|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the blog comment page has lost focus, I am starting this new thread with the intention of discussing a solution to the presented sanctioned modules issue of "no risk, no reward." My suggestions are very preliminary, working from a starting point of simplicity. Here goes:
It appears we have two opposing issues with sanctioned module play:
-Ability to put on a game regardless of the players' PC levels.
-Desire to make modules "count," with regard to death, consumable use, etc.
So, an ideal solution here would take the best of both worlds, i.e. maintain the modules' accessibility as well as make them "count." These two issues are not, in actuality, oppositional. We can have both.
One issue with the sanctioned modules as they are is that PCs who receive their Chronicles receive less gold and Fame as they would have from going through three PFS scenarios. Michael has indicated that the gold issue will be remedied by reissuing the Chronicles for the sanctioned modules.
Michael has also indicated that he wishes to make the rules for running sanctioned modules as simple as possible, meaning that they will differ as little as possible from regular PFS play.
I will propose a simple solution, then:
Players who do not play a pre-existing "at-level" PC through a sanctioned module receive one-half of the indicated XP, GP, and Fame, awarded to an existing PFS PC of their choice; these PCs receive rewards as if they were using the Slow advancement track. In this way, "the gold math" is already on the Chronicle.
This solution is very simple, as well as sufficient for addressing all of the presented concerns. The sanctioned modules maintain their accessibility, while incentivizing playing them with an at-level PC.
-Accessibility is maintained. Anyone can join a table of a sanctioned module.
-Risk-for-reward is encouraged, by doubling the rewards an at-level PC receives.
Let's start from here. We can solve this problem without restricting sanctioned module play any more than it needs to be.
-Matt
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not to be overly pedantic, but maybe you should edit the subject line? As I've learned, that I think it's better doesn't make it so :o)
I do like your solution... What if they're already on the slow path though? And by 'legitmate' I assume you mean "Actual Pathfinder character, not an 'upleveled' 'downleveled' or pregen. I don't think the judges want to check if the PC's parents were married. ;-)
@Bob when they taught Math at school when I was a child, we rounded .5 up
|
It can be accomplished with a pre-gen.
I understand the reasons why people despise the pregens. They are underoptimized. They aren’t YOUR character, so knowing how to efficiently utilize them to their best potential will take time to figure out. As such, people don’t trust them, especially if their use/death is tied to the future use of an actual character based on the outcome of the module.
So plan accordingly. Get your characters up to the level of the module, then play them through the module.
If that can’t be helped, then you can offer the use of a pregen. If they refuse to use a pregen, then they don’t have to play that day.
Optimally, a GM or coordinator will have a couple things prepared if they feel this would be a potential problem, and in the thoughts of not turning anyone away, you’d actually run a different module, or god’s forbid, a scenario.
|
@Bob when they taught Math at school when I was a child, we rounded .5 up
However, also consider that we are not in school here. The standard rounding method in RPG's has been rounding down for a very long time. We are just remaining consistent with that convention.
I will propose a simple solution, then:
Players who do not play a "legitimate" PC through a sanctioned module receive one-half of the indicated XP, GP, and Fame, awarded to an existing PFS PC of their choice; these PCs receive rewards as if they were using the Slow advancement track. In this way, "the gold math" is already on the Chronicle.
What do you mean by "not legitimate"? Do you mean a PC levelled up using the guidelines currently in use? Or are you opening it up to any PC imaginable at any level imaginable (which sounds like a terrible idea)?
Original post edited for clarity. Removed question about Fame.
-Matt
I'm honestly not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but I still can't tell if you want to keep the existing rules about "levelling up" a PC from level 3 to 14, say, or whether you want to keep the existing "consumables don't get consumed" rules.
What about the Fame issueThe four fame reward for modules is in line with our core expectations. Characters are assumed to earn roughly 1.5 points per scenario. The modules are estimated to be three-times as long as a scenario. Therefore,
1.5x3=4.5...round down to 4
I concur. Personally, I think modules should have faction missions, hard ones, to get access to that extra 2 PA. Though, as I stated elsewhere, Mark won't make 10 extra missions for each module. It's too much work and he has better things to do with his time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sorry, I forgot the smiley at the end of my post. *hangs head* I've not been 'in society' long enough to worry 'bout fame so a point here or there I'm not going to lose sleep on.*
*
|
|
I'm honestly not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but I still can't tell if you want to keep the existing rules about "levelling up" a PC from level 3 to 14, say, or whether you want to keep the existing "consumables don't get consumed" rules.
