Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread


Pathfinder Society

301 to 350 of 945 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

RainyDayNinja wrote:
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).

Problem with pre-gens is they serve two purposes. The primary purpose is to allow players unfamiliar with the system to play a fairly simple character to introduce them to the game. Simple in Pathfinder tends to equate to sub-optimal.

Being available so people can play out of their tier when neccesary is only a secondary purpose and has to take a back seat to the primary.

Now I suppose you could create two sets of pregens; a simple one and an optimized one. But really, if you offer someone the choice of playing a simple character or a powerful one even newbs are going to choose more powerful most of the time and then end up being overwhelmed in their first play experience.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Let me follow up my previous post with some bullet points. I think the second point is the most important. It's suggested by the conversation, but I think it needs to be emphasized.

  • ATOD is, of course, a general category. The simplest expression is double XP double GP double PP. But I take it to include modified versions to address other concerns that have come up. What looks best to me, at the moment, is: double XP, up-tier GP, 3 PP. But other modifications (e.g. double XP, up-tier GP, 2 PP) fall in here too.

  • The argument for ATOD is not "extra risk should have extra reward." That's the argument for the current system. That's where the problems come in. The argument for ATOD is rather, "extra risk shouldn't carry with it a serious WBL penalty." (In the form of extra expenditure on consumables, conditions removed, etc.)

  • For extra simplicity, we could drop the ATO from ATOD and just double the reward, but some players have expressed a desire that they not be forced to lose a scenario, over the long run, with a character if they end up playing up to be a team player in a group of higher-levels or to thrill-seek. I think that's a good point, so I'm keeping ATOD, but if simplicity is a concern and you don't think this is a good point, you can simplify it to double-reward-playing-up (DRPU?).

  • Maybe that argument (if we have worries about level-farming) leads us, not to ATOD, but to some at-tier-plus-stipend system (let this be ATPS. (E.g., you get at-tier reward when you play up, but you also get some small stipend to be spent towards replacing consumables spent in-adventure or conditions removed.) That's fine!

  • I think level-farming isn't a serious concern, for reasons better explained by others upthread. E.g., it would be decoupled from a WBL concern; you can already do that anyway via modules; it would take some doing to constantly uptier under an ATOD system to level-farm, since you'd always have to find higher level groups. But I can see an argument for it! Even if I don't think it is, in the end, a serious problem, it is one thing to keep in mind.

  • I think considerations of simplicity and extra-bonus-benefits like allowing lower-level characters to catch up to higher-level regular playing buddies suggest ATOD as a better solution than ATPS.

  • I also think cakewalk concern, as RE suggests, is a reason (along with others mentioned) to prefer ATOD to GPBL or PCP.

  • But whatever we make of ATOD, can we agree that GPBL is better than PCP?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Michael VonHasseln wrote:


...
We hear all the time that the scenarios aren't challenging enough. That can be traced back to characters with above average WBL. When you have more than your average of wealth, you can afford solutions others can't... adamantine back-up weapons, cheap wands, etc. The Prestige limits keep a player from purchasing that ONE scenario breaking item, but have no control over the dozens of legal options that do not cross that spending threshold.
...

Perhaps there should be a limit to the total value of items a character can have based on LEVEL.

Thus people can play up and get more gold, but until they reach the level for their total they cannot spend it on items.

It can perhaps still be used for consumables, or not, that would need the number crunchers to decide how that affects things.

Playing up would give you the extra gold for when you reached an appropriate level, but would not give you an advance over your common level folks.

3/5

trollbill wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
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).

Problem with pre-gens is they serve two purposes. The primary purpose is to allow players unfamiliar with the system to play a fairly simple character to introduce them to the game. Simple in Pathfinder tends to equate to sub-optimal.

Being available so people can play out of their tier when neccesary is only a secondary purpose and has to take a back seat to the primary.

Now I suppose you could create two sets of pregens; a simple one and an optimized one. But really, if you offer someone the choice of playing a simple character or a powerful one even newbs are going to choose more powerful most of the time and then end up being overwhelmed in their first play experience.

what you say is true 1st-level pre-gens specifically. I would argue that brand new players have no business in high tier tables. That is what having First Steps or something tier 1-5 on tap is for, to help introduce new walk-ins to PF at 1st-level, as intended. Now that there are retraining rules, organizers who are really on the ball can make their own pre-gens better than the paizo ones.

The higher level ones have the unmistakable whiff of being afterthoughts which is a completely different problem. If pre-gens are going to be pushed harder over playing up/down they need at thorough, complete rethink and overhaul since they are pretty inadequate ATM.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Dhjika wrote:

Perhaps there should be a limit to the total value of items a character can have based on LEVEL.

Thus people can play up and get more gold, but until they reach the level for their total they cannot spend it on items.

It can perhaps still be used for consumables, or not, that would need the number crunchers to decide how that affects things.

Playing up would give you the extra gold for when you reached an appropriate level, but would not give you an advance over your common level folks.

That would be a nightmare to enforce.

Joe M. wrote:

•But whatever we make of ATOD, can we agree that GPBL is better than PCP?

No. Making GP rewards independent of difficulty will just encourage people to play down and steamroll everything. "Hey, play your level 1 so we can get in the low-tier!"

Saint Caleth wrote:
I would argue that brand new players have no business in high tier tables.

Ideally, but people show up to cons and game days all the time, signed up for high tier tables, either not realizing what that "(5-9)" after the scenario title meant, or not realizing they have to start at level 1, or because a friend with a high-level character wanted to play with him and told him he could just play a pregen. And if that newbie gets shunted to another table, the table doesn't make.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
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.

^^^^ This

Look, personally, I'd be willing to play a pregen if that's what it came down to, but it rarely does for me, because I've started to GM a lot, and I've got a lot of characters now. So I almost always have someone in tier. But let's not forget, pressuring someone to play a pregen instead of their own character when they have a valid character for the scenario is just as bad as pressuring someone to play up. It becomes an even worse situation when there's no added reward for playing up.

