24 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

That it is not an uncommon practice does not say that it is a good one. It creates a gap between the players as they have to choose whom to give the xp to and also is a reason for frustration as people can get the wrong idea about what people think of their actions in the game, for exampel missunderstanding that people give xp to others as my character is useless/ has done nothing that worth it etc. It is also fairer to just treat all people equally and if 1 person is qualified to get the xp give them out to everyone.

Gaps are not bad things. It's basic behavior modification theory: Reward what you want to see more of. And note that competitive actually drives more than steady awards... basic psych and basic educational theory - both so well tested as to be functionally natural laws.

I can certainly say I'd never want you to play in a game I run - differential experience awards are something I've used extensively, and 90% of your complaints are things I think are strengths.

7 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Gaps are not bad things. It's basic behavior modification theory: Reward what you want to see more of. And note that competitive actually drives more than steady awards... basic psych and basic educational theory - both so well tested as to be functionally natural laws.

I can certainly say I'd never want you to play in a game I run - differential experience awards are something I've used extensively, and 90% of your complaints are things I think are strengths.

Competetive drives more than stready awards is a outdated theory. It comes froma point of view that actually does not acount for things liek quality of life, personal security, social acceptance and other aspects that all tie into the motivation ofa single individual.
Gaps facilitat unequality which is a bad thing as unequality is a reason for envy and distrust which is something you want to avoid to support and create.Exspeically at a gaming table were you sit down with your friends. It also cna damage the fun everyone has.

I also am not intrested to be part of a group run by you as a GM as most of these so called strenght are just bad or outdated models of thought. Atleast thats my opinion about them.

50 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

Thats plain out wrong. The best possible outcome for a negoiation is one that enables you not only to get what you want but also
ensures you that shoudl the need arise you can get what you want again.
Win/win situations are also not everyone gets what they want it is a compromise of 2 or more parties based on what they all can agree
to give to the others.
On this premise a win/win situation is far more preferable because it not only serves the short term goal in getting what you want
but also is serving the long term goal in ensureing that the party, you made the deal with, will engage into negoiations with you in
the future.
On contrast if you go for a win lose situation you might get what you want now but will not get anything from the party in the future.
Win/win situations therefore are the best deal and should be awared with more xp than the one that only gets you the short term goal.

You seem to have this idea that negotiation is a 1-0, 0-1, or 1-1 win lose thing.

If one side gets nothing then the deal will never get done.

The reward is for 3-2 or 4-2 wins. The idea that both sides have to win is non-existent.

There will never be a time were both sides win in a negotiation.

50 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

That it is not an uncommon practice does not say that it is a good one. It creates a gap between the players as they have to choose whom to give the xp to and also is a reason for frustration as people can get the wrong idea about what people think of their actions in the game, for exampel missunderstanding that people give xp to others as my character is useless/ has done nothing that worth it etc. It is also fairer to just treat all people equally and if 1 person is qualified to get the xp give them out to everyone

So you are saying that the player who puts his all into role-playing his character should get the same xp as the player who just sits there and rolls when told adding nothing else to the game?

Now this doesn't happen at all in my main game, but happens a lot in my larger pick-up game.

29 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Gaps are not bad things. It's basic behavior modification theory: Reward what you want to see more of. And note that competitive actually drives more than steady awards... basic psych and basic educational theory - both so well tested as to be functionally natural laws.

I can certainly say I'd never want you to play in a game I run - differential experience awards are something I've used extensively, and 90% of your complaints are things I think are strengths.

I wouldn't waste your breath.

He's the everyone needs to get a trophy type.

23 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

Competetive drives more than stready awards is a outdated theory. It comes froma point of view that actually does not acount for things liek quality of life, personal security, social acceptance and other aspects that all tie into the motivation ofa single individual.
Gaps facilitat unequality which is a bad thing as unequality is a reason for envy and distrust which is something you want to avoid to support and create.Exspeically at a gaming table were you sit down with your friends. It also cna damage the fun everyone has.

I also am not intrested to be part of a group run by you as a GM as most of these so called strenght are just bad or outdated models of thought. Atleast thats my opinion about them.

In who's view is this an outdated theory. It is still taught as an effective measure in both business and sociology.