The rules for playing leveled-up or leveled-down versions of existing PFS PCs would stay the same. In fact, everything would stay the same, except:
-At-level PCs, they tap into their own wealth for items. (This is compensated by receiving full rewards.)
-PCs generated for the module would operate as they currently do.
The point is to maintain the current environment of accessibility, while addressing the "reward without risk" issue that led to Mr. Brock's blog post.
-Matt
|
I will propose a simple solution, then:
Players who do not play a pre-existing "at-level" PC through a sanctioned module receive one-half of the indicated XP, GP, and Fame, awarded to an existing PFS PC of their choice; these PCs receive rewards as if they were using the Slow advancement track. In this way, "the gold math" is already on the Chronicle.
.
My biggest beef with this is that it still punishes people who are not "of level" for a module who do not want to play a pregen. While I know some people do desire the slow advancement track, I do not. And I can say that I do not wish to spend 8-12 hours of gameplay to only recieve 1.5 XP (meaning I have to play another slow track scenario for the other .5), 2 Fame, and half gold. I can assure you that given the option of this or not playing a sanctioned module at my game day, I'll choose to not play and wait for an opportunity when my character is of level -or- just play a pregen and link the Chronicle.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Reposting from the other discussion:
If there are so many arguments for the abuse of Pre-Gens in modules, why not treat them like Pathfinder Tales? If you don't play through a module with your PFS character, and instead take a pre-gen, then all the module should offer is access to extra gear / maybe a boon down the line when your PFS character reaches the appropriate level. No XP, no extra gold. This way, players have some incentive to play a pre-gen, but the goal is always to get a group of PFS characters together where you'll get the biggest bang for your buck.
Actually, this isn't a bad idea either.
To be clear, I was okay with Module play before based on my limited understanding of the Sanctioning rules.
1) I was under the impression that the character played had to be a version of your PFS character (the one to receive the Chronicle, to be exact!), artificially leveled to the appropriate level for Module play. This was not the case.
2) I also thought that consumables cost and conditions (including Death) carried over to the character... eventually, giving you time previous to reaching THAT level to prepare to pay the Death Tax from having died in the Module. This was also not the case.
3) I thought the purpose of the pre-gens was for use as "filler"; a character to use because you did not have a character to play at the appropriate level or because you were donating time in an effort to help build a stronger player base. Another false assumption.
Having seen Module play at PFS events I did not coordinate or sponsor, I have seen the following, which I think is abuse of the allowed Sanctioning of Modules.
1) Players running "concept characters" through the module with no concerns because the cost of the consumables were incorporated into the build and neither that or Death had any effect on the character the Chronicle was going to be applied to... a character not even remotely an "artificially leveled up version" of said character.
2) Players using pre-gens as "meat shields" for PFS players, burning spells and consumables because they would just "respawn."
3) Players playing the Modules with a mixed table of pre-gens, "artificially leveled characters", and concept build characters, with only some of them playing for PFS Chronicle credit meaning half the table didn't care if they burned through their characters... they were never going to be penalized by that style of play since they were not going to report that Chronicle anyways.
The new proposal puts ALL of that to an end, bringing the Module rules in line with scenario play, and allowing an OPTION for PFS players looking for something with more commitment or challenge.
The idea proposed by Thursty also covers those areas of abuse as well, though. I am not against a compromise... as long as it looks at those areas where the OPTION of Module play can (and are) being abused.
Reposting from the other discussion:
stuffActually, this isn't a bad idea either.
I thought that too when I saw it. The only thing I'd add is that 1st level pre-gens still get a full chronicle for a tier 1-2 module. That's so the new players don't get shafted by this.
Another repost from the other thread that I also thought could be considered or melded with Matt's and Michael's ideas:
So, this is how I'd propose we reconcile these.
Suggestions:
- Start with the current rules for modules. Appropriately-leveled PCs, pre-gens, and artificially advanced / reduced PCs in order to meet the level requirements of the module are all legal.
- Pre-gens need to be linked to a PC at the beginning of the module, just as in Mike's proposal.
- During the adventure, each player keeps track of three things: items bought, items sold, and consumables used.
- No matter how many times the character dies in the module, the player's PC (or linked PC) gets 3 XP.
- Reductions in Fame and base gold are as current rules.
