PDA

View Full Version : Paying real $ for rerolls. What do you think of this situation?



gadren
2015-08-14, 02:14 PM
So, an interesting situation came up at game night last night.

A little background: our group likes food. We usually spend between $40-$100 bucks on it each game night (depending on what we're in the mood for and how hungry we are). This is supposed to be split among the 7 of us. Some players are kind of mooches - One in particular, despite having money for a new car and a new laptop every six months and all sorts of toys for himself, always seems to be saying "sorry man, I only got $3 on me". Another player (a blue collar worker) often contributes $20 or $30, because he doesn't want the DM to have to pay more than his fare share to make up for the stingy players.

Last night, when Blue Collar handed the DM $20 bucks, the DM handed him two poker chips. "What's this?" Blue Collar asks.

The DM responds, "They are good for two dice rerolls tonight. New house rule. I want to show appreciation to all you guys for chipping in on our meals. So for every $10 you chip in, you get a reroll token for the night."

Most were pleased or ambivalent to this. Mr $3, on the other hand, was agitated. "Oh, so we are Pay to Win now? I didn't realize this was DDO."

The DM explained that if you didn't chip in $10, you weren't being punished, you were getting the same rules benefits you always got in addition to deeply discounted food. Mr. $3 grumbed about it a bit, and pouted a little for the rest of the night.

So, I was curious. What do you guys think about this kind of "house rule"? How would you feel if you showed up to a game that implemented it?

Studoku
2015-08-14, 02:18 PM
I don't think a reroll is worth $10 so now I'm contributing nothing.

gadren
2015-08-14, 02:22 PM
I don't think a reroll is worth $10 so now I'm contributing nothing.

You're not supposed to be paying for a reroll, you're supposed to be paying for food. The reroll is just a bonus. So you would just make other people buy food for you?

Knaight
2015-08-14, 02:32 PM
I'm not a fan. This is a classic example of using an in game solution to solve an out of game problem, and that's not exactly a technique with a proven track record. The other problem here is neatly avoided - the player complaining about pay to win is exactly the person best suited to exploit a pay to win system, so there's that bullet dodged.

Honestly, it seems like a more direct solution is to just ask the people who are skating by to chip in a bit more, or just splitting the food bought between the people who aren't skating by. This is a bit more complicated in the context of people who aren't contributing much because they genuinely can't afford it*, but it should work just fine with Mr. Three Dollar.

*Personally I'd feel really bad eating a bunch of good food right in front of friends who can't have any just because said friends are poor. I also know that this is a shared sentiment for a lot of people, and in my particular gaming group I've benefited from it before, particularly as we have a mix of broke college students and people in fairly lucrative jobs. I personally try to compensate for the times when I'm a little hard up by doing the cooking, but this isn't necessarily transferable unless Mr. Three Dollar is also the best cook in the group.

icefractal
2015-08-14, 02:45 PM
IC benefits from OOC stuff isn't usually ideal, but in this situation it sounds like a reasonable option. I mean, the other choices are:
A) Tell people to pay up or leave. Unfriendly, and excludes anyone who can't pay.
B) People who don't pay don't get to eat. Only marginally less unfriendly than A.
C) Call mooching guy out. But ... we don't know for sure his situation, maybe someone else buys him things but doesn't give him spending money. And even if he is just a mooch, not likely to go well.
D) Leave things unfair to the people buying food for everyone else.

Also, "pay to play" would be more accurate if the rerolls were given for stuff that only benefits the GM. When someone is buying food for the whole group, it's not so unreasonable to acknowledge that.

Form
2015-08-14, 03:01 PM
Personally, I think this is a bad solution to the problem. The DM is setting a very dangerous precedent which I believe will poison the game and which blurs the line that separates IC from OOC. As much as I hate to say it, 'Mr $3' does have a point. Judging from his pouting you can tell that the game has already become more toxic as a result and that IC/OOC separation is also important. I would be disturbed if such a rule were implemented and probably walk away from the game, even if I were to benefit from it.

I think your group is better off strictly enforcing equal monetary contributions for food. You could also have everyone provide for themselves and only for themselves. That way moochers can't mooch off of others, but will simply go hungry instead. Or you can bring up the issue and, as a last resort, boot any moochers from the group if the problem persists.

Friv
2015-08-14, 03:11 PM
IC benefits from OOC stuff isn't usually ideal, but in this situation it sounds like a reasonable option. I mean, the other choices are:
A) Tell people to pay up or leave. Unfriendly, and excludes anyone who can't pay.
B) People who don't pay don't get to eat. Only marginally less unfriendly than A.
C) Call mooching guy out. But ... we don't know for sure his situation, maybe someone else buys him things but doesn't give him spending money. And even if he is just a mooch, not likely to go well.
D) Leave things unfair to the people buying food for everyone else.

Also, "pay to play" would be more accurate if the rerolls were given for stuff that only benefits the GM. When someone is buying food for the whole group, it's not so unreasonable to acknowledge that.

I think this IS calling mooching guy out. It reads as a passive-aggressive attack on the players who aren't contributing, and it's not going to end well (notice that the guy who isn't paying money got pissed off instantly.) I think that, if people are upset that there are group members not paying their way, they need to talk to them about it, and decide what to do.

Yeah, it could be that the guy just doesn't have money, and is getting stuff from other people (although my gut says that anyone with a new car can afford to put aside fifty bucks a month for food with their friends) but if that's the case, these new rerolls are just going to be rubbing his nose in that fact non-stop all night every night. It's pretty much the worst of both worlds.

BWR
2015-08-14, 04:03 PM
It boils down to my stance on quite a number of things: so long as everyone involved is fine with it, there's nothing wrong. If some people are not fine with it, something needs to be done.

I ran with 'bribe the GM with food' for a while. Minor amounts of xp, mostly, maybe a hint or two - nothing that would really make things unfair for others. It worked out fine because people were already sharing snacks and drinks and this was just another way of showing appreciation. No one complained, though the suggestion that food or drink provided by the GM resulted in loss of xp was not popular (the proposed 'bribe the GM with sex' was shot down because only one person would benefit and the suggested fix of it applying to offers and not completed acts had obvious drawbacks.). I stopped doing it after a year or so and no one complained about that either.

kyoryu
2015-08-14, 04:16 PM
When playing Fate, I generally hand out a Fate Point at the beginning of the session for anyone that brought food.

But since everyone gets Fate Points at the beginning of a session *anyway*, it's probably less disruptive than adding rerolls to games that don't have them to start.

ShaneMRoth
2015-08-14, 04:41 PM
I would want to see how this house rule played out over time.

I'd be reluctant in the extreme to implement such a rule at my table, but I would be willing to play at such a table.

Geddy2112
2015-08-14, 04:42 PM
$10 for 2 lousy re rolls? Amateur level stuff. I have gotten ability score boosts for $5 worth of mcdonalds for the DM. My friend asked if I could pick him up dinner on the way, and I negotiated.

Also, I once had a player bribe me with a handle of nice gin for an eyepatch of true seeing. His character died about 5 sessions later and now another player has it.

Nobody openly bribes or accepts bribes at our table, but it happens. I am not against being the DM, if you are stupid enough to pay me for a re roll. Nor would I openly do it, but If I do I am getting something much better than a re roll. Certainly this can be a toxic precedent, but it has never broken any game I have been in where it has happened.

gadren
2015-08-14, 04:49 PM
$10 for 2 lousy re rolls? Amateur level stuff. I have gotten ability score boosts for $5 worth of mcdonalds for the DM. My friend asked if I could pick him up dinner on the way, and I negotiated.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SrZwB9CS-DI/Uo5ZEYhoKmI/AAAAAAAAADY/oqDkiltdqtM/s200/Bribe_GM_With_Food.png

TheThan
2015-08-14, 05:18 PM
I’m assuming that the food is communal and not meant for one person.

You pitch in ten bucks for food and you get a free re-roll for the session. You don’t pitch in and you don’t get a reroll. If you’re just buying food for just yourself, then you don’t get a reroll either. Sure some may think it’s unfair, but mooching (as others have put it) is even more unfair because it’s taking advantage of the people who are kindly spending their hard earned money on food for the group.

If everyone is providing food more or less equally then there is no problem because everyone is benefiting both in game via rerolls and out of game via foodstuffs. When someone chooses not to participate in that manner it’s on their head.

Not actually having money to pay for foodstuffs is a problem though. I don’t know the entire situation so I can’t really comment further. Nor do I know how to correct that problem.

Keltest
2015-08-14, 05:42 PM
While I am not especially fond of the idea of rerolling specifically, but in general it sounds like it works. I would suggest giving everyone a freebee reroll token at the start irrespective of their consumables contribution so that your mooch doesn't feel like he's getting completely shafted though.


Not actually having money to pay for foodstuffs is a problem though. I don’t know the entire situation so I can’t really comment further. Nor do I know how to correct that problem.

Based on how the OP described it, it isn't so much that the person in question cannot afford to bring money for food, its that he chooses not to bring money for food. If this has been a regular occurrence, there really isn't any excuse for that behavior except that he is choosing not to help pay for food, and that is fairly disrespectful.

Nifft
2015-08-14, 05:54 PM
1 - I do like rewarding people who contribute stuff to my games, including creative efforts like art and journal write-ups.

2 - However, rewarding MONETARY contributions is different from rewarding creative contributions, and much trickier. I've never done that.

Yeah, I'm with the majority here. Not a good idea IMHO.

kyoryu
2015-08-14, 05:57 PM
I also think there's a difference between bringing food, or chipping in for food that's bought for the group, and actual "I'll give you two rerolls for $10".

ExLibrisMortis
2015-08-14, 06:24 PM
I would want to see how this house rule played out over time.
While I am not especially fond of the idea of rerolling specifically,
I would be willing to play at such a table.
I would suggest giving everyone a freebee reroll token at the start irrespective of their consumables contribution so that your mooch doesn't feel like he's getting completely shafted though.Barely need to say anything myself!

You could also take turns bringing food. That way, it's more obvious if one person brings nothing.

Keltest
2015-08-14, 06:53 PM
You could also take turns bringing food. That way, it's more obvious if one person brings nothing.

Asking someone to shill out 100 bucks themselves on food is a bit unreasonable IMO. Better to make it a community pool so they don't need to have nearly so much cash on hand at any given time.

Grinner
2015-08-14, 07:39 PM
I like it.

While mixing gameplay with OOC input may not be the best idea most of the time, I think the circumstances surrounding this particular group make the rule workable. Plus, the combination of a natural limit on how much can be accrued in a single session and the idea that a reroll isn't really worth $10 doesn't make it such a powerful incentive.

You're not paying for the rerolls. You're paying for food.

Now, it might have some subtle effects on the group dynamics in the future, but time will tell who the adults in the group are.


Also, it's possible that the guy doesn't actually carry money. When I got a credit card, I thought I'd only use it for special circumstances; I pay for practically everything with it now.

Mr Beer
2015-08-14, 08:11 PM
Seems like it would be easier to just tell the mooch to stop mooching like a cheapass moocher.

Grinner
2015-08-14, 08:29 PM
Seems like it would be easier to just tell the mooch to stop mooching like a cheapass moocher.

It would then become necessary to deliver an ultimatum. Merely demanding that he stop mooching would do little but wound his pride and stir tension.

From the OP, I guess they frown upon his lack of contribution but don't dislike him enough to give him the boot outright.

ExLibrisMortis
2015-08-14, 08:52 PM
Asking someone to shill out 100 bucks themselves on food is a bit unreasonable IMO. Better to make it a community pool so they don't need to have nearly so much cash on hand at any given time.
That depends on the people; personally, I don't care whether I spend a hundred every seven weeks or fifteen a week, it averages out. If you agree to take turns bringing the food, it's not a cash problem either. You're not bringing a hundred bucks in cash, you're bringing food, paid for with a card, if that's preferred (or you just remember to bring a hundred, it's not that hard). You do lose some variety, perhaps, but that might be compensated by a few good cooks in the group.

If cash and mooching are both terribly big problems, set up a communal bank account and an automatic monthly fee. Never have to worry about how the food's paid. But I suspect that is several levels more serious than most D&D groups are willing to go.

goto124
2015-08-14, 08:56 PM
Going for the one free reroll regardless of food thing.

If the player gets really bad rolls, and isn't allowed to reroll due to 'you didn't bring food', that'll only drive up tension in the group.

If the 'reward' for bringing food is more along the lines of something not so essential, but nice to have, it'll work better as an incentive for the player to bring food. If he still doesn't bring food, either he can't afford it, believes he can't afford it, or is just too stubborn anyway.

Side note, you spend at least $40 on food each time? I can't even bear to spend $3.

Hawkstar
2015-08-14, 09:05 PM
I’m assuming that the food is communal and not meant for one person.

You pitch in ten bucks for food and you get a free re-roll for the session. You don’t pitch in and you don’t get a reroll. If you’re just buying food for just yourself, then you don’t get a reroll either. Sure some may think it’s unfair, but mooching (as others have put it) is even more unfair because it’s taking advantage of the people who are kindly spending their hard earned money on food for the group.