There is a big difference between treating everyone fairly and treating everyone equal.

Everyone at the table has the chance to get the xp, so they are all being treated fairly.

And with 20 years of experience in this game and 30 years overall I can say it works fine in every game I have ever run and run in.

18 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

So you are saying that the player who puts his all into role-playing his character should get the same xp as the player who just sits there and rolls when told adding nothing else to the game?

Ultimately how xp is handed out should be determined by knowing your players. For example: I have a player who would always get Role-play xp and a player who would never get Role-play xp. This would create an enormous gap between the two as the game went on, so I don't hand out to that way.

Your way seems to work well for you and the groups you have been in. That's awesome! My players might roast me over a slow fire if I did it that way. Each table is different as is each player and GM. Use what works for you. ?

I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way here.

3 hours ago, Teveshszat said:

That said I don´t think the xp reward in this game is to high. For me it is actually pretty resonable as for example 4th edition often was to slow and never gave out enough xp to truely get into the high tiers.
In contrast to 4th ed this game is actually providing a nice xp reward model that enables you to see the end of your school and also get some nice extras in on the way there.

4E has 3 recommended tiers for XP awards, the slowest resulting in +1 IR every 8-10 sessions and the fastest in +1 IR every 3-5 sessions. And in my experience, it worked out pretty close to that in practice (certainly for the middle tier, 6-7 sessions per IR). No offense, but that seems like an entirely reasonable rate to me. This beta’s advancement looks like it’s at least as fast as the best case scenario of 4E’s fastest rate, quite possibly even faster.

1 hour ago, JorArns said:

Ultimately how xp is handed out should be determined by knowing your players. For example: I have a player who would always get Role-play xp and a player who would never get Role-play xp. This would create an enormous gap between the two as the game went on, so I don't hand out to that way.

Your way seems to work well for you and the groups you have been in. That's awesome! My players might roast me over a slow fire if I did it that way. Each table is different as is each player and GM. Use what works for you. ?

I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way here.

never said mine was the only way to do it, but was responding to the your way is wrong and you should feel bad for using it response I got.

25 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

never said mine was the only way to do it, but was responding to the your way is wrong and you should feel bad for using it response I got.

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I added that as an afterthought.

Maybe it is high on purpose for testing dont do them any good if in testing progression is slow some the high level ablities don't get tested.

8 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

I wouldn't waste your breath.

He's the everyone needs to get a trophy type.

In who's view is this an outdated theory. It is still taught as an effective measure in both business and sociology.

There is a big difference between treating everyone fairly and treating everyone equal.

Everyone at the table has the chance to get the xp, so they are all being treated fairly.

And with 20 years of experience in this game and 30 years overall I can say it works fine in every game I have ever run and run in.

Yep. There's always one who thinks that the pseudo-science is more real than validated science.

It's also still taught in Ed Psych. ****, it's foundational to most teaching methods.

And good point on Fair vs Equal.

If there's one lesson taught by the guys at Burning Wheel HQ, it's "Know your Reward Cycles"...

And the XP cycle is too much reward at present.

10 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

You seem to have this idea that negotiation is a 1-0, 0-1, or 1-1 win lose thing.

If one side gets nothing then the deal will never get done.

The reward is for 3-2 or 4-2 wins. The idea that both sides have to win is non-existent.

There will never be a time were both sides win in a negotiation.

So you are saying that the player who puts his all into role-playing his character should get the same xp as the player who just sits there and rolls when told adding nothing else to the game?

Now this doesn't happen at all in my main game, but happens a lot in my larger pick-up game.

Ah but there are negaotioations where both parties win. Infact thats the case when both parties are going to achieve some of their goals to a certain degree.
A Win win Situation is not 1-1 and only that. A win win situation is a situation in which both parties and look at the treaty and say ok thats something we both
can life with as it achieves the maximum of goals for both parties possible in this negoiation.
A quick reference for that http://www.globalnegotiator.com/international-trade/dictionary/win-win-strateg/
The Win/Win situation is favoring long term cooperation and future earinings through multiple good deals.
The Win/lose situation favors short term sucess with little to no regard to future relationships or long term
stagetgies.
The Win(Win is clearly the better way to go here because you get to get most of your goals and also
get a good relationship with the other party so you have good absis for long term projects that involve
the cooperation of this party.

