Jump to content

TwitchyBait

Members
  • Content Count

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore.
    Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases.
    You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game? 
  2. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Well yes it’s entirely possible to dump your exp in different areas and be less effective in different areas you didn’t put that exp. Ie player who focuses 200exp on melee and stealth but has low agility and no ranks in ranged will be a worse shot than a starting character with high agility and ranks in ranged but that 0exp character will be far worse at melee/stealth let alone the plethora of talents and abilities and the character with the 200xp lead has. 
    Math is hard objective truth, how someone feels has no bearing on it and the simple fact is that having more exp gives you more options, more dice and statistically makes you objectively more effective in general. Players are free to “feel” differently and whatever works at your table works at your table. But if we’re talking purely hard objective fact less exp = less ability
  3. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    You can disagree but math is math. Let’s go with the smallest die, a boost die. Not rolling it gives you a 100% chance of no benefit, rolling it gives you a 50% chance of no benefit. If you don’t get the exp to have an ability/rank whatever to roll that extra (or upgraded) die you objectively have worse odds on your rolls. That’s math, not opinion. Talents provide more options or more strain, you can happily claim those benefits don’t make a huge difference in small increments but saying they make no difference is just objectively false.
    Your pizza analogy is poor. As a GM as my players earn more exp I am able to reasonably tone up the difficulty of challenges. Present more difficult checks for more experienced missions. Ie first session it’s unlikely they’ll face a Sith but months in? Sure thats possible. This is basic GMing, the players characters grow stronger and more capable and thus to keep the story interesting they must face tougher challenges. If one guy misses a few sessions it might not be a big deal but for campaigns that go on for years suddenly the one guy that can always make it because he doesn’t have much going on else-wise he suddenly becomes much better at handling these challenges. Not having pizza doesn’t in any way effect how that players character can perform in contrast to the power creep.
    Again you’re free to not value these lower capabilities as punishments but as a direct decision of a players not to attend the GM is denying the abilty to keep up with the power creep as well as others and thus make that characters time more difficult. I feel that’s a punishment, a meaningless one that accomplishes nothing as keeping the exp doesn’t harm anyone and simple keeps the playing field negative.
    Why do you feel a player should be weaker than others who can attend more frequently and why is being present at all relevant as the character didn’t cease to exist? By this same logic a brand new player coming into an existing campaign should have 0exp and be just fine. Isn’t the lack of ability to play and have fun in itself enough of a lack of benefit?
  4. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    You have objectively been at a disadvantage, even something as a single rank in a skill, a single boost die etc objectively makes you stronger. It’s fine that you’re good with it and don’t mind, that doesn’t make it any less true that you are now functioning at a disadvantage. Also the game does have challenge levels, a group of characters starting at just racial exp isn’t going to be as good as taking on challenges as knight level players. The GMs job is to slowly scale up the challenges ie higher difficulty checks, more opponents with better gear and talents etc. There is simply no chart rating individual enemies as appropriate for players with certain accumulations of exp, yet the challenge creep is still there.
  5. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    I disagree it’s punishment in that having a life or obligations outside of the game will occasionally cause people to miss sessions, they are now less effective than every other player and the campaign grows more difficult for them than anyone else. That’s a negative gained via choice of the GM solely for actions and occurrences typically outside of the players control, ie a punishment.
    From the system it doesn’t make much sense anyways. The player character still exists, they’re still doing something even when not present even if outside the scope of the story. This isn’t DND where you get exp based on the challenge rating of fights, it’s meant as a narrative device that allows the characters to progress through a story and take on bigger challenges.
  6. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    So the pizza analogy has nothing to do with anything I said. Cool then I’ll happily ignore your straw man.
    Its not me feeling a punishment, I explained how it had a measurable negative effect on the character, the fact that you choose to ignore that explanation is entirely on you.
    I didn’t say you said it would hurt the game, I asked how it would as a justification for imposing that ruling. Reading comprehension is important.
    You then proceed the ask the same question I’ve answered several times. If you’re going to play stupid you can gladly continue to do so by yourself.
  7. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    You fall behind the rest of the group, you have an intrinsic disadvantage in comparison to every other player. I might understand it if players where blowing off sessions but I’ve never had that be the case.
  8. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Raicheck in XP for Missing Players?   
    Personally I keep xp static because it just makes scaling encounters easier and Id rather not disinsentivise players with less free time. Our group all have jobs, some of us have families and setting a regular meeting time where everyone can always show is unrealistic. Besides if something need be represented by them missing the sessions it’s that they missed out on plot and/or loot. The party comes across a foe wielding a lightsaber? Guess who’s out of the running for manning it, the player that’s not there. I feel no need to further punish by withholding exp as the character didn’t really cease to exist and exp is not often reflected by the difficulty of fights or any particular challenge but rather is just used as a mechanic to slowly scale up the capabilities and thus challenges the players face.
     
