Josh,
I both played and ran modules at a con this weekend. One of the coordinators, who came back from RUNNING at Gencon, had a lot of rules on how Tiers and Character Levels work in PFS and their relationships to one another. Of course we didn't question him, as, he said these were given to him by you.
These 'rules' caused one of the tables to almost not happen (in which people were turned away) and another to result in a TPK. We were 'forced' to play within these guidelines, if we wanted to play. Needless to say there were a bunch of people who walked away with hard feelings because of it.
This was a smaller convention. I would like some confirmation and clarification, if you could.
1) First off. Tiers and *playable* character levels able to play are IDENTICLE and there are NO ACCEPTIONS.
In other words: A 7th level character may ///NEVER/// play a mod whose Tier is capped at 6. Likewise a 4th level may ///NEVER/// play a mod beginning at Tier 5, until reaching 5th (of course).
2) If you are in the correct level range and the table you play at qualifies for another tier you MUST play that Tier even if you are 3 or more levels out of that 'Tier.'
In other words: if you are a first level character (playing a tier 1-5 module) and the average player level is Tier 4-5, you MUST play Tier 4-5. Even if the ENTIRE table wants to run 1-2.
....................
We ran #32 (Tier 7+) with four players, we ALMOST didn't have that, but we had to turn away several level 6's. And we had to fight to get the last 7th.
...MEANWHILE: we had a table of 6 BRAND NEW (no AR's) character's and asked to do the 1-2 Tier. We were FORCED, by the judge, to run Tier 4 because we had 7th player who was level 3. We were TPKed the second combat!
These seem to be contradictory. Why is a person ONE LEVEL out denied play while an entire table THREE LEVELS out FORCED to play a tier they aren't comfortable with?
....................
He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 6
9 levels divided by 7 is 1.28 rounded to 2
Plus 1 for full table Plus 1 for a 7th character = 6 level ones and a level 3 die!
Thanks ahead of time!
James
|
Josh,
He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 69 levels divided by 7 is 1.28 rounded to 2
Plus 1 for full table Plus 1 for a 7th character = 6 level ones and a level 3 die!
You judge rounded the initial number wrong. 1.28 rounds to 1 not 2. After that adding 2 more for a table of 7 gives you 3. Since it was a 1-5 mod it was a choice between 1-2 and 4-5. Your table should have been allowed the 1-2. There is not much Josh can do to prevent people who don't understand grade school math from judging. That is the con organizers job.
Thanks, It wasn't a math issue, as I pointed out we *knew* it was 1.28 but he insisted you round up. I had argued with him that it *should* round down. But he said he got the info from Josh, so I didn't question it further.
The math is still a bit wonky. 8 first would be tier 4 as well as two thirds and 5 firsts. In either case there still would have been a TPK and the vast majority of the table playing 3 levels out of tier. Meanwhile, the guys one level out of tier (on the other table) are turned away.
|
1) First off. Tiers and *playable* character levels able to play are IDENTICAL and there are NO EXCEPTIONS.
In other words: A 7th level character may ///NEVER/// play a mod whose Tier is capped at 6. Likewise a 4th level may ///NEVER/// play a mod beginning at Tier 5, until reaching 5th (of course).
I don't believe that was the intent of the language in the guide.
Tiers are a level restriction for play. If a character is level 1, he must always try to play in a Tier 1–2 sub-Tier
whenever possible.
It sounds like the first sentence was being read independently, when I feel like the second goes on to clarify it as a goal, rather than a restriction without exception.
2) If you are in the correct level range and the table you play at qualifies for another tier you MUST play that Tier even if you are 3 or more levels out of that 'Tier.'
In other words: if you are a first level character (playing a tier 1-5 module) and the average player level is Tier 4-5, you MUST play Tier 4-5. Even if the ENTIRE table wants to run 1-2.
You are never forced to play up. You are never forced to play, for that matter. Sub-tier 4-5 for that table was ridiculous. The GM can cite all the bad math they want, but that is plainly the wrong sub-tier for the table. It worries me that this GM is out there, running PFS scenarios, and potentially driving people away seven at a time.
He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 6
#2 is not supported by the rules, as was already pointed out.
"You should always round this number to the nearest whole value."Plus, #4 is also a complete fabrication.
"If there are six or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL."
I'm sorry so many people got hosed. I hope everyone will give PFS another chance. I also think it would be a good idea to try and educate that GM, so they don't wipe any more tables through their misapplication of the rules.
|
Plus, #4 is also a complete fabrication.
