Table optimization

[Jacob Saltband]

Is it alot to ask if the coordinator of the PFS seesion could try to optimize table groups? I know sometimes theres a lot going on but this could help character survival.

Am example
scenario is lv 3-7, most are 5+ lv.
Table 1 has 3 fighter types and 2 arcane caster types.
Table 2 has 1 cleric, 2 paladins, a gunslinger and other (sorry cant remember class)

Could these 2 tables have been optimized?

[Nebten]

Switch the cleric for a fighter and an arcane caster for the gunslinger, that evens things out pretty well.

Of course, it would depend on what kind of fighter types (melee or ranged) and what kind of arcane caster (bard, wizard or magus).

But its a good start.

Also, the players can muster themselves too. The coordinators word isn't rock unless there is a specific reason he mustered the table selection this way (father wants to play with son, etc).

[Eric Brittain]

Why wait for the organizer to do something? If you at the table see a balance issue bring it up and ask if things can be shifted. Sometimes they can sometimes they can't but I find it better to take action myself rather than looking for someone else to do it.

:-)

[Thod]

Jacob

As an organizer of a small con I don't optimise tables.

Why?

Well - I actually don't even know what character and what level sits at my table. You often have players showing up with multiple characters who decide at the table - after asking the other players - what to play. Often this decision is done up to 15 minutes after game start.

There are also other aspects - a lot of players come in groups. You have a couple sitting down at a table, or a group of three friends, a father with son. Separating them for scenario balance likely will not go down well.

But as Eric says - nothing should stop you from self organising. I try to be flexible, I even changed the scenario from Thornkeep Accursed Hall to Forgotten Laboratory as it turned out a group of second level had signed up with an illegal fourth level for the scenario.

I've asked to for volunteers during the introduction for volunteers to move to another table as a player was missing. I even had to ask players last minute to volunteer to GM.

So as organizer I will never say no to someone switching tables. But at least for the Con I organize with lots of walk up players - I do optimise if possible.

But first priority: everyone gets a seat to play
Second priority : balance the sub tiers
Third priority: keep friends and family together - if they want

Only after that - if I can - do I optimise and send a cleric to the right table and the fighter to the left one.

I hope it doesn't sound to negative. But unfortunately this is how it sometimes work. Any help from players is not only appreciated - it's often your best change to get fine tuning right.

[Craig Stokes]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Is it alot to ask if the coordinator of the PFS seesion could try to optimize table groups?

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but yes, I think it is a lot to ask. As a VC/Organizer/GM I am routinely doing the following when I first show up to a PFS event:

1. Making sure other GMs have sessions sheets, chronicle sheets, and anything else they need.
2. Assigning PFS numbers to new players.
3. Handing out pre-gens to new players.
4. Saying hello and chatting for a bit with every player that shows up. (I feel that this is VERY important to making everyone feel like they are part of the community!)
5. Answering rules questions from players.
6. Talking with curious folks in the game stores that seem interested in PFS. (Gotta BUILD the community!)
7. Chatting with store owners/employees about PFS events/products supplies/cons, etc.
8. Getting my stuff organized and ready to go for my table.

I don't get to relax until I finally sit down and start running my scenario. I'm not complaining...I love every minute of it. My point, though, is that I don't have time to optimize tables. Now, if the players want to do it then I'm 100% supportive of those efforts.

If you see opportunities to make the gaming experience for everyone involved better, then please work it out with the other players. I doubt many GMs wil mind one bit.

[thunderspirit]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Could these 2 tables have been optimized?

Sure they could have...but JMSO, that's up to the players, not the coordinator. Sometimes I come to a PFS table with a preconceived idea of which PC I want to play (for instance, I wanted to play The Blakros Matrimony with my PC that had done Mists of Mwangi, Voice in the Void, and Penumbral Accords), but most of the time it's "well, I have this, that, or the other I can play for this one — what's everyone playing?" in an effort to balance out the table and avoid duplicating roles.

Other tables at which I've played (and GMed), as Nebten and Thod point out, certain people wanted to play with certain others and weren't interested in switching. I was a table GM for Race for the Runecarved Key recently, and I knew my table was going to be at a disadvantage because they didn't have a true primary melee PC. But they played smart, knew their limitations, and seemed to have a good time anyway.

