PDA

View Full Version : A 50% session bonus to xp, am I overreacting?



gadren
2016-10-02, 03:20 AM
So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

hymer
2016-10-02, 03:34 AM
MVP? What's that?
Anyway, sounds like it could be a good rule (depending on the system) or at least an idea that could be worked with, but it just isn't in this group because some people are getting all the good stuff and some get none. And depending on the system, the good stuff isn't broadening the character so much as making it higher (if that makes sense), creating a divide between PCs.
As a new player, and as one who feels marginalized already, it's hard to bring this subject up, but it does seem like it ought to be brought up. If the bonus is granted because someone did something they used their previous bonus to achieve, the snowball effect can be quite disruptive.
Have you tried nominating the players who get little MVP? What are the criteria for MVP?

Lalliman
2016-10-02, 03:45 AM
MVP = Most Valuable Player

Seems like a horrible rule to me. Ask the other players how they feel about it, and if the majority agrees with you, take it to the DM. As a player, I would strongly object to this rule even if I was the one getting the MVP bonus all the time.

hymer
2016-10-02, 03:48 AM
MVP = Most Valuable Player

Thanks! But it sounds like they're awarding Most Valuable Character, or Player I Like Best, or The Usual Suspects.

Gastronomie
2016-10-02, 04:20 AM
Being a good player should be awarded with rules like Inspiration*, not by making his character fundamentally more powerful than others. This rule is stupid, and you should object to it.

*Rule from D&D 5e. Said short, people who RP well get an Inspiration point that can be expended to re-roll any d20.

icefractal
2016-10-02, 04:52 AM
Sounds like a bad rule, I wouldn't like it either.

I'm not a big fan of "MVP" benefits to begin with, but if you did do it, it should be some temporary benefit, not a permanent advantage. And if it was a permanent advantage, it should be a small one. Like +10% XP at most, not +50%!

Have you brought your concerns up? "I never get the MVP bonus" might seem self-centric, but you can point out the level disparity arising in the party as an objective issue. If their answer is along the lines of "just be more active, you'll get MVP" then you can point out how you've tried that and it didn't work.

And if they brush it off anyway, there is the (somewhat passive aggressive) option of suiciding/retiring and bringing in a new character once there's a two-level difference (assuming new characters come in at the average level, or that everyone who's behind does it). When they ask why, just say "Hey, since player A & B get so much more XP, I figured this was the only way to catch up."

hymer
2016-10-02, 05:52 AM
It is possible that the players are speculating in this mechanic, depending on the system. It may be that having two characters well ahead of the curve may in fact move everyone forward faster, if they gain more XP from participating in fights carried by the two frontrunners.

Contrast
2016-10-02, 06:26 AM
We have a similar rule in our group but with a much less significant bonus (typical session XP is 300-400 plus any bonuses the DM wants to hand out, player of the day award is 25XP - in this system the cheapest a skill or talent can be is 100XP so you need several before it actually becomes relevant at all).

So firstly I think +50% is way too much.

Secondly, when awarding XP our DM goes through and lists anything special he thinks people did that sessions and awards XP for it. Player of the day is awarded by the players to try and catch anything we think he missed. Most importantly in our group player of the day is rarely awarded to the person who killed the most or pulled off the most spectacular stunt (though it can be if particularly impressive) as thats usually already been accounted for (also a general rule for us seems to be that its not that impressive to do the thing that your character is built for anyway - thats what you built the character for after all). Usually the vote focuses on who we feel roleplayed particular well or had a moment that we particularly enjoyed. I think the DM mostly introduced it because he wanted to try and encourage us to give more feedback to each other about how we were playing and in my group its been reasonably effective in that regard.

I know some of the players in my group really enjoy the player of the day and would be sad to see it go (I'm somewhat neutral on the issue - I've probably won more than my fair share but it can be a little frustrating when you think you've played your socks off and no-one seems to have noticed. In addition theres one player in our group who may have only got it once or twice because she's typically very quiet, doesn't really roleplay much and seems to mostly just enjoying the mechanical side of things in terms of rolling dice to kill things). I'd be very cautious about awarding extra XP at all in a level dependant system just because theres usually a more discrete power level difference between different levelled characters and its better to keep things on a level (ho ho) playing field.

So in summary, 50% is way too much and it sounds like your group is being a bit partisan in its distribution which doesn't help. If its bugging you, I would have a chat with your DM about why he's doing it and if he's open to it being changed if it isn't doing what he wants it to (we can only hope this isn't what he wants it to be doing). I would definately suggest significantly toning down the level of reward. As Gastronomie said, if its bothering you maybe suggest reducing it to a reroll or bonus to a single roll next session if he doesn't want to stop it entirely so that there's no snowball effect of those who win it getting better at winning it.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-10-02, 10:20 AM
There's games that do this without a houserule needed. But the important part of those games is that there's an "MVP" bonus AND a "Teamworker" bonus. And the same person can't get both.

hymer
2016-10-02, 10:35 AM
There's games that do this without a houserule needed. But the important part of those games is that there's an "MVP" bonus AND a "Teamworker" bonus. And the same person can't get both.

Wait, wait, the Most Valuable Player isn't automatically also the best teamworker in a team-based game pretty much by default? I'm liking this notion less and less.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-10-02, 10:41 AM
Wait, wait, the Most Valuable Player isn't automatically also the best teamworker in a team-based game pretty much by default? I'm liking this notion less and less.

Quoting the exact definitions from the book:


The MVP award goes to the player who made the crucial roll so the party could face down the big problem besetting it in the session.


The player who worked the hardest to keep the group together and in good shape. This award goes to the ones who help despite the risks, who spend all of their gear for their mates and sacrifice their goals for their companions.

