|
When you go to report a scenario, there's a box to mark a character as dead. Therefore, the reporter needs to know at the time of reporting whether or not the character is dead. Changing the reporting well after the fact if you can't clear the condition is too much to ask of any sane individual (at the rate some people play, it could be years).
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
It's not a matter of player responsibility or trust...
It's a matter of system-wide bookkeeping. It we're going to have all the characters be portable, we need to have rules that let us contain conditions within a single scenario. An impending doom, while fun to roleplay, would just cause too many headaches for Paizo's record system.
Hence, if you die and can't come back that scenario... You're dead. Period.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that the reporting system would not be able to accommodate a delayed resolution of the report of a PC death, but perhaps rather than making the campaign rules conform to the current reporting system, we should look at ways we can make the reporting system support the campaign rules?
In trying to make pregen character death have the same consequences as the death of a regular PC, the new rules actually make a pregen death have consequences that are harder to overcome. If you are playing a pregen because you don't have a character in the appropriate tier for the scenario, your low-level character is rather unlikely to have the resources to pay for your share of the cost for raise dead and restoration, so your character will die permanently, even though a character of the appropriate level for the scenario will almost certainly have the necessary resources. Why not just make a rule that only level 1 pregens can be used? It's a simpler solution to arrive at the same end point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So campaign management needs to determine which is more critical - enabling players to participate in scenarios that they would not normally be able to play using a pregen or making it so that someone playing a pregen suffers immediate consequences to their regular PC for pregen death. Immediate consequences make playing a pregen have the potential for overly punitive results and while there may be some players willing to take the chance, everyone with whom I've discussed the new policy has said they'd rather wait for a later chance to play the scenario with their own character rather than risk playing a pregen. It has the same net result as not allowing the higher level pregen at all.
|
|
I'd submit that is not the same net result. "1st level Only" means there is no chance for someone to play a 4th or 7th level pregen, where as the current rule of "You can, but you might be discouraged" leaves the possibility of play, and in practice has led to a non-zero number.
Edit: On the subject of pregen-only scenarios, it has been clarified that they are exempt from the minimum payment rules.
|
|
Plaidwandering - I also support delaying the application of pregen death consequences until the character reaches the level at which the chronicle is actually applied to the PC. The counter argument that came up in this thread is that the reporting system does not support that and so campaign management needs to determine which solution best supports their goals for the campaign. I hope they come down on our side and find a way to deal with the reporting issues.
Steven - while it may be non-zero in your experience, it has been zero in mine, although my sample size is admittedly small and anecdotal evidence is always suspect.
It we're going to have all the characters be portable, we need to have rules that let us contain conditions within a single scenario.Well the character hasn't played the scenario, so it doesn't actually have the condition.
You can't apply credit until you catch up, so why the harshness of applying a penalty before then as well?
I don't know why this has to impact the record system either, it's as simple as a note on a chronicle - exactly how a multitude of other things are tracked.
They have an issue with people not wanting to play pregens as much as they did before the change, it was just an idle thought on how to address that.
It's a matter of our perspectives I suppose; to me it seems incredibly trivial to implement. If it's seeming this complex to a lot of others, then I accept that you all see something I cannot, and it would not be feasible to implement if that is the overall situation.
It's also not only adding a level of complexity for no good purpose, it's tremendously unfair to the players who put their actual characters on the line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's tremendously unfair to the players who put their actual characters on the line.An actual character has level appropriate resources and prestige to deal with death.
This proposal allows a player who played a pregen to use level appropriate resources and prestige to deal with the death.
Where's the unfairness?
Because you're asking for special treatment for running a pregen. Characters die.... either fix it at the table or deal with the fact that all stories end... many sooner than others.
it's tremendously unfair to the players who put their actual characters on the line.An actual character has level appropriate resources and prestige to deal with death.
This proposal allows a player who played a pregen to use level appropriate resources and prestige to deal with the death.
Where's the unfairness?
And players have resources tied to the character they're applying the Chronicle to.
|
|
It's also not only adding a level of complexity for no good purpose, it's tremendously unfair to the players who put their actual characters on the line.
I disagree with your suggestion that the added level of complexity serves no purpose - it allows a player using a pregen to suffer the consequences of pregen death at the appropriate character level (i.e., a player doesn't need to kill off a 3rd level character because he didn't have the resources to pay his share of raising a 7th level pregen who died, but rather can pay the consequences when he actually reaches 7th level and has the same resources available to all of the other characters at the table).
I can see how it would be unfair to let a player of a pregen sell off the pregen's equipment to pay for a raise dead, etc., rather than pay full cost out of his own resources. As I proposed in a previous thread on this topic, I would suggest that the consequences be delayed until the character reaches the appropriate level, but that when the chronicle is applied, the PC must meet all of the costs not met by other PCs at the table (i.e., no selling off the pregen's equipment to meet part of the cost). This would require that the GM sign off on any contributions made by other players, but that does not represent any extra work over what would be required for a regular PC who died. This still leaves the question of if/when the death is reported. I like the suggestion made by Plaidwandering to report the death under the scenario that brings the character to level where the chronicle is applied (if the character cannot pay the required amount of gold or prestige to resolve the condition at that time).
|
|
it's tremendously unfair to the players who put their actual characters on the line.An actual character has level appropriate resources and prestige to deal with death.