For example, a level 2 at a table with two 3s and a 5 in season 0 or 1. APL 3.25. For most of those scenarios, I'd say that group could probably play up and be fine. But there is definitely risk involved. Without extra reward for the level 2, though, why would that player want to play up? And why would any of the other three want to play down? So either the level 2 gets pressured to play up for no added reward, despite the risk, or the level 2 gets pressured to play a pregen, or the other three players get pressured to play down or play an alternate character. In the current system, at least, it's a little easier decision for the level 2, since their risk is mitigated by the added wealth. In the double XP double gold situation, there's a similar mitigation of risk, and it doesn't skew WBL.

One last point about pregens... Having a player who only has low level characters play a pregen in a higher level scenario does little to nothing to help that player catch up to the others. We saw this a lot locally a year or so ago when we were having trouble mustering more than 1 table. The new player would play a level 4 or level 7 pregen, but after one session, they could only apply that credit to their character once they reached those levels, so their character would never get past level 1 and would end up with a level or two of built up chronicles. So, either they'd start playing up with their low level character or the rest of the group would start playing down or start playing new characters. These may seem like valid solutions, but even though it was only 1 table, it was still different people showing up each week, so any kind of group decision was problematic. It's a very similar situation to what Rainy Day Ninja described for his local group.

Now, fortunately, we're up to 3-4 tables a game night, and we've started using Warhorn for signups so players know what their tables will look like before the game day. But, we still end up with situations where a player signs up for a table, but for various reasons by the time they game day arrives tiers have shifted. We try to adjust tiers on the day, but for various reasons that can be difficult. There may only be one scenario offered that a player doesn't have a chronicle for, or a player may have signed up to play with his/her friends and not want to change tables to accommodate evening out tiers, or there are walk-ins and we either have to turn them away or ask people to shift around. Sometimes adding a table isn't even an option, because our FLGS has limited space available for us. All of these situations end up with someone disappointed or feeling pressured, and the proposed change would only seem to make things worse.

If the goal is more about eliminating pressure on players to play up than about WBL, then I think eliminating the choice -- or greatly limiting the choice -- in whether or not to play up is worth looking at before altering the rewards. If it's both equally, then of the proposed solutions, I still like the double XP, double GP one best, though none of them solve all the potential problems.

I suppose one solution is for everyone to start scheduling tier specific games, but I've always assumed that if a character is legal for the scenario, and the player signs up ahead of time, they should have the right to play in that game.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Saint Caleth wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
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.

PFS is as RP-focused as you want to make it. As an example, let me offer Among the Living, and what I did with it:

Among the Living:
This scenario can either be a flat dungeon crawl or it can start out as a social scenario that takes people by surprise. I started out by sending the PCs to meet with Jacquo Dalsine [none of them had played his other scenarios], who explained a bit of the history of the Opera and tried to recruit some of the PCs to his faction. Then, they had to deal with the ticket mistress, who was unimpressed with the fact that they had such high-ranking tickets but were not members of the nobility. Then, I had the PCs share drinks and hobnob with various Taldan officials, as well as the director of the play and the bartender. The play began, and I gave the PCs a little snippet of it, featuring a woman in a viking helmet. Then, things broke loose...and in encounter 1, the PCs fought the ticket mistress, in encounter 2, they fought the Viking woman [obviously, Linnorm in-world], in encounter 3, they fought the bartender and saved one of the nobles, and in encounter 5, they fought the director. It made for a much, much more memorable scenario. (Note that all of these things are supported by the scenario storyline.)

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Netopalis wrote:


PFS is as RP-focused as you want to make it. As an example, let me offer Among the Living, and what I did with it:

** spoiler omitted **...

I don't deny that as written the scenarios have adequate chance for RP and when the chance comes up the chance to inject great RP is there, as run on the ground so to speak, I have more often seen rushed slots where the non-combat bits are elided so that the party can make sure to get to the BBEG and that sort of thing.

Also the fact that the linked scenarios are probably going to be played out of order by players who don't know any better and the fact that the metaplots are functionally only relevant for those who circulate between the big cons adds up to a massive loss of potential and not all that much RP.

Dark Archive

Well, add to the wealth-by-level scenario: if you play down, you don't get the extra PP.

So the scenario would go like this in 1-5)

Levels 1-2-3: For playing any 1-5 scenario, you get 1 PA "just for showing up", and can earn the extra one by completing the new "shared mission".
Levels 4-5: For playing 1-2, you get 0 PA "Just for showing up". You can earn the extra PA.
Regardless of level: you earn an amount of gold based on a designated chart.

So now if you play down a lot, you're going to end up gimped on the cost of magic items that you buy, actually making you less powerful (and ironically more appropriate to play down). But everyone still ends up with the same wealth.

Problem solved :).

The Exchange 2/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

Joe M. wrote:
  • The argument for ATOD is not "extra risk should have extra reward." That's the argument for the current system. That's where the problems come in. The argument for ATOD is rather, "extra risk shouldn't carry with it a serious WBL penalty." (In the form of extra expenditure on consumables, conditions removed, etc.)
  • I'm not convinced you are really taking on that much extra risk. What you are definitely doing is being a burden to the rest of the group because they have to make up for a lower level character.

    Maybe the system should divvy up treasure based on your contribution to APL so in a tier 1-5 a 5th level character would get 5 times the gold of a 1st level character. They are almost certainly contributing vastly more to the parties survivability than the 1st level guy who is likely hiding in a corner trying to avoid getting smashed.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

    Jiggy wrote:
    RainyDayNinja wrote:
    If we want to say "These problems would be solved if people were just less self-centered," let's apply that to the handful of people gaming the current system.

    I'm going to assume that Mike/Mark/John collectively have access to data that you and I don't. Therefore, I'm going to trust that if they've ascertained that enough people are abusing the current system to devastating effect that the campaign needs to change, they're probably right and it's not just a "handful" of people causing a problem.

    Which leads me to a point that we really need to be considering more than I'm seeing in this discussion:

    Any system we devise is going to have situations where it's either abusable or unsatisfactory. That's unavoidable. What our goal should be, then, is to find the system which does that the least.

