Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread

[Cold Napalm]

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

Cold Napalm wrote:

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

snipped

You might as well just say you can't play out of tier then. You play up and your fame hit will get you boned. Yeah one or two ain't bad...but happens to the poor sap that started off with a bunch of level 3-4s? That is 6 games playing up to catch up in tier.

What does somebody do under the current rule system when they get into a group of level 3-4s with a level 1? They can play up with them but those 3-4s are going to move onto 5-9 content before that level 1 catches up. I don't understand your argument here.

Cold Napalm wrote:

That is 12 fame gone. 12 fame is a freaking HUGE deal. Like your gonna end up have to scrape your character huge when you find out that you can't afford even a +2 weapon until like level 8.

12 Fame is a big hit for a low level. That's why it's best to not play up every game. The system is designed to prevent playing up every game, which is the problem identified in the podcast. If you don't play up every game, it won't affect you much at all, in fact you'll still have more gold than others of your level.

Cold Napalm wrote:

And then playing down is gonna be worse then it is now. You have the same penalty as it is now...except that if you play up, you don't actually come up ahead in gold AND you take a fame hit.

You do come up ahead in gold when playing up. Check out my other post where I break down the math of playing up vs. playing in tier. In this proposed system you still earn more gold than someone playing in tier even with the double XP.

In the end it's going to come down to two question: How serious is this WBL issue? Is it worth changing the rules to prevent abuse of the system?

1) Under the current system, yes if your a level 1 in a local group of 3-4, you gonna end up playing up pretty much every game unless you can get in games elsewhere (or they do the slow track for a while). Take a wild guess how those fringe has gobs of wealth characters get made. It's because they play up with a set of locals who already have a solid team. I would rather have the odd uber get made vs having a system that basically says if your in this situation...don't play...at all.

2) The proposed changes, your preferred delayed credit idea or even the HOD variants will NOT FIX WBL issues. Seriously do people just not pay any freaking attention? I repeated this so many times now. Even if you play completely in tier, the choices to play up or down and dead levels will be difference of DOUBLE between players who play all down those levels vs one who plays up all those levels. So WBL ain't getting fixed with ANY of these ideas. It just reduces the fringe cases...at the cost of LOTS of other issues. If your actually serious about WBL, the ONLY fix is to have a chart. You get X amount of gold based on level per session. That is what will fix WBL...except that almost nobody seems interested in actually fixing WBL. They seem more interested in punishing players who didn't take the EXACT same risk as they did.

3) You do NOT come up in gold with double exp automatically. You do at level 1-2...but at level 3, if you play up to a 6-7 game, your at 3k+. 2 3-4 game is 1500ish each. Two 4-5 game is 1750ish each for actually worth MORE money so playing up to a 6-7 would net you LESS money.

[Catprog]

Joe M. wrote:

Catprog wrote:

The main problem I see with dis-incentiving OOT play in general is does it make it harder to form tables?

Catprog wrote:

With the GP penalty:

Currently playing down gets you low-teir gold. Under HOD the penalty is reduced as you are only playing down for .5xp instead of 1xp.

Yes. Under the current system, WBL lost by playing down can easily be made up for by playing up once or twice. But under HOD (as under PCP and DC), that's not really possible. So the WBL penalty for playing down needs...

For 1-5 (using 500 and 1300)

DOWN TEIR

Play down once get 500GP and 1xp (Current system)
Play down once get 500GP and 0.5xp (HOD)

IN TIER
Play 4-5 once get 1300GP and 1xp
play 1-2 once for 500GP and 1xp

UP TEIR
Play up get 1300GP and 1xp (Current)
Play up get 1300GP and 2xp (HOD)

Someone who plays up once and down once.

1800GP and 2xp (Current system) = 1,133.5 per xp
1650GP and 2.5xp = 660 per xp

playing down twice

1000GP and 2xp (Current system) = 650 per xp
1000GP and 1xp = 1000 per xp

playing up twice

2600 and 2xp = 1300 per xp
2600 and 4xp = 750 per xp

Assuming 6 in tier and the following games

Then per xp

playing up twice changes from 911.11 to 560
playing down twice changes from 733.33 to 877.78
playing up once and down once from 822.22 to 733.33
in teir(with 3 games at L3 at high) 766.6666666667
in teir(with 3 games at L3 at low) 500

At L6 (15xp)

playing up twice changes from 980 to 806.67
playing down twice changes from 873.33 to 960
playing up once and down once from 926.67 to 873.33
in teir(with 3 games at L3 at high) 980
in teir(with 3 games at L3 at low) 820

Half XP/Double XP (and teir played at gold) will make the wealth gap bigger and playing down the preferred choice.

Holding sheets until you get to the right level will make it harder to form tables as people won't want to play up at all.(increased cost in consumables.)

Cold Napalm wrote:

If your actually serious about WBL, the ONLY fix is to have a chart. You get X amount of gold based on level per session.

And someone who plays down will spend less on healing then someone who plays up.

