Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
It seems there needs to be a distinction between
a. players that intentionally play up for more power
b. players that play up for more thrill and maybe power
c. players that play up in order to play
d. players that get forced to play up by others
e. players that play down for security (but also to game the system?)
f. players that get forced to play down and cakewalk
g. players that play down in order to play
Everything but c. and g. seems to be a problem and actually unwanted.
f. will probably always happen when someone plays down.
The rest could or better it´s unwanted consequences could be avoided with the proposed play down half, play up double system for players, because it would mitigate the effects and swiftly change things.
At the same time one could still walk away and choose to search another table or not to play that day of course.
What is more important are CR changes in season 4 and 5, where a low-level char would tax the rest of the group then because of an increased CR.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Netopalis - What do you currently do in that situation? You say that under "Podwealth" your PC would often have to either play down or be set aside in favor of a pregen. But I don't know what you're currently doing that "Podwealth" changes.Currently, we play up a lot locally, unless it's Season 4. Season 4 is...contentious. Luckily, it's not come up as much in Season 4 scenarios.
Wait, a minute ago you said your local area plays a lot of 1-2. Now you're saying you play up a lot locally. I'm confused.
Describe a typical situation, and we can go from there, looking at what happens now and what would actually change with Podwealth in those same circumstances.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And because mixed tier tables are inevitable, any solution which takes a PC that is LEGAL for the scenario and essentially penalizes them for playing is bad policy in my book.
In that case, the following are also bad policy in your book:
• The current wealth system, because if you brought a perfectly legal 5th level PC to a 1-5 scenario and the only other PCs are a trio of 1st-level PCs, you're in 1-2 (no option of playing up) and get a fraction of your appropriate wealth.
• The "double XP" system, because someone who brought a perfectly legal PC now can't play that PC as many times as they otherwise could have. They are allowed fewer games with that PC.
If this does not reflect your feelings, then I submit that perhaps you've misidentified the source of your troubles.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
@Netopalis - What do you currently do in that situation? You say that under "Podwealth" your PC would often have to either play down or be set aside in favor of a pregen. But I don't know what you're currently doing that "Podwealth" changes.Currently, we play up a lot locally, unless it's Season 4. Season 4 is...contentious. Luckily, it's not come up as much in Season 4 scenarios.Wait, a minute ago you said your local area plays a lot of 1-2. Now you're saying you play up a lot locally. I'm confused.
Describe a typical situation, and we can go from there, looking at what happens now and what would actually change with Podwealth in those same circumstances.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. We have a lot of 1-2 players, and we do a fair number of Tier 1-2 games, but when there is a split table, we often play up.
A fairly typical hypothetical table might look like this: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4.
|
*dusts self off*
Two options I approve of:
1) Characters get wealth based on their own subtier unless they fall between the subtiers in which case they receive wealth based on subtier played. Item and boon access would still be granted based on subtier played.
2) Characters receive wealth based on their level. Each chronicle would list 5 different fixed amounts of gold. Item and boon access would still be granted based on subtier played.
I think both of these options fix the "wealth" by level issues, but we would need improved high subtier item access or boons to provide a bit more incentive to play up when given the option.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And we still get walk ups, we still have unexpected things pop up that have players either not be able to attend or be able to attend (also GMs), etc. We still have the proverbial wrench thrown into the works and have to juggle tables. We still have tables with mixed levels and we have folks who do need to occasionally play either up or down.
The point? Mixed level tables are a fact of life and "better planning" is not really an answer. There will always be mixed tables as we are not a homogenous batch of PFS Players ... we have different PCs at different levels, different schedules which can lead to us being able to play at different times. Any solution that begins with "you should all plan to start new characters together" is doomed to fail because of the ebb and flow from week to week.
And because mixed tier tables are inevitable, any solution which takes a PC that is LEGAL for the scenario and essentially penalizes them for playing is bad policy in my book.
The APL organizes as best we can in the time we can afford ... it comes off pretty well the vast majority of the time ... but event organization is not a job for any of us, nor should it be. The goal for ANY PFS event should be to seat every player who wants to play. We achieve this goal regularly.
I bolded the #1 argument of these entire discussion.
Every argument for the new system is: "Well it will work if you and the 50 floating members or your play group are more organized."
Well the proposed double XP, double gold and double prestige works and takes the burden off your unpaid volunteers and instead puts it on your players who are willing to play out of tier to figure out.
