Requesting an option to earn lost Faction points.

[Drogon]

N N 959 wrote:

Drogon wrote:

Here you go: A post from Mark Moreland about level appropriate treasure and fame.

I'm not sure what you think Mark's saying, but it does not contradict anything I've said. His post is answering a question about what items are put on chronicle. He mentions that someone might have 40-50 out of 54 pp, but that is by no means a statement on what is intended, just what is statistically likely.

Huh. I guess when I see someone in charge is assuming a failure rate and that they take that into account, then I take that as something that they wanted to be a part of their game.

You can read it however you want, though. 'tis your right.

N N 959 wrote:

Drogon wrote:

Also, the question that was raised about the expense of writing and developing more factions missions has been specifically addressed by both Mark and Mike. They don't want to raise that cost, and are actually trying to lower it further, if you consider the idea of eliminating factions due to lack of success, which is a theme for Season 4.

Yes, cost is a valid issue. My response to that is to see if offering a few scenarios with a second faction mission results in higher sales and thus off setting the extra page.

This blog, I think, addresses that idea. They had a lot of feedback that led to the changes they made. You can trust them to respond to feedback, again, in the future.

Meaning, of course, that if your specific idea gains traction, then they will implement it. Which is why you'll see people sounding off on one side or the other when you raise the possibility.

Edit: Fixed quoting issues...

[N N 959]

Sior wrote:

Quote:

Feasible : Possible to do easily or conveniently. Likely; probable

It is a definition, not your definition.

Is it "likely" you'll get 100%? No. It's not likely. Are you capable of getting 100%? Yes, one is capable of getting 100% whether that involves asking for help from teammates, using consumables or spells before the attempt, offering creative solutions, or just plain getting lucky, everyone is capable of getting 100%, it's just not likely.

If, characters were not capable of getting 100% because, for example, the rule said you automatically fail your third faction mission, then you'd be right. But since a character is capable of getting 100% of the PP, and PFS sets that level, then statements that this idea is bad because the character is not suppose have max PP is illogical.

[Drogon]

N N 959 wrote:

But since a character is capable of getting 100% of the PP, and PFS sets that level, then statements that this idea is bad because the character is not suppose have max PP is illogical.

The idea that you can earn 100% fame is a driving factor in playing, actually. It's something to aspire to. And I know of multiple characters who have actually achieved it.

I think what most people are arguing against you, here, is that this aspiration should not be made even more likely to be achieved.

[redward]

I'm sure it won't sway you, since you seem pretty convinced that you're right, but there's also this:

Mark Moreland wrote:

Please do not grant prestige to PCs who do not complete the success conditions of a scenario. I understand that sometimes sessions run long, but that's built into the Fame curve. As we move into Season 4, it will become even more important that prestige granted and reported is accurate, as it will have direct impacts on the metaplot of the campaign.

There is an expected fame curve. As in, the fame a character is expected to achieve by each level. And it is clearly less than 100%.

Characters are not expected to live through every scenario.

Characters are not expected to succeed in every scenario.

Characters are not expected to earn full prestige in every scenario.

This is pretty clearly intended by campaign management.

Pathfinder is not a game where you can guarantee an outcome, no matter how much you stack your character with skills or DPR.

[N N 959]

Drogon wrote:

The idea that you can earn 100% fame is a driving factor in playing, actually.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Because I have no option to make up for lost PP, that goal is taken from me. A second faction brings that dream alive. I really hope Mike & Crew understand actually giving players that hope will make the game a lot more fun for many.

To quote Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber, "So you're saying there's a chance?"

Quote:

It's something to aspire to. And I know of multiple characters who have actually achieved it.

They better watch our someone in this thread might report them and take away their prestige...after all you're not suppose to have 100% pp.

Quote:

I think what most people are arguing against you, here, is that this aspiration should not be made even more likely to be achieved.

It's more than that. It's an attack on the aspiration itself. From the get go, there's a desire to associate this with min/maxing=EVIL EVIL EVIL i.e. the only person who would want max anything is a min/maxer.

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

I'm sure it won't sway you, since you seem pretty convinced that you're right, but there's also this:

Mark Moreland wrote:

Please do not grant prestige to PCs who do not complete the success conditions of a scenario. I understand that sometimes sessions run long, but that's built into the Fame curve. As we move into Season 4, it will become even more important that prestige granted and reported is accurate, as it will have direct impacts on the metaplot of the campaign.