- The PC keeps all the items he (or his linked pre-gen) bought during the module.
- The cost of items bought, the profit from items sold, and the price of consumables used are factored into the gold the PC receives. So, if you buy a lot of potions, and drink them all, the module can end up costing you money.
This addresses the "free ride" nature of module play. Messing up a module can be costly, giving your PC no money and only 2 Fame for an entire level. But it still allows PCs of a variety of levels to play together.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Unfortunately, Chris loses me with...
No matter how many times the character dies in the module, the player's PC (or linked PC) gets 3 XP.
*sarcasm warning* So I can play my character/pre-gen as a meat shield, die and STILL get the 3XP? Sounds great! Sign me up for three and I'll be dead by the third encounter every time, be home early, and apply the credit! *sarcasm off*
I have ALREADY seen this style of play with the old rules; this part of the proposal doesn't fix that, unfortunately.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Arnim, that's 3 XP, and no gold, and no Fame. You know people who won't play down because they don't want a dip in their wealth; this would be an entire level with no wealth at all.
The style of play you describe, with people deliberately killing their pre-gens or what-have-you, can't be stopped by rules. No mater how you regulate PFS play, jerks will act like jerks, and there will be people who will try to ruin others' fun.
You know the answer to that as well as I do. Don't invite them back.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The rules for playing leveled-up or leveled-down versions of existing PFS PCs would stay the same. In fact, everything would stay the same, except:
-At-level PCs, they tap into their own wealth for items. (This is compensated by receiving full rewards.)
-PCs generated for the module would operate as they currently do.The point is to maintain the current environment of accessibility, while addressing the "reward without risk" issue that led to Mr. Brock's blog post.
It doesn't do anything about reward without risk other than reduce the reward a bit. You are still getting 1xp, 2PA which is like playing a scenario without the risk of failure. Plus you get an excellent chronicle with access to a lot of items/ scrolls, etc that are exceedingly valuable for casty types.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
You know the answer to that as well as I do. Don't invite them back.
Unfortunately, as a PFS coordinator who runs events at conventions and public forums, this is a option I can not use. For that mattte though, I am uncertain I would "uninvite" a player unless he grossly broke therules of PFS or the venue hosting us. I like to promote play in large, and have learned to "step out of my comfort zone" when it comes to players at these types of events.
Either way, 3 XP is a free level jump just for taking a seat at the table... this is why the "static" +3 XP for Module play part of your proposal strikes me as wrong.
The rules for playing leveled-up or leveled-down versions of existing PFS PCs would stay the same. In fact, everything would stay the same, except:
-At-level PCs, they tap into their own wealth for items. (This is compensated by receiving full rewards.)
-PCs generated for the module would operate as they currently do.
Okay, now I understand what you're suggesting. On the positive side, your suggestion is certainly no worse than the previous state of affairs.
It doesn't do anything about reward without risk other than reduce the reward a bit.
And in the case where the PC is already using the Slow progression, it doesn't reduce the reward at all.
I think Matt's proposed solution would not mollify the folks who are saying that (a) death poses no (additional) risk, and (b) spending a large number of consumables poses no (additional) risk.
NB: I don't feel strongly about the "no risk, no reward" issue either way, other than the fact that I prefer to avoid unusually risky scenarios/modules to begin with.
|
|
Unfortunately, as a PFS coordinator who runs events at conventions and public forums, this is a option I can not use.
At Conventions you would have less control to 'Uninvite" people but you still have control at your local games.
I have done this, I have one person on my Ban list due to behavior linked to alcoholism. Luckily I never had to enforce it because this person stopped coming.
|
|
You know the answer to that as well as I do. Don't invite them back.Unfortunately, as a PFS coordinator who runs events at conventions and public forums, this is a option I can not use. For that mattte though, I am uncertain I would "uninvite" a player unless he grossly broke therules of PFS or the venue hosting us.
One of the main rules of PFS is 'Dont be a jerk.' Getting your pregen killed off to gain the 3xp really quick and then leaving the party to deal with the rest of the module without you = being a jerk, in my book.
If they decided to do that, Id have no qualms whatsoever about asking them not to bother coming back if that is how they are going to play.
A possible solution to that situation: Tell the player that chronicls are handed out at the end of the module, not before then. If he wants his +3xp, 0PA, 0gp chronicle, he has to hang around til the end of the module to get it. If he leaves and comes bak later to get it, dont give it to him.
