Experience purchases done through role play

[TheDarkness]

A rare problem with a build? I find it best discussed openly between GM and player (or even GM and group if we need a consensus on how we want the game to operate). If the build messes with role play or balance, that is not solved by forcing the player to wait to bring it into play, so I see no reason to build a delaying tactic into the campaign structure.

And I see reason to.

[TheDarkness]

 

 

If the build messes with role play or balance, that is not solved by forcing the player to wait to bring it into play

 

Actually, for role play, often it is. And I've cited clear examples of this already.

 

If you don't want to accept those example, I believe Tasha made the same exact one as me in one case, 5 CSLs and buying them over time instead of dumping them all at a time that would be a problem for balance or believability.

[Tasha]

The danger room really only appeared when the writers wanted to show off the powers of a new character or as an adventure element itself (ie Malfunction nearly kills the team, Team Enemy gains control of the danger room and uses it as a death trap etc"

 

DD, like many has a regular training regimen. It doesn't mean that we need to play out said training sessions.

 

No one is saying that you should allow any unbalanced build. It's one of a Hero System GM's responsibilities to make sure that characters and power constructs don't unbalance the campaign. Yes other players do know when you have allowed something that is unbalancing.

 

Most players don't really care one way or the other if you play out someone's expendature of exp. In Fact, I would opine that most players would rather not deal with that minutae, in favor of getting on with the REAL adventure for the night. It comes down to paring away the important from the unimportant for the story. ie in D&D does it really matter how the PC buys new armor? Only if you are establishing the NPC for something more does it really matter. Most of the upkeep of the characters can safely take place off camera, (ie "Hey, look at the cool broadsword I found at the weaponsmiths"

 

Most Games a built in timelimit set by the players "I can only be there by 6 and I have to leave by midnight". It becomes important for the GM to focus on the best parts of gaming. I don't know your players and their tastes, but I would rather get into the actual adventure and not be bogged down by showing Gadgeteer negotiating with their parts supplier so they can build the Night vision goggle/ targetter they wanted to add to their gadget pool for the adventure. I also don't care to watch the team's mage get tutored by their mentor because they wanted to add extra weight to their Teleportation spell. If you want to RP that minutae, then take it to email between sessions. Other than that, minor retconning to cover the same things doesn't hurt the game at all. It fits well into "what did your character do between sessions" question that many GM's ask.

[Tasha]

Actually, for role play, often it is. And I've cited clear examples of this already.

 

If you don't want to accept those example, I believe Tasha made the same exact one as me in one case, 5 CSLs and buying them over time instead of dumping them all at a time that would be a problem for balance or believability.

 

I have pointed out again and again how you could make a 5 CSL expenditure believable. You clearly have a bias for players who spend their points as they get them. You are setting up systems that punish players who don't wish to spend points that way or others who just haven't made up their minds yet.

 

To gain 30 exp in Hero typically takes 8-12 sessions (in my games the average would be 10 sessions). That's a month an a half of game play. Then because I want to buy 6 CSL's with that exp you want me to wait longer so we can "role play" the expendature? Just because you can't tell if 6 CV is unbalancing or not?

 

In most of my games if the PC spent bought 3 OCV levels with  a group of attacks and 3 DCV levels with that same group of attacks, it wouldn't usually be unbalancing. Now if they were bought with OCV on the same attack (Assuming they are a PC that has a base Campaign Average OCV stat), then it would be unbalancing. Though perhaps the Gadgeteer is trying to morph into a Weapon's Master archetype (kind of a Ranged Martial Artist), then the expenditature might be ok. What I am saying that some basic common sense with a disclaimer to the player that if a new ability is unbalanced in a way that I hadn't forseen. That they will be expected to tone it down until it's balanced or to take a limit on the power so it can't be used as much.

[TheDarkness]

Sigh.

 

Obviously, it will be simpler to just respond to the straw man arguments.

 

At which point did I say what percentage of big purchases don't get okayed versus small purchases?

