|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not keep it simple Mike? Rather than having a chart for how much you earn in a module, have a static "pay" scale for how much gold you get per scenario / module played, depending on your character's level.
This eliminates rewards for playing up, or penalties for playing down (the latter I think is more common; as to make high level games happen you often have to play the lower tier). It also eliminates the extreme gold penalty for Season 1 scenarios, as well as module play (I recently had a fighter gimped because Modules give far less gold than scenarios). And it makes auditing a character much easier.
Any thoughts?
-David Leader
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so at this point we're moving away from a discussion of WBL to event management? Let's get this back on track...
Back to the topic at hand, if the goal is to keep folks from gaining excessive wealth, then running with a double XP/PP solution is probably your best bet, just based on numbers.
If the goal is to keep people within the confines of the defined tiers, then the MMJ solution would do the trick (there would be no motivation to play outside the tier).
As to the coercion aspect, as I stated before neither of these addresses it. Instead of being coerced to play up, folks will most likely be coerced to play down in the MMJ solution. In the doubling solution, the coercion issue would remain as it is.
There is no in game mechanic change that will stop coercion to play either up or down. The only means to stop it is to give GMs clearly defined guidelines and authority on how to deal with it when they see it. It is truly an issue in it's own right, separate from any WBL mechanic that is put in place.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just to make sure, you're saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing if somebody gets excluded from a game day for their level?If the game days are announced in advance, and the person has full knowledge he has no character in the level range and would have to play a pre gen to participate, then I'm saying he has the option to play the pregen or find something else he can do for that one game day.
Additionally, if a game day is scheduled, the player shows up thinking one thing is scheduled to run at a particular tier, and it is changed the day of, this allowing him nothing in level of any of his characters. That isn't cool.
So, to sum up, if the coordinator posts all game days scheduled for the next month, and the player doesn't have a character for the level of one of those game days, then it isn't a bad thing they have to skip one day or use a pregen if they refuse to miss a game.
Mike,
I can give real life issues with this.
We're still growing. We have one table normally at the Guardtower, and I try to make sure we have two tables at Ravenstone (THat's not counting Fog of Dusk, which I've covered for, or Soldiery which is too late on a work night for me, or Packrat, that I'm trying to work in, or Dave's Clubhouse that I don't think anyone is working with)
Because we're trying to grow, I've, more than once, taken a group of newbies (walk ins) to a low tier table. They have heard about it, or seen us play it before, and walked in eager to play. I've also 'sacrificed' a chance at playing normal/up to fill a table with newbies, or because we felt we needed that character's skillset. (Played one scenario 3-7 at the low tier with a level 7 character, because we knew it was in Mwangi and Talyn was the only character who spoke Polyglot, for example)
Sure, I could make 'new blob of potential protoplasm #8' to take the GM credit when I do that. But I'm still investing time to play or GM a less fun character than my own plans. Part of my willingness to do that is a) We *need* the 'walk in' option for the newbies and b) I can 'make up' currently any low tier encounters with full tables playing up. (Recent example would be when I played Fortress of the Nail with Sir Grabs-a-lot and a dedicated channeller. We could have played up with minimal losses. As it was there were maybe 20 HP of damage and 6 spells spent tablewide because the nature of the low tier scenario lent it self to Grabs-a-lot's strengths. High tier would have a) generated more gold, and b) made me feel useful. The rep of Season 4 is why we played down)
By removing any chance of option b) happening, I feel the MMJ system proposed disincentivises people stepping up to grow the group through option a.
It's not something as simple as saying "Unless I'm missing something, every single situation used as a case against the "Podcast System" can be solved by one or two people just deciding to NOT be the most important person for one day." As I said in reply to Jiggy, that 'solution' solves playing up to get ahead, after all if they decided that they don't want to be the richest person for one day, the WBL problem is solved using the current system.
There are *always* going to be people who abuse any system. Hells, en passant and castling aren't the most common rules for chess, especially the former, but both are legal (just as playing up currently is) and I've not seen a move to end those moves just because they might allow someone to win at chess.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the 2 XP idea alleviates the WBL problem that was brought up in the podcast. If the intent is to make it so people never play up, then the solution in the podcast is the better choice. If the in-tier reward system as suggested is implemented, I am sure very few players will ever play up, as it will be down to a vote and you probably won't get a majority of a table willing to take the higher risk with no reward for it. So we should be asking ourselves, what is the issue? Is WBL the problem or is playing up the problem?
