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

[Majoru Oakheart]

they are rewarded in game by the results and reactions within the world. saving a village gets you both the personal happy of saving people but also praise etc. later on, the "hey, i heard about what you did for that village in the north..." can benefit you and IMG does when appropriate.

Wow...try that with my players, they'd get bored and leave the table wondering when they can get cool new powers.

They don't really care which adventure I run for them. If it has enemies and a little bit of strategy and thinking involved so they can test their character designs against it, I think they'd be happy.

I once tried to run a serious role playing game, and the players found reasons to try to start fights wherever they could so that they could fight things.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

See from all the XP IS EANRED yar yar yar crowd i don;t get why "i got no xp last week for not showing but this week i show up and do less or even little but i now get MORE so i can catch back up" is the way things ought to be?

Becuase my players have a way with...people who don't pull their weight. I throw difficult encounters against them, they expect everyone to help.

If someone sits at the back doing nothing, they get talked to about it, likely out of character. They are pretty much told that if you don't offer anything to the party, you need to role up a new character. Not by me, but the other players.

If the party is missing a cleric and dying, rest assured SOMEONE will retire their character for the purpose of starting up a cleric.

 

[Grimstaff]

Is the game entirely a pissing contest to you?

No, but obviously this discussion is one for you.

 

[howandwhy99]

I appreciate you answering me. I even enjoy snarky replies. I just want to simply state that I"m not a lost grognard with an axe to grind. So onward...

i disagree wholly. if your as Gm "allow" (IE script) an encounter with a much more powerful adversary than your players can handle, then you OUGHT TO be making sure there are lots of needed elements in that script, not divorcing yourself from responsibility it. The "it can kill you in a blink of an eye" encounter, unlike the "its tough for you but not too tough" needs a lot more foreshadowing and very good scripting for things like PC exit routes, NPC motivations and distractions and potential run-ins if things get bad.

I think I wasn't being clear enough. It is the DM's responsibility to present the world. In order to be fair to the players they are going to need to understand how powerful the things are they face. This is normally done through subtle hints discovered IC when exploring. The scripting you mention is useful, but I don't find the need when the creature is far beyond the character's ability. If players seek out trouble beyond what they know they can take, they find it.

the "you turn the corner surprising me and see two orcs mugging a barmaid" doesn't need as much Gm scripting and control as the "you turn the corner surprising me and the demi lich decides you are good for supper" does.

IMO of course, but widening the scope of encounters requires IMO more weight on the Gm shoulders for the PCs survival, not less.

I agree. But it's not on the DM's shoulders to save the PCs from bad decisions. This goes back to consequences. While widening the scope of encounters is more work for the DM, it also puts the players in control of who they face next.

agreed. but i dont see how this changes if the encounter are even tougher?

Lower level characters are used to accomplish challenges they can overcome. This is done via the group's decision tho, not the DM's. When the group faces lethal adversity from many sides each group member's abilities become vital. The little guy can be just as important to success as the big guy. It is up to the group on how to best use everyone.

so, what, the players populate the world with varmints and situations of their own choice?
they decide what is rading the village in the middle of the night?
they decide what mosnters haunt the tomb?
maybe they hand you cards with the monsters and scenarios they want to face and you draw randomly?
they write up a random encounter table and with a fee dice rolls the fight begins?

are you describing a Gm or a referee?

Above you're ascribing GM activities to the group. The players decisions are what mysteries to solve, monsters to fight, wildlands to explore, etc.

I am describing a Referee.

maybe its me, but i tend to place rules well behind people, so if i need to change a rule to help a person en joy or stay in the game, AND I CAN without hurting other things, I often do.

My motto as Gm is "say yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no".

so, "find another gm" or "kick the wuss from the table" and all those cutsey ob bbs popular catch phrases, don't really gain much purchase with me. the game is there and used to serve our entertainment, we aren't there to serve it.

I absolutely agree on changing the rules (oog) when it serves to improve enjoyment. Your motto is perfect. If however you play under a GM who only uses pre-scripted level appropriate challenges, which thereby hinders your low level character, you are within your rights to look for a different DM.

Aside: it was not my intention to quote a catchphrase. If someone has a problem with the rules, I believe each group can work together to find a preferred solution. (changing the rules)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Perhaps a better opposite to the Christmas Bonus analogy would be a standard of living raise given out to everyone but one employee. It's more than he was making, but its there so he can keep up with inflation. In this case, the raise is the XP and inflation is the increase in encounter EL.

