Why punish a player if they can't come to the game?

[fusangite]

Is player improvement even a part of your game?

I work much as you do -- with different party members at different experience levels but "player improvement" makes zero difference to me and is not a factor for me in my decisions. Player fulfilment is the name of the game for me. But interestingly, giving everyone equal XP, in my experience, is not actually a recipe for everyone finding their experience award equally fulfilling.

 

[fusangite]

They are here to have fun and while their weaknesses will show in play from time to time and cost them, i don't think they enjoy the sessions more if ON TOP OF THAT I also hit them with a "punishment".

While I'm generally in agreement with your post (when's the last time that happened!? ), I don't understand how people see not giving someone a reward as being the same as punishing them. I think there is a genuine difference here.

 

[Mallus]

Player fulfilment is the name of the game for me. But interestingly, giving everyone equal XP, in my experience, is not actually a recipe for everyone finding their experience award equally fulfilling.

Even though I've been a big proponent in this thread of 'equal XP', I'm certain its not for every group. It's just someting I tried, and I find its working for my group now.

And I don't think anyone was suggesting that it was a recipe for player fulfillment. Just one part of a game environment in which players of varying style could find fulfillment within the bounds of a singe campaign.

 

[Mallus]

Positive reinforcement is always the best motivator. I always make sure to comment on all the journals of my players whether its verbal or written . I read an extrodinarily good journal the other day by a player and she responded that my little bit of priase went a long way with her because im thedm.

I know its a lot more than some do for their game, but I think thats what makes me Iron DM Dreads .

You know Don, I really like your approach. I wish I had the time --and the will-- to employ the methods you described. They're great.

(What I've been advocating is the easy way out. I'm fond of easy, too)

 

[Arravis]

Work has slacked up for a few moments and I'm piping in once more on this issue.

I too, I'm not trying to make "better" players. I'm just trying to have a good time with my friends, and D&D is one of the ways we do that. It's not a training camp (which is why I kept brining up my military examples), I'm not trying to forge "ultimate" gamers, or achieve some goal other than fun.

My games are quite harsh when it comes to in-character repercussions (including death, level drain, etc, additionally one of my campaigns doesn't even have clerical magic, so no healing). But as stated many, many times before, I see no need to mix in-game effects for out-of-game issues. All my players are good players, simply because I don't allow bad players in my campaign. I'm not there to try to "encourage" them, or set up some kind of reward system that makes me judge how good or bad they are. I have more respect for them than that.

Many kept mentioning that players wouldn't show up if they're characters would still get XP even if they were there... well, maybe in someone else's game, but not mine. In the last year we've only had two occasions where someone missed a game. That's it.

My players don't show up for the numbers I hand out, but for a thousand other reasons that have nothing to do with XP.

Anyway, I think my views have been expressed clearly and I'm not sure how much more I have to do add that isn't just repetition. It was interesting to hear everyone's point of view on the issue.

-Arravis

P.S.: Yeah, the original post had a bit of p*ss in it to draw out responses ;p.

 

[fusangite]

Work has slacked up for a few moments and I'm piping in once more on this issue.

My games are quite harsh when it comes to in-character repercussions (including death, level drain, etc, additionally one of my campaigns doesn't even have clerical magic, so no healing). But as stated many, many times before, I see no need to mix in-game effects for out-of-game issues.

So, RP bonus awards, as mentioned in the core rules, aren't your cup of tea, then?

 

[swrushing]

While I'm generally in agreement with your post (when's the last time that happened!? ), I don't understand how people see not giving someone a reward as being the same as punishing them. I think there is a genuine difference here.

Well, the response was to the question of punishing, or rather offering a deterrent, not rewarding, so this seems an odd take on it.

However, while in many areas there is a clear difference between lack of reward and punishment, its not as clear in RPGs.

IRl if i get my christmas bonus and bob doesn't, i have more money to spend and bob doesn't. bob is not however negatively impacted by my move up economically. he still gets the same bang for his buck. The "challenges" placed on his money do not get tougher.

