--14dae9cdc181b23c9204d7408201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I agree that it's not about risk relative to the character on the
adventure, but I agree with Bernard when he says that the awards should not
be simply for being of higher level.
Still, Stephen makes a good point. The absolute risk of something horrible
happening to a PC diminishes with the longevity of that character, for
whatever reason.
A high level character playing in a low level character should, all other
things being equal, find it unrewarding to play at low levels. A low level
character playing at high level should not find it knuckle-whitening, and
that there is a groove in their arse from spending the entire evening on
the edge of their seat.
On 6 March 2013 23:47, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote:
> I believe that Struan wrote the exact wording, I'll leave him to speak to
> that.
>
> I'm talking about the reason that drove the introduction of the level
> portion of the award.
> And my understanding at the time of what I voted on.
>
> As for your reward for risk argument - it has already been pointed out
> that high level does
> not equate to higher risk. A low to medium level party without access to
> Healers who can
> resurrect or preserve or rapid travel, or powerful contacts, or reams of
> get-out-of-jail items
> is usually facing a much higher risk of permanent death than the top end
> of the guild.
> And the complexity of plots are more to do with what the players can cope
> with and the
> inclinations of the characters than level.
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
> On Wed, March 6, 2013 11:01 pm, Bernard Hoggins wrote:
> > I am uncomfortable with the justification/reasoning what have you
> regarding level awards.
> > As this does not match the current justification in the rules.
> > Currently, when discussing level of the adventure, it talks about risk
> of death/permanent
> > death, what level magic is required, and how twisty turny timey whimey
> the plot is for the
> > players to solve or get overly confused by.
> > It makes no mention that it's simply to award characters with more EP,
> more EP. As while I
> > get that advancement is not a linear scale but costs more to move to
> higher ranks, simply
> > awarding players more EP for having more EP already seems wrong. They
> should be rewarded for
> > facing greater risks & undertaking more labrynthine plots, as befits
> their level.
> >
> > As such, I think what you are proposing is a significant change to the
> level portion of the EP
> > awards also, since you are changing the scale against what that EP is
> measured.
> >
> >
> >
> > nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net>
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013 1:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Experience Awards
> >
> > Naturally there is disagreement on this topic, I have tried to craft a
> proposal that is not
> > exactly what anyone asked for but I hope is representative of a
> middle-ground of the majority.
> >
> > I am proposing this change to be voted on at the guild meeting.
> >
> > Increasing/Changing Experience Awards
> >
> > Attendance/Preparation 0-500 '''Unchanged''' Turning up on time and
> ready to play
> >
> > Contribution 0-500 '''Unchanged''' Engaging in the game at an
> appropriate level and
> > contributing to general enjoyment
> >
> > Roleplaying 0-500 '''Unchanged''' Consistently playing a believable
> character
> >
> > Narrative 0-500 '''New''' Helping to progress and enrich the narrative
> >
> > GM Bonus 0-500 '''New''' GM bonus - specific to GM, awarded for the
> values/behaviour they
> > personally wish to reward
> >
> > Level of Game 0-1500 '''Unchanged''' - partial balance against the
> exponentially higher costs
> > of higher ranks.
> >
> >
> > Some further detail...
> >
> > Att/Prep - Encouraging punctuality (or courtesy and respect to the GM
> rest of the party if you
> > can't be) and preparation so that the rest of the party is not
> constantly waiting for you to
> > turn up, or look something up that you should have worked out earlier.
> > Most people should start at 500 and only fall from there if they fail in
> the above.
> >
> > Contribution - Finding the right balance of in-character contribution to
> the game. Being
> > involved when your character is, butting-out when it isn't. 250 should
> be a neutral award -
> > neither contributing nor disrupting. Less is for those whose inattention
> or disruptive
> > behaviour detracts from the fun of everyone else. Full award should be
> encouraged for those
> > who consistently and appropriately contribute to the game.
> >
> > Role-playing - opinion on what is good role-playing varies a bit from GM
> to GM. IMO a
> > believable 3-dimensional character that is consistently played
> in-character is great
> > role-playing. We're not expecting oscar-winning performances or writing,
> just your best effort
> > at portraying someone that seems real - in the context of the game.
> >
> > Level of Game - This is often misunderstood as a danger level, it isn't.
> High ranks cost a lot
> > more than lower ranks, high level characters were feeling stagnant as
> they saved experience
> > from two games in order to raise one rank in one ability. The level
> award was introduced to
> > partially balance against the exponentially higher costs of higher
> ranks. And also as a small
> > encouragement for high level characters to play on high level games.
