What! Limper has a gripe?

[barsoomcore]

To begin with, actual definition is irrelevant. The matter is one of how the word is commonly used within the community.

No, the matter is what you mean as compared to what I mean. I put up a clear definition in order to make it perfectly plain what I meant by the word, not to browbeat you about correct usage. You either didn't read it, or choose to believe I posted it from some sneaky desire to make you look bad. Who's definition is closer to what "the community" thinks is of no consequence as far as me understanding you or you understanding me.

I don't consider myself superior for working hard

Nobody said you do. I didn't, anyways. I never suggested you do, so why are you even bringing this up? I mean, it's great that you're such a nice guy, but I don't care.

D&D...is the only game I know of that functions this way.

It's odd. You're saying here, if I understand correctly, that D&D does not reward individual effort. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think D&D immediately and drastically rewards individual effort. Those who try hard have more fun. They just do, the activity works that way. It's like watching a movie. If you'll put in some effort, suspend your disbelief, you'll always have more fun than the guy who sits back and lazily refuses to stretch his imagination. The activity provides its own reward.

What I object to is the notion that the best way to run the game is for the DM is distribute individual XP awards to each player, especially those based on subjective criteria. I think this is a worse way to play the game. It doesn't mean I'm some sort of Communist fanatic who believes everyone must share all burdens and all rewards equally.

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?

Why not? There's probably lots of parts of the DMG that are wrong. I know in my campaign I've gutted it pretty thoroughly. I don't actually think I'm having much trouble pinning down why you're wrong. I think I've provided pretty strong reasons. You've provided some counter-arguments and ultimately we will do whatever we feel like anyways. It's fun to talk about it, though.

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.

Again, I never once suggested that you do. It's interesting that for someone as open-minded and non-judgemental as you're claiming to be, you immediately started calling me a bigot for things I never did. Rather than point out how I was wrong for what I said (though in fact I hadn't said it), or make a case for your lack of elitism, you began to insult me.

I suggest you WERE looking down at me when you called me a bigot. I suggest it was a way of saying that my opinion was of less value, that your moral position was SUPERIOR to my own. Hm.

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.

Point out the failure in my argument to touch on that point. Was it when I said this:

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

I'm suggesting that distinguishing between people based on effort is every bit as elitist as distinguishing on any other criteria. You HAVE to distinguish between people SOMEHOW.

Now, if you think rewarding based on effort is some special "non-elitist" case, fine. As I have said many times, I don't care what words we use. My objection to individual XP awards is not based on some accusation of elitism that I never made in the first place. Is your defense based on the notion that I am bigot?

And why do you say this conversation has been going in circles? Are you not enjoying the debate? If not, why continue? I'm enjoying this quite a bit. I think we've knocked up some interesting possibilities and sharpened our opinions substantially. We're both of us much clearer about what we mean than we were when we started.

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.

Huh. Not for me, I'm afraid. I don't run a very combat-heavy game (though it's pretty rollicking-adventure stuff, I guess) and I like a slow levelling progression and I just make up XP awards anyways, using CRs as a guide (my campaign is too tweaked for the actual system to work as outlined so I kinda have to).

 

[Silverthrone]

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?

Because there are underlying mechanics attached to Int and WIsdom, and now Cha, that cannot be handled purely by role playing within the standards of D&D or most other systems.

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.

It was an honest reply to a point made about sports players getting paid because they draw a crowd and I was explaining that is not the only reason they do.


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.

It certainly is the most dumbed down version of the game. Little wonder why they thought it would have more mass appeal.

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?

By your own words.

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!"

It is all about marketing trends and target audiences. It is about what sells (Unfortunately.) and if Pokemon sales, then whatever can be made similar will likely be made similar to cash in on it.

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.

Table top War Craft is pretty easy to do. Plenty of mass combat style games exist along the same lines. There was a rather popular one from the 80s, name escapes me at the moment that was similar to War Craft but sat in space. Also, designing such a rules system would be pretty simple. Strategy games like War Craft have been around for quite a long time.

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.

My complaint is the modern D&D rewards the sort of behavor that is not role playing, the point of the game itself.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No, the matter is what you mean as compared to what I mean. I put up a clear definition in order to make it perfectly plain what I meant by the word, not to browbeat you about correct usage. You either didn't read it, or choose to believe I posted it from some sneaky desire to make you look bad. Who's definition is closer to what "the community" thinks is of no consequence as far as me understanding you or you understanding me.