Actually, if you're buying food for yourself, it means the rest of the table's money doesn't have to buy food for you, reducing the food cost burden for the entire table.

goto124
2015-08-14, 09:18 PM
Come to think of it, 'a new car and a new laptop every six months and all sorts of toys for himself' and still contributes only $3? Assuming the OP is correct, that does sound a bit much.

'Buying food for yourself' works when you really are poor and can't afford to pay more. This does not seem to be the case.

Joe the Rat
2015-08-14, 09:52 PM
Only rule we have is "don't take the DM's last slice of Pizza."

Cars and Laptops can be purchased by credit card. I can easily having money, but not cash. If that's the case, Mr. 3 might need to consider hitting the ATM once in a while. Or having him do the purchase by card, and channel cash to him. But that rather depends on how you do the fooding.

I'd be interested to see what happens at the next session.

Mr Beer
2015-08-15, 02:23 AM
It would then become necessary to deliver an ultimatum. Merely demanding that he stop mooching would do little but wound his pride and stir tension.

From the OP, I guess they frown upon his lack of contribution but don't dislike him enough to give him the boot outright.

I haven't found it to be a universal truth that calling out someone's poor behaviour necessarily requires an ultimatum with it in order to modify their behaviour. In fact it's usually a better approach when dealing with people to hold threats in reserve as a last resort.

Nifft
2015-08-15, 02:42 AM
I haven't found it to be a universal truth that calling out someone's poor behaviour necessarily requires an ultimatum with it in order to modify their behaviour. In fact it's usually a better approach when dealing with people to hold threats in reserve as a last resort.

Strongly agree.

The first try should be talking to the person privately in a non-confrontational way.

If that fails, try less-nice and more-confrontational ways of communicating.

If everything fails, then you can break out the ultimatum. But it's the last resort -- the ultimate resort, one might say -- and certainly not the first thing you try.

Mastikator
2015-08-15, 02:53 AM
Seems like it would be easier if people would just bring their own food and drink.

NichG
2015-08-15, 03:12 AM
The problem in this situation is that there was an unfair assumption ("It's the DM's job to make sure that there is food, and to cover the necessary difference in the food cost"). This has obviously gotten to the point where its a burden for the DM, and they're trying to lessen that unfair burden. But they're doing it a bit awkwardly by using the tools associated with their actual responsibility - running the game.

If it were me, I'd say just switch to something where everyone adds to the order and specifically just pays for what they added. And if someone can't pay, they have to specifically ask someone else to cover what they want and get them to agree to do it - no assumed 'the money will work out somehow, let the DM take care of it'.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-15, 03:23 AM
I was once in a group where about once a month I'd end up owing a friend £5-10 due to my student loan only covering my rent (I had maybe £300 for the year, in London). The key thing was that I always payed him back the next week once my benefits came in. He also always payed for one of his housemates, but I think this was for simplicity.

Early in the year this friend would often collect the money for the order and then pay by card due to not having his share on him or ordering on his laptop. They was the agreement that if you want to pay less, you don't order, order less, or pony up double your share next week. I took the third a lot, but was also the GM.

Suichimo
2015-08-15, 03:26 AM
I can easily having money, but not cash. If that's the case, Mr. 3 might need to consider hitting the ATM once in a while. Or having him do the purchase by card, and channel cash to him. But that rather depends on how you do the fooding.

This. Money =/= cash. I am this exact way. Even on payday, I will not have a single dollar on me. You'll only catch me with money on laundry day or right before I'm about to pay a bill, as I have a low daily limit on my debit card. So I'll generally pay the full bill with my card and be paid back by my friends.

Next session, ask him if he can order everything and all of you will pay your share.

Steampunkette
2015-08-15, 05:22 AM
Inspiration for $10 seems like a good compromise, to me, sice everyone chips in, anyhow.

I might put that on my table when I get an in person group going.

Jay R
2015-08-15, 09:47 AM
I think most of you have it backwards. This is a bad idea, not because it is too strong a reaction, but because it's too weak. It implies that he has the right to continue to not contribute, at a cost of not getting re-rolls.

Also, if I have the right to a couple of extra re-rolls in the game, I'm just as likely to use them on my team-mates' rolls as on my own, because we're a team, and the roll that needs it is as likely to be yours as mine. In essence, when given to anybody who is enough of a team player that he always helps pay for the food, that chip is a team asset, not an individual one.


Personally, I think this is a bad solution to the problem. The DM is setting a very dangerous precedent which I believe will poison the game and which blurs the line that separates IC from OOC. As much as I hate to say it, 'Mr $3' does have a point. Judging from his pouting you can tell that the game has already become more toxic as a result ...

Exactly backwards. The toxicity was the unfair monetary burden caused by Mr. $3. [You can tell that it was toxic because the DM felt the need to do this.]

Mr. $3 is pouting because he can no longer freeload without consequence. That isn't a toxic side effect; it was the point of the exercise.

[Note: I've been in the position of being the only one in the group out of work. I apologized for the situation, offered to leave the group, and brought food when I did have money. But I also couldn't afford new computers or cars.]

This is an attempt to fix a serious problem with an insufficient solution. Ideally, you would either tell the guy, "You're behind on paying for the food. Catch up. Now. Or leave the game." Or possibly, "I'm not accepting $3 contributions. If you won't be a full partner in the food buy, then you pay nothing and eat nothing. Either join us in taking responsibility for this food, or bring your own, or don't eat."

But the DM wasn't willing to be that straightforward. So he's making an insufficient gesture of thanks for those players who aren't free-loading. Nothing wrong with it, but I don't expect it to help.

I'll be interested to see what happens at the next game. If Mr. $3 shows up without money again, you won't know if he has always been oblivious, or he he decided that re-rolls aren't worth paying for. But if he shows up with enough money to help pay for the food, it will be an tacit admission that he knew he was freeloading, and it was a deliberate choice.

olejars
2015-08-15, 10:11 AM
My buddy instituted an incentive for bringing stuff that goes towards the communal food and drink.

Drinks and snacks (bag of chips, 12 pack of soda) awards 1d3 random items, which could be major items.

Actual meals (I.E. Pizza, burgers, etc) are guarenteed 1d2 major items and 1d3 random items.

Everything is randomly rolled.

All players at my group are entirely fine with this set up.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-15, 11:45 AM
I think most of you have it backwards. This is a bad idea, not because it is too strong a reaction, but because it's too weak. It implies that he has the right to continue to not contribute, at a cost of not getting re-rolls.

Also, if I have the right to a couple of extra re-rolls in the game, I'm just as likely to use them on my team-mates' rolls as on my own, because we're a team, and the roll that needs it is as likely to be yours as mine. In essence, when given to anybody who is enough of a team player that he always helps pay for the food, that chip is a team asset, not an individual one.

Good points, but I actually agree with the '$10 rerolls' unless they want to kick him out or the awkward situation of one player being hungry (not the same as one player not eating, I know many poorer gamers in my area will save money by cooking and eating beforehand rather than get takeout).


Exactly backwards. The toxicity was the unfair monetary burden caused by Mr. $3. [You can tell that it was toxic because the DM felt the need to do this.]

Mr. $3 is pouting because he can no longer freeload without consequence. That isn't a toxic side effect; it was the point of the exercise.

This, but I'd personally bring it up first before starting the temptation game.


[Note: I've been in the position of being the only one in the group out of work. I apologized for the situation, offered to leave the group, and brought food when I did have money. But I also couldn't afford new computers or cars.]

Well of course you did, because you're a person, not a goblin.


This is an attempt to fix a serious problem with an insufficient solution. Ideally, you would either tell the guy, "You're behind on paying for the food. Catch up. Now. Or leave the game." Or possibly, "I'm not accepting $3 contributions. If you won't be a full partner in the food buy, then you pay nothing and eat nothing. Either join us in taking responsibility for this food, or bring your own, or don't eat."

But the DM wasn't willing to be that straightforward. So he's making an insufficient gesture of thanks for those players who aren't free-loading. Nothing wrong with it, but I don't expect it to help.

I'll be interested to see what happens at the next game. If Mr. $3 shows up without money again, you won't know if he has always been oblivious, or he he decided that re-rolls aren't worth paying for. But if he shows up with enough money to help pay for the food, it will be an tacit admission that he knew he was freeloading, and it was a deliberate choice.

Agreed here.


All players at my group are entirely fine with this set up.

This is the key part, I've been in games with food rules from 'bring your own food' to 'Jaffa Cakes are free, get them before they go', to 'keep the GM supplied with beer (from not interrupting him getting one to buying one and giving it to him)' which everybody was fine with.

TheThan
2015-08-15, 12:34 PM
Usually in my group we pay for ourselves, however that doesn’t stop people from bringing food and drinks for everyone. Sometimes people will pay for another and we split a burden. Other times when we go to a sit down restaurant (read not a fast-food place) one person will pay with his card and everyone else will pay him back in cash.

MrConsideration
2015-08-15, 03:43 PM
We game in a bar - we buy drinks for each other - we don't track it but people broadly all pay in. People bring snack food and we share. When one guy was unemployed, we all pitched in for him - but we spoke about it as a group. Everyone has those times when there's too much month left at the end of the money.

You need to speak to Mr $3 and make it clear your DM is spending a lot of money on food. Don't be angry, just be clear that it's not fair for one player in the group to be paying to feed everyone else. Most likely Mr $3 will show contrition and want to make amends.

Unless Mr $3 is a jerk, in which case you'll get to watch him squirm to justify himself.

Mr Beer
2015-08-15, 05:14 PM
I think most of you have it backwards. This is a bad idea, not because it is too strong a reaction, but because it's too weak. It implies that he has the right to continue to not contribute, at a cost of not getting re-rolls.

Yep, exactly right.

FabulousFizban
2015-08-15, 08:06 PM
HAHAHAHA****YOU!

I play tabletops to avoid micro-transactions thank you.

Solaris
2015-08-15, 10:20 PM
While I am not especially fond of the idea of rerolling specifically, but in general it sounds like it works. I would suggest giving everyone a freebee reroll token at the start irrespective of their consumables contribution so that your mooch doesn't feel like he's getting completely shafted though.

Why are we concerned that the parasite isn't feeling bad about being a parasite, again?

cobaltstarfire
2015-08-15, 10:27 PM
I think it's a bad way to handle the situation in the long run, probably better to talk to Mr. 3 and ask why he never contributes a fair amount.

It can't be that lack of cash on his person is a problem, because most places take plastic. If he can't afford to buy food when he constantly gets new toys maybe he should consider fitting game night into his budget, or if he has a benefactor asking them for food on game nights.

Switching to everyone buys their own food seems like a good solution. But that's just what I'm used to. In the past I've never been able to afford to chip in or buy food, so I'd always just go without.

Keltest
2015-08-16, 04:13 AM
Why are we concerned that the parasite isn't feeling bad about being a parasite, again?

Dude, its 10 bucks at a gaming table every so often. Use of the language like "parasite" is entirely unwarranted. Clearly at least someone at their table is concerned with his ability to actually enjoy his time spent there, or he wouldn't be invited back every session.

NichG
2015-08-16, 04:49 AM
Dude, its 10 bucks at a gaming table every so often. Use of the language like "parasite" is entirely unwarranted. Clearly at least someone at their table is concerned with his ability to actually enjoy his time spent there, or he wouldn't be invited back every session.

Its also clear that the behavior is problematic enough that the DM wants to do something about it - understandably, if the DM is paying his share every week. $10 a week adds up - that's basically buying the guy a new laptop every year.

Keltest
2015-08-16, 09:17 AM
Its also clear that the behavior is problematic enough that the DM wants to do something about it - understandably, if the DM is paying his share every week. $10 a week adds up - that's basically buying the guy a new laptop every year.

While this is true, they are also, presumably, friends. While not paying for your food is rude, it isn't a level of scumbaggery that really warrants the level of reaction some people are giving.

Saladman
2015-08-16, 04:23 PM
I think rewards like this stick out less when it's already a currency in the game. Savage Worlds for instance starts each player with three bennies per session that you can spend on re-rolls, and it's a universal house rule in my area that bringing beer or snacks nets you an extra benny. Likewise, I've seen D&D games award extra xp for food and drinks - but the GM also awarded xp for session writeups, mapping, above-and-beyond roleplay. No one ever called either of those pay to win because they're already features of the game.

Re-rolls per $10 sticks out just a little more, but it's not like the GM is just pocketing it, it's a re-roll for a significant outlay on food for the group. I don't see anything wrong with it.


While this is true, they are also, presumably, friends. While not paying for your food is rude, it isn't a level of scumbaggery that really warrants the level of reaction some people are giving.