[Oarwind]

catprog: I get different numbers than you.

playing up twice:

1300+1300 playing up twice at 1st level now at 4xp
500+500 playing tier at 2nd level now at 6xp
1300+1300+1300 playing level 3 at high 9xp
1300+1300+1300 playing level 4 at tier 12xp
1300+1300+1300 playing level 5 at tier 15xp
=15300 or 1020 per xp

In tier(with 3 games at L3 high) 980

Playing down twice

500+500+500 playing tier at 1st level now at 3xp
500+500+500 playing tier at 2nd level now at 6xp
1300+1300+1300 playing high at 3rd level now at 9xp
500+500+1300+1300 playing down twice at 4th level now at 12xp
1300+1300+1300 playing tier at 5th level now at 15xp
14400 or 960 per exp

In tier(with 3 games at L3 high) 980

[Serum]

I still don't understand the ideas about "playing the higher tier should give you the higher tier gold".

In the season 1 1-7 I just ran, gold for each sub-tier was: 513, 1634, 3862. The 6-7 sub-tier was almost 2.5 times the 3-4, which was more than three times the 1-2.

Last week I ran a season 3 1-5, which was 521, and 1885. Again, the 4-5 subtier was almost 4 times that of the 1-2.

A recent season 4 3-7 tier, gold levels were 1304 and 3187, which is almost 2.5 times different.

If you want to solve the problem of playing up/down = skewed WBL, you can't just award upper/lower sub-tier gold in any of the solutions.

HOD with half/double everything including gold, works quite well.
Playing up tends to increase consumable usage per scenario, but the character plays in fewer scenarios to use consumables in. The increased access to chronicle rewards gives a small incentive to play up.
Playing down tends to decrease consumable usage per scenario, but the character plays in more scenarios to use consumables in. The reduced access to chronicle rewards gives a small disincentive to play down.

(I say small, because, so far, chronicle items separated into different subtiers, so far, haven't been met with a huge amount of excitement)

For John's concerns, I concur with what Rogue Eidolon has stated.

[Joe M.]

Serum wrote:

I still don't understand the ideas about "playing the higher tier should give you the higher tier gold".

In the season 1 1-7 I just ran, gold for each sub-tier was: 513, 1634, 3862. The 6-7 sub-tier was almost 2.5 times the 3-4, which was more than three times the 1-2.

Last week I ran a season 3 1-5, which was 521, and 1885. Again, the 4-5 subtier was almost 4 times that of the 1-2.

A recent season 4 3-7 tier, gold levels were 1304 and 3187, which is almost 2.5 times different.

If you want to solve the problem of playing up = skewed WBL, you can't just award upper sub-tier gold in any of the solutions.

That does weigh against the up-tier / down-tier version of HOD and in favor of the 2x / 1/2x GP version.

I believe the original thought behind the up-tier / down-tier version (though it probably also suggested itself because that's what we're used to) was: (i) numbers already on the Chronicles, no math required; (ii) any extra GP (above 2x) is likely to go towards the extra costs of playing up (more consumables spent, more for conditions removed, etc); (iii) whatever slight extra remains might stand as a little bonus for the extra risk.

If the numbers are as disparate the ones you cite, a 2x / 1/2x version does look better.

***

I'll weigh in on John's excellent question(s) this evening, though I suspect Rogue Eidolon and SCPRedMage have already suggested the best answer(s) HOD can give. I'll see what I think this evening.

[Kerney]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Do Nothing: Its a perceived problem, and not a real problem. People should be rewarded for playing above their weight.

My vote

My vote as well.

I also think this proposal has the potential to be a jumping the shark moment.

[Felix Gaunt]

Joe M. wrote:

• Podcast Proposal (PCP): When playing out-of-tier (OOT), receive GP either for the subtier (ST) appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. XP and PP reward unchanged.

• Delayed Credit (DC): Largely as PCP. When playing OOT, receive GP either for ST appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. Alternatively, players playing up can choose to hold the Chronicle Sheet, receiving no GP XP or PP right then, and apply the Chronicle for credit when the character reaches that level. In this case, the character receives full up-tier GP. Before holding credit, character can spend GP from the Chronicle to remove conditions and replace consumables spent during that adventure.

• Half or Double (HOD): When playing OOT, reward halved or doubled as appropriate. When playing up, receive 2 XP, up-tier GP, and 3 PP. When playing down, receive 1/2 XP, down-tier GP, and 0 PP. [The small PP penalty from pure half-or-double is included to discourage continuous OOT play. The GP and PP adjustments can of course be adjusted: e.g. it's been suggested to go with 2x low-tier GP and 1/2 high-tier GP instead of simply up-tier and down-tier.]

• OOT GP: When playing OOT, receive some GP reward in between ST appropriate to character and ST played. E.g., average of low-tier and high-tier GP. XP and PP reward unchanged.

• GP by Level (GPBL): Regardless of ST played, receive GP for ST appropriate to character level. XP and PP reward unchanged.

Have I missed any? At 800 posts and counting, it's a little difficult to keep track of everything here!

I'm not sure why people think the Half or Double is so great, I enjoy playing up for a challenge and also like playing my character as much as possible. Now playing up will still give me the challenge, but it'll mean I get to play my character less. Am I missing something here?

[Jiggy]

Kerney wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Do Nothing: Its a perceived problem, and not a real problem. People should be rewarded for playing above their weight.

My vote

My vote as well.