This proposal allows a player who played a pregen to use level appropriate resources and prestige to deal with the death.
Where's the unfairness?
The actual character does not know how many chronicles he has left until the debt is due and cannot budget like the character with the pending death can.
|
|
The actual character does not know how many chronicles he has left until the debt is due and cannot budget like the character with the pending death can.
I would suggest that rather than allowing a character with a cloud of death hanging over his head to spend more resources than a character who does not have a foreshadowing of his impending doom, he will save more and spend less. All sensible players budget a certain amount in reserve to meet sudden need. A player who knows his character is going to die at a certain level will budget that twice over if he can.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And players have resources tied to the character they're applying the Chronicle to.
Forgive my bringing this up again, but I don't see how that's the case. Could you provide the relevant rules text? If the player doesn't have the PC's paperwork at the table, how can the player use resources that the character may or may not have?
|
The main problem I see here is that delaying the death guarantees it doesn't happen at all. You're arguing that they should have the resources a of a character at the correct level, but characters at the correct level don't always have the resources on hand due to buying gear or possible other factors. This gives the player of the pre-gen specific knowledge of when the death is going to apply allowing them to save the amount needed. Implementing this rule would insure pre-gen deaths never happen which is in direct opposition to the intent of the rule they just implemented.
Forgive my bringing this up again, but I don't see how that's the case. Could you provide the relevant rules text? If the player doesn't have the PC's paperwork at the table, how can the player use resources that the character may or may not have?
And players have resources tied to the character they're applying the Chronicle to.
Players playing their actual characters would be in the same boat, if they left their stuff home. In old style network play, if I left a character home, I wouldn't be able to play at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Right, so how can a player use the character's resources? So far as I can tell, even if the player does have the PC she wants to use, that's not the character who has gone on the adventure, and she can't use that PCs resources.
Am I wrong? If a player wants to play a pre-gen, but also wants to equip the pre-gen with stuff purchased by her own character's resources, is that allowed?
|
|
I'm not aware of any player who does not save enough prestige or gold to meet the cost of coming back from the dead once they hit level 4 or so, so saying that someone knows they are going to die means that they never will has little real meaning - we all plan like we know we're going to die anyway. Someone who knows for sure he's going to die plans like he's going to die twice and holds back twice the resources that others do. This means he does not have as much gear as others who don't have that foreknowledge - it is not an advantage.
|
I can see how it would be unfair to let a player of a pregen sell off the pregen's equipment to pay for a raise dead, etc., rather than pay full cost out of his own resources. As I proposed in a previous thread on this topic, I would suggest that the consequences be delayed until the character reaches the appropriate level, but that when the chronicle is applied, the PC must meet all of the costs not met by other PCs at the table (i.e., no selling off the pregen's equipment to meet part of the cost). This would require that the GM sign off on any contributions made by other players, but that does not represent any extra work over what would be required for a regular PC who died. This still leaves the question of if/when the death is reported. I like the suggestion made by Plaidwandering to report the death under the scenario that brings the character to level where the chronicle is applied (if the character cannot pay the required amount of gold or prestige to resolve the condition at that time).
So does the player get to play the character through the adventure, then address the pregen death? What if the character dies in that adventure? Does it have to pay twice the costs?
Or clear the death before the adventure. "Hi guys, Buster here died as a pregen but the chronicle applies now. So how much can I count from your guys to raise him so I can play him in this adventure?" I, as a player, would not help the character at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So does the player get to play the character through the adventure, then address the pregen death? What if the character dies in that adventure? Does it have to pay twice the costs?
Or clear the death before the adventure. "Hi guys, Buster here died as a pregen but the chronicle applies now. So how much can I count from your guys to raise him so I can play him in this adventure?" I, as a player, would not help the character at all.
As an example, lets assume that someone playing a 7th level pregen dies during an adventure. Under my proposal, the character applies the "death chronicle" as soon as he hits 18 xp, which happens at the end of a scenario when the chronicle for that scenario is received. If he happens to die during the scenario that brings him to 18 xp, he would need to resolve the death effect at the end of that scenario on the chronicle for it and then would need to also resolve the death effect that occurred on the pending chronicle that gets applied immediately after. If he was not able to resolve both, the character is reported as permanently dead. He would not bring a dead character to his next game.
EDIT: Corrected the xp needed to bring a character to 7th level.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The odd thing is that I would support the delaying of death consequences if I could think of a way to do this without mucking everything up in reporting. I hate character deaths. I hate it when I kill someone's character as a GM, or when one of mine dies.
But I cannot see a way of making this work with GMs that fluctuate in an international campaign with portable PCs. Maybe I'm lacking in imagination, but this just seems like it would be a huge mess.