"If there are six or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL."I'm sorry so many people got hosed. I hope everyone will give PFS another chance. I also think it would be a good idea to try and educate that GM, so they don't wipe any more tables through their misapplication of the rules.
Having run a seven player table at GenCon I went to josh to specifically ask him if the math changed and he specifically said "No".
So I agree with Bob, I have know idea of where this is coming from. Add the character levels together and divide by 4. Round to the nearest number.
I honestly don't remember add one if you have a table of six. I never did that, but I had mostly first level games so I don't see how it made a differance.
|
|
Thanks, It wasn't a math issue, as I pointed out we *knew* it was 1.28 but he insisted you round up. I had argued with him that it *should* round down. But he said he got the info from Josh, so I didn't question it further.
The math is still a bit wonky. 8 first would be tier 4 as well as two thirds and 5 firsts. In either case there still would have been a TPK and the vast majority of the table playing 3 levels out of tier. Meanwhile, the guys one level out of tier (on the other table) are turned away.
It seems like your stubborn judge had the basic math issue. He also no doubt completely misunderstood something Josh had said.
I'll paste the relevant paragraph from the Pathfinder guide to organized play. These are the rules as written and should be the guidelines to how to run events. Word of mouth is unreliable and thus should not be used.
In order to determine what Tier a mixed-level group of
PCs should play, they have to determine something called
their APL, or average party level. You should always round
this number to the nearest whole value. Most encounters
are designed with four players in mind. If there are six
or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL. For
example, if your group consists of six players, two of
which are 4th level and four of which are 5th level, your
group’s APL is 6th (28 total levels divided by six players,
rounding up, and adding one to the final result).
I will point out that the wording "rounding up" used in the example is used to describe how rounding to the nearest worked in the example and is not some blanket always round up rule. Perhaps this wording in the example is part of the confusion and should be changed.
In the case of your group the tier according to the actual written rules would have given the table no choice but to play tier 2 as you add +1 if you have 6 or more not +1 for each player over 5.
Also in your other example, the 8 first level character table should be broken into 2 tables of 4. 8 is not a legal table size.
|
|
Thanks, It wasn't a math issue, as I pointed out we *knew* it was 1.28 but he insisted you round up. I had argued with him that it *should* round down. But he said he got the info from Josh, so I didn't question it further.
The math is still a bit wonky. 8 first would be tier 4 as well as two thirds and 5 firsts. In either case there still would have been a TPK and the vast majority of the table playing 3 levels out of tier. Meanwhile, the guys one level out of tier (on the other table) are turned away.
It seems like your stubborn judge had the basic math issue. He also no doubt completely misunderstood something Josh had said.
I'll paste the relevant paragraph from the Pathfinder guide to organized play. These are the rules as written and should be the guidelines to how to run events. Word of mouth is unreliable and thus should not be used.
In order to determine what Tier a mixed-level group of
PCs should play, they have to determine something called
their APL, or average party level. You should always round
this number to the nearest whole value. Most encounters
are designed with four players in mind. If there are six
or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL. For
example, if your group consists of six players, two of
which are 4th level and four of which are 5th level, your
group’s APL is 6th (28 total levels divided by six players,
rounding up, and adding one to the final result).I will point out that the wording "rounding up" used in the example is used to describe how rounding to the nearest worked in the example and is not some blanket always round up rule. Perhaps this wording in the example is part of the confusion and should be changed.
In the case of your group the tier according to the actual written rules would have given the table no choice but to play tier 2 as you add +1 if you have 6 or more not +1 for each player over 5.
Also in your other example, the 8 first level character table should be broken into 2 tables of 4....
I stand corrected. But as I said before. I was running 1st level tables.
Josh,
*snip*
Let me know if everyone else got your questions answered. This seems to be a case of misreading the APL calculations rules.
|
Having a character within the level range of the scenario hasn't changed...not one bit. You were not allowed to play a 6 in a 7-11 in season 4...and pretty sure you couldn't before that either (don't know as I started in season 4). So that is nothing new. What is new is how the sub tiers work...and that I am finding to be an issue locally here as well. Between the table manipulations to play down (and yes there is bullying for this to happen), tables that are forces to play up with characters that have no business doing so and tables forced to play down who have no business doing so...yeah I don't like it. That being said, I will admit that my job as a GM at the start of the game figuring out which sub-tier the table plays at has become much easier...but I'd rather work a bit harder and have more happy people then what I see now.
|
I ran into a problem the other night with tiers and character levels. The characters levels were 7,5,4,4,4. The total is 23. The APL is 4.6. Normal rounding rules round to 5. The mod was a tier 3-4 and 6-7.