I don't think it's fair to put balancing the table on the coordinator; most of the time, they've got plenty of other stuff to do. Balancing a table is largely up to the players, and is a good reason for having more than one PC ready. YMMV.

[Jacob Saltband]

Nebten wrote:

Switch the cleric for a fighter and an arcane caster for the gunslinger, that evens things out pretty well.

Of course, it would depend on what kind of fighter types (melee or ranged) and what kind of arcane caster (bard, wizard or magus).

But its a good start.

Also, the players can muster themselves too. The coordinators word isn't rock unless there is a specific reason he mustered the table selection this way (father wants to play with son, etc).

Just to clear up table.

2 fighters (straight, Lore warden), ranger, 2 sorcerers.

[Jacob Saltband]

thunderspirit wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Could these 2 tables have been optimized?

Sure they could have...but JMSO, that's up to the players, not the coordinator. Sometimes I come to a PFS table with a preconceived idea of which PC I want to play (for instance, I wanted to play The Blakros Matrimony with my PC that had done Mists of Mwangi, Voice in the Void, and Penumbral Accords), but most of the time it's "well, I have this, that, or the other I can play for this one — what's everyone playing?" in an effort to balance out the table and avoid duplicating roles.

Other tables at which I've played (and GMed), as Nebten and Thod point out, certain people wanted to play with certain others and weren't interested in switching. I was a table GM for Race for the Runecarved Key recently, and I knew my table was going to be at a disadvantage because they didn't have a true primary melee PC. But they played smart, knew their limitations, and seemed to have a good time anyway.

I don't think it's fair to put balancing the table on the coordinator; most of the time, they've got plenty of other stuff to do. Balancing a table is largely up to the players, and is a good reason for having more than one PC ready. YMMV.

Your right. I should fall to the players and the GM to insure that the tables are at least as well balance as possible. If there's only a single table ot the scenario going on your more then likely stuck with what you got. If there are multiple tables of the same scenario then theres a change to optimize. I said GM should take a hand in this as well because they know more of the possible danger for an unbalanced table, especially for a season 4 scenario. Every effert should be taken to optimize a season 4 scenario because they are so much tougher over all then previous season.

I'll do and have done my part about trying for table balance, I've left friends to go to other tables for balance.

[Caderyn]

The GM knows the scenario yes, but he has no idea of the capabilities of any individual PC at his table (without a full audit of the whole character sheet).

I can see a party with 2 fighters a ranger and 2 sorcs doing fine even in season 4, you have alot of out of combat healing (ranger can use wands of CLW, sorcs can both use wands of infernal healing or easily umd CLW wands).

The amount of flexibility you can have in a single title (like fighter) is actually quite amazing, the only person who truely knows the capabilities of a PC is the player themselves, so if you feel you might have a tough time with the party make up then speak up and swap tables if you need to.

I personally would rather play with my friends and risk being tpked than playing with a whole table of people I dont know (as with the people I know at least I can tell what their PCs can and cant do and pick my PC accordingly)

[Thod]

A straight fighter, Lore Warden, Ranger, 2 Sorcerer

Fighting power - tick
Healing - Ranger CLW, 2 sorcerer - infernal healing or UMD - tick
Knowledge - Lore Warden - tick
Combat maneuvers - Lore Warden - tick
Arcane - 2 sorcerer - tick
Diplomacy - 2 sorcerer / high Cha - tick
Long Range - ranger, fighter

Not sure what this group is missing - at least on paper

The other group
Fighting power - 2 Paladins - tick
Healing - 2 Paladins, 1 cleric - tick
Knowledge - possibly weak
Combat maneuvers - possibly weak
Arcane - no - but we have a cleric spell caster
Diplomacy - cleric and paladins - tick
Long range - gunfighter - tick

So possibly weak on knowledge and Arcane. But unless I know detailed characters with specialisation I won't know detail, then these look not too unbalanced.

Well - the reason you bring this up is - this must not have worked.

Issue in my view - season 4 and no power gamer and 5 player = possible disaster

Not necessarily the perfect balance.

There are no 3 bards and 2 wizards at a table above.