Oh, I understand you. My point is that the term is usually used in a derogatory manner. I just suggest that you avoid using it unless you wish to explain dictionary definitions every time someone takes acception to it.

It's odd. You're saying here, if I understand correctly, that D&D does not reward individual effort. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think D&D immediately and drastically rewards individual effort. Those who try hard have more fun. They just do, the activity works that way. It's like watching a movie. If you'll put in some effort, suspend your disbelief, you'll always have more fun than the guy who sits back and lazily refuses to stretch his imagination. The activity provides its own reward.

To a degree, yes. What I'm saying is that in a group activity, doing so makes the game more enriching for everyone, thus I feel inclined to reward for it. After all, considering all the work that I put into DMing a campaign, developing cultures, cities, countries, adventures and encounters, anyone that is able to make the game better with me as well as for me is a godsend.

What I object to is the notion that the best way to run the game is for the DM is distribute individual XP awards to each player, especially those based on subjective criteria. I think this is a worse way to play the game. It doesn't mean I'm some sort of Communist fanatic who believes everyone must share all burdens and all rewards equally.

I'm not saying it's the best way, although it's made the game at my table better.

Why not? There's probably lots of parts of the DMG that are wrong. I know in my campaign I've gutted it pretty thoroughly. I don't actually think I'm having much trouble pinning down why you're wrong. I think I've provided pretty strong reasons. You've provided some counter-arguments and ultimately we will do whatever we feel like anyways. It's fun to talk about it, though.

And there's nothing I enjoy better than going through these rules with a hot knife, either. I'm only saying that going over all the mistakes now (like the liberal use of the word 'mistake' in reference to anything not matching their CR measurement) would only distract from the topic further.

Again, I never once suggested that you do. It's interesting that for someone as open-minded and non-judgemental as you're claiming to be, you immediately started calling me a bigot for things I never did. Rather than point out how I was wrong for what I said (though in fact I hadn't said it), or make a case for your lack of elitism, you began to insult me.

As I indicated, the word 'elite' is often used as a derogative term. You simply had the misfortune of using the word true to its definition immediately after it was used in a slanderous manner.

I suggest you WERE looking down at me when you called me a bigot. I suggest it was a way of saying that my opinion was of less value, that your moral position was SUPERIOR to my own. Hm.

No, I've already explained this, so I'll do so again: It's a word often used as an insult, comparible to 'RP Nazi'.

Point out the failure in my argument to touch on that point. Was it when I said this:

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

I'm suggesting that distinguishing between people based on effort is every bit as elitist as distinguishing on any other criteria. You HAVE to distinguish between people SOMEHOW.

There are good people that don't put forth effort for various reasons in life. I merely indicate that people get what they earn, in school, work, life and D&D.

Now, if you think rewarding based on effort is some special "non-elitist" case, fine. As I have said many times, I don't care what words we use. My objection to individual XP awards is not based on some accusation of elitism that I never made in the first place. Is your defense based on the notion that I am bigot?

I reward those who help enrich the game. If that makes non-contributers feel lesser, than it's their own failing to contribute that causes it, not an elitist attitude of my own.

And why do you say this conversation has been going in circles? Are you not enjoying the debate? If not, why continue? I'm enjoying this quite a bit. I think we've knocked up some interesting possibilities and sharpened our opinions substantially. We're both of us much clearer about what we mean than we were when we started.

Simple, I'm saying I reward for effort. You (and others) keep making references to people who are better at RP than others, which is ignoring what I'm saying. Why continue in a conversation if my most basic statements are being ignored for the simple purpose of continuing a needless debate?

Huh. Not for me, I'm afraid. I don't run a very combat-heavy game (though it's pretty rollicking-adventure stuff, I guess) and I like a slow levelling progression and I just make up XP awards anyways, using CRs as a guide (my campaign is too tweaked for the actual system to work as outlined so I kinda have to).

So rather than a system that uses CR rewards combined with ad-hoc bonuses, you just give completely ad-hoc rewards?

And your problem with my system is what exactly?

Consequently, I use the CR rewards as written, even though I've also greatly modified the "in-game" environment. I simply re-evaluated what CRs the actual events are.

