Kerdak Bonefist

Ricgeon's page

26 posts. Alias of Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar.


RSS

Grand Lodge 4/5

A GM should know what abilities the players at his table have (as is expected to at least take a look at and familiarize himself with those abilites.

They of course, not expected to Meta that as well and move by if required by tactics, or try and acrobatics, etc, etc.

I am always perplexed by the stories of mistrust that players have in GMs in general.

I guess I'm just really lucky to be playing PFS in my area with great GMs.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Knowing when to use this is key of course, and is knowing what abilities the PCs at your table use and how much they try to use player knowledge instead of character knowledge.

Your character would never "know" that the BBEG does or doesn't have Combat Reflexes. Best you could guess is that he just took a swing at your buddy and "maybe" you could get by without getting smacked (does not = not getting swung at). There are so many different ways to verbally describe what is happening in combat. I prefer a very descriptive cinematic style, as it helps paint a picture for me and my players.

Refering to other abilities that retaliate, such as a monk, of course, would be my responsibility as a GM to know that you have such an ability. I would necessarily use this GMing for people I don't know, or at least know what their character does.

For me, I don't see combat as a buch of static things that happen, but a whirling cloud of chaos in which actions happen with in the rule set provided. Doesn't say anything about elaborating on the fluff that goes on between rolls.

This isn't about knowing what an AoO is or isnt from a rules perspective, or preventing a player from applying rules knowledge about AoOs. It's about preventing players from implying player knowledge onto their characters. No different than a character not making a knowledge check to identify a monster, then pulling out their cold-iron weapon, just cause they feel its the right thing to do.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to get a feel for other GMs and how they deal with the meta-gaming that often revolves around the AoO, combat reflexes, and provoking.

How I deal with the issue:

Real combat isn't static. The combatants don't just stand there and take their one (or more) swipes per turn (as I've seen discussed in numerous threads). So your attack is your "good oppotunity" to land a solid blow (one that isn't parried, or dodged, or glances of his shield as would happen in actual combat).

I read the same thing for combat reflexes. All it represents is their "good opportunity" to stike a creature, not that they won't "try" and hit you going past, even if they've used up their "good opportunity".

So, the first combatant, A1, somehow provokes from B1. Attack gets rolled as normal, but unlike normal attack rolls, I roll my AoOs behind the screen, to begin minimizing meta-gaming. The next player, A2, will often think to themself, and sometimes even verbalize "they've taken their AoO, i'll just walk past them"

This is where, behind the screen, I'll roll again. Of course, if they don't have Combat Reflexes, the roll is moot, but the dice and my verbalization, "He swings as you walk by, slamming into your armour, which absorbs the entirety of his blow", or a "glancing blow, successfully parried" I find can break the meta involved, or at least try to minimize it. I like the surprised look I get when a player thinks the coast is clear but maybe, just maybe, it really isn't.

How do you try to negate this type of meta?

Grand Lodge

Hendelbolaf wrote:

There is no sound component to this so any silence effects would do nothing to Heartseeker.

As mentioned, Mirror Image does not provide concealment, but any time there are more than two images or so, it is better to just close your eyes and go for the 50/50 miss chance. Of course there is the idea that even a miss against a Mirror Image could take out images so that might deter some from closing their eyes.

However, just like Quandary said, in this case I would close my eyes and let Heartseeker find the mark without a miss chance. Of course there are other penalties to being "blinded" in this situation, but not much as you can just open your eyes after shooting as a free action to prevent your own AC penalties and such.

I agree on the sound, though the issue (of Mirror Image vs. Heartseeker vs. Magic Missile) arises from what I see as the use of the word "unerringly" in the descriptions. Both Magic Missile and Heartseeker use the word but MM works vs. MI but Heartseeker does not. That's the bone that I have.

Grand Lodge

MikeMyler wrote:


This would mean that Heartseeker weapons do not grant their bonuses in zones of magical silence, which sounds about right.