The new Double XP idea doesn't break the game for anyone. All it does is mean somebody can play faster if they want or misses out on a scenario to catch up with their local group. It equalizes things rather than penalizes anyone.
But we can't have that, because somebody might get confused and heaven forbid anyone takes 30 seconds to help them out. No instead lets penalize people for not having the exact right character for every effing tier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And because mixed tier tables are inevitable, any solution which takes a PC that is LEGAL for the scenario and essentially penalizes them for playing is bad policy in my book.In that case, the following are also bad policy in your book:
• The current wealth system, because if you brought a perfectly legal 5th level PC to a 1-5 scenario and the only other PCs are a trio of 1st-level PCs, you're in 1-2 (no option of playing up) and get a fraction of your appropriate wealth.
• The "double XP" system, because someone who brought a perfectly legal PC now can't play that PC as many times as they otherwise could have. They are allowed fewer games with that PC.
If this does not reflect your feelings, then I submit that perhaps you've misidentified the source of your troubles.
Quite the contrary. I also believe one should not game the system. I do believe balance is more important than negative reinforcement. I also believe player choice is key to a game where the players truly are the game (without PFS the players would still be able to play the game ... without players, the really is no PFS).
In that vein, the current WBL system does give lower payout for playing down (which I have no problem with), but it also gives them a means to get back that wealth they were shorted by doing so. The MMJ option? Nope.
The "2XP" system is no different in that regard than playing a module or a sanctioned AP in that regard. Neither of which are bad options; I have no problems with them nor the "2XP" option in that regard. Additionally, as has been recommended by numerous folks, one could feasibly refuse the upgrade to get 1 XP, X GP (instead of 2X) and X PP (instead of 2X).
Why do I have no problems with this?
First, it keeps the WBL targets intact while dealing with the problems currently associated with playing up.
Second, it allows folks to actually catch up to other players so they don't have to continually play up if gaming is limited in their area.
Third, it maintains the control of the PC and how it's advancement is handled in the hands of the player. It is essentially, the inverse of the slow advancement track.
That said, I have not misidentified the source of my troubles. How about you?
EDIT: Ninja'd by SCPRedMage on a couple things ...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sorry, I should have been more clear. We have a lot of 1-2 players, and we do a fair number of Tier 1-2 games, but when there is a split table, we often play up.
A fairly typical hypothetical table might look like this: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4.
I'll assume that all of the other PCs at the event are levels 1-2 then.*
So under Podwealth, you would split the 1 and the 2s off to other tables**, and run a 4-5 table with the 3s, the 4 and a 4th level GM-pregen. Now you're still playing up, still get tier 4-5 gold, don't have to worry about protecting a newbie, and still get to play your PC in your preferred scenario.
If instead we're talking about the only table at the event, then you're in that awkward part of area growth that gets weird no matter what the wealth system is. As soon as you can get just 1 more person though, you can have two tables (a high and a low). If you can't get up to two tables, then either we're right back to "someone needs to humble themselves and be the solution", or we're into a weird corner case where there is exactly one table's worth of potential PFS players, in which case all you have to do is go slow track until the lowbies catch up and then your six-person player base can play together happily ever after.
In the meantime, if you're usually the one doing all the heavy lifting and there's a scenario you really want to play, then it might be wise to bring a backup scenario in case a properly-tiered table can't make. And if people don't like that the person doing all the work is occasionally saving a special scenario for himself... well, then link them to my first big post in this thread. ;)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Fact: Some players are risk-averse and currently like playing down even with the current system.
Do you really mean "playing down", or simply "avoiding playing up"?
I think I might have seen one high-subtier character vote to play down (and that was because the character in question was a poor fit for the scenario, and it was the only high-subtier character at the table; playing up was only possible because of the +1 APL rule for older scenarios).
On the other hand I have seen many low-subtier characters unwilling to play up (and have even made that choice myself, when running my hard-to-replace kitsune).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think both of these options fix the "wealth" by level issues
Does it actually fix anything or just make us happy we fixed something?
It seems everyone I know likes to optimize PC's, and I'm not seeing people with obnoxious wealth by level.
You could say I'm an abuser, because for level 1 to level 7 of my Chan character I played every single encounter up. Every one of them. I was the lowest level in most of the sessions.
I'm currently level 11 and I have 5,630 gp more than Core p399 WBL chart suggests.
If we fixed this problem, here is a real world example of a character that would be directly harmed by the rule. I would be at least 10 to 15 thousand below WBL for my level.
