Cancel
Online Tabletop Roleplaying Game BETA

Latest Posts

Main Forums

Fabletop

Support

Report a Bug

Farming PXP Through Multiple Tables

frost Dec '14
Unfortunately, it looks like some players have been playing at multiple tables at the same time in order to "farm" PXP. This mostly falls under the "no cheating" rule of the community guidelines.

In a couple of weeks, I will be making it so that you can only be a player or GM at one table at a time. PXP will probably be recalculated, so in some cases, players who have been doing this a lot will lose PXP.

But the more important reason behind this change is quality of gameplay. Games run best when everyone is paying attention and fully invested in a quality session.

Until then, honor system: I ask that you stick to one table at a time (unless as a spectator.)

Remember that the spirit of Fabletop is about stories... not about stats, whether character stats or profile stats.

Thanks
woolyfsh2 Dec '14
I understand that it is about stories, not stats, but what else can I do but multi-table when multiple GMs who I like playing with are hosting at the same exact time?
frost Dec '14
You can choose one or the other, and give it 100% of your focus. =)

Just like real life gaming, you can only sit at one table at a time. Tough decisions!
endersquire Dec '14
But Frost... Why even farm for PxP? It's just bragging rights. It should be no big deal that players multitab, no one is farming in FT I can tell you that much. So why is this issue coming up now?
woolyfsh2 Dec '14
I know five people who host regularly and if this update happens, four of the five will lack players for a game they have planned.
surgedragon Dec '14
Wooly and Ender have a point. Also, people will be scrambling to host, and the less popular hosters will NEVER get any players. I think this is a bad idea. If people are really farming PxP, then just remove PxP all together.
nathandepauw Dec '14
I'm fairly new here and I know for a fact a lot of people are going to dislike the new rule, I strongly disagree against it and for the same reasons Wooly and Ender do. If it is that much of a problem maybe it would be best to ( Like surge said ) Remove PxP.
fisty Dec '14
We are story tellers and players, having badges and stuff for certain achievements is fine but pxp is unnecessary. It is though your prerogative to make this site successful and or profitable. There are only a handful of regular gm's and conflicting schedules, we all have a lot of fun here and telling us that we have to put 100% focus on one game is a little off, the good thing about online games is we can multitab.
These games can happen faster than real life games because of the somewhat automated nature allowing us to multitask games giving a good deal of attention to all, the people who multitab are usually the fastest typers and readers.

I never play more than two tables at once and even that is very rare because i choose to keep my attention to one table because my dyslexia doesn't allow me to keep up with multiple games without complication.
We are story Addicts, Some of us write our own original stories and host and people don't wan't to miss it because we love good stories.

I'm afraid lack of multitabbing while no big deal to me will frustrate the faster people and cause them to drop off or not play as much. Maybe i'm wrong? But I like the groups we have going,people come and people go but i think this is a mistake.
frost Dec '14
Thanks for the honest feedback, everyone. I am out of the country on vacation but I started the thread to let everyone know ahead of time. Since it seems to be a bigger topic than expected, I will revisit this when I get back and maybe come up with a different approach.

Thanks!
surgedragon Dec '14
Thanks for keeping community in mind. Have a good vacation!
fisty Dec '14
Thank you Frost for checking in on this topic! Have a good vacation.
woolyfsh2 Dec '14
Thank you for your post Frost, have a great vacation.
nathandepauw Dec '14
Thank you ! Great vacation Frost.
oman1666 Dec '14
Just to weigh in - I do think playing multiple tables is a problem. People claim to put 100% effort in, but from what I've observed this is not the case. In one case I had a player say nothing at all out of combat because he was on two or three different tables, and in combat his attacks would be as simple as "--Bolt at the same one--". Once I told him to pick a single table and he chose mine, his quality of roleplay vastly improved to include proper narration.

I agree that a table needs a high level of focus, and playing multiple tables detracts from this. I don't even think the problem is 'farming' pxp, I think the problem is being on multiple tables in the first place.

I do however also think that removing pxp wouldn't be too bad an idea - it's ultimately a ranking of who can play the most, not who can play the best and I don't think this should be encouraged.

At the very least GM's should have to option to change a setting on their table to automatically reject players who try and join but are on another table.

thanks for taking all this into consideration Frost, and have a good Vacation :)
mimbles Dec '14
When I first joined this site, the first thing I did was follow the top players. It was my initial thought that that top players were the more experienced ones that knew what they were doing, active, and available to provide help for those who are new.
I think the pxp system could maybe be replaced with some kind of thumbs up system, in which players can 'like' the GMs that host games they enjoy the most, and in which a GM can 'thumbs up' a player when they show good role playing skills.
Then, when new players come to the site, a list of active and good GMs would be useful, as would a 'good quality player' list in order to show which people know what they are doing to a better extent than those who still have things to learn.
Another way that this could be done is if there was anonymous rating system out of 5 or 10, and a person would have their feedback on their profile, list, etc. (kind of like on eBay I guess.)
I don't know. Just a thought- I hope this makes sense.
fisty Jan '15  /  edited Jan '15
That sounds pretty good actually mimbles. A limited rating system could be the answer and maybe the rating system could be implemented to display the ratings by active players and ratings from long inactive players be nullified.
I said before certain players are fast enough to give attention to multiple tables while some are not,The problem occurs when those players who aren't attentive or fast enough are active on multiple tables and giving no effort, essentially treating it like a video game while gm's work hard to put out a quality experience. I think in these situations its the gm's job to warn the inactive player and take action against their inactivity -party kick or table kick.
In fact the follow table system could be used that way, have it show how many people follow a gm and have that be the scoring system,make it to where if a player following you has been off for an amount of time and are inactive they automatically un-follow you to keep the scoring accurate.
palegeon Jan '15
Still, this could be a dangerous gambit as say three or four years from now, what if inactive players just came and went infrequently to bump a table. It may sound like a slight invasion of privacy, but what about a statistics timer that tracks words typed to determine if the player was active truly or not? A harsh concept for privacy and coding, but it may do the trick of activity checking. A background server based function if you will.