I'm of the opinion that we are trying to curb the WBL power gap to allow the authors to create more balanced scenarios. I believe the best answer is 2XP when you play up into the higher tier. I thought on it overnight though, and to be perfectly honest you shouldn't increase PP gained at all. Playing up shouldn't be incentivized as others have suggested so I vote that granting double XP while playing up will not grant any bonus to PP.
You already take this sort of loss to PP when you play a sanctioned module. Modules award 3 XP and 4 PP. If you play up for one scenario and play in-tier for the next scenario you will earn 3 XP and 4 PP(Assuming you didn't fail your faction missions).
Playing a Module = 3 XP, 4 PP
Playing up then playing down = 3 XP, 4 PP (playing 2 scenarios and succeeding at faction missions, one higher tier and one in-tier.)
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Proposed solution: Remove choice of tier entirely from the campaign.
Here's how it would work.
Characters would get the gold for the subtier in which they fall. Mid-tier characters get the gold for the tier that they play in.
GMs would be given guidelines that definitively say which tier is played in all circumstances. Let's walk through what I would suggest...
Right now, this only comes up in a scenario where the APL is in the middle [say 3]. If the APL were 3.0-3.5, play down. If the APL were 3.6-3.9, play up. In Season 4 and beyond, tables that are mid-tier automatically play down if they have fewer than 6 PCs. In Season 3 and prior, tables of 6 players play up if the APL before level adjustment is in the mid-tier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to know what the first and foremost problem is, as that would help a lot in addressing it.
Possible problems I see:
1) People are playing out of subtier
Best solution: Discourage playing out of subtier by not rewarding it, either by:
- having low-tier players gain low-tier gold (MMJ solution)
- having wealth gained be entirely based on level
2) People having higher/lower WBL than they should
Best solution: Normalize gold gained from scenarios, either by:
- having wealth gained be entirely based on level
- doubling experience when characters play up to reduce the impact on their WBL
3) Players are being coerced by other players to play up or down
Best solution: ???
If the problem is mostly the first, I would recommend the wealth gained based on level approach. It cuts short playing up for extra gold, while not punishing players who play down. The possible downside is high levels playing down and risking less for the same reward.
If the problem is the second, I still like the double xp option, as it elegantly reduces the wealth gained by playing up while (and this is only my opinion) reducing some of the coercion that will go into players playing up or down.
If the problem is the third, we need, as zylphryx says, stronger text on what a GM's options are and how much power the GM has in adjudicating these issues.
|
|
...(Recent example would be when I played Fortress of the Nail with Sir Grabs-a-lot and a dedicated channeller. We could have played up with minimal losses. As it was there were maybe 20 HP of damage and 6 spells spent tablewide because the nature of the low tier scenario lent it self to Grabs-a-lot's strengths. High tier would have a) generated more gold, and b) made me feel useful...
Side trek...
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
Why not keep it simple Mike? Rather than having a chart for how much you earn in a module, have a static "pay" scale for how much gold you get per scenario / module played, depending on your character's level.
This eliminates rewards for playing up, or penalties for playing down (the latter I think is more common; as to make high level games happen you often have to play the lower tier). It also eliminates the extreme gold penalty for Season 1 scenarios, as well as module play (I recently had a fighter gimped because Modules give far less gold than scenarios). And it makes auditing a character much easier.
Any thoughts?
-David Leader
I'm considering it.
|
|
@Robert Matthews 166 You can't assume success on the faction missions. The module payout reflects this (3XP from scenarios would currently be 6PP if all faction missions were successes).
In the podcast, it does sound like getting that second PP will be more difficult moving forward, so you would really be looking at 3XP, 2PP more often than not, which puts people into a PP deficit and limits equipment purchase capability. By doubling the PP, they would be looking at 0/2/4 when playing up, probably hitting 2 more often than not and will be on par with others in their level range.
I can only come in with my personal experiences, and how I would go about doing things. Right now, if we have a table at 3-7 where I'm coming in with a level 7, and the rest of the table is 3 or 4, I personally have no problem playing down for less gold. Sure, it sucks that I don't have the +1 Flaming Earth Breaker of Asmodeus unlocked to purchase right away, but eventually, I will be able to buy something similar when I attain the fame.
I play (and GM) for fun. My attitude for playing up, when I do play is either whatever the table decides, or whatever the lower tiered players decide. I know what my character can do in the lower tier, and I also know how to throttle back what I do to make things more fun for other players if need be.
