Forums of the Megaverse®

One thing I do is hand out EXP for player participation.
Another was first one to get to the chat room and in char (changing their name to their char's, along with a description.)

I give 500 for showing, just in case i missed something, good role-playing, entertaining me, and putting up with my short comings (which are few ). We all have a good time and the higher levels the 500xp is a drop in the bucket. And my players are always pretty creative in solving problems and bring good ideas to the table, so the 500xp is pretty easy to hand out to these guys. There also use to be a time that we started most at 3rd level (ad&d days, below 3rd meant lots of character creation time, lol) so i still like to fly through those for first few levels.
We also use flat marbles for xp counters as we go. Really helps and encourages better play when players are sitting there hoarding their shiny rocks....yay! Players.....lol

By that same token, players should be docked for walking out to do other stuff when they feel it is getting boring or their character is not involved in anything, or like one player I had who fell asleep. I admit the battle sequence the other player was in was taking a bit long, but shouldn't players be expected to at least pay attention during the session whether they are active at the moment?

Stone Gargoyle: I'm pretty sure your saying they should not only pay attention, but keep coming to a game they find boring. Which seems nuts?

They should keep paying polite attention, then not attend any further games if they find it boring - that I support.


On the original topic of giving XP for turning up, perhaps also give an XP per hour of gameplay. Some games go for much longer than others - why isn't that represented when turning up at all is?

No, it is waiting to play during times when it is slow for them that they fall asleep during the session. If they did not want to play, they would not keep insisting we play more often. My games are not boring, quite the opposite in fact. It is usually when they insist we play even when one has worked a shift at their job and should be going to bed instead of insisting we get a game going. My question is valid, because if they insist on playing and then don't pay attention, there should be something to keep them alert, like maybe rewarding them for paying attention?

Stone Gargoyle wrote:No, it is waiting to play during times when it is slow for them that they fall asleep during the session. If they did not want to play, they would not keep insisting we play more often. My games are not boring, quite the opposite in fact. It is usually when they insist we play even when one has worked a shift at their job and should be going to bed instead of insisting we get a game going. My question is valid, because if they insist on playing and then don't pay attention, there should be something to keep them alert, like maybe rewarding them for paying attention?

If they've done something silly like split the group up, have the people that aren't in combat as PCs take over part of the combat as your NPCs.

demos606 wrote:

Stone Gargoyle wrote:No, it is waiting to play during times when it is slow for them that they fall asleep during the session. If they did not want to play, they would not keep insisting we play more often. My games are not boring, quite the opposite in fact. It is usually when they insist we play even when one has worked a shift at their job and should be going to bed instead of insisting we get a game going. My question is valid, because if they insist on playing and then don't pay attention, there should be something to keep them alert, like maybe rewarding them for paying attention?

If they've done something silly like split the group up, have the people that aren't in combat as PCs take over part of the combat as your NPCs.

I have done that in more recent sessions. A lot of the problem at the time was due to one on one battles which usually involved a single player and an NPC villain. I now tend to avoid situations like that. In one case it was a matter of one player coming in late and having a battle already started to where they had to wait until it was over to start playing.

what i like to do is start one on one combat (or whatever the split may be caused by) and after 1 or two turns, usually what i call at a mini-cliffhanger, i'll go back around to the other players and check in on them. in heroes games, this gives a great comic book feel and my players love it cause they know how long 15 seconds of combat can be. doesn't work for every combat situation but it seems to fit most of the time.

wolfsgrin wrote:what i like to do is start one on one combat (or whatever the split may be caused by) and after 1 or two turns, usually what i call at a mini-cliffhanger, i'll go back around to the other players and check in on them. in heroes games, this gives a great comic book feel and my players love it cause they know how long 15 seconds of combat can be. doesn't work for every combat situation but it seems to fit most of the time.

Yeah, that is the way I handle it now, but it took me a while to figure out to do it that way.

Burulovesyou wrote:If a game runs longer, there are more opportunities to gain xp than a shorter game run by the same gm (more than likely, at least).

Hmmm, I'd say no. If the GM thinks what he's written up will run two hours and it goes for four, it usually still only gets the sort of XP he decided on when writing it up. Longer sessions just dilute the XP.

That's how it seems to end up from my experience (nyuk nyuk). Do you do it a different way or usually see it done a different way?

I dropped XP entirely. If someone is playing an OCC/RCC that is clearly inferior to others in the group, then I usually let him start with +1 or +2 levels. Then I level them up as makes sense during our game play every few sessions. I like leveling and I run brutal games so I toss them out regularly.

I have no problem players because I do not tolerate them. A trick I learned years ago in leadership training is that most people will abide by the standards expected of their peer group...and the corrolary is that those who won't abide need to leave the group ASAP.

Burulovesyou wrote:

Noon wrote:

Burulovesyou wrote:If a game runs longer, there are more opportunities to gain xp than a shorter game run by the same gm (more than likely, at least).

Hmmm, I'd say no. If the GM thinks what he's written up will run two hours and it goes for four, it usually still only gets the sort of XP he decided on when writing it up. Longer sessions just dilute the XP.

That's how it seems to end up from my experience (nyuk nyuk). Do you do it a different way or usually see it done a different way?

Have enough prepared to where the players control how far they go? You don't have to have one specific session done at a time.

I don't think that solves it - if the games taking twice as long as expected, going further doesn't solve that - you'd still be going at twice as long as expected/two hours of xp for four hours of play or worse.

If your going to reward people for showing up, may as well make it by the hour of showing up.