Yes I say a player who puts all into his character should get as much as a player who just sits the and rolls. The reason for that is that not every game night can actually
favor every player. Not everytime you cab give every player the room to play their character to the fullest or even let the make a difference with. Because there is not
allways a house to sneak in or allways a court to persuade etc.
In addtion to that I don´t punish players for having a different playsytle/expectation for roleplaying. Some want to go all out with their character and some just prefer
to role some dice, kill some monsters and get the loot. both people played a roleplaying game and used their time for it so they both also get the same xp.
I go even a step further and say that people who can´t attend the night because of real life reasons still get the XP for their character as it would be unfair to throw
them back bc of an event they could nothing do against.

10 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

In who's view is this an outdated theory. It is still taught as an effective measure in both business and sociology.

There is a big difference between treating everyone fairly and treating everyone equal.

Everyone at the table has the chance to get the xp, so they are all being treated fairly.

And with 20 years of experience in this game and 30 years overall I can say it works fine in every game I have ever run and run in.

Supporting competitiveness is damaging for your work force.It creates unecassary soruces for stress and increases the possibility for burnout.
It also lowers the trust between employees and with that creates a very bad working envoiroment. In addtion it also lowers the motivation of the worker to
show up to work in the long run and increases sick notices. The resulkt is that your burn through your workforce much quicker and need to employ more
people to make of for the ones calling in sick or/and leaving.
What you want to have is cooperative competetiveness as when people help each other that generally also brings out very good results but avoids all the
drawback you have with non cooperative competetiveniss.

That everyone theoretically can get the xp is not a really fair treatment. Because it does not account for the real chance behind this idea. You might
say yes everyone can get it but than you have a person who is just not that good at acting so as soon as you have a good actor at the table the
person with bad acting will get less xp and never really has a chance to get the good acting xp.
See only because it works fine does not mean that it is a good way.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

Yep. There's always one who thinks that the pseudo-science is more real than validated science.

It's also still taught in Ed Psych. ****, it's foundational to most teaching methods.

That it is still being thought says nothing about how good the quality of the model is or
if it is outdated or not.
Because the drive behind effective teaching is motivation and you can motivate people more effectively
with positive influences. Thats why you want a positiveenviorment for you kids because it makes them
learn faster if they are motivated. Adverserial competition is directly working against that.
It fact there are indications that cooperation actually gives you more positive results overall.

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08230-001

One quick thing to add. While I say I think you are wrong with everything you say, I don´t say you should feel bad about doing it your way.

8 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

4E has 3 recommended tiers for XP awards, the slowest resulting in +1 IR every 8-10 sessions and the fastest in +1 IR every 3-5 sessions. And in my experience, it worked out pretty close to that in practice (certainly for the middle tier, 6-7 sessions per IR). No offense, but that seems like an entirely reasonable rate to me. This beta’s advancement looks like it’s at least as fast as the best case scenario of 4E’s fastest rate, quite possibly even faster.

No offense taken. The thjing is that L5r 4th ed had advanced schools. My expectation for a complete progression therefore is 8 school ranks. 5 normal ranks and 3 advanced school ranks. It is quiet possible that my recent expirience with the xp in games like FRO had brought me to the misscolusion that l5r 4th ed is slow in the progression because the faster version with 3 to 5 sessions per IR sounds reasonable. Still not sure if that also works fine for higher levels.
The beta advancement might look faster but for the normal gaming group that clocks in like 3 to 4 hours it is not that much faster than the highest lvl of xp rewards from 4th ed since it turns out as 6 to 8 xp.

Per a post a made over a month ago:

On 10/5/2017 at 1:12 AM, jmoschner said:

It seems like it takes around 70hrs of game play to reach rank 6 (140xp at 2xp per hour) depending on school choice and where you spend the xp. So assume 4hrs a session, 1 session a week, that’s 18 session/weeks (rounded up) to hit rank 6 if everything you spend xp on applies to raising your rank. Get the impression that unless going for a specific build it will take a lot longer to hit rank 6. Not sure if intentional but was just looking at the numbers.