As I read the rules, the GM read the rules, and another experienced player read the rules, for a 5 person table, we are required to play up (page 31, second column, under determining subtiers, August 2013, version 5.0). So, we are following the rules.
Yes, with the new rules there is no more float tier were the players choose to play up or down. Whether you play up or down, depends on the amount of players at the table. If there are 3 players (and a pregen) or 4 players you play down and if there is 4 and 6 person scaling use the 6 person scaling. If there are 5, 6, or 7 players you play up and if there is 4 and 6 person scaling use the 4 person.
Campaign leadership had to establish some kind ruling because with the addition of the 6 person scaling in season 4 alot of players still opted on playing up even knowing there are increased CRs. So it ended in alot of deaths and people complaing about how much harder the scenarios were. Even though players knew they are harder and still decided to play up. Overall, this system should prove to be better then letting the players decide.
In situation like u mentioned, did the 7th level have a lower level character that could be played so the APL is not so skewed, did the 4s or the 5 have higher level characters or were those the characters that they wanted to play? Was the party balanced? I know there have been times were i have set down at a table intending to play one character, then after seeing the party make up switch to a different character to have a more balanced party or something that is in tier. If the players are stubborn and dont want to switch characters then it is up to the GM and how dice roll to decided the PCs fate. If the 7th level character didnt have a lower level character (and their silly if they dont have), they could have easily played a pregen. No, it might not have been the favorite choice, but it could have meant that more PCs were alive in the end.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Eric: 7+5+4+4+4 = 24, not 23, divided by 5 = 4.8, rounds to 5.
For seasons 4 & 5, that would be sub-tier 6-7 with the 4 player adjustments, but the players should also realize, given that they were rounding up to 'tween sub-tiers, that it would be very, very difficult.
For seasons 0-3, however, they would actually have to play the 3-4 sub-tier, given how the rules are written.
As Kristen mentioned, the players could have adjusted the actual party make-up to adjust the sub-tier. The 7th level player could have brought a lower level PC. Change the 7 to a 4 and the numbers drop to 20 and 4, for a strong sub-tier 3-4 group. Even if he had a 5th level PC, that would have dropped the APL to 4.4, rounded down to 4.
|
|
I ran into a problem the other night with tiers and character levels. The characters levels were 7,5,4,4,4. The total is 23. The APL is 4.6. Normal rounding rules round to 5. The mod was a tier 3-4 and 6-7.
As I read the rules, the GM read the rules, and another experienced player read the rules, for a 5 person table, we are required to play up (page 31, second column, under determining subtiers, August 2013, version 5.0). So, we are following the rules.
Yes, with the new rules there is no more float tier were the players choose to play up or down. Whether you play up or down, depends on the amount of players at the table. If there are 3 players (and a pregen) or 4 players you play down and if there is 4 and 6 person scaling use the 6 person scaling. If there are 5, 6, or 7 players you play up and if there is 4 and 6 person scaling use the 4 person.
Campaign leadership had to establish some kind ruling because with the addition of the 6 person scaling in season 4 alot of players still opted on playing up even knowing there are increased CRs. So it ended in alot of deaths and people complaing about how much harder the scenarios were. Even though players knew they are harder and still decided to play up. Overall, this system should prove to be better then letting the players decide.
In situation like u mentioned, did the 7th level have a lower level character that could be played so the APL is not so skewed, did the 4s or the 5 have higher level characters or were those the characters that they wanted to play? Was the party balanced? I know there have been times were i have set down at a table intending to play one character, then after seeing the party make up switch to a different character to have a more balanced party or something that is in tier. If the players are stubborn and dont want to switch characters then it is up to the GM and how dice roll to decided the PCs fate. If the 7th level character didnt have a lower level character (and their silly if they...
