|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im sad to read how people wanting to play up are bullies. Im also disappointed to see how even venture officers would sit with only one point of view. I always want to play up. To me playing outside the scope of my characters power is what pushes me to become better. Death happens. Its happened to my sorcerer once when I tried to solo a dragon.
The point non withstanding is my judge let us play up and I died but it was fantastic. My counter argument to people saying bully this or bully that.
I was bullied growing up and I had friends help me stand on my feet. I wasn't coddled. If you want to coddle people do it on your time not mine. Pcs die rocks fall but I'm disappointed by judges unwilling to kill a character. Death happens people need to learn to deal with it.
But this nonsense if being bullied at a pathfinder game us just stupid.
Skip
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
|
|
There's no perfect answer, but I think you have to favor those who don't want to risk playing up. If you go with the majority rule, people who died for playing up are going to complain horribly. This actually happened in Atlanta when we had a table TPK; the players bickered for ages, but it had to stand. This, despite them having finally agreed (Atlanta does have a standing "unamnimous to play up" rule, so any one of them could have prevented it; but it's hard being 2 players thinking you are ruining everyone else's fun).
|
|
If I'm forced to play down then I don't want to hear any complaining about how I dominate the encounters. I had this happen once with my Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who is super optimized. First round of combat for the first encounter I killed everything on my first action (thanks to improved cleave and finishing cleave) and the other players started moaning about not even getting a chance to shoot a single arrow or cast a single spell.
I may not like playing down, but I will respect the majority vote of the table.
|
Tier 1-5? 5 players want to play up 1 player demands to play down, easy solution.
Solution: Ask everyone who wants to play UP, to get up, walk to another table.
Then you tell the GM that if he's not running anything, you'd like to play a tier 4-5 game at your table and anyone who'd like to join your table has to play a tier 4-5.
Now the guy who is demanding to play down, doesn't have a table, since there are no players to play with, or plays a careful game at the higher tier.
|
|
Sounds like a good way to play up, and a really great way to permanently lose a player.
Edit: Reminder, everyone please be sure there's even a question of playing up or down. A lot of the time locally a table will be discussing it for several minutes, when the table doesn't have the option, they have to play either up or down. You only get the choice if after rounding to the nearest (.5 up) you're between sub-tiers.*
*: Special exception/addition for Season 0-3's where the majority is in the low-tier but 6 players pushes it round up and be high tier (like 5 2nd's and a 5th).
I may not like playing down, but I will respect the majority vote of the table.
Yeah? "But do you respect the other players" sounds like a pertinent question.
|
|
Wow, you don't just cross the "don't be a jerk" line, you bring a whole marching band, don't you?Tier 1-5? 5 players want to play up 1 player demands to play down, easy solution.
Solution: Ask everyone who wants to play UP, to get up, walk to another table.
Then you tell the GM that if he's not running anything, you'd like to play a tier 4-5 game at your table and anyone who'd like to join your table has to play a tier 4-5.
Now the guy who is demanding to play down, doesn't have a table, since there are no players to play with, or plays a careful game at the higher tier.
The post I was responding to was 5 lvl. 4-5 players and one lvl. 2 player at the CON forcing everyone to play DOWN.
To me that's bogus and the lvl. 2 is being a jerk. So, once faced with a jerk, I don't feel the need to be a nice guy. At that point, we'll play the "Who's the bigger jerk game." It sucks but why should everyone else back down to a single tyrant.
Now, at a similar CON I showed up for a 3-7 game. 5 players lvl. 5-7 and my lvl. 3. I sat down and told them, I'd do my best but I'd stay in the back and do what I could, if they wanted to do the 6-7 tier. I didn't force all of them to play a 3-4 tier. That would have been the JERK move. Another game, I'm a lvl. 5 carrying a group of 1s and 2s in a tier 1-2.
My ultimate personal conclusion is, sometime you carry a group and sometimes the group carries you. But never in my life would I make an entire group of 5 players play up or down against their will. And I certainly don't think a single individual should be allowed to make everyone else do what he/she wants.
|
|
do you only have one PC?Does your "Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who is super optimized" only have one weapon?