There is an expected fame curve. As in, the fame a character is expected to achieve by each level. And it is clearly less than 100%.

Characters are not expected to live through every scenario.

Characters are not expected to succeed in every scenario.

Characters are not expected to earn full prestige in every scenario.

This is pretty clearly intended by campaign management.

Pathfinder is not a game where you can guarantee an outcome, no matter how much you stack your character with skills or DPR.

Nothing I've suggested guarantees anything.

[redward]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that having maximum Prestige is bad. I think they're arguing that campaign management intends for characters, on average, to have achieved 75% of their total possible prestige. And that's pretty much accepted as fact.

Your premise, which is that more prestige for characters is good, seems to run counter to the direction the campaign is taking:

Michael Brock wrote:

Faction missions are going to change in focus and become harder to achieve in Season 4.

I don't have a problem with you asking for a change to this policy. I just think you should be aware that the changes you want appear to be diametrically opposed to the changes the campaign management would like to make.

[Drogon]

N N 959 wrote:

I really hope Mike & Crew understand actually giving players that hope will make the game a lot more fun for many.

Like I said, Paizo has a very good track record of paying attention to customer feedback.

You have raised your idea up for public consumption. People are giving their opinions. I understand that you want to try to sway their opinions, thus gaining more traction for your idea and, hopefully, getting it in front of the Paizo people. Just understand that, in turn, people will be attempting to show their side, too.

N N 959 wrote:

Drogon wrote:

It's something to aspire to. And I know of multiple characters who have actually achieved it.

They better watch our someone in this thread might report them and take away their prestige...after all you're not suppose to have 100% pp.

Drogon wrote:

I think what most people are arguing against you, here, is that this aspiration should not be made even more likely to be achieved.

It's more than that. It's an attack on the aspiration itself. From the get go, there's a desire to associate this with min/maxing=EVIL EVIL EVIL i.e. the only person who would want max anything is a min/maxer.

I'm sure you're aware of my opinion, but I am compelled to reiterate it in an effort to get my feedback noticed:

Highly powerful characters are few and far between. Without exception, however, (and in my own experience as a GM and player) they are disruptive to encounters and detract from the enjoyment of the rest of the table's players. When a PC has 100% fame, and (worse) has been able to play "up" regularly, this power level has the possibility of becoming even more unbalanced. Giving people more chances to earn that 100% fame level will broaden the likelihood that disruptions caused by high powered PCs will become more common. Personally, I believe the NET effect of that broadened chance will drive more players from the game than are attracted by the aspiration of "perfection."

[N N 959]

Having played several season 4 missions, I have not witnessed this. But that's a small sampling.

Reading the whole thread, it's not made clear why faction missions were going to be made harder. Mark suggests that they want the missions to have more significance. If that's the case, then it makes sense to make them more difficult.

Nowhere does Mike or Mark say the goal is to make sure everyone has less PP or we don't want anyone with Max PP. If that's the goal, then why not just have missions that don't provide factions missions? That would save money and accomplish the same goal.

Without knowing specifically why they wanted to increase the difficulty of faction missions, it's not a given that getting another bite at the apple at a later date is a net negative for what they want to do.

[N N 959]

Drogon wrote:

Personally, I believe the NET effect of that broadened chance will drive more players from the game than are attracted by the aspiration of "perfection."

If we were talking about gold, I'd agree with you. But PP are a different mechanic and the fact that they are more useful for removing conditions and resurrecting dead characters, I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. You're taking a generalization and applying it without looking to see if the underlying assumptions, on which your generalization is based, are valid. Or, as in this case, there are off-setting mechanics.

[Drogon]

N N 959 wrote:

Drogon wrote:

Personally, I believe the NET effect of that broadened chance will drive more players from the game than are attracted by the aspiration of "perfection."

If we were talking about gold, I'd agree with you. But PP are a different mechanic and the fact that they are more useful for removing conditions and resurrecting dead characters, I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. You're taking a generalization and applying it without looking to see if the underlying assumptions, on which your generalization is based, are valid. Or, as in this case, there are off-setting mechanics.