I also know that a good number of players that play in my location play for fun, including a player that took 0 gold for completing a mission in exchange for something that is going to give the character more flavor.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Why would someone play a level 1 pregen in a subtier 4-5 game as opposed to a level 4 pregen, knowing that you can turn it into a 500 gp chronicle for a level 1 character?That is a great question and I'm still surprised at how often it happens
That is absolutely a problem if the GM´s allowing it as i see it and should actually not happen. I think it´s really cheating.
|
|
Why would someone play a level 1 pregen in a subtier 4-5 game as opposed to a level 4 pregen, knowing that you can turn it into a 500 gp chronicle for a level 1 character?That is a great question and I'm still surprised at how often it happens
Because playing the lvl 1 pregen gives them 1500gp instead.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Side Trek:
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it really be that bad if the level 5 playing down got level 5 loot?
Giving a level 5 character playing down in a subtier 1-2 scenario the tier 4-5 rewards is a HORRIBLE idea. We will have the opposite problem where all higher level characters will want to play down, dominating their scenarios and not leaving a challenge for the characters in the appropriate subtier.
This would also be a problem with "fixed" payscales. Players in the higher subtier would always want to play down. (Ok, not always, as some players will like the challenge, but...) They get "paid" the same but less risk playing down.
|
|
Why would someone play a level 1 pregen in a subtier 4-5 game as opposed to a level 4 pregen, knowing that you can turn it into a 500 gp chronicle for a level 1 character?That is a great question and I'm still surprised at how often it happens
I have seen it happen twice. Both times it was because the level 4 pregens were not available and the table was playing up no matter what. After seeing it the second time I now make a point of always having a level 4 Kyra with my whether or not I am gming.
Mike were there any issues you have with the increase exp idea that I did not address in my earlier post? I thought I covered them all but this thread exploded while I was typing it.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
Why would someone play a level 1 pregen in a subtier 4-5 game as opposed to a level 4 pregen, knowing that you can turn it into a 500 gp chronicle for a level 1 character?That is a great question and I'm still surprised at how often it happensI have seen it happen twice. Both times it was because the level 4 pregens were not available and the table was playing up no matter what. After seeing it the second time I now make a point of always having a level 4 Kyra with my whether or not I am gming.
Mike were there any issues you have with the increase exp idea that I did not address in my earlier post? I thought I covered them all but this thread exploded while I was typing it.
I'm heading into the dentist so I can't check right now. I will try to get back to it when I am back at the office. I need to compile a list of all the suggestions so I can put them up on the whiteboard at our next PFS meeting and have more people here take a look at all options side-by-side.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving a level 5 character playing down in a subtier 1-2 scenario the tier 4-5 rewards is a HORRIBLE idea. We will have the opposite problem where all higher level characters will want to play down, dominating their scenarios and not leaving a challenge for the characters in the appropriate subtier.
This would also be a problem with "fixed" payscales. Players in the higher subtier would always want to play down. (Ok, not always, as some players will like the challenge, but...) They get "paid" the same but less risk playing down.
I didn't catch it earlier in this thread, but I will this time.
This is, by the title, a thread for brainstorming. Please do not call any ideas horrible, terrible, stupid, etc.; do not say that proposed ideas make no sense, or that the poster must have been drinking. Nothing of that nature is conducive to brainstorming.
|
|
I didn't catch it earlier in this thread, but I will this time.
This is, by the title, a thread for brainstorming. Please do not call any ideas horrible, terrible, stupid, etc.; do not say that proposed ideas make no sense, or that the poster must have been drinking. Nothing of that nature is conducive to brainstorming.
I apologize, I did by no mean want to imply anything about BNW at all, but it's hard to convey tone at the internet, as we have all experienced.
Substitute "Horrible" with "I am vehemently against"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it really be that bad if the level 5 playing down got level 5 loot?Giving a level 5 character playing down in a subtier 1-2 scenario the tier 4-5 rewards is a HORRIBLE idea. We will have the opposite problem where all higher level characters will want to play down, dominating their scenarios and not leaving a challenge for the characters in the appropriate subtier.
This would also be a problem with "fixed" payscales. Players in the higher subtier would always want to play down. (Ok, not always, as some players will like the challenge, but...) They get "paid" the same but less risk playing down.
Agreed that it can cause issues (but let's not call it "horrible")--
Known Premise: Characters who play up all the time get too much wealth.
