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

[howandwhy99]

See, I reverse that. 'Playing the enemies as they'd really think' has to be in the context of --in service of-- the goal of challenging and entertaining the players.

How strictly one adheres to the internal logic of the simulation will vary greatly. I know some people around here stop having fun the minute they suspect the DM is modifying the challenge on the fly for metagame reasons. I'm not questioning the validity of that stance.

But in the final analysis, whatever the DM does has to be in service of players enjoyment (and in this case I count the DM as one of the player ). Otherwise its just masturbation...

Actually, I think simulationists present the game without bending internal logic. EDIT: which thereby serves the player enjoyment. Bending that logic to what the DM presumes as "more enjoyable" confuses player expectations. Players expect their characters to die if they go head-to-head with a vampire lord. If the rules are bent to help the players EDIT: in the name of their enjoyment, it can invalidate the contest.

 

[DonTadow]

Sidenote:

Created a thread to see if people would want campaign specific websites?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=147316

 

[Mallus]

I actuall yeven learned something from this thread (going to incorporate alterantive characters next month).

If that was from me, then 'glad to have been of help'.

BTW, some of your strategies for ramping up player involvement rock on toast.

 

[Mallus]

What XP does for us is to place Focus on player accomplishments.

Sure.

But what several posters hit on was that, for all intents and purposes, XP is often handed out without any real regard for player accomplishments/actions. A lot of times PC's get XP for merely showing up at the table. They got something for nothing, or for very little. So its not without precendent to doleit out for free.

And while XP is an abstract measure of PC accomplishment, it also represents a base cost to participate in game events. I think eveyone here agrees that beyond a certain point that cost be prohibitive, and particpation is no longer possible. And is that a desired end?

And lastly, for some of us, XP isn't even the best tool to use to 'focus on player accomplishments' (especially since its so frequently given out to those of marginal participation --or at least what the DM deems marginal). Our prefered tool for focusing on player accomplishments is recognizing their accomplishments in-game, and have the game world react accordingly.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

However, the remaining members of the campaign don't even know what their xp id. When i had a web failure and lost the xp count, no one knew and one emailed me and told me that him and his wife didn't really care to keep track of it, wasn't important to them.

Hehe, I can just imagine trying this on my players. They remind me to stop the game early just so I still have time to give them XP before they go. I've had one of my group be late for work just so he could get his XP total now instead of waiting until next week.

 

[swrushing]

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?

Did you read the post you quoted, cuz the answer is right there.

Maybe not, for some that might be too much to ask. So i will spell it out.

in the Job example, not giving bob a bonus isn't taking something from him. his regular money he already has doesn't become less valuable because joe and the others get a bonus. basically, the prices for things he wants to buy (the challenge difficult for his spending) doesn't rise because of their bonuses.

In contrast, in the DnD example, as the other players increase in level quicker means the challenges do go up, since challenges are scaled to APL. So, the "challenges" put against his "character cash" (his traits defined by level) go up because of the other player's bonuses.

Rasing his teammates levels and not his is a detriment to bob.
Giving his fellow coworkers bonus funds and not bob is not a detriment to bob.

See?
Clear?

 

[Mallus]

At your next game session, announce to your players that you are interested in seeing what they are capable of, role-playing wise, and will be handing out a 20% exp bonus to the player with the strongest chops.

Is the game entirely a pissing contest to you?

And I say that without the tiniest bit of criticism. I'm a guy. Pissing contests are par for the course.

Anyway, if I did that, the first thing my players would do is fix me with a 'What are you, 12 years old?' stare.

And then they'd proceed to play the game exactly the same way they always do. They'd compete exactly as much as they enjoy doing. Because they do so out of a love of competition, not because the DM dangled some virutal bauble in front of them.

It's not like we're playing a MMPORPG...

 

[swrushing]

The trouble with this analysis is that even though the character falls behind, the 3.5 experience system compensates for it. In fact, the farther he falls behind, the more it compensates. There are also plenty of ways in-game that the other players can behave (involving treasure distribution and tactics) to compensate for their less dynamic companion.

First, the fact that the xp system adjust to itself correct the issue over time is perhaps an indication as to whether the designers felt it was fine or not to leave a player lagging behind.

Second, systemically fixing it so "he's not behind forever" isn't solving the problem, merely limiting how long it lasts. if its "not fair" that "bob lags behind" its not fair that bob "lags behind for only a month or so." Now, if you figure it is fair that "bob lags behind" why then catch him back up?

Third, yes and a good party will do what it can to carry its weaker members, or they might just try and pick up stronger members instead (tho for social reasons that likely wont be the case.) But while being carries by the group, bob's character is doing less and bob is being less "impactful" with his character which, IMX, tends to equate to being less enjoyable for many. Now, dont get me wrong, i love playing the "weaker guy" who has to outperform to keep up and be as "impactful" (or even more) myself, but most don't and many would not want to be forced into that role, IMX.

 

[swrushing]

Has anyone who gives out XP for players who aren't able to make it ever had anyone complain about it? I've never heard a single complaint, and these are all friends and people I know quite well. Friends who all tend to be brutally honest, hehe.

Not once.

i lay it all out before session one and haven't had a single complaint in any of the 4-5 of my games over the 5 years of doing it with d20 (and one brief hero supers) nor in the ~ 10 years of doing it in vampire/hero/cyberpunk games before that. (lesse, that takes me back to about 1990 so...)

on the other hand, i did sometimes get complaints and questions about the fairness of xp handling in the ~ 10 years prior to those in various games where i did apply various "earned xp" and followed the rules for who gets what etc based on what happened. Not often by any means, but sometimes.

And the huge gain is, in 5 years, no time wasted by me or my players on figuring xp, and before that, no time wasted by me for 10 years on figuring xp.

heck, at campaign start for stargate i knew they heroes would be X level for the series finale 2 years in the future. XP/levelling up is merely a meter to control advancement rate to fit the story and enable me to fit the story to them.

 

[howandwhy99]

Sure.

But what several posters hit on was that, for all intents and purposes, XP is often handed out without any real regard for player accomplishments/actions. A lot of times PC's get XP for merely showing up at the table. They got something for nothing, or for very little. So its not without precendent to doleit out for free.

And while XP is an abstract measure of PC accomplishment, it also represents a base cost to participate in game events. I think eveyone here agrees that beyond a certain point that cost be prohibitive, and particpation is no longer possible. And is that a desired end?

And lastly, for some of us, XP isn't even the best tool to use to 'focus on player accomplishments' (especially since its so frequently given out to those of marginal participation --or at least what the DM deems marginal). Our prefered tool for focusing on player accomplishments is recognizing their accomplishments in-game, and have the game world react accordingly.

I know I have been posting along banging my own drum. I'm trying to get my own beliefs across. But I have been listening too. Awarding XP for merely showing up (and other inconsequential acts) weakens the importance of experience points as well.

I asked how other DMs recognized their Players' accomplishments besides XPs. For it all to be in-game is to remove any rule aspect of it. Levelling is no longer tied to player success. This sounds like another personal preference though.

XP being a cost (or barrier) to enjoying the game is a reality under the current system. What I'm saying is this is one of its faults as it weakens the XP reason I believe in for playing the game.