I would have drastically changed my play behaviour to avoid playing down ever under any situation. Period. Am I a jerk? Maybe. But if you are under the curve, you are not going to catch up by playing down.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Your argument here seems to be "the system is fine as it is", but the campaign staff were QUITE clear that something WILL change.
Then I'm sorry, but if you think I'm of the opinion that the system is fine as it is then you must not have been reading my posts very carefully.
|
|
(I apologize if this has already been suggested but there are a lot of posts in this thread already …)
I think we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Every change proposed has some major downside in regards to enforcement, bookkeeping and reporting technology. I do not expect any change that requires different levels of XP based upon playing up/down to be viable. Backwards compatibility with older scenarios also needs to be considered.
I think the unbalancing effects of wealth and power are caused by too much swing in the levels allowed in the scenarios. Each PFS scenario is now designed to cover 5 levels of characters with no real restrictions about playing between sub-tiers. (There used to be rule back when there were 3 sub-tiers in the Tier 1-7 scenarios. )
I think the proposed wealth changes are fair but I propose taking it a step further. I think that we need to tighten the requirements on the level of characters that can play in a sub-tier:
Sub-tier 1-2 should only be open to characters 1-3. 3rd level characters are considered to be playing down and receive the awards of the lower sub-tier.
Sub-tier 4-5 should only be open to characters 3-5. 3rd level characters are considered to be playing up and receive the awards of the higher sub-tier.
Sub-tier 3-4 should only be open to characters 3-5. 5th level characters are considered to be playing down and receive the awards of the lower sub-tier.
Sub-tier 6-7 should only be open to characters 5-7. 5th level characters are considered to be playing up and receive the awards of the higher sub-tier.
Sub-tier 5-6 should only be open to characters 5-7. 7th level characters are considered to be playing down and receive the awards of the lower sub-tier.
Sub-tier 8-9 should only be open to characters 7-9. 7th level characters are considered to be playing up and receive the awards of the higher sub-tier.
Sub-tier 7-8 should only be open to characters 7-9. 9th level characters are considered to be playing down and receive the awards of the lower sub-tier.
Sub-tier 10-11 should only be open to characters 9-11. 9th level characters are considered to be playing up and receive the awards of the higher sub-tier.
This would make the character levels similar to the way modules and Adventure Paths are currently set up.
Because of the tiered nature of PFS scenarios, players should be encouraged to have a stable of characters which can cover the sub-tiers that they wish to play. If not, pre-gens could allow for legal tables in 7 of the 8 sub tiers; every time. (Currently there are many options for 1st and 7th level pre-gens. If the 4th level ones could also be fleshed out there should be a reasonable selection. )
Will this make mustering tables more difficult? Likely. Will it lead to more balanced, level appropriate play, challenges and rewards? Absolutely.
So for the example of the party of two 3rd level, two 6th level and two 7th level characters, I would suggest that the two 3rd level characters should either play 7th level pre-gens or be moved to another scenario, tier 1-5, where they will fit better. The higher level character will have a legal table without the lower level characters and will be playing something appropriate to their level. The lower level player (playing pre-gens) would still get a level appropriate playing experience and would likely get credit to be applied at a later date to their 3rd level characters or to a brand new character if that is what they decide.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Zylphryx and Jiggy, what are you actually debating about?
The sense of the 2xp system as you call it is, to enable players to play instead of not being able to play and still be happy about the outcome (if they play good).
If people don´t want to take that options because they have enough other possibilites, that is a good sign! Because there seem to be enough GM´s and players and oportunities in their area, which is great.
I have no idea about conventions, but i´m sure that can be handled by the people who organize it in some way.
Playing down or slow advancement are also kind of incorporated there, also tied to the WBL power curve. This gives people a maximum of freedom and flexibility, but it prevents playing up for more money and the unbalanced consequences.
The point that still would need fixing is survivability and CR of some groups in some cases.
Oger and Rogue Eidolon, do you have some good ideas for that? or Mergy?
How about level 1 characters would not be counted against the CR in some cases?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@1970Zombie: With what you're proposing, someone could sign up for a scenario in a tier they could legally play in, but show up and find out everyone else wants to play in the wrong subtier for him, and he legally can't play with anything other than a pregen. I think that's something we want to avoid.
|
Does it actually fix anything or just make us happy we fixed something?
It seems everyone I know likes to optimize PC's, and I'm not seeing people with obnoxious wealth by level.
You could say I'm an abuser, because for level 1 to level 7 of my Chan character I played every single encounter up. Every one of them. I was the lowest level in most of the sessions.
