding which one is superior, just like every other human being in the world."

So I'm still waiting for your explanation as to what makes me a bigot, exactly.

I give experience per the adventure, not after encounters or at the end of the session. The exception to this is long quests, where I'll generally provide "interludes" of rest when leveling-up may occur.

If, during the adventure or "phase" of the quest, a Player has participated well, presented character interaction and behavior in a manner both consistant to previous play as well as evolving to reflect recent occurances, and who treats their PC as a person or, more accurately, as a character in a book or novel, as opposed to just a sheet of paper with numbers, I'll grant a 10%-20% bonus, depending on level and avoidance of meta-game thinking in preference of "in-character" thinking and decision making.

While I agree that in some regards, some Players may perform the aforementioned issues of stealing from other members, one-up-manship, etc., I've not encountered this particular issue in over 10 years, and attribute it to greed and lack of maturity. If these problems have arissen, but you are interested in granting such rewards, a simple guideline should suffice: D&D is a group participation game and any behavior that disrupts the "group initiative" will not be rewarded, arguements of Chaotic Alignment being irrelevant since it's been proven time and again that Chaotics can and will work together.

See, this is just too much work for me. And too much stress. I guess the truth is that for me, I just want everyone to have fun. Now I think that the best way for everyone to have fun is if we all suspend our disbelief and really "get into it" as the popular phrase has it. That way I don't have to be worrying about who's the better role-player or not.

I'm paralytically lazy, is the thing. I will never do any more than I absolutely have to, and I don't think such an effort (and yes, for me, deciding on whether or not to award a 10-20% bonus counts as effort) is going to result in any improvement of my campaign.

What do you find has improved in your campaign since you started this system? Have you experimented with any other formats?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Right. So people who are superior in terms of effort made should be rewarded. Explain to me how this does not fit the definition of elitist -- which, let's be clear, I did not introduce into the conversation, and the definition of which I got from dictionary.com, not in some mealy-mouthed effort to make you look bad but just to clear the air over what the word ACTUALLY means.

To begin with, actual definition is irrelevant. The matter is one of how the word is commonly used within the community. After all, Heroic Fantasy is a supposed genre that, to date, has no accepted definition outside of the 3E community, yet it's used to justify itself in a circular-logic-jerk of amazing proportions.

To which, it is simple: Those that put forth effort succeed. It's not a matter of being superior, it's a matter of fulfilling the minimum obligations of life. I don't consider myself superior for working hard or for spending time with my kids or for being prepared for a gaming session, as these are obligations that are necessary for life and make life rewarding. I contribute to my job, making the work environment a better place. I contribute to my children, making my family a better home.

This is a basic essential truth of reality, and I can't support anything that is contrary to it, even if it's "just a game". After all, if you don't think about your moves in Chess, you end up in check. If you don't think about your purchases in Monopoly and plan your buildings to some degree, you end up broke, possibly in-debt. D&D, by it's nature, is a far more sophisticated game, allowing for incredibly in-depth situational possibilities, yet the equal-reward regardless of effort is alien to my sensibilities, and is the only game I know of that functions this way.

Once more: I am NOT trying to make you look bad. I have never been trying to make you look bad. I disagree with you. I think you're wrong. But I am trying to understand what you mean so that I can better figure WHAT I think is wrong with your position.

Understood. However, the reason you can't pin down why I'm wrong is because, within the context of the individual game, I am right, and this position is supported by the DMG. You might be able to prove me wrong, but in so doing, prove a part of the DMG wrong, and we wouldn't want to start down that path, now do we?

[qiuote]Right. Again. And again, an example of what I'm talking about with my use of the word elitist. You prefer good books to bad ones. This, I would argue, is a good thing. A rational thing. And also an elitist thing.[/quote]No, not elitist. One of taste. I don't consider my taste as better than the taste of another, just unique unto myself. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as the saying goes.

Okay, I've tried to make VERY clear that this is exactly what I don't mean. Fine, let's not use THATWORD. I don't care what word we use. I only ever brought it up because ForceUser said that you and two others were presenting yourselves as THATWORD and you took exception.

Because that's exactly how he meant it.

Meesa thinks hessa down with the wrong side offa force, meesa thinks.

I thought perhaps you had misunderstood what he meant and sought only to point out that "THATWORD" did not have in itself any negative connotations. I did not call you a THATWORD in any context other than to state that all people make distinctions based on what they think is superior and thus everyone can be considered, as such, THATWORD. So all I have ever meant by calling you THATWORD is "You determine between items by deciding which one is superior, just like every other human being in the world."

Not superior, just personal preference. I don't look down at others for their preferences. Yet the very people that look down at my preference are the same ones that through THATWORD around.

So I'm still waiting for your explanation as to what makes me a bigot, exactly.

If that's not how you meant it, than you're not a bigot. However, that is exactly how FU used it, and it's how many others use it, thus I suggest you avoid using it to prevent such misunderstandings in the future with others.

See, this is just too much work for me. And too much stress. I guess the truth is that for me, I just want everyone to have fun. Now I think that the best way for everyone to have fun is if we all suspend our disbelief and really "get into it" as the popular phrase has it. That way I don't have to be worrying about who's the better role-player or not.