It would be nice to have (assuming I haven't already missed it) some sort of commentary from Mike/Mark/John as to the overall intent of subtiers and such.

It seems that some folks see subtiers as, essentially, "difficulty settings" to be selected from. There are rules to keep you from selecting a subtier that's too far off from your party's expected capability, but the general idea (according to some) seems to be that we're intended to be able to select a challenge level and be rewarded according to that choice. If this is the intent, then we need to come up with a solution (or lack thereof) which in no way disincentivizes playing up because it's supposed to be a selectable option for any group who wants to and is able to put together a high-tier-legal table. "I should be able to take on extra risk and achieve its extra rewards."

Others, however, see subtiers as a concession to the impossibility of organizing events when scenarios only accommodate a couple of levels of PCs. Thus, the intent is that PCs play in-tier as much as possible, and playing out of tier is something of a last resort (or next to last, or whatever) that an organizer can pull out of his hat to make an event happen. If this is true, then it's okay - even desirable - for playing up to be disincentivized to the point that a player will only do so if they really, really want to play their PC and there's no other way to do so.

These two philosophies about the intent of the ability to play out of tier produce vastly different ideas about the topic at hand, as well as wildly different reactions to those ideas. If we want to focus our energies on coming up with thoughts that are actually helpful to the powers that be, we really need to know which mindset we should be operating under.

[Serum]

Felix Gaunt wrote:

I'm not sure why people think the Half or Double is so great, I enjoy playing up for a challenge and also like playing my character as much as possible. Now playing up will still give me the challenge, but it'll mean I get to play my character less. Am I missing something here?

If challenge is the entire reason why you like playing up, you could make two identical characters and play up with them equally, or you could play up, then take the lower tier reward (and single xp). If neither of those seem good for you, then...

[Joe M.]

Felix Gaunt wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

• Podcast Proposal (PCP): When playing out-of-tier (OOT), receive GP either for the subtier (ST) appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. XP and PP reward unchanged.

• Delayed Credit (DC): Largely as PCP. When playing OOT, receive GP either for ST appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. Alternatively, players playing up can choose to hold the Chronicle Sheet, receiving no GP XP or PP right then, and apply the Chronicle for credit when the character reaches that level. In this case, the character receives full up-tier GP. Before holding credit, character can spend GP from the Chronicle to remove conditions and replace consumables spent during that adventure.

• Half or Double (HOD): When playing OOT, reward halved or doubled as appropriate. When playing up, receive 2 XP, up-tier GP, and 3 PP. When playing down, receive 1/2 XP, down-tier GP, and 0 PP. [The small PP penalty from pure half-or-double is included to discourage continuous OOT play. The GP and PP adjustments can of course be adjusted: e.g. it's been suggested to go with 2x low-tier GP and 1/2 high-tier GP instead of simply up-tier and down-tier.]

• OOT GP: When playing OOT, receive some GP reward in between ST appropriate to character and ST played. E.g., average of low-tier and high-tier GP. XP and PP reward unchanged.

• GP by Level (GPBL): Regardless of ST played, receive GP for ST appropriate to character level. XP and PP reward unchanged.

Have I missed any? At 800 posts and counting, it's a little difficult to keep track of everything here!

I'm not sure why people think the Half or Double is so great, I enjoy playing up for a challenge and also like playing my character as much as possible. Now playing up will still give me the challenge, but it'll mean I get to play my character less. Am I missing something here?

Yes. That summary has been replaced. See the elaboration here and corrected summary a few posts below. I expect to post a new summary this evening if required in accounting for John's questions.

[Arkos]

Jiggy wrote:

It seems that some folks see subtiers as, essentially, "difficulty settings" to be selected from. There are rules to keep you from selecting a subtier that's too far off from your party's expected capability, but the general idea (according to some) seems to be that we're intended to be able to select a challenge level and be rewarded according to that choice. If this is the intent, then we need to come up with a solution (or lack thereof) which in no way disincentivizes playing up because it's supposed to be a selectable option for any group who wants to and is able to put together a high-tier-legal table. "I should be able to take on extra risk and achieve its extra rewards."

Based on our local style of play, it never even occurred to me that this was a philosophy. We generally decide on scenarios by the current tier of the players, so hitting mid-APL has hardly come up, and the GM generally is the one who says "this may be too tough, but if you really want to try it..." I never realized that playing in "hardcore" mode was an option, and I have no idea whether I'm in the minority or not.

However, this thread has made it very clear that to some people "disincentivizing" is the same as "punishing," because the words are spoken by people with different feelings on how the game is played. I would love to see a poll detailing how players feel about this distinction. Or how campaign staff intended it.

[SCPRedMage]

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

It's not about punishing players for playing the way they want. If they want to play up, they still can do that, they just won't be able to play up every game, have 20000 GP at level 4, and buy one giant item.

Right, and that problem can be solved without ham-stringing players on their fame. You are advocating that players who don't play at-tier every time deserve to have less fame than everyone who does. That IS a punishment, whether you recognize that or not.

The bottom line of what I'm getting at is that players should always have the same opportunity to earn fame commensurate with the XP they earn; to apply a "penalty" to the prestige they earn is, in fact, a punishment for "not playing the right way".