I'm currently level 11 and I have 5,630 gp more than Core p399 WBL chart suggests.
If we fixed this problem, here is a real world example of a character that would be directly harmed by the rule. I would be at least 10 to 15 thousand below WBL for my level.
I would have drastically changed my play behaviour to avoid playing down ever under any situation. Period. Am I a jerk? Maybe. But if you are under the curve, you are not going to catch up by playing down.
This change is not about fixing optimization. It is about equalizing WBL between PCs.
The level 11 character you mention having slightly more WBL than a character of his level should have according to the CRB is all well and good, but the concern is not comparing WBL to the CRB. It's about comparing WBL to the other PCs in the campaign.
That said, I agree about playing down. I too would politely excuse myself from a game rather than play down.
|
|
I'm going to join the growing number of folks and say that I advocate a wealth by level change if such a change in the current system is warranted.
Like Kyle said above Item and boon access would still be granted based on subtier played.
I doubt many players will begin to all the sudden play down to game the system for a easier scenario.
REGARDLESS- you will still have that minority of players who will find a way to game the system, THEY WILL NEVER GO AWAY. So we should accept that as well.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add Out-of-Tier category for:
Tier 1-5:
Subtier 1 - 2: 550
Out-of-tier 3: 1200
Subtier 4 - 5: 1850
Tier 3-7:
Subtier 3 - 4: 1250
Out-of-tier 5: 2250
Subtier 6 - 7: 3250
Tier 5-9:
Subtier 5 - 6: 2500
Out-of-tier 7: 4000
Subtier 8 - 9: 5500
Tier 7-11:
Subtier 7 - 8: 4400
Out-of-tier 9: 6100
Subtier 10-11: 7800
Why?:
|
|
@Hayato Ken
It started as a response to a post Jiggy made which he has since deleted. Bottom line is I am debating the stance in favor of the "2XP" option over the "MMJ/Podcast" option. Jiggy (correct me if I am wrong here Jiggy), is in favor of the "MMJ/Podcast" option. The scope just expanded to include other elements beyond the immediate mechanics of the options that could see impact from the change.
|
|
Also what I am proposing gets rid of the APL calculation. Since all scenarios are now designed with an assumption of six players, scalability within the sub-tier is already determined by the party size and not character level.
Now this is an idea I can get behind. Take away the part where 6 players gives you +1 APL and Boom! The problem is mostly taken care of. That could be a major part in fixing this issue. Most tables that play up currently are only able to do so because of that rule.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add Out-of-Tier category for:
Low playing High
Mid playing Either
High playing Low Tier 1-5:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 3-7:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 5-9:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 7-11:** spoiler omitted **
Why?:
Rewards have been disconnected from actual findings in scenario.
Thus we need a gold tier for the mid-level group.
This can substitute for anyone playing out of their sub-tier.
Heavily reduces the motivation to play up.
Easy Rule: "If you played outside your sub-tier, use Out-of-Tier, otherwise your sub-tier."
I like this. Something very easy to determine at the table, it doesn't hurt people having to play down, and it doesn't over reward playing up.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
So..
My thoughts as I have slept on this since my last post.
The overall feel of the wealth limits sits wrong with me, always has since the second edition tables of meh. Playing up just for extra gold, though, is not acceptable in of itself.
My overall feeling is that a compromise can be done. We would do halvsies. Playing up will give the 1-2 gold and add half of it to it. (500 plus 250 would be 750). Playing down would give half of the (for example) 3-4 gold (1250 minus 625 would be 625) plus half of the lowest tiered gold (example 1-2 500 minus 250 would be 250 plus 625 would be 875)
It would be some minor math for the GM, but fair for the players while rewarding playing within one's tier.
Most likely won't happen, though. I imagine that the "keep it simple, stupid" rule will most likely trump my little suggestion.
|
|
@1970Zombie: With what you're proposing, someone could sign up for a scenario in a tier they could legally play in, but show up and find out everyone else wants to play in the wrong subtier for him, and he legally can't play with anything other than a pregen. I think that's something we want to avoid.
I would suggest advertising scenario signup by sub-tier. That way everyone knows ahead of time.
I really think the problem that everyone is trying to fix is the huge level gap. If one 5th level character plays at a table with 5 1st level characters, I expect the scenario will be a cakewalk and no one will really have much fun. If it is the other way around, one 1st level and five 5th level characters, it seems likely that the 1st level character will not survive.