    Im kind of shocked by the people calling this method things like “participation trophies”, yikes what an awful table to be at where you treat it like a job instead of what it is, a game to hang out and have fun with. 
  9. Confused
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rimsen in XP for Missing Players?   
    Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore.
    Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases.
    You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game? 
  10. Haha
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Translation “dur dur repeat the same answer for me to ignore again, also irrelevant pizza”
  11. Confused
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rimsen in XP for Missing Players?   
    So the pizza analogy has nothing to do with anything I said. Cool then I’ll happily ignore your straw man.
    Its not me feeling a punishment, I explained how it had a measurable negative effect on the character, the fact that you choose to ignore that explanation is entirely on you.
    I didn’t say you said it would hurt the game, I asked how it would as a justification for imposing that ruling. Reading comprehension is important.
    You then proceed the ask the same question I’ve answered several times. If you’re going to play stupid you can gladly continue to do so by yourself.
  12. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore.
    Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases.
    You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game? 
  13. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    You're conflating how people feel with how likely their PCs are to succeed at rolls. Those are two different things. Related, but different.
  14. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    The idea that XP is tied to a character's experience is bogus anyway. What, sitting around on their starship and talking all session made them somehow buffer, or better at slicing security systems? Eh.
     
  15. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    I disagree it’s punishment in that having a life or obligations outside of the game will occasionally cause people to miss sessions, they are now less effective than every other player and the campaign grows more difficult for them than anyone else. That’s a negative gained via choice of the GM solely for actions and occurrences typically outside of the players control, ie a punishment.
    From the system it doesn’t make much sense anyways. The player character still exists, they’re still doing something even when not present even if outside the scope of the story. This isn’t DND where you get exp based on the challenge rating of fights, it’s meant as a narrative device that allows the characters to progress through a story and take on bigger challenges.
  16. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    You fall behind the rest of the group, you have an intrinsic disadvantage in comparison to every other player. I might understand it if players where blowing off sessions but I’ve never had that be the case.
  17. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Malashim in XP for Missing Players?   
    Personally I keep xp static because it just makes scaling encounters easier and Id rather not disinsentivise players with less free time. Our group all have jobs, some of us have families and setting a regular meeting time where everyone can always show is unrealistic. Besides if something need be represented by them missing the sessions it’s that they missed out on plot and/or loot. The party comes across a foe wielding a lightsaber? Guess who’s out of the running for manning it, the player that’s not there. I feel no need to further punish by withholding exp as the character didn’t really cease to exist and exp is not often reflected by the difficulty of fights or any particular challenge but rather is just used as a mechanic to slowly scale up the capabilities and thus challenges the players face.
     
    Im kind of shocked by the people calling this method things like “participation trophies”, yikes what an awful table to be at where you treat it like a job instead of what it is, a game to hang out and have fun with. 
  18. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from penpenpen in XP for Missing Players?   
    Personally I keep xp static because it just makes scaling encounters easier and Id rather not disinsentivise players with less free time. Our group all have jobs, some of us have families and setting a regular meeting time where everyone can always show is unrealistic. Besides if something need be represented by them missing the sessions it’s that they missed out on plot and/or loot. The party comes across a foe wielding a lightsaber? Guess who’s out of the running for manning it, the player that’s not there. I feel no need to further punish by withholding exp as the character didn’t really cease to exist and exp is not often reflected by the difficulty of fights or any particular challenge but rather is just used as a mechanic to slowly scale up the capabilities and thus challenges the players face.
     