I have to disagree with you on this point. The wording of Heartseeker doesn't mention the sound of a beating heart, it simply says "beating hearts". A heart still beats in areas of Silence.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Sniggevert wrote:
Well, they had to tear down the walls with claws. The act of digging into the room would pull some of the debris from the wall into the hallway they were digging from. I didn't imagine them as charging through and bursting the wall into the small chamber, but go with whatever makes a better story for you.

Thanks. Hadn't thought of it that way. I can picture it better now.

With that in mind, this area has been sealed off until just recently, and that the Sinspawn brought down three captives, I would assume that there would be some tracks to see in the dust/debris. Or perhaps some debris scattered as though someone trod through. Perception/survival for noticing and tracking? Since A3 has it despcribed as "ages-old dust" even though it was a sealed, I doubt the Sinspawn were thorough in the cleanliness of their corridors.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we cannot measure the subjective (character builds, tactics, luck), we must measure the objective. What can we measure? All we can measure APL and CR (which Paizo and PFS may already do).

Bear with me for a moment:

Consider the CR per encounter for two scenarios taken from Season 4 and let's compare, simply from an APL vs. CR standpoint:

Spoiler

:
4-14 My Enemy's Enemy "easier" and 4-02 In Wrath's Shadow "harder"

-Both are levels 3-7
-Lets look at the 3-4 sub-tier (the end numbers are the same for the higher tier)
-Consider a 6 person party whose APL is 3.5 (so a 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4)

Now, with the APL in mind, subtract the CR from the APL.

For the first, "easier", scenario, we have the following:

CR2 (subtract) APL 3.5 = -1.5
CR5 (subtract) APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR3 - APL = -0.5
CR5 - APL = +1.5
CR7 - APL = +3.5

Sum up the difference and we get 4.5. Dividing this by the 5 encounters, the total CR for this adventure is 0.9 over APL. I don't have my book in front of me for the level of challenge that 1 over your APL represents (challenging?).

Do the same for the "harder" scenario and we get:

CR6 - APL 3.5 = +2.5
CR5 - APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR5 - APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR6 - APL 3.5 = +2.5
CR5 - APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR7 - APL 3.5 = +3.5

Summing we get 13. Dividing by the 6 encounters we get 2.16. This is past the "hard?" challenge and slowly working its way to "epic?" challenge form the CR table.

So, simply comparing the two scenarios, the former is going to be easier than the latter.

I would say that using this tool based solely on the objective and what we can measure, we could slap a purely objective label on a scenario. The label would simply be based off the CR. So we can say that this scenario, or mod or AP is harder than this one, all things being equal.

Now, the subjective is another story and there is no easy way to deal with that, nor do I think should we. Builds, tactics, player knowledge, GM knowledge, the random party make-up of the sit-and-play style of PFS and at the end of the day, pure and simple luck will be the largest determining factor of how easy or hard any mod will be.

PFS scenarios have to take into account that any group of characters can sit down at a table together. Sure, there are going to be broken builds and sometimes players will walk through scenarios. But why cater to the 1%, when the vast majority are fine with the way things are. All we are hearing are the squeaky wheels.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Hoping to get a little clarification on one seemingly small discrepancy. Area B1, the description reads that the debris from the smashed wall spills into the hallway B2. Yet the sentence below reads verbatum, "The wrathspawn broke through this barrier first on their way upstairs...." To me this implies that the debris from the smashed wall should be spilling into the room, not into the hallway.

Maybe it's just me, but that's the difference between someone broke in and someone (or in this case something) broke out (breaking out adds to the creepy). Just because this is something I would look for I figured I would ask if this should be the case.

Grand Lodge 4/5

This has been an interesting thread so far.

For those that advocate poor tactics (at least many of the tactics discussed) I don't see a technical distinction in terms of "cheating". One is blatantly obvious (perhaps even so to a newbie), the other not so much.

Though, I did have a group of players thank me for rolling all rolls in the open. They are relatively new to PFS (handful of scenarios each).

I pose an interesting philosophical question in terms of character death, even for new players. If I roll everything in the open, does it make your character's death feel better, since it is obvious that there is no funny business and that the dice Gods were against them that day?

