WELL Said. :)
- Obe
Printable View
WELL Said. :)
- Obe
I have to say
1) I won't subsidize my players - I spend too many hours making up the adventures for them. I have good courteous players. All but one have DM'd before and they know how much work they're not doing. The remaining one is Dming now.
2) I don't mind a small hurdle to entry - I worry about what will happen to the average dedication of players if some have not had to do anything or pay anything to play. This is part of what I like about the basic fee structure. A lite license is not expensive and its a great deal.
I have heard stories of players simply disappearing or showing up so infrequently that they detract from sessions. I'm not eager for the players who wont invest even a little.
It is a good thing for the program to grow. It is not a good thing if the gaming experience is hurt by spoiled players without any courtesy. Of course I'm speaking to nobody in particular but rather to the worst common denominator.
The other issue, in my mind, is the mistaken perception that this online gaming experience will be like the Warcraft or some such. I don't want bored people that don't understand judging human DMs harshly and then poisoning their friends with comparisons to Diablo. With no commitment required they may not hang around long enough to judge FG fairly or they may have a DM they don't like and quit.
I think the license is sort of a passport into the group. It shows a little commitment. I'm content to draw my players from people who have joined this group. Fortunately, my immediate friends did join. If they hadn't I'd still be playing the community has lots of interesting people.
Sigurd
Interestingly enough, I am having trouble finding players who are willing to pay to play. See for yourself HERE. Maybe you will have better luck than I, but I think I am going to have to bite the big one, and buy yet another book for my gaming group.
I am not sure why you are posting this here? If I understand your problem correctly, no one wants to pay to play one session of one particular game system at one particular time and day. And they evidently would already need to own FGII.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
This thread is about people paying, the same amount you're asking for, so that a license could be used as much as wanted for a month in whatever rulesets the GM has at various times and days the GM is willing to play. And the players wouldn't need to already own FGII.
Sounds like comparing apples and oranges.
-Tristram
No sir, the current debate is about the Game Master floating the entire bill for the gaming group. And if we are going to draw that line, makes since to me that the gaming group split all costs. So instead of just having them pay for their license to Fantasy Grounds, lets start having them pay a percentage of the Adventure Modules, and rulesets, and token packs, and everything else we game masers had to purchase... It's only fair right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristram
Funny... that is pretty much how we always did it for the Open RPG evenings of the club. You want in you get to pay a small sum that is then used to buy stuff for the club. Like the Dice that people tend to missplace, the minis that people tend to break in two by accident when fiddling with them or the books that people borrow and never return.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
- Obe
I am glad you see the point about splitting the cost so the GM doesn't pay for everything. As you can see it does seem fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
The difference between your version and mine is I would ask that players only pay a portion for the stuff they want. If there is a specific module they'd like to play, a ruleset they want to use, or specific tokens they want use then it makes sense that they help pay. This happened often in my face-to-face games. Someone might want to play a new module, new game or use some minis they found and they would buy them for the group to use even though they weren't the GM.
Now, if the players aren't the ones asking to play a specific module, a new ruleset, or use certain tokens, they shouldn't pay for what they didn't need. If a GM decides he wants to use some of this stuff then he should pay. Or, if he doesn't have the money or want to buy something the group might not want, he could ask for a donation to use for that which the whole group will get enjoyment from.
I don't think a GM should force players to pay for something they didn't ask for and don't need to enjoy the game. After all, FGII comes with a ruleset, with free ones available from the community. FGII comes with tokens, with free ones available from the community. And a GM can find plenty of free adventures which he can use with FGII by scanning maps, copy and paste text, etc.
The only thing that players really need is a lite license and so how to work payment for that is the question. Everyone has an opinion on how to handle this and, of course, everyone thinks their opinion is the best solution. If they didn't like their own opinion they wouldn't have it in the first place. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
-Tristram
Wait? So its ok to want free stuff? As long as its free to everyone? So if Fantasy Grounds was a free application all together you would be ok with it. But floating licenses are not cool because you (the DM) has to pay for something, while the players do not? Is that right?
First position:
then a bit later:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristram
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristram
I haven't been on the boards for a while, but... what I do read in this thread makes me somewhat sad.
It seems that a debate has sprung up as to whether or not DM's should have the option of providing licenses for their players. No one is suggesting that a DM would be FORCED to purchase product for their players but some of us honestly and truly desire to at least have that as an option.
If you are of the opinion that you'd never buy a book / module / program for your players, those of us hoping for the option to do so are not asking you, who do not wish to, to give that position up.
you may disagree with, and ridicule us for wanting to provide for our groups, but, I just don't understand why you would want to prevent us from having that option? does it some how infringe upon your ability to ask your players to pay for their own light licenses or something?
I want to get several of my friends into playing who have never RP'd before, but live far away now. a VTT is a great tool I can use to accomplish that. as of now, I have purchased 8 light licenses for them to use.
I have other friends and other systems that I would like to use, however, I am not willing to afford light licenses each time I want to recruit a new player to the game. I desperately want the opportunity to offer a floating spot to my games. I am so exited that Smite is considering offering that to us.
The arguments against such an offering baffles me, as I understand it nothing would change to the status queue, but an option would be added that would accommodate some of us that really want to see it.
When I am using books, I can buy extras to be used by players that don't have books, I loan them out - then if they drop, or the players change, I can get the books back from the first person I loaned them too, and loan them to other players. I am exited to see on the horizon
I just ask for some support from what I see as a great community for those of us that want that option. please don't try to take that away from us. or if you do want to take it away, please have a better reason than you just don't want to use that option... because you don't HAVE to use the option, we just want it to be one.
anyway, my 'quotes' up there at the top were just to show that even some one that seems to be against the option, later in another post seems to amend his position on the matter admitting that it would be ok for the DM's that want to fork out the dough to pay for floating licenses for their players. If he can do it I hope that we all can.
thanks for listening to my request for community support on this matter.
zWolf -out.
Sigh:rolleyes: ...of course it is ok to want free stuff. This is the age of the entitlement generation after all. And there are some nice, free VTTs out there. I, personally, support the idea of having a minimal cost to prevent some from taking advantage of SmiteWorks since I think they've earned some payment for what they have given all of us gamers. I am sorry if my posts have not been clear in showing that what I am not "cool" with is GMs paying being the only option. It makes more sense to me to have the Players pay for the license but if the GM chooses to be the one that pays then that is ok too. I hope that clears my position up for you? If not, at this point, it is probably best to just agree to disagree. I don't think that a social occasion need become warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
-Tristram