|
So I'm starting this thread instead of tying it to Dragnmoon's so I don't clutter that up (per his request...and a good request it was).
Anyway...I have an issue with the "can't simply choose to play up" rule.
So let's set the game up here: a tier 5-9 mod with a group of 5 level 6 players. APL = 6.
I know the table however, and they know each other, and I know very well that if I play 5-6 as written, instead of having them play 8-9, as they have requested, I might as well just write up the Chronicles now and we can just go watch a few Firefly episodes.
Why? Because they will breeze through the mod in 1/2 the time, take little to no damage and have little fun because there is absolutely no challenge whatsoever to them.
Or, we could run it at 8-9, make it a challenge, have more fun and still get done in the 4-5 hour time range we're supposed to.
And this game is supposed to be about fun, yes? So why not let a group choose that even if the APL isn't correct?
|
We all know the game is supposed to be about fun, and we all have this problem.
The reality is that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes info regarding how fast we're supposed to progress in relation to the monetary rewards we gain for finishing an adventure. By "playing up" we begin to damage that leveling curve, which is what Josh (and by extension at least until I hear otherwise I will believe Hyrum) wanted. That is probably the number one reason.
The best suggestion I can come up with is to find a couple more players and split yourselves into two tables. You'll find things a lot more challenging.
Conversely, as an option to bring up to the powers that be, if the entire table agrees, would it be permissible to allow play at the higher tier as long as the lower tier rewards are gained?
|
Short answer is because of balance. A 5th (or 6th) level PC shouldn't be receiving the gold that a Tier 8-9 mod provides. This makes the character unbalanced versus other PCs of equal level and makes playing with those PCs less fun for others in cons, etc. Balance reasons aside, it also makes it so that a group of the same makeup doesn't even have the choice to play up, when it would most likely kill their character if they aren't as experienced, etc.
Pathfinder Society is more than just hard combats, it's still a roleplaying game and the characters should still have fun playing a module through roleplaying opportunities, even if the encounters themselves are a breeze.
In that specific situation you could just find another player with a PC of at least 6th level. Six players means a +1 to APL, making the group APL 7 and giving them the ability to "play up" legally. Or like MisterSlanky said, find at least two more players, one of which will hopefully want to GM, and split into a table of 4 and a table of 3 with a GM-run NPC to make the second table legal. But without extra players there is no real solution unless Hyrum and company change the rules. Also, for your hypothetical situation, you could try and save a tier 1-7 scenario or two for use in this situation, then at least the players would be going through a sub-tier 6-7 instead of 5-6 and get a little bit more of a challenge.
|
|
In that specific situation you could just find another player with a PC of at least 6th level. Six players means a +1 to APL, making the group APL 7 and giving them the ability to "play up" legally.
Yeah, I figured thoughts would be centered around gold.
My one issue with that as the reasoning lies in exactly what Enevhar suggests (which I agree is probably the best way to try to "get around it")...you're not changing the fact that those characters will be ahead of the curve, and yet they are following the rules.
By the way, I'm really not trying to be a jerk in discussing this...merely trying to play devil's advocate to a thought that gets tossed around.
|
A lot of the "Break The Rules" Legally clauses are only meant to be a once in awhile thing, Replay, Playing up because of adding +1 to APL in 6-7 groups, they are not really meant to be an all a time occurrence. So though legally you can play the system to legally play up, It was not added so you could do that, It was added to accommodate those few times it is supposed to happen. Though I think Josh may have initially underestimated the average size of groups.
I had a player come visit us once who always Legally played up and due to a lot more GP he had he was able to buy more Magic Items, I had some of my players complain that he was unbalancing, and affected their enjoyment due to that. That is what Playing up does, it unbalances players making them more powerful. I would not suggest even trying to game the system, because I believe that goes against the "spirit an intention" of that rule.
Could you find another player willing to GM to split the group into 2 groups of 3s with the GM playing a Pregen? That would make it more challenging with out playing up.
|
Pathfinder Society is more than just hard combats, it's still a roleplaying game and the characters should still have fun playing a module through roleplaying opportunities, even if the encounters themselves are a breeze.
While this is absolutely true, some players have been WOW'ified and are looking for challenging combat. A single Min/Max'ed, power-gamed PC, while legal can make it un-fun for the rest. I recently experienced this at a regional con. The TWF 10th level fighter at the table was out-damaging my paladin and the barbarian by 100+% each round. Combined with his nigh un-hitable AC35, combat was not fun. We just stood back, out of his way. Also, few of the role-playing challenges tier by level. The DC to diplomacy an NPC is the same regardless of the tier. So if the DC is set makable for the low-tier, it's automatic for the higher tier. Reverse that and the low-tier doesn't have a reasonable chance of success. This is one reason why Pallid Plague is one of my favorite scenarios as the DC to save against the disease increases with the tier.
|
What about a blended aproach to a game? Let some of the indivual combats be shifted up a tier and reward approite gold and items for that combat and run the reat at the lower teir along with the approrpriate rewards. You would list high teir on the sheet so Max allowable gold would be high enough but the gold received and items available would be somewhere between the two. More work for the DM but done right with a group the DM is used to it could lead to a tense but fun game with less chance of TPK, or abnormal wealth.
|
|
I may, may start offering players a chance to play up against the next Tier even if they don't meet the minimum levels. This wouldn't change the rewards (a 1-2 table still gets the 1-2 reward, which is what this is about) but if they want to bring the extra challenge on themselves and don't mind the lack of extra reward, I don't see where that is an issue as long as that's understood in advance.
If your player group are all familiar with each other, this might work. I would not use it unless I personally knew everyone at the table. I saw new players (GenCon) get intimidated into playing up without really understanding what that means and they paid for it. I have no idea if it turned them off to PFS or not.
|
|
What about a blended aproach to a game? Let some of the indivual combats be shifted up a tier and reward approite gold and items for that combat and run the reat at the lower teir along with the approrpriate rewards. You would list high teir on the sheet so Max allowable gold would be high enough but the gold received and items available would be somewhere between the two. More work for the DM but done right with a group the DM is used to it could lead to a tense but fun game with less chance of TPK, or abnormal wealth.
For the same reason mentioned above. Gold per level is a very carefully balanced number. Any tweaking with this by GMs has a reasonable chance of leading to "breaking" the system.
For GMs that have entertained the idea of letting player "play up" without increasing the treasure, please be courteous and make sure it's a unanimous decision at the table and that nobody was bullied into the decision. It's already a bending of the rules, I'd hate to see a player more-or-less forced into doing it because of the rest of the table is filled with Type A personalities that won't take no for an answer only to TPK or die.