 

[As in, the entire basis for your assumption that I favor one over the other.]

 

At which point did I say I couldn't decide when 6 CVs is unbalancing?

 

Are you saying that I didn't say that the danger room games are generally pick up games?

 

Non-straw man bonus:

Are you saying that a meme that appears frequently in the comics, like danger rooms, but any lengthy use in the comics requires a further plot, will play the same in another medium, like an RPG, where the players actually make decisions? So, simulations in simulations don't work, like having little green guys play rugby, or imaginary cars play demolition derby? If my players like it, what problem is there? What on earth is there to argue down on this idea?

[TheDarkness]

Post in the spirit of the topic, not in response to anything:

 

A couple examples of games where character development had requirements that, when played well, provided many new realms for adventure and fun:

 

Dungeons and Dragons(back in the day): mages who got new powerful spells couldn't even use them until they had the physical components for them, which were sometimes not easy to get, and could make for whole fun adventures under the right DMs. Games that didn't use this often had balance issues at the upper levels. Same with making items.

 

Traveller: Training and building during interstellar trips was the norm. Of course, Traveller players often tended to make sure to define these things.

 

MOST games, for continuity issues, would make skills a process. Now, this does not mean all campaigns have to. Mine will tend to. Everyone in my game knows this from the outset. I find they tend to put more thought toward their purchases, but I also find that, more often than not, they change what their expenditure is going to be because what they originally were going to do didn't work like they were thinking, or fell in love with something else in the interim, not anything on my part. In such a case, I don't assume they spent three quarters of their down time on what didn't end up working, but what they chose in the end.

 

Because my players are very cognizant of their choices, always wanting to pick just the right thing for their character, and often more for their idea of their character than immediate effectiveness, I DO ruthlessly nitz power creep for power creep's sake by a player when it would immediately force the rest of the players, who know that I will design the scenarios for their characters as they make them, into a position of either matching that power creep, or being swamped in the aftermath.

 

Since I don't design scenarios in which the players are swamped and are mostly missing their opponents for stat reasons vs. just a day of bad rolls, attempts at power creep stick out to everyone like a sore thumb, as do builds that none of us, the player who came up with it included, realized would do exactly what it did. One player just changed a power that was just such a case, he likes that I encourage a blend of effective builds with ambiance builds, and as soon as he used the power and it turned out to be overkill, I could tell he thought it was lame in game terms, replacing it with something less powerful in effect, but more in keeping with his character.

 

Further, they know that improvising uses of powers in a scenario is the go-to signal for "I might be buying this soon," they will tend to more often.

[Hugh Neilson]

In Fact, I would opine that most players would rather not deal with that minutae, in favor of getting on with the REAL adventure for the night. It comes down to paring away the important from the unimportant for the story.

 

The whole post is great, but this really stands out.

 

At which point did I say what percentage of big purchases don't get okayed versus small purchases?

My recollection is that the big concern that keeps coming up is buying 5 or 6 CSL's. +10 to a characteristic is another. I suggest part of the problem is that you have not actually said how this has manifested in the game - what purcheses have been delayed and how, and for how long - outside some vague "gadgeteers have a Skill Challenge" without much detail. Each example posited has been shot down as not being relevant. Are there a few relevant ones, or is this the suggested "solution looking for a problem"?

 

At which point did I say I couldn't decide when 6 CVs is unbalancing?

A few posts up, the issue seemed to change from "abilities I don't think should be added all at once" to "abilities I don't think should be added at all."

 

Are you saying that I didn't say that the danger room games are generally pick up games?

If you did, it breezed by me, but it's been a big thread. But then how do they fit with justifying regular XP spending?

[TheDarkness]

And where did I say that 5 CSLs at a time never get approved, or did I provide context? [hint: I did]

 

And actually, I did give concrete examples of what sort of thing might be a problem and why. Despite your 'trigger looking for a trauma' of "I had a bad judge once who controlled experience badly, and I will argue down until I'm blue in the face even though you clearly are not him."