 

[barsoomcore]

Oh, I understand you. My point is that the term is usually used in a derogatory manner. I just suggest that you avoid using it unless you wish to explain dictionary definitions every time someone takes acception to it.

Well, evidently you DON'T understand me, since I think I've made it clear I was not being derogatory. I think I was clear the first time I used the word. Evidently what I actually said is not the issue. But I will indeed provide dictionary definitions every time someone takes exception to it.

Let's see, that's happened ONCE so far. But I will certainly keep it in mind, thanks.

After all, considering all the work that I put into DMing a campaign, developing cultures, cities, countries, adventures and encounters, anyone that is able to make the game better with me as well as for me is a godsend.

No argument here. Love those great players. Reward them out the yin-yang, absolutely. I just don't think it should be done with XP.

As I indicated, the word 'elite' is often used as a derogative term. You simply had the misfortune of using the word true to its definition immediately after it was used in a slanderous manner.

What's that? Are you now beginning to admit that maybe I wasn't in fact slandering you? Which would lead to the possibility that you were wrong to call me a bigot? Now would that lead you to the notion that you're sorry to have insulted me for no reason? Or would an apology be too painful an admission for you?

There are good people that don't put forth effort for various reasons in life. I merely indicate that people get what they earn, in school, work, life and D&D.

I reward those who help enrich the game. If that makes non-contributers feel lesser, than it's their own failing to contribute that causes it, not an elitist attitude of my own.

Oh, this make me giggle. Are you listening to yourself? How is it that you manage to arogate to yourself responsibility for deciding what is or isn't "enriching" and simultaneously putting the responsibility for the consequences of your judgements off on to other people? Why are you doing this anyways? You're in charge, and you're saying "This is or is not approved behaviour." Why shouldn't you? You've worked hard and you want to reward (as you say) for effort. Go for it. You're doing it anyways, you might as well take the responsibility. Or are you one of those who tries to make everything somebody else's fault?

I'm saying I reward for effort. You (and others) keep making references to people who are better at RP than others, which is ignoring what I'm saying. Why continue in a conversation if my most basic statements are being ignored for the simple purpose of continuing a needless debate?

Oh? Didn't I JUST address that very issue? I'm sorry if I haven't been clear, but what I wrote above is what I've been trying to say all the way through this.

Let me try further: Your basic statement is that you reward for effort. I have nothing against your principle insofar as this goes. My argument is not with your principle but your implementation. Your implementation is to reward for effort with XP.

My basic statement is that to reward for effort with XP is an inferior way to maximise game enjoyment. It introduces too many possible points of disagreement, hard feelings, lowered worth and suspicion. I'm sure your group is composed of people who never struggle with such feelings but I have never been so blessed.

So rather than a system that uses CR rewards combined with ad-hoc bonuses, you just give completely ad-hoc rewards?

And your problem with my system is what exactly?

Here, once again, is my problem with your system: because it penalises some players and rewards others, it promotes hard feelings and contains within it potential to cause disruptions and a lowered enjoyment of the game. The ad-hoc nature of the system is a not an issue and never has been.

And I want to be clear (or at least try to, there's certainly been difficulty with this issue) about "penalising" -- any scenario in which person A is provided with more of some resource than person B can be viewed as both a bonus to A and a penalty to B. The terminology used doesn't change the fact that to B, they have been provided with less than A, and have therefore been penalised.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

What's that? Are you now beginning to admit that maybe I wasn't in fact slandering you? Which would lead to the possibility that you were wrong to call me a bigot? Now would that lead you to the notion that you're sorry to have insulted me for no reason? Or would an apology be too painful an admission for you?

Go back and read a few posts. If you're really that dense, than this conversation is pointless.

Oh, this make me giggle. Are you listening to yourself? How is it that you manage to arogate to yourself responsibility for deciding what is or isn't "enriching" and simultaneously putting the responsibility for the consequences of your judgements off on to other people? Why are you doing this anyways? You're in charge, and you're saying "This is or is not approved behaviour." Why shouldn't you? You've worked hard and you want to reward (as you say) for effort. Go for it. You're doing it anyways, you might as well take the responsibility. Or are you one of those who tries to make everything somebody else's fault?

Well, let's see:

Question 1: Did my Players enjoy the game? Yes? Go to Question 2. No, find out why.

Question 2: Was the success of the game entirely on me? No? Go to Question 3. Yes, find out why they didn't participate.