> >
> > Narrative - role-playing is in large part about story telling, we should
> all be contributing
> > towards an entertaining story - this is the award for doing so. 250
> should be considered the
> > baseline, neither helping nor hindering. Higher award for those that
> help move things along
> > the GM's plot thread and for those that make the journey more
> interesting or entertaining.
> > A cowardly hesitant character (played well and consistently) will often
> be a hindrance to plot
> > progression but if they manage it well (a difficult thing to do) they
> can enrich the story
> > without stopping it, better than a team of act-first-think-later yes-men.
> >
> > GM Bonus - We all have different things we value, I think it's better to
> embrace this as part
> > of the system rather than try to make us all fit the same sized box.
> Whether we want to reward
> > tea/coffee skills, individual brilliance, team play, tracking pulses in
> combat, all of the
> > above, or double the bonus from one of the other categories (e.g. make
> role-playing worth
> > 0-1000). This is the category to use.
> >
> >
> > The experience awards are meant to encourage the behaviour we want in
> our games. It is casting
> > judgment on the behaviour of our friends which many of us are not
> comfortable with.
> > But as Jim has mentioned, if we don't communicate our judgement in some
> form then it will have
> > no effect on behaviour.
> > Whether it is publicly posting XP awards as Jim does or just emailing
> the party or quietly
> > emailing/talking to individuals, we should all consider by what method
> we communicate our
> > judgement.
> > And be open to feedback from the players - it may be the erratic
> behaviour we're observing is
> > the player cleverly portraying undiagnosed psychosis or maybe they're
> just crap - we'll never
> > know unless we talk :-)
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Stephen.
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
--14dae9cdc181b23c9204d7408201
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I agree that it's not about risk rela=
tive to the character on the adventure, but I agree with Bernard when he sa=
ys that the awards should not be simply for being of higher level.</font></=
div>
<div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Still, Stephen makes a good point. The ab=
solute risk of something horrible happening to a PC diminishes with the lon=
gevity of that character, for whatever reason. </font></div><div><font face=
=3D"georgia,serif">A high level character playing in a low level character =
should, all other things being equal, find it unrewarding to play at low le=
vels. A low level character playing at high level should not find it knuckl=
e-whitening, and that there is a groove in their arse from spending the ent=
ire evening on the edge of their seat.<br>
</font><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 6 March 2013 23:47, Stephen =
Martin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net" target=
=3D"_blank">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204=
,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=3D"gmail_quote">
I believe that Struan wrote the exact wording, I'll leave him to speak =
to that.<br>
<br>
I'm talking about the reason that drove the introduction of the level p=
ortion of the award.<br>
And my understanding at the time of what I voted on.<br>
<br>
As for your reward for risk argument - it has already been pointed out that=
high level does<br>
not equate to higher risk. A low to medium level party without access to He=
alers who can<br>
resurrect or preserve or rapid travel, or powerful contacts, or reams of ge=
t-out-of-jail items<br>
is usually facing a much higher risk of permanent death than the top end of=
the guild.<br>
And the complexity of plots are more to do with what the players can cope w=
ith and the<br>
inclinations of the characters than level.<br>
<br>
Cheers, Stephen.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On Wed, March 6, 2013 11:01 pm, Bernard Hoggins wrote:<br>
> I am uncomfortable with the justification/reasoning what have you rega=
rding level awards.<br>
> As this does not match the current justification in the rules.<br>
> Currently, when discussing level of the adventure, it talks about risk=
of death/permanent<br>
> death, what level magic is required, and how twisty turny timey whimey=
the plot is for the<br>
> players to solve or get overly confused by.<br>
> It makes no mention that it's simply to award characters with more=
EP, more EP.=A0 As while I<br>
> get that advancement is not a linear scale but costs more to move to h=
igher ranks, simply<br>
> awarding players more EP for having more EP already seems wrong.=A0 Th=
ey should be rewarded for<br>
> facing greater risks & undertaking more labrynthine plots, as befi=
ts their level.<br>
><br>
> As such, I think what you are proposing is a significant change to the=
level portion of the EP<br>
> awards also, since you are changing the scale against what that EP is =
measured.<br>
><br>
><br>
> =A0<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> =A0From: Stephen Martin <<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">step=
