Hey guys,

So I've been running my Edge of the Empire campaign for a couple months now and everyone seemed happy (they stated to me on multiple occasions that my game was the coolest rpg they ever played so I was pretty happy with myself). Then last session I ran a modified version of the adventure from the GM' screen, Debts to Pay. When the alarms for the Storm Barrier Generator went off they were all scared and ran off the planet: half the group in the crew's YT-2400, and the other half in the stolen old freighter from the other landing pad. Then, one half of the group felt bad and returned to the surface to save the miners from the droids. The other half, though, didn't care about them and just went off on their own, trying to sell on another nearby planet some cargo that they stole in the mines.

At the end of the adventure, I rewarded group A with a bit more XP for saving the miners, which was a sub part of the mission, and that's when things got ugly. One of the players in group B got angry because he thought it wasn't fair: he'd played his character how he was supposed to do, and was penalized for it, in his opinion. I argued that while it was true (and I gave everyone XP for good roleplay as I usually do), he hadn't participated in that section of the adventure and couldn't gain XP for something he didn't do. As a result, that player doesn't want to play at my table anymore as he says his character is too different from the others and it's causing conflicts.

Was I in the wrong? How should I handle the situation? Did you have to deal with sudden quitting from players, and how did you do it?

No you were right. On the other side, Your player may think that you would always reward good thing and that "Evil character" will alway being punished, wich is not good in a game of Edge where a lot of character are bad people. That why you should give groupe B player some kind of reward like more material or credits from the freighter they stole.

I understand it can be hard to design games that fit all players.
Guess could let him make another character, until his first character has the opportunity to shine.
Or could ask if he would want to GM a single small session.

I think once people GM people can realize the difficulty that goes into it

Hell no .. You did nothing wrong.

Let him walk..

Players need to know not every action theyntake in a game will grant them XP.

As a GM, my rule is, if I'm going to be giving out XP differently to different players or rewarding/punishing people in a campaign, I do it individually and privately. I also establish that as a rule when I start the campaign. I've found that, from the GM perspective, everything needs to be either 100% communal reward-wise or 100% private. Otherwise resentment builds between and among players.

In this case, I think you might have wanted to give the other group an opportunity for an equivalent amount of XP (not necessarily from the same engagement) so that the opportunity was the same.

Further, it sounds like this player and their character might be a bad match for the rest of the party as well. I'd give the player an opportunity to create a new character without penalty that would better mesh with the party.

Was I in the wrong? How should I handle the situation? Did you have to deal with sudden quitting from players, and how did you do it?

1. No.

2. Bye, thanks for playing.

3. No, no one with poopie pants allowed at the table, that's clear from the start. We all acknowledge GM is god.

Generally I would say no.

However, giving variable XP to players can be a source of discontent, and rightfully so I think, but it also depends on how much of a difference, if you're talking about 5xp no problem, if you're talking about 10xp we're starting to move towards it being all right to have a reaction at the very least - and the GM needs to have a good reason. Particularly in this game, where XP isn't really given on account of encounters, but session participation.

If you're talking 15+ xp, I'd say you'd need a **** good reason.

Of course, this also depends on how the XP-culture is in the group. In some groups doling out varied XP is common, normal, even expected, in others equality is expected.

I'd say there is no general rule, but I think it would be proper to have everyone in on it, everyone should be aware of the potential of getting less or more XP than your companions. It might've taking him by surprise.

If a player is quitting the game over one XP award from one session, in my opinion it seems like there are other issues going on besides that.

If it's a good friend, you may feel it's worth the effort to hash it out in person outside the gaming table with them. If not, it's probably best to just let them go.

I'd like to see a post from the player's viewpoint before offering advice.

There are good comments above that I agree with, but I'll approach this with a slightly different view.

Did you have a session zero where you discussed with players that you wont necessarily be awarding the same amount of XP to all players? That in order to be awarded XP the characters must be doing things. I could see someone being miffed because they assumed that everyone would get the same amount of XP for participating in the session. In my games everyone always receives the same XP rewards.