[Jacob Saltband]

Yes this was a season 4 3-7 scenario. Biggest issue was in-combat healing. 3 alchemist 8-dice bombs in one round took out most of the party, this was from one hasted alchemist. Very rough, had we had a channeler we'd have been fine. Season 4 combat seem to almost require a channeler for in-combat healing to survive boss encounter.

[nosig]

Well... here's what I do to balance the table, though Thud already covered it when he said:
"You often have players showing up with multiple characters who decide at the table - after asking the other players - what to play. Often this decision is done up to 15 minutes after game start."

Hi! that's me.

When I sit down at a table, I normally have 2 or more PCs for each Tier. It's kind of like haveing more than one weapon with your fighter. "Need a ranged weapon in this encounter?" is kind of like "Need a face PC at this table?"

So, do I consider it the Organizers responibility? Heck no! and I would be a little put out if I registered to play, but at the last minute got shoved onto a table with different players (some I might not want to share a room with let alone play a game with) and then told which of my PCs I needed to play here.

We, the players, need to "optimize our groups". Kind of like, we the players need to "optimize our PCs". It's our responsibility. We have a lot more time to do this then some organizer (if each player spends 5 minutes before a game, this would be an hour total for 12 players... time management.)

[Erosthenes]

In my area players bring a selection of characters. Of course, they have one they want to play, but most are willing to play something else to fill out a table. I have 13 characters ready to play, only a few have levels, so I am ready to fill in for a group of new players. I also bring all my books and GM crap, (although it may be in the car until needed.) I am not alone in this. If get brigaded into running, and I do not have my crap, I know I can borrow whatever I might need.

It is up to the players and the organizer to try and get the tables as balanced as possible. Sometimes that is not possible. Each character is expected to bring their own supply of healing potions or whatever. New players are encouraged to choose a character class that can balance a table, but they play whatever they want. (I will never forget the 14 YO kid who had a serious need to play a Ninja, cause EVERYBODY knows Ninja's are the BEST!!!! At the end he chose to create a cleric because they could do more. LOL)

Step up and be a leader - volunteer to help folks get "optimized", but temper this with some compassion and common sense. Reread Craig Stokes post, it makes a lot of sense.

[Funky Badger]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Your right. I should fall to the players and the GM to insure that the tables are at least as well balance as possible. If there's only a single table ot the scenario going on your more then likely stuck with what you got. If there are multiple tables of the same scenario then theres a change to optimize. I said GM should take a hand in this as well because they know more of the possible danger for an unbalanced table, especially for a season 4 scenario. Every effert should be taken to optimize a season 4 scenario because they are so much tougher over all then previous season.

Nope. I disagree strongly with this. Far more fun to make whatever you have at the table work. Involves thinking a bit more as well. Which is also fun.

I'd rather everybody picked the character they wanted and everyone else just got on with it.

[Funky Badger]

I don't wanna be optimised.

[nosig]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Yes this was a season 4 3-7 scenario. Biggest issue was in-combat healing. 3 alchemist 8-dice bombs in one round took out most of the party, this was from one hasted alchemist. Very rough, had we had a channeler we'd have been fine. Season 4 combat seem to almost require a channeler for in-combat healing to survive boss encounter.

And so Jacob? My response would be, why didn't you have a channeler? "You", as in the player, not "You" as in the group. Best way to fix this in the future? See a shortage of a PC class? Start another PC.

Do this and guess what? You'll never have a problem finding a group happy to see you. Whatever role you are filling.

I was sitting down to play a Tier 7-11 game last week, and pulled out my Face PC. But the party didn't have enough damage dealers. So, yeah, I pulled a 9th level Alchemist and played that instead of the 10th level Bard. A year ago I couldn't have done that, because I didn't have PCs able to play that high. But I could at every level I could play at, play more than one (different) PC. And I still can.

(and here some people are going to take this wrong and think I am being critical of them, when I'm not at all!) I am trying not to be a "one trick pony" player. The way other people try not to have a "one trick pony PC".

I know players who play the same PC from 1st to retirement... and only then start another PC. Other players who are almost as bad (one PC at 10th another at 4th). So, when several of us are thinking about organizing a game at someone's home, we think, "We need a Cleric..." and never even think of inviting (Insert Name Here) - because all he has to run is a Barbarian (currently 8th level).