Corollary: Characters who played down all the time would get too little wealth, but it doesn't happen as often.
Personal Opinion: Wealth aside, victorious games with playing up are way more fun than cakewalks playing down.
Fact: Some players are risk-averse and currently like playing down even with the current system.
Conclusion: Since the gold-always-on-tier system gives them more rewards for the same action, these same people will be even more likely to play down, thus leading to more cakewalk play downs.
|
Because playing the lvl 1 pregen gives them 1500gp instead.Why would someone play a level 1 pregen in a subtier 4-5 game as opposed to a level 4 pregen, knowing that you can turn it into a 500 gp chronicle for a level 1 character?That is a great question and I'm still surprised at how often it happens
The way I understand the rules for pregens, this is wrong and shouldn't be happening to begin with. As I understand it, if you play a pregen and don't have your own character, then you get 500 gp plus items available to you on the chronicle sheet for the tier you played in to apply to your NEW character. If you play a pregen and you HAVE a character then you hold the credit til that character reaches the level of the pregen or you are playing your character. You should never get 1500 gp for playing a level 1 pregen.
|
|
The way I understand the rules for pregens, this is wrong and shouldn't be happening to begin with. As I understand it, if you play a pregen and don't have your own character, then you get 500 gp plus items avilable to you on the chronicle sheet for the tier you played in to apply to your NEW character. If you play a pregen and you HAVE a character then you hold the credit til that character reaches the level of the pregen or you are playing your character. You should never get 1500 gp for playing a level 1 pregen.
|
|
There have been some ideas in this thread that are untenable because they are complicated. The solution needs to be simple and straight forward.
The adjustment of XP for playing up/down is really the only viable alternative option that I see. But the impacts of that change may reach farther than expected.
Ideas
I really think that the option stated in the podcast can work well and is the best choice out there currently provided the staff do a couple little things to support it. First, we need to have published pregens of all of the Iconic characters at levels 1,4,7. Second, a player needs to have the option of choosing to apply the credit from playing a pregen when his character reaches the tier the game was played at. This will mean that a player who grabs a level 4 pregen to play up in a 1-5 can wait to get any rewards until his character reaches level 4. This would be marked on the chronicle by the GM.
In this way, playing a pregen character will not be as bad. You will have more options and will not loose out on the rewards from the tier you actually play.
In the spirit of cooperation, players need to be willing to play a pregen once in a while. If you are unwilling to do so, then you are disregarding one of the core tenants of the Society. Veteran players really should have lower level characters they can pull out when needed. If they don’t, that is largely a choice they have made and they need to be willing to whip out a pregen and apply the credit to a new character.
|
|
I didn't catch it earlier in this thread, but I will this time.
This is, by the title, a thread for brainstorming. Please do not call any ideas horrible, terrible, stupid, etc.; do not say that proposed ideas make no sense, or that the poster must have been drinking. Nothing of that nature is conducive to brainstorming.
I apologize, I did by no mean want to imply anything about BNW at all, but it's hard to convey tone at the internet, as we have all experienced.
Substitute "Horrible" with "I am vehemently against"
Thanks. Please don't read my tone as angry (the same tone on internet problem applies to things I post as well!); I'm just trying to make sure that people type the things they mean.
I am completely in support of your being vehemently against an idea. :)
|
|
Would it really be that bad if the level 5 playing down got level 5 loot?Giving a level 5 character playing down in a subtier 1-2 scenario the tier 4-5 rewards is a HORRIBLE idea. We will have the opposite problem where all higher level characters will want to play down, dominating their scenarios and not leaving a challenge for the characters in the appropriate subtier.
This would also be a problem with "fixed" payscales. Players in the higher subtier would always want to play down. (Ok, not always, as some players will like the challenge, but...) They get "paid" the same but less risk playing down.
This is why it has been proposed that the rules codify where you WILL plat and remove player choice from the equation. If there are flat rewards, and table makeup force playing up or down according to predefined rules, it will be a lot harder for players to game that kind of system.
In all honesty, when I was gambling on what the new system was going to be, the assigned wealth by actual level was what I figured the announcement would be.
|
|
@Robert Matthews 166 You can't assume success on the faction missions. The module payout reflects this (3XP from scenarios would currently be 6PP if all faction missions were successes).