Anonymouswizard
2016-10-02, 11:16 AM
In general I dislike single-player bonus XPO. I did once give PCs XP only for what they actually did, but it ended up with two characters consistently earning the most due to having the most versatile characters.

I highly dislike this for several reasons, one being the massive bonus (50% is massive, even 25% is iffy), and another being that it can only go towards one player. I like the idea of a smaller version being used to cover for anything awesome that the GM forgot, but I have a general rule:

'Any Experience Points that could be awarded to one player should be awarded to all'.

This is for the simple reason that planning adventures is easier with all the PCs equal.

lunaticfringe
2016-10-02, 11:25 AM
So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

You made a thread on the internet on the vague hope someone would justify your feelings so I'm go with:

Yes, you are overreacting in my mind.

That bonus XP is a really ****ing stupid Idea though. Your DM is Stupid.

Aetis
2016-10-02, 11:36 AM
Your DM is not thinking.

You should encourage him to think, but do it in a nice way. :smallsmile:

ComradeBear
2016-10-02, 12:16 PM
The basics of the idea aren't terrible, but the reward is waaay too big.

It would be fine if you got something like a one-time-use +5 bonus token or reroll token at the start of the next session or something. It's potent, and a reward, but not going to have permanent ramifications.

I'd also as a GM try to ensure that different people got it. If the same two guys got it every time, I'd take steps to make them suggest other people.

All in all, the idea isn't inherently bad. But the execution here is really not good.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-10-02, 12:22 PM
The basics of the idea aren't terrible, but the reward is waaay too big.

It would be fine if you got something like a one-time-use +5 bonus token or reroll token at the start of the next session or something. It's potent, and a reward, but not going to have permanent ramifications.

I'd also as a GM try to ensure that different people got it. If the same two guys got it every time, I'd take steps to make them suggest other people.

All in all, the idea isn't inherently bad. But the execution here is really not good.
Pretty much this.

Anonymouswizard
2016-10-02, 12:49 PM
It would be fine if you got something like a one-time-use +5 bonus token or reroll token at the start of the next session or something. It's potent, and a reward, but not going to have permanent ramifications.

Heck, if a game has a metagame currency use that, it's basically the explicit intention of the stuff. Extra Fate Point or two in Fate (effectively increase their Refresh by 1 for the next session), starting with Inspiration in D&D 5e, a bonus starting bennie in Savage Worlds, free Moxie point in Eclipse Phase (man, was I so happy to discover EP had 'luck points'), a Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds, with a reroll being a good 'generic' reward as most of the above have them as one of their options (heck, I believe in Fate you can technically elect to reroll after you've discovered the result, although it is a very modern game) and it not increasing the maximum result (look at the use of Advantage in D&D 5e which does the same thing).

I'm not going to be a fan of bonus tokens, but then again I like 'stunting', where bonuses are given for attempting awesome stuff rather than succeeding at awesome stuff.

denthor
2016-10-02, 01:04 PM
So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

Agree this is frustrating had a similar thing happen in my game of 9 two always agreed with each other they would bring for a couple of nights more players till they got the majority, then would call for a new game so that they could feel superior then quit because we always start at 1st and they feel like they are under powered repeat cycle. Bad rule and the only thing you can do is wait it out. When they are several (double or more your level) depending on where you started this is when you can bring it up.

ComradeBear
2016-10-02, 01:04 PM
Heck, if a game has a metagame currency use that, it's basically the explicit intention of the stuff. Extra Fate Point or two in Fate (effectively increase their Refresh by 1 for the next session), starting with Inspiration in D&D 5e, a bonus starting bennie in Savage Worlds, free Moxie point in Eclipse Phase (man, was I so happy to discover EP had 'luck points'), a Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds, with a reroll being a good 'generic' reward as most of the above have them as one of their options (heck, I believe in Fate you can technically elect to reroll after you've discovered the result, although it is a very modern game) and it not increasing the maximum result (look at the use of Advantage in D&D 5e which does the same thing).

I'm not going to be a fan of bonus tokens, but then again I like 'stunting', where bonuses are given for attempting awesome stuff rather than succeeding at awesome stuff.

Absolutely. But I'm fairly sure OP wasn't referring to a game with such tokens. I don't think introducing a single goodie token is bad.

Jay R
2016-10-02, 01:34 PM
Consider the MVP award to be a game element. There's a game theory approach to it.

These two seem to have agreed to support each other permanently. They now need only one more vote to win it every time. To win the voting game, you must either:
1. prevent them from getting that third vote, or
2. join the voting bloc.

(1) requires getting the remaining two players on your side. Talk to them away from the two in the voting bloc, and convince them that the three of you will never win MVP except by working together. Agree to support them for it if they will support you another game. The three of you, if you will stick together, can always determine who wins the award. Any bloc of three votes can. [Note that you three can even give it to one of the two who have been winning, if you so choose. Convince them that the three of you will make a better choice that what's been happening up to now.]

Alternatively, (2) requires that you convince the voting bloc to let you be the constant third vote for your share in the bonuses. Note that this will not work if they can already always get a third vote, because in that case, you have nothing to offer - the fourth vote has no value.

Note that I have not yet discussed who actually deserves to be the MVP. That's a tool you will use to convince either pair to join you, but the theory works without it. A bloc of three votes can dominate the MVP award even if they are the three least valuable players.

It's a vote. What's really valuable isn't the issue, but rather, what the players perceive as valuable. Note that "moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to" has no value for the award unless players will vote for it. If those moments seem like you being pushy, then it can cost you votes even if it was actually the most valuable action of the game. Find out from each player what he values, and then see if your player can make that happen. An impassioned speech that the Rogue should get the magic item she wants might be how you buy her vote.