I believe this is the key, I look at it like a normal raise, not a cost of living increase.

The game doesn't HAVE to move on to fighting harder enemies. It only does so because the PCs get more powerful.

I'd be perfectly happy running an adventure where the PCs fight CR1 creatures forever, but they'd get bored and complain about the redudancy. They'd want new powers. So, I give them XP and they gain levels, and I have to increase the challenge or they complain that everything is too easy.

People want cool new abilties, they are working towards the goal of getting them. Some people don't care about those new abilities, so they won't really care if they get XP or not. Or their DM will hand them the levels whether they try or not, so they cease to care, nothing they do will make them come faster or slower.

 

[Mallus]

No, but obviously this discussion is one for you.

Why, what on earth do you mean...

Seriously though, I never suggested my --current-- approach to XP was the 'right way' to things. I merely wanted to discuss something I'm trying and my reasons for doing so.

 

[howandwhy99]

Another preface: I'm certainly not claiming the RAW is always right.

Yup. It becomes the province of my dear friend, DM fiat...

However, all those posters advocating a rigorous meritocracy that awarded XP for specific player contributions --which had to be evaluated by the DM -- also took us outside the rules. The DMG can suggest to award RP bonuses. But it can't tell you when.

The DMG does offer a system for rewarding strictly Combat Encounters. All other types of rewards are presumably detailed before play begins by the DM. Otherwise you're right. It smacks of DM fiat.

Its not tied to individual player success. My party still gets xp for the sum of their actions.
=-=-=
Yup. Never said otherwise

I'm not remembering. Do you reward XP or not?

 

[howandwhy99]

they are rewarded in game by the results and reactions within the world. saving a village gets you both the personal happy of saving people but also praise etc. later on, the "hey, i heard about what you did for that village in the north..." can benefit you and IMG does when appropriate.

I agree with you. These are the sorts of things I was talking about in the "Earned" character thread. Rules of course cover all in-game aspects. Rewards in-game will be covered by them.

I was saying the chit-based incentive system is gone. And thereby an Out of Character ruleset for awarding players.
[but i've been saying this quite awhile now and I'm sure you know]

 

[Arravis]

sidenote: Arravis do you use the glass stones that come with the n'vidia game.

N'vida game? Not familiar with that... I got my little glass stones at Michaels. I've seen them used in clear flower pots. They work well as general "chits".

I also have "black stones" I hand out.. the DM turns those in for you though. They're bad luck.. thought you rolled a 20? Nope... roll again. They're used for discipline (stealing the DM's cookies ) or when you get a bit of bad luck.

 

[howandwhy99]

yet, in fact, as we discussed, its often not goin to be the weaker player overcoming a bigger challenge, is it? is the 9th level guy going to be the one in the 11th level party who fells the dragon or does "an even share"?

or is he gonne be the one buffed up more or kept further back while the guys for whom this is an appropriate challenge put themselves "up front" and bear the brunt of the effort?

The weaker guy is likely the one doing less, which is usually less enjoyable.

See from all the XP IS EANRED yar yar yar crowd i don;t get why "i got no xp last week for not showing but this week i show up and do less or even little but i now get MORE so i can catch back up" is the way things ought to be?

I'm following you. I think the designers of 3E recognized lower level characters were less valuable in the current system and worked to ensure characters remain close in level. I think this is a nod to your prefered style of XP. But not all games require PC to be close in level to be equally valuable in gameplay.

Originally Posted by howandwhy99
Hardcore, old-school DM's award the same XP to all characters. I don't think this works in D20.

A three year DND game, a 2 year stargate game (both d20), a pair of year long MnM (OGL) games tell me that it works just fine for d20. i don't "think" works, I have seen it work and know it works from direct experience. i have also seen the other way work sometimes and not work othertimes, again, from experience.

Have you considered trying "same xp" for a game for a year or two to see if your experience proves your hypothesis or disproves it?

Yikes! I think I wasn't clear enough. When I said awarding "the same XP to all characters" I wasn't referring to your own method. I apologize. I meant something like 3.0's method. Meaning: regardless of character level, killing an orc net all characters 10xp.