Week after week? Yeah, it actually kind of is. It's not a surprise at this point they're ordering food every week. It's not just one week that he's only got $3 in his wallet. If he really doesn't carry cash I guarantee he carries a debit card, and it's not like no-one takes debit anymore, so he could put the bill on his card and people chip in to him. He's never said, "hey, I got the whole bill this once" to catch up. If he just doesn't like spending money on takeout, he could eat something beforehand or bring cheaper eats for himself instead of getting others to pay for him.

gadren
2015-08-16, 04:35 PM
I think rewards like this stick out less when it's already a currency in the game.

I guess I should point out we already did have something like this in the game, sort of. The DM already uses 3.5 Action Points as described in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm), except instead of getting a certain amount per character level, we get one every other encounter (like 4e). Though those add to a d20 roll instead of rerolling, so its not identical, but same concept.

Mr Beer
2015-08-16, 06:53 PM
While this is true, they are also, presumably, friends. While not paying for your food is rude, it isn't a level of scumbaggery that really warrants the level of reaction some people are giving.

Not paying your share now and again is one thing (though not how I behave) but consistently mooching week-in, week-out is blatant scumbaggery. In fact, Scum McBaggery sounds like a good handle for him, it has a vague LOTR vibe about it.

GungHo
2015-08-17, 10:14 AM
I understand where the original GM is coming from. This isn't so much "wash the GMs car for double XP" as it is "mooches are losers", but it does introduce a conflict of interest of sorts that I usually try to avoid. I'd just tell the moocher that he gets to bring the food the next time. If he refuses, we'd become a BYO Munchies outfit from thereon out.

tgva8889
2015-08-17, 10:28 AM
As a random question related to this, would the situation change if the DM allowed the players to apply their "gained" rerolls to any roll, rather than just rolls their character makes?

Broken Twin
2015-08-17, 10:48 AM
I like it.

They're not paying $10 for a reroll, they're getting a bonus for participating in the social expectation (chipping in for food). Moochie can pitch in whenever he wants, so he's not being unfairly punished.

And one reroll a session really isn't that big a thing. I would add two conditions to it though.

1. They expire at the end of the session.
2. They can be spent on any player's roll.

That both prevents any real power creep (since the reroll can't be hoarded), and further reduces the disparity by making it a party resource instead of a PC resource. The person who chipped in gets to choose how to spend it, but the person who didn't can still potentially benefit from it.

Cealocanth
2015-08-17, 10:52 AM
Good intentions, bad results. While this sort of system does encourage donations, it can also be seen as punishing those who can't donate. If Mr. Three Dollar is totally capable of chipping in for food, then this system is fine. It's a reward, and it encourages the more stingy to actively seek out that reward. If his situation actually is that he can't pay for this, then it's yet another societal factor telling him why his not being wealthy is bad.

So it really depends on the true context of the situation. I would say that if it works with your group, go ahead and do it.

@^: I like that idea, although I could see how it could lead to some more complaining.

Rockoe10
2015-08-17, 11:14 AM
I understand the dislike of combining IC with OOC. It's a sticky situation, but I can see the issue too with a moocher.

SOLUTION:
Give out a re-roll chip to everyone and use those re-roll chips to buy the food. This way it's not a 'Pay to Play' but a 'Pay to Eat'.

I think that is fair, the moocher can pay now for food even if he doesn't bring money, because he can use a form of in game currency.

P.S.
If each person brings their own food, another player can 'Pay' that player for food. If more than one person brings food, they can add it to the communal food bowl at no charge to take another's contribution to the bowl.

Kesnit
2015-08-17, 11:17 AM
*Personally I'd feel really bad eating a bunch of good food right in front of friends who can't have any just because said friends are poor.

For the past year, I've been unable to find a job in my field. I have a part-time job that pays very poorly. My gaming group is full of people with full-time jobs. (One works part-time, but has few bills. Another is a college student, but is married to a guy with a good job.) Just about every week, some of them order out from a place I love. (The ones that don't usually bring their own take-out fast food.) Every week, I wish I had the money to order food. But I can't put $15 towards a meal, when I could use that $15 towards one of the endless bills I have to pay. Instead, I bring food that my wife fixed. It's good, but I die a little every week when I see my friends eating food I would love to have. (No, I have never told them that. And I never will.)


You're not paying for the rerolls. You're paying for food.

No, you are paying for rerolls. Because no matter the justification or argument, it comes down to "you put in $20, so get two rerolls."


Now, it might have some subtle effects on the group dynamics in the future, but time will tell who the adults in the group are.

I'm beyond broke, and can barely pay my bills. I already see my friends getting a benefit I cannot afford (good food), and now I'm being childish if I get upset because I can never get ANOTHER benefit - one with actual in-game consequences? All because I'm underemployed through no fault of my own?


They're not paying $10 for a reroll, they're getting a bonus for participating in the social expectation (chipping in for food). Moochie can pitch in whenever he wants, so he's not being unfairly punished.

Does Blue Collar Worker (named in the OP) become Moochie if he loses his job? Sure, Mr. $3 probably is mooching because he appears to have available funds, but where is the line drawn? Why does the person who has a job get another chance against a save-or-die, but I just have to die?


And one reroll a session really isn't that big a thing.

Except it can come to more than 1, depending on how much a given player puts in. And one reroll can be the difference between a PC living and dying.


I would add two conditions to it though.

1. They expire at the end of the session.
2. They can be spent on any player's roll.

You are assuming another player would donate their reroll. In some groups (and I grant, my group would be one of them), it likely would happen. But that isn't a universal case, which then leads back to the possibility of a PC surviving and another dying because one player could afford to pay and another could not.

Broken Twin
2015-08-17, 11:25 AM
If I were to use this, it would be "You chip in $10+ for the group food, you get a reroll chip." Each person can get one chip.

And yeah, I've been in the situation where I can't afford to pitch in. I've been in that situation a lot. And I'm grateful as hell when a friend chips in to cover me. If they get a small one use bonus because of it, than good for them! I'm happy that their selflessness in paying for me to eat is being rewarded.

And obviously this house rule wouldn't work for all groups. No rule is a perfect fit for every group. The implication of the rule is that everyone is eating the food purchased. If that isn't the case, then the rule obviously needs to be adjusted.

Lord Torath
2015-08-17, 02:28 PM
For the past year, I've been unable to find a job in my field. I have a part-time job that pays very poorly.You have my sympathies. I hope you can find a job in your field soon. I know how you feel. I worked for four years in part-time/low paying work before I finally found a job in my field.


I'm beyond broke, and can barely pay my bills. I already see my friends getting a benefit I cannot afford (good food), and now I'm being childish if I get upset because I can never get ANOTHER benefit - one with actual in-game consequences? All because I'm underemployed through no fault of my own?

Does Blue Collar Worker (named in the OP) become Moochie if he loses his job? Sure, Mr. $3 probably is mooching because he appears to have available funds, but where is the line drawn? Why does the person who has a job get another chance against a save-or-die, but I just have to die?Keep in mind, this is not your group. In your group, you are not mooching. Therefore, this rule would never be suggested. Mr $3 is mooching, and according to the OP, he can afford not to. In your case, if you can't afford to chip in, you bring your own food. In his case, he can (presumably) afford to chip in, but chooses not to, and still eats the group food. If he took the option you do (bringing your own food, or otherwise not partaking of the group food), the rerolls for money would never have been brought up. If he had planned ahead (it's not like these weekly gaming sessions come up without warning) he could easily have arranged to have $10 cash for each session. So again, the situation would not have come up.

You're asking a lot of hypothetical 'what if' questions. None of them are currently pertinent to the OP's situation. In the event that something changes, it sounds like the DM is the type of person who would revisit the arrangement. He seems interested in keeping things fair, and this rule is an attempt to make things more fair.

Segev
2015-08-17, 03:39 PM
In order to quell the "it's unfair pay-to-win" notion a bit, I would suggest that there be 2 chips per player, and the price of a chip be determined post-food-order.

Let's say you have 4 players and the DM (so 5 people). You order $50 worth of food. Once it has been determined that there is $50 worth of food, everybody has the opportunity to contribute $10 for 2 chips. If anybody doesn't, the remaining players have the opportunity to contribute an additional $5 for each chip left unclaimed.

It appears the DM is covering anything left over, so he keeps any chips left over. He does not offer additional chips to cover his own share. Left-over chips the DM claims are ALSO good for re-rolls...on the monsters' rolls.

This way, there's no way to argue that you were denied the opportunity to get your fair share of chips. You chose not to. And if you couldn't afford it, you're "paying" for your enjoyment of the food shares by letting somebody else enjoy your re-roll.

Saladman
2015-08-17, 03:56 PM
For the past year, I've been unable to find a job in my field. I have a part-time job that pays very poorly. My gaming group is full of people with full-time jobs. (One works part-time, but has few bills. Another is a college student, but is married to a guy with a good job.) Just about every week, some of them order out from a place I love. (The ones that don't usually bring their own take-out fast food.) Every week, I wish I had the money to order food. But I can't put $15 towards a meal, when I could use that $15 towards one of the endless bills I have to pay. Instead, I bring food that my wife fixed. It's good, but I die a little every week when I see my friends eating food I would love to have. (No, I have never told them that. And I never will.)

In other words, nothing at all like the OP's case of a guy with a good job showing up in a new car carrying a new laptop, diving into the takeout, and saying "oh, sorry guys, only three ones in the wallet" week after week.

And we're talking about a benny when paying for food for the group, not for yourself to eat in front of everyone else.

I've been broke in my life, and I know it sucks. Sometimes you just stay home and cook fried rice, and you don't get any credit for it. I do wish you luck finding work in your field.

On a tangent, the people I game with like food, but we don't actually go for takeout. It's either potluck if we're having a full dinner, or snacks plus beer on a shorter session. I'm sure some people do spend a little more than others, but it's cheaper overall. I can't imagine we've ever spent $100 on a dinner.

So that would be something for the OP's group to talk about, if they don't mind cooking and they want to save a little money. $40 to $100 a week on food is actually kind of a lot. But from the guy who's mooching to begin with I wouldn't expect it to change anything. He'd probably be Bag of Chips Guy, if that.

NichG
2015-08-17, 06:24 PM
For the past year, I've been unable to find a job in my field. I have a part-time job that pays very poorly. My gaming group is full of people with full-time jobs. (One works part-time, but has few bills. Another is a college student, but is married to a guy with a good job.) Just about every week, some of them order out from a place I love. (The ones that don't usually bring their own take-out fast food.) Every week, I wish I had the money to order food. But I can't put $15 towards a meal, when I could use that $15 towards one of the endless bills I have to pay. Instead, I bring food that my wife fixed. It's good, but I die a little every week when I see my friends eating food I would love to have. (No, I have never told them that. And I never will.)

I'm beyond broke, and can barely pay my bills. I already see my friends getting a benefit I cannot afford (good food), and now I'm being childish if I get upset because I can never get ANOTHER benefit - one with actual in-game consequences? All because I'm underemployed through no fault of my own?

Does Blue Collar Worker (named in the OP) become Moochie if he loses his job? Sure, Mr. $3 probably is mooching because he appears to have available funds, but where is the line drawn? Why does the person who has a job get another chance against a save-or-die, but I just have to die?

Now imagine if you were the DM, and someone else was effectively making you pay $10 for their share each week despite your financial situation.

gadren
2015-08-17, 07:13 PM
So that would be something for the OP's group to talk about, if they don't mind cooking and they want to save a little money. $40 to $100 a week on food is actually kind of a lot. But from the guy who's mooching to begin with I wouldn't expect it to change anything. He'd probably be Bag of Chips Guy, if that. We've tried cooking sometimes, too, and buying enough ingredients for everyone still typically costs at least $40, and that's if we only buy stuff that's on sale. I get the impression that food (and everything else) isn't quite as much in other places as it is here in Los Angeles, though.
The $100+ tabs are much rarer, like when the group decides they really want to order from this really good Thai place just down the block. In those cases, the people suggesting the expensive grub also chip in much more and cover for the others.

The other drawback to cooking is that it eats a lot into our limited game time.

kyoryu
2015-08-17, 07:23 PM
I don't see a problem with what you're doing. It sounds like there's some resentment built up towards this guy, which implies to me that he *could* be helping chip in, but he just doesn't bother. And that he hasn't talked to anybody about it, but just assumes that people will cover him.

If I was in a situation where people covered for me, I'd either a) make sure to pay them back or b) be super up-front about why I couldn't chip in and be incredibly grateful or c) bring my own cheap food so folks didn't have to cover for me. It doesn't sound like he's doing any of the above.

The only real problem I see here is the way it was presented. I think a good way of doing it would be to tell the group at the session before you institute this "hey, we understand not everyone can chip in for food, and that's okay, we're all friends here and we don't mind covering for others. However, I think it's fair that those people covering for others get something out of it as well, and so I'm going to be giving reroll tokens as follows..."

Just dropping it without warning can be seen as slightly passive aggressive. Now, based on everything, I don't know that the response would be any different, but I still think this would be a good way of dealing with the situation.

And if he doesn't like that idea, then tell him the alternative is that the people that don't pay don't get food.