Now 18 game sessions (About 5-6 months of once a week play when you factor in holidays, work, illness, and other real world distractions) to reach rank 6 may or may not be too fast for some groups. I would still like to see options for various progression speeds and even a sidebar on changing xp progression with tips to keep players from outpacing each other too much.

6 hours ago, Teveshszat said:

No offense taken. The thjing is that L5r 4th ed had advanced schools. My expectation for a complete progression therefore is 8 school ranks. 5 normal ranks and 3 advanced school ranks. It is quiet possible that my recent expirience with the xp in games like FRO had brought me to the misscolusion that l5r 4th ed is slow in the progression because the faster version with 3 to 5 sessions per IR sounds reasonable. Still not sure if that also works fine for higher levels.

The beta advancement might look faster but for the normal gaming group that clocks in like 3 to 4 hours it is not that much faster than the highest lvl of xp rewards from 4th ed since it turns out as 6 to 8 xp.

I don’t compare xp vs xp, I compare advancement. IR vs SR. It takes a character at minimum 140 XP to advance to max SR according to the beta rules. Assuming for a sec that a whopping 1/3 of XP is spent on extracurricular advancement, that becomes 210 XP. At an average of 7 XP/session, that’s 30 sessions. For my group that’d be around 10 months. So, 5E advancement from gempukku to master of a school would take us anywhere from just under 7 months up to 10, if we played 3-4 hour sessions. Typically we aim for 6 hour sessions though, which usually run at east an hour long and often two. In practice, my players would be SR 6 in five months tops, and the most efficient ones in just over three.

To each their own, but for me that’s far too fast. In 4E, for my group, it would take the slow ones about a year to get to IR 5, the fast ones might be closing in on IR 7 in that amount of time. 5E is more than twice as fast as that. I know this is easily houseruled, but I’d really prefer at least a tiered system where the current XP earnings rate is the fastest one - as is the impression players get is that “maxing out” should be possible in a matter of a few months (my summer group from my student days would probably try and get it done in less than a month, but that kind of play rate is not reoresentative for typical groups).

6 hours ago, Teveshszat said:

Ah but there are negaotioations where both parties win. Infact thats the case when both parties are going to achieve some of their goals to a certain degree.
A Win win Situation is not 1-1 and only that. A win win situation is a situation in which both parties and look at the treaty and say ok thats something we both
can life with as it achieves the maximum of goals for both parties possible in this negoiation.
A quick reference for that http://www.globalnegotiator.com/international-trade/dictionary/win-win-strateg/
The Win/Win situation is favoring long term cooperation and future earinings through multiple good deals.
The Win/lose situation favors short term sucess with little to no regard to future relationships or long term
stagetgies.
The Win(Win is clearly the better way to go here because you get to get most of your goals and also
get a good relationship with the other party so you have good absis for long term projects that involve
the cooperation of this party.

Any business major/ minor or person in the field will tell you the idea of a win/win negotiation is an illusion. Most negotiation is lose/lose.

The trick to negotiation is having a few items that you don't really need /want or are willing to give up in the first place and convince the other person that you are giving up something you really want, to get what you want.

The reason that your idea of harming future relationships or long term doesn't happen is due to the fact that a good Negotiator has created the illusion that they have given up as much as the other.

Quote

6 hours ago, Teveshszat said:

Supporting competitiveness is damaging for your work force.It creates unecassary soruces for stress and increases the possibility for burnout.
It also lowers the trust between employees and with that creates a very bad working envoiroment. In addtion it also lowers the motivation of the worker to
show up to work in the long run and increases sick notices. The resulkt is that your burn through your workforce much quicker and need to employ more
people to make of for the ones calling in sick or/and leaving.
What you want to have is cooperative competetiveness as when people help each other that generally also brings out very good results but avoids all the
drawback you have with non cooperative competetiveniss.

My business instructors would laugh their asses off at you for this one.

Supporting competitiveness is the cornerstone of the Capitalist system.

There are vocabulary list longer then this Beta on ways to support it.

This is just your opinion which has zero to no facts behind it.

And any off the people that you have mentioned in your example would be fired in most businesses, so they are not valid examples.