But the crucial fact is this: The already-formed team of two has a huge advantage at the start, because they only need one more vote. You can become their equal by forming a rival team of two, or automatically win with a team of three.

Anonymouswizard
2016-10-02, 01:42 PM
Absolutely. But I'm fairly sure OP wasn't referring to a game with such tokens. I don't think introducing a single goodie token is bad.

Oh sure, but if the OP wants to get rid of this rule then giving an alternative that's not so problematic is a good thing to discuss.

PrincessCupcake
2016-10-02, 02:09 PM
The concept, on paper, probably looked good. "reward player who did really cool stuff this session" is not a bad thing. Neither is "encourage players to give feedback to each other via a reward".

The execution has damaging effects though. One must make sure of two things when giving out that hefty of a reward. The first is that power of handing it out is distributed fairly. the second is that one or two people do not get it all the time.

It's rather difficult to ensure that everyone feels like their contributions mean something with the method your gm uses, which is why I went with an entirely different system. I set a flat budget for bonus xp and have them distribute it among each other, with two restrictions:

1-you cannot keep it for yourself. any xp not handed out is lost
2- only players who were present at a session are eligible for bonus xp.

it's actually pretty rare that the bonus xp is distributed unevenly.

CarpeGuitarrem
2016-10-02, 02:39 PM
The MVP reward itself is pretty neat. One of my favorite RPGs (Burning Wheel) has a similar idea, although it also includes an award for the "workhorse", the player who did the most grunt work behind the scenes (so, very similar to your situation).

But a 50% bonus to XP? That's ridiculous and incredibly disproportionate. The reward for an MVP needs to be something far smaller, depending on what in-system tools your game has. I'd personally advocate for something like 4E's action points, which can be spent to gain a free extra action in combat. It's a small reward with some significance, but it doesn't entirely explode the game in favor of the players who are going after the MVP bonus.

dropbear8mybaby
2016-10-02, 02:54 PM
This is the exact reason why I don't like rules like this and that includes the base Inspiration rule of 5e.

Even in a solid group of friends, there will always be those who are favoured over others. This is just the fundamental core of human behaviour. Equality isn't a natural state of being, but then again, neither is restraint, so we make rules to be fair to everyone even though it's against human nature.

But it looks like this rule isn't going away and that if you bring it up, you're going to be singled out and probably ostracised even further. Therefore the only feasible solution, short of a picket line and chanting, "What do I want? Fair representation in XP! When do I want it? Now!" seems to be to decide whether or not this is a situation that you can accept and live with in order to continue playing, or if it's not, leave the game.

Zaydos
2016-10-02, 03:03 PM
I've used an MVP award before. I broke it down into 4 rewards (6 players) though, and made it 50 XP (so 1% of a level) though after a level or two (where it was less than a percent of a level) it got changed to 250 XP iirc. There was DM's pick which was used to encourage good RP, teamwork, or not letting someone fall behind the XP curve. Then I let the players pick Something (I forget what it was), Best Idea, and Most in Faction (it was a Planescape game). After someone got voted for all three, I made it a rule no one could get more than 2, and no one could get the same reward 2 sessions in a row.

I think there was one session where the XP difference was enough to matter because I gave ad hoc party XP and made sure to keep them on the same level, but it was an effective carrot regardless and mostly worked to get people to think about RPing, and I'd make sure to bring up who stated ideas that worked out for the party, and so forth.

50% XP though :eek: Ia Cthulthu that's too high. This is something that needs a good amount of GM oversight to begin with to make sure it doesn't cause party imbalance (even with in game bennies), and it looks like the GM isn't doing the oversight which makes it less of a tool for encouraging good play and more of a path to power via positive feedback loop.

slaydemons
2016-10-03, 02:26 AM
A thing my group has used in the past similar to this was. At the end of the session everyone gives a summary of what every person liked about every other characters actions, and everyone gives a yay if they also liked that, giving that player a minor amount of extra exp by the gm.

Earthwalker
2016-10-03, 07:14 AM
MVP? What's that?
[snip]


Most Vertical Primate.
It was a movie (or series of movies) about a monkey playing basketball. It depended on the old trope of "Well there's nothing in the rules says you cant have a monkey on your team"

I am "Helping" !!!

For most games I play I just prefer xp awards to the group. I know its boring but its just easier and avoids petty squabbles on who did the best this session. It also prevents hurt feelings.

The OP seems to show everything that's wrong with this system 50% is way too much of a bonus for one thing.

Thrawn4
2016-10-03, 07:21 AM
Additional XP for certain behaviour is almost always a very bad idea. It enforces a certain way of playing that is contradictory to the fun of those who want to relax and play. Whether the DM hands them out for "good roleplaying", killing more monsters or having good ideas, it always creates some pressure to "be better at playing".
The player's play as a group. Together they stand, together they fall. Is it fair? Not always. But neither is rewarding certain aspects that suit some players better than others. The goal for everyone is to have fun, and imho this is easier to achieve if nobody has to worry about falling behind.

I think there are only two somewhat good reasons for handing out more XP to a certain player. The first one is to encourage new players to speak in character and act appropriately (this is a crutch and might undermine the purpose of roleplaying in the long run; basically a last resort if everything else fails, and even then its worht is doubtful.)
The second one is if one player did something that is beyond all expectations (happened exactly once over the last few years. the entire group was hunted by enemies and one of them volunteered to distract them. I should add that the encounter was designed as an escape or desperate team fight. The player barely survived, and only did so because of some brilliant ideas)

Jay R
2016-10-03, 09:12 AM
Am I really the only one interested in how to play this new aspect of the game that the DM has introduced?