    If we trust our leaders, then we can assume that the abuse/dissatisfaction level of the current system is high. Meanwhile, the circumstances in which the Podcast System ("Podwealth"?) causes problems are waaaaay more specific and corner-case. The current system can be abused any time there's a choice of subtiers, which is going to be the vast majority of game days around the world. Podwealth is only an issue at very small events that stay very small for a long time - something we're already actively trying to change by growing the community.

    Earlier I listed about half a dozen things that have to all be the case in order to make Podwealth be a problem. If ANY ONE of those things is not the case, then suddenly everything's peachy.

    Relatedly, on the subtopic of "I shouldn't have to play a pre-gen":
    Every situation pointed against Podwealth involves a big level disparity, which means a key component in those circumstances is having one or more players with a 4th-5th level PC at minimum.

    That means we have players who have already been gaming for weeks or months, having played 12+ scenarios, who think it's so unfair for them to have to...

    Well, at times, there may be scenarios that have a special attraction for a particular PC. A great example is going to be the two upcoming faction-ending scenarios. These will have a profound impact on SL and LL PCs, and the RP-oriented players should have the option of RPing those encounters out. Sure, they may have lower leveled characters in other factions, but that's just not the same.

    Another example is my film noir PI who is on retainer with the Paracountess. He *had* to do The Disappeared. It was just too great of an opportunity to miss.

    These sort of things are ideas we should be encouraging, not letting silly mechanical things get in the way.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    CRobledo wrote:
    Giving a level 5 character playing down in a subtier 1-2 scenario the tier 4-5 rewards is a HORRIBLE idea.

    ALL of the ideas are horrible.

    The current system encourages playing up and accomulating so much wealth their pc can star on Cribs.

    The proposed system will make PCs broke,dig the 1-5 rut even deeper, and create problems scheduling.

    Quote:
    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.

    That would localize the problem at least.

    4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'll start out by saying that I do see where "there is a problem that needs to be addressed" comes from. I've seen both characters way above *and* way below WBL negatively impact tables.

    However… I don't think that the method proposed in the podcast will have the desired effect, since I believe it will result in players walking away from tables.

    And I think it will be more commonplace… to address Jiggy's list for example (which seems to assume that we're talking about a 1-2 session low-turnout local game day):

    Jiggy wrote:
    … 1) If there's a game where there's only one table, AND

    People who signed up but don't show (bad weather, getting sick, car issues, forgot their cousin's wedding, had a partner/offspring priority interrupt their day…) can turn even a planned 3 table gameday into a one table game day.

    Jiggy wrote:
    2) If somehow a one-table game day has managed to produce PCs spanning a 4 or 5 level range, AND

    1 player who didn't show up for a few sessions, 1 player who also goes to other game days/conventions/plays online once in a while, plus 1 new player would easily make a wide level range within a small group of people.

    Jiggy wrote:

    3) All of the low-level players would rather go home than play a pregen, AND

    4) All of the high-level players would rather go home than either play a pregen or start a second PC, AND

    Well, being told that you must take on additional risk (including a death you cannot afford to pay for) without reward for playing up and you're forever penalized for playing down would contribute to unwillingness to play up/down. Under the current system, I'm willing to play down once in a while, knowing that I can play up once in a while to offset that and get back to WBL eventually. If I have to take that hit without any future compensation, when I get to higher levels I run the risk of harming the table by being below WBL in comparison to other players.

    As for "oh play a pregen" or make a new character for low low level games… perhaps I have a reason that I want to play a specific character (have already GMed it and am looking for play credit, its part of a series, a Season 5 for my faction, just sounded from the description like a mission that a specific character is *made* for, etc.).

    Also, the only pregen I've seen so far be accepted with anything resembling open arms is Kyra (granted, we haven't seen too many NPC Codex pregens yet).

    Jiggy wrote:
    5) No one is willing to step up and GM a second table, AND

    Well, if you only have a GM with 4-5 players, having someone step up as a second GM doesn't help at all.

    Jiggy wrote:
    6) Either the organizer did not announce the scenario ahead of time, or none of the players could be bothered to pay attention to such an announcement and see the problem BEFORE arriving;

    Any number of players dropping out, or new players or players from out of town player showing up who don't know the local scenario schedule (or where to find it) but having seen a "Pathfinder Society Played Here on Saturdays at Noon!" poster/website announcement and deciding to show up… these all play merry havoc with any announced gameday schedule.

    Jiggy wrote:
    THEN, if all six of those conditions are met, we have an uncomfortable situation worthy of throwing the system out.

    I think that *any* combination of those factors, not just "all six conditions are met" can bring about a situation that drives players away from tables, which is something that PFS actively tries to avoid.

    Jiggy wrote:

    Are you guys serious?

    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.

    One thing to think about: Even if the players at that theoretical one table game day rotate the play up/down hits and never have contact with the larger PFS community, eventually the overall WBL hits may result in higher level play that is more difficult and deadly for that group than a group that hasn't taken those hits… perhaps catastrophically so (e.g. a TPK w/o resources for the rescues and raises).

    4/5

    Dennis Baker wrote:
    Joe M. wrote:
  • The argument for ATOD is not "extra risk should have extra reward." That's the argument for the current system. That's where the problems come in. The argument for ATOD is rather, "extra risk shouldn't carry with it a serious WBL penalty." (In the form of extra expenditure on consumables, conditions removed, etc.)
  • I'm not convinced you are really taking on that much extra risk. What you are definitely doing is being a burden to the rest of the group because they have to make up for a lower level character.

    Maybe the system should divvy up treasure based on your contribution to APL so in a tier 1-5 a 5th level character would get 5 times the gold of a 1st level character. They are almost certainly contributing vastly more to the parties survivability than the 1st level guy who is likely hiding in a corner trying to avoid getting smashed.