Pre-gens should not be a dirty word. They are a tool in our tool box. We should not be afraid to use them. They are not super optimized but they function as a solid character.
The object is to play and have fun. I think I would much rather play a pre-gen which is closer in level to the reset of the party than to have a large level difference between the party members. I expect it will make the session less fun for all parties (players and GM) involved.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Sorry, I should have been more clear. We have a lot of 1-2 players, and we do a fair number of Tier 1-2 games, but when there is a split table, we often play up.
A fairly typical hypothetical table might look like this: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4.
I'll assume that all of the other PCs at the event are levels 1-2 then.*
So under Podwealth, you would split the 1 and the 2s off to other tables**, and run a 4-5 table with the 3s, the 4 and a 4th level GM-pregen. Now you're still playing up, still get tier 4-5 gold, don't have to worry about protecting a newbie, and still get to play your PC in your preferred scenario.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Sometimes, two split tables can happen when a scenario is offered for the second time in a short period. A great example of this is Severing Ties. My VC and I GMmed a session of it back when it first came out in December. Since then, we've had enough people come on to make a third table, and they hadn't played it. Additionally, we had a few veterans who hadn't played it. So, they all got an opportunity to try it out, since it likely wouldn't be offered again.
Then, there was our high tier table at 5-9. It was filled with the veterans who had already played Severing Ties.
Finally, there was my table, which was comprised of 2 veterans who had already played Severing Ties, one semi-newbie who had [I offered it once online and he played with us] and one newbie who hadn't.
The thing is, though, that this rule isn't about a typical table. If it were only about typical tables, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the typical table is sort of a rare thing. Every event will present unique challenges and opportunities when you have only 1-4 tables. The more restrictions you put on tables, the worse the situation becomes.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Also what I am proposing gets rid of the APL calculation. Since all scenarios are now designed with an assumption of six players, scalability within the sub-tier is already determined by the party size and not character level.Now this is an idea I can get behind. Take away the part where 6 players gives you +1 APL and Boom! The problem is mostly taken care of. That could be a major part in fixing this issue. Most tables that play up currently are only able to do so because of that rule.
That's already the rule for Season 4.
Add Out-of-Tier category for:Low playing High
Mid playing Either
High playing Low
Tier 1-5:** spoiler omitted **Tier 3-7:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 5-9:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 7-11:** spoiler omitted **
Why?:
Rewards have been disconnected from actual findings in scenario.
Thus we need a gold tier for the mid-level group.
This can substitute for anyone playing out of their sub-tier.
Heavily reduces the motivation to play up.
Easy Rule: "If you played outside your sub-tier, use Out-of-Tier, otherwise your sub-tier."
I can get behind that.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I forget who posted the idea originally, but what about the compromise between getting gold based on your character level and getting the rewards for the subtier you play?
That could have been this post from me. I don't know if I was the first to make that suggestion.
|
.
I can get behind that.
Add Out-of-Tier category for:Low playing High
Mid playing Either
High playing Low
Tier 1-5:** spoiler omitted **Tier 3-7:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 5-9:** spoiler omitted **
Tier 7-11:** spoiler omitted **
Why?:
Rewards have been disconnected from actual findings in scenario.
Thus we need a gold tier for the mid-level group.
This can substitute for anyone playing out of their sub-tier.
Heavily reduces the motivation to play up.
Easy Rule: "If you played outside your sub-tier, use Out-of-Tier, otherwise your sub-tier."
I could maybe support this also. Would the out of tier gold be the average between the tiers? Or would it be a set gold for each tier as listed here? I still don't know if separating gold rewarded from gold found in a scenario is an issue, or how not getting all the gold for a scenario works when you're already receiving more gold than could be found at the tier played (or less than is found if playing up)
<EDITED again for autocorrect. I need to stop posting from a tablet. >
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I could maybe support this also. Would the out of tier gold be the average between the tiers? Or would it be a set slur for each tier as listed here? I still don't know if separating gold rewarded from gold found in a scenario is an issue, or how not getting all the gold for a scenario works when you're already receiving more gold than could be found at the tier played (or less than is found if playing up)
Scenarios already list different per-encounter gp values for each subtier. It shouldn't be too onerous to add a third.
|
|
I could maybe support this also. Would the out of tier gold be the average between the tiers? Or would it be a set slur for each tier as listed here? I still don't know if separating gold rewarded from gold found in a scenario is an issue, or how not getting all the gold for a scenario works when you're already receiving more gold than could be found at the tier played (or less than is found if playing up)They already list different per-encounter gp values for each subtier. It shouldn't be too onerous to add a third.