I mention this because I know that many players will enter a table and take a few minutes to decide whether to join or not. There are also many cases where spectating is a major part of that process. This includes times where it is inappropriate to join a game due to the game being at a high point. There are many reasons to be viewing or on multiple tables.

With these reasons for this case I argue against a simple solution of being restricted to one table. This does not mean I am against the entire idea, but a more advanced plan is needed to fit the site's needs and possible mechanical limits.
mimbles Aug '15
I think that multi-tableing is still a problem... I find I have very very slow session because my players are playing another table at the same time. Which makes Gming a game kind of boring for me...
Saying "you can't play if you're playing another table" is easy enough, but it's hard to know if they are or not.
I think it would be good to have a feature on your table where you can 'turn off' multi-tabbing of tables... Some GMs won't mind it, but for those who do, having a turn-on turn-off feature that automatically prevents a player from joining would be really good.
That way, the experience isn't ruined for the people that really put a lot of effort into their games. A lot of planning goes into my games, and it's offensive to me for a player to play it half-assed.
palegeon Aug '15  /  edited Aug '15
The following is in relation to the post above.

Having a switch to stop multi-tabbing may sound good at first, however it could carry it's drawbacks depending on how it is implemented.

Preventing players from joining other tables will effectively create a situation where a GM controls where the player goes on Fabletop as long as the player is connected. In the case where a player is exploring other tables, this prevents them from observing chat and making a decision on whether to join if they haven't already. In my opinion this kind of restriction sounds frightening and unnecessary.

Preventing players from joining a table in the first place however is a superior option in comparison. It would give the GM control of when players can join the table. With a bit of communications between GMs it would eliminate a degree of multi-tabbing. Not everyone will be that cooperative all the time however, leaving the heart of the issue unsolved.

To the point, there are more issues then just multi-tabbing when it comes to "half-assed" rping. One must also account for bad internet connections, server issues, experience, and motivation; to name a few. Though the prevention options may assist, the reasons stated in the last sentence are uncontrollable.

In the end it is the players responsibility to stay focused and make the best of the game with their own actions. If they wish to ruin it for those participating by blandly playing on another table despite the GM's requests and clear intent, so be it. Respond in kind with a kick; a table ban if necessary.
foreignworld 17 days ago
So, to build off of what palegeon and mimbles posted above.

I feel there should be a list of players who are online, somewhere on the website, or maybe on the player lists on the tables, and it should state which tables the player is connected to. For examples.
(Insert Player Name Here)-(Table One),(Table Two),(Etc).
I'm still going over it in my head, but I feel that would allow GM's to see where players are, and give them a better understanding of when people are half-assing. This allows the GM to be better informed, and make a more educated decision, while also being a sort of scare tactic against unskilled players who would farm PxP. They join multiple games, don't post quality, they get rooted out. Easy as that.
oman1666 17 days ago
The problem there is that all accounts are always online unless you choose to log off before you close the tab / window. Therefore a list of all online players would be hundreds of players long.

It's usually pretty easy to tell if a player is half-assing and to ask them to leave.

However, when you try and open the same table twice it will say 'you have joined in another window' I wonder if some sort of 'you have joined another table' error message could work by similar logic
jediofrealms 14 days ago
Oman & Others

The "Joined Other Table" Error Message wouldn't work either. Because then you couldn't spectate or lurk on a table if you wanted while you wanted to play.

Another issue with Multitabling is yeah, its easy to ask someone to leave when they're multi-tabling. But then you possibly lose a good player with whom you enjoy crafting a story over. A lot of GM(s) have free time on here, more then me for example. And run multiple times during the week, where as I set one day (Tuesdays), my day off to run at. So when players can't make my game because they want to play in GM-3 (Not an actual person on FT) who hosts his game 4-5 times a week. It gets to me a little at times. Makes me think they like GM-3's game better then mine.

So I almost wonder if Multitabling is not such a bad idea, so at least you have players playing at your table when you host. But then the same old issue applies, players can't give 100% commitment to 2 tables at once.

If all else, it's against the "Rules" of the Site that Frost came up with.
ladysarin 1 hour ago
I agree that playing multiple tables at the same time is certainly a problem. While a player may believe they can skillfully multitask playing multiple games, it is rude to the gms they are playing with, and the other players involved on each respective table.

That said, I think having a game lobby for tables would be helpful, showing the name of the game, the name of the GM, and showing the players in each of the six spots, along with a listing of spectators at that table. This would effectively show others who is playing where and when, who is observing, and simplify the confusion while allowing gms the opportunity to speak to a player privately if it is an issue. Aside from this, I do think coding restricting a player from actively playing on more than one table would resolve the issue completely.

Yes, gms have concerns that such a thing like restricting players from actually logging into more than one table at a time would cause players to pick a table, causing potential loss of players.. but if your players are committed to your game, and know when you are planning to host, they will be there. If they aren't, then let someone else in to enjoy your game. Sure, you may have to take time out to get them set up, answer questions, and work them into the game.. but that's part of being a GM.

Please log in to add a comment.