Search Posts
To the campaign leadership, Can we please revisit the rules for Slow Advancement? Currently, the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play reads
At character creation and each time your character gains a level, you decide if you would like your character to be on the standard or slow advancement track for the entirety of that level. I believe it would be better for the campaign if this rule instead read as At character creation and at the start of every scenario (when you sign in), you decide if you would like your character to be on the standard or slow advancement track. The Emerald Spire Problem is well-known, so I won't rehash that here. We also have cases like this where not being allowed to change to slow advancement between levels is actually causing a player to choose not to play. Here is another instance of a player choosing to not play because he cannot switch to slow track mid-level. In this case, he wanted to play slow so that he wouldn't leave his girlfriend's character behind. That is the purpose of slow track to begin with, as far as I understand it, so that we can play when our friends cannot and not get too far ahead of them. Searching the boards, there are many other such instances, I don't think I need to link them all. Please consider making this change.
If Paizo were to sell miniatures of specific Pathfinder Society personalities (in addition to Sheila Heidmarch), which would you most like to see? Your top 5, say? Me:
But that makes the situation even stranger. Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) playing in Season 4 must play UP. Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) playing in Season 1 gets to play down if they want. The boss-fight UP encounter from #4-01, with the four-player adjustment, is CR 6. The five-player Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) must face that encounter. The boss-fight UP encounter from #3-01 is also CR 6. The six-player Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) with a higher total party level and higher average party level has the choice to play at the lower subtier where the hardest encounter is CR 3. I'm asking what is the rationale for that? The four-player adjustment has already been taken into account, which is why I'm not bringing it up. Both encounters are designed for four players. Group A (with 5 players) must play the harder encounter. Group B (with 6 players) has the choice of which to play.
That option is only for season 3 and before. Season 4 and beyond uses the 4 player adjustment if you're move into the higher tier.I really dislike playing up when there is no one in tier. Almost always results in at least one death, at least year 4 or later. That's weird. I thought it was for all seasons, but I think you are right. That rule is located in the paragraph dedicated to Seasons 0-3. But that makes the situation even stranger. Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) playing in Season 4 must play UP. Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) playing in Season 1 gets to play down if they want.
A group of five at APL 3 is going to find most Season 1-3 scenarios to be a breeze. They are going to find most Season 4-6 scenarios to be very difficult.Not for nothing, but lots of people find Season 4 scenarios to be difficult, regardless. But this is what I don't understand. Why the APL 3 group has to play up in the toughest season and down in the easiest season (1)? I could see always playing up, or always playing down; I could even see the reverse: play up in Season 1, and play down in Season 4. I know I am being stubborn, but it is because I really want to understand this. Sometimes it takes me a while to understand things. I am listening to you, though.
The situation that sparked my thoughts on this was playing in a Season 3 last week. There were four of us, we were taking a break from our home AP game because my wife was out of town and one of the other players (J) was working. Our levels were 5, 4, 3, 3 (APL 3.75). At the last minute, our friend J called to ask if we had started yet; he had gotten off work early. We hadn't started, so we waited for him to join us. J brought a level 2 character (his only character in tier). Now we were 5, 4, 3, 3, 2. APL = 3.4. Four of us without J could have handled the tougher encounters in the upper subtier. Adding J's character added to the strength of our party. But now we had to play in the lower subtier, even though none of us wanted to, including J. The encounters we faced were CR 2, CR 1, CR 2, CR 2, CR 2, CR 3. Each encounter was on a different day, so we had full resources for all of them. Our options were:
Is there an option that I'm missing?
Yes, there is the four-player adjustment. So in Season 1, the group plays an encounter designed for four level 2 characters. In Season 4, the same group plays an encounter designed for four level 6 characters. A group of five at APL 3 is going to find most Season 1-3 scenarios to be a breeze. They are going to find most Season 4-6 scenarios to be very difficult.
In most of the corner cases mentioned above, it is *good* that the solitary level 1 gets to determine that the group plays down, because otherwise he will either die, or be carried and not be able to participate anyway. You are saying that a group of (4, 4, 4, 1) should play down, even in Season 1, because the level 1 is too squishy. But the group of (5, 5, 1, 1, 1) in Season 4 has to play up. Those level 1s are just as squishy. I don't know why it is difficult to admit that this group should also be playing down. Here is another thing that is weird. Consider the same 5-player group (5, 4, 3, 2, 1). APL is 3. If they play in a Season 1 scenario, designed for FOUR characters, they must play DOWN. If they play in a Season 4 scenario, designed for SIX characters, they must play UP. Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't the same group have to play in the upper subtier for the easier scenario and in the lower subtier for the harder scenario?