I know other players who are just the reverse - A group is planning to play EotT, and I know of one player they are inviting because she has both an 11th level Wizard, and a 10th level Cleric. They'll decide which they need later. Or a player who always gets into the low level games, he has 5 PCs level 5 and below.

So, feeling like there needs to be a XXX class at your table? Run one! You'll have fun and feel needed too!

;)

[nosig]

Funky Badger wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Your right. I should fall to the players and the GM to insure that the tables are at least as well balance as possible. If there's only a single table ot the scenario going on your more then likely stuck with what you got. If there are multiple tables of the same scenario then theres a change to optimize. I said GM should take a hand in this as well because they know more of the possible danger for an unbalanced table, especially for a season 4 scenario. Every effert should be taken to optimize a season 4 scenario because they are so much tougher over all then previous season.

Nope. I disagree strongly with this. Far more fun to make whatever you have at the table work. Involves thinking a bit more as well. Which is also fun.

I'd rather everybody picked the character they wanted and everyone else just got on with it.

But Funky - I want to run what the table needs.

.
I don't want to run the second (or third or worse yet fourth) of something... Not just because I might have to play in someones shadow, but because I might eclipse them. I might keep the other player from having his 10 minutes of fun doing his shtick. Whatever that might be.

Also, I want our group to be a team of champions. A group of individuals. When we all go the the Prom, I don't want my girl to show up in the same dress as yours. Not only is it a drag for me, but it's going to reduce your fun too.

[nosig]

Funky Badger wrote:

I don't wanna be optimised.

And if you sit at a table with me, you wont need to be. AND your PC will get his "time in the spot light".

.
Though this is not really likely to happen, as most players who express the "Russian Roulette" theme of party selection, tend to avoid tables I sit at (or vice versa).

[Gwen Smith]

I think there's a big gap between a table that's "optimized" and one that's "survivable". There are some scenarios that just need a dedicated healer, some that need a high-damage dealer, and others that flat out need a face.

I do agree that it's up to the players to organize their table, with as much input or help the GM is willing to give. If the GM thinks the table composition won't make it through the scenario, he can suggest the players rethink their choices or even consider playing a pre-gen.

[Funky Badger]

nosig wrote:

But Funky - I want to run what the table needs.
.
I don't want to run the second (or third or worse yet fourth) of something... Not just because I might have to play in someones shadow, but because I might eclipse them. I might keep the other player from having his 10 minutes of fun doing his shtick. Whatever that might be.

Also, I want our group to be a team of champions. A group of individuals. When we all go the the Prom, I don't want my girl to show up in the same dress as yours. Not only is it a drag for me, but it's going to reduce your fun too.

How do you know what the table needs?

I don't understand this bit:

"I don't want to run the second (or third or worse yet fourth) of something..."

Not sure what you mean.

[Funky Badger]

nosig wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

I don't wanna be optimised.

And if you sit at a table with me, you wont need to be. AND your PC will get his "time in the spot light".

.
Though this is not really likely to happen, as most players who express the "Russian Roulette" theme of party selection, tend to avoid tables I sit at (or vice versa).

I played at plenty of tables where people do this. I just wish they wouldn't. I find a large part of the fun of organised play is meeting new people and characters - and making it work...

Cleric of the week is just a bit, well, dull. (Or duller than it could be, anyway)

[nosig]

Funky - I'll try to explain what I mean.

I come up to a table with 4 players already at it. We have settled on a Scenario, and kind of on the sub-tier (we do things differently here in St. Louis, but never mind that - we now know what scenario we will play). So I check on what PC's we have at the table. I ask "what ya bringing to the table?" and in various ways the players respond.

1) 2H sword fighter - with face skills.
2) Archer/Rogue. Traps and scout.
3) Barbarian/armored hulk.
4) Ranger - archer style.

and then me... what do I run?
I have several PCs at this level, they are...

A) Armored Cleric (Cajun Cook!).
B) Dog-Riding Cavilier.
C) Rogue Knife fighter/thrown weapons

I don't want to run C) - that would step on #2 and maybe on #4.
I don't want to run B) - that would step on #1, and maybe #4.
So I run A). But I'll ask if anyone else has a PC they might like to run instead of thier first choice to give use some Arcane... and #3 decides to switch out to a Sorcerer he also has.