Solaris
2015-08-17, 09:09 PM
Dude, its 10 bucks at a gaming table every so often. Use of the language like "parasite" is entirely unwarranted. Clearly at least someone at their table is concerned with his ability to actually enjoy his time spent there, or he wouldn't be invited back every session.

Refusing to pony up ten dollars a week when he can afford a new laptop every six months and his friends are forking over extra cash to cover for him? The man is a leech. Words like "parasite" are entirely warranted in this situation, as that money adds up and it can mean the difference between a bill paid on time and a bill running over to next paycheck.

I've read too many "Worst Player" threads to credit that argument. I'm also way too broke to dismiss ten bucks as nothing; that much makes up the majority of my food budget for a week. This parasite is effectively taking from his friends because he fails to contribute his fair share while still eating his share of the food. If he were their friend and wanted them to enjoy their time, he shouldn't complain in the slightest about them getting some immaterial recompense for compensating for his sloth and stinginess. The fact that he is complaining suggests very strongly that any concerns in the group for his feelings as their friend are rather misplaced.

kyoryu
2015-08-17, 09:51 PM
Let's not forget - his response to the guy *paying for his food* getting a few rerolls was "oh, I guess it's pay to win".

This to the guy ponying up to pay for HIS FOOD.

This is the basic interaction, stripped down to its essentials:

GM: "Okay, food will be $15 a person this week!"
A: "I've got $3. That's it."
B: "I'll chip in for A."
GM: "That's nice of you, B. I'm gonna give you a couple of rerolls for that."
A: "SCREW YOU! WHY DOES HE GET STUFF AND I DON'T?"

Coidzor
2015-08-17, 10:57 PM
Honestly, if the guy isn't contributing to buying dinner and it's a problem, just stop feeding him. :smallconfused:

Forum Explorer
2015-08-18, 12:21 AM
Let's not forget - his response to the guy *paying for his food* getting a few rerolls was "oh, I guess it's pay to win".

This to the guy ponying up to pay for HIS FOOD.

This is the basic interaction, stripped down to its essentials:

GM: "Okay, food will be $15 a person this week!"
A: "I've got $3. That's it."
B: "I'll chip in for A."
GM: "That's nice of you, B. I'm gonna give you a couple of rerolls for that."
A: "SCREW YOU! WHY DOES HE GET STUFF AND I DON'T?"

Pretty much exactly this. The guy who isn't paying for food isn't being punished. Everyone else is being rewarded for their generosity, and he's complaining about it. That in of itself is douchebag behavior, even if he legitimately couldn't afford the food. And from the sounds of things, he is the richest person at the table.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-18, 02:47 AM
We've tried cooking sometimes, too, and buying enough ingredients for everyone still typically costs at least $40, and that's if we only buy stuff that's on sale. I get the impression that food (and everything else) isn't quite as much in other places as it is here in Los Angeles, though.
The $100+ tabs are much rarer, like when the group decides they really want to order from this really good Thai place just down the block. In those cases, the people suggesting the expensive grub also chip in much more and cover for the others.

The other drawback to cooking is that it eats a lot into our limited game time.

I live in/near London, where you can feed a group on about £5 a person when cooking, as few as £3 a person if you shop smart, occasionally as little as £2 a person. A good cook can have a meal prepared and 5 minutes from serving by the time guests arrive, which means that around here getting takeout is unusual compared to eating before you come or someone cooking dinner (occasionally with a battle of the chefs over who does it).


Honestly, if the guy isn't contributing to buying dinner and it's a problem, just stop feeding him. :smallconfused:

This is probably the best solution, ask everybody to say how much they have before you order, and then only buy him $3 worth of food, if you can find it.

Kesnit
2015-08-18, 06:58 AM
You're asking a lot of hypothetical 'what if' questions. None of them are currently pertinent to the OP's situation. In the event that something changes, it sounds like the DM is the type of person who would revisit the arrangement. He seems interested in keeping things fair, and this rule is an attempt to make things more fair.

The questions I asked are hypothetical...now. But by starting this, the DM has set a bad precedent, because things can change without warning. If they do, it puts the DM in an awkward position, with basically 3 options.

1) Get rid of the pay to win. Unlikely to solve the problem, because even if Mr. $3 has started contributing to get his reroll chips, he'll stop once the benefit to himself is gone.
2) Allow the person who can no longer pay to continue to get the benefit. This will cause resentment with Mr. $3, along the lines of "why is he still getting the benefit when he isn't contributing?" This is especially likely if Mr. $3 has started to pay his share.
3) Keep it and keep the requirement of paying for the benefit. This puts the player in the circumstance I described above, where the player is being punished for circumstances outside their control. (Or worse, circumstances within their control. People can choose to do things that reduce their disposable income - have a kid, switch to a lower paying but better job, etc.)


Now imagine if you were the DM, and someone else was effectively making you pay $10 for their share each week despite your financial situation.

Which is when I would have talked to the group. The DM (1) is using an in-game solution to out out of game problem, and (2) dropped it on the group with no discussion or warning.


The only real problem I see here is the way it was presented. I think a good way of doing it would be to tell the group at the session before you institute this "hey, we understand not everyone can chip in for food, and that's okay, we're all friends here and we don't mind covering for others. However, I think it's fair that those people covering for others get something out of it as well, and so I'm going to be giving reroll tokens as follows..."

This. Well, not the reroll tokens, but the "talk outside of game."


And if he doesn't like that idea, then tell him the alternative is that the people that don't pay don't get food.

Honestly, if the guy isn't contributing to buying dinner and it's a problem, just stop feeding him. :smallconfused:

This, too. It's a pretty simple solution, and one that keeps in-game and out of game separate.

Telonius
2015-08-18, 09:28 AM
General feeling about the situation: Ick. If somebody's really that hard up for cash (and there have been some weeks when I've been close enough to that), somebody paying for them is going to feel bad enough. Giving the other guy a special mechanical benefit for doing so? That's just unfriendly to the broke player. I wouldn't use the reroll even if I were the guy paying for it.

If he's abusing generosity, that's another matter entirely.

Segev
2015-08-18, 09:56 AM
This puts the player in the circumstance I described above, where the player is being punished for circumstances outside their control. (Or worse, circumstances within their control. People can choose to do things that reduce their disposable income - have a kid, switch to a lower paying but better job, etc.)


General feeling about the situation: Ick. If somebody's really that hard up for cash (and there have been some weeks when I've been close enough to that), somebody paying for them is going to feel bad enough. Giving the other guy a special mechanical benefit for doing so? That's just unfriendly to the broke player. I wouldn't use the reroll even if I were the guy paying for it.

I think you two are missing something, here: the guy who's being "punished" is getting free food. If this were a situation where "Mr. $3" was also not actually partaking, this would be a bit more of a jerk move, but as it is, "Mr. $3" is effectively paying the other players for his share of the food by giving them his re-roll tokens. The DM has introduced a new currency which "Mr. $3" has equal access to with which he can pay for his share of the food with the group.

Even if I were dead broke and could barely afford the gas to drive to the game, I'd be downright grateful to the DM and the other players for letting me have free food, and if the "cost" to me were that my allies, instead of me, get more rerolls in return, hey, I got free food. When, apparently, I'm in desperate need.

If I am not in desperate need, and am just a cheapskate, I still am getting free food, and am paying for it with a currency that truly costs me nothing (save that my allies fail somewhat less often than I might).


If he's abusing generosity, that's another matter entirely.Really kind-of irrelevant. Either way, he gets the benefit of free food. It only costs him re-rolls which instead go to other players.

Telonius
2015-08-18, 10:26 AM
My problem with it isn't the cost. Like you say, free food is free food; and if cost were the only issue, there would be no problem. My problem is with the implications and strings that come along with free - and if there are strings, then "free" isn't really free. If you start setting up a second-tier player (one that doesn't get in-game benefits just because they can't afford some out-of-game cost), I think that counts as a pretty big string.

Personally, if I've got a hungry bunch of gamers around my table, everybody's getting some of the food because that's the right thing to do as host and DM. Everybody can chip in what they can to help. If they can't chip in anything, that's fine too. (And that's where the "taking advantage of generosity" comes in - if you're not paying just because you don't feel like it, that is mooching).

It's not like the costs or the benefits in this are absurd - we're talking $10 a session, and a couple of rerolls. But the premise behind it bothers me, a lot.

Segev
2015-08-18, 10:47 AM
I see it as little different than the DM handing out a bonus EXP or the like in recognition of one player's kindness/generosity to another in helping make the game more enjoyable.

The thing I see most disturbing here is the level of ingratitude "Mr. $3" is showing: "I get free food, and the guys who bought it for me get re-rolls in this gaming session? How dare they get that! I demand it, too!"

If Jimmy Carter gets a humanitarian award for helping build homes with Habitat for Humanity, is it "pay to win" because he contributed money to it? Is this unfair to the people who live in the homes he helped build, since they don't get the humanitarian award, too?

Knaight
2015-08-18, 11:01 AM
We've tried cooking sometimes, too, and buying enough ingredients for everyone still typically costs at least $40, and that's if we only buy stuff that's on sale. I get the impression that food (and everything else) isn't quite as much in other places as it is here in Los Angeles, though.

You also have an unusually large group - 7 people is a lot, for a 5 person group those numbers would be $28.57 to $71.43. That lower number sounds pretty close to what I've seen elsewhere, though that does assume some amount of fancy ingredients.

Kesnit
2015-08-18, 11:25 AM
I think you two are missing something, here: the guy who's being "punished" is getting free food.

I think you missed part of my post....


The questions I asked are hypothetical...now. But by starting this, the DM has set a bad precedent, because things can change without warning. If they do, it puts the DM in an awkward position, with basically 3 options.

1) Get rid of the pay to win. Unlikely to solve the problem, because even if Mr. $3 has started contributing to get his reroll chips, he'll stop once the benefit to himself is gone.
2) Allow the person who can no longer pay to continue to get the benefit. This will cause resentment with Mr. $3, along the lines of "why is he still getting the benefit when he isn't contributing?" This is especially likely if Mr. $3 has started to pay his share.
3) Keep it and keep the requirement of paying for the benefit. This puts the player in the circumstance I described above, where the player is being punished for circumstances outside their control. (Or worse, circumstances within their control. People can choose to do things that reduce their disposable income - have a kid, switch to a lower paying but better job, etc.)

As the situation stands now, the only person being punished is Mr. $3. But there is no guarantee that that situation will continue. If circumstances change, another player could end up on the raw end of this deal. By setting it up the way he has, the DM has backed himself into a corner if another player suddenly cannot pay (even for a short period of time).


I see it as little different than the DM handing out a bonus EXP or the like in recognition of one player's kindness/generosity to another in helping make the game more enjoyable.

That's an in-game solution to an in-game issue. The topic of paying for rerolls is dealing with an out-of-game issue with an in-game solution.

Segev
2015-08-18, 11:52 AM
I think you missed part of my post....Not at all!




As the situation stands now, the only person being punished is Mr. $3. But there is no guarantee that that situation will continue. If circumstances change, another player could end up on the raw end of this deal. By setting it up the way he has, the DM has backed himself into a corner if another player suddenly cannot pay (even for a short period of time). Here's the issue: you are presuming punishment. Mr. $3 isn't being punished. He's getting free food. This is something the others are NOT getting! They paid for it AND for his. Because they paid for Mr. $3's food, the DM is rewarding them for having made the game a better experience for all present (including Mr. $3).


That's an in-game solution to an in-game issue. The topic of paying for rerolls is dealing with an out-of-game issue with an in-game solution.Note that I didn't say "did something in-game to improve the experience." I said "made the game a more enjoyable experience." This could be that he helped Mr. Nooby make a character and ensured that he was included in all the relevant RP. It could be that he brought in some hand-painted minis he'd personally picked out and modeled to be each PC. It could be that he was the one with the guts to tell the DM he was doing something that upset the other players, and the DM is grateful to know that before it damaged his game.

In the OP's case, Mr. $20 made the game more enjoyable by ensuring that everybody could have food, including Mr. $3.

Kesnit
2015-08-18, 12:22 PM
Here's the issue: you are presuming punishment. Mr. $3 isn't being punished.

I'm not talking about Mr. $3. I'm talking about the other players getting the short end of the stick if something happens to one of them. Right now, Mr. $3 is the only person affected. That could change tomorrow, and that change is what I am talking about. The DM is setting up a system that probably works fine for the current situation. If the situation changes, the DM is in a rough spot.

Adding another issue to this that could affect the paying players... (This was brought up a few pages ago, but not really discussed.) There does not seem to be a cap on how many chips a player gets. So again, it becomes pay to win - the more money a player can contribute, the more rerolls they get. There's probably a point of diminishing returns, but a player who can afford $30/week is going to be in a better situation than a player who can only chip in $10. This isn't as much of a hypothetical, since the OP said there is a player (Blue Collar) who probably pays more than he can afford. On the flip side, if the DM does implement a cap on number of chips, it discourages players who could chip in more from doing so. ("I put in $30 and that person puts in $10, but we get the same reward. Why should I pay the extra $20?")