(Note: I don't think rage quitting is ever the appropriate response.)

Question: How much was the XP difference? Are we talking 5 or 50 XP? Did the players who ran off make more money then the ones who stayed? If so, the player could be reminded of this and that they got a monetary advantage while the rest got an XP advantage.

--------------------------

As presented, I think OP did ok and has a butt hurt player. However, as a Monday morning quarterback, here are some things where results could've been different.

First of all, I hate splitting the party. It complicate things for the GM because it's hard to keep different groups doing different things engaged in the game at the same time. I also feel it's rude for one group to take up all the play time while the other group just sits and watches. Of course this is usually when a sneaky character wants to run off and do something solo. In this case it seems that the group that were sitting bored were the ones who decided to not follow with the book adventure rails. Either way, there was a group who sat there bored watching their friends play a game and then were "punished" by not receiving as much XP.

Speaking of that group who ran off... Did you have anything for them to do or were they just sitting around the table bored? How much play time did they get trying to sell that cargo as opposed to the group who was following the adventure? If they weren't given an opportunity to do much then some of the hurt feelings are somewhat justified. Especially if they viewed it as, "You're not playing my game by following my rails so screw you. I'll punish you by not letting you play and reward you less." (I'm not saying that's how it happened, just trying to get into his head some to see different perspectives.)

Next question about the group who ran off... If following the rails was so important then why did you allow them to run off? It would've been just as easy to say that the storm was just so bad that ships shouldn't risk taking off. If they still try, then you can always say that the engines are clogged with debris or something and wont start up.

Also, why were they there? Were they on a Hutt's mission? What is their motivation? Perhaps having a call from the Hutt come in that he heard that something might be happening there and if anything bad happens to the facilities then he'd hold the group directly responsible. Especially if he already found out they are selling stolen cargo already. Give them a motivation to go back to the planet and follow the mission. I could see a Hutt calling up and saying something like, "Word on the street is that you're selling my merchandise, but yet you haven't reported back to me on the condition of the facility. My Majordomo and a squad of troops are headed out there. They will extract any damages to the facility, as well as a fair payment for that cargo, out of your hides." Crime lords have eyes and ears everywhere. Do something to make those players want to head back and jump back onto the adventure's rails. Don't be afraid of giving them more Obligation because an upset Hutt would come down on them. Mentioning giving more Obligation when they first tried to leave might've also helped them not leave.

If you wanted to try to smooth things over with that player you could set up the next session to start with the group who ran off and what they are going to do about the upset Hutt. That way you can create an opportunity to even out the XP after the next session.

I hope this helps.

However, giving variable XP to players can be a source of discontent, and rightfully so I think, but it also depends on how much of a difference, if you're talking about 5xp no problem, if you're talking about 10xp we're starting to move towards it being all right to have a reaction at the very least - and the GM needs to have a good reason. Particularly in this game, where XP isn't really given on account of encounters, but session participation.

Agreed. I don't give variable XP. Good/fun roleplay is rewarded with boost dice or even free upgrades within the session. While I think the player overreacted and sounds like a spoiled brat, if they were still actively playing the game I wouldn't deny them XP just because they weren't following the module's script. Presumably they were selling some goods on another planet, which involves some role-play...Negotiation or Streetwise or the like, so they should get something for that.

My first thought is that if the player made a character that he admits is just too different to work with the group, then he shouldn't be making that sort of character. Simple as that. It's like playing Saga-Edition's Dawn of Defiance and wanting to play a Sith that murders and enslaves all NPCs, or the lone-wolf chaotic evil Drow assassin in a heroic D&D game. We've all seen these types, and it just doesn't work, because the player isn't making a character for the party - he's making the character for himself.

That's the root of the problem, not just the greater rewards on one end, which could be offset by extra credits from the stolen ship. If a character is the sort that would abandon the rest of the party like that, then he shouldn't be in the party. It's essential that a party stick together, even if the reasons aren't always clear, and inter-party conflict is OK, so long as it doesn't lead to division. So if the player understands this and is willing to make a party-oriented character, then that's great - the game goes on. If not, then let him go to another table - he's not the sort of player that you want at your table.