I find having a second (or 12th) PC to be a real advantage... kind of like having another weapon when the Ooze eats the first one.
I have other characters, but I don't always bring all my characters with me to the game days if I'm expecting to play my main.
"Then why don't you just play a pregen?"
That's a great question, and why don't the other people who don't want to play up just play a pregen? This argument works both ways.
Yeah? "But do you respect the other players" sounds like a pertinent question.
This is a weird question and I don't know what you're fishing here for. If I respect the table well enough to yield to their decision then obviously I respect the players. If I didn't, then I'd just walk away from the table.
"Well obviously you don't respect them if you play a character that steals the thunder from them in a game."
If this is where you were going with that statement, then you're obviously misguided and lacking context. Let me give you the scenario for how this happens.
My group signs up for a table using Meetup.com. We do our due diligence and all sign up a week ahead of time making a of 4 that will play up. Game day rolls around and some people show up who didn't officially sign up at Meetup.com and want to be squeezed in. They end up at our table and drop our effectively level down and don't want to play up. In this situation I have no problem running my character that I signed up at the table for, even if we end up playing down and I outshine some folks.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The post I was responding to was 5 lvl. 4-5 players and one lvl. 2 player at the CON forcing everyone to play DOWN.
5 level 4 players and one level 2 is an APL of 22/6, or 3.6666
Rounding to the nearest whole number is 4.0Playing down isn't a (legal) option - if the GM allowed it, he was wrong.
|
|
The post I was responding to was 5 lvl. 4-5 players and one lvl. 2 player at the CON forcing everyone to play DOWN.
To me that's bogus and the lvl. 2 is being a jerk. So, once faced with a jerk, I don't feel the need to be a nice guy. At that point, we'll play the "Who's the bigger jerk game." It sucks but why should everyone else back down to a single tyrant.
Now, at a similar CON I showed up for a 3-7 game. 5 players lvl. 5-7 and my lvl. 3. I sat down and told them, I'd do my best but I'd stay in the back and do what I could, if they wanted to do the 6-7 tier. I didn't force all of them to play a 3-4 tier. That would have been the JERK move. Another game, I'm a lvl. 5 carrying a group of 1s and 2s in a tier 1-2.
My ultimate personal conclusion is, sometime you carry a group and sometimes the group carries you. But never in my life would I make an entire group of 5 players play up or down against their will. And I certainly don't think a single individual should be allowed to make everyone else do what he/she wants.
The players get to decide (edit: situationally) whether they want to play up or play down, and are free to disagree with each other. When that occurs, the job of the GM is to help solve the conflict, NOT MAKE IT WORSE. The ONLY person being a jerk in your example is the GM.
If that happened at a con I was organizing, the GM would probably be not be welcome to GM for me again. Harsh? Maybe, but so is your example.
|
|
If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
Another vote for this. If one person isn't comfy, we don't play up. That simple. I have found that this solves the issue until Paizo can come up with a more elegant solution.
|
The post I was responding to was 5 lvl. 4-5 players and one lvl. 2 player at the CON forcing everyone to play DOWN.
To me that's bogus and the lvl. 2 is being a jerk. So, once faced with a jerk, I don't feel the need to be a nice guy. At that point, we'll play the "Who's the bigger jerk game." It sucks but why should everyone else back down to a single tyrant.
Without knowing the exact levels of the characters, if I assume 5 4th levels, and 1 2nd, we get 22 total levels, or an APL of 3.67 - which means they should be at tier 4-5, right?
If two of the "tier 4-5"s were level 5, then you are solidly at APL 4... which, again, dictates the sub-tier.
As I understand it, the only time you can choose to play up or down would be to be at a table (in this case) that has an APL (that rounds to) 3.
The one you describe did not, so there should be no doubt. The real problem here is that people do not understand the APL and tiering rules, and then you get people abusing them (whether intentionally or not). Stick to the rules, and there should be less complaining, I would think. Yes, you will have some people playing over their heads, but there should be far fewer choices, unless the choice (as nosig so eloquently states, over and over again, someone chooses to play a different character, changing the APL balance).