Segev
2015-08-18, 12:42 PM
I'm not talking about Mr. $3. I'm talking about the other players getting the short end of the stick if something happens to one of them. Right now, Mr. $3 is the only person affected. That could change tomorrow, and that change is what I am talking about. The DM is setting up a system that probably works fine for the current situation. If the situation changes, the DM is in a rough spot.Not really. Let's say one of the players who usually contributes $10 can't do so for a couple of months. He stops receiving his reroll chip, and probably somebody else is as they're covering him. But he still is getting free food. He is getting something more than he otherwise would have, and in fact it's probably overall worth more in terms of overall enjoyment of life and the game than a single re-roll.

This isn't punitive. It's rewarding. Not getting a reward for something you didn't do isn't a punishment. Viewing it as such is a very entitled attitude. It can be disappointing, but in this particular case, that should be tempered by the gratitude for what you ARE getting: free food!


Adding another issue to this that could affect the paying players... (This was brought up a few pages ago, but not really discussed.) There does not seem to be a cap on how many chips a player gets. So again, it becomes pay to win - the more money a player can contribute, the more rerolls they get. There's probably a point of diminishing returns, but a player who can afford $30/week is going to be in a better situation than a player who can only chip in $10. This isn't as much of a hypothetical, since the OP said there is a player (Blue Collar) who probably pays more than he can afford. On the flip side, if the DM does implement a cap on number of chips, it discourages players who could chip in more from doing so. ("I put in $30 and that person puts in $10, but we get the same reward. Why should I pay the extra $20?")This is a potential issue; it's why I suggested a fixed number of chips be available per game session, and their price set by the total food price.

Kesnit
2015-08-18, 02:28 PM
Not really. Let's say one of the players who usually contributes $10 can't do so for a couple of months. He stops receiving his reroll chip, and probably somebody else is as they're covering him.

Which means that player is now vulnerable to a save-or-die, whereas the other player is not. (We cannot assume a player will give their chip to another player, especially since if that happens, the player who didn't pay is benefiting twice - once from the free food and once from the rereoll.)


This is a potential issue; it's why I suggested a fixed number of chips be available per game session, and their price set by the total food price.

That doesn't stop one player from contributing more and getting more chips.

Segev
2015-08-18, 02:36 PM
Which means that player is now vulnerable to a save-or-die, whereas the other player is not. (We cannot assume a player will give their chip to another player, especially since if that happens, the player who didn't pay is benefiting twice - once from the free food and once from the rereoll.)
So...

...it's better that everybody is vulnerable to that save-or-die, and the guy who is getting free food just gets free benefits?

And I don't get where you're coming from on this; of course another player won't "give" their chip over. The whole point is that the guy getting free food isn't getting a chip; somebody else gets it when he covers him.

Your argument just doesn't make sense. If this system weren't in place at all, freebie-eater would be just as vulnerable to a save-or-die as he is with this system in place. "If I can't have it, nobody can, even if I'm getting something for nothing at the others' expense," is hardly an attitude of fairness.


That doesn't stop one player from contributing more and getting more chips.It puts a cap on how many there are, and the only way to pay more to get more chips is if somebody else does not pay their share in. I would hope that all participating are mature enough to figure out how to split it up otherwise, and aren't going to try to pull a "hah! I win by spending more money!" on each other.

At worst, everyone else clamors to cover the freebie-recipient and the DM has to pick from whom to take money (or they have to decide who gets the chip this week when they split the overage).

Kesnit
2015-08-18, 03:17 PM
So...

...it's better that everybody is vulnerable to that save-or-die, and the guy who is getting free food just gets free benefits?

What is so hard about saying "if you don't pay, you don't eat. Bring your own food"? The pay-to-win system punishes those who CANNOT pay by making their characters more vulnerable. Sure, it can incentivize moochers (like, we assume, Mr. $3), but for someone who has no option, all it does is make them feel worse.


And I don't get where you're coming from on this;

It was brought up previously. Someone (not sure who) said that a player with a reroll chip could choose to give it to someone else.


Your argument just doesn't make sense. If this system weren't in place at all, freebie-eater would be just as vulnerable to a save-or-die as he is with this system in place.

As I've said many times, it's an in-game solution to an out-of-game problem. The easy answer, as I (and others) have said is "no pay, no eat."


It puts a cap on how many there are,

The OP said food can cost up to $100. That's 10 chips and a lot of leeway in who pays what. Assuming 5 people (4 players and the DM), that's $20/head if split evenly. But if someone can only afford $10, their extra $10 (and the extra chip) goes to someone else. So, again, the system punishes those who CANNOT contribute as much and rewards those with more RL money. I'm not talking about a moocher here. I'm talking about Blue Collar, who the OP said is probably contributing more than he can afford. (Or the person who hits a financial difficulty tomorrow.)


and the only way to pay more to get more chips is if somebody else does not pay their share in.

Which is my point... If one player can't pay, another gets the benefit.


I would hope that all participating are mature enough to figure out how to split it up otherwise, and aren't going to try to pull a "hah! I win by spending more money!" on each other.

The system as-is is a ""hah! I win by spending more money!" The more a player can contribute, the more that player gets in chips. Sure, if all players CAN contribute equally, then it is not an issue. It becomes an issue when one player cannot, and another takes up the slack. (Again, I am not talking about a moocher. I am talking about a player who can and does contribute, but not as much as the others.)

Keltest
2015-08-18, 03:51 PM
What is so hard about saying "if you don't pay, you don't eat. Bring your own food"? The pay-to-win system punishes those who CANNOT pay by making their characters more vulnerable. Sure, it can incentivize moochers (like, we assume, Mr. $3), but for someone who has no option, all it does is make them feel worse.



It was brought up previously. Someone (not sure who) said that a player with a reroll chip could choose to give it to someone else.



As I've said many times, it's an in-game solution to an out-of-game problem. The easy answer, as I (and others) have said is "no pay, no eat."



The OP said food can cost up to $100. That's 10 chips and a lot of leeway in who pays what. Assuming 5 people (4 players and the DM), that's $20/head if split evenly. But if someone can only afford $10, their extra $10 (and the extra chip) goes to someone else. So, again, the system punishes those who CANNOT contribute as much and rewards those with more RL money. I'm not talking about a moocher here. I'm talking about Blue Collar, who the OP said is probably contributing more than he can afford. (Or the person who hits a financial difficulty tomorrow.)



Which is my point... If one player can't pay, another gets the benefit.



The system as-is is a ""hah! I win by spending more money!" The more a player can contribute, the more that player gets in chips. Sure, if all players CAN contribute equally, then it is not an issue. It becomes an issue when one player cannot, and another takes up the slack. (Again, I am not talking about a moocher. I am talking about a player who can and does contribute, but not as much as the others.)

So for starters, your pay-tp-eat system is negative reinforcement, which is automatically going to create some level of hostilities. And what are you going to do if he eats anyway? Stop inviting him over? That's going to escalate things far worse than this system could do.

At the moment, the OP's system at least allows everyone to retain some sort of benefit. If you don't pay and get the reroll token, youre getting free food, which is something the other people don't get (and in fact get further from when you get it).

kyoryu
2015-08-18, 04:10 PM
Honestly, I think either way could work, for a given group. "No pay = no food" can work, and so can "give bennies to people that are covering others." It's just going to depend on the group and the situation.

I do think that the "bennies for chipping in" thing will work better in games where similar things already exist.

xroads
2015-08-18, 04:28 PM
The DM responds, "They are good for two dice rerolls tonight. New house rule. I want to show appreciation to all you guys for chipping in on our meals. So for every $10 you chip in, you get a reroll token for the night."

...

So, I was curious. What do you guys think about this kind of "house rule"? How would you feel if you showed up to a game that implemented it?

Everyone of the DMs in my group (myself included), has made it well known that we accept bribes (food, money, shiny stuff, etc.) and are open to bargaining.

So the idea of getting a free reroll for chipping in for food doesn’t even phase me. I say kudos for your DM and keep up the good work. :smallwink:

Rockoe10
2015-08-18, 06:14 PM
Let's not forget - his response to the guy *paying for his food* getting a few rerolls was "oh, I guess it's pay to win".

This to the guy ponying up to pay for HIS FOOD.

This is the basic interaction, stripped down to its essentials:

GM: "Okay, food will be $15 a person this week!"
A: "I've got $3. That's it."
B: "I'll chip in for A."
GM: "That's nice of you, B. I'm gonna give you a couple of rerolls for that."
A: "SCREW YOU! WHY DOES HE GET STUFF AND I DON'T?"

Good summary.


I think you two are missing something, here: the guy who's being "punished" is getting free food. If this were a situation where "Mr. $3" was also not actually partaking, this would be a bit more of a jerk move, but as it is, "Mr. $3" is effectively paying the other players for his share of the food by giving them his re-roll tokens. The DM has introduced a new currency which "Mr. $3" has equal access to with which he can pay for his share of the food with the group.


I actually said something along these lines on the second page of this thread.

Basically, use the exact same thought process except come at the problem from the other side. Hand out re-roll to everyone and each player can use them to buy food that they had not purchased.

EXAMPLE:
Player A buys pizza
Player B buys chicken wings
Player C buys nothing

Player A trades some slices of pizza with Player B to get a few wings.

Player C gives a re-roll to Player A to purchase a couple slices of pizza. Then gives Player B a re-roll for some wings.

Effectivly the same thing, but looked at differently.

Below was my earlier post


I understand the dislike of combining IC with OOC. It's a sticky situation, but I can see the issue too with a moocher.

SOLUTION:
Give out a re-roll chip to everyone and use those re-roll chips to buy the food. This way it's not a 'Pay to Play' but a 'Pay to Eat'.

I think that is fair, the moocher can pay now for food even if he doesn't bring money, because he can use a form of in game currency.

P.S.
If each person brings their own food, another player can 'Pay' that player for food. If more than one person brings food, they can add it to the communal food bowl at no charge to take another's contribution to the bowl.

Forum Explorer
2015-08-18, 06:37 PM
What is so hard about saying "if you don't pay, you don't eat. Bring your own food"? The pay-to-win system punishes those who CANNOT pay by making their characters more vulnerable. Sure, it can incentivize moochers (like, we assume, Mr. $3), but for someone who has no option, all it does is make them feel worse.


See, that actually punishes someone who can't afford it. If Mr. 20$ guy suddenly loses his job, and has to watch his bills, and can no longer contribute, under your rule he now gets zero food. Which can be really harsh, particularly if you are gaming for a good 6 hours. And it's unpleasant. And it's a lot more hostile when you are hungry and watching other people eat, and you can't join them.


In the currant situation? He loses a reroll or two. He still gets to eat, he still gets to play. He might be a tad more vulnerable in comparison to his friend who is picking up the slack, but not by much. It depends on your play style but you might end up rolling some 2 dozen saves, or nearly a 100 D20s in a single night. (Skill checks+attacks+saves). You can reroll 1 or 2 of those. In the end it's a pretty minor impact on the game itself, so sometimes a reroll can be crucial.

But even then, a safer teammate isn't anything bad for you. You're likely to reap incidental benefits when your teammates are doing better. Because you aren't competing with them.

Kesnit
2015-08-19, 07:53 AM
See, that actually punishes someone who can't afford it. If Mr. 20$ guy suddenly loses his job, and has to watch his bills, and can no longer contribute, under your rule he now gets zero food.

Did you miss where I wrote "bring your own?" Or are you assuming that if someone can't chip in $20 for food, they can't purchase any food at all, ever, anywhere? $20 is a lot for one meal on a limited budget. For $5, you can buy a family sized frozen dinner, which feeds 4 with leftovers. There is nothing stopping a person from bringing a portion of a frozen dinner and a drink and eating that. They still get a full meal.

Which brings up another problem with the pay-to-win from the OP. Say one week, someone does bring their own food. Not food to share with the table, just their own dinner. They eat the food they brought and don't touch the food the group ordered. Do they lose their reroll chip because they didn't pay? They aren't eating without paying, so they aren't getting free food. On the other hand, since they didn't contribute to the cost of food, they shouldn't get a chip. Or did they contribute because, since they brought their own, everyone else had to pay less? If that is the case, how do you calculate the value of their brought-food? Cost of their meal isn't a good basis, since (as I said above), 1 portion of a frozen dinner and a drink comes out to about $2 - $3. But unlike $2-3 of take out, they have a full meal.


But even then, a safer teammate isn't anything bad for you. You're likely to reap incidental benefits when your teammates are doing better. Because you aren't competing with them.

Until your PC (who you put time and effort into building and have been playing) dies because you failed one roll. It doesn't matter if the entire rest of the party died, your PC died and now you have take the time to build a new character. (Or sit out and wait for the party to get to a place where you can be rezzed. Assuming you are playing in a system that allows that.)

gadren
2015-08-19, 08:22 AM
Did you miss where I wrote "bring your own?" Or are you assuming that if someone can't chip in $20 for food, they can't purchase any food at all, ever, anywhere? $20 is a lot for one meal on a limited budget. For $5, you can buy a family sized frozen dinner, which feeds 4 with leftovers. There is nothing stopping a person from bringing a portion of a frozen dinner and a drink and eating that. They still get a full meal.