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

Not at all. I said in the post that the rules for playing down would be left exactly as they are currently. Same goes for playing in-tier. The problem mentioned in the podcast is that people are playing up too much and amassing huge quantities of wealth. The change I proposed attempts to remedy that with as few changes as possible.

The reason I'm for the 1/2 XP/PP for playing down is because the changes preclude earning back money you lose out on due to playing down, meaning that it becomes somewhat necessary to soften that, as well.

Which is to say, if we remove the mechanism players currently have to make playing down less painful, we should provide another one.

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

It's one simple change. Playing above your tier gives you 2 XP. That's all. To be perfectly honest I am not married to this idea anyway. I like the delayed credit idea best. When you play up you hold the credit until you are eligible for that tier as if holding pregen credit or gm credit. You could instead go the podcast route and apply it instantly with your in-tier reward.

I think I just adequately explained why I think we should adjust playing down along with adjusting playing up, and I've already explained why the "delayed credit" idea is in fact not any different than the podcast system, which most players seem to agree is a very bad idea. If the podcast system is a bad idea, and the "delayed credit" system is basically the same, then chances are pretty good that the "delayed credit" system is just as bad.

[SCPRedMage]

Arkos wrote:

However, this thread has made it very clear that to some people "disincentivizing" is the same as "punishing," because the words are spoken by people with different feelings on how the game is played. I would love to see a poll detailing how players feel about this distinction. Or how campaign staff intended it.

There is a difference in "disincentivizing" by way of "removing the incentive", which is certainly what we're going for in regards to playing up for extra cash, and "disincentivizing" by way of "making it a bad choice".

I am not someone who plays up a lot, nor am I one who advocates playing up. In fact, the last few times I had the chance to play up, I went out of my way to advocate playing down. That said, I believe fully that if someone WANTS to play up, so long as it's a legal option (and the rest of the table agrees), we shouldn't get in their way.

I believe that the system should be as agnostic as possible to how people play the game, whereas I see people advocating for players who don't play "in-tier" every time should automatically get less out of the scenarios that they play than everyone else. Yes, doubling the XP/PP they earn means they get more PP out of a specific scenario, but it also means they have half the opportunities to earn PP, and makes each faction mission twice as important to pass; failing one faction mission while playing up is just as painful as failing two normally. Considering that I've seen plenty of faction missions that are set up so that the majority of characters can't even attempt them, usually due to hinging entirely on a single trained-only skill, such as an obscure Knowledge skill (seriously, who puts a rank in Knowledge [geography] at level one?), this is a proposition I'd be quite nervous about.

[SCPRedMage]

Kerney wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Do Nothing: Its a perceived problem, and not a real problem. People should be rewarded for playing above their weight.

My vote

My vote as well.

I also think this proposal has the potential to be a jumping the shark moment.

I don't think that's actually an option; campaign leadership has stated there WILL be a change, which means "do nothing" is not on the table.

I also believe players should be rewarded for "playing above their weight", but I also think we should try to avoid breaking the WBL guidelines, if possible.

[Mark Moreland]

Just wanted to stop in to thank everyone for your comments and suggestions in this thread. John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision, in no small part because of the feedback we've received here and on the regional coordinators' board. We'll let everyone know what the new wealth policy will be once we've got the wording all finalized in the next version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Expect that sometime between PaizoCon and Gen Con.

[Robert Matthews 166]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Just wanted to stop in to thank everyone for your comments and suggestions in this thread. John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision, in no small part because of the feedback we've received here and on the regional coordinators' board. We'll let everyone know what the new wealth policy will be once we've got the wording all finalized in the next version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Expect that sometime between PaizoCon and Gen Con.

Good to hear. I'm glad to have had the privilege of being a part of this discussion. Thanks everyone for giving me something to do for an entire week.

Even if you guys stick to the idea presented in the podcast, I won't be too upset about it. In the end, I just want to play :)

[Joe M.]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Just wanted to stop in to thank everyone for your comments and suggestions in this thread. John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision, in no small part because of the feedback we've received here and on the regional coordinators' board. We'll let everyone know what the new wealth policy will be once we've got the wording all finalized in the next version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Expect that sometime between PaizoCon and Gen Con.

Glad to hear the feedback's been helpful. Interested to see what the new policy will be.

[Melavis Clay]

All this discussion got me to thinking about how much of a difference in gold you get by playing on tier and by playing up. I did a spreadsheet to see what the difference is and I came up with total gold lv 1-11 playing "on tier" 114450gp which is approximate and can change by a couple percentage points based upon what senario you actually played in. The gold you get for playing "up" every single time you play (lv 1 4-5 tier, lv 3 6-7 tier and so on)is approxiamtly 180000gp. This is a signifigant difference in gold however lets say the consumables needed to play up cost 7000gp and you have to pay for a raise dead at some point and have negative levels removed 8000gp (yes prestige is an option here but to make a true gold to gold comparison it is ommited).

If it costs 15000gp to play up on average there is now a 50550gp difference (180000-114450-15000=50550) between playing on tier and playing up which is only a 43% difference. Now it would be incredably hard to play up every single time you play to get the max gold stated here. Also keep in mind after lv 9 there is really no difference in gold for playing "on tier" or "up" My best guess would be someone could possibly get 25%-30% more gold overall for playing up consistantly. I know this is a big difference but it is not 2-3 times as much as a normal tier people were saying early on. Is it that big of a game breaker if people want to take more risk and play up?