Anyway, at first glance, I liked the 3xp, 0gp, 0pa idea, but I think it favors some classes more than others. A Wizard, Sorcerer, or Monk wouldnt suffer near as badly by not receiving any gp as a Paladin. So, I agree with Mike, its probably a bad idea, as it wouldnt hurt all classes effectively the same.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
One of the main rules of PFS is 'Don't be a jerk.' Getting your pregen killed off to gain the 3xp really quick and then leaving the party to deal with the rest of the module without you = being a jerk, in my book.
If they decided to do that, 'have no qualms whatsoever about asking them not to bother coming back if that is how they are going to play.
A possible solution to that situation: Tell the player that chronicles are handed out at the end of the module, not before then. If he wants his +3xp, 0PA, 0gp chronicle, he has to hang around til the end of the module to get it. If he leaves and comes back later to get it, don't give it to him.
Agreed, leaving a scenario and not coming back at ANYTIME is pushing the DbaJ Rule. But under the original rules, a pre-gen would acts as a "meat shield" would just "re-spawn" with the only negatives being XP and Fame loss... but with full equipment and gold. Most players are not going to complain THAT player is being a Jerk to them, possibly even defending THAT players right to do that with RAW now.
|
|
Say I don't have a character that can play Tier 7-11 PFS scenarios; I can wait until I do, or play a pre-gen and get nothing for it but the fun of playing. Why should modules be handled differently? More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?
PFS is about playing *your character*. Not someone else's, not a fantasy version of what you might want to be later. Scenarios adhere to this already - you can't play out of tier, or replay for credit, so sometimes there's nothing you can play on a given night unless you replay with a pre-gen for no credit. Unfortunate, but something that can be minimized by the coordinator with some effort.
|
|
Matt I think this penalizes people that don't have PCs that over a lot of levels. One of the points that the campaign adminstrators always want is more people playing PFS. I think if you have a player with only a 2nd level PC to some extent you want them to have roughly the same amount of play opportunities as someone with six PFS characters.
Mike
|
|
Say I don't have a character that can play Tier 7-11 PFS scenarios; I can wait until I do, or play a pre-gen and get nothing for it but the fun of playing. Why should modules be handled differently? More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?
Mr. Young, I've been asking myself the same dang question.
I'd have more respect for the argument that these changes hurt small groups if they at least argued for making them consistent across PFS scenarios as well.
If they changes they proposed made sense across both PFS scenarios and Sanctioned Modules, I think they'd have more weight.
-Pain
More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?
I agree with your logic, but I know what will trip it up. GM chronicles do the same thing, and we don't want those to go away.
|
|
Mr. Young, I've been asking myself the same dang question.I'd have more respect for the argument that these changes hurt small groups if they at least argued for making them consistent across PFS scenarios as well.
If they changes they proposed made sense across both PFS scenarios and Sanctioned Modules, I think they'd have more weight.
-Pain
Modules are not Scenarios.. They are not Built like them, they do not take into account the restrictions of PFS characters or the lack of leveling in some modules.
Modules because they are so long are much harder to schedule for so for Small groups where there is a large disparity of levels it makes it harder to find the right amount of players with the right levels able to take the time it takes to play a Module..
That is why this hurts small groups.
This can/will be a death sentence to Module play for small groups like mine.
|
|
Modules are not Scenarios.. They are not Built like them, they do not take into account the restrictions of PFS characters or the lack of leveling in some modules.
Modules because they are so long are much harder to schedule for so for Small groups where there is a large disparity of levels it makes it harder to find the right amount of players with the right levels able to take the time it takes to play a Module.
That is why this hurts small groups.
DMoon:
1) What 'restrictions' do you mean? PFS characters have open access to nearly everything the Paizo puts out. However, if you mean to say that Sanctioned Modules are more difficult, please see this post.
2) So you guys can schedule and play PFS scenarios without much issue? So you could work together as a group to level up appropriately to play the SMs? But it just takes more work?
Still not seeing why you're not arguing for changes across both scenarios and modules, DMoon...the core argument seems to be that "Sanctioned Modules are harder to schedule".
If that's the only reason, I can see and understand that issue. I don't know that it's a strong argument when you have PFS scenarios to play to get your players up to an appropriate level.
