Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 10-12-2002, 07:53 AM

Tabletop roleplaying isn't really such a good analogy, but I can work with it.

Imagine the tabletop game where 7 of the 10 players played every week, and eventually reached level 10. The other 3 players weren't able to play as often because on real-life commitments (work, exams, or whatever) and so they had only reached level 5 (we'll assume linear advancement).

Player 1 makes a deal with the GM whereby he writes an ongoing journal of the parties exploits (using his own notes, and those written by the other players when he's not there) along with some ideas and suggestions to improve the storyline. In return for that, the GM allows him to earn enough extra exp to put him up to level 10 with the rest of the party. He cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them.

Player 2 makes a deal with the GM whereby he purchases new modules and rulebooks for the gaming group, and in return the GM allows him to earn enough extra exp to put him up to level 10 with the rest of the party. He cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them.

Player 3 makes a deal whereby he donates money to the gaming group, which everyone can then decide how to spend. Perhaps it'll allow them to rent a larger place to play in (rather than squeezing all 10 players into someone's bedroom). Perhaps they'll use the money to purchase snacks for everyone to eat during the game. Perhaps they'll use it to purchase accessories such as dice, pens, paper, etc. Whatever they choose, the money will go towards improving the game for everyone. Player 3 cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them.

Thus instead of having a group in which 3 of the players are unable to compete with each other (which isn't fun, I can tell you) , the game now has a group of characters on equal footing. It also has the advantage of having lots of new gaming material, which improves the enjoyment for everyone.

I would not run my game like that, but equally I wouldn't have a problem with someone who did - as long as they were up-front about it. I wouldn't consider it "unfair", because it's allowing all of the characters to compete on equal terms, even though the characters got to the position they are through different means (100% in-game time/effort, 50% in-game time/effort and 50% out-of-game time/effort, or 50% in-game time/effort and 50% money).

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more.

You're implying using money to create uneven terms. I'm implying the opposite. Would you play a chess tournament if you weren't allowed to use your "queen" piece because you had purchased it, rather than crafted it yourself?

I agree wholeheartedly.

10-12-2002, 07:53 AM	#102
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Tabletop roleplaying isn't really such a good analogy, but I can work with it. Imagine the tabletop game where 7 of the 10 players played every week, and eventually reached level 10. The other 3 players weren't able to play as often because on real-life commitments (work, exams, or whatever) and so they had only reached level 5 (we'll assume linear advancement). Player 1 makes a deal with the GM whereby he writes an ongoing journal of the parties exploits (using his own notes, and those written by the other players when he's not there) along with some ideas and suggestions to improve the storyline. In return for that, the GM allows him to earn enough extra exp to put him up to level 10 with the rest of the party. He cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them. Player 2 makes a deal with the GM whereby he purchases new modules and rulebooks for the gaming group, and in return the GM allows him to earn enough extra exp to put him up to level 10 with the rest of the party. He cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them. Player 3 makes a deal whereby he donates money to the gaming group, which everyone can then decide how to spend. Perhaps it'll allow them to rent a larger place to play in (rather than squeezing all 10 players into someone's bedroom). Perhaps they'll use the money to purchase snacks for everyone to eat during the game. Perhaps they'll use it to purchase accessories such as dice, pens, paper, etc. Whatever they choose, the money will go towards improving the game for everyone. Player 3 cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them. Thus instead of having a group in which 3 of the players are unable to compete with each other (which isn't fun, I can tell you) , the game now has a group of characters on equal footing. It also has the advantage of having lots of new gaming material, which improves the enjoyment for everyone. I would not run my game like that, but equally I wouldn't have a problem with someone who did - as long as they were up-front about it. I wouldn't consider it "unfair", because it's allowing all of the characters to compete on equal terms, even though the characters got to the position they are through different means (100% in-game time/effort, 50% in-game time/effort and 50% out-of-game time/effort, or 50% in-game time/effort and 50% money). Absolutely - I couldn't agree more. You're implying using money to create uneven terms. I'm implying the opposite. Would you play a chess tournament if you weren't allowed to use your "queen" piece because you had purchased it, rather than crafted it yourself? I agree wholeheartedly.