After crunching the numbers I really think do nothing is the best approach, reward people who want to play a harder game, and make it possible to play down if needed to make a table without permanently putting your character behind the curve.

[Chernobyl]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Chernobyl wrote:

none of the suggestions fix the 2PA 750gp issue with WBL. That's worth 10-20K of expendables by 12th level.

Thats not a bug its a feature. Expendables are, by definition, expended. Wealth by level is what you KEEP after expenses, not what you earn.

The discussion on page 400 if the core rulebook regarding characters above starting level 1, refers to 15% of the wealth being spent on consumables.

If this is the assumption for PCs (as it seems to be) then the 2PA 750GP conversion is really taking away that 15% expenditure and putting it back into the character. Its like giving the character 115% WBL, if the real GP award is intended to be 100% WBL.

[thaX]

I hope that my Halfvies plan didn't get drowned out by all the discussion of the double down or half witted plan.

Really, I believe Halfvies is a good way to figure out mid tier gold without changing to much with the rewards otherwise.

Whatever the change, I hope that it doesn't change the EXP rewards or have playing up or down getting nothing for it. (No extra gold for playing high or low tier gold for playing low)

I can see that a change could have the WBL swing the other way, having the character not get enough to use throughout his career.

As quoted from one of my favorite movies...

"Good luck... your gonna need it..."

[JohnF]

There's a possibility of quite a wide spread of earned wealth, even without playing outside your subtier. For example, a level 5 character can play in the 4-5 subtier of a tier 1-5 scenario, the 5-6 subtier of a 5-9, and in either subtier of a 3-7. While this is, admittedly, the most extreme case (with roughly a factor of three difference between the lowest and highest possible reward), you can end up with earnings of anywhere between 50,000gp and 100,000gp by the time you get to level 10.

So if you can end up with a factor of two difference in earnings based on choice of overall tier (and also whether to play up or down at the intermediate levels), is fixing the reported difference introduced by playing out-of-subtier going to resolve the issue?

[Felix Gaunt]

Serum wrote:

Felix Gaunt wrote:

I'm not sure why people think the Half or Double is so great, I enjoy playing up for a challenge and also like playing my character as much as possible. Now playing up will still give me the challenge, but it'll mean I get to play my character less. Am I missing something here?

If challenge is the entire reason why you like playing up, you could make two identical characters and play up with them equally, or you could play up, then take the lower tier reward (and single xp). If neither of those seem good for you, then...

Challenge isn't the only reason to play up, sometimes it's because you don't have a choice due to the party makeup. Also please don't say just play another character, because I've seen countless situations where people have showed up to play and could only do so in 1 of the 3 games being run. I fail to see how the playing up option is a good one (unless you want to level super fast), you a) don't get to play said character as much and b) are still getting gold/xp equivalent to what the podcast said. Also couldn't the 2xp potentially gimp you gold wise if you were on the cusp of another tier?

I haven't really read every post on this thread but I'm failing to see the allure of this idea. I travel a total of 4 hours to play my weekly game and definitely would never play up under this rule set, be it standard (ie my tier) or 2XP/2GP. Is there something obvious that I'm missing? :-/

[Felix Gaunt]

Melavis Clay wrote:

After crunching the numbers I really think do nothing is the best approach, reward people who want to play a harder game, and make it possible to play down if needed to make a table without permanently putting your character behind the curve.

I did similar math as well and agree that it didn't seem drastically different, although I imagine there are outliers. If the primary concern is having WBL being insanely skewed then why not impose some sort of cap based upon level. Some of the ideas floating around remind me of the saying "The cure is worse than the disease." Sure the existing model isn't perfect, does it need tweaking, probably, does it need an entire overhaul, not so much.

My worry is the new rules will (unintentionally) penalize someone who is forced to play down/up (or not play at all), which should never ever happen.

[zylphryx]

Thanks Mark, John and Mike! I'm glad our ramblings, head-butting and number crunching had an impact. ;)

Seriously though, at tthe risk of repeating myself, the fact that y'all opened this up for discussion and listened to our input speaks volume as to the integrity of Paizo and the folks who work there. Kudos to y'all and I look forward to seeing what the final call is. :)

[Catprog]

Oarwind wrote:

catprog: I get different numbers than you.

Yeah I see what I did now.

[trollbill]

zylphryx wrote:

Thanks Mark, John and Mike! I'm glad our ramblings, head-butting and number crunching had an impact. ;)

Seriously though, at tthe risk of repeating myself, the fact that y'all opened this up for discussion and listened to our input speaks volume as to the integrity of Paizo and the folks who work there. Kudos to y'all and I look forward to seeing what the final call is. :)

You know I can't help but wonder if this was Mark, John and Mikes equivalent to the Sequester. Throw out a harsh ruling on a problem with a deadline and watch people madly scramble to come up with a better solution, and if they don't, then I guess it wasn't that harsh in the first place.

[Cormac O'Bron]

Mark Moreland wrote:

John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision, in no small part because of the feedback we've received here and on the regional coordinators' board.