I have a character with perfect fame. I can assure you that he is more powerful than any of my other characters at his level. There is no "opinion" or "generalization" involved with this. He has better items, and more of them. He can use his PP to purchase the wands, scrolls and potions he needs, when he doesn't have the money (because he spent that money on items he really shouldn't already have access to). Because he is more powerful, I am far more likely to push to play "up" if a table is on the fence in an adventure, which will grant him access to more gold. Which he can use to buy more stuff. Which makes him more powerful. To say nothing of the better likelihood of being able to raise him if he does, in fact, get in over his head (which has yet to happen). It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

While it has become somewhat dull for me to play this particular character, I know plenty of players who would love to have a character like him so that they can keep the spotlight firmly affixed to themselves during the games they play. Which makes the rest of the table bored. Which leads to them leaving the games with a dissatisfied attitude. Which leads to them being less likely to play more in the future. Again, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

PP is directly tied to character wealth. The campaign staff have stated this. Getting yourself higher than the norm on one will lead to being higher than the norm on the other. Off-setting or not, that is a fact.

[Funky Badger]

Any character that has full fame and doesn't own a private island is clearly the most frightful dullard.

:-)

[Hayato Ken]

Some people just sell their personal opinions and what they think as facts. Be it about the game or the experience that others have.

That character you talk about is so strong because you played up a lot and have more gold from that as you normally should have.
Playing up should be more an option so tables can happen if not everyone is in the same range, not a powerplay option that then backfires on other people with other experience.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Pai Song wrote:

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

I do think that Fame is a major issue for certain types of characters (ones who don't use weapons and armor and thus can't get something out of the always available and also don't have a spellbook, so mostly sorcerers) until about 18 Fame. I would think twice about applying module credit to a sorcerer, though this has been somewhat lessened by the addition of Ring of Spell Knowledge, which is a reasonable sorcerer item to buy before 18 Fame. After 18 Fame, you'd have to be playing up through the roof or else randomly saving up for one huge item for ages before you run into fame issues. For instance, level 9 WBL is 46,000 gold. That's about what you'll have if you haven't been playing up to 10-11s as a level 8. And with max prestige you are able to buy a 41,000 gold item and 1 away from enough for a 54,000 gold item. So if you play up to a 10-11 and get almost 8k in your first adventure at level 9 and you eke out every single prestige point, you can maybe buy an item that costs all of your money. Now if you failed every single mission, having 24 prestige and only being able to buy 8000 gold items would sting quite a bit. Even if you only succeeded half your missions, on hitting level 9 you would have the prestige to spend 23000 gold on one item, which is half your money on one item.

So in summary, I think the system works perfectly fine, and there's no need to scrounge for every point of prestige (except at low levels it's brutal if you don't want something that's always available).

+1 dueling cestus for always on +4 initiative are nice for every sorcerer.

That's not always available and costs too much gold anyway to buy before 18 Fame. After 18 Fame, even sorcerers are just fine.

[Drogon]

Hayato Ken wrote:

Some people just sell their personal opinions and what they think as facts. Be it about the game or the experience that others have.

I hope you're not referring to me. I tried very hard to make it very plain that these were my opinions and beliefs. The only time I stated anything was fact was when it was, indeed, a fact (i.e., Mark and Mike and past PFS coordinators stating that Fame and PP were tied to character wealth).

Hayato Ken wrote:

That character you talk about is so strong because you played up a lot and have more gold from that as you normally should have.

This is true. And seeing as Fame, PP, and wealth are tied together, I therefore have more of all three than is "standard."

Hayato Ken wrote:

Playing up should be more an option so tables can happen if not everyone is in the same range, not a powerplay option that then backfires on other people with other experience.

This is true, as well.

I will not claim I'm innocent of coercing people to play up when they perhaps shouldn't, especially when it comes to the character I'm discussing. But I will say that I promise to assume all responsibility for anyone who dies due to playing "up" under these circumstances. It hasn't been a problem, the few times I've done it.

Now, I also pick my spots (and players) to do this with. I'm sure there are those out there who won't be as selective, and as Hayato Ken pointed out, the powerplay option can have the result of backfiring. Leading to people not being happy. Leading to people not wanting to play again in the future. Again, a self-fulfilling prophecy. And one I'm very cognizant of. I hope.

[N N 959]

Drogon wrote:

I have a character with perfect fame. ***

PP is directly tied to character wealth.