    Im kind of shocked by the people calling this method things like “participation trophies”, yikes what an awful table to be at where you treat it like a job instead of what it is, a game to hang out and have fun with. 
  19. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Talkie Toaster in XP for Missing Players?   
    But... XP gain is only informed by the story. This isn't OD&D, there are no rules for how much XP you get for killing a Rancor, or looting 1000 credits. It's handed out purely on the basis of 'how much the GM wants to give'. XP are power points, and the rate at which you award them just functions to determine the speed at which the scale of encounters the players can handle changes (e.g. graduating from tussling with street thugs, to stormtroopers, to death troopers). They're not an objective measure of how much 'stuff' the PCs have experienced in-world, that's just legacy naming (and as someone who's played a lot of old systems, it's unsurprising that's what you're used to).
  20. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to whafrog in Death-defying leaps and other "instant death" checks   
    I think you're overstating it.  If death is the only challenge and risk, that sounds pretty boring, but I'm pretty sure you don't mean that.  There are plenty of challenges and risk in the story itself:  did you get the money; can you save the love interest; can you turn your father back to the light...  Sure, the potential for death might be present depending on the severity of the situation, or how far along in the story you are, but if you make it available all the time your story risks becoming a slapstick mockery.  "I died slipping on a banana peel, who knew farmer's markets were so dangerous?"
    In my games, while I expect the PCs to "win", I also expect it to come at a cost.  Ultimately I what I'm going for is "satisfying", whether they succeeded with aplomb because of all that hard-earned investment in skill; or finally got that BFG10000 working and aimed true; or ended up like a Bruce Willis in a Die Hard movie, battered but triumphant; or gave their life to save others...
    Death is certainly possible at all times, but "satisfying" becomes beyond reach if the PCs keep dying.  The success of any particular PC becomes more about lucky rolls (or avoiding bad rolls) than narrative investment.
    Plus I don't get to play enough to burn through PCs like paper, so that informs my gaming style.
    You still have to make the consequences meaningful.  Good examples above.  Loss of things the PC cares about (including their own limbs) is a great trope.  Maybe the PC saves the princess, but got too close to the steam vent, and now he looks like Deadpool...  If in doubt, pick a critical from the chart and make it "permanent".
  21. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Ghostofman in Death-defying leaps and other "instant death" checks   
    In most cases... the same way they do it in movies. There's always an out. You just game the system to minimize probability and develop alternative solutions to "failure."
    Swinging across the chasm with the princess:
    Failure: You swing out over the chasm, but misjudge the distance, and end up swinging back to the starting platform. 
    Threat: The princess also comes loose and you have to kinda drag her back onto the platform, take strain or something...
    Despair: The princess comes loose and starts to fall, you catch her with your free hand at the last second and she grabs you with both hands. You see the blaster rifle she was holding fall into the bottomless abyss.
     
  22. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Ghostofman in Republic vs Imperial credits   
    It's potentially a jerk move, depending on how you roll it.
    Realistically speaking the Empire would have a pretty long grace period where you could exchange your RepCreds 1:1 for EmpCreds, and likewise anything not in hard currency (stocks, bonds, electronic accounts) would just automatically switch over.
    What you could do to avoid this being a "Derp! You successfully failed the quest!"... is make that deadline looming. So like the players have X weeks to plan and execute the heist. If they execute and deliver by the deadline, the Alliance will have enough time to exchange the credits and walk away with clean funding. If the players show up late, they're now officially trading in credits that are literally only worth the metal they are coined from.
    You can even make the exchange part of the heist story background. Faction Y is moving a large amount of hard currency from location A to B to get a no-questions-asked bulk exchange, making the cash vulnerable.
  23. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to TheSpitfired in Please develop online play!   
    You know, I like playing the game in person and I prefer it that way too, but let other people play how they want. It's not going to hurt us any. I think official online play is a possibility, and while I wouldn't want them to, even if they did do something like "digital decks" that are online only I'd just speak with my wallet and pass.
    I just know many people didn't have the game take off in their area - I can play it on my break at work with a co-worker and if I show up at my FLGS and throw out an offer to play a quick game I can get one easily. For those that don't have that luxury, online play is a nice option I think.
  24. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Simplegarak in Please develop online play!   
    Ouch yeah the lack of organized play would kill it for most people I think. Hopefully we’ll see some digital support given all the cards are present on the app and crucible is big enough the devs should be aware of its popularity as it would give those like yourself reason to keep investing in the game.
  25. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Brekekekiwi in FFG Needs to step up   
    I don’t think it’s the wrong direction, I mean I’m not crazy about the keys but including playmate and deck boxes is definitely a good idea to increase prize support.
×
×
  • Create New...