Again, though, my words are being ignored:

Don't reward for ability; Award for effort.

So long as that simple sentance is ignored, this conversation will continue going in circles like it has been for the last 24 hours.

I'm paralytically lazy, is the thing. I will never do any more than I absolutely have to, and I don't think such an effort (and yes, for me, deciding on whether or not to award a 10-20% bonus counts as effort) is going to result in any improvement of my campaign.

Than don't do it. Exactly why I stated that a universal system won't work.

What do you find has improved in your campaign since you started this system? Have you experimented with any other formats?

I experimented with individual awards, but once I lost my notebook to a flood, and then I lost another to a 2 year old with a box of crayons, and thus decided to go with a more simplified, over-all "effort system".

I find that this has added to my game by allowing me to trim down the amount of combat/challenges necessary to level-up, permiting more focus on story-line, plot and character development.

 

[WizarDru]

[BAgain, though, my words are being ignored:

Don't reward for ability; Award for effort.

So long as that simple sentance is ignored, this conversation will continue going in circles like it has been for the last 24 hours.

Than don't do it. Exactly why I stated that a universal system won't work.[/B]

Which is the only point I was trying to make earlier. I didn't misunderstand you, I was trying to get you to admit this fact. I'm not telling you to award them or not....I award them, and split them equally. You don't, and that's fine, too. My point was that word 'mechanical' kept getting used, when it's clear there is no system other than the DM's gut feeling (or party vote) used to award such bonuses, and that it can't be made into a system beyond one that is applicable to a single group at a time. If you have devised such a system, I'd be honestly interested, because of it's value. Otherwise, I think we've reached an understanding, if not necessarily an agreement.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

THose they can most certainly be role played out and done so quite well by a group willing to role play. Those skills are not needed except by those who lack the skills to be paticipating in the first place.

So why bother even having a Charisma score if it can all be handled by role-playing? For that matter, why bother with Intelligence or Wisdom? Surely you can role-play someone of any mental faculty, so why do you need a score to define it?

Making money is the reason they exist. Drawing a crowd is a large portion of how that is accomplished. Not the only portion, but a large one. Others have to do with marketing and licensing agreements to which products from breakfast cereals to shoes are marketed to an audience of teenagers who jump right into the next trendy thing hoping to garner some respect and sense of self from a group of equally clueless and low brow peers instead of honestly spending sometime souls searching and establishing who they are without trying to find it in becoming one of the collective unimind of teenage society.

Wow...the jocks really beat the hell out of you as a kid, didn't they? Please, let's not let your own personal failings and social shortcomings interfere in an honest debate about XP rewards.

The very way the rules are laid out, the method for rewards, advancement, and play is designed around numbers and randomn luck over true role playing skills and thius designed to appeal to the new or the unskilled or unintelligent.

No, that's simply false. Just because in 1st edition you had to make up rules for every concievable situation because they hadn't been invented yet doesn't make the 3rd edition rule set inherently faulty. Numbers and random luck have been around since the beginning, and the golden rule is still "if you don't have a rule for it, just wing it." I am neither new, nor unskilled, nor unintelligent, and yet I find 3rd edition to be infinitely better than any previous edition of the game.

Indeed. Those were quality works back in the day. Now they are unworthy mockeries not worth the paper they are printed on in terms of quality. We found RTToEE made a good coaster though.

I'm sure the vast majority of people on this board would disagree with you on most of those products. But then again, we're probably all "sheep" anyways, right?

It is not a competition for role players, your trying, and rather unsuccessfully, to reverse the situation when it is infact the new generation of players who are obsessed with competition and playing D&D as if it were table top War Craft.

How in the hell do you get off telling me what my players are obsessed with? I think I know pretty well how my game sessions go. Your line of thinking is completely transparent here. "Hmm...Pokemon is popular with the kids today...they must be Pokemoning D&D!"

And, for the record, tabletop War Craft would be awful hard to do, due to the lack of decent mass combat rules. But I understand that you're just being snide and have probably never played Warcraft, so I'll just chalk that one up to ignorance.

None of my players are obsessed with competition. I'm not turning anything around, I'm simply pointing out facts. You are the ones who are complaining about little numbers not being distributed in a fair manner, not me.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Which is the only point I was trying to make earlier. I didn't misunderstand you, I was trying to get you to admit this fact.

Then you need to go back and see how long ago I stated this. That's likely the issue; You wanted me to state this, while I, already having stated it, felt that you were trying to run me in circles.

My point was that word 'mechanical' kept getting used, when it's clear there is no system other than the DM's gut feeling (or party vote) used to award such bonuses, and that it can't be made into a system beyond one that is applicable to a single group at a time.

My use of the word 'mechanical' was meant (and I'm sure I reiterated this before, but I'll do so again) that the effort be reworded in a mechanical manner. That would be Experience Points, as most game mechanics revolve around them.

If you have devised such a system, I'd be honestly interested, because of it's value. Otherwise, I think we've reached an understanding, if not necessarily an agreement.

Well, I give the 10%-20%, but I guess you could say that 10% is the "mechanic" while the other 1%-10% is "gut feeling", although, in all honesty, I'll tack on 1-3% without any qualms if it allows a level-up rather than making the Player wait through an entire adventure (just don't tell them I said so ).