 

You want communication? Perhaps try it in the context of, "I've had bad experiences with this sort of setup, but I'm curious and I don't want to treat some random stranger to a tirade and assume a whole lot about them based on my past experiences when they may actually be working hard to give their players a fun game." You have jumped right to the straw man and ad hom route, this does not exactly make me feel like, well, I actually need to explain to you.

 

Funny, how you always paraphrase badly instead of quoting. Maybe I'm not saying what fits your argument?

 

And yes, I did explain exactly that about the danger rooms, when you only read others' posts to find what you're going to argue with them about, you will tend to miss things. Since pick up games tend to come between sections of story, they're a good time for role playing experience expenditure. That is how.

 

Done repeating myself and having a SMALL group ignore anything I say that doesn't fit what they want me to be saying. I'll now be posting thoughts on the topic and responses to others who aren't overplaying bad game trauma. Everyone has been in bad games. That is not an excuse to use other people as proxies. Got a problem with some bad GM, call him, I'm not him.

 

I will play the style I feel best, my players seem to like that style. I will compare notes with others without someone assuming I owe them answers because bad GM did bad things to you.

[薔薇語]

So, I kind of gave up reading everything in detail around the time I made my joke post and follow up joke build but I think I will just restate what seemed to be Lucius's point from earlier: we are likely arguing over inches not miles. Most players want the freedom to express their ideas - most GMs want to bring forth a vivid and expressive world in which to operate. To achieve these two goals, some natural limitations are set so that there can be maximum enjoyment from the maximum number of participants (GM, players, observers if any). One of the obvious limitations is in character creation where the GM sets rules for number of points and such. One that isn't stated in that process but comes in more clearly when leveling or using experience is the limitation put on the GM and their ability to meddle with the development of the character. This can be a difficult road to navigate. To navigate that road we should take notice of some of the strategies put in place during character creation.

 

Is the character spending too many points? I.e., have I, the GM, given them too many and will this put them on uneven standing with the others?

 

Is there an issue with difficulty that I haven't noticed but the player is feeling they need to fix with this point buy? This comes in to clear focus when a player feels the need to spend lots of points on CVs. 

Does the purchasing of X,Y, or Z trample on the niche of another character? While the plus 5 DcV might not unbalance the game, does it mean that THE BLOB! is stepping on THE CAT's design as the nimble dodger? 

Is this appropriate for the character? This is the hard one because it deals with the balance of player control and GM input into a character. When a person brings to me a Mage character with an Ironman style suit of armor, I have to stop and ask them "does this make sense to you? Why does your Gandolf style mage have a Tony Stark-esc power armor suit?" Of course there could be a reason and the expressing of that backstory is all part of character creation process. And it is here that we are running into issues with character progression. 

Just as I would want, as GM, for there to be a reason why this player has a Pyromancer, I want there to be a reason why the pyromancer has developed new powers or abilities or skills. This could be as simple as "freak accident off camera" to "she has been brushing up on her programming skills at the local community college on the weekends" to actually roleplaying of those changes. But this is where I bring in one of the basic golden rules of HERO: Nothing should cost points if it is never used***. If a character is buying some MD and their MD isn't breaking the first three rules, then ask yourself "why would this character develop MD all of a sudden?" If the player can't generate an answer for that other than "I want it" then perhaps the player should reconsider the purchase or have it denied. If the player can give a cogent reason like "Been dealing with a mentalist villain recently and I have finally had the chance to brush up on my mind muscles" and you know they have since you have been using MindBlasts and such against them recently, then go with it. But if the player stated that with no in-game RP of such events, then I can easily see why the GM would either say no outright or, preferably, allow the player the chance to work through a situation and develop those powers. 