Since there is no way to "win" at PFS, there is definitely a way to "lose", character death. It does stink when you get nerfed 45 minutes into your night but does it ruin your individual "fun" for the evening (or day). Is dying that way a "good" way to "lose"? Will that new player come back? I think this is where good GMing, making his death epic, with in depth description and drama, can keep that new player. Why? Table-top RPs not only compete with themselves, but also with MMOs and video games, where everything is easily seen. Making memorable experiences is key. A grisly, untimely death will engage the imagination and make the experience very personal to that person.

Slightly off-topic, I am a fan of the screen, especially to help avoid metagaming. Having players make the statement, "oh, he doesnt have combat reflexes, so i can be the 2nd to move through his space" just makes me roll in secret and say "he takes a swipe at you and juuuuuuust misses". Since melee isnt some static thing with people simply taking their one shot and thats it. Combat reflexes simply means that you get that "one good opportunity". Doesnt mean that someone without wont try and take a swipe as you pass by.

I have never, not will I ever, fudge in the BBEGs favour. But if i actually forget (and not "forget") to add a flanking (or other) bonus, is that fudging? Have I cheated? Has your play that game been diminished? If not, how is that any different than fudging?

The odd fudge for the player is forgivable, sa there's always tomorrow for them to die a grisly death.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In no particular order:

3-18 God's Market Gamble. The fire got out of hand, quick. That session ended early, but on an epic fail level.

#51 City of Stangers - Part1. I love Ms. feathers. All I see in my mind is John Candy in drag.

3-23 The Goblinblood Dead - Another epic fail, running away with a paralyzed Tengu in tow

2-15 Shades of Ice part 1 - Stellar timing of Unnatural Lust cast on a donkey......

#7 Among the Living: My Taldan cleric came into her own as a person with a unique personality in this scenario.

3-01 Frostfur Captives: Goblins and alchemist fire make for fun roleplaying......

4-11 The Disappeared. Another awesome adventure that highlighted all the great non-combat skills mixed with a time limit. I loved the tension it created.

#8 Slave Pits of Absalom. Ended before it even began (1st encounter), as the rest of my party got apprehended by the City Guards and thrown into jail for d12 months (12), despite her repeated cries of "They're coming, we need to leave now!"

Murderer's Mark. Bard out of butter to cast Grease. Asking at every meal, "is there butter?"

Grand Lodge 4/5

james maissen wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:
This would need a formula to express a characters power, which is quite difficult given all the abilities and spells, etc. Also characters able to slay a dragon alone might be totally unable to solve any social problems where they cannot just slaughter anyone.

No need for a formula, just the person who knows what the character can do the most.. the player.

Then when the table sits down and realizes that they are all lopsided and can't solve any social problem, or can't kill a flumph together let alone a dragon, or any other of a myriad of 'wow weak group' they could play a lower level challenge rather than a higher, switch out characters, etc..

It's not that hard to gauge. And in the end, if you gauge wrong then who do you blame?

-James

Agreed. I can tell when players sit down to certain scenarios (such as say The Disappeared) if they will be sucessful or not, because I know their characters are built for combat.

Grand Lodge 4/5

David Bowles wrote:

I completely agree its low-hanging, but if it's only say 5% of the "problem" is it even worth going after?

The tactics/build variation is so high, that any kind of control from money will be completely swamped out I think. Whenever I hear conflicting reports of how hard a scenario is, I always as about class/build differences, NEVER wealth.

Exactly. So if it is ultimately a combination of all three (tactics, build, wealth) that creates the "problem" how does nerfing the wealth for all solve the problem of over-powered characters? You'll still have very efficiently built characters who will still be able to over-shadow others and claim scenarios are too "easy", which as I understand, was the original "complaint".

Grand Lodge 4/5

Is there any PFS representation at the Calgary Expo? Just curious, as I didn't happen to come across a thread.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Regardless of tactics and build or even player knowledge, we seem to have come to a consensus on the fact that wealth is last on the list.