A few problems with your anecdotal evidence:

1. Perfect fame means more prestige points. It is only indirectly tied to actual gold. So if the average is 75%, at 5th level your max is 30...you have 22 rounded down. So now you're talking 8 more PP at 5th level. What is that, 4 1st level wands? Four composite Longbows? A couple of a farms? Someone recovered your body? You can afford an 11k gp item instead of just an 8kp item?

2. You haven't identified one thing about your fame that actually makes you overpowered.

3. As Rogue astutely points out, you're overpowered because of gold you got from playing up. That is independent of the prestige you get.

So despite your attempt to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to do what you're doing, it seems to be a result of the gold you have, not the fact you haven't missed out any prestige.

Notice I am not arguing for more gold.

[Cold Napalm]

Actually since PP can be used for wands and scrolls and potions...it is pretty directly related to your wealth. Having a scroll of haste and fly at level 4 makes it so you can more easily deal with playing in a 6-7 game...which nets you about 2k extra over not. Don't dismiss the use of the 2pp for expendable gear and impact on character power. I have a level 5 character that has played up about half the time so have some extra gold. The help from expendables should not be dismissed.

[Drogon]

N N 959 wrote:

Drogon wrote:

I have a character with perfect fame. ***

PP is directly tied to character wealth.

A few problems with your anecdotal evidence:

Of course there are. I'd have been surprised if there weren't. (-:

[Netopalis]

Cold Napalm wrote:

Actually since PP can be used for wands and scrolls and potions...it is pretty directly related to your wealth. Having a scroll of haste and fly at level 4 makes it so you can more easily deal with playing in a 6-7 game...which nets you about 2k extra over not. Don't dismiss the use of the 2pp for expendable gear and impact on character power. I have a level 5 character that has played up about half the time so have some extra gold. The help from expendables should not be dismissed.

PP can only buy wands of 0 or 1st level, since level 2 wands cost more than 750 gp.

[Caderyn]

Scrolls of haste or fly cost 375 gp, meaning you can buy a scroll with 2 castings of either of those spells for 2pp, 2 uses of very strong level 3 spells for 2pp is extremely useful

For comparison compare a level 5 barbarian without haste to a level 3 barbarian with haste, the DPR of the level 3 barbarian is nearly double that of the level 5 (has 1 less to hit and 3 less damage due to power attack and maybe another 1-2 for strength but he gets two attacks compared to the 1 of the higher level barbarian) meaning it is easier to play up with early access to haste and other useful level 3 spells.

Oil of daylight costs 750 gp = 2pp

Scroll of darkvision costs 150 gp a scroll with 5 castings costs 2pp, which means your entire party can have 3hrs of darkvision which coupled with the oil of daylight to revert deeper darkness back to normal darkness means you can fight dark stalkers and other quite dangerous foes without any risk (the hardest fight in a tier 8-9 scenario is a dark stalker with rogue levels negating his deeper darkness makes him a guy who does 1d6+2 damage per hit and could be killed by a level 5 barbarian and cleric with no risk)

2 pp will also buy you a 5 casting scroll of resist energy (X) (2pp for 10 resist to an element you choose at the time of purchase for 30 mins? hell yes suddenly fireballs hurt less, alchemists are much less scary, scorching ray hurts a little rather than killing you in the first cast), if you know the elemental theme of the scenario after the briefing this can allow you to fight much higher level casters with lower risk (equally for 8pp you can have 5 castings of every element or if you play alot with the same PC's you can all spend 2pp and then you can prebuff when your expecting hard encounters)

Having the correct consumables on you and active at the right time makes a significant difference in your ability to play up in a scenario

[Netopalis]

Ah, sorry, the OP was referring to scrolls. Nevermind, then.

[Mergy]

Caderyn wrote:

Scroll of darkvision costs 150 gp a scroll with 5 castings costs 2pp, which means your entire party can have 3hrs of darkvision which coupled with the oil of daylight to revert deeper darkness back to normal darkness means you can fight dark stalkers and other quite dangerous foes without any risk (the hardest fight in a tier 8-9 scenario is a dark stalker with rogue levels negating his deeper darkness makes him a guy who does 1d6+2 damage per hit and could be killed by a level 5 barbarian and cleric with no risk)

Make sure that you can read the scroll of darkvision. It's no good to you if you're already in the dark.