So I'm done arguing it with you.

6 hours ago, Teveshszat said:

Yes I say a player who puts all into his character should get as much as a player who just sits the and rolls. The reason for that is that not every game night can actually
favor every player. Not everytime you cab give every player the room to play their character to the fullest or even let the make a difference with. Because there is not
allways a house to sneak in or allways a court to persuade etc.
In addtion to that I don´t punish players for having a different playsytle/expectation for roleplaying. Some want to go all out with their character and some just prefer
to role some dice, kill some monsters and get the loot. both people played a roleplaying game and used their time for it so they both also get the same xp.
I go even a step further and say that people who can´t attend the night because of real life reasons still get the XP for their character as it would be unfair to throw
them back bc of an event they could nothing do against.

You really have an all or nothing way of arguing.

The point had nothing to do with a player not getting to act.

I was addressing the players that all they do is show up and roll dice and never role-play.

2 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

An business major/ minor or person in the field will tell you the idea of a win/win negotiation is an illusion. Most negotiation is lose/lose.

The trick to negotiation is having a few items that you don't really need /want or are willing to give up in the first place and convince the other person that you are giving up something you really want, to get what you want.

The reason that your idea of harming future relationships or long term doesn't happen is due to the fact that a good Negotiator has created the illusion that they have given up as much as the other.

No I don´t tell myself that as, as a business maijor, I know better and have been taught better than this. You want to give into the level where your advanatge is big enough to make the trade worth it while still providing
a grat enogh advnatge for the other side so that this side is willing to do busniess with you in the future. Again win/win situations are not true equality they are a comrpomise that ensures that each side gets at least something out of
the trade.

Quote

My business instructors would laugh their asses off at you for this one.

Supporting competitiveness is the cornerstone of the Capitalist system.

There are vocabulary list longer then this Beta on ways to support it.

This is just your opinion which has zero to no facts behind it.

And any off the people that you have mentioned in your example would be fired in most businesses, so they are not valid examples.

So I'm done arguing it with you.

Yes and the very foundation of a capitalistic system is a very short sighted view on the maximisation of profit. The m,ost extreme form
being "heuschrecken Kapitalismus" which is not sustainable over a long time period becasue he eats up all resoruces and than breaks down very fast.
And yes adversaial competition is a aspect of capitalism, which btw is also and outdated model. Funny hmm how the aspect of a failing system is also
a failure.
And no thats not just my opinion as there are sutied about the fact that coperative competition is a better way for learning than adversarial compettion .
One I btw linked. So it is discussed as possible theory in the field of sociology and education.
The people I mentioned in my example are the result of the system you are supporting. You basicly cpunish them for being affected by the problems
capitalism is creating. And all of that also increases your cost for human resources as recuiting new staff and incooperating them into the workforce
is pretty expansive and time consuming. In the end adverserial competition not only damages the workforce of your company it also increases the cost.

Quote

The point had nothing to do with a player not getting to act.

I was addressing the players that all they do is show up and roll dice and never role-play.

Yes right both players showed up to have fun and play the game according to what they want out of it.
Not everyone want to focus on the acting aspect of a role playing game, which you call role playing,
some also like to hang out with their friedns and roll soime dice to have fun.
The point I make is that I want to avoid to treat people different because they like different aspect so fthe game.
Thats why people get equal xp so no one is forced into doing things for more xp and the main goal can remain
having fun and hanging out with your friends instead how how to maximize my xp income so I don´t get left behind
by the other charatcers.

8 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

Yep. There's always one who thinks that the pseudo-science is more real than validated science.

It's also still taught in Ed Psych. ****, it's foundational to most teaching methods.

And good point on Fair vs Equal.

If there's one lesson taught by the guys at Burning Wheel HQ, it's "Know your Reward Cycles"...

And the XP cycle is too much reward at present.

The xp is likely high to make testing move quicker. You want the power level to ramp up quickly so the whole system is tested. Not just low level

15 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

No I don´t tell myself that as, as a business maijor, I know better and have been taught better than this. You want to give into the level where your advanatge is big enough to make the trade worth it while still providing
a grat enogh advnatge for the other side so that this side is willing to do busniess with you in the future. Again win/win situations are not true equality they are a comrpomise that ensures that each side gets at least something out of
the trade.