As I only currently have 4 characters, I cannot really do that all that much, but it has happened. I've also changed character selection based on table balance, when I can.
Now, at a similar CON I showed up for a 3-7 game. 5 players lvl. 5-7 and my lvl. 3. I sat down and told them, I'd do my best but I'd stay in the back and do what I could, if they wanted to do the 6-7 tier. I didn't force all of them to play a 3-4 tier. That would have been the JERK move. Another game, I'm a lvl. 5 carrying a group of 1s and 2s in a tier 1-2.
Well, again,. without knowing the actual levels, it seems likely that the first case you were looking at an APL of 5+, so again, no choice. In the second, it was likely that you played correctly as well.
Now, I will admit that there can be some issues with the APL in seasons 0-3, where a table of 6 gives +1 APL (somethign I would argue should be done away with, as it gives too much chance for abuse). Keep to the rules, and there should rarely be a choice.
And, when their is a choice (and only when there is a choice), I believe that it should probably go to majority rule. As part of the "don't be a jerk" rule, this means that the higher level players will need to carry an additional burden in keeping the lower level players alive (including the probability of expending additional resources). In the case of a lower tier decision, the players should understand the risk that the higher level character may carry them through (but, in the "don't be a jerk" vein, the higher level characters can pull back a little, giving the lower tiers a chance to feel useful).
|
|
So one person decides for the other five? That's essentially telling everyone else that you'd rather not hurt feelings? Or that minority rules and everyone else can suck it up?
That's poor taste.
Should almost never matter... APL rules are pretty clear cut as to when you can choose... which is not all the time.
|
|
Granted if we had played down...maybe it would have been a cakewalk and I'd posting an argument from the other side of the aisle. Who knows?
Bad outcomes can happen even if you’re play at the correct subtier, or playing down or up. Although I liked reading your story, it’s more suited for the “You Wanted to Play High Tier” thread.
This thread is about GMs forcing their tables to play down by default.
Wow, you don't just cross the "don't be a jerk" line, you bring a whole marching band, don't you?
And you can’t see the other side of the coin. I think it’s pretty jerky to force an entire table of PC at the correct subtier to play down just because of one player.
If I was that one player, I’d grab a pregen and go with it instead of trying to impose my will on everyone else. Or maybe I could pull out another PC. Or better yet, maybe I’d try to switch to another table.
It might make you sad SCPRedMage, but I think this will become a common situation in the future if wealth by level takes effect. Players will not want to play down, there will be a lot less compromise.
5 level 4 players and one level 2 is an APL of 22/6, or 3.6666
Rounding to the nearest whole number is 4.0
Playing down isn't a (legal) option - if the GM allowed it, he was wrong.
The way we calculate average party level is broken, it should only include the four highest level PCs. Example is with a tier 1-5 scenario.
Example #1: Four level 4 PCs = APL 4 and they play at subtier 4-5.
Example #2: The group in example #1 is joined by a level 1 PC. APL 3.4, the table can now decide to play up or down. Level 1 guy decides he doesn’t want to play up. GM is concedes and tells the table they have to play down to subtier 1-2.
Apparently, the consensus is that this is a fair outcome, but I don’t think so.
In practice, at conventions there’s always a better solution than having four players with PCs at the correct subtier play down.
The players get to decide (edit: situationally) whether they want to play up or play down, and are free to disagree with each other. When that occurs, the job of the GM is to help solve the conflict, NOT MAKE IT WORSE. The ONLY person being a jerk in your example is the GM.
Not according to many GMs on this board. They would take the side of the one player and force everyone else to play down.
My ultimate personal conclusion is, sometime you carry a group and sometimes the group carries you. But never in my life would I make an entire group of 5 players play up or down against their will. And I certainly don't think a single individual should be allowed to make everyone else do what he/she wants.
