I agree with Siranui although not as strongly. As an old school DA fan, I like working the story of the chapter in to the game. However this would be where appropriate and at a fair level with the other players chosen chapters.

Unless they are ****** bags.

" No. I didn't inform them that the Techmarine would get a campaign subplot involving Harl Greyweaver (and possibly researching Tau technology, as the player is a Tau 40K player) either. I make up these things as inspiration hits."

So he got extra XP? Why would one player get additional XP for sub-plot while another does not? Again: I don't think that's being fair on players.

"No, it rather seems that you stress the game aspect in rpg. I'm not playing this as a competitive game where everyone has pretty much equal footing."

Actually, you were stressing the game aspect by asking the ratio of renown/XP and giving XP for sub-plot gaming. Whereas I'd just dish out sub-plots and my players would want no reward save for the story-reward, or maybe an Elite Advance if I was feeling generous.

"And I suggest you investigate your own gaming mentality and ask yourself if that is a mature attitude towards rpging."

Can we not do the 'I've been gaming longer than you, so I'm more mature' thing, please. It's silly. And not very mature, either.

"In fact you have it all backwards: what I am doing isn't favoritism to anyone or anything, what gamers like you do is selfishly fret about completely equal treatment, call that a quest for 'fairness', when they should be role-playing instead."

Balance and fairness are important. Try giving a player double XP for five sessions and see what happens. However (once again) you came looking for mechanical aspects and balance. It's me who is pointing out to you that roleplaying sub-plot is its own reward while you're intent on giving XP for it. Not the other way around.

Just because none of the possible reward-based sub-plots for other Chapters 'moves you', it doesn't mean that it won't move your players, nor that it should be discarded. In fact, saying that it doesn't 'move you' is showing a touch of bias again. I personally don't care two hoots for the Blood Angels, but I'm not going to deprive a BA player of rewards (soft or mechanical) just because it doesn't 'move me' to do so.

Dishing out additional information, background blurb and other plot to players is great: It allows them to feel like individuals. Good work. However, what's not cricket is then electing to give some of them XP for it, while not doing so for others, or not issuing a fair and balanced amount of plot for others. I know that I -as a player- would be aggravated to find out that my choice of Chapter didn't 'move' the GM enough to create a plot for me and to be down on XP for it to boot.

Siranui said:

Because another player hasn't had a sub-plot yet. And I don't think it's my job that every player has at every time the same opportunities to reach the same amount of xp. And if a player would complain about this I would think they are not bent on role-playing but stuck in competitive mode or paranoid about being put at a disadvantage.

Siranui said:

No, I wouldn't say I have been stressing it, I have simply asked for the opinion of others to make things roughly fair (roughly!) which is good enough. However to insist on more than rough, long-term fairness is stressing the game aspect. And since none of my players has been asking for a reward for any sub-plot that part of the comparison does not apply.

Siranui said:

If I had done that, you'd be right. Instead my argument has been that your attitude doesn't strike me as mature because you're nit-picking over whether another player gets a reward that another doesn't just because of background. I didn't say your attitude came across as immature because you have been playing x years. In fact for all I know you could have been playing rpgs for 35 years. It wouldn't have changed my impression though.

Siranui said:

Rough, long-term fairness is important which is why I have been starting this thread here in case you noticed. It's you who is apparently dissatisfied with that.

Siranui said:

But you see I am not obliged to give my Space Wolf player any compensation to put him on equal footing right now. And because I am not I can wait until inspiration hits and I can incorporate a sub-plot involving him. That may come soon or later, inspiration is fickle and my players are to some degree dependent on that.

Not to mention that running multiple sub-plots for multiple players concurrently is generally not a good idea (there are exceptions - in order to stage a mission especially fast and furious).

Siranui said:

Which is why I said that I don't enjoy playing with gamers like you, no offense intended. As a GM I don't want to have to pay attention to having to pay out equal rewards to every player at the same time all the time . If the players find an old artifact and I have intended that they can keep it, I'm fine if the player who finds it first keeps it. If that gives him an advantage, so be it. Sooner or later each of the players will get their due. With some sooner, with some later.