    Dennis--it depends on the scenario and the situation, really. Let's say it is a Season 0-3, so there aren't more monsters for more characters. If you have 5 level 5s in a 1-5 and you add a level 1 (as opposed to just adding no character at all), you're still giving action economy to the group. It's still an improvement over no character at all. Heck, if the level 1 is a bard with inspire courage, you can even see a significant boost from the level 1 over no character at all. And the 5 level 5s can probably win with or without the level 1. But the level 1 is at risk--the level 1 could easily die. Especially with AoE. I can name at least one earlier-season 1-5 where the level 1 will meet nearly certain death by fireball.

    1/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Thalin wrote:

    Well, add to the wealth-by-level scenario: if you play down, you don't get the extra PP.

    So the scenario would go like this in 1-5)

    Levels 1-2-3: For playing any 1-5 scenario, you get 1 PA "just for showing up", and can earn the extra one by completing the new "shared mission".
    Levels 4-5: For playing 1-2, you get 0 PA "Just for showing up". You can earn the extra PA.
    Regardless of level: you earn an amount of gold based on a designated chart.

    So now if you play down a lot, you're going to end up gimped on the cost of magic items that you buy, actually making you less powerful (and ironically more appropriate to play down). But everyone still ends up with the same wealth.

    Problem solved :).

    Playing down doesnt appear to be the problem and I don't think we should treat it like it is. The problem is that people are playing up and not just breaking, but shattering WBL. We need to find the simplest solution to implement instead of rewriting the entire section of the guide. Playing up is something that shouldn't happen often as the conditions required in order to make it happen are pretty uncommon(unless you intentionally create the situation for wealth reasons).

    1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

    Rogue Eidolon, could you please spoiler for me at what damage we are looking there for this fireball?

    Dark Archive 5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
    Will Johnson wrote:

    Doubling the PP makes no sense. The character earned more money, sure. They also would earn more "XP" at the higher tier, so are closer to leveling up. However, they've accomplished the exact same thing for the Pathfinders and their faction, so why should they gain more game/prestige?

    If the purpose is to allow players to "catch up" with their friends a level or two ahead, the prestige deficiency shouldn't be very bad at all. However, it will dissuade anyone from trying to "power level" to 12.

    Joe Pathfinder faced CR=His Level +4 fight with Weird Bugly Thing and did X, while also doing Y and Z for the Society.

    Sounds like the definition of a way to earn extra fame.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

    Hayato Ken wrote:
    Rogue Eidolon, could you please spoiler for me at what damage we are looking there for this fireball?

    My guess:
    Probably 5d6.
    1/5

    The society doesnt look at what level someone is. That is purely meta, outside the game. What the society sees is this wimpy pathfinder was carried by stronger ones and therefore he doesnt deserve to be equally as famous as the characters who carried him.

    4/5

    Netopalis wrote:
    Hayato Ken wrote:
    Rogue Eidolon, could you please spoiler for me at what damage we are looking there for this fireball?
    ** spoiler omitted **

    Nope!

    Damage:

    one 6d6 fireball trap
    one bad guy who can cast 4 6d6 fireballs, consecutively
    one bad guy who can cast 1 7d6 fireball

    All in the same 1-5

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Jiggly,

    I foresee the player who insists on playing a particular character in an adventure becoming more prominent due to the direction mods seem to be going in. If I show up at the only known local running of Way of the Kirin before April 15th with my Lantern Lodge character, playing it with a different character is not a reasonable option.

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Dennis Baker wrote:
    Joe M. wrote:
  • The argument for ATOD is not "extra risk should have extra reward." That's the argument for the current system. That's where the problems come in. The argument for ATOD is rather, "extra risk shouldn't carry with it a serious WBL penalty." (In the form of extra expenditure on consumables, conditions removed, etc.)
  • I'm not convinced you are really taking on that much extra risk. What you are definitely doing is being a burden to the rest of the group because they have to make up for a lower level character.

    Maybe the system should divvy up treasure based on your contribution to APL so in a tier 1-5 a 5th level character would get 5 times the gold of a 1st level character. They are almost certainly contributing vastly more to the parties survivability than the 1st level guy who is likely hiding in a corner trying to avoid getting smashed.

    Dennis--it depends on the scenario and the situation, really. Let's say it is a Season 0-3, so there aren't more monsters for more characters. If you have 5 level 5s in a 1-5 and you add a level 1 (as opposed to just adding no character at all), you're still giving action economy to the group. It's still an improvement over no character at all. Heck, if the level 1 is a bard with inspire courage, you can even see a significant boost from the level 1 over no character at all. And the 5 level 5s can probably win with or without the level 1. But the level 1 is at risk--the level 1 could easily die. Especially with AoE. I can name at least one earlier-season 1-5 where the level 1 will meet nearly certain death by fireball.

    @Dennis. Yeah, you're right that I may be wrong on the empirical question of whether it's a serious WBL penalty to have a lower-level play up. That's my general impression, but I could be wrong.

    More to the point, I think, is the fact that under PCP, it's a serious and permanent WBL penalty to have higher-levels play down. So in any case in which a lower level just doesn't want to take the risk or cower in a corner, you have the potential for serious tension at the table: higher-levels refusing to play down, lower-levels refusing to play up.

    Personally, if I were a higher-level in that situation I would walk unless I had a lower-level character ready to go or a character idea I wanted to start up anyway so wouldn't mind the pregen. But this puts a lot of the burden on the higher-level.

    ATOD is one way of relieving that burden, so you have the option of offering the lower-level in this scenario, look, it's a little extra risk, but you get a touch more gold and level a bit faster if you care about that.

    Another way to relieve that is to go with GPBL. Some people have suggested that this will lead to cakewalking, even deliberate cakewalking. Perhaps that's true. But (i) what a boring way to play! I'd never do it! and (ii) you're not going to get a perfect system anyway, and this objection looks more like an I don't like that way of playing objection than a serious mechanical problem.

    I mean, sure, I don't like that way of playing either. But it doesn't cause problems for anyone, as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still new to PF and PFS.

    [Added. I could be persuaded to GPBL over ATOD. I'm wavering as I've thought it over for the last couple hours. GPBL might prove the better solution.