EDIT: Ninja'd my spelling errors. Nothing to see here.

The onus isn't completely on the player to make a character that fits, though. It's gotta be a conversation that the GM and players have with each other to hash out.

Some players are happy to conform and make characters that fit any sort of concept the group needs/wants...I call these "gumby" players. It's nice to have a few of these at your table if you can manage it.

But others have very rigid concepts that they feel the need to stick to, and as long as they aren't being consistently obstinate or mean about it in-character (or worse, out-of-character), these players can be a lot of fun to have too, but they need all the info up front. They need to know what they're agreeing to, as a player, before they flesh out their character concept.

It could be that the player in questions feels that, somewhere along the line, there was a breach of (verbal, or written) contract, but gamers (in my experience) can tend towards the passive-aggressive, so perhaps he doesn't feel right calling out his GM on it directly and would rather just bow out.

This all complete conjecture, and I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but just trying to help establish that extending the benefit of the doubt can be helpful in resolving situations. This is basic conflict resolution. If there is a perceived breach, first fill the breach with trust, and then try and work it out.

The rule of thumb many of us use is from the Jay Little interview on Order 66 where he recommends 5xp per hour of time spent at the table.

So if the GM splits the party (or allows the players to be split) and then gives less XP to the side they split away then, provided the split side stayed at the table, maybe participated in some of the game by offering suggestions or what not, as opposed to going into another room and playing xbox, then I am going to dissent with the majority opinion and suggest that GM did somethinng wrong. If you start measuring XP in time spent "participating" then what of the quite, introvert that sits at the back of the party doing only a small amount of actual play? What of the extrovert that dominates the GM's time, does he get half your time and therefore half the XP?

Further you didn't give the group that broke away anything to do, they were given nothing so they had no oportunity to earn the XP while absent. Why didn't they have some encounter that meshed into what was happening on the ground? Of course this is hard for the GM, they have to juggle two groups and keep everything tight and tense. However, it will also highlight to the players why they don't split, because two groups are now both under strength.

That said, a player outburst at the table is never cool, so I think a "sit down" is in order and a chat over a coffee to find out what got him to this point. After that it is a matter of having the strength to change what you can and the wisdom to understand what you can't and allow the player to stay or leave accordingly.

I think the OP as the GM was right. The player in question opted to bail on over half the party while that other half at least tried to be somewhat heroic and at least rescue the miners, so his character shouldn't get as much of an XP reward since he made the willing choice to bail on the planned adventure. It'd be akin to a player demanding they get a full portion of the treasure haul from a completed dungeon crawl even though their character left the dungeon and abandoned the party after the first encounter out of several involved in clearing the dungeon.

And if their reaction is to throw a hissy fit and storm out... well, good riddance. There are far more mature ways to handle one's displeasure at how a GM has handled things, and that certainly wasn't one of them.

Although I don't think the OP did anything malicious, I reserve judgement upon hearing the other side of the disagreement, I do agree with those who have posted that awarding different amounts of EXP is tricky. I don't do it and I've advised others not to as well. Its very difficult to do fairly and it's the perception of unfairness, real or imagined, that I believe is the root cause of most disagreements and unhappiness at the gaming table. To clarify I mean fairness at the table not necessarily in the game and not balance, not everything has to be equal . If you want to reward behaviour, or discourage as the case may be, use Boost and Setback dice or even just say "That was Brilliant/F'd Up/Whaa!?" and move on. People like acknowledgement so use it but not everyone can shine at the same time so don't monetize rewards.

As for the statement about "it's what my Character would do" I personally don't respond well to that argument, I think it's a cop-out and more often than not a cover for being an a$$ at the table (not always, just a lot of the time). In any case remind the Player that you can play a selfish PC and still be a good guy, just point out the attack on the Deathstar in A New Hope. Han didn't want to be part of it, he had is credits and wanted nothing to do with the Rebellion but he changed his mind, not because he all of a sudden got the Rebel bug but because his new friend was fighting and needed his help.