Lorsa
2016-10-03, 09:20 AM
So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

I've seen people attempting to implement systems like this before, never with any success. Admittedly, I've never seen it as high as a bonus 50%, more of a flat bonus of, say 200, but the effect is still the same.

I think this type of procedure is incredibly toxic to any roleplaying group. If your DM won't listen, you should try to talk the other two people that are at the bottom end of things to form a new group with you and leave the other three. I really don't need to know more about this group than "there's a vote for who will get bonus XP" to understand that the table is broken. Get out of there before it's too late.

gkathellar
2016-10-03, 09:37 AM
Am I really the only one interested in how to play this new aspect of the game that the DM has introduced?

Turning your game into an exercise in table-politics: fun for the whole family!

Telesto
2016-10-03, 09:57 AM
In 3.5e dungeons and dragons, I think this could have worked out because experience was also used as a form of currancy for certain things.

However, if the system lacks this kind of thing, it's probably a poor idea as it will unbalance player levels. Unless everyone has the same access to bonus experience (I've been in games that award bonuses for bringing food, for instance), it can quickly unbalance the game, and with 50% all that will occur is that unbalancing happening earlier.

Contrast
2016-10-03, 10:04 AM
I've seen people attempting to implement systems like this before, never with any success. Admittedly, I've never seen it as high as a bonus 50%, more of a flat bonus of, say 200, but the effect is still the same.

I think this type of procedure is incredibly toxic to any roleplaying group. If your DM won't listen, you should try to talk the other two people that are at the bottom end of things to form a new group with you and leave the other three. I really don't need to know more about this group than "there's a vote for who will get bonus XP" to understand that the table is broken. Get out of there before it's too late.

I can't agree with this (as I've mentioned above, my group does something similar though with a bonus small enough it would feasibly take years of someone winning it consistently to result in a noticable power difference - worth noting I am not playing this game in a D&D system and noted in my previous post my opinion is that in systems where this is a large discrepency in power levels between levels XP should be kept even across the party).

My DM used to try and engage us in a discussion when we'd finished playing trying to get feedback on the session etc and would usually get some mummerings of appreciation before everyone would start talking about a youtube video or whatever. Since we've introduced the mechanic we now normally have a 10-15 min chat at the end of every game about what we enjoyed, what motivated us and our characters, etc. No-one has been voting in blocks to try and get the XP for themselves, etc. In my group it appears to have worked fine with no toxic atmosphere resulting. I guess the difference in my group is that no-one is really trying to 'win' the award, it just a mechanism to get us invested in talking about the game. At my table the same could probably be achieved with a literal sticker book of gold stars and the DM giving one to whoever wins to wear home.

Clearly there is an issue at OPs table and I think existing group dynamic issues in the group have allowed this to become a problem (in addition to the overly generous reward which further encourages players to compete for it) rather than the other way round. As I and others have advocated above, the resolution could just be as simple as talking to everyone and getting the rule changed for his group. I certainly think leaving and trying to split the group as you do is a massive over-reaction at this stage (a lot depends on the outcome of any discussion OP has with the DM/other players though as you say).

dps
2016-10-03, 01:15 PM
So in summary, 50% is way too much and it sounds like your group is being a bit partisan in its distribution which doesn't help.

Totally agree on the first part, and provisionally agree on the second part. Provisionally, because, not being involved in this particular group, I would hesitate to say for certain that the players aren't at least trying to vote for whoever they think did best during each session, but simply putting it up to a player vote at the very least opens up the possibility of turning it into a popularity contest instead of an award for merit.

Ezeze
2016-10-03, 04:38 PM
Not only does this mechanic sound toxic, but also like way too much work.

I, as a GM, would never stoop to tracking each players XP individually :smalltongue:

ATHATH
2016-10-03, 10:54 PM
Am I really the only one interested in how to play this new aspect of the game that the DM has introduced?
It's a decent back-up plan if the DM refuses to change the system and it might be fun (for you), but it might damage friendships and/or make you look like a jerk. It's kind of the same problem trolling has.

I can probably get Red Fel, a specialist, in here to evaluate it as well, but I suspect that Red Fel will give you something close to the same answer I did. Red Fel might be able to refine it to make it more subtle and/or look/be less jerk-ish, though.

Lorsa
2016-10-04, 02:40 AM
Am I really the only one interested in how to play this new aspect of the game that the DM has introduced?

Well, if you view it as an added mechanic and come together as a group to "game the system" so to speak, it could be interesting. That is not really what the DM seems to want though; he wants people to vote on who is the most valuable player. So the only way to get something I consider "good" out of it, would be to engage in this new aspect "dishonestly" so to speak.



I can't agree with this (as I've mentioned above, my group does something similar though with a bonus small enough it would feasibly take years of someone winning it consistently to result in a noticable power difference - worth noting I am not playing this game in a D&D system and noted in my previous post my opinion is that in systems where this is a large discrepency in power levels between levels XP should be kept even across the party).

My DM used to try and engage us in a discussion when we'd finished playing trying to get feedback on the session etc and would usually get some mummerings of appreciation before everyone would start talking about a youtube video or whatever. Since we've introduced the mechanic we now normally have a 10-15 min chat at the end of every game about what we enjoyed, what motivated us and our characters, etc. No-one has been voting in blocks to try and get the XP for themselves, etc. In my group it appears to have worked fine with no toxic atmosphere resulting. I guess the difference in my group is that no-one is really trying to 'win' the award, it just a mechanism to get us invested in talking about the game. At my table the same could probably be achieved with a literal sticker book of gold stars and the DM giving one to whoever wins to wear home.