[N N 959]

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

Make sure that you can read the scroll of darkvision. It's no good to you if you're already in the dark.

heh.

[N N 959]

Cold Napalm wrote:

The help from expendables should not be dismissed.

I agree. But I would argue that the extra gold from playing up absolutely dwarfs the impact on character power compared with the possibility of 25% more PP...assuming you've lost that much over the entire lifetime of the character.

Mark Morelands's own example suggests some might have 50 out of 54 PP. Trying to argue that giving someone the opportunity to earn back that 4 PP is game breaking is not a compelling argument. Compared with the opportunity for more RP, more out of combat objectives, and more intricate factions missions, more chances for characters who aren't optimized for combat to shine...

I'm hoping Mike gives this a test run, even if they do want to make faction missions harder.

EDIT:
Some back of the envelope calculations suggest that if one can only play-up once every 3rd mission, WBL at 8th level would be 48k instead of 33k. If you had 100% PP at 8th, that' 48 PP, so 25% represents 9k, in 750gp or less increments. And that's assuming you spend it all on scrolls, wands and potions, getting every last penny.

[Mergy]

You haven't convinced me of the need for it. You can continue to state how it won't be unbalancing, but please tell me why it's needed.

[Caderyn]

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

Caderyn wrote:

Scroll of darkvision costs 150 gp a scroll with 5 castings costs 2pp, which means your entire party can have 3hrs of darkvision which coupled with the oil of daylight to revert deeper darkness back to normal darkness means you can fight dark stalkers and other quite dangerous foes without any risk (the hardest fight in a tier 8-9 scenario is a dark stalker with rogue levels negating his deeper darkness makes him a guy who does 1d6+2 damage per hit and could be killed by a level 5 barbarian and cleric with no risk)

Make sure that you can read the scroll of darkvision. It's no good to you if you're already in the dark.

True but it has a 3hr duration so generally one would prebuff the arcane caster (assuming you have no casters in the party with darkvision) with it so if needed he could cast it on other PC's after the darkness descends.

I will admit though the darkvision scroll gets much less use that I would like in my area (as around 75% of new PC's are Aasimars or Tieflings barring a few specific players who never run the native outsiders)

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

redward wrote:

Pathfinder is not a game where you can guarantee an outcome, no matter how much you stack your character with skills or DPR.

Nothing I've suggested guarantees anything.

Except that's what you're asking for: unlimited (or only limited by the number of remaining scenarios a character can run) retries on recovering missed prestige points.

The problem with what you're asking for is that it invalidates the previous failure. And failure is part of the game. For me, removing the penalty of failure makes the successes meaningless.

[Benrislove]

I think the only thing that really needs adjusting is the early fame, as RE touched on.

the chart goes up exponentially, so you quickly get outside of your curve. This is fine for characters that want to buy weapons and armor, because they are always available.

I'd like to see the chart change to.
1PP 500
5pp 1000
9pp 2000
13pp 4000

then the rest of it is fine imo. I'd like to see 31 PP as 18500 also, just do you can hit that +3 weapon plataeu if you want, but really only the first couple levels are relevant.

The main reason for adding the 1PP 500 is that brand new players get to interact with the system right away, sure there aren't a ton of items in that range, but there are some and they get to use the fame chart right from the get-go.

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

The problem with what you're asking for is that it invalidates the previous failure. And failure is part of the game. For me, removing the penalty of failure makes the successes meaningless.

Your statement seems to be focused on the number and ignores the actual roleplay involved. Failing a faction mission is a failure for the player. Getting a chance to recover the resource, doesn't erase the failure from the player's experience.

You also seem to be treating the mere existence of the option as tantamount to total and automatic recovery of all PP. The second faction mission will only count if you succeed at both the main mission and primary faction mission. Nevermind that a player may continue to fail missions in the future.

Nobodies eliminating the penalty of failure. Asserting as such just isn't accurate. And I certainly don't agree that allowing players a chance to recover from failure is some tremendous threat to the game. If you don't feel your character deserves a second chance, then simply refuse to do the mission. Nothing has been taken from you or forced upon you.

[N N 959]

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

You haven't convinced me of the need for it. You can continue to state how it won't be unbalancing, but please tell me why it's needed.