Now if we could alter the reporting system so that it could accomodate the idea... Maybe. But that's a big maybe. I want characters to live, but I also want to avoid GMs having to deal with delayed deaths and reporting complications.
Hmm
|
|
This means he does not have as much gear as others who don't have that foreknowledge - it is not an advantage.
It means he may choose to have less gear than others, or he may bank on the fact that he has his one death prepaid and can use that if a second death occurs, then save more in the intermittent scenarios. This knowledge IS an advantage, as it allows the player more flexibility and certainty than other players.
|
|
Pete if your assertion that every player saves the resources to deal with character death by level 4 were true there would be no players with permanently dead characters after that point which just isn't true. Also, I know plenty of players who blow through their resources to buy gear in the hopes of preventing the death from occurring rather than saving for a raise dead. I'm sorry, but I disagree with literally your entire post.
|
|
I'm not aware of any player who does not save enough prestige or gold to meet the cost of coming back from the dead once they hit level 4 or so[...]
I'd like to introduce you to at least a third of my characters. Heck, my second-favorite has neither the Prestige nor Gold at level 9. That Blakros name didn't come cheap.
My Seeker (and favorite) only has the gold (until I go shopping with him) because he's been saving up.
Most of my PCs that can afford it can only do so because there hasn't been enough compelling vanities for them to spend on. Well, the improvised-focused build tends to have a lot of cash/prestige laying around. After all, what gear does a clerk really need?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also not only adding a level of complexity for no good purpose, it's tremendously unfair to the players who put their actual characters on the line.It we're going to have all the characters be portable, we need to have rules that let us contain conditions within a single scenario.Well the character hasn't played the scenario, so it doesn't actually have the condition.
You can't apply credit until you catch up, so why the harshness of applying a penalty before then as well?
I don't know why this has to impact the record system either, it's as simple as a note on a chronicle - exactly how a multitude of other things are tracked.
They have an issue with people not wanting to play pregens as much as they did before the change, it was just an idle thought on how to address that.
It's a matter of our perspectives I suppose; to me it seems incredibly trivial to implement. If it's seeming this complex to a lot of others, then I accept that you all see something I cannot, and it would not be feasible to implement if that is the overall situation.
I feel like they are so poorly made that even with the rule it wouldn't be that unfair.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Admin are okay saying that if you run a scenario that levels you up into a dead chronicle then you report them dead on the current scenario.
While I personally like this idea, it's not that great for the admins.
Like, lets take bonekeep, a quite lethal scenario. Currently lets say that 50% of player that do bonekeep use pregens. And lets say that 50% of all players die, 50% pregens and 50% non-pregens.
So of all players 1/4 play pregens and die, but when reporting you don't show that it was a pregen being played.
The authors know this is a very lethal scenario since 50% of people die in it dead. Under the new reporting all of a sudden bonekeep is only 25% deadly. Only 1/4 of players that are doing bonekeep are dying.
and now the social dinner party scenario that has 1 token fight in it jumps up in how many reported deaths there are for this scenario. "How are they dying? We're throwing a housecat at them as the only combat in a 5-9 scenario" and it's because all the people that died in bonekeep with a pregen decided to play this dinner party scenario as the one to ping them up to death.
Granted this example is quite contrived and using some inflated numbers for clarity. But the point is, there's some reason we report deaths for a scenario, and that reason might not be met if we report deaths in the newer scenario.
Another solution might be to mark them dead but that death isn't real till the chronicle is reported. So you mark them dead and then they might suddenly be back alive.
It kinda really depends on what data they are hoping to derive from the reported dead checkbox.
|
|
plaidwandering, I don't disagree with your train of thought but I don't see how it will be easier in the long run.
If I play a 4th level or higher pregen and I die, I can sell all the gear on the pregen, all the gold I earned in the scenario, and any gold offered by other players at the table. This generally should be enough clear the the death. Yes I have to come up with a little extra gold from the regular character but that, while painful, is not back breaking.
Now if I play a 4th level or higher regular character and I die, it is all the same options but generally much more painfully if I didn't have the money saved.
And this is assuming that I am using gold. I am not sure if I can use regular character's prestige to clear a death condition on a pregen.
So I don't see how dealing with a pregen death and a regular character death are different.
|
And this is assuming that I am using gold. I am not sure if I can use regular character's prestige to clear a death condition on a pregen.
There is currently no method for spending Prestige (or gold) from Chronicles that have yet to be applied. Earlier in this Season, during other "Pregen death" threads, some tenured PFSers seemed to believe there was a way to do it, and that it had been done before, but yet were unable to lay out any plans for how to do so. Those earlier discussions are why Chris Mortika is asking "how?" in this thread. People obviously believe there's a way to do it, but nobody can describe it.
|
|
Regarding this thread, I don't see a feasible way to adopt a "I'll fix it later" policy. Or, really, any reason to in the first place.
It would require website maintenance, for no true benefit. Additional attention from reporters, which adds unnecessary complexity.
And it could stress the temptation to cheat, since there's nothing now stopping that player from throwing the death Chronicle in the garbage and moving on to their next game. With the current system, that's not possible.