Clearly there is an issue at OPs table and I think existing group dynamic issues in the group have allowed this to become a problem (in addition to the overly generous reward which further encourages players to compete for it) rather than the other way round. As I and others have advocated above, the resolution could just be as simple as talking to everyone and getting the rule changed for his group. I certainly think leaving and trying to split the group as you do is a massive over-reaction at this stage (a lot depends on the outcome of any discussion OP has with the DM/other players though as you say).

There are exceptions to every rule I suppose. I find it a bit sad though that your DM has to bribe you with XP in order to get you to engage in post-game discussion.

Jay R
2016-10-04, 07:04 AM
Turning your game into an exercise in table-politics: fun for the whole family!

The OP's evident frustration and the presence of a two-player bloc indicate that it's already an exercise in table-politics. I'm just suggesting trying to do better at it. That allows the politics to become more open and honest. But it's an exercise in table-politics in any case.

Just like dividing the treasure, or planning an ambush, or deciding what to do next.

Is there anybody who thinks running a party with several interested, imaginative players can be prevented from being table-politics?

CharonsHelper
2016-10-04, 07:29 AM
At my table the same could probably be achieved with a literal sticker book of gold stars and the DM giving one to whoever wins to wear home.

I actually did give out stickers when GMing at one time. I had a book of X-men stickers I'd gotten as a gag gift - and I gave someone a sticker if they did something similar to a character. (Surviving a crazy charge got you Wolverine etc.)

I ran out of Professor Xavier stickers first... they were given out whenever someone was being lame. :smallamused:

Quertus
2016-10-04, 08:00 AM
Turning your game into an exercise in table-politics: fun for the whole family!


Not only does this mechanic sound toxic, but also like way too much work.

I, as a GM, would never stoop to tracking each players XP individually :smalltongue:

This. We've moved past the days of player vs DM mentality... to DM manipulating it into player vs player.

-----

I always used to track individual XP, and give individual role-playing XP. Then 3e came along, with its concept of group XP, and it was awesome, like a breath of fresh air after being trapped in the dungeon for far too long.

I still give out bonus XP for role-playing (and other "things that made the game enjoyable") - but I give them out as group awards. One character got to shine by killing things? Everyone gets XP. One character got to shine with good acting or intense role-playing? Everyone gets XP. One character got to shine by having a clever idea? Everyone gets XP.

At the end of the season, I rehash the things I remember / made notes on, then open the floor for people to nominate other actions as worthy of bonus XP.

This lets everyone feel the benefit of these things, and provides a Pavlovian reward for the whole party for things that make the game fun.

gkathellar
2016-10-04, 08:28 AM
The OP's evident frustration and the presence of a two-player bloc indicate that it's already an exercise in table-politics. I'm just suggesting trying to do better at it.

Doing better at something that is (a) altogether terrible and (b) altogether unnecessary doesn't really seem like a valuable use of time. YMMV, of course.

Quertus
2016-10-04, 08:53 AM
Doing better at something that is (a) altogether terrible and (b) altogether unnecessary doesn't really seem like a valuable use of time. YMMV, of course.

Well... in a thread on dealing with problem players, I advocated* out rules lawyering the rules lawyer, and out munching the munchkin... and someone suggested I should out PvP the PvP problem player. I was embarrassed that I had missed the pattern, and never considered that solution.

Subsequently, I can't really say that out politicking the politickers isn't likely a decent idea, in a vacuum. The only problem is, if the DM is part of the problem, he can just be a **** and change the rules.

* not just advocated, indicated that I have no problem with these players because of these techniques.

Red Fel
2016-10-04, 08:59 AM
It's a decent back-up plan if the DM refuses to change the system and it might be fun (for you), but it might damage friendships and/or make you look like a jerk. It's kind of the same problem trolling has.

I can probably get Red Fel, a specialist, in here to evaluate it as well, but I suspect that Red Fel will give you something close to the same answer I did. Red Fel might be able to refine it to make it more subtle and/or look/be less jerk-ish, though.

I see what you did there.


Am I really the only one interested in how to play this new aspect of the game that the DM has introduced?

Good question! Let's find out!


So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.

So, basically, the players can give one of the characters a 50% xp boost. That's player-assigned xp, calling it what it is. So?


Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.

Fair position.


My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

Admittedly detecting some salt here, but otherwise, valid concern.


I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

Tends to be the case. Nobody praises the blacksmith who forged the dragonslayer's sword.


I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

You're not making a big deal out of nothing. Xp is a big deal. Not only does it impact the abilities of a given character, it impacts the party as a whole. An encounter is - or should be - calculated based upon the overall strength of the party. If one or two characters are dragging the average up, that means harder encounters, which the one or two characters will be better equipped than anyone else; this, in turn, gives them a greater opportunity to shine, which means that they are likely to get the xp bonus again; vicious cycle.

Here's the thing - it's all premised on a nice idea. Bonus xp based on popular vote is a great way to encourage positive actions; it incentivizes group play and good behavior. The problem is that it leads to any number of scenarios. Here are a few illustrations of this situation going awry:
The Vet and the Noobs: The vet pronounces that he is best and strongest and most experienced. The noobs, not knowing any better, concede. The vet performs, perhaps well, or perhaps simply adequately; the noobs don't know the difference, but give him all the bonus xp so that he can be strong enough to lead them.
The Popular Crowd: There are one or two people at the table whom everyone loves. Notwithstanding the actual game, they get bonus xp because they're popular.
The Whiner: There's that one player who constantly complains. Notwithstanding the actual game, he gets bonus xp just to shut him up.
The Conspiracy: The players realize that the Wizard is just a few xp away from getting Teleport Without Error. Notwithstanding his current contributions, they will agree to give him the bonus so they can benefit from that spell. Next, they'll work on getting the Cleric Miracle.
Basically, it boils down to this: It's all very well to want to give recognition to a player who contributes, but putting xp in the hands of the players is a recipe for danger. Unless you have a table composed entirely of mature, trustworthy players, there are just too many ways for things to go awry if you tell the players that they pick who gets xp, bonus or otherwise.