Nothing is "needed" in a fantasy game. I think it will make the game more enjoyable. I think it's a pretty straightforward and conservative assumption that if people were given an option to earn PP they missed out on previously, they'd enjoy it. Whether it's through skill checks, puzzle solving, or even combat, the opportunity/the option is going to be perceived as a net positive.

Honestly, the idea that a few more people might be running around with max PP is this terrible state of existence seems overly dramatic. I've never heard anyone say that characters with max PP were unbalancing the game because they hadn't failed a faction mission or played a 1 PP module.

[The Fox]

I think the idea isn't half bad. Even if only the occasional scenario offered such an option, and only for previously missed PP.

[Paz]

I think things are fine the way they are. Adding more faction missions would slow sessions down, and there are a couple of great boons on chronicle sheets which would be rendered pretty much worthless by this change.

Also, you know that if a change was instituted on some chronicle sheets to allow a 3rd bonus PP to be earned by characters with less than 6 fame/level, that in 6-12 months threads would be start along the lines of...

- My character missed the prestige point for the main faction mission; why can't I get the bonus PP?
- My character already has full fame; why am I being penalised for my previous success by not being allowed to receive the bonus PP?

...as well as all the threads from players and GMs misunderstanding the whole system. And the whole debate will start again.

So it's a 'no' from me.

[Netopalis]

But more importantly, PCs running around with 2 fewer PP aren't running around and unbalancing the game either. They really aren't.

[Matthew Morris]

A no from me as well.

I already have a problem with some of the 'just following orders'* justification in PFS faction missions that says any bad karma (evil actions) hit the faction leader than the sap doing them. This really hits playing old scenarios with new factions. "No Grandmaster Torch, I'm not going through the rites of Mammon, no matter how much the Paracountess wiggles her hips." (I have one Shadow Lodge player who I wanted to award PP to for not taking the Cheliax faction misssion)

Indeed, the problem I've always had with the Silver Crusade (despite it being the faction Dexios deals with the most) is that it is hard to make 'grey' missions for them.**

So 'make up' prestige is a big no from me. It adds nothing but headaches.

(Aside, I have one PC with perfect fame, because she's a big blob of GM credit I haven't given life to. :-))

*

Spoiler:

My Paternal great great grandfather was a Polish Jew, and my Great Uncle was a guard at the Nuremburg trials, so yeah, I have an Eric Lensherr type reaction to 'just following orders'.

**

Spoiler:

Hopefully the nature of Season Five will turn some of those scenarios on their heads. I'd love a Cheliax mission that is compatible with the Silver Crusade, for example. Law vs Chaos kind of thing.

[CRobledo]

Actually, there currently exists two chronicle sheet's boon that does this...

Spoiler:

One of the two you can cross off when you are about to fail a faction mission to keep the point instead.

The second, when you apply the chronicle sheet to the character he gains fame and prestige equal to his experience points x2, minus his current fame, effectively giving you all the fame and pp you missed in your carreer.

My guess (and my preference) is things like these will stay as special boons on chronicle sheets, and not seen that regularly.

[Stormfriend]

A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables).

I can't remember which one is PP and which one is fame, but it should be obvious what I mean.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Benrislove wrote:

I think the only thing that really needs adjusting is the early fame, as RE touched on.

the chart goes up exponentially, so you quickly get outside of your curve. This is fine for characters that want to buy weapons and armor, because they are always available.

I'd like to see the chart change to.
1PP 500
5pp 1000
9pp 2000
13pp 4000

then the rest of it is fine imo. I'd like to see 31 PP as 18500 also, just do you can hit that +3 weapon plataeu if you want, but really only the first couple levels are relevant.

The main reason for adding the 1PP 500 is that brand new players get to interact with the system right away, sure there aren't a ton of items in that range, but there are some and they get to use the fame chart right from the get-go.

I would completely be up for this Benris. It neatly solves my only gripe with the Fame system, and I think anyone who wanted more Fame than they were getting with that chas the art is making purchases in a highly atypical fashion.

[Drogos]

I'm happier with this as boons rather than additional Faction Missions in scenarios, mostly for the issues already raised regarding word/page count and because failing some missions is how it works out. I've also seen many more successes than failures. Even with 2 module credits on my highest level PC, he's only 5 behind max, which is less than the 1/4 threshold that has been mentioned before. A slight rework of the fame system I could get behind.

[Drogon]

Stormfriend wrote:

A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables).