If they were playing season 5, they may have a damn good reason why they did not want to use other characters or pre-gens...and that is due to the faction specific boons you can get. To ask somebody who really want the faction specific boon to play something else or a pre-gen when they want said boon so the table can play down can be considered no less then bullying. You know, that thing we were working to get rid of because of all those complaints of people getting bullied to play up? Hell if they don't want to use their lower level character or a pre-gen and your basically telling that 7 to do either to force the table down, your bullying. So if your solution to what is being proposed as a problem is bully that other player into playing down...then we don't have a valid solution...we have a problem...the same problem we had before in fact...just applied differently (an at least for me more frequently). Now if that level 7 player WANTS to do either and force the table down...fine, but obviously s/he did not. Your basically laying blame on that person for doing what they want to do and the solution is to bully that person to play something else so the table can get forced down. I am seriously seeing WAY too much of this. This is why I DO NOT LIKE THE NEW SYSTEM.
|
|
@Eric: 7+5+4+4+4 = 24, not 23, divided by 5 = 4.8, rounds to 5.
For seasons 4 & 5, that would be sub-tier 6-7 with the 4 player adjustments, but the players should also realize, given that they were rounding up to 'tween sub-tiers, that it would be very, very difficult.
For seasons 0-3, however, they would actually have to play the 3-4 sub-tier, given how the rules are written.
As Kristen mentioned, the players could have adjusted the actual party make-up to adjust the sub-tier. The 7th level player could have brought a lower level PC. Change the 7 to a 4 and the numbers drop to 20 and 4, for a strong sub-tier 3-4 group. Even if he had a 5th level PC, that would have dropped the APL to 4.4, rounded down to 4.
I have seen quite a few mistakes made with the season 0-3 and 4+ distinction. I wish they would have done a better system so there would be less confusion. Hell I messed up my first 2 tables under the new system because of the difference and getting things muddled up.
And once again, saying that the table can be manipulated to play down by forcing somebody who does not want to into playing a pre-gen or another character is bullying...something your NOT suppose to do. If that 7 is willing...then fine, but since s/he did not, I am gonna assume that s/he did not want to do such. Laying blame on the player of the level 7 for not manipulating the table down is ALSO BULLYING. Please stop. They played what they wanted to play. The fact that the new sub-tier system is kinda borked in table make up like that is a valid concern...and saying force people to play something they don't want to is not the answer.
|
|
I don't see any mention of her saying that they should have forced the 7 down, it was merely a suggestion.
Really?
Because quotes like this...
If the 7th level character didnt have a lower level character (and their silly if they dont have), they could have easily played a pregen. No, it might not have been the favorite choice, but it could have meant that more PCs were alive in the end.
Is placing the blame square at the player of the 7 for not playing a different character or a pre-gen for the outcome and not say...maybe that the new system is flawed and may need a tweaking. That is more then a suggestion...that is placing blame for somebody who played what they wanted to...which I mentioned is a form of bullying. And like I said, I see this WAY to often for my liking.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
@Eric: 7+5+4+4+4 = 24, not 23, divided by 5 = 4.8, rounds to 5.
For seasons 4 & 5, that would be sub-tier 6-7 with the 4 player adjustments, but the players should also realize, given that they were rounding up to 'tween sub-tiers, that it would be very, very difficult.
[raised eyebrow] So it is your understanding that, because of the 7th-level PC, the party would have to play in a sub-tier that the players may not want, and for which the majority of the party is out-of-tier, with the warning that it will be "very, very difficult"?[/raised eyebrow]
Under those circumstances, I probably wouldn't play. Frankly, that situation doesn't sound like fun, particularly if the players include folks who aren't devoted to building combat-efficient PCs. It's one thing when a party decides to risk playing up. It's another thing entirely when the party is put into a 'very, very dangerous' situation with no choice.
I'm hoping that you're reading the rules wrong, kinevon, because I would hate to see a situation where campaign rules would lead me to recommend that people who have assembled to play PFS should not play PFS.
|
|
But its still a choice for them. She was not placing blame (at least not the way I was reading it). And right now I may be reading a bit too much vitriol in your responses, but that may be coloring based on your having experienced this firsthand. I'm just trying to point out that she is not saying to blame them, maybe suggest to them there could be a better choice. CHOICE. Not "This is what you must play", but "here is an alternative"
|
|
@Eric: 7+5+4+4+4 = 24, not 23, divided by 5 = 4.8, rounds to 5.
For seasons 4 & 5, that would be sub-tier 6-7 with the 4 player adjustments, but the players should also realize, given that they were rounding up to 'tween sub-tiers, that it would be very, very difficult.