I shouldn't have to say all this; I feel as though it's been said. Also, this isn't really my area of specialization, ATHATH.

Kiero
2016-10-04, 09:05 AM
Stupid rule turning play into a beauty pageant judged by the GM. There's no real upside to a rule like this, and plenty of resentment that it seeds.

hymer
2016-10-04, 10:24 AM
Stupid rule turning play into a beauty pageant judged by the GM.

By the players, I think you mean.

Contrast
2016-10-04, 01:55 PM
There are exceptions to every rule I suppose. I find it a bit sad though that your DM has to bribe you with XP in order to get you to engage in post-game discussion.

I guess the answer I'd give to that is that before he'd ask us if we'd enjoyed the game and the response he would get is some generic praise from us saying we enjoyed it. Very nice but doesn't really get to the nitty gritty of what was working well and what wasn't. I guess this just gives him an excuse to break the ice as it were and try and get us to focus down on specifics without him having to awkwardly try and shift the post game conversation in that direction every week.

As I said, I don't think anything would change if the 'prize' was 1XP, a 'well done' sticker or him just sending us a photo of himself winking and doing fingers guns with a caption saying 'You're awesome!' (...who am I kidding we would tear ourselves apart trying to win that last one :smallwink:).

Mr Beer
2016-10-04, 04:04 PM
1. MVP =/= "two BFFs award", this is completely broken and wrong. I would voice my concerns once and then walk.

2. 50% is too much anyway.

Deophaun
2016-10-04, 04:28 PM
This sounds like one of those problems best addressed with gasoline and matches.

Course, I think every problem can be solved with gasoline and matches.

Might be why I'm not allowed in 12 countries, now that I think about it.

I should get some gasoline to fix that.

SethoMarkus
2016-10-04, 04:51 PM
Personally, I think Jay R's suggestion of creating a second voting bloc of the remaining three players is the best solution (assuming the GM cannot be convinced to remove the rule). The remaining three can come to an agreement to more evenly and fairly distribute the bonus experience. Decide together what criteria for the bonus experience you think is acceptable, agreed to judge impartially and award the experience to one of the two BFFs if they deserve it, and support each other in taking over the vote.

Of course, this relies upon the remaining three acting maturely and fairly, and is still a less ideal solution than removing the vote entirely (or changing the reward)...

Ruslan
2016-10-04, 05:10 PM
When I was young and foolish, I experimented with such a rule, and gave up on it very soon. To the OP - you are in a difficult position. Sounds like the two players are happy to hog the spotlight, and the others are content letting them. If you openly stand up against this, you might be perceived as a sore loses. I would suggest quietly feeling the waters among the other players - are they truly okay with the same two gaining MVP all the time? If not, either organize to convince the DM to cancel this rule, or [evil alert] organize a voting block to keep these two out of the MVP awards forever.

If everyone else is okay with the MVP rule, you have a difficult decision to make. You can either just swallow it and play on, or walk. Fighting it is no use, if you have no support.

Jay R
2016-10-05, 10:18 PM
"... it might damage friendships and/or make you look like a jerk"
"to engage in this new aspect 'dishonestly'"
"altogether terrible"

Despite all the insults aimed at me, my idea doesn't require a selfish or jerkish goal. I favor building a voting bloc for the purposes of allocating the XPs fairly and honestly.

Of course, my Ph.D. dissertation used game theory to solve a previously unsolved scheduling problem, so I don't inherently assume that using game theory is being a jerk, engaging in something dishonestly, or being altogether terrible.

Fri
2016-10-05, 10:36 PM
Workable idea, disproportionate amount. In Legend of the Wulin there's a mechanic that basically serves a similar purpose. Each characters have ten virtues with differing amount (individuality, honor, obsession, benevolence, etc), and at the end of the session someone could mention to the gm that he think a character really showcased a certain virtue well (like the character let a bandit go after defeating him and making him promise won't steal again, is really showcasing benevolence in the player's opinion), and the player of the benevolent character would get what practically is bonus exp depending on the amount of that virtue the character supposedly have (so for example, a character with 5 point of benevolence would get 5 bonus point, while a character that have the default one benevolence would get 1 bonus point). This is meant so people would have an incentive on trying to work on the characterization meant for their characters. But if they don't do the virtues they set for their characters in the beginning it's fine as well, since they also would still get bonus xp, just smaller amount.

ComradeBear
2016-10-05, 10:37 PM
There are exceptions to every rule I suppose. I find it a bit sad though that your DM has to bribe you with XP in order to get you to engage in post-game discussion.

You usually have to bribe people to do anything.
Rewarding people for behaviors you want them to do is Behavioral Psychology 101.
If the DM wants to have a deeper discussion and finds that a small incentive helps spark that discussion, he is a smart DM.
If said small incentive becomes a large incentive that threatens the game, the incentive needs to be reevaluated.

Basically, the difference between a Bribe and a Game Mechanic in this case is entirely subjective.

D&D bribes you with imaginary money and imaginary points to go into pretend holes and kill pretend stuff. (Because that's what D&D wants you to do)

Apocalypse World bribes you with pretend points to act in certain ways. Your fellow players may even offer you these imaginary points in exchange for doing what they want you to do. (Because AW really likes social connections and inter-player bargaining)

Stars Without Number bribes you with imaginary points for your character accomplishing their goals.
(Because that game is very narratively focused)

The DM bribes you with imaginary points to have a deeper discussion of your D&D session.
(Because this discussion helps him be a better DM)

The DM bribes you with imaginary points for finishing the story he planned.
(Because he wants you to keep finishing stories of his)

The DM bribes you with imaginary points just for showing up tonight.
(Because he wants people to show up!)