And yet that’s exactly what most GMs would do, at least hypothetically. In practice, I’ve only seen people trying to find reasonable solutions. Hopefully that continues.
|
|
@ Jason: My point is that the GM is there to try t help solve the conflict. Using the example I had quoted...that does not help solve the conflict. That is a long way of telling the one person to shove off cause or she is holding up the table.
IF the GM is forced to be the one to make the decision because all other table options are full or there are no other options for any of the other players to play, aside from playing a pregen (and no one wants to play one), then the event organizer should be consulted.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad these are major decisions and will impact your entire life, otherwise, arguing about playing up/down and who is the bigger jerk would sound like adolescent pettiness ;-)
The reality is that the decision to play up or down is waaay too circumstantial to have a single, hard n' fast solution. Anyone who uses absolutes, "I will never play up," or "I will never play down," etc. are no better than the "jerks" who oppose them. This game is supposed to be cooperative not competitive. Sometimes, you will need to play in a tier below your level. In that case, have respect for the other players and don't squash everyone else's fun by dominating the game. OTOH, if you are the only one pushing the sub-tier down, then maybe you should walk away, play a different PC or pregen, or maybe you'll need to be extra careful with your character.
In my experience, it is extremely rare for conflict to arise from the question of up/down unless someone at the table is being an inflexible jerk. Even a mediocre GM should be able to assess what the majority of players want to do and determine what the best course of action is, even if s/he disagrees with it. This ain't rocket science folks.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
@ Jason: My point is that the GM is there to try t help solve the conflict. Using the example I had quoted...that does not help solve the conflict. That is a long way of telling the one person to shove off cause or she is holding up the table.
You misunderstand and I misunderstood you.
The GM didn't tell the level 1 to shove off. The GM was trying to convenience the level 1 at the expense of everyone else, by trying to force an entire table of subtier appropriate PCs to play down. The players rejected this notion and were willing to walk from the table. The level 1 and GM no longer had a table.
I'd contend that it was the GMs fault by forcing the table to play down, instead of trying to find options to make everyone happy.
I'm glad these are major decisions and will impact your entire life, otherwise, arguing about playing up/down and who is the bigger jerk would sound like adolescent pettiness ;-)
Then ignore the thread.
Personally I think this is an issue. Like I said, if WBL takes effect you will see players walk from tables a lot more often, especially if a GM tries to force a table because of one player.
|
|
Another vote for this. If one person isn't comfy, we don't play up. That simple. I have found that this solves the issue until Paizo can come up with a more elegant solution.If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
If you object to my solution based on APL, read the quotes above. These GMs would force us to play down. Because they wouldn't use APL rules.
|
|
The post I was responding to was 5 lvl. 4-5 players and one lvl. 2 player at the CON forcing everyone to play DOWN.
Just a point of reference...even if every one of the 4-5 character were level 4, the average APL for this group would be 3.67...which would round up to 4 so there IS NO OPTION TO PLAY DOWN here. The GM at the con messes up. If this was a season 0-3 or there were some level 5, yeah not even remotely are you suppose to have the option to play down.
|
|
If you object to my solution based on APL, read the quotes above. These GMs would force us to play down. Because they wouldn't use APL rules.Another vote for this. If one person isn't comfy, we don't play up. That simple. I have found that this solves the issue until Paizo can come up with a more elegant solution.If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
Then tell the local VO about these GMs...because they are not playing by the rules and need to have a talk with. If the local VO do the same thing, then you need to tell Mike Brock about it.
|
|
Yes. He's asking you to lose a little gold and maybe have an easy time of it.
You're asking him to hide in the back and not be able to contribute and run a good risk of dying anyway.