-Pain
|
|
If you don't like the changes to modules, don't play modules for PFS. If you like the versatility of character creation and playing the same level with folks, play modules like they were intended. There is no reason you have to play a module and get a chronicle. Paizo isn't tracking how often modules get played because you don't have to report anything from them. You only have to when you do it as a PFS sanctioned event.
I currently GM a Legacy of Fire campaign. I don't get GM credit, nor do the players get player credit. But it's fun and we still do it. Modules were created with the same thinking, never intended for PFS. It's a nice addition, but that's just it. The vast majority of module players won't do it as a part of a sanctioned PFS event. They are nice one shots / great additions to a home campaign wanting a sidetrack. Who cares if you don't play it with PFS? Have fun playing it how your group wants to play it.
More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?
One possible reason is that it adds incentive for PFS GMs to purchase and run those modules.
|
|
I can only of course base it on personal experience and what I read with the Modules compared to the Scenarios, but IMO they are more difficult, now this is not an argument to change the new risk involved with the new rules, but it is for Pre-Gens at least, especially at the higher level ones. In general all these issues are less a problem at the lower level ones since most players will have a PC that can play them.
Restrictions wise, there are many, you know them I am not going to go into detail. *Spells, lack of crafting, other options..etc*
Scenarios require 4-5 hours of time to schedule, Modules require the group to be able to play for 2 days, so yes it is more difficult to schedule them.
And I have already posted many times why there are problems with the disparity of levels I am not going to go into again, I will just say that getting everyone to the right level to play Modules is near impossible in groups like mine. After a year and a half of play here I am only now getting enough players to start Level 5-9 scenarios.
It is a problem, people have mentioned it, if you do not see it does not mean it does not exist.
And to those that keep saying, you don't like the new rules don't play them, all I can say to that is we very much enjoyed playing the modules the time we did and we feel like that is being taken away from us so I will fight to keep at least that part involved in the rules that would allow groups like mine to be able to play them.
My Last suggestion on how to do this was to still allow the building of PCs of level in place of the pre-gens with all other new rules unchanged.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?One possible reason is that it adds incentive for PFS GMs to purchase and run those modules.
Does it really?
I, for one, wasn't running them because of the old changes...DougDoug and others have expressed similar thoughts.In addition, how big of a factor should sales be in our discussions?
I believe sales will come from a well run campaign wherein the players are tied into their characters and the storyline. I don't know that we will ever truly know if sales will go up or down based on the proposed changes, but should we even factor that in?
I try to keep sales out of my thoughts and focus on a good campaign...the rest will take care of itself.
-Pain
|
|
If you don't like the changes to modules, don't play modules for PFS. If you like the versatility of character creation and playing the same level with folks, play modules like they were intended. There is no reason you have to play a module and get a chronicle. Paizo isn't tracking how often modules get played because you don't have to report anything from them. You only have to when you do it as a PFS sanctioned event.
I currently GM a Legacy of Fire campaign. I don't get GM credit, nor do the players get player credit. But it's fun and we still do it. Modules were created with the same thinking, never intended for PFS. It's a nice addition, but that's just it. The vast majority of module players won't do it as a part of a sanctioned PFS event. They are nice one shots / great additions to a home campaign wanting a sidetrack. Who cares if you don't play it with PFS? Have fun playing it how your group wants to play it.
In that case if you can play them anyway, you might as well remove them from play for PFS.
I am getting sick and tired of this argument.
It is not related to PFS so is not a good argument.
We are talking about Modules in PFS play, not out.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't spent much time reading the main thread over there, but I've been thinking about the objections to the current rules that have been raised, and about how my concerns with Mike's original proposal, and Mike's current proposal run.
May I propose the following:
I don't think that the original proposal, with the link between pre-gens and one of a player's PCs, is viable. Pre-gens have almost no money. If they're somehow allowed access to the linked-PC's money and prestige resources, the PC has to pay for stuff (like enough gear to get the pre-gen up to a competitive level with the rest of the party) immediately, but doesn't get the pay-out for the module until she matches the pre-gen's level. Even if the module is entirely successful, the PC will be faced with all the debt and prestige costs immediately, and none of the rewards.
Given the risk to an existing linked-PC, many players will choose to link the pre-gens to potential characters with 0 XP. These pre-gens will have no additional funds, and no Fame. Half way through the module, flush with gold from early encounters, the 7th-level pre-gen won't be able to buy a potion of cure moderate wounds or a feather token, because it won't have 5 Fame. This is a restriction on the character baed on PFS, which the Pathfinder module writers probably didn't anticipate.