    But please not PCP. That's just too much to ask of the higher level at the mixed table that can't unmix.]

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Netopalis wrote:
    Hayato Ken wrote:
    Rogue Eidolon, could you please spoiler for me at what damage we are looking there for this fireball?
    ** spoiler omitted **

    Nope!

    ** spoiler omitted **

    All in the same 1-5

    I recently ran that for a table of 6 newbs and 1 experienced player. I was very worried the experienced player was going to bring in his uber-munched 5th level character and try to coerce the newbs into playing up. If he had he would have been the only one to walk away from the table. Fortunatly he decided to play a first level pregen.

    1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Netopalis wrote:
    Hayato Ken wrote:
    Rogue Eidolon, could you please spoiler for me at what damage we are looking there for this fireball?
    ** spoiler omitted **

    Nope!

    ** spoiler omitted **

    All in the same 1-5

    Well, if you are a human fighter or barbarian with toughness and tribal scars, at least CON 14 and favored class bonus as hit point, you could survive on of those.

    Also when metagaming you could prepare with protection from fire, but we don´t really want that, do we?

    1/5 **

    I do see the proposed changes as working at cross-purposes with sub-tiers and as making mustering more difficult.

    I'm also not clear on why this is a problem -- surely characters playing up are likely to end up dying more, and therefore paying more for resurrections and such? Is the problem the social pressure to play up?

    4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Joe M. wrote:


    @Dennis. Yeah, you're right that I may be wrong on the empirical question of whether it's a serious WBL penalty to have a lower-level play up. That's my general impression, but I could be wrong.

    More to the point, I think, is the fact that under PCP, it's a serious and permanent WBL penalty to have higher-levels play...

    Another way to relieve that is to go with GPBL. Some people have suggested that this will lead to cakewalking, even deliberate cakewalking. Perhaps that's true. But (i) what a boring way to play! I'd never do it! and (ii) you're not going to get a perfect system anyway, and this objection looks more like an I don't like that way of playing objection than a serious mechanical problem.

    I mean, sure, I don't like that way of playing either. But it doesn't cause problems for anyone, as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still new to PF and PFS

    Hey Joe--true, it doesn't cause problems for the person playing down, if a cakewalk is what they enjoy, but it might cause problems for the on-tier characters if they don't want one. In the one example of tier bullying I've ever seen where someone actually walked away (me) to avoid a cakewalk (which was still a cakewalk even with the empty seat), I wasn't even locked into a high level character (I had a level 2 to play as well, who I played at the other table I found). So sometimes the players playing on-tier don't want the high level carry dominating and turning it into a cakewalk (for the same reason that they don't want to see a double wealth by level monster doing the same).

    3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

    bugleyman wrote:

    Is the problem the social pressure to play up?

    If that is the problem, I think this change will make it worse. Instead of hearing "You should play up, because you'll get more gold," low-level players will be told "You should play up, because we outvoted you." If social pressure is the issue, I think all we need is some language in the Guide regarding how to deal with level splits.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    trollbill wrote:

    Jiggly,

    I foresee the player who insists on playing a particular character in an adventure becoming more prominent due to the direction mods seem to be going in. If I show up at the only known local running of Way of the Kirin before April 15th with my Lantern Lodge character, playing it with a different character is not a reasonable option.

    In fairness, this is a situation where I would play down, because my desire to play that scenario with that character outweighs my desire for extra loot. I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way, and I think that's as close to the "right" reason for wanting to play down as is possible. I've certainly played down before for less (like completing the QFP arc on a single character) I'm in a similar situation with Blakros Matrimony, which I've been hoping to play with the same character for RP reasons. My worry is not that I won't get full gold. It's that I'll end up skewing the table, or worse, lulling a lower level group into a false sense of security and having them try to play up with me as the only one in tier. If faced with a group who's APL is at 5 in a season 4 if I'm the only 7, I'm going to vote play down. I'd rather risk being a little overpowered than getting the whole party TPK'ed because I can't solo a scenario at my tier.

    5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I would argue against making wealth completely uniform. Variety is the spice of life--if everyone has the exact same amount of money at all times, that's just going to get really boring.

    Dark Archive

    It is. Real-life scenario we had 2 weeks ago @ Manuel's Tavern in Atl, GA: after some pressure a group who can play either up or down ends up playing up, after some vocal players continually request it. TPK ensues. Lots and lots of bellyaching and potentail player quitting (or threats to do such, at least) as a result. Not fun for anyone.

    The problem is, the proposal would actually make things worse. Now, the high-levels that show up will still show up and want the players to play up, since they will otherwise be gimped (because those players can no longer play up later to make up the discrepency). They play up, and use more magic item charges and such... and aren't even rewarded for it. Or, the highs give in and are gimped for making the table. It's a lose-lose.

    Again, simple setup:

    *Playing down has a minimal cost (loss of 1 PA).
    *Money is calculated by your level. Simple, easy; if you lose your Pathfinder binder it's easy to recreate your guy. Also, no penalty for playing modules or playing the lower paying "Season 0" scenarios.
    *The level you are required to play at is determined by average party level. Only if it is EXACTLY on the cusp does the player decide (if you have a 2, 3 3s, and a 4 in a 1-5 module they can choose, since that averages to 3. But if you have a 2, 3 3s, and a 5 you have to play up, since that averages to 3.2. If you want to play down, beg the 5 to start a 1st level character).

    So what do we have?

    *No big pressure to play up
    *An easy way for Paizo to track characters and how much money you have.
    *Neither gimped nor over-powered characters; scenario writers can always predict how much wealth a party will have.
    *Happy, simple world; with a lot less paperwork.

    Can anyone find a problem with this setup.

    Sovereign Court

    Joe M. wrote:
    <snipped for length>

    the problem I have with the set GP/level option is it can lead to a similar issue to what we are seeing currently, though probably not as pronounced.