Question 3: Did they, as Players, contribute to the growth and continuation of the game? Yes? Reward them!

Gee, yes. How conceted of me...

Oh? Didn't I JUST address that very issue? I'm sorry if I haven't been clear, but what I wrote above is what I've been trying to say all the way through this.

And no matter how many times I give you the same answer, you keep repeating yourself. This is what I meant by the conversation going in continuous circles.

Let me try further: Your basic statement is that you reward for effort. I have nothing against your principle insofar as this goes. My argument is not with your principle but your implementation. Your implementation is to reward for effort with XP.

Would Orios be better? With or without fudge? Or maybe Chocolate Shakes from McDonalds. How about Prime Rib? Dinner at Red Lobster?

Actually, my wife would love dinner at Red Lobster; I better stick to XP. Better for my wallet.

My basic statement is that to reward for effort with XP is an inferior way to maximise game enjoyment. It introduces too many possible points of disagreement, hard feelings, lowered worth and suspicion. I'm sure your group is composed of people who never struggle with such feelings but I have never been so blessed.

Once again, personal shortfalls have little to do with this.

Here, once again, is my problem with your system: because it penalises some players and rewards others, it promotes hard feelings and contains within it potential to cause disruptions and a lowered enjoyment of the game. The ad-hoc nature of the system is a not an issue and never has been.

Penalizes? I'm sorry... Didn't realize I was taking experience away from folks.

Oh, wait... I'm not taking experience away? I'm not penalizing anyone with anything?

People get what they earn.

And I want to be clear (or at least try to, there's certainly been difficulty with this issue) about "penalising" -- any scenario in which person A is provided with more of some resource than person B can be viewed as both a bonus to A and a penalty to B. The terminology used doesn't change the fact that to B, they have been provided with less than A, and have therefore been penalised.

I'll remember that the next time I get a 20% bonus and the cube-dweller across from me doesn't.

Or maybe I'll sit back happy with what I've earned for my effort.

It's the way life is... Not my fault you wish it was otherwise.

 

[Silverthrone]

A player who shows up for D&D and doesn't role play has shown up for the wrong game.

A player who shows up for D&D and role plays has the right general idea.

A player who goes the extra mile to make the game even more fun and exciting deserves a reward.

The first should not be there, the second deserves the standard award, and the third deserves a bonus award. That is the way of nearly everything in life. Anyone who doesn't get a bonus for extra effort and didn't try to do so has no right to complain about it.

Those who do try, but did not get the extra award should try harder next time.

Those who do nothing and expect an award for it are living in a bigger fantasy world than D&D.

 

[barsoomcore]

Go back and read a few posts. If you're really that dense, than this conversation is pointless.

Oh, well, I guess this conversation is pointless. Which posts? Why? And what's with the cryptic references? Is it because you don't want me to understand your ideas? Why is apologising to me so hard for you? Here, I'll apologise again.

I'm sorry that I used a term that you found offensive. I honestly did not intend any offense and do not think of you in the terms you have said you think that word means. My use of the word was in fact solely motivated by a desire to share the idea that the word was not necessarily a derogatory one and therefore you needn't have felt insulted. I hope that you will forgive me not being sufficiently clear about my intentions.

Gee, yes. How conceted of me...

I didn't call you conceited. I don't think you are conceited. What does this have to do with the question of individual XP awards?

And no matter how many times I give you the same answer, you keep repeating yourself. This is what I meant by the conversation going in continuous circles.

What is this "same answer" you keep giving? Your statement that you reward for effort? Well, let's just see where your own post takes us, shall we?

Would Orios be better?

Yep. They sure would. Hey, look, a new idea, a new approach. It seems as though we've finally gotten past the notion that I am opposed to rewarding people for effort. Now I do believe there are more sophisticated options than cookies, like development of character's storylines, emotional payoffs through dramatic involvement and, well, just plain old fun. But no, I have no problem with Oreos. They're better than XP.

Actually, my wife would love dinner at Red Lobster; I better stick to XP. Better for my wallet.

Yes, you've certainly taken care of that argument. Rewarding players with things that cost you money will become expensive. Thanks, that's very clear. But as to the point that there ARE better options than XP, you have nothing to say, is that right?

Once again, personal shortfalls have little to do with this.