Which brings up another problem with the pay-to-win from the OP. Say one week, someone does bring their own food. Not food to share with the table, just their own dinner. They eat the food they brought and don't touch the food the group ordered. Do they lose their reroll chip because they didn't pay? They aren't eating without paying, so they aren't getting free food. On the other hand, since they didn't contribute to the cost of food, they shouldn't get a chip. Or did they contribute because, since they brought their own, everyone else had to pay less? If that is the case, how do you calculate the value of their brought-food? Cost of their meal isn't a good basis, since (as I said above), 1 portion of a frozen dinner and a drink comes out to about $2 - $3. But unlike $2-3 of take out, they have a full meal.



Until your PC (who you put time and effort into building and have been playing) dies because you failed one roll. It doesn't matter if the entire rest of the party died, your PC died and now you have take the time to build a new character. (Or sit out and wait for the party to get to a place where you can be rezzed. Assuming you are playing in a system that allows that.)

You keep coming back to "save or dies" and having to roll up a new character as your main reason for the rerolls being an unfair "punishment" to the player(s) that don't get them. Even though I pointed out that we all get action points to add d6's to our d20's a couple times per session as well, which can be saved for those important rolls.

However, the GM in question almost never uses save or die on us. Most of his monsters have been upgraded to Pathfinder versions (the other night, we fought advanced cockatrices. Multiple people failed their saves, but instead of being turned instantly to stone, they took dex damage.) I've known him to use save or dies at high levels, but at that point there are spells that bring people back from the dead, so...

Broken Twin
2015-08-19, 08:53 AM
Wow, where do you live that $5 can feed a family of four with leftovers? My main staple is bulk rice, and I'd be hard pressed to do that consistently.

Seriously though, I'm (one of) the guys that mentioned capping the chips and being able to spend them on others. A lot of your contention almost seems to assume a group that's in aggressive competition with each other. Getting spiteful over a one-use boost, constant save or die effects, and a preference to tell someone they're not allowed to share in the communal food over thanking the person(s) who chipped in extra. For a group that's actively supportive in and out of game (which OP's group seems to be, given them always feeding Moochie), this system works. If at some point a non-moocher can't afford to pay, I'm pretty sure they'd be happy with the tradeoff of free food instead of a bennie.

As I've said previously, I would be perfectly fine with a fellow player getting a bennie because they covered me for food. If anything, I'd feel guilty that that's ALL they're getting, and I'd still try to pay them back myself.

It's a system that won't work for all groups. But I see no reason why it wouldn't work for the OP's group.

Gray Mage
2015-08-19, 10:00 AM
I believe Kesnit's issue would be easily fixed with stating that if a player brings his own food he gets the beenie as well. :smallconfused:

Anyway, I feel this a good thing and I think I'd be hard pressed to think of any friend of mine that would have an issue with it.

Edit: Also, the beenie existing is also better for those that don't get it than if it didn't, as even when using it on a SoD, having one party member down is bad for everyone else that is left standing, not to mention uses on offensive rolls that can help fell an enemy faster (heck, if the beenie is transferable I'd give mine to a fellow player that is dying to a SoD and has already used his own or couldn't pay for food that week). :smallconfused:

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-19, 10:07 AM
Wow, where do you live that $5 can feed a family of four with leftovers? My main staple is bulk rice, and I'd be hard pressed to do that consistently.

In Britain, cooking from scratch, you can feed one person on about £3 per meal (~$5), so I agree with you (in my experience £100 is enough for a family of 5 for a week if you shop smart). I don't know where he lives, but from what friends tell me it sounds like somewhere in Asia cost-wise (my friend in China makes at least twice as much as his wife on the same job, which comes out to a good chunk of the money he was earning in England).

On the other hand the key thing you missed: in most of the world it is cheaper to cook food than buy takeout no matter how many you but for (it still astounds me how many students can't cook, considering I can eat and buy a new novel each week on less than their budget).

Telonius
2015-08-19, 10:18 AM
In my (US) experience, most Home Ec classes were phased out decades ago, and universities generally don't provide facilities that are all that great for cooking. (On the other hand, they're quite happy to sell students overpriced cafeteria food).

Rockoe10
2015-08-19, 10:43 AM
In my (US) experience, most Home Ec classes were phased out decades ago, and universities generally don't provide facilities that are all that great for cooking. (On the other hand, they're quite happy to sell students overpriced cafeteria food).

Off campus housing. That's the route I went. Even if they say "freshman must live on campus", don't. That's a lie. What are they gonna do, make a 19year old father with a wife live in a two bedroom dorm with another college mate? Nope.


Let's not forget - his response to the guy *paying for his food* getting a few rerolls was "oh, I guess it's pay to win".

This to the guy ponying up to pay for HIS FOOD.

This is the basic interaction, stripped down to its essentials:

GM: "Okay, food will be $15 a person this week!"
A: "I've got $3. That's it."
B: "I'll chip in for A."
GM: "That's nice of you, B. I'm gonna give you a couple of rerolls for that."
A: "SCREW YOU! WHY DOES HE GET STUFF AND I DON'T?"

Good summary.


I think you two are missing something, here: the guy who's being "punished" is getting free food. If this were a situation where "Mr. $3" was also not actually partaking, this would be a bit more of a jerk move, but as it is, "Mr. $3" is effectively paying the other players for his share of the food by giving them his re-roll tokens. The DM has introduced a new currency which "Mr. $3" has equal access to with which he can pay for his share of the food with the group.


I actually said something along these lines on the second page of this thread.

Basically, use the exact same thought process except come at the problem from the other side. Hand out re-roll to everyone and each player can use them to buy food that they had not purchased.

EXAMPLE:
Player A buys pizza
Player B buys chicken wings
Player C buys nothing

Player A trades some slices of pizza with Player B to get a few wings.

Player C gives a re-roll to Player A to purchase a couple slices of pizza. Then gives Player B a re-roll for some wings.

Effectivly the same thing, but looked at differently.

Below was my earlier post


I understand the dislike of combining IC with OOC. It's a sticky situation, but I can see the issue too with a moocher.

SOLUTION:
Give out a re-roll chip to everyone and use those re-roll chips to buy the food. This way it's not a 'Pay to Play' but a 'Pay to Eat'.

I think that is fair, the moocher can pay now for food even if he doesn't bring money, because he can use a form of in game currency.

P.S.
If each person brings their own food, another player can 'Pay' that player for food. If more than one person brings food, they can add it to the communal food bowl at no charge to take another's contribution to the bowl.

Broken Twin
2015-08-19, 10:45 AM
Ha-ha, yeah, I've got friends who can't understand how I eat as much as I do on my budget, while they're eating takeout almost every day. The amount of money you save by buying the materials instead of the end product is astonishing. Usually healthier, too.

Man, now I really want to pitch a proper home cooked meal to my group for game night. Shouldn't be that difficult to convince them...

BootStrapTommy
2015-08-19, 10:56 AM
Refusing to pony up ten dollars a week when he can afford a new laptop every six months and his friends are forking over extra cash to cover for him? The man is a leech. Words like "parasite" are entirely warranted in this situation, as that money adds up and it can mean the difference between a bill paid on time and a bill running over to next paycheck.. "Parasite" is entirely unwarranted. Unless you use a specific parasite. Like maybe a leech.

Based on his posts, I've concluded that gadren's play group is hands down some of the most interesting humans on the planet.

I've been the broke guy at the table before. Being poor can suck, and this might not be too cool for them. In the case of shared resources like food however, we have the tragedy of the commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). That being said, I cannot say it is unfair. If some individual is willing to more heavily foot the bill for food which is being consumed by all members, it is hardly unfair to afford that player a reward for generosity. Maybe not necessary, but definitely not unfair.

I think it is important to note that gadren seemed to imply that the DM did it to reward generosity, not punish miserliness or incentivize contribution.

Keltest
2015-08-19, 11:00 AM
Ha-ha, yeah, I've got friends who can't understand how I eat as much as I do on my budget, while they're eating takeout almost every day. The amount of money you save by buying the materials instead of the end product is astonishing. Usually healthier, too.

Man, now I really want to pitch a proper home cooked meal to my group for game night. Shouldn't be that difficult to convince them...

I usually bake blueberry muffins for us whenever my d&d group has a big get together. They are easily the highlight of the snack bar, and generally the least expensive, except in terms of time to prepare. I actually get yelled at when I don't have time to make them for whatever reason.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-19, 01:44 PM
I usually bake blueberry muffins for us whenever my d&d group has a big get together. They are easily the highlight of the snack bar, and generally the least expensive, except in terms of time to prepare. I actually get yelled at when I don't have time to make them for whatever reason.

You jerk, everybody knows that home cooked Cakes are as simple as shop bought ones.

I plan to cook and bring gyoza to my group at some point, it'll be fun. Also, some of the best food some of them will have had.

jiriku
2015-08-19, 03:12 PM
Seems legit to me. As DM I always appreciate it when someone contributes above and beyond the minimum expectation to make the gaming night successful, and an in-game reward is about the only kind of reward I can afford. When DMs in my group move to new apartments, they often bribe the players to help them move by offering "bind-on-account" magic items that do convenient things like adding to carrying capacity or granting once-per-campaign narrative control for a scene. When this is a game played between friends, no one gets upset about such little things.

cobaltstarfire
2015-08-19, 04:18 PM
Ha-ha, yeah, I've got friends who can't understand how I eat as much as I do on my budget, while they're eating takeout almost every day. The amount of money you save by buying the materials instead of the end product is astonishing. Usually healthier, too.

Man, now I really want to pitch a proper home cooked meal to my group for game night. Shouldn't be that difficult to convince them...

Lots of people simply don't have the time/energy to prepare and cook their food anymore. Or they can't afford to go to the store every week for fresh materials. Or they don't know how to buy and cook the products in a cheap and fast way. Like lots of people think they're getting a better deal by buying 80/20 or worse ground beef, or who buy instant rice instead of getting a proper rice cooker and just buying a 15-20 pound bag of decent rice.


If you do convince your friends ask them about their tastes and things, or even invite them to join you in buying the food and preparing it...And keep in mind for some people who eat nothing but take out or instant food it can be difficult to pallet (and digest) home cooked meals.

Kesnit
2015-08-19, 04:34 PM
You keep coming back to "save or dies" and having to roll up a new character as your main reason for the rerolls being an unfair "punishment" to the player(s) that don't get them. Even though I pointed out that we all get action points to add d6's to our d20's a couple times per session as well, which can be saved for those important rolls.

I missed that.


However, the GM in question almost never uses save or die on us.

Which, I grant, does change the scenario. My DM is still getting a feel for the balance of the group (which is complicated by PCs dying and players building from scratch), so PC death is not uncommon.


Wow, where do you live that $5 can feed a family of four with leftovers? My main staple is bulk rice, and I'd be hard pressed to do that consistently.

Outside DC. Knowing where to shop. Using coupons. And I made a mistake - the frozen meal I was thinking of costs $8. And my mother-in-law doesn't eat a lot, which adds to our leftovers. (On the other hand, my wife and I do eat, so it balances out.)


I believe Kesnit's issue would be easily fixed with stating that if a player brings his own food he gets the beenie as well. :smallconfused:

Yes.


(heck, if the beenie is transferable I'd give mine to a fellow player that is dying to a SoD and has already used his own or couldn't pay for food that week). :smallconfused:

Which is a good thing, but not something a player could guarantee.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-19, 05:29 PM
Lots of people simply don't have the time/energy to prepare and cook their food anymore. Or they can't afford to go to the store every week for fresh materials. Or they don't know how to buy and cook the products in a cheap and fast way. Like lots of people think they're getting a better deal by buying 80/20 or worse ground beef, or who buy instant rice instead of getting a proper rice cooker and just buying a 15-20 pound bag of decent rice.

Rice cooker? They are useful, but when I'm not at my dad's I just cook my rice in a saucepan, because I can afford the 15 minutes for it to cook, normally while a curry is simmering (can be cooked for pocket change if done right).

No idea on the ground beef front (I would never touch the stuff, it sounds like a worse variety of mince, which is already cheap), but I understand that some people don't understand how to shop with an eye for cooking (which requires you to be able to tell 'good value' from cheap), but it still astonishes me how bad people can be at it.


If you do convince your friends ask them about their tastes and things, or even invite them to join you in buying the food and preparing it...And keep in mind for some people who eat nothing but take out or instant food it can be difficult to pallet (and digest) home cooked meals.

The first bit is a big one, there is nothing wrong with asking people what foods they dislike or have problems with, and people get surprised at just how much stuff I'm not supposed to eat (like my lunch earlier today, which had both of my proper intolerances in it). Never heard of the second one, although I tend to over-spice anyway.

cobaltstarfire
2015-08-19, 05:43 PM
No idea on the ground beef front (I would never touch the stuff, it sounds like a worse variety of mince, which is already cheap), but I understand that some people don't understand how to shop with an eye for cooking (which requires you to be able to tell 'good value' from cheap), but it still astonishes me how bad people can be at it.