Currently, losing a bit of gold for playing down ONCE in a while isn't a big deal as you can play up and make up the gold later. 1 grand less here or there isn't a big deal. If you had to play down for all of your dead levels, you'd actually end up at 75% of WBL however (GM credit babies are affected by this for example). That is a pretty big hit. If your playing down for all of the deal levels AND some of your in tier games...yeah your gonna cripple your character. I know a player who had was kinda forced to play 1-2 until almost level 5. That is an almost level 5 character that was excited that he could afford a +1 full plate and a +1 shield. That is more then losing just a little gold. That is getting crippled. So he asks you to do it once...that's fine. What happens when he asks you to do it for the next 6 sessions and you get a crippled character (because ending up at 50% of WBL is gonna cripple you) that has pretty much nil chance of surviving the game when it gets significantly harder at the 7+ range? The solutions aren't as easy as people seem to make it out to be. There is a LOT of mechanical and social elements involved in this and to come up with a good solutions requires that the person coming up with the solution is skilled in BOTH. Yeah I know a tall order.
I play up pretty often. I have yet to have to had to hide in the back and unable to contribute. Running a good risk of death...well...yeah that's true. Having a lot of expendables is just good planning if your planning on playing up.
|
|
Then tell the local VO about these GMs...because they are not playing by the rules and need to have a talk with. If the local VO do the same thing, then you need to tell Mike Brock about it.If you object to my solution based on APL, read the quotes above. These GMs would force us to play down. Because they wouldn't use APL rules.Another vote for this. If one person isn't comfy, we don't play up. That simple. I have found that this solves the issue until Paizo can come up with a more elegant solution.If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
Did you read who the two people I quoted are? You aren't getting it. Let me spell it out of you. They ARE Venture Captains. Where do I need to go to report to MB, they are saying it right here in front of all of us on the Paizo home website.
|
|
Where do I need to go to report to MB, they are saying it right here in front of all of us on the Paizo home website.
Contact information: mike.brock@paizo.com
Profile with PM link: Michael Brock.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Have you told Mike Brock?I'm assuming he's reading this or one of the Paizo staff is. The ball is in their court.
I see nothing for Mike Brock to adjudicate.
These two VCs have said that they will only allow "playing up" if all the players at the table are happy with that choice. Nowhere have they said that this in any way contravenes the rules about playing up in the Guide; there's only a choice to "play up" or "play down" under limited APL guidelines. If the APL at the table doesn't fall between tiers, there's no choice to be made.
|
|
Did you read who the two people I quoted are? You aren't getting it. Let me spell it out of you. They ARE Venture Captains. Where do I need to go to report to MB, they are saying it right here in front of all of us on the Paizo home website.Then tell the local VO about these GMs...because they are not playing by the rules and need to have a talk with. If the local VO do the same thing, then you need to tell Mike Brock about it.If you object to my solution based on APL, read the quotes above. These GMs would force us to play down. Because they wouldn't use APL rules.Another vote for this. If one person isn't comfy, we don't play up. That simple. I have found that this solves the issue until Paizo can come up with a more elegant solution.If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
You DO realize that when those VC are talking about the choice to play up or down within the guidelines, they MEAN FOLLOW THE APL RULES RIGHT?!? If the party APL is not an average of 3, there is no option to choose in a 1-5 scenario. No if and or buts about it. The GM in your example flat out ignored the APL rule. Your GM Fed up. Your GM if s/he continues to do this, needs to be talked to by your local VO about making legal tables because an APL 4-5 party doing a 1-2 sub tier is NOT A LEGAL TABLE. There is NOTHING wrong with running a table where you need a unanimous vote to play up if your APL is in range to have the choice...but you don't always have the choice. NONE of the VC were even remotely saying that a level 2 can walk into a party of 5 level 5s and then say I don't want to play up so we all play down because that would not be legal (and if there is a VC who is saying that, I'm sure Mike will want a word with that person).
|
Wasn't my GM. It was a GM that was mentioned in a previous post. I'd just get up and move to another table.
My response was specifically to the scenario that was mentioned on these boards.