Next table I sit down and the responses to "What'cha running?" is
1) Life Oracle - vision impaired.
2) Wizard/cleric.
3) Sorcerer (player #3 from above).
4) Alchemist/Rogue.

wow... talk about a different table. So we talk and...
I don't want to run A) - that would step on #1 and maybe on #2.
I don't want to run C) - that would step on #4.
So I run B). and when I check, pointing out that I appear to be the front line guy - #3 switchs to his Barbarian and get's to swap formulas with #4 and pick some up from #2.

Understand better?

[nosig]

Funky Badger wrote:

nosig wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

I don't wanna be optimised.

And if you sit at a table with me, you wont need to be. AND your PC will get his "time in the spot light".

.
Though this is not really likely to happen, as most players who express the "Russian Roulette" theme of party selection, tend to avoid tables I sit at (or vice versa).

I played at plenty of tables where people do this. I just wish they wouldn't. I find a large part of the fun of organised play is meeting new people and characters - and making it work...

Cleric of the week is just a bit, well, dull. (Or duller than it could be, anyway)

LOL! "Cleric of the week is just a bit, well, dull."

I regularly play with the following clerics...

1) Aasimar cleric of Cayden (visibly pregnant - yeah, we call her "the Pregnant Beermaid").
2) Negitive Channeling cleric of Pharasma.
3) Heavy Armored Dwarven cleric of Cayden, who stresses that Cayden is the God of LOVE! (sub-domain) - Picture Pe'Pe La Pue as a dwarf.
4) Life Oracle of Pharasma - that HATES his goddess. Oracles are CURSED and he has two...
5) Fighter/Cleric of Nivi Rombadazzle (gnome goddess) who claimes to be a gnome - and comes disguised as a gnome. Fights in the front rank with Dwarven War-Ax ("It's an old Gnomish weapon!") and Tower shield.

"Cleric of the week is just a bit, well, dull." LMAO and fall down.

[Funky Badger]

Yeah, I somehow managed to understand the concept right from the begininning. I just don't much care for it.

For me, the bottom group, without either your cleric or rogue sounds like the most fun.

[Funky Badger]

nosig: awesome and zany I'm sure. Why are you listing all your characters?

[nosig]

Funky Badger wrote:

nosig: awesome and zany I'm sure. Why are you listing all your characters?

Only two of the characters are actually mine. (the two dwarven clerics).

You comment about: "Cleric of the week is just a bit, well, dull." caused me to want to show how clerics are some of the most unique character builds, hardly dull.

Edit: Or were you thinking I was listing my PCs above for the list of healers? Nope, those are just several Healer PCs I play with often (and two of mine). If you want a list of my PCs, PM me and I'll email it to you (always like to talk about my PCs. Kind of like seeing the pictures of someones kids though).

[nosig]

Funky Badger wrote:

Yeah, I somehow managed to understand the concept right from the begininning. I just don't much care for it.

For me, the bottom group, without either your cleric or rogue sounds like the most fun.

I have problems understanding your position.

Do you build PCs without consideration to the problems they might face?
Randomly:
1) Assign stats,
2) Select Feats,
3) buy weapons, armor, & equipment?

and then just jump into the adventure and "make it work"?

I consider trying to "Balance the party" as important as ensureing that my PCs have a missile weapon.

[Fromper]

I'm with Nosig on this one. I like being able to pull at multiple PCs and pick my favorite based on the table make up. If I sit down at the table and three of players only have barbarians, I'm not going to bother playing a melee build. There might not be enough room on the front line for all of us!

And no, that's not hypothetical - we had three barbarians at the table when I played a mostly social/stealth adventure not too long ago. My gnome bard did great at getting us through the social/skill areas of the adventure, then stood in the back with his CLW wand out while the barbarians easily slaughtered the combats. I could have played my pole arm fighter or battle oracle in that one, but I didn't want to bring another front liner to the mix.