Ground Beef/hamburger is literally just tougher cuts of beef that's been put through a grinder, it's less "gross" than a sausage, or something like chicken tenders.

80/2o is 80% meat 20% fat, it's generally the cheapest kind of hamburger you can get, but in the end you're usually paying more for less meat than if you'd just bought some 90/10 or 97/3.

Forum Explorer
2015-08-20, 12:04 AM
Did you miss where I wrote "bring your own?" Or are you assuming that if someone can't chip in $20 for food, they can't purchase any food at all, ever, anywhere? $20 is a lot for one meal on a limited budget. For $5, you can buy a family sized frozen dinner, which feeds 4 with leftovers. There is nothing stopping a person from bringing a portion of a frozen dinner and a drink and eating that. They still get a full meal.

Which brings up another problem with the pay-to-win from the OP. Say one week, someone does bring their own food. Not food to share with the table, just their own dinner. They eat the food they brought and don't touch the food the group ordered. Do they lose their reroll chip because they didn't pay? They aren't eating without paying, so they aren't getting free food. On the other hand, since they didn't contribute to the cost of food, they shouldn't get a chip. Or did they contribute because, since they brought their own, everyone else had to pay less? If that is the case, how do you calculate the value of their brought-food? Cost of their meal isn't a good basis, since (as I said above), 1 portion of a frozen dinner and a drink comes out to about $2 - $3. But unlike $2-3 of take out, they have a full meal.



Until your PC (who you put time and effort into building and have been playing) dies because you failed one roll. It doesn't matter if the entire rest of the party died, your PC died and now you have take the time to build a new character. (Or sit out and wait for the party to get to a place where you can be rezzed. Assuming you are playing in a system that allows that.)


Bring your own can go either way, so I ignored it. On one hand you can bring yourself something crappy like a P&J sandwich and a banana and feel similarly left out, but not starving. On the other hand you might bring yourself some leftover lasagna and homemade cheese sticks and feel great. So it goes either way. Similarly when you bring your own, you can go full Pot Luck and bring enough to share (and still for pretty cheap if you are making, say, a salad)


It's hard to say. I'd likely give them a reroll chip on the idea that they'd eat roughly 10$ worth of food otherwise. But I'm not the DM so it's not my opinion that matters.


Except that under the system of pay to eat, I'd still be dead because I still wouldn't have a reroll token. I just wouldn't be able to console myself with snackfood in that case.

Segev
2015-08-20, 02:08 PM
My point boils down to this: Giving some people a reward for specific action is not punishing those who cannot or will not perform the same action. The idea that it is is rather insulting to everybody involved. Especially if those who are not receiving the reward are benefitting from the action for which the reward is being given.

Again: is it unfair to those who live in houses built by Habitat for Humanity that they do not receive awards honoring them when Jimmy Carter does for his work with HfH?

Is it unfair for a fireman who rescued a small boy from a fire to receive a reward that the small boy, himself, does not receive?

Is it unfair for the inventor of a new technology that converts wishes into horses to receive a Nobel Prize, because the beggars who now ride do not?

kyoryu
2015-08-20, 02:17 PM
I think there's a few things that are worth mentioning, too.

First is that this type of thing probably should be done only for contributions *above* one's individual contribution to the pot. If you're paying for your food, you get food. The only case where it makes any sense to give out bennies/etc. to people is if they're paying for *other peoples'* food.

Secondly, if someone doesn't like this idea, they don't like it. I don't think it's a problem, personally, but I don't think there's a solid principle underlying this where we can say that one thing is objectively better than the other.

prufock
2015-08-21, 07:15 AM
A little background: our group likes food. We usually spend between $40-$100 bucks on it each game night (depending on what we're in the mood for and how hungry we are). This is supposed to be split among the 7 of us. Some players are kind of mooches - One in particular, despite having money for a new car and a new laptop every six months and all sorts of toys for himself, always seems to be saying "sorry man, I only got $3 on me". Another player (a blue collar worker) often contributes $20 or $30, because he doesn't want the DM to have to pay more than his fare share to make up for the stingy players.

Last night, when Blue Collar handed the DM $20 bucks, the DM handed him two poker chips. "What's this?" Blue Collar asks.

The DM responds, "They are good for two dice rerolls tonight. New house rule. I want to show appreciation to all you guys for chipping in on our meals. So for every $10 you chip in, you get a reroll token for the night."

Most were pleased or ambivalent to this. Mr $3, on the other hand, was agitated. "Oh, so we are Pay to Win now? I didn't realize this was DDO."

The DM explained that if you didn't chip in $10, you weren't being punished, you were getting the same rules benefits you always got in addition to deeply discounted food. Mr. $3 grumbed about it a bit, and pouted a little for the rest of the night.
Awful. It's just a passive-aggressive way of telling the mooch that he isn't pulling his weight when it comes to the food payout. Here is a better, simpler solution for you: "If you don't pay, you don't eat."

Seriously, the adult situation is to tell the guy that he isn't pulling his weight. Is he still eating? Yes. Why isn't he paying? That's all on him. Now, maybe he really can't afford it (possibly because of the new car and laptop), but that's not really your problem. You guys are spending out on food, like $10-15 per person; if some players can't afford that, either tell them to get their own food or order something cheaper.

gadren
2015-08-21, 07:59 AM
A little update, last night went smoothly, no objections or grumbling about the rerolls.

I've found the different viewpoints posted in this thread interesting though expected.

It seems there is a growing number of people these days who think that people being rewarded is punishing those who aren't rewarded, which is unfortunate.
It reminds me of a school I worked at. Once per semester, there'd be a pizza party at lunch that was only for the kids that had good grades. But then parents of the kids that were getting lower grades complained that it wasn't fair. So the principle decided to stop the pizza parties and stopped rewarding the good students.

:-/

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-21, 12:03 PM
A little update, last night went smoothly, no objections or grumbling about the rerolls.

Good, was it the same situation, or did Mr Miser pay his full share? I'd say either outcome is fine, due to the lack of grumbling.


I've found the different viewpoints posted in this thread interesting though expected.

Well, it's the fact you can view it two ways: positive discrimination towards those who pay vs negative discrimination against those who don't/can't. It's the latter that causes the problem, as both the unfair and free food crowds are right.


It seems there is a growing number of people these days who think that people being rewarded is punishing those who aren't rewarded, which is unfortunate.
It reminds me of a school I worked at. Once per semester, there'd be a pizza party at lunch that was only for the kids that had good grades. But then parents of the kids that were getting lower grades complained that it wasn't fair. So the principle decided to stop the pizza parties and stopped rewarding the good students.

:-/

I never had that, it was just assumed that prestige was it's own reward. It actually kind of worked, in that 90% of the pupils streamed to 'top' classes ended up in high-end universities.

Segev
2015-08-21, 12:41 PM
I never had that, it was just assumed that prestige was it's own reward. It actually kind of worked, in that 90% of the pupils streamed to 'top' classes ended up in high-end universities.

It's all in the attitude of the school. My elementary school was essentially run by the gym teachers, who were abusive misanthropes that only cared about the President's Physical Fitness award. Active encouragement of picking on those who weren't physically fit enough was standard practice, and praise and ceremony was dedicated to said President's Physical Fitness Award, while when asked about any sort of academic recognitions, the administration's response was that they found it "embarassed" children to have their academic achievements called out.

That's right: the school treated good grades as a shameful thing to let children keep private so they wouldn't be bullied. Thus tacitly encouraging said bullying by suggesting it was warranted. Add in that, if you were picked on in a fight - even if you did nothing but curl up in a ball when attacked and wait for the teachers to break it up - you were "equally at fault" because you "obviously" must have "instigated" the violence somehow, perhaps by making the other kids feel bad in some way. Like speaking too well or not "trying hard enough" in gym or doing too well in academics and "rubbing their noses in it" (i.e. you didn't treat it as a shameful secret).

I may be just a toooouuuuch bitter.

Solaris
2015-08-21, 03:39 PM
"Parasite" is entirely unwarranted. Unless you use a specific parasite. Like maybe a leech.

I was thinking a mosquito.
They whine.


Awful. It's just a passive-aggressive way of telling the mooch that he isn't pulling his weight when it comes to the food payout. Here is a better, simpler solution for you: "If you don't pay, you don't eat."

Seriously, the adult situation is to tell the guy that he isn't pulling his weight. Is he still eating? Yes. Why isn't he paying? That's all on him. Now, maybe he really can't afford it (possibly because of the new car and laptop), but that's not really your problem. You guys are spending out on food, like $10-15 per person; if some players can't afford that, either tell them to get their own food or order something cheaper.

"Adult" and "confrontational" are not synonyms. There's not a really good way to demand someone pay more money, and if they refuse (or even if they can't) that can lead to a lot more bad blood than just handing someone else a reward for contributing more. While kicking them out of the group food order may work for some groups, for whatever reason this group doesn't want to do that.

It's only passive aggressive if done with the intent to punish the moocher, and has the effect of punishing him. As Segev so splendidly put it, this isn't a punishment for him, it's a reward for the other players.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-21, 04:30 PM
It's all in the attitude of the school. My elementary school was essentially run by the gym teachers, who were abusive misanthropes that only cared about the President's Physical Fitness award. Active encouragement of picking on those who weren't physically fit enough was standard practice, and praise and ceremony was dedicated to said President's Physical Fitness Award, while when asked about any sort of academic recognitions, the administration's response was that they found it "embarassed" children to have their academic achievements called out.

That's right: the school treated good grades as a shameful thing to let children keep private so they wouldn't be bullied. Thus tacitly encouraging said bullying by suggesting it was warranted. Add in that, if you were picked on in a fight - even if you did nothing but curl up in a ball when attacked and wait for the teachers to break it up - you were "equally at fault" because you "obviously" must have "instigated" the violence somehow, perhaps by making the other kids feel bad in some way. Like speaking too well or not "trying hard enough" in gym or doing too well in academics and "rubbing their noses in it" (i.e. you didn't treat it as a shameful secret).

I may be just a toooouuuuch bitter.

Wow, I knew this sort of stuff happened, but considering I grew up somewhere where every school couldn't care about your physical fitness as long as you gave it the best of your ability (and I have dyspraxia, so I couldn't hit the ball in cricket at all). I occasionally got the occasional joking insult in primary school, but even then I was surprisingly fast for my build (which still meant I was in the bottom half, but that was partially endurance), and nobody actually cared, least of all the teachers. I did notice that as academic ability was rewarded more (academic achievements at the end of every week in primary, and my secondary pushing maths and science) that the good sportsmen tended towards above average mathematics ability. Not so my in the 'creative' academic subjects, but those were strangely ignored by many future STEM students.

Just be glad it was just your elementary though, my friend tells me that the school he worked at would essentially socially exclude you if you were too smart (or gay). It's apparently common for it to happen in the poorer parts of the UK.

Morph Bark
2015-08-22, 03:19 AM
The main issue I see with this is that it may foster the thought that it is fair to not contribute to the food money pool at all. "I'm not getting any rerolls whether I contribute $9, $3 or nothing, so it might as well be nothing."

It shifts the value of the money from the food to the rerolls, and can thereby have an averse effect to what the intended goal is.

gadren
2015-08-22, 12:57 PM
Good, was it the same situation, or did Mr Miser pay his full share? I'd say either outcome is fine, due to the lack of grumbling. Mr. $3 contributed $10 without complaint.

137beth
2015-08-22, 01:03 PM
If someone can't afford to pay, then it is entirely unfair to give rerolls for money.

If someone can afford to pay but refuses to, then you have an out-of-character problem. It should not be solved by in-character means.

So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all.

Gwazi Magnum
2015-08-22, 01:27 PM
Personally I'm not a fan of the system.
For reasons I've already seen mentioned on the 1st page.

I agree with the "Moocher" (Air quoting because I'm not positive about his situation, such being granted cash instead of having cash) in that it does essentially make it become a pay-to-win system.

Now, 10$ for 1 re-roll is insanely weak though.
I've seen this system used at a game store before, but it's 2$ per re-roll.
At 2$ the power gaming consequences should be obvious, 10$ though? Not nearly as bad, but in the right hands it can still be pretty effective.

Plus it starts to create a divide in the group, it sets mechanic envy at best, and public shaming at the worst. The last thing you need in such a social game is the mechanics dividing up the party.

That and this is due to different motivation than the 2$ one.
The 2$ one is literally just the DM making money (though note, he runs a gameshop. Being a DM is part of his job and he needs to make money somehow). Meanwhile the 10$ was a act of gratitude, because the individual was footing so much money for food for a while now.

So in your DM's case I can sympathize.
He's made the cost-token ratio rather high, and is doing it as thanks for something provided to the entire group.
As opposed to someone making it a low ratio, and doing it for individual profit.