I can't remember which one is PP and which one is fame, but it should be obvious what I mean.

I like this. A lot.

[zylphryx]

As to the original OP suggestion, I have to say no as well, for the following reasons:

1) This would require a GM to verify the lack of PP prior to the scenario starting as you would not be giving out this "extra credit" faction mission to folks who are not short on their PP. Note this would not be as simple as just comparing current PP to Fame as you would need to see the chronicle sheet where they did not achieve their target. Not a big deal, but yet another added step for GMs in what can already be a tight time constraint.

2) Once a failed attempted is 'retried' and it results in failure, does a PC get to retry the retry? If so, the importance of faction missions is reduced because you could always just "make up" the loss. You had said a higher DC would be acceptable for these missions ... would that DC continue to increase with every attempt?

3) There is already the cost issue raised, but I do see that it was brushed aside with the assumption of this concept being successful to the point that it would result in more sales of scenarios. Personally, I do not think that would necessarily be the case, but either way it is just conjecture on our parts with not inherent monetary risk.

[graypark]

Prestige is just that – prestige. Making it easier to obtain or allowing "second chances" to "save face" with one's faction after a failed mission makes it less prestigious.

Just be content that your fame doesn't decrease as a result of a botched or failed faction mission. ;-)

[redward]

What about allowing players to buy prestige? A sizable donation to the local orphanage could easily improve your standing with the Silver Crusade.

You'd have to make the numbers work to keep someone from flipping points for profit. Maybe 750gp for 1PP?

[N N 959]

Stormfriend wrote:

A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables).

Now THIS I really like. Even if it were limited to a single PP for your faction. This would be a great alternative to what I'm suggesting.

On a related note, I would really appreciate it if GM credit that could be applied to a character had an alternative to offering the 1 XP.

[Benrislove]

GM credits can't increase character power. giving them full PP is enough of a "nod" to GMs. If you allowed credit to give PP back instead of an EXP you're increasing character power. Many people have mentioned that PP is an increase in power, they are correct.

GMing is already full credit, full PP, and 0 risk. It's good enough.

I would only like to be able to get GM credit for the same scenario more than once, I would be OK with removing any chronicle specific boons for GM credits beyond the first running of the scenario.

Now here are the advantages:
Everyone Runs scenario's better every time they run them.
More experience with the monsters and what other parties have done is a benefit.

When a GM runs a better table, everyone has more fun.

People who have more fun, are more likely to come back and play more.

Cons:
Sometimes an additional limitation would be required to prevent all of someones characters from having the same boons. This could easily be "any special boons on the chronicle must be crossed out if applied as GM Credit, unless this is the first time you have applied this chronicle sheet as GM credit."

[Cold Napalm]

Stormfriend wrote:

A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables).

I can't remember which one is PP and which one is fame, but it should be obvious what I mean.

This is workable.

[zylphryx]

Except for Faction Prestige tracking ... unless you apply it directly to the PC ... and what if the PC had already played that specific scenario? Would you be able to apply the PP you earned as a GM to the PC who missed out on their faction goal in the same scenario?

And unless you ware wanting GMs to do an in depth calculation of PP for every player at their tables, this could lead to abuse as well (such as spending PP on consumables, getting raised, buying an island, etc. but through GMing the PC still is at full PP or has more than should be legally allowed).

Again, you would be increasing the work load on a GM to track this as there is no way for this to be tracked within the scenario reporting interface, unlike repeated scenarios which do get indicated as such.

[The Fox]

Drogon wrote:

Stormfriend wrote:

A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables).

I can't remember which one is PP and which one is fame, but it should be obvious what I mean.

I like this. A lot.

I do too.

[Funky Badger]

N N 959 wrote:

I think it's a pretty straightforward and conservative assumption that if people were given an option to earn PP they missed out on previously, they'd enjoy it.

This thread - granted, not a perfect barometer, suggests otherwise.

[Mergy]

I personally prefer people not automatically acing their faction mission. I like that you can't get back the prestige or the fame you've lost.

It is not a cut and dry thing that all PFS players want this. Some people might, but others do not.

[hogarth]

I dream of a day when faction points are gone completely, and all factions can live in peace and harmony.

Imagine there's no factions
I wonder if you can
No freeing slaves or macguffins
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all pathfinders, sharing all the loot...