[raised eyebrow] So it is your understanding that, because of the 7th-level PC, the party would have to play in a sub-tier that the players may not want, and for which the majority of the party is out-of-tier, with the warning that it will be "very, very difficult"?[/raised eyebrow]
Under those circumstances, I probably wouldn't play. Frankly, that situation doesn't sound like fun, particularly if the players include folks who aren't devoted to building combat-efficient PCs. I'm hoping that you're reading the rules wrong, kinevon, because I would hate to see a situation where campaign rules would lead me to recommend that people who have assembled to play PFS should not play PFS.
No, he is correct in the way the rules work. My first game playing under the new rule set was a season 5 with a table of 3,3,3,3 and a 5. Which meant we played up. There was an ACTIVE attempt with threat of physical violence at getting the 5 to play a 1 pre-gen or a 3 or lower so the table can play down. Not even close to just a suggestion that he does so. I have not seen something even CLOSE to that under the old system. But yeah, I have had a few tables of not so optimized players get reamed by the new tiering system. I had to pull back to prevent a TPK...yeah yeah, not suppose to do that, but when they all didn't want to play up and are only forced to do so because of the system and they are getting murdered...I'm just not in a it's their choice and let the dice fall where they may mood as a GM. I blame the system for forcing their hand and I will try my damnest to hide the fact that I am pulling punches so they can at least get a decent game out of it.
|
|
But its still a choice for them. She was not placing blame (at least not the way I was reading it). And right now I may be reading a bit too much vitriol in your responses, but that may be coloring based on your having experienced this firsthand. I'm just trying to point out that she is not saying to blame them, maybe suggest to them there could be a better choice. CHOICE. Not "This is what you must play", but "here is an alternative"
If it's JUST a choice and not a mandate...then the issue is STILL not solved. You can end up with these oddball tables where only ONE person is in tier and everyone else if forced to play out of tier because people choose to play whatever for whatever reason. Without forcing them to play something else, we have NO SOLUTION. So basically, your either blowing hot air at a none solution or your advocating that we bully people to manipulate the tables...aka the problem this was suppose to fix. It just shifts the problem...not really solves it.
|
|
@Eric: 7+5+4+4+4 = 24, not 23, divided by 5 = 4.8, rounds to 5.
For seasons 4 & 5, that would be sub-tier 6-7 with the 4 player adjustments, but the players should also realize, given that they were rounding up to 'tween sub-tiers, that it would be very, very difficult.
[raised eyebrow] So it is your understanding that, because of the 7th-level PC, the party would have to play in a sub-tier that the players may not want, and for which the majority of the party is out-of-tier, with the warning that it will be "very, very difficult"?[/raised eyebrow]
Under those circumstances, I probably wouldn't play. Frankly, that situation doesn't sound like fun, particularly if the players include folks who aren't devoted to building combat-efficient PCs. It's one thing when a party decides to risk playing up. It's another thing entirely when the party is put into a 'very, very dangerous' situation with no choice.
I'm hoping that you're reading the rules wrong, kinevon, because I would hate to see a situation where campaign rules would lead me to recommend that people who have assembled to play PFS should not play PFS.
Chris, first, maybe you should go check the rules for yourself. Second, maybe read what I wrote.
My understanding is that, given the APL of the party, and the presence of that single level 7 PC, they were forced into playing it at 6-7 instead of 3-4. If they had had no PC higher then 5th level, even if their APL came to the same average, they would have had the choice to play down.
Along with the option of the sole 7th level player switching to a lower level PC, there are several other options, but I didn't list every single one out. If you want the list:
Everyone else switches to a level 3 PC, which will also lower the APL to less than 4.5, which would force the 7th to have to play down, which probably wouldn't be much fun for him.
Everyone else plays a 7th level pregen, which plays the game at high-tier, and lessens the risk of TPK, but means that the other players won't get credit for their PCs for several levels, and means that they are playing a pregen instead of their presumably beloved PC.
A few other points that mitigate the option of choosing a different PC for the player of the 7th level PC: He can GM the scenario himself, later, and give the credit, and guarantee the "best" results for his 7th level PC, including receiving any appropriate boon(s) from the scenario that he wants. And, if he GMs only 10 games, he could, optionally, use his GM Star replay to play the scenario again with yet a third PC.
No, despite Cold Napalm's vitriol, there are a lot of options available, without "bullying" someone, to play the scenario at the sub-tier you want.
@Cold Napalm: Is it bullying if the players of the lower level PCs had said, "I don't want to play my 3rd/4th level PC in a Season 4 scenario at sub-tier 6-7. I am going to find another table which offers me the chance pof playing my character at an appropriate risk level."?