Your Player's PC may have wanted to sell the ship and take the cash because thats his character but he's also part of a team and sometimes you help the team even if it goes against your better judgement. Besides, he could have sold the stolen ship after.

Itemized experience receipts can help here too - pointing out where it came from might help settle these disputes. That said, I would have ruled the same way OP did. I'm afraid I can't sympathize with a player's need to keep score, but certainly their tale could have been just as dangerous, fun, and interesting if everyone worked to make it that way.

Live and learn.

I do agree that the lesson here is to have the big "trailer" conversation with the players before anyone even makes their first character. Go over what kind of campaign you'll be running. You don't have to tell the players what's going to happen, but like a movie trailer you need them to know what they are supposed to expect. What the playstyle will be, where the campaign is expected, or not expected to go, how the game will run.

It's amazing how many problems you can solve by just saying: "Ok guys here's what I'm thinking; it's an Imperial themed campaign. You'll all be TIE fighter pilots, so be sure you're up on vehicular combat. Normal story-driven campaign so there'll be a plot you're expected to attempt to follow through. Force sensitive's are allowed, but be unknowing, and I'd like to keep it to only one PC unless you've got your heart totally set on it. You'll be heroes of the Empire, so lawful evil is the alignment of the day, no running off to join the rebellion, you'll be bringing peace and order at the point of a sword. What do you think?"

Makes it clear, sets some basic ground rules, and the solicits feedback to allow for adaptation BEFORE things get rolling if the players want something else.

I quit my games of d20 because I felt discouraged from making decisions.

It was either guess correctly or become unconscious and be unable to make decisions majority of the encounter.

The full focus was on the GMs adventure, it wouldn't make any difference which player or character was playing things would have happened the same. if the players have no control over events then it is hard for them to care for their character.

Of course the right thing to do is talk to the GM/PC and work something out.

In my games there was also a major difference in skills the players could have.

The GM said if you can think of a skill and explain how it works you can have as long as you are strong enough for it(we were jedi)

It was a common occurence for me to think of the majority of the workings of a skill and then have a friend add in the final detail and then the skill would be granted to them with no foreseeable future where i would gain the skill

I didnt mind too much because im not greedy and like the challenge of working with what i have, but when something like this happens every session it doesnt feel right.

I think you just have to make sure the character does feel important. Less xp might be OK if it doesn't also mean that character will have less impact on the game via their lack of ability.

This games obligation can help a lot, maybe the characterhas lless xp but it ddoesn't have that obligation from that session and perhaps the character is unknown to enemies in the session so can bypass the bouncers to the cantina.

I think iI will try have my players get used to being responsible for multiple characters so they are used to having variations in ability

I am not a big fan of giving out differing amounts of XP. I like to keep it even because IMO it's easy to fall into the trap of the person who's best at roleplaying and most frequent to talk getting more XP than everyone else, who may be contributing to the game just as much if not more but are not as outspoken.

Having seen only one side of the story I'm curious as to whether the group that left got to do anything else in the session. Any more role-play? Challenges? Or was it a straight "OK you arrive at your destination and here's how much you make," situation where those people really had no further interaction with the game? If that was the case I don't think even offering an option to leave was a good idea unless you were prepared to give somewhat equal attention to both plotlines.

I'm against heavy railroading, but if the GM is uninterested with pursuing your part of the story when you go off-rails then that itself is a problem. Do you think the whole thing would never have come up if the option to leave wasn't presented?

I generally also agree that "but I'm playing my characterrrrrrr!!!!" is often an attempt to shield oneself from criticism for one's legitimately disruptive or sh!tty behavior, but sometimes there is an element of truth to it. Edge is not a game where everyone is required to play LG Paladins or even CG Rogues, and if a GM wants to hew to certain moral expectations that should be presented clearly in a Session Zero so people don't bring in a character that they think will be fun but who obviously does not fit the game tone as the GM envisions. Players should be building their characters together and the GM should be supervising to a degree to spot problems before they come up. And characters shouldn't necessarily be punished (and I'm not saying this is the case in the situation at hand, just in general) if they don't always want to stick their necks out for complete strangers.