Then they are not win/win.

If both sides are giving up things they wanted then they did not win. in the English language this is called a draw.

And just for so you know I am currently a year away from my Bachelors of Applied Science in Engineering Technology option: Computer Technology

with a minor in Business Management.

15 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

Yes and the very foundation of a capitalistic system is a very short sighted view on the maximisation of profit. The m,ost extreme form
being "heuschrecken Kapitalismus" which is not sustainable over a long time period becasue he eats up all resoruces and than breaks down very fast.
And yes adversaial competition is a aspect of capitalism, which btw is also and outdated model. Funny hmm how the aspect of a failing system is also
a failure.
And no thats not just my opinion as there are sutied about the fact that coperative competition is a better way for learning than adversarial compettion .
One I btw linked. So it is discussed as possible theory in the field of sociology and education.
The people I mentioned in my example are the result of the system you are supporting. You basicly cpunish them for being affected by the problems
capitalism is creating. And all of that also increases your cost for human resources as recuiting new staff and incooperating them into the workforce
is pretty expansive and time consuming. In the end adverserial competition not only damages the workforce of your company it also increases the cost.

Yet the companies that practice adversarial competition are fortune 500 companies while the cooperative competition companies have fallen by the wayside over the last 40 years.

You keep saying there are studies that prove this. Where are the scholastic journal or writings about this.

And no I don't mean some website you found I mean peer review data on the subject.

If you want to prove a point at the level you have escalated this to cite your sources.

27 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

Yes right both players showed up to have fun and play the game according to what they want out of it.
Not everyone want to focus on the acting aspect of a role playing game , which you call role playing ,
some also like to hang out with their friedns and roll soime dice to have fun.
The point I make is that I want to avoid to treat people different because they like different aspect so fthe game.
Thats why people get equal xp so no one is forced into doing things for more xp and the main goal can remain
having fun and hanging out with your friends instead how how to maximize my xp income so I don´t get left behind
by the other charatcers.

I think you miss the point that these sessions are Role-playing games.

If you want to just hang-out and roll dice join a Board-game group, go watch a move, or go get some beers.

3 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Then they are not win/win.

If both sides are giving up things they wanted then they did not win. in the English language this is called a draw.

And just for so you know I am currently a year away from my Bachelors of Applied Science in Engineering Technology option: Computer Technology

with a minor in Business Management.

Yet the companies that practice adversarial competition are fortune 500 companies while the cooperative competition companies have fallen by the wayside over the last 40 years.

You keep saying there are studies that prove this. Where are the scholastic journal or writings about this.

And no I don't mean some website you found I mean peer review data on the subject.

If you want to prove a point at the level you have escalated this to cite your sources.

I think you miss the point that these sessions are Role-playing games.

If you want to just hang-out and roll dice join a Board-game group, go watch a move, or go get some beers.

Maybe not dictate to others how to have fun? Just a thought.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe not dictate to others how to have fun? Just a thought.

That was what he was doing to me.

I do agree that you should not dictate to others how to have fun.

The whole cornerstone of his argument rest on doing just that.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The xp is likely high to make testing move quicker. You want the power level to ramp up quickly so the whole system is tested. Not just low level

That seems doubtful. The beta has just the one test adventure, and it starts PCs off with enough extra XP to be School rank 2 from the get-go. Testing balance and playability across all levels is likely done (should be, really) by actual test groups. The beta is more about how it plays than about how well it plays.

30 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Then they are not win/win.

If both sides are giving up things they wanted then they did not win. in the English language this is called a draw.

And just for so you know I am currently a year away from my Bachelors of Applied Science in Engineering Technology option: Computer Technology

with a minor in Business Management.

Great than we can give us the hand as I am one year out my bachelo in internation ecnomics nad management, with a minor in european and tax law.
Also a win/win situation has nothing to do with the usual useage of the engliush word win.
As the business dictionary defines it: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/win-win.html
it is a negotion philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not100%) if the benefits or/profit.
It is not a 100% equal outcome for both parties buit in fact is the try to get maximize the positive outcome for both sides.