So out of 191 posts in this thread, you picked the ONE AND ONLY post that talks about an illegal example, and then decided to just assume that every other post in the thread is ALSO talking about illegal examples. News flash: the rest of the posts in this thread are all talking about normal, legal situations where the players really do have a choice, such as average party level of 3 in a 1-5 scenario. Now go back and re-read everything in that context and ask yourself if you've still got a reason to be upset.
|
|
If you object to my solution based on APL, read the quotes above. These GMs would force us to play down. Because they wouldn't use APL rules.Another vote for this. If one person isn't comfy, we don't play up. That simple. I have found that this solves the issue until Paizo can come up with a more elegant solution.If even one player at my table is iffy about playing up, I won't let them do it. I'm not sure where this "majority rules" idea came from, but PFS is an autocracy, with the GM being final arbiter of these types of decisions. I'm there to run a level-appropriate story for my table, making it challenging for everyone. I also won't let peer pressure go on at my tables. It's not bullying, but it's a step down that road.
However, I won't tell another GM that they have to do it my way; if they are following the rules in the Guide, I'll back them up to the utmost of my ability.
Eric, what APL rules aren't I following? I believe I stated in this quote that if a GM is following the Guide, then I'll back them up. The corner cases where a party is between sub-tiers is what I am talking about, and I never stated that if a party falls into the correct sub-tier that I would force them to play in a different one. Before insinuating that I'm somehow not following the rules and Mike Brock needs to get involved you really need to read the Guide and my posts more thoroughly. What I am talking about is NOT against the rules.
Think about it this way: If your table is between sub-tiers (and there is the option to either play up or play down) it means that a good portion (if not all) of the players don't fall in the range of the higher sub tier. Which means that the CR+3 monsters that usually appear are more likely to kill many of the PCs (if not all).
In fact, most GMs that I have talked to across my convention travels have stated that the number one reason for TPKs at their tables is that the party decided to PLAY UP. What I have witnessed personally organizing hundreds of tables at game days and local conventions matches that statement as well.
The latest seasons of scenarios that Paizo has produced have appropriate difficulty for each sub tier (with a few exceptions....Dalsine!). I can't condone a party wanting to play up for the added gold and items when in all actuality, they will most likely spend that gold on raising a few of their party members or themselves.
|
|
This reminds me of the old Living greyhawk games but with one major difference.
Living greyhawk had a TON of meat grinders. Playing at teir was a GREAT danger. Level 1-2 we faced orc slavers weilding spiked chains with free ambush surprize rounds with 2d4+9 damage while raging + power attack. Level 3 fane of the drow had a huge amount of leathalistic encounters. level 4 we did pits of azakzil mummies, ghouls, and earth elementals gave us a REAL challenge had we played up we'd have died to a ridiculous template which created swarms of medium creatures. We played a number of normal mods with the same problem but especially our regional mods were ridiculous. Calling playing at level easy was only true if you played a pre-nerf druid as wild shape was broken. But you know what? We STILL KILLED IT. Hard? Definitely. Careful play required? You better believe it. Did we kill it? <Point's to the shadow dragon head mounted on above the tavern fireplace> WE STILL KILLED IT. That was hard.
Pathfinder society does not have that. Level 1-2 we faced skeletons with 1d4+2 and +2 to hit. We faced vermin and poorly designed NPC rogues. The BOSS MONSTERS weren't NEARLY as bad as basic MOOK orc barbarians we faced back in the day. Seriously? Not divulging the specifics but 1d8+5 with +6 from power attack wielding in two hands is STILL not as bad as the orc barbarians. It's still not as bad as sea cats at level 1.
Now what does this have to do with PFS? Simple playing up in PFS has risk of death but it's not as much as simply playing on tier was in 3.5. That's the real problem. If scenarios were more challenging I suspect playing up wouldn't be a problem because only munchkinie power gamers would even consider it. The rest of us would think the random level 4-5's wanting to play up were loons.
Umm...no. Just no. The difficulty in LG made it so that your casual gamers had NO chance in it. Hell in season 4, casual gamers struggle. The difficulty in LG is one of the reason it didn't grow very well. And when you get to higher level games, which gets harder and you need more mechanics and tactics and basically start to be more then casual gamers, you see them die and quit...and you want to make this worse?!? Yeah...just no.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My response was specifically to the scenario that was mentioned on these boards.