Reward behaviors that you want to see happen, and they happen.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with incentivising certain aspects of play. Lots of games do this. Players reward one another with xp in a variety of games.

So long as it's structured correctly, there's no problems. If a system like this is generating toxicity in your group, the problem might be in the group and not the system.

(I've never had a problem with these kinds of things, either.)

Malifice
2016-10-05, 11:38 PM
XP bonuses are fine, but they can be toxic.

As long as you dont award XP for the best roleplayer assesed against each other - the players should not be competing with each other for 'who plays the best'.

It should be awarded to each player based on that players own merits, and not compared to others. If Joe is naturally shy, then he is awarded XP based on how well he did compared to himself only.

Roleplaying games are supposed to be co-operative. You want to avoid a system that encourages competition among players, but a system that encourages each player to do the best that player can do is fine.

Also, its best to award XP based on co-operation, roleplaying, contributions towards team success, engagement and ideas, and not character performance.

An introverted player that does the best he can, actively tries to advance the plot and the mission, keeps in character and so forth should get top marks over an extroverted player who does his own thing and dominates encounters by sheer force of numbers, and by overbearing other players at the table.

Lorsa
2016-10-06, 02:09 AM
Is there anybody who thinks running a party with several interested, imaginative players can be prevented from being table-politics?

I do, but then I've been known to be extremely naive in some areas.

More realistically, there will always be table-politics, but as with all things it's a scale which one can try to minimize.



"to engage in this new aspect 'dishonestly'"

Despite all the insults aimed at me, my idea doesn't require a selfish or jerkish goal. I favor building a voting bloc for the purposes of allocating the XPs fairly and honestly.

Of course, my Ph.D. dissertation used game theory to solve a previously unsolved scheduling problem, so I don't inherently assume that using game theory is being a jerk, engaging in something dishonestly, or being altogether terrible.

I was trying not to insult you, in fact, I am fairly certain I did not call you dishonest. If you read my post, I hope that it was clear that I thought using this system to strengthen the party would be something good.

However, I do still think that it is dishonest, for lack of a better word. I mean, the scenario would follow like this:

DM: "Please vote on who you believe was the MVP for the evening, this person will be rewarded with 50% bonus XP."
Players: "Yes, we will do!"
<Players proceed to vote in a way that benefits the group most>

Since the DM's wishes aren't being followed through on, it can't be anything else but dishonest. If he was aware of the group NOT voting for the MVP but instead for whoever would strengthen the group most to receive this bonus XP, he might cancel the deal altogether.

The other scenario, where it would not be dishonest would be:

DM: "You players can vote on whose character will receive a bonus 50% XP."
Players: "Will do!"

However, dishonest, the end result of using game theory, as you put it, to optimize the party, distribute XP fairly etc etc, is definitely GOOD. The DM wants to allocate them unfairly, so you take matters into your own hands.

It's basically Kant vs. Bentham, if my old ethics knowledge hasn't failed me.

Sometimes, to be able to get a fair and just outcome, perhaps you DO have to be dishonest. However, such a system, where this is the norm, is not a system I think is good in itself, and should preferably be replaced with a better one.

Quertus
2016-10-06, 03:21 AM
XP bonuses are fine, but they can be toxic.

As long as you dont award XP for the best roleplayer assesed against each other - the players should not be competing with each other for 'who plays the best'.

It should be awarded to each player based on that players own merits, and not compared to others. If Joe is naturally shy, then he is awarded XP based on how well he did compared to himself only.

Roleplaying games are supposed to be co-operative. You want to avoid a system that encourages competition among players, but a system that encourages each player to do the best that player can do is fine.

Also, its best to award XP based on co-operation, roleplaying, contributions towards team success, engagement and ideas, and not character performance.

An introverted player that does the best he can, actively tries to advance the plot and the mission, keeps in character and so forth should get top marks over an extroverted player who does his own thing and dominates encounters by sheer force of numbers, and by overbearing other players at the table.

While I prefer cooperative RPGs, I should point out that some are by default quite... "uncooperative".

You believe that giving XP in competition with one another is bad, and advocate being in competition with one's self. How do you feel about the idea of being in competition with a static metric? "You must be at least this tall to ride", you must roleplay at least this well for bonus XP.

Also, imma take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my style of giving group XP (instead of individual rewards) for good role-playing. This means that everyone benefits from things that make the game fun, and therefore everyone wants everyone to make the game more fun. Does this sound like an idea you would consider implementing?


It's basically Kant vs. Bentham, if my old ethics knowledge hasn't failed me.

Mine failed me. IIRC, Kant was "that to which all adults persons involved have, in principle, consented, is moral."

What was Bentham?

Malifice
2016-10-06, 04:16 AM
While I prefer cooperative RPGs, I should point out that some are by default quite... "uncooperative".

And some (Paranoia etc) are intentionally so.


You believe that giving XP in competition with one another is bad, and advocate being in competition with one's self. How do you feel about the idea of being in competition with a static metric? "You must be at least this tall to ride", you must roleplay at least this well for bonus XP.

If you put in effort and try, you get extra XP. Depending on how well you do so, you get even more.


Also, imma take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my style of giving group XP (instead of individual rewards) for good role-playing. This means that everyone benefits from things that make the game fun, and therefore everyone wants everyone to make the game more fun. Does this sound like an idea you would consider implementing?

Thats not a bad idea at all. I like it.