 

To comeback to Lucius's sentiments on the matter - being forced to roleplay each individual point expense on PS: Housewife is too much. The Indian Jones stand in character developing teleportation out of the blue with no RP is perhaps too lenient. There is a middle ground to be reach. Everyone's exact comfortable medium is perhaps a bit different but for the most part we are all likely inches away from perfect alignment, not miles. 

 

Soar. 
PS - I actually want a milkshake... I haven't had one in a long time. 

***On my second reading I noticed this didn't flow the way I wanted and I am not going to change the post drastically after submission to fix it. The thing here is that if the player is enhancing a skill, for example, then they have probably used that skill already in game - otherwise the player probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. To me that is justification enough as the skill as been put on display in game. The only concerns left are with the first three points I made. 

If the player is buying a new power, like MD or a new skill like PS: housewife, then they must be wanting these to be used in game. If those purchases won't show up in game (no Mental attacks are used in the game world or there will never been a scenario in which PS: housewife will be a legitimate roll), then be straight with the player and tell them to not buy it for that reason. If they will show up in the game but by buying MD or PS:HW they are stepping on a niche, deny it because of THAT reason. If it is not stepping on someone's niche, then it is just an issue of justification - I found a b/f, fell  in love, got engaged and married and now do lots of housework, etc. But does it make sense for such a major event to have happened off camera? If not, then maybe require some on-camera. 

[TheDarkness]

 

 

PS - I actually want a milkshake... I haven't had one in a long time.

 

Me too! There is literally no good milkshakes where I am short of a bullet train ride. It's tragic.

 

And I totally agree, the argument up to now is over inches. I've been aware of this since page 1. I'm not trying to make anyone take my route. I was more interested in seeing others' approaches to the topic than in defending mine, so I'm not going to be defending mine further.

[薔薇語]

Bullet train? Are you in Japan? 

As for a "good milkshake", I am perfectly happy with a McDonald's one. Sure, I have had better but I can easily survive with that. Actually, other than a McDonald's one, I haven't had a milkshake in many years. 

 

Soar. 

[TheDarkness]

China. But, visiting the states in a few weeks, I will definitely be finding a shake, perhaps a malt, a proper pizza, a hamburger, and mexican food.

 

Then, I will be fat.

[TheDarkness]

Oh, and I will make myself a waffle and drown it in real maple syrup.

 

Perhaps very fat.

[Lucius]

China. But, visiting the states in a few weeks, I will definitely be finding a shake, perhaps a malt, a proper pizza, a hamburger, and mexican food.

 

Then, I will be fat.

 

I'm already fat and shouldn't have a milkshake but I probably will. Maybe today. Would be nice if it gave me superpowers.

 

I'm glad you're not letting the tempest in this particular teapot drive you away from our tea party but I think everyone's getting close to saying what they feel they had to say on the topic so it may be time to, like the Mad Hatter, scoot down the table and find a clean table setting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The confused palindromedary calls that nice Scottish waterfront hotel to inquire about tea rooms, then asks if we want to cancel or confirm the reservations?

[massey]

Post in the spirit of the topic, not in response to anything:

 

A couple examples of games where character development had requirements that, when played well, provided many new realms for adventure and fun:

 

Dungeons and Dragons(back in the day): mages who got new powerful spells couldn't even use them until they had the physical components for them, which were sometimes not easy to get, and could make for whole fun adventures under the right DMs. Games that didn't use this often had balance issues at the upper levels. Same with making items.

 

Traveller: Training and building during interstellar trips was the norm. Of course, Traveller players often tended to make sure to define these things.

 

MOST games, for continuity issues, would make skills a process. Now, this does not mean all campaigns have to. Mine will tend to. Everyone in my game knows this from the outset. I find they tend to put more thought toward their purchases, but I also find that, more often than not, they change what their expenditure is going to be because what they originally were going to do didn't work like they were thinking, or fell in love with something else in the interim, not anything on my part. In such a case, I don't assume they spent three quarters of their down time on what didn't end up working, but what they chose in the end.