Okay, so our argument has now become me offering arguments and you saying "No it isn't." I see.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

Fred plays in a game run by a DM who awards individual XP. Fred's a bit of a min-maxer, maybe, but he gets into the game really well, knows the rules, tries hard to get into character but doesn't really have knack for it and frankly, his biggest thrills are working out the right combination of Cleave, Power Attack and a five-foot-step in order to one-two the bad guy's cronies so the rogue can bounce over and get that Sneak Attack. In fact, that's exactly what happens this evening. Fred's having a GREAT night, the sort of night he's going to tell tall tales about years from now. His character is passing into myth at the table. He's on cloud nine -- THIS is the sort of thing he loves.

His DM decides Fred really did a great job tonight and gives him a 20% bonus to XP. So Fred's even happier than he was. Is he going to tell stories about the time he got a 20% bonus? Unlikely, not with the double cleaving, bad-guy stomping story he's already got.

Alternatively, Fred's DM figures he actually was pretty much out of it the whole game, despite those great rolls and careful number-crunching, and awards Fred no bonus. Fred notices that other players have more XP than he. Suddenly it's not such a great night. Suddenly he's wondering what he did wrong. He won't be telling stories about this night, just because he and his DM happen to disagree about what makes great gaming.

I don't see that the reward here (a slightly happier player who was probably pretty happy to begin with) is worth the risk (a player who otherwise would have had fun feeling insecure and unhappy). I'm not saying this happens in every case. I'm saying the risk exists and I don't see a commensurate potential for gain. Not when I can reward my players for their hard work in so many ways that don't carry the same level of risk.

And my whole point is that your system, as I have just demonstrated, carries a certain level of risk that other systems (let's call them in-game rewards) do not carry. Of any two options, the one that presents the lower ratio of risk to reward is to be preferred. Therefore, using your system is demonstratably worse than not using it. You're wrong.

Are we still talking in circles here? Do you have any evidence at all for your positions or only blanket statements and flat denials with nothing to back them up?

It's the way life is... Not my fault you wish it was otherwise.

The fact that I AGREE with you that life is that way doesn't really register with you, does it? The fact that I have already said that people get rewarded in return for their effort isn't sinking in, is it?

Or are you just trying to distract yourself from the fact that you're wrong? Not my fault you wish it was otherwise.

 

[Limper]

Wow where to start..... the group is about 30ish.

Meepo: Well aren't we an insulting little hug-monkey! What color is your parachute? Do you pack "I'm OK, Your OK." in your gaming backpack?

Sorry he's the only one who got close to personal in the commentaries (well not really he was the only one to cause irritation).




But enough of this drivel, I have news! It would appear that the problem has been solved.... the Lump is a lurker on this very forum (who'd ave thunkit?)! The cumulative effect of reading this thread has made him "reasses" his desire to warm a chair with our group any longer.... I'm not sure which of you did it for me but THANK YOU! I love you guys unconditonaly.... I can't say thank you enough. <Limper does the happy dance!>

I may be an Elitist... I have a strong belief in the value of doing one's best, I value hard work and effort, I value intellegence. Does this make me an Elitist? A RP Nazi? If it does I'll wear both monikers with pride! I will NEVER value a noncontributory Lump of flesh sitting in the corner.

You accuse me of being the reason gaming has a bad name? You think that just accepting people for what they are and not pushing them to acheive is helping them? I tried to help them... it didn't help they just refused to participate. I can't fathom why my belief that there should be a reward for effort (I never said to take anything from anyone... note this) has caused 4 pages of debate... I thought this was a value inherent in western society... frankly I'm shocked to find out it isn't. But heck I'm in to good of a mood for it to bother me... that which defied reason has left the building.

I saw this.... "Don't reward for ability; Award for effort." and it spoke volumes for me. Do you reward the person who has neither?

 

[barsoomcore]

It would appear that the problem has been solved.... (snip) .... I'm not sure which of you did it for me but THANK YOU!

I did it for you. And I expect to be rewarded for both my ability and my effort. With Oreos.

EDIT: added Oreos joke. Cause it was so obvious when I took a look.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Limper - consider the fact that it really sounds like you didn't actually talk to him now. The scenario is sounding more and more like you were talking about him behind his back, and he's only just realised what a git you are, and decided he doesn't want to hang out with you any more. Have fun.

Note: I didn't actually call you a git. Just so you know.