And I suspect that several people will reply "Good. We don't want to encourage people playing pre-gens, anyway. If they're not viable, then all's the better." It seems that people like Arnim Thayer have had the most problems with people abusing pre-gens, so good riddance.
If that's the case, my advice would be to follow Mike's current proposal in this regard, and ban pre-gens entirely. If it's not a viable choice, then don't offer it to players. With linked-PCs, it would be sure to bring woe one way or the other, and that's no way to grow the playerbase.
Again, I haven't been following the entire thread, and maybe this has been proposed there. Why not allow levelled-up or levelled-down PCs, with normal consequences, all of which apply to the character immediately?
So, let's say we're playing Carrion Hill. Let me bring a 5th-level version of my PC. Consumables and consequences apply, immediately. Rewards are scaled per tier, also applying immediately.
I don't want to put words in Dennis' mouth, but it would be consistent with his previous posts if he objected to the lack of integrity, that somebody would just raise his sorcerer to 3rd level, then play the Harrowing with an 8th-level sorcerer, and then be 5th level, ...
But, you know, PFS embraces that sort of stuff. I can join a group, having played "City of Strangers" 1 and 2 early in my career, while somebody else at the table just recently played Part 2 and hasn't played Part 1, and somebody else at the table has played Part 1 and not Part 2.
From my perspective, playing 8th-level for a while, and then 5th level, is no wonkier than two player characters trying to reconcile why one of them has already experienced an assignment the other hasn't seen yet, or how a faction leader can be giving assignments now, having been murdered previously.
Playing leveled-up or leveled-down has a couple of delicate details regarding resources, but those aren't worth hashing out unless the larger issue is palatable.
|
|
Does it really?More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?One possible reason is that it adds incentive for PFS GMs to purchase and run those modules.
Painlord
Sorry to disagree with you - but at least for me the change for playing modules for PFS was THE incentive to buy my very first module as well as to run it.
I have here a small group - and 80% of my players don't care that much that they are part of PFS. To them it is a home game - at my home. But my home game is now more or less 100% PFS as I like the XP, I like the scenarios and the way money is handled. And it allows me to have players dip in / out as well as for myself go elsewhere to a CON and play.
I don't have the player base to have PFS and non-PFS play. So when modules became official I jumped on it and did Godsmouth as well as Ebon Destroyer.
Since then Paizo has come out with a lot of new scenarios - so I didn't use them for a while. But just today I bought pdfs of Crypt of the Everflame as well as Feast at Ravenmoor. I intend to run the Crypt for a group of 10/11 year old boys from my sons class. I hope I pushed the Beginner Box enough that they get one under the tree and are able to build up their own character from scratch. And between the years we take out 2 days and run the module.
I don't know if there are enough of me to make a difference for Paizo. But we exist.
Thod
Does it really?More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?One possible reason is that it adds incentive for PFS GMs to purchase and run those modules.
Versus not allowing modules to be used in PFS at all? I'm fairly confident that there's at least one person out there who has bought a Pathfinder module to use in PFS that he otherwise wouldn't have.
EDIT: Looks like Thod has confirmed my suspicion. :-)
|
|
Sorry to disagree with you - but at least for me the change for playing modules for PFS was THE incentive to buy my very first module as well as to run it.
::snip::
I don't know if there are enough of me to make a difference for Paizo. But we exist.
Thod
Lol, Thod. I don't actually think you're disagreeing with me, Thod..and if you are, you are totally welcome too. I'm just a yahoo with a keyboard like the rest of the disembodied avatars here. :)
For you, you'll buy less. But maybe in 6 months to a year from now as your player base expands and levels, you'll buy more. Who knows?
I'll buy and run more. In addition, I'll be willing to schedule them at conventions.
Over the course of years, what will be the increase/decrease? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine.
I guess we'll see how it works out.
-Pain
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
More importantly, why should modules allow me to level up a character that didn't even play?One possible reason is that it adds incentive for PFS GMs to purchase and run those modules.
While we're doing stuff outside of PFS and giving players credit for it maybe they should start giving Experience and PA for playing Key Largo and Yetisburg too.
While we're doing stuff outside of PFS and giving players credit for it maybe they should start giving Experience and PA for playing Key Largo and Yetisburg too.
Makes about as much sense as giving out chronicles for novels! Are you going to send Mike an email and suggest it?