    Say there is a table of 3 level 1s and a level 5 ... the level 5 plays down. She gets the payout for her level, but due to the level disparity, will most likely not have needed to spend much, if anything, on consumables, leading to more GP in pocket. Granted it will not be comparable to the disparity created by someone always playing up, but it will be there none the less.

    Additionally, for the folks playing the lower level PCs, there is the serious risk of a boring scenario as the level 5 runs amok through the scenario.

    EDIT: Ninja'd by RE ...

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Hey Joe--true, it doesn't cause problems for the person playing down, if a cakewalk is what they enjoy, but it might cause problems for the on-tier characters if they don't want one. In the one example of tier bullying I've ever seen where someone actually walked away (me) to avoid a cakewalk (which was still a cakewalk even with the empty seat), I wasn't even locked into a high level character (I had a level 2 to play as well, who I played at the other table I found). So sometimes the players playing on-tier don't want the high level carry dominating and turning it into a cakewalk (for the same reason that they don't want to see a double wealth by level monster doing the same).

    Yep, that's a real concern.

    1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

    This might sound harsh to some, but i would remove the grey areas where you get to make such decisions somehow.

    4/5

    Thalin wrote:

    It is. Real-life scenario we had 2 weeks ago @ Manuel's Tavern in Atl, GA: after some pressure a group who can play either up or down ends up playing up, after some vocal players continually request it. TPK ensues. Lots and lots of bellyaching and potentail player quitting (or threats to do such, at least) as a result. Not fun for anyone.

    The problem is, the proposal would actually make things worse. Now, the high-levels that show up will still show up and want the players to play up, since they will otherwise be gimped (because those players can no longer play up later to make up the discrepency). They play up, and use more magic item charges and such... and aren't even rewarded for it. Or, the highs give in and are gimped for making the table. It's a lose-lose.

    Again, simple setup:

    *Playing down has a minimal cost (loss of 1 PA).
    *Money is calculated by your level. Simple, easy; if you lose your Pathfinder binder it's easy to recreate your guy. Also, no penalty for playing modules or playing the lower paying "Season 0" scenarios.
    *The level you are required to play at is determined by average party level. Only if it is EXACTLY on the cusp does the player decide (if you have a 2, 3 3s, and a 4 in a 1-5 module they can choose, since that averages to 3. But if you have a 2, 3 3s, and a 5 you have to play up, since that averages to 3.2. If you want to play down, beg the 5 to start a 1st level character).

    So what do we have?

    *No big pressure to play up
    *An easy way for Paizo to track characters and how much money you have.
    *Neither gimped nor over-powered characters; scenario writers can always predict how much wealth a party will have.
    *Happy, simple world; with a lot less paperwork.

    Can anyone find a problem with this setup.

    If you're looking for possible issues, the fact that you are forced to play up at 3.2 in your example above is actually pretty worrisome. If the party believes itself (correctly) to not be super-optimized (maybe it's all support characters or is missing a key facet), this could lead into a forced TPK.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    Ferious Thune wrote:
    trollbill wrote:

    Jiggly,

    I foresee the player who insists on playing a particular character in an adventure becoming more prominent due to the direction mods seem to be going in. If I show up at the only known local running of Way of the Kirin before April 15th with my Lantern Lodge character, playing it with a different character is not a reasonable option.

    In fairness, this is a situation where I would play down, because my desire to play that scenario with that character outweighs my desire for extra loot. I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way, and I think that's as close to the "right" reason for wanting to play down as is possible. I've certainly played down before for less (like completing the QFP arc on a single character) I'm in a similar situation with Blakros Matrimony, which I've been hoping to play with the same character for RP reasons. My worry is not that I won't get full gold. It's that I'll end up skewing the table, or worse, lulling a lower level group into a false sense of security and having them try to play up with me as the only one in tier. If faced with a group who's APL is at 5 in a season 4 if I'm the only 7, I'm going to vote play down. I'd rather risk being a little overpowered than getting the whole party TPK'ed because I can't solo a scenario at my tier.

    Personally, that is exactly how I would handle it. But that's just us.

    I am merely pointing out the the issue is likely to become more common and thus might be a bigger problem than we currently imagine (albeit I really like the new direction the mods are taking). If this happens frequently enough then you can actually end up with a large number of players with too little wealth.

    Sovereign Court

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Thalin wrote:

    It is. Real-life scenario we had 2 weeks ago @ Manuel's Tavern in Atl, GA: after some pressure a group who can play either up or down ends up playing up, after some vocal players continually request it. TPK ensues. Lots and lots of bellyaching and potentail player quitting (or threats to do such, at least) as a result. Not fun for anyone.

    The problem is, the proposal would actually make things worse. Now, the high-levels that show up will still show up and want the players to play up, since they will otherwise be gimped (because those players can no longer play up later to make up the discrepency). They play up, and use more magic item charges and such... and aren't even rewarded for it. Or, the highs give in and are gimped for making the table. It's a lose-lose.

    Again, simple setup:

    *Playing down has a minimal cost (loss of 1 PA).
    *Money is calculated by your level. Simple, easy; if you lose your Pathfinder binder it's easy to recreate your guy. Also, no penalty for playing modules or playing the lower paying "Season 0" scenarios.
    *The level you are required to play at is determined by average party level. Only if it is EXACTLY on the cusp does the player decide (if you have a 2, 3 3s, and a 4 in a 1-5 module they can choose, since that averages to 3. But if you have a 2, 3 3s, and a 5 you have to play up, since that averages to 3.2. If you want to play down, beg the 5 to start a 1st level character).

    So what do we have?

    *No big pressure to play up
    *An easy way for Paizo to track characters and how much money you have.
    *Neither gimped nor over-powered characters; scenario writers can always predict how much wealth a party will have.
    *Happy, simple world; with a lot less paperwork.

    Can anyone find a problem with this setup.

    If you're looking for possible issues, the fact that you are forced to play up at 3.2 in your example above is actually pretty worrisome. If the party believes itself (correctly) to not be super-optimized (maybe it's all...