For future scenarios, yes. But do all of the past scenarios need to be edited to accommodate the change? Something tells me that's not something paizo will take on lightly.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I've read through many of the ideas in this column.
I think that many of them are creative and interesting, but my impression is that most of them offer unwanted unintended consequences that may be bad for the society.
Play up = 2 xp. 3 mods played up = 2 levels. Hmmm.....so if I played up for 12 mods, I could be 9th level?! That's faster advancement than 4th edition. Are you sure you want to open the door to everyone having high level characters easily? I vote against this idea.
Have specific gpv for specific levels. No more playing up. But then, there is no advantage to playing up or disadvantage to playing down. I think this creates more problems than it solves.
I think Majuba's idea of forming sub-tiers, which limit the excess wealth, is a good start that is a compromise of many positions. I haven't read each and every post, so I may well have missed something, but how about what I think is a slight modification of Majuba's idea?
Lets say a mod has wealth
1-2 600gp
4-5 1200gpChange it to:
Level 1-2 600gp
Out of tier 900gp (Specifically not calling this level 3, since it might be confusing)
Level 4-5 1200gp
With the idea that if you are level 1-3, and playing up to level 4-5, you earn 900gp, Or, if you are level 3-5, but playing down to 1-2, you also earn 900gp.
I think my halvies idea would accomplish this. It would be based on the chronicle sheet that the player is getting.
Using your example, playing up (tier 4-5) would net 900 gold (600 -tier gold- plus 300 -plus half-) while playing down would net 900 (600 -half of upper tier gold- plus 300 -half of lower tier gold-)
Most scenarios have more than 1200 gold pieces for 4-5, so most likely those playing down would get more, but not max.
So looking at the The Cyphermage Dilemma sheet, the lower tier is 1-2 and the reward is 532. Playing up to 3-4 would net (532 + 266) 798. The higher tier is 4-5 and the reward is 1940. Playing down would net (970 + 266) 1236.
It is minor math, but if implemented in future seasons, it can be pre-calculated on the sheet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through many of the ideas in this column.
I think that many of them are creative and interesting, but my impression is that most of them offer unwanted unintended consequences that may be bad for the society.
Play up = 2 xp. 3 mods played up = 2 levels. Hmmm.....so if I played up for 12 mods, I could be 9th level?! That's faster advancement than 4th edition. Are you sure you want to open the door to everyone having high level characters easily? I vote against this idea.
Have specific gpv for specific levels. No more playing up. But then, there is no advantage to playing up or disadvantage to playing down. I think this creates more problems than it solves.
I think Majuba's idea of forming sub-tiers, which limit the excess wealth, is a good start that is a compromise of many positions. I haven't read each and every post, so I may well have missed something, but how about what I think is a slight modification of Majuba's idea?
Lets say a mod has wealth
1-2 600gp
4-5 1200gpChange it to:
Level 1-2 600gp
Out of tier 900gp (Specifically not calling this level 3, since it might be confusing)
Level 4-5 1200gp
With the idea that if you are level 1-3, and playing up to level 4-5, you earn 900gp, Or, if you are level 3-5, but playing down to 1-2, you also earn 900gp.I think my halvies idea would accomplish this. It would be based on the chronicle sheet that the player is getting.
Using your example, playing up (tier 4-5) would net 900 gold (600 -tier gold- plus 300 -plus half-) while playing down would net 900 (600 -half of upper tier gold- plus 300 -half of lower tier gold-)
Most scenarios have more than 1200 gold pieces for 4-5, so most likely those playing down would get more, but not max.
So looking at the The Cyphermage Dilemma sheet, the lower tier is 1-2 and the reward is 532. Playing up to 3-4 would net (532 + 266) 798. The higher tier is 4-5 and the reward is 1940. Playing down would net (970 + 266) 1236.
It is minor...
You should not get any kind of benefit whatsoever for playing down. Why reward someone at all for playing a scenario that was super easy for their character? Even if you are only giving them 1.5X their rewards, you are still giving someone more money than the rest for playing a scenario where they have no challenge.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
It is not comparing the reward to the other players, but to the level of the character compared to the tier he is playing. The reason, in my mind, to do it in this way is to soften the gold loss compared to just getting low tier gold for playing down.
My idea is that the wealth levels need to keep in line with what the character will need for various items and tools that every adventurer gets. It mitigates the cost of using Wands to help the lower levels.