In the immortal words of Elan the Swashbuckling Bard, "I'm participating! I'm participating!"

[thunderspirit]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Just wanted to stop in to thank everyone for your comments and suggestions in this thread. John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision, in no small part because of the feedback we've received here and on the regional coordinators' board. We'll let everyone know what the new wealth policy will be once we've got the wording all finalized in the next version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Expect that sometime between PaizoCon and Gen Con.

Thanks to you three for listening/reading the dissent. Even if you ultimately decide to keep the podcast proposal, at least you've shown a willingness to consider other options.

[Jiggy]

So, whatever solution was chosen, will the people who pushed for that option in this thread get free race boons and/or other swag? I think that sounds like a good idea. Right?

...right?

...

;)

[Hayato Ken]

Jiggy wrote:

So, whatever solution was chosen, will the people who pushed for that option in this thread get free race boons and/or other swag? I think that sounds like a good idea. Right?

...right?

...

;)

Sounds good yes :)

[Netopalis]

And people who advocated other alternatives have until Aug. 14 to switch the proposition that they supported, of course.

[James Risner]

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

It's one simple change. Playing above your tier gives you 2 XP. That's all.

This would only work if there was also a 0 XP 500 gp option so people don't level out to retired after having screamed past their youth.

Mark Moreland wrote:

John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision

So we have to wait several months to learn the nature of the nerf?

[WalterGM]

James Risner wrote:

Mark Moreland wrote:

John, Mike, and I have talked over a few options and come to a decision

So we have to wait several months to learn the nature of the nerf?

Mark Moreland wrote:

We'll let everyone know what the new wealth policy will be once we've got the wording all finalized in the next version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Expect that sometime between PaizoCon and Gen Con.

PaizoCon starts July 5th, GenCon starts August 15th.

[Curaigh]

Joe M. wrote:

...Summary of Proposals:

** spoiler omitted **...

Thanks for that.

[thaX]

Felix Gaunt wrote:

Melavis Clay wrote:

After crunching the numbers I really think do nothing is the best approach, reward people who want to play a harder game, and make it possible to play down if needed to make a table without permanently putting your character behind the curve.

I did similar math as well and agree that it didn't seem drastically different, although I imagine there are outliers. If the primary concern is having WBL being insanely skewed then why not impose some sort of cap based upon level. Some of the ideas floating around remind me of the saying "The cure is worse than the disease." Sure the existing model isn't perfect, does it need tweaking, probably, does it need an entire overhaul, not so much.

My worry is the new rules will (unintentionally) penalize someone who is forced to play down/up (or not play at all), which should never ever happen.

This is why Halvies would work in that vein. It would be based on the tier of the player and they would get appropriate gold without getting short changed. At low levels, the 1-2 tiers would not break over 1k playing up while the 4-5 would get a bit less, it would still be over 1k. Each player that plays within their own tier would get the regular reward, regardless of whether or not the group is playing up or down.

In the higher levels, mid tier gold evens out. (even to the point that the higher tier playing down gets a bit less than if the lower tier would play up.)

As I see it, the "everyone gets low tier gold" proposal would end up with the scale tipping the other way as characters playing down would end up with pitiful gold.

That is just me, though. I doubt any even paid any attention to me, as the "More exp, gr8!! lvls ups & more $$$!!! Let's do that!!!" discussion seemed to take over.

[zylphryx]

I bit my tongue earlier with your

thaX wrote:

I hope that my Halfvies plan didn't get drowned out by all the discussion of the double down or half witted plan.

statement, but please stop with the passive aggressive snark. It does not reflect well on you or your idea.

there was no

thaX wrote:

"More exp, gr8!! lvls ups & more $$$!!! Let's do that!!!"

discussion. What there was was a discussion of various alternatives to what everyone who posted in this thread viewed as an initially flawed option for changing the playing up policy.

If you are wanting to continue this discussion, great. But please show respect to other folks' opinions.

[thaX]

The more the 2x, half down alternative got discussed, the more complicated it was becoming.

Perhaps adjust the PP reward also? Maybe combine it with the "Pregen" hold until you get to appropriate level thing?

Oh. OH! I know! let's do this as well...

My point is that it is a bad premise to mess with the EXP track in the first place. I really hope that it isn't a part of the solution that is used for the perceived problem of WLB. I believe it will end up with a lot of sour grapes all around.

[Robert Matthews 166]

Everyone put forth good ideas and others offered constructive criticism for various ideas. There's no need to attack other ideas or take criticism personally. This was for brainstorming afterall so any idea is worth presenting. The developers announced they have come to a decision so there's really no reason to keep going on about any of the ideas presented.

[Cold Napalm]

thaX wrote:

That is just me, though. I doubt any even paid any attention to me, as the "More exp, gr8!! lvls ups & more $$$!!! Let's do that!!!" discussion seemed to take over.

We did pay attention to you...we just didn't AGREE with you. We are not forced to agree with you. Sorry, kinda how the world works.

And really, your solution doesn't actually FIX the issue given. It makes the differential from x4 from worst to best case scenario to x3. The x2 exp changes this to about x2 which is around what the podcast proposal is set at as well. So yeah, we paid attention...we just think other ideas were better.