Using the "Reply" button so that everyone can see what you're responding to will help prevent such miscommunications, especially when you're replying to something that's not even on the same page.
I feel like there is not much more to say on this, but when we play midteir and play up with low level PCs at the table, I usually play my healer. My healer (he's an oracle) is absolutely dedicated to supporting the party, as he channels, has misfortune (I can make GM's reroll criticals) and lots of healing scrolls and wands. So when we play up with a low level PC I stick a square away from him at all times and dedicate myself to his survival. If I'm not playing my healer in the same situation, I stick close to him with my fighter. Get between the low-level and the monster, etc. If there are are low-level PCs at the table and we are playing up I always do my best to cover their ass.
We should all support each other; isn't that the point of an adventuring party and pathfinder in the first place? I got your back and you have mine?
|
|
That comes down to one of two philosophies
1) You want the encounters to be objectively hard not hard for players who start with elite array +1. This encourages relative optimization and mildly forces table comp. (Which was actually the most frustrating part, not mustering a table but rather mustering enough clerics)
2) You want the encounters to challenge players who don't have optimal or very good builds. This encourages anyone WITH a good/optimal build to do things deemed "Too difficult" Because they're not challenged. This leads to them with more gold and better builds.
And many would say that season 4 is objectively hard. How hard is objectively hard enough? Do you need builds like my barbarian, alchemist fighter with UMD that will be doing 120 damage a hit at level 6 to play in tier to be hard (and that isn't even remotely the fully optimized version of it...this one has some less optimal choices for flavor reasons)? Or is season 4 fine? I could come up with builds that would run fine playing up in even LG scenarios back in the days. So is LG not objectively hard enough? The answer is there is no objectively hard. What is hard for me would murder about 90% of the gamers out there. What is hard for the casual gamers I see regularly in PFS is gonna be a cakewalk for any of my actually optimized characters. Basically, if you make game that are speced for people like me, your gonna have a pretty small player base.
It might just be that my personal choice (I'd rather die and have to learn) comes from playing more rather difficult games (Demon souls/Dark souls/I want to be the guy) until you win. Death counts in the hundreds. I understand this philosophy is drastically different and as such I'd rather play up. Death happens. Fear of death prevents risks. No risk, no reward. Eventually you'll just be so good that "Risk" Will be what is deemed suicidal. In a game where death is a minor inconvenience past 4-5 and smart tactics and build can keep you alive starting at 2nd against anything you could reasonably face even something 4-5 levels above you playing up is silly.
And as I was saying, having the game be at the difficulty of I want to be the guy level of hard for PFS is gonna basically make all the casuals walk...and a good chunk of even the regular players and just leave the hard core. That is a BAD THING. I can easily ramp things down out of crazy land.
This also extends to wands of cure light wounds, free CLW wands break the game. Let me say this in a way most people would understand. A ring of regeneration is 40,000 gold and generally not available until later. A ring of regeneration's entire purpose is to put you to full out of combat. Infinite CLW wands that don't cost gold/charge is absurd. At least when you buy a CLW wand you forfit something, a master work weapon, heavy armor pearl of power whatever.
That 2 PP ain't free. You can use it to get a slew of other items other then CLW...including a raise dead or resurrect (well part of anyways). PP is a part of your wealth. The fact that your spending that and not gold pieces does not mean your not spending resources to get that wand.
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
In my experience, and this includes this last Saturday, when a group of higher level character players try to encourage a table of lower level characters players - the reason given is more gold and the second reason given is potentially better access.
I don't ever hear the 5th level character player telling the 3rd level character player - think of the extra challenge you have. It is always about the money and access.
So while the 5th level character player might want the challenge that hasn't ever been the arguing point.
I'd say, stop with odd-level tier ranges - rather than a 1-7 game, go with a 1-6 game - tiers 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and where you land is where you play. Or i three tier ranges is too much - and it probably is - then make it tier 1-3, tier 4-5, tier 6-7 and have no mid-dropping point.