Grand Lodge 4/5

calagnar wrote:
thaX wrote:


Really though it comes down to. Character build > Players Tactics > Character Wealth determines how a character preforms. Even if you have above average wealth. If there built poorly they will not function above average. The problem is when you have a well made character. Then you include above average tactics, or higher wealth. That they start to function higher then a character of there level. When you combine all three in one character. You start seeing one character destroying scenarios.
QUOTE]

So the cure is to punish people who have invested their time and effort to know the system, have purchased all the resources so they can use them and have been playing PF for some time?

I see the change in how scenarios are balanced starting in Season 4 curbing that desire to play up.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
calagnar wrote:


Really though it comes down to. Character build > Players Tactics > Character Wealth determines how a character preforms. Even if you have above average wealth. If there built poorly they will not function above average. The problem is when you have a well made character. Then you include above average tactics, or higher wealth. That they start to function higher then a character of there level. When you combine all three in one character. You start seeing one character destroying scenarios.
Disagree here. I think tactics>builds>wealth. The pre gens are pretty dang horrible builds...but with the proper tactics, even these huge messes can be made effective.

^^^THIS. and luck.

Grand Lodge 4/5

thaX wrote:
King of the Stoval Stairs needs retired, it is lethal and not much fun.

I encountered exactly the opposite experience. Gets back to builds, players, tactics and random seating.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Lormyr wrote:
Ricgeon wrote:

So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.

So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".

So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?

Not exactly. Let me say this in another way, preceded by this statement:

I am an optimal min-maxer. Character building is something I greatly enjoy, and contesting my creations against game content brings great joy to me. So in that sense, no, I am absolutely not advocating for less optimization. All players should be able to design and play their characters in whatever manner is fun for them, within the rules of the additional resources ofcourse.

In regards to my previous statement, the short and skinny of my point is this: character creation is closely regulated by the additional resources in such a way that it makes character design equal for all players (race boons aside). My personal opinion is that WBL should be regulated in a similar manner.

To answer your question specifically? Yes, I believe someone is gaming the system in choosing the games, tables, and tiers that allow them to play up. I do not fault them for this, however. I'd make the same choice every day of the week. Instead, we need to alter the system in such a way that this no longer...

Great reply. Since comparable wealth is subjective (+/- 2k, 5k, etc), we have PFS execs make that call.

The question is, how do we get there and what about those that fall behind due to poor luck or sub-optimal tables that expend larger than normal consumables, if anything?

Grand Lodge 4/5

I don't recall who (and can't find, since there are a lot of posts, I don't take credit) but did try and discuss the difference between wealth and income. I ran some numbers an was intruiged by what I found. Though my characters income was almost 20k over tier, his wealth (including all consumables) was only 7k over tier. Never did I feel I was trying to game the system to ensure maximum gold. But if someone didnt have the same expenditures are someone else, then, yes, they would be well over tier. But how do you regulate that, if it needs to be regulated?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Jiggy wrote:
Robert Matthews 166 wrote:
Perhaps there needs to be a rule that you must be within 1 level of a subtier in order to be eligible with that character.

Intriguing. This fixes the stated wealth issue that MMJ brought up just as well as their initial idea would, but shields high-tier PCs from getting cornered into the perma-loss of playing down, and also shields low-level PCs from the prospect of having to play up without additional compensation. Folks in the middle can still do the "I can play down this time and play up next time" thing people are talking about, but no one who should definitely be in the low tier can ever be bullied into the high tier, no matter what.

This idea also has the virtue of simplicity, being literally a single-sentence rule: "You must be within 1 level of a given subtier in order to play in that subtier."

I think I could probably support this as a solution.

I like since one would still ahve the ability to play up every now and then to make up for potential losses.

Grand Lodge 4/5

trollbill wrote:
Ricgeon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
James Risner wrote:

People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".

I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.

I actually fully agree with you that the character build is the primary force in trivializing encounters. But that said, adding a ton of wealth on top of that adds considerably more impact than I believe you realize.

Let's use level 7 for test purposes. Run the numbers of all scenario at-tier play up to that level vs. all scenario next tier up to that level. Depending on the scenarios in question, you will find that the WBL is anywhere from +50% to fully double that of playing at-tier. Now this may end up reduced if raise dead is needed - but it also may not.