30 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Yet the companies that practice adversarial competition are fortune 500 companies while the cooperative competition companies have fallen by the wayside over the last 40 years.

You keep saying there are studies that prove this. Where are the scholastic journal or writings about this.

And no I don't mean some website you found I mean peer review data on the subject.

If you want to prove a point at the level you have escalated this to cite your sources.

I wonder why you don´t accept the papers of studies that are puzblished in digital form. It is not like I go and cite anything from a random website.
What I use are digitallypublished papers of people who are working in the field of sociology.
So one example would be http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08230-001 this publication in the journal or educational psychology.
There is also the magazine of higher learning http://naspa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00091383.1987.10570152?journalCode=vchn20#.WhGspjeDNEY
Than you get books like Winning Through Cooperation: Competitive Insanity--Cooperative Alternatives.
And from there we can deeper into psychology with things like The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior
So there are some but not all sources not all of them being wbsiute based ofcourse.

30 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

I think you miss the point that these sessions are Role-playing games.

If you want to just hang-out and roll dice join a Board-game group, go watch a move, or go get some beers.

Yeah and role playing games can be played in various different way. None of these ways should actually be pnished
even if it is the famous roll playing game. So each and every way you play it shoudl net out the same lvl of xp to
avoid this punishment.

19 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

That was what he was doing to me.

I do agree that you should not dictate to others how to have fun.

The whole cornerstone of his argument rest on doing just that.

Ah no I did not say you play the gam wrong. I said you xp award system is bad and that I disagree with it for the reasons I posted in the various
threads.
Bad does not mean wrong as bad is a answer for the question after the quality and not if your are right or not.

Is it a problem when two people who study management can't agree on a negotiation about... negotiation ?

1 hour ago, Teveshszat said:

Great than we can give us the hand as I am one year out my bachelo in internation ecnomics nad management, with a minor in european and tax law.
Also a win/win situation has nothing to do with the usual useage of the engliush word win.
As the business dictionary defines it: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/win-win.html
it is a negotion philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not100%) if the benefits or/profit.
It is not a 100% equal outcome for both parties buit in fact is the try to get maximize the positive outcome for both sides.

The point I was making at the start was that you assumed that my system rewarded you for coming out of a negation with all the marbles.

which is not the case. here is an example from the game.

The group is attempting to enter the shadowlands. The lord of these Crab lands has closed the border.

The Crane courtier in the group finds a corrupt (money,not taint) Crab guard.

The guard wants to **** the group for all of its Koku/valuables to allow them in.

The group has 17 Koku between them

The Crane negation with the Crab for passage at 3 Koku.

This in a sense is a win/lose as the Crane got what he wanted and the Crab only got 3 of the 17 Koku.

Will he negation again sure 3+0 is still more then he had.

Quote

Negotiation philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not 100 percent) of the benefits or profit.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/win-win.htmlNegotiation philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not 100 percent) of the benefits or profit.

Again this will always depend on the goals of the parties involved.

And your interpretation of what a Win is.

To me most all negation have a loser. This in no way means they got nothing it just means that the other side achieved more of their goals.

Quote

I wonder why you don´t accept the papers of studies that are puzblished in digital form. It is not like I go and cite anything from a random website.
What I use are digitallypublished papers of people who are working in the field of sociology.
So one example would be http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08230-001 this publication in the journal or educational psychology.
There is also the magazine of higher learning http://naspa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00091383.1987.10570152?journalCode=vchn20#.WhGspjeDNEY
Than you get books like Winning Through Cooperation: Competitive Insanity--Cooperative Alternatives.
And from there we can deeper into psychology with things like The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior
So there are some but not all sources not all of them being wbsiute based ofcourse.

Need to read the whole sentence.

I have nothing against studies that are published in digital form.

But people tend to like using Wikipedia as a legitimate source.

Unlike what you have done above.

Anyway All of these studies seem to focus on children in school.

Not sure how that translates directly into the business world?

In my opinion this is a problem. They are using a small in national terms controlled groups to justify their results.

The issues is not wither it works here, but wither it will work in the real world were the contrasts they apply to the teachers here are not observed.