In the podcast, it does sound like getting that second PP will be more difficult moving forward, so you would really be looking at 3XP, 2PP more often than not, which puts people into a PP deficit and limits equipment purchase capability. By doubling the PP, they would be looking at 0/2/4 when playing up, probably hitting 2 more often than not and will be on par with others in their level range.
I think that is the best approach though. I mean how prestigious is it to get carried through a scenario? The decemvirate would surely think that. For players that only play up once in a while this hit to PP won't be that big a deal.
Under the current system, if you fail every faction mission, you will be able to buy a +2 weapon at level 7. If you succeed at every faction mission you can buy it at level 3 (if you have the gold). Under the proposed 2XP option:
If you play up every game and fail the faction mission every time, you will never earn enough fame throughout your career to buy a +2 weapon. You won't even be able to buy a belt of giant strength (4000). But that's only if you fail every single faction mission. If you succeed at every faction mission, you'll be able to buy the +2 weapon at level 7. Keep in mind this is if you play up every single game, which most likely won't happen since this is intended to discourage playing up just to get better rewards.
The 2XP option seems like a win-win to me. People have the option to play up once in a while. But, at the same time you won't have characters that play up every single scenario to maximize wealth since they won't have enough fame to spend it all.
|
|
How about reduce the amount of the straight gold handed out per tier. Then change the day job scale to take level into account, to make up the difference.
This way there is a sort of flat wealth earned based on level, and a portion based on what risk you faced.
Allow day jobs to be rolled without a rank (since craft/perform rolls can be done untrained). 0 ranks you must roll, 1 rank lets you take 10.
|
|
There have been some ideas in this thread that are untenable because they are complicated. The solution needs to be simple and straight forward.
The adjustment of XP for playing up/down is really the only viable alternative option that I see. But the impacts of that change may reach farther than expected.
Ideas
I really think that the option stated in the podcast can work well and is the best choice out there currently provided the staff do a couple little things to support it. First, we need to have published pregens of all of the Iconic characters at levels 1,4,7. Second, a player needs to have the option of choosing to apply the credit from playing a pregen when his character reaches the tier the game was played at. This will mean that a player who grabs a level 4 pregen to play up in a 1-5 can wait to get any rewards until his character reaches level 4. This would be marked on the chronicle by the GM.
In this way, playing a pregen character will not be as bad. You will have more options and will not loose out on the rewards from the tier you actually play.
In the spirit of cooperation, players need to be willing to play a pregen once in a while. If you are unwilling to do so, then you are disregarding one of the core tenants of the Society. Veteran players really should have lower level characters they can pull out when needed. If they don’t, that is largely a choice they have made and they need to be willing to whip out a pregen and apply the credit to a new character.
For the pregen options, you already can hold on to a pregen chronicle sheet to apply to an existing character at a later date. I think there are also published pregens for all the iconics at levels 1/4/7 (correct me if I am wrong please).
The thing is, you are still playing a pregen when you could have been playing they really cool level 2 whatever you brought with you and were psyched to play ...
So if someone is not willing to play a pregen, what then? Do you have the player(s) walk a risk not having enough to run a table?
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Dunedin
|
This entire thread is further evidence that the not-so-shadowy Decemvirate behind PFS, Pathfinder, and Paizo truly listens to their players/GMs.
We should all take a step back and employ a little gratitude that our voices are being heard -- that we're even being considered.
*ding ding*
Ok, Round 15. Come out with your gloves up. A clean fight, please.
|
|
How about reduce the amount of the straight gold handed out per tier. Then change the day job scale to take level into account, to make up the difference.
This way there is a sort of flat wealth earned based on level, and a portion based on what risk you faced.
Allow day jobs to be rolled without a rank (since craft/perform rolls can be done untrained). 0 ranks you must roll, 1 rank lets you take 10.
Many characters don't have day jobs. It isn't part of what the player wanted their character to be. Also some classes have a harder time being good a day job *cough Paladins cough* than others do *cough alchemist cough*
I have not seen a class that is better at day jobs than an alchemist.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire thread is further evidence that the PFS, and Pathfinder in general, truly listen to their players/GMs.
We should all take a step back and employ a little gratitude that our voices are being heard -- that we're being considered.
*ding ding*
Ok, Round 15. Come out with your gloves up. A clean fight, please.
I hope we won't have a clean fight, or any fight at all in this thread if we can help it. I truly hope that we can keep this as a respectful thread where we try to leverage the Paizo and PFS community's awesome brain trust to find a solution that will work and make people happy.
|
|
@Robert Matthews 166 You can't assume success on the faction missions. The module payout reflects this (3XP from scenarios would currently be 6PP if all faction missions were successes).