The difference is that it is both fair and reasonable to regulate the wealth towards a universal standard. With the exception of race boons, character creation is regulated to a universal standard.

So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.

So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".

So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?

The beauty of...

By all means, I fully agree and everyone has fun and defines fun their own way (not trying to say otherwise, but tone and the typed word). But the entire question of eliminating the ability to play up taking on greater risks for greater rewards comes back to the question of why is this an issue (in terms of difficulty of scenarios)? PFS has already taken the large step of setting scenario difficulty for a challenge of 6 people. Regardless of whatever challenge they put forth, there will be some groups that WALK through secnarios and other that will struggle (and then vice-versa) SOLELY based on the make-up of characters at the table. Never have I said that those sessions where we walked through were "not fun/or challenging". It was nice to be able to flex a little muscle every now and then.

Getting back to the original point (trying to anyhow, since the entire thread weaves, its just the way it goes) why do we need to fix something that only a handful of people (again, we have no numbers to back this up) seem to have broken?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Lormyr wrote:
James Risner wrote:

People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".

I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.

I actually fully agree with you that the character build is the primary force in trivializing encounters. But that said, adding a ton of wealth on top of that adds considerably more impact than I believe you realize.

Let's use level 7 for test purposes. Run the numbers of all scenario at-tier play up to that level vs. all scenario next tier up to that level. Depending on the scenarios in question, you will find that the WBL is anywhere from +50% to fully double that of playing at-tier. Now this may end up reduced if raise dead is needed - but it also may not.

The difference is that it is both fair and reasonable to regulate the wealth towards a universal standard. With the exception of race boons, character creation is regulated to a universal standard.

So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.

So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".

So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?

Grand Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ricegeon wrote:
Let's assume that some people find the scenarios "too easy". We should be asking ourselves WHY? not simply jumping to the conclusion that all characters have too much wealth.

We know that one of the big underlying reasons for this (which was fixed in season 4): The game assumes and makes challenges for a party of 4. Most tables have been parties of 6 +.(they have actual numbers for that). Force multipliers being what they are, 2 extra characters makes an enormous difference.

So we have solved one of the underlying issues regarding scenario "easiness". So going forward, this will play itself out and *should* become less of an issue in the future.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Throughout this entire discussion, I have not seen any numbers to back of the "claim" of "too many people have too much wealth". How many people have too much wealth? On what evidence is this being based? Simply because they find the scenarios "too easy"?

All there has been so far is anecdotal evidence that this occurs. The proposed changes have been, so far as I can tell, based on agian, more anecdotal eveidence.

Let's assume that some people find the scenarios "too easy". We should be asking ourselves WHY? not simply jumping to the conclusion that all characters have too much wealth.

1. The tactics in scenarios are often questionable. GMs are to run RAW. Therefore, those questionable tactics MUST be run, regardless of the ideas and tactics of your group. It is difficult enough to plan for in a home-game (providing a good challenge for your players), let alone 7 or so random strangers playing the scenario you wrote.

2. Character make-up and player ability (including metagaming) have more to do with overcoming challenges than are given credit. The right mix of players and characters can WIPE some encounters, while others can not. That happens. We need to get over it.

Without any solid numbers to back up the claim that "too many characters have too much wealth" I find the claim suspect at best.

I dont think that we have acurately defined the problem and gotten to the real root cause. WBL and some characters with too much money seems to be the easy scapegoat.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading and reflecting upon the elimination of higher rewards for higher risk, I have to say, i don't agree (and did post) for several reasons:

1. With no chance to earn higher rewards, every purchase needs to be optimal/optimized, since there will be NO room for error to maintain your WBL relative to this "ideal" that PFS has about how much wealth a character should have. It is difficult now (to do so) when a previous decision is sub-optimal (even though it seemed like a good idea at the time), such as purchasing item X because you like the concept/cool power, etc that turns out to be virtually useless in PFS based on the general style of play and how *most* of the scenarios are written. I feel that this path will hurt the average and newer gamer, who now has to spend much more time in creating characters, as now every feat choice is critical, every spell chosen in place of another, every rage power needs to be optimal, since there is no chance to make it up in better gear, reselling at no loss, etc. It continues to benefit the munchkin, min/maxer, rules lawyers and powergamers of PFS, as this is already how they game/create characters, etc. Again, nothing wrong with that per se, as we all have fun different ways, but as for me, this is not what I want out of playing a
roleplaying game.