If the higher level characters are punished for playing down, even to help out all the low leveler ("you have a lot to learn, kid"), then I see a stagnation in the game. If the developers want to change the way playing up or down is done, I would go halvies instead of everyone getting the lower tier gold.
Getting 500 gold is great at first level. It would be a drop in the bucket at 5th level.
This is a way to reward or ding the player for playing out of tier without slamming the higher levels with pitiful gold or giving a kings ransom to the lower levels.
Anyone else have thoughts about this?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mind the 2XP system, until someone pointed out that it will allow inexperience players to get into higher-level play too quickly, before they have the chance to really learn how to handle it. We'll end up with people who have only played 9 to 10 games in 7-11 scenarios and still don't really know what they're doing.
|
|
You should not get any kind of benefit whatsoever for playing down. Why reward someone at all for playing a scenario that was super easy for their character? Even if you are only giving them 1.5X their rewards, you are still giving someone more money than the rest for playing a scenario where they have no challenge.
I think the goal is to allow for players that are higher level to agree to playing down instead of just getting up and walking away.
Also gives them incentive to not cake walk the encounter to show the lower levels how cool and awesome and powerful they are in the hopes of convincing them to play up next time instead of restricting their level 5 character of awesome one liners and barely contained power.
Any of the times I've had to play down because I am the only with a top of the tier character I try to play it more as an advisory role for a bunch of new pathfinders. Kind like the VC saying to the level 1 and 2's "Hey we know you are awesome, but we are gonna send this experienced pathfinder with you just in case you get in over your head, try not to rely on them to save you though"
However this new proposal by MMJ has my guy wondering why he would waste his time helping if he will recieve little to no compensation later by being able to play up the next time. I don't want to gimp myself and my character by playing down, I'd rather wait and take a more challenge appropriate scenario the next time.
This compromise would make it a little more understandable for playing down and would make sense. I am helping these pathfinders out and I am getting more compensation then them because I am playing down to help. If I play down every time though I'll be gimping myself in the long run so I am encouraged to play at my tier as much as possible and the lower levels are encouraged to play up because they'll recieve slightly more and thus be rewarded for taking risks.
Edit: Whoops broke the quote link and it ended up looking really funny.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Remove the rule that 6 players gives you +1 APL. This will severely reduce the number of tables that are even able to play up.
Let's say for example you have a 1-5 table that looks like this:
1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5
Your APL is 2.8. 6 Players you add +1 to make 3.8, round up, and you qualify for 4-5. Remove the +1 APL and you do not qualify. You could still play up to 3-4 if it was available (obviously if the level 5 was instead another level 4) but that would be fixed by #2 below. Just removing this rule alone will disqualify a majority of the tables that play up
2. If you DO play up you gain 2 XP
This would keep people more in line with their WBL while still ensuring that people who do play up are awarded the proper treasure for the challenge they faced. The increased chance of death they may have to pay for as well as the increased amount of consumables that they very likely will have to use.
3. Playing up for 2 XP does not grant you more PP
Players should not be encouraged to play up for faster leveling or increased wealth. The only time you should play up, is to form a table and make sure everyone can play. Think about it, why would the Decemvirate place higher value on the actions of someone who underperformed compared to the rest of the pathfinders in the scenario? This dent to your PP is minor if you only play up occassionally. The only people it will affect are the ones that play up all the time, but even that won't be an issue as they will soon catch up to the players that were carrying them. You will then be playing in-tier. As a matter of fact, this dent to PP already exists in PFS. If you play a sanctioned module you gain 3 XP and 4 PP. If you were to play up one time and then play at tier using this suggested system you would gain 3 XP and 4 PP (If you succeed at faction missions).
There is an added bonus to doing this instead of awarding wealth based on what level you are. You don't have to rewrite any chronicle sheets and the changes to the Guide would be minimal. You would merely remove the part of the guide that says that 6 players grants you +1 APL. Then add in a simple one or two sentences that explains, if you play up you get 2 XP and do not get any bonus PP for it.
Edit: This approach is intended to make playing up a very rare occurence while not overly penalizing people for doing so. You lose a few PP but if you aren't doing it all the time, it won't set you back much.
|
|
Why are we playing with wealth when the problem is player bullying? The proposed system still results in bullying behavior.
Let's actually deal with the problem, and give GMs more leeway on how they handle abusive players.