    I would also add the lack of player choice in how they want to play is a bit disheartening. If the APL 3 table wants to take the risk, let them, if the APL 3.2 table doesn't want to, let them. Removing the players' ability to decide if they are going to play up or down would be even less preferable to the MMJ option as listed on the podcast IMO.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    NOTE: I didn't read through all the posts previous to this, so if I'm repeating another idea, consider this an endorsement or refinement of that.

    The best way to equalize WBL is to have you get gold from a scenario appropriate to your level -- no questions asked. But there's no incentive. But rather than scrap this model for wealth, I think we should try to work with it. It does, by definition, fix the WBL problem -- by giving you wealth appropriate to your level!

    So what can we give people as incentives...(brainstorming). Currently, there is:
    - Extra gold
    - Bonus loot
    - Unique boons
    - Higher level versions of unique items.

    So they can't get extra gold. That's the crux of the issue. But what about the rest?

    Playing up can still net you a higher level boon, better items (like a CL 12 wand of dispel magic with 6 charges, doses of rare poison, etc), and higher level versions of unique items (like the difference between the sword of station in the Midnight Mauler).

    Those look like pretty good incentives to me. In order to enable the change, we that all chronicle sheets going forward have more interesting gear for the higher levels. Partially charged higher level wands, cool unique magic items at a higher scale, etc. Or even better boons based off tier, similar to convocation rewards.

    I don't think we should discard the podcast idea as an option just yet, because we're assuming gold is the only incentive people. If that's true, they're going to be very disappointed when the new wealth rules come outer.

    They're getting less gold one way or another -- that's what fixing the WBL means.

    This way is just a very cut and dry approach to that. Something that's straightforward, simple, and still provides incentive for risk.

    "You get the gold appropriate for your level, but access to loot appropriate to what subtier you played."

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Michael my friend, you typically have some good thoughts, but I have to disagree with you on a number of items here.

    Michael VonHasseln wrote:
    We hear all the time that the scenarios aren't challenging enough. That can be traced back to characters with above average WBL.

    That might be one of the reasons, but this can also be traced back to people building min-max characters, building 'in teams', dipping for specific skills, etc. This also ties back to authors writing scenarios that were too simple; starting with mid-to-late Season 3 and so far, all of Season 4, the challenge and resulting 'oh $^!t' factor have increased significantly. Additionally, it seems because of the new challenges, quite a few people who used to play up, do not. That type of change was a good remedy (planned or not) for this issue.

    Michael VonHasseln wrote:
    When you have more than your average of wealth, you can afford solutions others can't... adamantine back-up weapons, cheap wands, etc.

    Why is this a bad thing? Each player/character is going to be different. Even looking at this from an RP viewpoint, not all adventurers are the same, even at the same experience level. And as you mentioned also, Fame/PP does a good way of hampering some of this concern anyway.

    Michael VonHasseln wrote:
    And then factor in the intimidation factor of experienced players brow beating new players into playing up with them so they can break the WBL. I've seen this happen and those new players never return. All because some players get greedy... is that the message we want to give?

    I'm sorry, but this is a really misguided reason, and one that seems to be a main piece of this change. Simply put, people who are acting like d!ck$ because of that are going to act like d!ck$ for some other reason. You know we play up a lot because of the character builds we have...and yeah, we may try to convince a player to play up, ensuring them they will be just fine. But bully them? No, cuz (most people believe) we're not a bunch of d!ck$ - if we have to play at level or down because the table wants to, so be it - it's just a game. Using this as a reason for change in WBL is futile and again, misguided - you're not going to change the minds of the jerks. In fact if nothing else, you just made it worse. :)

    Michael VonHasseln wrote:
    All in all, the solution on the table might be bitter to swallow, but it was placed there as a medicine for the problem.

    Maybe, but only in the same way one would amputate a foot to fix a broken toe - you're not solving the root cause of the problem and at the same time introducing more pain.

    Again, please don't take any of this as personal - I am only trying to have a constructive discussion/debate, and your earlier post happened to be one I focused on. See ya tomorrow bud.

    P.S. Come to Cape ComicCon this weekend!!!!

    4/5 5/5

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    If you're looking for possible issues, the fact that you are forced to play up at 3.2 in your example above is actually pretty worrisome.

    It has been my experience that many tables are mistakenly playing up. In Thain's example (referenced by Rogue Eidolon above), 3.2 would round to 3 and 3 (in a 1-5 scenario, I'm assuming) would not be forced to play up.

    But I have seen tables believe they must play up in such situations and I have also seen tables choose to play up when their APL unquestionably places them in the lower tier.
    In truth, there are few instances where a table has the choice to play up. If wealth has become skewed due to rampant playing up, perhaps the rules we already have for determining when a table may play up should be enforced. Codifying how the decision to play up or down is made when such a choice exists could tighten this rule and eliminate some of the choices to play up.

    4/5

    graypark wrote:
    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    If you're looking for possible issues, the fact that you are forced to play up at 3.2 in your example above is actually pretty worrisome.

    It has been my experience that many tables are mistakenly playing up. In Thain's example (referenced by Rogue Eidolon above), 3.2 would round to 3 and 3 (in a 1-5 scenario, I'm assuming) would not be forced to play up.

    But I have seen tables believe they must play up in such situations and I have also seen tables choose to play up when their APL unquestionably places them in the lower tier.
    In truth, there are few instances where a table has the choice to play up. If wealth has become skewed due to rampant playing up, perhaps the rules we already have for determining when a table may play up should be enforced. Codifying how the decision to play up or down is made when such a choice exists could tighten this rule and eliminate some of the choices to play up.

    I think Thalin knows that in the current system 3.2 is rounded down to 3--he was proposing a change that involved no longer rounding at all, with 3 as the midpoint and thus the hard cut-off between subtiers.

    The Exchange 2/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Dennis--it depends on the scenario and the situation, really.

    No, not really.

    Assuming you have two reasonably competent players, a level 5 character is always going to contribute vastly more to combat than a level 1 character. Sure it's an improvement over no character at all... but that's not the point. The 1st level character isn't contributing equally, or even close.