2. I am giong to go out on a limb here and say that the WBL was created in such a way that a balanced (in terms of tank, healer, DPS, etc) party of X number of PCs with gold each will give the appropriate challenge per CR. Since PFS is all about sitting down at any given table with ANY and I do mean ANY mix ofcharacters, the odds of having a traditionally "balanced" party is very slim. Why is this important? Consumables, ESPECIALLY in the form of healing. Arcane is easier to work around, healing is not.
Characters will get injured and helaing will be required in all games. So a party of zero, or limited healers (UMD) will need to spend a disproportionate amount of consumables on healing than a traditional party would, skewing their WBL with no chance to make up the difference.

3. Metagaming & replacing consumables for other players, etc: It will be even more difficult to be altruistic in the following regard (Please bear with the example): A spellcaster casts a spell with an expensize component (or a scroll) such as: Raise Dead, Breath of LIfe, stoneskin, restoration, etc. There is no way that the character that benefit form the spell can pay back the caster who originally made the purchase (I understand WHY PFS doesn't allow this, but again, disagree. If people are going to cheat, they are going to cheat and this just hurts those that choose to play this way). Currently, with the
ability to play up, there is a chance that a player could choose to take on a more dangerous mission to make up for the loss in wealth that the PFS system affords, but now, will not be able to. Just like our party of all martial characters who bought a whole bunch of higher level healing potions (sorry, but CLW just doesn't cut it in battle past level 2) are now FOREVER behind the wealth curve. I say metagaming, since our characters don't know they can't "play up and get more money".

4. Is higher character wealth even an issue? Again, power/meta/min-maxers will always be there and will work whatever system exists to their maximum benefit. I haven't GMd any high level scenaios yet, but for the likes of GMs who GM high level scenarios, have you seen this unbalancing scenarios to the point of walkthroughs? I can think of an example where I was at a table where an extremely efficiently built character took the lead, but was that due to the build or his gear, or some combination, it’s hard to say (since I was playing and didn’t review his sheets)?

5. What are they trying to accomplish? A good question. Since the inception of season 4, I have seen fewer and fewer tables, when they have the option to play up, play up. Why? PFS is evolving and learning what types of challenges are needed in terms of balance for games. They are now all balanced for 6 PCs, with a reduction for four, as opposed to the other way around. I see this positive step in game design and challenge balance solving (in the long run) the majority of the current extreme cases of wealth imbalance. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that season 4 has been much, much more deadly for playing up than previous seasons (intentionally killer scenaios aside.... you know who you are). This will automatically lower the tables that play up, giving much needed balls to the lower level players trying to be goaded (and we know it happens) into playing up (NO friggin' way am I playing up! Timmy played up last week and they/he/she/it got slaughtered!)

I'll stop here, but suffice it to say, I strongly disagree that risk/rewards needs to be changed. Insert your favourite cliche here about bad apples ruining the bunch, but overall, I see playing up going by the wayside due to the better design of scenarios we have seen starting in season 4 and expect to see continue in season 5.

One final thought: I DO THIS FOR TALDOR!

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The question I have for the board is "Why"? Why do we feel the need to change the GP award for "playing up"? Has this been a problem? Are we seeing a large number of characters that have a ridiculous amount of gold/gear? How prevalent is this problem? Is it really a problem? Season 4 has really ramped up the deadliness, and I would expect to see more out of Season 5. Playing up in the new seasons is asking to be killed.

Playing up was never just "an option" that you could choose for fun regardless of your level, it required a specific set of circumstances to be met. It also required the consensus of the entire table (at least at our local tables). With the proposed changes, I can see a large contingent of players not wanting to play with characters that would lower their reward and reduce their WBL, which is what would happen.


Sign in to create or edit a product review.