No matter how hard we try, or how well we regulate, power gamers will power game. Trying to stop that from happening, well, the cure is worse than the disease.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I really caution against rewarding extra EXP. Character level up quickly enough, and even slow progression is not slow enough for some. (Though I think slugging through six scenarios for three scenarios' worth of reward is insane)
Players can enjoy the game with the exp track that is in place now. I believe the only question here is how to change the wealth distribution to discourage playing up for upper tier gold.
I had thought that 4th season had already eliminated the +1 APL, that it is only used for season 3 or lower. Wasn't that pointed out earlier?
I still like my Halvies plan. It is really minor math.
It may even look at inbetweeners as playing up or down no matter what. (level three in a 1-2 or 4-5 tier)
|
|
The able has to be tied to the cost of both mundane items for low level 1to 5 and the cost of magic items for levels 5 to 11. Why should a pathfinder risk hhis lie or a mere pittance that we are being paid now. A fighter should be able to get masterwork arms and armor by level 3. That would cost 1650 gp for heavy armor. 175 gp for heavy steel shield. 720 gp for 2 melee weapons and 460 gp for ranged masterwork and 200 gp for random gear and 900 gp for 3 cure mod and 2 pa or a wand of cure light. Total cost 3900 gp and 2 pa
Compare this to the expected reward 551gp x6 3306 gp for 6 scenarios 1-2 and and 2250 gp for 3 level 3 scenarios at 750 gp per you might just have enough gp to get a plus 1 magic weapon. Very under powered IMO .
IMO tier -2 should get 750 per scenario
Level 3-4 2500 per scenario
Level 5-6 4000 gp per scenario
Level 7-8 7500 per scenario
Level 9-11 12500 gp per scenario
Also set up a system where you can buy certain magic items with prestige points I think these items should be tied to ones faction. Note these items are not the same as toes magic items that you can buy normally with awarded gold.
IMO you should not be allowed to play outside of your tier. If you get to a game where you do not have a character of the right level play a per gen or open up the characters form the npc codex for use. I really like the idea for season 5 of having a strict gp reward based on ones tier. I just want the gp reward increased. I also would like better items placed on chronicle sheets us rom items that are not normally avaible and also racial boons for various races.
|
|
I may be over simplifying things, but what about this:
Start with a fixed point: The top money someone can earn as the top level of the top tier. Anyone below that level earns -5% per level (to reflect the level 1-20 range) below the top level NO MATTER whether you play up or down.
Example: I am playing 3rd level character in a 4-5 tier game. I multiply the top take by -10%.
Yes, high level characters playing down will earn big bank, but as has been readily pointed out they will be the work horses that session.
No change to PP, XP, or APL. Just a flat sliding scale for GP.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mind the 2XP system, until someone pointed out that it will allow inexperience players to get into higher-level play too quickly, before they have the chance to really learn how to handle it. We'll end up with people who have only played 9 to 10 games in 7-11 scenarios and still don't really know what they're doing.
But brand new players are already doing this when they play a level 4 or level 7 pregen.
At least with the 2 XP solution, new players that always play up have to play several games (with more experienced players) to reach higher levels. And a side effect is that they will be able to catch up to the current groups level and continue to play with them - rather than having to use a pregen if there are no other tables to play at.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
I am grunching HARD here, since my last reply was on page 1, but I still can't fathom why this is an issue.
I'm the player you are all talking about.
I have a pretty damn wealthy oracle of life (aasimar), and Fame caps have been "close" for me. IE: I had to complete two more mods to purchase a phylactery of positive channeling when I already had the money for it...
Anyways, I don't bully players. If people do not want to play up, I will simply bow out, or bring in a pre-gen/another character...Unless I don't mind playing my tier, which I do on occasion.
I really enjoy playing up, the challenge, and seeing if my optimization can withstand higher tiers. I also enjoy being able to play with the rewards I earn for completing such challenges.
I've died once already, and lost a substantial amount of PA/Gold reviving. I've come close to death about 4-5 times.
Removing the incentive to play up is just foolish IMO.
Punish the bullies not the thrill seekers.
Too bad you didn´t really post your character here with a profil on your FPS characters page.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we playing with wealth when the problem is player bullying? The proposed system still results in bullying behavior.
Let's actually deal with the problem, and give GMs more leeway on how they handle abusive players.
No matter how hard we try, or how well we regulate, power gamers will power game. Trying to stop that from happening, well, the cure is worse than the disease.
I think player bullying should be discussed as a separate issue. We shouldn't try to correct player behavior by adjusting the reward system in PFS.