[SCPRedMage]

thaX wrote:

That is just me, though. I doubt any even paid any attention to me, as the "More exp, gr8!! lvls ups & more $$$!!! Let's do that!!!" discussion seemed to take over.

I, for one, didn't like the HOD idea because it gave more XP; I liked it because it was a simple way to allow playing up to be more rewarding (which, considering the extra risk, it should be) while still keeping wealth in line, with the added benefit of softening the wealth hit of having to play down.

That said, the hostility you just spewed would have been better off left unstated, as it is an unnecessary attack on people's intelligence. Personally, I didn't care for your idea because it was one of the more complicated ideas to implement at the table; that doesn't mean I'm "half witted", as you implied earlier.

I certainly hope the fact that I'm trying very hard to remain civil shows, because my first impulse was to post something... very much different.

[Cormac O'Bron]

My idea was the bestest, so nanny nanny boo boo. Wait... the devs already said "thanks for the brainstorm, we will take it under advisement" and any grousing from here on out is just theoretical sour grapes??? Well shucky darns!

[zylphryx]

There's no reason for anyone to be kicking out snarky comments, folks. If you do 't agree with a comment or ideas, fine. But leave the snark out of it. It really serves no purpose other than to fan flames.

thaX, I did not agree with your plan for the boost it gave folks who played down. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the way it is handled currently. The problem is really with the way playing up is currently handled. Would running with a reduced payout for playing up (ie- not full gold for the higher tier, but an average of the two) move towards solving the WBL issue? It would be a step in the right direction, but for smaller lodges where there is a level disparity between PCs playing up would remain an ongoing issue. With the 2x XP and high tier gold, the issue self corrects as the lower level PC levels up at a faster pace (and is basically the inverse of playing the slow track).

Would there be folks who play up to level up faster? Probably. Is that realy an issue? No more so than someone playing on the slow track IMO.

[Cormac O'Bron]

zylphryx wrote:

There's no reason for anyone to be kicking out snarky comments, folks. If you do 't agree with a comment or ideas, fine. But leave the snark out of it. It really serves no purpose other than to fan flames.

Au contraire, mon fraire! The fine art of Snark has a rich and storied history as a rhetorical device used to prove one has the rapier like wit of a 10th level Duelist! Why else do you think I took Skill Focus Snark, the Chellaxian Haughty Snarker trait, and the Elf alternate racial ability Yes, Your Race IS Inferior??? Now if only there was some way to use prestige to make snarking a day job!

[zylphryx]

Ah ... well then ... I stand corrected.

<breaks out a can of Snark Away™ and spritzes Cormac>

Is the internet dragging you down with zingers, sarcastic responses and scathing wit? Well now there's a solution!

SNARK AWAY™!by Wha-Blam-OH!

A simple spritz through your internet connection will fill the people you meet online with a feeling of goodwill and camaraderie.

Gone will be the days of flame wars and random trolling! Gone will be the assumptions of "the worst possible meaning" to an otherwise innocuous statement!

Pick up you can of SNARK AWAY™! today from your local fine retailer.

The claims herein have not been approved by the FDA, FCC, EPA or any other acronym. Use of SNARK AWAY™! may result in high blood pressure, low blood pressure, hair loss, hair growth, excessive sweating, excessive bleeding, excessive excessiveness, hoof and mouth disease, overripe fruit, typos, loss of bodily functions, loss of mental functions, loss of being able to calculate functions, an unhealthy obsession for higher math, making random purchases and forgetting about them until you see your credit card statement, running around nude in fields of wildflowers, being chased by police through fields of wildflowers, getting looks from your new cellmates due to your lack of attire, uncontrollable itching, uncontrollable sneezing, rapid growth spurts and your urine turning an odd shade of puce

[thunderspirit]

Can I get some frickin' snarks with some frickin' laser beams on their frickin' heads?

[thaX]

Cold Napalm wrote:

thaX wrote:

That is just me, though. I doubt any even paid any attention to me, as the "More exp, gr8!! lvls ups & more $$$!!! Let's do that!!!" discussion seemed to take over.

We did pay attention to you...we just didn't AGREE with you. We are not forced to agree with you. Sorry, kinda how the world works.

And really, your solution doesn't actually FIX the issue given. It makes the differential from x4 from worst to best case scenario to x3. The x2 exp changes this to about x2 which is around what the podcast proposal is set at as well. So yeah, we paid attention...we just think other ideas were better.

Nothing will "fix" the issue, bar none. To me, the real issue is that playing down nets pitiful gold, in the current system.

Mid Tier gold (either preset totals or calculated with Halvies (tm)) is a midigater of the perceived problem of going beyond WBL.

The more exp, slow exp proposal simply componds it into another problem altogether while not really taking care of the "problem." In my mind, limiting wealth as a game balance mechanic is part of the reason 4th edition was hamstrung right out of the gate, so having the current rules for playing up didn't even register as a blip in my radar.

I offer halvies not as a solution, per say, but as a way to mitigate the problem. To go with low tier gold for any play out of tier would wreck havoc to forming tables and getting players situationed to play within tier, as a lot less people will want to play out of tier (up or down) for little or no reward. Wealth shouldn't be regulated to the last gold piece, though I do understand the need to have an expectation of how much wealth a character should, or should not get in his career in an organized setting.