"Ok guys here's what I'm thinking; it's an Imperial themed campaign. You'll all be TIE fighter pilots, so be sure you're up on vehicular combat. Normal story-driven campaign so there'll be a plot you're expected to attempt to follow through. Force sensitive's are allowed, but be unknowing, and I'd like to keep it to only one PC unless you've got your heart totally set on it. You'll be heroes of the Empire, so lawful evil is the alignment of the day, no running off to join the rebellion, you'll be bringing peace and order at the point of a sword. What do you think?"

I want to know where I can sign up for this game!

If a player is quitting the game over one XP award from one session, in my opinion it seems like there are other issues going on besides that.

If it's a good friend, you may feel it's worth the effort to hash it out in person outside the gaming table with them. If not, it's probably best to just let them go.

Agree with this completely. There was more going on here.

The players and the GM have to work together on the story.

As was noted, Star Wars worked because Han came back. Would have been a great chance for a story change if Group B had been given the option to return and "save" Group A.

Thanks for all the answers,

Maybe the difference was too much (we're talking 10 xp out of 40 for the adventure), but that's how I structured the adventure beforehand and felt it was fair. I tried to give them things to do while they were on their little adventure of their own but it was hard to improvise something while not completely breaking off the rhythm of the climatic confrontation that was occurring with the other group. And I didn't want the second group to be too much in the future (the ship they stole had a hyper drive class 5), I thought (wrongly) that the pilot would not use it for long distance jumps and that they would stay together. I could have used a stronger approach, like involving the Hutt for whom they work, or making it impossible for them to leave the planet, but they all felt forced (I'm sure he would've argued that it was railroading and that it was against him).

To be clear, it was the first time I gave variable amount of xp. I don't give xp for contributions, but for participation. I didn't mind the separation of the party in 2 groups, my players do it all the time, but more the fact that one player specifically bailed on his fellow players (to sell a stolen cargo the other players didn't want him to sell). I don't mind a bit of heated debate at my table (after all, they're scums), but backstabbing, I find, goes against roleplaying games' first objective: fun. His fun was actively damaging the others', and I couldn't accept that.

Like others said before, though, I realize this was probably not the real issue. It's actually a problem I've seen on pretty much all our games. This player is a good friend, but he's horrible at roleplaying games: he always makes the same character, the roguelike chaotic neutral/evil kind of character that never cares for the others, not even the rest of the party, always bails to go steal something, etc. In our specific game of Edge, we were getting to a point where my other players were planning contingency plans to contain his character with anti-droid weaponry, "just in case". I feel like the problem was that he made, like usual, a character that was opposed to the rest of the group, and then got mad because things didn't go his way. As much as I felt bad and depressed at first, I think his rage quit was for the best: the games will run a lot smoother now, and I'll keep that in mind when I'll choose players for my next campaign. He's a good friend and I'll still play boardgames and the like with him, but I think I'm done playing rpgs with him.

Invest in Imperial Assault and play that with him. He'll love it.

Sometimes it takes a push to get players to play something different. If he wants to give it another try, explain to him that Han Solo was also a lovable rogue, but he came back and saved Luke and became a hero. If everyone wants to give it a second chance, you'll need to have an open and honest conversation with him.

After a week or two to let things simmer, you could always talk to him and the group and see if he'd be interested in coming back with a character that is a party member, not a solo act. If he gets that it's a story about the group, things could run a lot more smoothly.

A roguish character that consistently betrays his friends is stupid.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The rest of the party would be fools to take him back once he stabbed them in the back like that, which he should realize. His actions don't happen in a vacuum, so I would tell the player to have his character consider the consequences of his actions, beyond "this is what my character would do because he is X type personality, and he has this opportunity." So unless he's playing a rogue with incredibly low Cunning & Intellect, he should really realize that his actions can have detrimental consequences, and stay with his friends for the benefit of being in such a group.