In the podcast, it does sound like getting that second PP will be more difficult moving forward, so you would really be looking at 3XP, 2PP more often than not, which puts people into a PP deficit and limits equipment purchase capability. By doubling the PP, they would be looking at 0/2/4 when playing up, probably hitting 2 more often than not and will be on par with others in their level range.
I think that is the best approach though. I mean how prestigious is it to get carried through a scenario? The decemvirate would surely think that. For players that only play up once in a while this hit to PP won't be that big a deal.
Under the current system, if you fail every faction mission, you will be able to buy a +2 weapon at level 7. If you succeed at every faction mission you can buy it at level 3 (if you have the gold). Under the proposed 2XP option:
If you play up every game and fail the faction mission every time, you will never earn enough fame throughout your career to buy a +2 weapon. You won't even be able to buy a belt of giant strength (4000). But that's only if you fail every single faction mission. If you succeed at every faction mission, you'll be able to buy the +2 weapon at level 7. Keep in mind this is if you play up every single game, which most likely won't happen since this is intended to discourage playing up just to get better rewards.
The 2XP option seems like a win-win to me. People have the option to play up once in a while. But, at the same time you won't have characters that play up every single scenario to maximize wealth since they won't have enough fame to spend it all.
You would still be removing incentive to folks playing down as they would still be taking a hit if they play up in order to "catch up" (of course, how prestigious is it to go against an opponent you are more powerful than ... surely the Decemvirate would think that. ;) ). An ideal solution would not penalize anyone one but keep the WBL intact.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would still be removing incentive to folks playing down as they would still be taking a hit if they play up in order to "catch up"...
In that case, there is the option to give 1/2 xp to players playing down, to show their lack of challenge.
Downsides to this include farming of prestige, and absolute confusion for players playing down in slow track (1/4 xp is officially ludicrous).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the spirit of cooperation, players need to be willing to play a pregen once in a while. If you are unwilling to do so, then you are disregarding one of the core tenants of the Society. Veteran players really should have lower level characters they can pull out when needed. If they don’t, that is largely a choice they have made and they need to be willing to whip out a pregen and apply the credit to a new character.
Lets please not complicate things even farther by vilifying players who don't want to play pre-gens. I'm sure there are a reasonably segment of players who don't want to waste their chance to play a given scenario with a sub-optimal pre-gen who no one cares about, and it is a perfectly valid choice to not be of the opinion that not-fun gaming is better than no gaming.
The choice to either walk or waste a scenario on a pre-gen happens, and it will probably happen more if the podcast changes go through unchanged. As pointed out copiously in this thread, this will negatively impact those who already have the least opportunity to play and who I think should be a demographic that PFS embraces.
I have mixed feelings about the proposal for a fixed reward scale based on level adn completely divorced from the actual scenario the reward is for. It is better than the podcast proposal, and I know that PFS is a non-persistent, essentially instanced campaign since it is an OP campaign. I still dislike the homogenized, gameist nature of the fixed rewards. I admit that that is just a personal dislike though so I would not be heartbroken to see that kind of thing ruled into PFS.
Im honestly a fan of the flat rate gold. IE: This is your first mod everyone has X gold. If its your 15th mod everyone has X gold.
I really am against the idea of penalizing people for playing down. This idea would prevent this.
As for Pregens. I am one of those players that wont play them. I feel I want a personality for a character; a background. With a pregen I dont have this. I just have stats. That isn't the game I want to play.
|
|
How about reduce the amount of the straight gold handed out per tier. Then change the day job scale to take level into account, to make up the difference.
This way there is a sort of flat wealth earned based on level, and a portion based on what risk you faced.
Allow day jobs to be rolled without a rank (since craft/perform rolls can be done untrained). 0 ranks you must roll, 1 rank lets you take 10.
Many characters don't have day jobs. It isn't part of what the player wanted their character to be. Also some classes have a harder time being good a day job *cough Paladins cough* than others do *cough alchemist cough*
I have not seen a class that is better at day jobs than an alchemist.
Which is why I said to allow it to be rolled without a rank. it is clearly stated in the guide that your characters life isn't 100% taken up by Pathfinder time. Can even rename "Day Job" to "Personal Time" or something. It would reflect the amount of gold you earn in between Society assignments. Could even add low cost vanities to allow for weird skills to be used. Like climbing for the str characters, or fortitude saves for doing drinking contests. Stuff like that.
|
I'm considering it.Why not keep it simple Mike? Rather than having a chart for how much you earn in a module, have a static "pay" scale for how much gold you get per scenario / module played, depending on your character's level.