Conversely one of the sub-plots I have in store for the DA player will be positively fiendish, possibly resulting in character death (and I'm talking of the type of situation where burning karma won't help much anymore). And I don't want players to complain about being put at a disadvantage in such situations either.

In short: I find the all-players-equal-all-the-time approach predictable and boring. Been there, done that, moved on.

I enjoy players who appreciate it if their fellow players can get sth special (because they can trust that this means they will eventually get their due, if they survive that long); I don't enjoy players who go sulking because another player gets special subplots and rewards for it. If you want more special subplots, next time consider a DA.

Alex

PS The quotation system here sucks. :-)

Interestingly it seems you both say the same. In the long run you want each player involved with sub plots and rewarded for their roleplay.

I see merit in both approaches. I too as a GM want my players involved. therefore I leave much of the inspiration for side quests to them. If they feed me enough openings I place this in the total plot. and most of the time they will find out that while they thought it was a side quest it is just part of the main plot.

But I agree with Siranui. Why give a character extra xp for it? Is it really the race for xp that drives the game? You both say no to that. It should be roleplay. So if you really want that reward good roleplay. So if the Ultramarine shows the others what it means to be a marine reward him for that too. If the dark angel gets a sub plot (like saving the noble) and he manages to do it in secret it is good roleplay of a DA. I would reward that.

By the way I would not give the reward in xp for side quests. I would do it with in game rewards, like contacts or information on the main plot or the grenade or ancient artefact.

Octus said:

I use a game mechanic (subplots granting more xp (as objectives get rewarded with xp), balanced by decreased renown) to underline the nature of Dark Angels. The Storm Warden Techmarine PC will get some kind of gear after he has successfully finished his Tau technology research project.

The Ultramarine Tactical... well, I am not quite sure yet. Perhaps I'll put him in charge of some Imperial troops and have him drill and lead them. There's a handful other PCs too and they'll all get their due attention in time. No need to make anything up for any of them right now.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Actually Astartes are disallowed to lead Imperial army detachments. But why not put him on some recruitment missions to various chapters. He is an Ultramarine, so a model Astartes in all regards. Let him sift through the promising candidates to find new Deathwatch recruits, or even better: Deathwatch Training the new members undergo have to be organised and run by somebody, why not a tyrannic war veteran with flexible tactical expertise and a lot of Deathwatch experience? What better drill sergeant then "do it by the book" Ultramarine can one get ?

tkis said:

Good point. But I actually want him to work with non-Astartes on an imperial planet. This ties in with a campaign idea I have - putting the PCs in charge of holding vigil over a number of worlds and developing contacts there (some of whom will try to use them for their own ends).

Well, he won't be put formally in charge. He'll be a military liaison instead then and the Imperial Commanders will listen very closely to his recommendations. Will make for interesting rpging when they will do as he recommends all the time and then in an important moment they say 'No'.

Alex

Now we're getting somewhere!

Alex; looking back at your initial posts it did look like you were biasing towards the DA due to mention of additional XP and 'only DAs get side-quest' type comments. You can see why it was easy to construe this as very biased GMing, which I don't at all support. Now we have a fuller story, things are somewhat clearer.

It seems that we share a similar angle on sub-plots. It was just not at all clear from your communication. Accusing me of immature attitudes and of 'not wanting to game with people like you' did little to clear communications.

Still, I always feel that differences in treatment should be pointed out during character gen, for both parties sakes - especially if mechanical. However, you know your own group and how best to gauge it. I can see it being more of a problem for groups unfamiliar with the Astartes Chapters. Genning a character and then being told 'uh, yeah, I'm now giving you 'X' kind of side-quest, which you might not know much about, have bargained for, or will appreciate. Meanwhile, Joe will be getting something that you'd like more, and gets XP for it too.' would not really impress me that much if I was unfamiliar with the setting.

So that leaves me with one minor disagreement still: XP for side-plots for individuals. I'm personally never keen on the idea, as it too easily causes resentment and plots are usually reward enough with players. Basically: I don't really ever see an upside to doing it - only potential pitfalls.