 

Because my players are very cognizant of their choices, always wanting to pick just the right thing for their character, and often more for their idea of their character than immediate effectiveness, I DO ruthlessly nitz power creep for power creep's sake by a player when it would immediately force the rest of the players, who know that I will design the scenarios for their characters as they make them, into a position of either matching that power creep, or being swamped in the aftermath.

 

Since I don't design scenarios in which the players are swamped and are mostly missing their opponents for stat reasons vs. just a day of bad rolls, attempts at power creep stick out to everyone like a sore thumb, as do builds that none of us, the player who came up with it included, realized would do exactly what it did. One player just changed a power that was just such a case, he likes that I encourage a blend of effective builds with ambiance builds, and as soon as he used the power and it turned out to be overkill, I could tell he thought it was lame in game terms, replacing it with something less powerful in effect, but more in keeping with his character.

 

Further, they know that improvising uses of powers in a scenario is the go-to signal for "I might be buying this soon," they will tend to more often.

 

However you guys like to play, that is fine.  Some people sit around the table and play naked.  We don't, but I'm sure somebody out there does.  Whatever makes you happy is fine.  If you and your players have found something that makes you happy, that's great.  I am not going to say that you are having fun wrong.

 

None of us (from what I can tell) play with you.  So we don't know how you GM.  As I said earlier, some of the things you said hit too close to home, recalling ghosts of Bad GMs Past.  That doesn't mean you're a bad GM.  It means that your suggestions for controlling XP expenditure are not appealing to me.  And the various explanations you have given just further my perception that this is not a game style I would enjoy.  When I was 19 and I had a lot of time to devote to gaming, I might be more interested in detailing the training and effort my guy went through to get +1 level with Batarang.  But now I'm 37, and once 11pm rolls around, I start yawning and I need to pack up my stuff and go home.  I don't have time to game more than once a week, and then we get maybe 3 or 4 hours in at the most.

 

Plumbing the depths of my character, and how he got to be that way, is not important to me.  If I'm a mega-wealthy playboy billionaire vigilante, I don't care what my company does.  You can call it Flancrest Enterprises for all I care.  I don't care who invented my gadgets, or anything like that.  I just want to throw smoke pellets and say "I am the night!" before disappearing.

 

I've found that the people who are most interested in digging into character backgrounds like this are people who have a lot of free time on their hands.  One of my old GMs was a night security guard.  Nothing ever happened at his job and so he came up with very detailed adventures to keep himself busy.  Another GM drives a forklift at a warehouse at night.  He can zone out and dream up all kinds of stories.  I don't have that kind of time.  Even just typing this post required me to take several breaks to do other stuff.  Calling people back, sending a letter, going over some medical documents, etc.

 

Having a GM tell me "you can't spend those points yet, because I'm not satisfied with how you got that ability/skill/etc" is just going to make me not play anymore.  It is enforcing a level of exacting detail that I, as a player, do not want to deal with.  It is not fun for me.  If it is fun for you and your players, that's fine.  But you must understand that that position appears to be a distinct minority on this board.

 

Edit:  Oh, and there's a REASON I don't play Traveller.

[Hugh Neilson]

A lot to agree with on this post.

 

However you guys like to play, that is fine.  Some people sit around the table and play naked.  We don't, but I'm sure somebody out there does.

This, however, I could have done without - have you looked at a typical clothed gaming group?

 

 

Whatever makes you happy is fine.  If you and your players have found something that makes you happy, that's great.  I am not going to say that you are having fun wrong.

Agreed. Even if you want to sit around the game table naked. Warn us if you post pic's though...

 

None of us (from what I can tell) play with you.  So we don't know how you GM.  As I said earlier, some of the things you said hit too close to home, recalling ghosts of Bad GMs Past.  That doesn't mean you're a bad GM.  It means that your suggestions for controlling XP expenditure are not appealing to me.  And the various explanations you have given just further my perception that this is not a game style I would enjoy.  When I was 19 and I had a lot of time to devote to gaming, I might be more interested in detailing the training and effort my guy went through to get +1 level with Batarang.  But now I'm 37, and once 11pm rolls around, I start yawning and I need to pack up my stuff and go home.  I don't have time to game more than once a week, and then we get maybe 3 or 4 hours in at the most.