This eliminates rewards for playing up, or penalties for playing down (the latter I think is more common; as to make high level games happen you often have to play the lower tier). It also eliminates the extreme gold penalty for Season 1 scenarios, as well as module play (I recently had a fighter gimped because Modules give far less gold than scenarios). And it makes auditing a character much easier.
Any thoughts?
-David Leader
I think this is a good option. I still think some version of the at-tier-or-double (let this be ATOD) option might be better, in the end. But whatever we make of ATOD, I want to add my voice to the virtue of GP-by-level (let this be GPBL) relative to the podcast proposal (let this be PCP) of GP-by-level-or-tier-whichever's-lower. I'm not saying anything new in this post, just re-iterating what I think is a very good reason to choose GPBL over PCP.
PCP would generally [1] result in mixed tables playing at the lower tier. So would GPBL. In both cases, it's because playing up amounts to a WBL penalty to lower-level characters: they incur greater (sometimes significantly greater) costs in terms of consumables / condition removal, but don't get any extra WBL to help cover the cost.
But by PCP, the higher-level characters suffer a steep WBL penalty for playing down that (under PCP) they have no way of making up. So they have an incentive, and a strong one, to resist playing down. And the lower-levels have an incentive, and a strong one, to resist playing up. Serious tension at the table.
GPBL removes this conflict by removing the WBL penalty for higher-levels playing down. (There may be other reasons to regret playing down, e.g. cakewalks, but that's a different sort of problem than the fundamental mechanical penalty seen here: we all agree that in-tier play is best as a general rule, the question's what to do when that's not possible.)
***
[1] Barring thrill-seeking lower levels, of which I'm one.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If MM&J think the solution to mis-matched levels at a table is always to use pregens and slow-track, rather than playing up, maybe we should encourage that instead of penalizing playing up. Such as by making more powerful/interesting pregen builds that people will WANT to play, and offering discounts to people on slow-track for spellcasting services and consumables used (such as in that Silver Crusade vanity you can buy).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If MM&J think the solution to mis-matched levels at a table is always to use pregens and slow-track, rather than playing up, maybe we should encourage that instead of penalizing playing up. Such as by making more powerful/interesting pregen builds that people will WANT to play, and offering discounts to people on slow-track for spellcasting services and consumables used (such as in that Silver Crusade vanity you can buy).
Pregens are increasingly going to become a less attractive option, however, as the campaign becomes more RP-focused. Personally, I am very, very happy that the campaign is shifting focus towards in-character interactions - but it also means that playing a pregen is even more boring than it was.
What would Ezren say about the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment? What would a Paladin of Korada say about it?
|
|
I think slow track and playing down would have to be disallowed.
Honestly I can't think of a reason a person would want to play down and slow track if exp was being halved for playing down.
The way I see it, you shouldn't halve xp for any reason other than to slow track. The objective is to curb the WBL disparity. Doing half xp for playing down would only encourage people to play down and stomp every encounter. Leave everything the way it is with one change: if you play up, you get 2XP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If MM&J think the solution to mis-matched levels at a table is always to use pregens and slow-track, rather than playing up, maybe we should encourage that instead of penalizing playing up. Such as by making more powerful/interesting pregen builds that people will WANT to play, and offering discounts to people on slow-track for spellcasting services and consumables used (such as in that Silver Crusade vanity you can buy).Pregens are increasingly going to become a less attractive option, however, as the campaign becomes more RP-focused. Personally, I am very, very happy that the campaign is shifting focus towards in-character interactions - but it also means that playing a pregen is even more boring than it was.
What would Ezren say about the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment? What would a Paladin of Korada say about it?
Netopalis has hit the nail right on the head here. While I disagree that PFS is anything more than marginally RP focused, the problem with pre-gens is the opportunity loss of actually getting to play your character.
Now, I have seen people just RP the pre-gen stat block as though it were their character that they wanted to play, and while that is a solution I'm not sure I want to encourage things that stretch suspension of disbelief quite that far. No matter how you revamp pre-gens mechanically (please do this though if pre-gens are going to be pushed mroe heavily than they are now) there is still the fundamental problem that they are just not fun.