I see this as a disservice to the children that will expect fair play in the business world, but instead will be trampled on the way to the top by others who do not follow this belief.

Quote

Yeah and role playing games can be played in various different way. None of these ways should actually be pnished
even if it is the famous roll playing game. So each and every way you play it shoudl net out the same lvl of xp to
avoid this punishment.

You see it as a punishment were my groups see it as a reward.

This is a differences in view that I do not think we will ever resolve.

As I said it has worked for me these last 30 year I don't see the problem, but if it doesn't work for you then fine I'm not forcing you to use it.

Quote

Ah no I did not say you play the gam wrong. I said you xp award system is bad and that I disagree with it for the reasons I posted in the various
threads.
Bad does not mean wrong as bad is a answer for the question after the quality and not if your are right or not.

Again this is an issues with your use of the English language.

You have every right to disagree with me on the subject.

But your uses of Bad in this case indicated that I'm wrong.

If you stated that I disagree with this system, and I feel it sets a bad precedents then you would stating your opinion.

To say its a bad xp system without that is to indicate my application of the xp system is wrong.

49 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

Is it a problem when two people who study management can't agree on a negotiation about... negotiation ?

This will always be the case.

That's just the way the world works.

9 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

The point I was making at the start was that you assumed that my system rewarded you for coming out of a negation with all the marbles.

which is not the case. here is an example from the game.

The group is attempting to enter the shadowlands. The lord of these Crab lands has closed the border.

The Crane courtier in the group finds a corrupt (money,not taint) Crab guard.

The guard wants to **** the group for all of its Koku/valuables to allow them in.

The group has 17 Koku between them

The Crane negation with the Crab for passage at 3 Koku.

This in a sense is a win/lose as the Crane got what he wanted and the Crab only got 3 of the 17 Koku.

Will he negation again sure 3+0 is still more then he had.

Again this will always depend on the goals of the parties involved.

And your interpretation of what a Win is.

To me most all negation have a loser. This in no way means they got nothing it just means that the other side achieved more of their goals.

So in this case when the crane does get to know the corrupt guard, the group can decide to go back to the lord where they can trade the information
about the corrupt servant against the passage into the shadowlands.
Here we havea classical win win situation as the lord got rid of a corrupt servant who endangers the reputation of his family and the group can
go through the gate and continue into the shadowlands.

13 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Need to read the whole sentence.

I have nothing against studies that are published in digital form.

But people tend to like using Wikipedia as a legitimate source, as you have above.

Anyway All of these studies seem to focus on children in school.

Not sure how that translates directly into the business world?

In my opinion this is a problem. They are using a small in national terms controlled groups to justify their results.

The issues is not wither it works here, but wither it will work in the real world were the contrasts they apply to the teachers here are not observed.

I see this as a disservice to the children that will expect fair play in the business world, but instead will be trampled on the way to the top by others who do not follow this belief.

Yes these studies sho how cooperation effects learning in school. You can translate it into the business world if you exchange the working enviorment of the school for the working place
but I can see that this might be a bit stretched. For a direct intresting read http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016726819190051X this document is probably the right start.
These strategies are applicable but need people who want to apply them and you only get these if you educate your children in thsi direction.
Also being trampled on and pushed down is not a practice that is an acceptable hbehavior towards a human being so while this defnietly is the case I suppoort any work that wants to change
this and makes the work enviorment a healthier one. So I actually see it as a service to our children to teach them fairness because thats the only way to establish it as a widespread practice
in the workplace.

25 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

You see it as a punishment were my groups see it as a reward.

This is a differences in view that I do not think we will ever resolve.

As I said it has worked for me these last 30 year I don't see the problem, but if it doesn't work for you then fine I'm not forcing you to use it.

Again this is an issues with your use of the English language.

You have every right to disagree with me on the subject.

But your uses of Bad in this case indicated that I'm wrong.

If you stated that I disagree with this system, and I feel it sets a bad precedents then you would stating your opinion.

To say its a bad xp system without that is to indicate my application of the xp system is wrong.

Ok I agree my phrasing might be a bit off there. So yes in my eyes it is a bad system for the reasons I explained here in the thread.
That means I strongly disagree with it and woudl not apply it to any of my games adn go if a gm uses it.