In an RPG setting, when this equates to me being a higher level than bob, the difference is he IS negatively impacted. The challenge is based on partly level and bob is now below average. he is fighting tougher opposition and with less than the rest, which puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to what tools he has to use when trying to be the guy doing the cool stuff.

Consider an exaggerated but not extreme case. Three roleplayers and a combat guy play DND. Th Gm is heavy into Rp awards and, naturally, those more inclined to roleplay get more of those awards and so pretty much routninely they get more xp than the combat guy. Everyone is doing what they enjoy but one is simply getting less "credit" and slowly becoming less capable of meeting the increasing threats.

In the spending money example, the "benchmark" is an objective thing. The price of milk wont go up for bob because of my bonus. So the value of bob's money remains the same and he doesn't really lose anything.

In the DND thing, since the challenges are increased as the other player's capability increases, the value of the combat guys stuff effectively goes down.

From his perspective, he is getting punished.

Or look at it this way, if you sat down with four other people to play DND and the Gm said "Ok you three will get full xp and joey will only get 75% of the xp?" would you say joey was "not being punished" since he wasn't losing xp and was merely gaining less?

 

[swrushing]

So, RP bonus awards, as mentioned in the core rules, aren't your cup of tea, then?

they aren't mine, i used them for years and saw no good come from it that came close to making up for the extra hassle.

So i dont do it anymore.

 

[Grimstaff]

You really havn't. I've listened to others oppinions and grown to understand your oppinion of XP much more than you have understood mine. Listening is the first step to making a point. My discussion with Demmero was so successful because we both tried to understand the others' side. You would make your point much better if you tried to understand how the people you're talking to think.

You mean he would be clearer if he only agreed with you?

This thread was started by someone who feels that not giving an absent player exp is somehow punishing him. Several people expressed an opinion that they felt differently.

Then a bunch of people chimed in with their House Rules for exp, and why they felt their House Rule was better than the rules in the DMG.

WHy does someone have to "understand" a bunch of arbitrary house rules before they can just agree with the rules as they are already written?

 

[Grimstaff]

Well, the response was to the question of punishing, or rather offering a deterrent, not rewarding, so this seems an odd take on it.

However, while in many areas there is a clear difference between lack of reward and punishment, its not as clear in RPGs.

IRl if i get my christmas bonus and bob doesn't, i have more money to spend and bob doesn't. bob is not however negatively impacted by my move up economically. he still gets the same bang for his buck. The "challenges" placed on his money do not get tougher.

In an RPG setting, when this equates to me being a higher level than bob, the difference is he IS negatively impacted. The challenge is based on partly level and bob is now below average. he is fighting tougher opposition and with less than the rest, which puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to what tools he has to use when trying to be the guy doing the cool stuff.

Consider an exaggerated but not extreme case. Three roleplayers and a combat guy play DND. Th Gm is heavy into Rp awards and, naturally, those more inclined to roleplay get more of those awards and so pretty much routninely they get more xp than the combat guy. Everyone is doing what they enjoy but one is simply getting less "credit" and slowly becoming less capable of meeting the increasing threats.

In the spending money example, the "benchmark" is an objective thing. The price of milk wont go up for bob because of my bonus. So the value of bob's money remains the same and he doesn't really lose anything.

In the DND thing, since the challenges are increased as the other player's capability increases, the value of the combat guys stuff effectively goes down.

From his perspective, he is getting punished.

Or look at it this way, if you sat down with four other people to play DND and the Gm said "Ok you three will get full xp and joey will only get 75% of the xp?" would you say joey was "not being punished" since he wasn't losing xp and was merely gaining less?

So to use your own example, you feel it would be unfair to not give Bob a Christmas bonus even though he misses work all the time? Brother, in the real world Bob would count himself lucky to have a job, getting a bonus for nothing would be the least of his worries!