I don't know if there are enough of me to make a difference for Paizo. But we exist.
Add me to the list. I bought my three modules solely for PFS GMing. I planned to buy the rest but then saw this change coming. If they aren't PFS legal, I won't be buying them, just like the APs. The only home games around here use APs so the modules are worthless outside of PFS. (Not to say they are worthless in quality; quite the contrary from what I've seen.)
|
|
Cutting the rewards in half for pregens is not simplifying the rules. It adds an additional rule only for pregens. Also, this is like kicking a player that is already down (as in having to play a pregen which carries a higher risk of death). This also doesn't solve the issue of players who want to play their PC that is not "in tier".
While I don't see it happening, the changes I think Mike might consider are:
- dropping pregens. Only in tier PCs can play sanctioned modules.
and an extremely slim chance:
- allowing PCs to "level up" but not down to play a module. They would follow the same rules for pregens as outlined by Mike's original post.
Though the first change is far more likely than the last.
We actually spent a good deal of time on the private board discussing the changes for sanctioned modules and hashed out a lot of these same ideas. The main sticking points were:
- Pregens? in or out
- Death? normal or respawn with a reward penalty
and to a lesser extent:
- Modified PCs? to allow for level disparate groups
The public discussion has helped to show what issues are important to the community, but any change will probably require a significant number of people speaking up rather than a handful of folks making repeated posts. (Which could actually weaken their position.)
|
|
Don
In regard to level up:
Maybe a compromise is level up but keep it at 2(3) level max.
My experience with Cult of the Ebon Destroyer was
1 player leveled up from 6 to 8 as he was just outside legal play. This worked fine - he more or less was the same character.
Another player leveled from 1 to 8 - an experience I don't like to be repeated.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Don,
What were the objections to leveling-up or leveling-down a PC to meet a module's target range? In particular, if the consequences carried over, what do the venture-captains feel is the problem?
Using an 8th-level version of my 2nd-level monk or 11th-level summoner seems to be a lot less trouble than using a 7th-level pre-gen. (Heck, for the summoner, I already have a version of what he was like at that stage in his career.)
Thod,
I remember your previous thread about that character. I'm not sure the level-up was the problem. (If he'd just thrown in 15 Chronicle sheets from GMing, he'd have raised that character "honestly", and it wouldn't have been any different. Or, if he'd played 15 scenarios...)
|
|
Painlord
You misunderstood. I will buy modules as long as I can use them for PFS play. I started buying some when it was made legal. I just bought some more - no matter what the changes. Off course I assume I an still play them with level legal characters and that module play isn't pulled completely. This would be the only reason to stop buying them.
But I might not buy Curse of the Riven Sky (yet) as I had planned it for my wife who likes to play her level 10 - but I'm not sure I will get enough level 10 players together, Instead Feast of Ravenmoor or a level 6 might be more likely.
|
|
Thod,I remember your previous thread about that character. I'm not sure the level-up was the problem. (If he'd just thrown in 15 Chronicle sheets from GMing, he'd have raised that character "honestly", and it wouldn't have been any different. Or, if he'd played 15 scenarios...)
Yes and no. You are right - if you use 15 GM chronicle sheets the same can happen. The issue is to level up MANY levels without real play. I try to play at least every other level with my GM leveled up characters.
And in your case I would feel a lot more comfortable if you would level up one of the three level 5 (Paladin, Inquisitor, Undead Lord - assuming your Aliases are up to date) instead of a level 2 monk.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
While we're doing stuff outside of PFS and giving players credit for it maybe they should start giving Experience and PA for playing Key Largo and Yetisburg too.Makes about as much sense as giving out chronicles for novels! Are you going to send Mike an email and suggest it?
If the modules gave relatively minor chronicles like novels this wouldn't be an issue.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thod,
I think I see what you're saying: jumping a character from 2nd level to 8th level, a player ought to know what he's doing with the new abilities. A temporary boost from 5th to 8th level is probably less of a shock.
I'd agree in principle, knowing that leveling down (from 11th to 6th or 8th) should be simple, and that players might have other experiences with other PFS PCs, PCs outside organized play, or GMing NPCs. Basically, if you're going to jump (up or down) to 8th level, it's beholden on you to know how 8th level works.
Paladin 5 - just gained 6th level (as a Hellknight 1)
Inquisitor 5 - just gained 7th level (as a Pathfinder Delver 2)
Undead Lord 5 - still 5th level and creepy