I'll be 50 next week. 10 PM for me. Twice a month is more like it, and 3-4 hours would be pretty good for me too.

 

Plumbing the depths of my character, and how he got to be that way, is not important to me.

I still like some aspects, but I choose the aspects, and generally not "solo work" during precious game time.

 

I've found that the people who are most interested in digging into character backgrounds like this are people who have a lot of free time on their hands.  One of my old GMs was a night security guard.  Nothing ever happened at his job and so he came up with very detailed adventures to keep himself busy.  Another GM drives a forklift at a warehouse at night.  He can zone out and dream up all kinds of stories.  I don't have that kind of time.

I hear that!

 

Having a GM tell me "you can't spend those points yet, because I'm not satisfied with how you got that ability/skill/etc" is just going to make me not play anymore.  It is enforcing a level of exacting detail that I, as a player, do not want to deal with.  It is not fun for me.  If it is fun for you and your players, that's fine.  But you must understand that that position appears to be a distinct minority on this board.

Two items

 

One, of course "your players" will like your style. Why would they still be your players if they did not? In a group that follows this methodology, I would expect players who don't want to devote time to these issues (Massey and I) would leave. I also expect that the players most likely to stay are those how have the closest mindset to yours on character development. If not, they get frustrated about the balance between GM and player control and leave.

 

Second, I don't know that TheDarkness is in a distinct minority - typically, those who disagree with a comment are quick to post while those who agree move on, or click "like".

 

Edit:  Oh, and there's a REASON I don't play Traveller.

"Roll three characters in the hopes one survives the character creation process" was adequate reason for me back in the day.

[assault]

"Roll three characters in the hopes one survives the character creation process" was adequate reason for me back in the day.

 

I used to use Traveller's death in character generation rules as a way of weeding out characters until I rolled up someone Awesome.

 

Of course, a point based design system would have been simpler, but not necessarily quicker.

 

I didn't have any problem with the lack of an effective way to learn new skills. Character improvement was a matter of money, gear, followers and "power", more or less as it is in the Real World.

[Tasha]

Been playing Traveller for decades. They quickly added an optional rule (that became THE rule in later editions) that missing a survival roll means that the character mustered out of that service and now has a wound that was debilitating enough for them to not continue in that service. AKA the character gains a limp, or loses a limb, but remains alive to adventure on. Classic Traveller didn't have experience because it was assumed that you were already playing an experienced character. That IF you wanted to get better at something that you COULD tell the GM that you were training that stat or taking courses to learn that Skill. Eventually you would get that skill/stat increase.

Most players would just front load the character with a long career (3-5 terms 12-20 years) in a particular service. To make sure we ended up with a cool character. With Hero you both get to create the cool character and gain experience that you don't have to micromanage the GM to spend. Just come up with a decent excuse for why your character would be buying that ability/skill. Most GM's will work with you to find that explanation, and allow the training to happen "off screen" between adventures.

[Tasha]

Just a little aside. We obviously have different ideas of what a "Pick up Game" is. It seems what you mean by a Pick up game is an adventure that falls between Campaign Story Arcs, that has nothing to do with the main plotline.

 

For me and the people I have played with. A pick up game is a game that you play that is absent from any campaign using whatever players are on hand (even players outside the normal group). ie Convention games tend to be PickUp games.

[TheDarkness]

I'm already fat and shouldn't have a milkshake but I probably will. Maybe today. Would be nice if it gave me superpowers.

 

I'm glad you're not letting the tempest in this particular teapot drive you away from our tea party but I think everyone's getting close to saying what they feel they had to say on the topic so it may be time to, like the Mad Hatter, scoot down the table and find a clean table setting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The confused palindromedary calls that nice Scottish waterfront hotel to inquire about tea rooms, then asks if we want to cancel or confirm the reservations?