I would be the first to jettison out those limits in a home game, in a heartbeat.

So no one actually talked about halvies while the conversation was going, and the mid tier gold was getting complicated with level breakdowns and wealth by each individual level. It seemed, as I have mentioned, that my post got lost in the talk about the 2/half exp thing, and the overall discussion on if PP should or should not change, if one should hold a sheet till appropriate level and so on.

I don't see halvies as a complicated thing. Playing up gets full plus half, playing down gets half and half of lower tier. Based on player's tier. It can even be pre-done on future chronicles (This for tier, this for playing up... this for higher tier, this for playing down)

But I guess a little math seems to be a bit to much to handle.

[Cold Napalm]

thaX wrote:

Cold Napalm wrote:

thaX wrote:

That is just me, though. I doubt any even paid any attention to me, as the "More exp, gr8!! lvls ups & more $$$!!! Let's do that!!!" discussion seemed to take over.

We did pay attention to you...we just didn't AGREE with you. We are not forced to agree with you. Sorry, kinda how the world works.

And really, your solution doesn't actually FIX the issue given. It makes the differential from x4 from worst to best case scenario to x3. The x2 exp changes this to about x2 which is around what the podcast proposal is set at as well. So yeah, we paid attention...we just think other ideas were better.

Nothing will "fix" the issue, bar none. To me, the real issue is that playing down nets pitiful gold, in the current system.

WRONG. You can very well easily equalize wealth. Everyone gets X gold per session based on level. There done. As a way to deal with extra consumables used, we can have playing up give you more PP and fame. Since you don't get more gold, you don't have to worry about people buying uber gear and the extra PP should easily cover consumables used. But fixing the WBL issue is quite easy if that is something the leadership ACTUALLY wants. They really may not want it.

Now for your solution...the issue isn't that people don't want to do math at the tables...well some people don't...but the issue is that your solution doesn't do enough for the added hassle it causes. Having 3x the wealth of somebody vs 4x isn't honestly gonna be much of a difference. Having 2x honestly is an issue already...but like I said, unless the leadership wants to standardize wealth, it's gonna be an issue...and the 2x number they seem comfortable with already.

Also blaming the non support of you idea on the intelligence of the forumites AGAIN? Sheesh...you may just want stop talking if you can't form a standard response without pissing people off.

[thaX]

Where does this 3x number come from?

Playing up won't net that much at early levels (750 vs 500?) and playing down still gets less than max.

The only way to get to standard, really, is to change the society rewards to the standard wealth rewards by level, as you state. Tiers would simply be a GM side of things, the players wouldn't get a choice. (there would be no need)

Added hassle? Then you blast me for blaming the Int of the Mites? (3hp, 1/4 CR)

I know... I know, calling everyone Barbie (Math is hard!) may be a bit over the top, but it isn't rocket science.

The 2x or half exp (with current wealth reward in place, it should be said) will still reward more gold, though the levels would even out over time and a limited player base would end up at around the same level after a bit. They won't get to play their characters as much, which is sad, but the casual player will hit paydirt (assuming he survives)

Whatever happens, I hope it doesn't go to the other extreme, not having enough gold to get up to the WBL standards.

[JohnF]

thaX wrote:

I know... I know, calling everyone Barbie (Math is hard!) may be a bit over the top, but it isn't rocket science.

It is, however, more arithmetic than PFS requires of players or GMs when filling out the award boxes of a chronicle. The layout of a chronicle sheet was amended, once slow track came along, so that even the result of dividing the earned GP amount by 2 was pre-calculated and printed on the chronicle sheet.

If it was thought to be worthwhile to do that, then anything requiring people to add two numbers and divide the result by two (or any equivalent calculation) is unlikely to be seen as sufficiently straightforward.

[Cold Napalm]

Actually if you paid attention to the math (obviously math IS hard for you as you seem to kinda ignore it willy nilly), the double exp will net you LESS gold in some levels. Like say 4. Play in two 4-5 tier will nets you ~3500 gold vs the ~3000 gold for one 6-7. Stop being so focused on level 1. Having a bit extra gold or not at level 1 is not a huge freaking deal. When you look beyond your rather focused scope, the double exp doesn't actually give you any extra gold over playing at tier...you do get to level faster...and I don't see that as a bad thing.

You ALREADY can be below WBL...pretty severely in fact. You don't even have to play down even once. If you choose the low tier at the dead levels, my math already shows that you end up at 75% WBL already. You choose up at dead levels and you have 150% WBL. Your system you play up every single game till end of level 3 will be 9000 gold (750x3, 750x3, 1500x3), Play down at every single game til 3 and your gonna be at 4500 gold (500x3, 500x3, 500x3). Now lets do this to level 5. Play up is 750x3+750x3+1500x3+2250x3+3000x3=~25 grand. Play down is 500x3+500x3+500x3+1000x3+1500x3=10 grand. And the differential goes up from there to a net of around 3x difference at the end. That is why your system doesn't work...math wise.

So yeah, the issue isn't that we can't do math...the issue is that we CAN do math.