Mark, I think we are talking past each other a bit. I also agree with BNW that it is okay for one person to be wanting to play their character. That doesn't make them a jerk. I also agree that we don't want people bullying other players into playing a tier that they don't want to play or into playing a character they don't want to play (such as "you can always play a pregen instead.") What I am trying to point out is that the current system takes power away from the majority and instead gives it, in some cases, exclusively to one person. If three of my friends and I brought our 4th-level characters to a table, we are probably hoping to play in the 4-5 subtier, and if Joe sits down with a brand new character, then we now have to play in the 1-2 subtier. And Joe might be someone who is perfectly happy to play at the upper subtier, if he were given the choice, as long as he gets to play his character that he just created. It very well could be that there is no other table available for him, and he does not have another character in tier. So now we are in a situation where all of us want to play in the upper subtier, four of us are actually in that upper subtier, and yet we have to play down. (This is Example (e) above.)
Which of the following "corner cases" are being handled well by the current system? For the sake of argument, consider all of the 1st-level characters to be fresh off the turnip cart with 0 XP. 4 players, Season 1.
5 players, Season 1.
5 players, Season 4
6 players, Season 4
Plurality prevents a single player from forcing all the other players to play at a subtier that they might not enjoy. I somewhat agree with you. But right now a single player can bully the rest of the table into playing a tier they don't want to. See the examples above. In Example 1, the level 2 character is preventing them from playing in the high tier. In Example 2, the level 5 character is probably going to get the rest of the characters killed. Maybe plurality isn't better. I think it is, but I might be wrong. But I really am interested in hearing how you feel about the situations I presented.
Please reconsider the method used to determine which subtler is played.
Example 1. Consider a party of five, levels {4, 4, 4, 3, 2}, playing in a Season 3, tier 1-5 scenario. The APL is 3.2, so they must play down. That means that 4 players are playing out of subtier, while only one is playing in subtler. If the 2nd-level character weren’t there, the group would be playing up instead. Another way of looking at this: one character (the level 2) is determining the subtler for all four other characters, likely against their wishes. Example 2. Consider a party of six, levels {5, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1}, playing in a Season 4, tier 1-5 scenario. Their APL is 2.67, so they must play up with the four-player adjustment. Only one of those characters is in tier. This group is set up to get creamed. Again, one character (the level 5) is determining the subtler for all of the other characters, because if he wasn’t there, the group would be playing down.
First, we will always be playing in the subtler which is appropriate for the most characters at the table. Plurality prevents a single player from forcing all the other players to play at a subtier that they might not enjoy. Second, this system has the huge advantage of simplicity! Just count how many characters would be in subtier, and choose the one with plurality. Yes, taking averages is not that hard, but in my experience, most GMs still resort to using calculator. And I have still seen mistakes made. Much easier to just say “Raise your hand if your character is level 1 or 2. Okay, 2 of you. Now raise your hand if your character is level 4 or 5. Only 1. We will be playing down today.” Lastly, it still does a great job of measuring the power level of the group. If a plurality of characters is in the higher subtier, then that is a more powerful group than one where the plurality is in the lower subtier. Please discuss.
Hmmm…that's something worth considering. Yeah, I was just spitballing. I think I agree with Fomsie about prestige awards. But I'm still in favor of giving 2 table credits for Free RPG day GMs, and then dialing it back to 1 table credit after that. I still want to thank John for following these threads and considering suggestions. Edit: I wonder if there was a better meta-game boon to offer for Free RPG Day. Something like opening up a particular feat from a source like the Monster Codex, but only if the module is played on Free RPG Day. Actually, I think opening Rich Parents or some other off-limits trait might be a good idea. It would only open up that trait for the character playing that module (assuming it is applied to a level 1 character). Again, just spitballing.
Yeah, trollbill, I'd support that. Master of the Fallen Fortress stands out because it has such a natural and thematic secondary success condition for that extra fame and prestige. I wouldn't mind if We Be Goblins and We Be Goblins 2 were only 1 PP and 1 table credit. Here's an idea for future Free RPG Day modules... On the chronicle have the following boon:
▢ Free RPG Day Check this boon if this module was run on Free RPG Day. Each player earns 1 extra prestige award for this scenario on this day. If this was not run on Free RPG Day, cross off this boon.
I'm stealing Ascalaphus's idea here. I thought the idea warranted its own thread.
Also, since this is such a good introductory scenario, it would be nice to new players if they received 2 prestige for their first characters.
This is the place to tell other players why they don't need a high Initiative modifier in PFS. Go nuts. I completely agree, but I don't think people are actually doing that. I haven't played with any of those players who are out to beat every encounter before everyone else has a turn. The players I know who have high Initiative characters are very much team players and some of my favorite people to have at the table, regardless of which side of the screen I'm on. :) I don't place much value on having a high Initiative, but it is a bit unfair to characterize other players with high Initiative PCs as selfish without knowing how their character plays out.
I have created an entirely new thread for you to tell us why a high Initiative modifier is unnecessary in PFS. This thread we are in right now is about the "how" not the "why" of high Initiative modifiers. Thanks. :) |