So this is definitely something I would label as a "Minimal if not Reasonable Evil".
It's pretty balanced and the whole group benefits from more food.

But still, the flaws of power-gaming and group division is still something I'd rather avoid if I were in that group.

Now not being in the group I can only speak as an outsider, but what I would have done instead is talk to the "Mooching" player and figure out why he can't just bring more cash with him for food.
If it really does turn out that his money is from elsewhere and he can't get it? Then I'd be thankful to the Blue-Collar for his thought, but then leave it at Gratitude for the sake of the game. If the DM is to thank the Blue Collar with something tangible let it be an out of game thanks.

If the player really is just Mooching? I'd still probably do the same thing I just suggested, but would suggest the DM keep his mind a bit more open/flexible for the Blue Collar. No actual mechanic set in stone that guarantee's a power misbalance, but rather just be a bit more considerate with him in general. That way you can alter the 'bonus' on the situation, and in a way that might forward the character development/story telling rather than it simply being a numerical boost.

Keltest
2015-08-22, 04:08 PM
If someone can't afford to pay, then it is entirely unfair to give rerolls for money.

If someone can afford to pay but refuses to, then you have an out-of-character problem. It should not be solved by in-character means.

So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all.

Please, explain to me how allowing a re-rolling of the dice, a very definitely OOC action, is an in-character solution to the problem?

Knaight
2015-08-22, 04:40 PM
Please, explain to me how allowing a re-rolling of the dice, a very definitely OOC action, is an in-character solution to the problem?

It corresponds to things the characters are doing. "In character" is a really sloppy way of putting it, but it is absolutely within the game itself, where the problem isn't.

Lorsa
2015-08-24, 05:58 AM
I have always been sceptical of solving OOC issues with IC actions, and this is a pretty good example of that.

There are any number of ways to solve this problem, which starts with talking to the player and informing him that food has to be shared equally, else he will be left out. There is no reason you need to buy food for him. You can also let him "owe" people and bring more money for the next session, or let him go online to make a bank account transfer to one of the other players, or use a smartphone app that allows for the same.

"I only have $3 on me" is such a weak excuse.

Kane0
2015-08-24, 07:30 AM
Good to hear it's turning out well so far Gadren

Garimeth
2015-08-25, 12:33 PM
Looks like the thread may have run its course, but I must say I and my gaming group are surprised at how many people came to the defense of Mr. $3. That type of behavior would not be tolerated at all in our group. Not having money is one thing, but you talk with the group about that, not be a mooch. Its entirely likely that we will happily cover your costs, but you don't assume it. Everyone in our group either is or has been enlisted military from a poor working class background, we've all been poor at some point, but we all have too much pride/dignity to bum off of our friends like that.

That said had I been the DM, I would have gone with a much more direct approach albeit in private.

goto124
2015-08-25, 08:18 PM
'are surprised at how many people came to the defense of Mr. $3. '

That's because we'd assumed Mr $3 was poor and really could not afford to pay so much for food.

SVamp
2015-08-25, 08:22 PM
I'm a big fan of out of game solutions for out of game problems.

If moocher doesn't have money he doesn't eat that night. Or you write down a tab. Once it reaches fifty you ask for his credit card and charge it to PayPal.

Pictogram
2015-08-26, 12:41 AM
So, coming from a college graduate who works 6 days ( not my field I might add, I wait tables) a week, swimming in student loans, amongst other bills, I don't understand the defense of mr.3.
To those that say they've been in the position ( myself included) I never felt it fair to burden others with the responsibility of feeding me. They are not your parents- even friends that pick up a tab or do something nice it's a constant of you getting the bill this time, them the next time, whatever. A continuing inability to pay for expensive take out should MAKE mr.3 feel socially responsibly as a FRIEND, even if his fellow players are willing to pay for him, again and again, to take action, bite the bullet, and seek sustenance that's cheaper.
I feel this is taking advantage of so called friends. How about taking the 3 dollars and buying a bunch o ramen. Ramen's cheap, heck, if you have at least 5 you can buy some egg's and have some protein as well.

So in summary I don't understand the too poor defense because in the end you can find cheap food.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-26, 02:08 AM
So, coming from a college graduate who works 6 days ( not my field I might add, I wait tables) a week, swimming in student loans, amongst other bills, I don't understand the defense of mr.3.
To those that say they've been in the position ( myself included) I never felt it fair to burden others with the responsibility of feeding me. They are not your parents- even friends that pick up a tab or do something nice it's a constant of you getting the bill this time, them the next time, whatever. A continuing inability to pay for expensive take out should MAKE mr.3 feel socially responsibly as a FRIEND, even if his fellow players are willing to pay for him, again and again, to take action, bite the bullet, and seek sustenance that's cheaper.
I feel this is taking advantage of so called friends. How about taking the 3 dollars and buying a bunch o ramen. Ramen's cheap, heck, if you have at least 5 you can buy some egg's and have some protein as well.

So in summary I don't understand the too poor defense because in the end you can find cheap food.

There's also the 'poor so I should be subsidised by the group once I explain it' faction, which, if the group agrees, is as valid as the 'poor so I should sort out my own food' faction.

Garimeth
2015-08-26, 12:11 PM
'are surprised at how many people came to the defense of Mr. $3. '

That's because we'd assumed Mr $3 was poor and really could not afford to pay so much for food.

Yeah but as I said in the rest of my post, that's honestly kind of irrelevant. As an example:

When I was younger and a wage slave at Wal-Mart I was also a worship leader for a church, this church did not pay me. Every Saturday morning I and the pastors would meet at a coffee shop to plan out the next day's service, and after action the previous week's. I could not afford coffee every week - I was barely paying my bills and keeping my car running. I stopped getting coffee. After a week or two the other guy's noticed, and one of them started buying my coffee each week. I turned him down the first couple of times, and he pulled me aside and said "look man I've been where you are, I'm retired, I'm well off and I like doing this for you. Don't rob me of the opportunity to share the wealth." Humbled, I accepted.

As a second example:

One of the guys in our gaming group got himself into some financial trouble due to poor decision making. The rest of us all agreed to cover his food, and when we changed systems, we spotted him the money for his new handbook (13th Age!) He accepted.


Now the key difference in both my examples is that both the individuals receiving the free benefit did not expect it, did not ask for it (though to be honest while I never would myself, I am not bothered by spotting a friend from time to time), and they were grateful for it.

TL;DR:
"Mr. 3 Dollar" was not grateful and expected it as an entitlement. His attitude was the problem, not the money. The fact that it turns out he had money changes nothing. Worded differently: the problem isn't his WALLET, its his CHARACTER.

kyoryu
2015-08-26, 12:40 PM
TL;DR:
"Mr. 3 Dollar" was not grateful and expected it as an entitlement. His attitude was the problem, not the money. The fact that it turns out he had money changes nothing. Worded differently: the problem isn't his WALLET, its his CHARACTER.

Bingo.

Add to that:

1) He ate the food without talking to the group about the situation, on a repeated basis.
2) The OP suggests that he *did* have enough money, he just didn't bother to bring it with him.
3) He got pissy because the guy *buying his dinner* got a few rerolls in thanks for his generosity.

Again, I don't think springing this on the group without prior discussion is really the best way to handle it - talking things out like mature adults ftw! But, I don't think that giving a few rerolls to people paying for the food/drink of others is terrible, and I do think that this guy's attitude is, by all presented evidence, pretty terrible.

Garimeth
2015-08-26, 12:45 PM
Words of wisdom.

Couldn't agree more. Is this how I would have handled it? No, I agree with Jay R, this is too weak and passive aggressive for my taste - but neither do I think in any way the DM did something wrong.

goto124
2015-08-26, 07:45 PM
"Worded differently: the problem isn't his WALLET, its his CHARACTER."

You mean his personality. His character could refer to the PC he's playing in the campaign :smalltongue:

Garimeth
2015-08-27, 07:50 AM
"Worded differently: the problem isn't his WALLET, its his CHARACTER."

You mean his personality. His character could refer to the PC he's playing in the campaign :smalltongue:

Lol, I almost headed that comment off because I anticipated it, but decided to leave it alone.

Not to quibble, but not his personality either. If I were to choose a word other than character, I think I would choose VALUES.

Segev
2015-08-27, 08:15 AM
Martin Luthor King, Jr. said it best: People should be "judged...by the content of their character [sheet]."

NNescio
2015-08-27, 09:27 AM
Mr.3 is wrong for mooching repeatedly.
DM is wrong for instigating a pay-to-win system.

Two wrongs don't make it a right, on both sides of the party.

Segev
2015-08-27, 09:41 AM
Nah. The issue with pay-to-win systems is the limitless potential to pay, creating pressure to expend real money as much as you can afford and thus making others who can't or won't keep up feel the game isn't winnable by them.

In this specific circumstance, most players already were spending that money, and there's a cap of "how much food we're buying" on it. It also seems like the only time you've a chance to "pay more to win" than your buddies is if people are not paying their share of the cost.

Garimeth
2015-08-27, 09:53 AM
Mr.3 is wrong for mooching repeatedly.
DM is wrong for instigating a pay-to-win system.

Two wrongs don't make it a right, on both sides of the party.

The DM's solution is passive aggressive, but its is not remotely pay to win either.

He already has a similar mechanic that the entire party, including the moocher, gets every session.
He does not use many or any save or die effects, therefore the "weight" of a single roll is not very high.
The number of rerolls is very small.
The moocher is not suddenly "unviable" because they did not get the reroll.
He is not handing out better stats, equipment, special abilities, or any number of things.

Is it a good solution? No, but it is not unethical and it is certainly not "pay-to-win" either.

1337 b4k4
2015-08-27, 10:18 AM
Nah. The issue with pay-to-win systems is the limitless potential to pay, creating pressure to expend real money as much as you can afford and thus making others who can't or won't keep up feel the game isn't winnable by them.

In this specific circumstance, most players already were spending that money, and there's a cap of "how much food we're buying" on it. It also seems like the only time you've a chance to "pay more to win" than your buddies is if people are not paying their share of the cost.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing "pay to win" here so much as encouraging supporting group expenses with minor in game trinkets. A single re-roll is not a major alteration to the power level, and at $10 per reroll it's hardly something that some players will be piling up and others will be missing out on as piling them up would get expensive really quick.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-27, 10:27 AM
Nah. The issue with pay-to-win systems is the limitless potential to pay, creating pressure to expend real money as much as you can afford and thus making others who can't or won't keep up feel the game isn't winnable by them.

In this specific circumstance, most players already were spending that money, and there's a cap of "how much food we're buying" on it. It also seems like the only time you've a chance to "pay more to win" than your buddies is if people are not paying their share of the cost.

I'm just imagining Mr $3 buying 100 pizzas to share with the group in order to have many rerolls.....

Knaight
2015-08-27, 10:53 AM
I'm just imagining Mr $3 buying 100 pizzas to share with the group in order to have many rerolls.....

This sounds like a success to me. Mr $3 could do with paying well over their current fair share to try and compensate for paying well under it until now.

Roderick_BR
2015-08-27, 10:57 AM
Turning table top games into freemium games? Bad practice. Just split the cost of who wants what with the group and that's it. Interesting concept, but would lead to trouble.

Keltest
2015-08-27, 11:00 AM
Turning table top games into freemium games? Bad practice. Just split the cost of who wants what with the group and that's it. Interesting concept, but would lead to trouble.

The problem with that, as stated earlier, is that you run into situations where people cannot afford to pay, and therefore do not get to eat at all in spite of there being food.

Garimeth
2015-08-27, 12:59 PM
The problem with that, as stated earlier, is that you run into situations where people cannot afford to pay, and therefore do not get to eat at all in spite of there being food.

I mean, call me a heartless bastard but that's not a concern for me. Either you are enough of a friend that I will spot you and you won't be a douche and take advantage of it, or as far as I'm concerned you have your reasons for not chipping in and I'm not going to feel bad about eating in front of you when you made the choice not to chip in. I'm not going to not bring my laptop to the session because you can't afford a computer am I? By the same token I'm not going to be all upset that you show up driving your brand new paid off Lexus when I show up in my 2005 Suzuki Reno. Communication is key here, as with many aspects of life.

kyoryu
2015-08-27, 01:08 PM
Couldn't agree more. Is this how I would have handled it? No, I agree with Jay R, this is too weak and passive aggressive for my taste - but neither do I think in any way the DM did something wrong.

Absolutely.

The first thing I'd have done would be talk to the guy about how it's not cool to just presume that others are paying for you. At the very least, you should attempt to recuse yourself from the food.

If not having the guy eat wasn't an option, I'd have probably announced to the group that those kicking in beyond their share to cover for those who weren't would be getting some kind of in-game reward up-front.

goto124
2015-08-28, 11:16 AM
I found an image that may or may not be relevant. (http://i.imgur.com/1dx7d8F.jpg?)

BootStrapTommy
2015-08-28, 10:44 PM
Why does everyone assume the DM did this to punish Mr. $3 and not to reward Blue Collar?