Glad you posted this. First, to give me a goal, I'll only have a few weeks in the states to catch up with any abdominal fortitude you may have on me(I may not come back with a six pack, I'll call it a one pack).

 

Second, because, yes, I don't actually have much more to say on the topic, and I think any reader already has plumbed the depths of the opinions of those of us who were arguing, and, unless they are someone's cat who has randomly ended up on this website(which, frankly, would be an amazingly lucky cat, considering the terrifying places someone's little Princey Wincey could have ended up), I can't imagine there being a sentient being saying "I want more of this, right now!"

 

Except the shake stuff. And real maple syrup. Those deserve their own build. But I insist on approving that build.

[TheDarkness]

Just a little aside. We obviously have different ideas of what a "Pick up Game" is. It seems what you mean by a Pick up game is an adventure that falls between Campaign Story Arcs, that has nothing to do with the main plotline.

 

For me and the people I have played with. A pick up game is a game that you play that is absent from any campaign using whatever players are on hand (even players outside the normal group). ie Convention games tend to be PickUp games.

I consider all of the above pick up games.

[Hugh Neilson]

On the "pickup game" issue, I agree with Tasha that this normally means "a bunch of random players in a one shot game that does not connect to any campaign". In some organized RPG models, I could stretch it to the games played where I bring my ongoing character and we form a group of others bringing their ongoing characters, with no continuity of GM or group from one adventure to the next.

 

I don't think the general meaning extends to the regular game session, whether between sessions in the regular campaign or a break from the regular campaign.

 

This brings me back to Massey's and my (I think others) preference to use precious game time for real adventures, and not background noise. That said, I could envision a game where the Danger Room is part of the regular, precious game, something like the very first X-Men issues.

 

However, it seems to me there is a reason this largely faded away as the X-Men got out of single digit issues - it got old, and it drained pages that could be used for the Real Story. So it became a background element, occasionally hauled out to highlight a new character/teammate, or that the team had changed a lot and needed to train to work together, or to develop personality of the subset of characters participating. That's probably why the dozens of X-titles over the decades have never included "X-Men: Danger Room Battles".

 

That might be a reason for such a session - we're missing a couple of players on Game Night, so we do this for something to do, replacing the effectively cancelled game session. But that's not a lot different from pulling a board game off the shelf. It's not a reliable mechanism for the players to "justify" spending xp, since it would be sporadic, unpredictable in its timing and would only involve some of the characters. In fact, the ones most likely to miss are the ones without a ton of time on their hands - the same ones that won't have time to send three emails a week between sessions describing their characters' down time, training goals, etc. to justify those xp spends.

 

Sorry, but I can't envision myself thinking "gee, I wish we were done this adventure with recurring NPC's, interesting new or classic villains and campaign-advancing plots so we could play out training sequences in the Danger Room". Unless, maybe, I add "so I could finally spend my three months of XP and buy that cool power I've been waiting six weeks to buy", but I want that cool power because it would add to the adventures with recurring NPC's, interesting new or classic villains and campaign-advancing plots - not so I can use it in a glorified cage match scenario in the Danger Room.

[TheDarkness]

I'll be honest. The jaded, spent too much time in the past on social media part of me told me, "someone is going to continue the argument by following up on what the definition of a pick-up game is."

 

The hopeful idealist said no, you're wrong, obviously any of the four or five of us who have been arguing for five pages are, at this point, completely aware that even a half starved goat wouldn't have the slightest interest in anything more to do with us at the moment, even if we were covered in delicious clover.

 

Well, at least maple syrup is not debatable.

[Tasha]

I only brought it up because I was confused by some of your earlier posts were you talk about Pickup games.

[Amorkca]

Well, at least maple syrup is not debatable.

 

You'll have to head into Quebec for the maple Syrup experience...