    Yes, the 1st level character might get swept up in an area effect spell, one shotted by a bad-guy, or killed by a trap. Which sort of illustrates the silliness of building rules that encourages that kind of play by creating hugely outsized rewards for doing so.

    Its fairly common to see players deliberately choose the lowest possible level character to play for any given scenario exactly so they can collect that outsized reward. That's not fair to the other players who are also dealing with increased risk and get no additional reward.

    5/5 *

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    On the "fixed wealth" option, noone has mentioned this problem:

    How do you handle scenarios where players miss/forfeit loot? If the party wipes in the last encounter, now you give them chronicles with 1xp and a reduced amount of gold based on the encounter missed.

    If we have a fixed wealth based on player level, then now what? If the BBEG had a 3,000gp item, that is 500gp each player is missing out on. If this was in a 3-7, the 500gp would be a huge chunk for the level 3s and not that much for a level 7s.

    Some will say "well, we can then say each encounter missed you reduce gold by 25%." But now we are entering into math every time, not to mention not all scenarios/modules have 4 encounters.

    4/5 5/5

    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    I think Thalin knows that in the current system 3.2 is rounded down to 3--he was proposing a change that involved no longer rounding at all, with 3 as the midpoint and thus the hard cut-off between subtiers.

    My mistake. Why not have sub tiers cover all APLs starting in Season 5? A 1-5 scenario could have a 1-3 sub tier and a 4-5 sub tier? Or make it a 1-6 scenario with a 1-3 sub tier and a 4-6 sub tier. Is it possible some scheme along those line would solve some of these issues?

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    I know this a very simplistic suggestions, but what if you just limited the number of times you could play up? Say once per level or two. That would effectively cap WBL and would be easily audited.

    Dark Archive

    It's item access. Now, you bring the gold / items back to the Society, and they give you a set payday. They also promise that any items you find you have first option of purchase. It makes the most sense that way anyway.

    Otherwise you get into the Living Greyhawk issue of people failing to take Adementium Doors off their hinges so losing gold for that :).

    In fact, I think that's the way it currently works. I've had items scratched off my scenario list, but never gold. That's why you can use any potions you found without reducing money.

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Here is a point I haven't seen made yet ...

    One of the stated goals for PFS is to "play by the rules". Right?

    Well, in any other Pathfinder game if you "play up" you get more XPs.

    By using the 1 XP per session (regardless of the sub-tier played) we are actually creating the WBL problem.

    The solution that Rogue Eidolon argues for, brings PFS more in line with regular Pathfinder play.

    2 XP for playing up with normal PP. There should be a disincentive after all.

    I don't think we should 1/2 XP for playing down. It is already too easy. There should be disincentive that way too. I'd leave playing down as it is now.

    For PCs between sub-tiers go the 2 XP route.

    4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dennis Baker wrote:
    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Dennis--it depends on the scenario and the situation, really.

    No, not really.

    Assuming you have two reasonably competent players, a level 5 character is always going to contribute vastly more to combat than a level 1 character. Sure it's an improvement over no character at all... but that's not the point. The 1st level character isn't contributing equally, or even close.

    Yes, the 1st level character might get swept up in an area effect spell, one shotted by a bad-guy, or killed by a trap. Which sort of illustrates the silliness of building rules that encourages that kind of play by creating hugely outsized rewards for doing so.

    Of course a level 5 haracter is going to contribute more than a level 1 character. But assuming that you have a party that can handle the scenario at high subtier already and then add characters at the absolute bottom of the tier, it's the new characters who are in the most danger, not the others.

    Let's take an example--

    Say you have 4 level 6 characters who can clearly win the 6-7 of a 3-7 scenario. And the APL is 6, so that's all they can play. Suddenly, a level 3 arrives, and the wealth is using the podcast proposal system. This party is undeniably stronger than the 4 level 6s without the new friend. Now the APL is 5.4, which rounds to 5 and is in between tiers.

    The 4 level 6s say "Hey new guy, we were about to play the 6-7 with our APL 6 party. Let's go."

    The new guy says "Absolutely not! I'm likely to be one-shotted or swept up in an AoE or killed by a trap and there's no way to cover that expense. We're playing in 3-4, and that's final. GM, they can't bully me into playing up right?"

    And the GM says "The lower level isn't in favor of playing up, so we play down."

    And this group, which is strictly stronger than the group that was ready to easily win their 6-7, plays down to 3-4 instead and curbstomps it. The high levels all get half gold and are now less equipped for future adventures.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Jiggy, with all due respect, you are attacking straw men and are being rather rude. You might want to tone your language down. I haven't said anything yet, because I greatly respect you and the work that you've done on the forums. You're not contributing to the discussion at this point.

    The fact of the matter is, it's perfectly reasonable for me to go to a Tier 1-5 table in a Season 5 scenario which has Cheliax as one of its featured factions with my level 4 Cheliax PC and expect to be able to play him rather than play a pregen. If situations mean that I have to play Valeros instead of Isaac Quinn, P.I., I'd be very disappointed, especially because scenarios can't be replayed. This is a concern that you simply haven't addressed other than to tell people to shut up, stop whining and put your big girl panties on.

    We are trying to engage in policy making here. That means that we are trying to reduce the damage inflicted upon our players.

    Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    Jiggy wrote:
    mgcady wrote:
    I don't think that the method proposed in the podcast will have the desired effect, since I believe it will result in players walking away from tables.

    Walking away from a table under certain circumstances isn't the end of the world, and certainly doesn't equate to a lost player. I've skipped several game days just because the offerings weren't a good fit for what I wanted, and that's okay. It's okay if sometimes you decide to go do something else that day and wait to see how things go next time.

    So it is ok for you to not show up, but not ok for someone who shows up to want to play the way they want.

    That reads to me as "My time is too important to do something I don't want, yours isn't."

    Specifically since the post was talking about people walking away from tables because of the net result of not playing.

    "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."

    Edit: NEtopalis is being more diplomatic than I am.

    301 to 350 of 945 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.