[rangerjeff]

Don't know if this has been said yet, but as a player with a fairly limited selection of PC's, if I'm seated at a table that is clearly missing something, I volunteer to play the pre-gen that fits that niche (usually Marisiel, sometimes Kyra, once the wizard.) Because at the present I have only lvl 9 ranger, lvl 6 cleric archer, lvl 3 conjurer, and lvl 1 witch. Not a lot of options there.

[Sammy T]

Fromper wrote:

My gnome bard did great at getting us through the social/skill areas of the adventure, then stood in the back with his CLW wand out while the barbarians easily slaughtered the combats.

That animated chair never had a chance.

[Lab_Rat]

I think Nosig's point is more about everyone having fun and no ones toes being stepped on. If everyone fills their own niche, everyone will have their chance to shine and have fun. Nosig has probably the best chance of doing this because he has soooo many characters. Last I heard he had 1 or more characters at every level. Nosig - Got a 12 yet?

[Fromper]

Sammy T wrote:

Fromper wrote:

My gnome bard did great at getting us through the social/skill areas of the adventure, then stood in the back with his CLW wand out while the barbarians easily slaughtered the combats.

That animated chair never had a chance.

Yup. :)

That actually turned out to be a perfectly balanced party for that adventure. The rogue, sorcerer, and my bard did all the work in the social/skill portions of the adventure, and the three barbarians took care of the combat for us. If I remember correctly, the sorcerer was knocked unconscious in the surprise round of that fight, and all I did with my bard was walk over with my cure wand to heal him. The two of us really did sit out that fight and let the barbarians and rogue deal with it.

[nosig]

Lab_Rat wrote:

I think Nosig's point is more about everyone having fun and no ones toes being stepped on. If everyone fills their own niche, everyone will have their chance to shine and have fun. Nosig has probably the best chance of doing this because he has soooo many characters. Last I heard he had 1 or more characters at every level. Nosig - Got a 12 yet?

bragging with Lab Rat:

12? not yet. So close I could kiss it though. In decending level I have...
11.2, 10.0, 10.0, 9.0, 8.0, 6.1, 6.0, 4.0, 2.1, and several at 1.0
so I'm getting a gap in the low levels - but I've run out of low level scenarios! I was trying to get most of them over the level 6 hump, and 2 are sort of stuck at 6.

Soon though, my wife has her wizard at 11.2 to play with my cleric - and a friend is almost up to us with his fighter... Then we need to find the rest of a crew for EotT - and we'd have a balanced core of characters (Cleric, Wizard, Melee fighter). But my level 10s are still climbing so I may have 2 or 3 at level 12 soon...

[Lab_Rat]

bragging back:

I have a 12, 8, 6, 2, and two 1's. My 12 however, has been sitting at 12 since July of last year. I just finally completed his miniature (new base, all painted up) and will finally be playing Eyes of the Ten (or whatever we can finish) at the March Fantasy Shop day. Get you and your wife to 12 and talk to Nathan ASAP. He may be able to move people around and get you both in on Eyes of the Ten. I think we could make 3 tables of it with you two. Who would have thought that a local game day would have so many 12's at one time.

[nosig]

12? the Eyes have it!:

Goodness - why would I want to jump ship and not play the game with my wife's Blaster Caster?

We have two other friends that will likely join us - maybe 3. And by the time we play we'll have choices of which PC to run

My switchables will most likely be Armored Cleric, or Bard Harlot (maybe Alchemist with Breath of Life)

Janets will be her Blaster Caster or her Pregnant Cleric (Beer maid)

Teamed with us will be:
a 4 armed Dual Greatsword fighter
& a Archer Ranger.
And maybe a Druid Shapeshifter (Melee specialist).

Lab Rat, you sure you don't want to play with us? What's your 12th level guy? We could use a rogue we're thinking. Several of us have Disable Divice, but no one has Trapfinding...

[Lab_Rat]

I'm blind:

Absolutely not. Play with your wife. I was just saying that there are a lot of people all playing it on March 26th and you may want to get everyone together and play then. I am already assigned to a table and so can not play with yours. However, Nathan may know a few others looking for a table. As it is right now we have 2 tables of six (full) and I think there may have been a few others looking to play. I know that Seth Brummond (VC - Kansas City) will be GMing one table and Seth Gibson (VL - Carbondale) will be coming over to play. should be a fun day!