Lorsa
2016-10-06, 04:33 AM
Mine failed me. IIRC, Kant was "that to which all adults persons involved have, in principle, consented, is moral."

What was Bentham?

I thought Kant was in the camp of "actions are moral or amoral by their very nature, regardless of outcome" whereas Bentham was "the morality of actions should be judged based on the outcome". Basically deontology vs. utalitarianism.

Quertus
2016-10-06, 07:06 AM
I thought Kant was in the camp of "actions are moral or amoral by their very nature, regardless of outcome" whereas Bentham was "the morality of actions should be judged based on the outcome". Basically deontology vs. utalitarianism.

IIRC, utilitarianism was "maximize happiness" - that which is moral is that which maximizes the group happiness. The ends justify the means... But the means are part of the ends.

Earthwalker
2016-10-06, 07:36 AM
"... it might damage friendships and/or make you look like a jerk"
"to engage in this new aspect 'dishonestly'"
"altogether terrible"

Despite all the insults aimed at me, my idea doesn't require a selfish or jerkish goal. I favor building a voting bloc for the purposes of allocating the XPs fairly and honestly.

Of course, my Ph.D. dissertation used game theory to solve a previously unsolved scheduling problem, so I don't inherently assume that using game theory is being a jerk, engaging in something dishonestly, or being altogether terrible.

I read your first post as entirely selfish and jerkish.
Which I would say is so much more on me than you. When people talk about gaming a system my mind instantly goes to thoughts of cheating and dishonesty.

Please note in no way am I calling you dishonest or a cheat. Just that's the first place I went. Your explanation just highlighted to me a prejudice I didn't know what there.

Red Fel
2016-10-06, 08:24 AM
I thought Kant was in the camp of "actions are moral or amoral by their very nature, regardless of outcome" whereas Bentham was "the morality of actions should be judged based on the outcome". Basically deontology vs. utalitarianism.

Wasn't Bentham also the one who proposed the idea of a panopticon, a prison in which a single stationed guard could view anything that any inmate was doing at any time, causing each inmate to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which was more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

Tying that into the more immediate conversation: Isn't the idea of empowering the players collectively with the ability to grant substantial benefit to a single character effectively empowering each individual player to do so, causing each player to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which is more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

I play tabletop games to have fun with friends, not to walk on eggshells, is my thing.

Quertus
2016-10-06, 09:10 AM
Wasn't Bentham also the one who proposed the idea of a panopticon, a prison in which a single stationed guard could view anything that any inmate was doing at any time, causing each inmate to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which was more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

Tying that into the more immediate conversation: Isn't the idea of empowering the players collectively with the ability to grant substantial benefit to a single character effectively empowering each individual player to do so, causing each player to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which is more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

I play tabletop games to have fun with friends, not to walk on eggshells, is my thing.

In my games, I tend to give group bonus XP for good RP, good acting, and anything else the group finds fun. This encourages people to pay attention during the game, and be able to remember the game 5 minutes after the session has ended, to get that sweet Pavlovian reward of bonus XP by nominating something from the game that they enjoyed.

Why should this be such a positive thing in my games, yet sound so horror-inducing when you describe it?

CharonsHelper
2016-10-06, 09:27 AM
Wasn't Bentham also the one who proposed the idea of a panopticon, a prison in which a single stationed guard could view anything that any inmate was doing at any time, causing each inmate to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which was more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

So... like Santa?

Fri
2016-10-06, 11:53 AM
Wasn't Bentham also the one who proposed the idea of a panopticon, a prison in which a single stationed guard could view anything that any inmate was doing at any time, causing each inmate to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which was more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

Tying that into the more immediate conversation: Isn't the idea of empowering the players collectively with the ability to grant substantial benefit to a single character effectively empowering each individual player to do so, causing each player to feel uncertain as to whether he is being watched and scrutinized at all times, which is more or less the ultimate paranoia-inducing Big Brother Is Watching scenario, and not-exactly-secretly horrifying?

I play tabletop games to have fun with friends, not to walk on eggshells, is my thing.

Man Red Fel, it's almost like you're playing tabletop with people with common goals who find each other amusing aquintances and joined together for a common cause but have ready to stab people in the back when there's good reward and chance or something instead of friends...:smalltongue: for those who don't get the joke that's how usually people say how evil people can have friends :p

Red Fel
2016-10-06, 12:31 PM
In my games, I tend to give group bonus XP for good RP, good acting, and anything else the group finds fun. This encourages people to pay attention during the game, and be able to remember the game 5 minutes after the session has ended, to get that sweet Pavlovian reward of bonus XP by nominating something from the game that they enjoyed.

Why should this be such a positive thing in my games, yet sound so horror-inducing when you describe it?

Actually, I'm in favor of group bonus XP. When the group as a whole can talk together about what they liked, and the group as a whole can benefit from it, I think that's a wonderful thing. It's when you're looking at individual benefit that it becomes a problem; suddenly, everyone feels like a sample under a microscope, hoping not to do the wrong thing, lest they be overlooked for that sweet bonus XP.


So... like Santa?

And if the idea of an immortal toymaker, surrounded by an army of tireless fey minions, dwelling in the middle of a frozen waste, who spies upon the world's children in silent, cruel judgment, doesn't absolutely terrify you, then you have ice in your veins.

Or anti-Santa armaments on your roof.


Man Red Fel, it's almost like you're playing tabletop with people with common goals who find each other amusing aquintances and joined together for a common cause but have ready to stab people in the back when there's good reward and chance or something instead of friends...:smalltongue: for those who don't get the joke that's how usually people say how evil people can have friends :p

Words hurt too, Fri. You make a lot of cruel assumptions.

I mean, I don't consider them amusing. Sometimes they're really quite tiresome.