henm@aklnz.net</a>><br>
> To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013 1:36 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [dq] Experience Awards<br>
><br>
> Naturally there is disagreement on this topic, I have tried to craft a=
proposal that is not<br>
> exactly what anyone asked for but I hope is representative of a middle=
-ground of the majority.<br>
><br>
> I am proposing this change to be voted on at the guild meeting.<br>
><br>
> Increasing/Changing Experience Awards<br>
><br>
> Attendance/Preparation 0-500 '''Unchanged''' T=
urning up on time and ready to play<br>
><br>
> Contribution 0-500 '''Unchanged''' Engaging in=
the game at an appropriate level and<br>
> contributing to general enjoyment<br>
><br>
> Roleplaying 0-500 '''Unchanged''' Consistently=
playing a believable character<br>
><br>
> Narrative 0-500 '''New''' Helping to progress =
and enrich the narrative<br>
><br>
> GM Bonus 0-500 '''New''' GM bonus - specific t=
o GM, awarded for the values/behaviour they<br>
> personally wish to reward<br>
><br>
> Level of Game 0-1500 '''Unchanged''' - partial=
balance against the exponentially higher costs<br>
> of higher ranks.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Some further detail...<br>
><br>
> Att/Prep - Encouraging punctuality (or courtesy and respect to the GM =
rest of the party if you<br>
> can't be) and preparation so that the rest of the party is not con=
stantly waiting for you to<br>
> turn up, or look something up that you should have worked out earlier.=
<br>
> Most people should start at 500 and only fall from there if they fail =
in the above.<br>
><br>
> Contribution - Finding the right balance of in-character contribution =
to the game.=A0 Being<br>
> involved when your character is, butting-out when it isn't. 250 sh=
ould be a neutral award -<br>
> neither contributing nor disrupting. Less is for those whose inattenti=
on or disruptive<br>
> behaviour detracts from the fun of everyone else. Full award should be=
encouraged for those<br>
> who consistently and appropriately contribute to the game.<br>
><br>
> Role-playing - opinion on what is good role-playing varies a bit from =
GM to GM. IMO a<br>
> believable 3-dimensional character that is consistently played in-char=
acter is great<br>
> role-playing. We're not expecting oscar-winning performances or wr=
iting, just your best effort<br>
> at portraying someone that seems real - in the context of the game.<br=
>
><br>
> Level of Game - This is often misunderstood as a danger level, it isn&=
#39;t. High ranks cost a lot<br>
> more than lower ranks, high level characters were feeling stagnant as =
they saved experience<br>
> from two games in order to raise one rank in one ability.=A0 The level=
award was introduced to<br>
> partially balance against the exponentially higher costs of higher ran=
ks. And also as a small<br>
> encouragement for high level characters to play on high level games.<b=
r>
><br>
> Narrative - role-playing is in large part about story telling, we shou=
ld all be contributing<br>
> towards an entertaining story - this is the award for doing so. 250 sh=
ould be considered the<br>
> baseline, neither helping nor hindering.=A0 Higher award for those tha=
t help move things along<br>
> the GM's plot thread and for those that make the journey more inte=
resting or entertaining.<br>
> A cowardly hesitant character (played well and consistently) will ofte=
n be a hindrance to plot<br>
> progression but if they manage it well (a difficult thing to do) they =
can enrich the story<br>
> without stopping it, better than a team of act-first-think-later yes-m=
en.<br>
><br>
> GM Bonus - We all have different things we value, I think it's bet=
ter to embrace this as part<br>
> of the system rather than try to make us all fit the same sized box. W=
hether we want to reward<br>
> tea/coffee skills, individual brilliance, team play, tracking pulses i=
n combat, all of the<br>
> above, or double the bonus from one of the other categories (e.g. make=
role-playing worth<br>
> 0-1000). This is the category to use.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The experience awards are meant to encourage the behaviour we want in =
our games. It is casting<br>
> judgment on the behaviour of our friends which many of us are not comf=
ortable with.<br>
> But as Jim has mentioned, if we don't communicate our judgement in=
some form then it will have<br>
> no effect on behaviour.<br>
> Whether it is publicly posting XP awards as Jim does or just emailing =
the party or quietly<br>
> emailing/talking to individuals, we should all consider by what method=
we communicate our<br>
> judgement.<br>
> And be open to feedback from the players - it may be the erratic behav=
iour we're observing is<br>
> the player cleverly portraying undiagnosed psychosis or maybe they'=
;re just crap - we'll never<br>
> know unless we talk :-)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers, Stephen.<br>
><br>
><br>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org=
.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">=
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--14dae9cdc181b23c9204d7408201--
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
|