Truly, if your response is that asking the player of the 7th level PC to think about choosing a different PC to play is bullying, you would also have to admit that, also, that player of the 7th level PC is bullying the table to play up by not choosing to play one of his PCs oir a pregen that is of a more appropriate level for the rest of the table.
A game that tries to accomodate both a 3rd level PC, with maybe one or two second level spells available, and a 7th level PC, with one or two 4th level spells available, at the same time are going to fall short. There is a big different between a Magic Missile with 2 missiles (2d4+2, average 7 points of damage), and a 7d6 Fireball (average 24-25 points of damage).
A CR 5 encounter is going to be challenging for the 3rd level PC, but close to a walkover for the 7th level PC. I won't even mention what a CR 9 encounter looks like form the 3rd level PC's perspective, although it would be a challenge for the 7th level PC. That becomes the point when many spells become save-or-dies for the lower level PCs, since a CR 9 encouter could be a 10th level Wizard or Sorcerer, with a 10d6 fireball, which does an average 35 points of damage, 17 points on a save. A 3rd level Fighter, Con 14, FCB to hit points, and Toughness would have 34 hit points. One failed save, or two saved casts, and he is down. And the CR9 caster has 4th and maybe even 5th level spells available.
Just one word: Ugly
|
Truly, if your response is that asking the player of the 7th level PC to think about choosing a different PC to play is bullying, you would also have to admit that, also, that player of the 7th level PC is bullying the table to play up by not choosing to play one of his PCs oir a pregen that is of a more appropriate level for the rest of the table.
This isn't bullying in the least. The PC is not saying "everyone must play up!" He's saying "i'm playing my favorite/only/best fit with this group" character.
Its the math of APL and the inflexible tier system we have now thats shunting people around, not folks tired of spinning their wheels repeatedly at 5th level without being able to level up.
|
|
@Cold Napalm: Is it bullying if the players of the lower level PCs had said, "I don't want to play my 3rd/4th level PC in a Season 4 scenario at sub-tier 6-7. I am going to find another table which offers me the chance pof playing my character at an appropriate risk level."?
Truly, if your response is that asking the player of the 7th level PC to think about choosing a different PC to play is bullying, you would also have to admit that, also, that player of the 7th level PC is bullying the table to play up by not choosing to play one of his PCs oir a pregen that is of a more appropriate level for the rest of the table.
IS there a second table to make this happen? If yes...then fine. The coordinator should in fact be doing this by default. But once again, this assume that one person is willing to do this (because with 4 players, your playing down). Your under the mistaken assumption that there IS A SECOND TABLE and that ONE OF THE PLAYER IS WILLING TO LEAVE THE TABLE. Yes there are MANY ways to manipulate the table...and if somebody is willing to accommodate, then there is no problem. That isn't the issue. The issue is what happen when people all want to play. And the answer is bad bad things under the current system unless your combat optimized. So just assume that everyone who played at that table wants to be there and there is no option to split it. Find a solution that does not involve bullying now...and not suck it and have a terrible game is not a solution.
And yes if you followed my arguments against the current system, I have already pointed this being an issue. Where a player could in theory grief others to make tables play up. So yes, thank you for agreeing with me that this system has some rather sever flaws.
|
|
I don't see any mention of her saying that they should have forced the 7 down, it was merely a suggestion.Really?
Because quotes like this...
If the 7th level character didnt have a lower level character (and their silly if they dont have), they could have easily played a pregen. No, it might not have been the favorite choice, but it could have meant that more PCs were alive in the end.Is placing the blame square at the player of the 7 for not playing a different character or a pre-gen for the outcome and not say...maybe that the new system is flawed and may need a tweaking. That is more then a suggestion...that is placing blame for somebody who played what they wanted to...which I mentioned is a form of bullying. And like I said, I see this WAY to often for my liking.
There was no bullying.
I was just stating ways that could have prevented PC deaths; such switching out characters. Yes, I did mention that it was silly, if a player who has a 7th character doesnt also have a 3, 4, or 5 level character, because it is. Players shouldnt just rely on the one character. If that was the only character they brought that day because it was a faction scenario, then so be it. However, they all did agree to playing in the 6-7 tier whether they wanted to or not. Were there options that could have allowed them to play in the lower sub tier or even have characters in the appropriate sub-tier, Yes, they choose to play the characters they did and it ended badly.
Don't blame the system because players were greedy.
|
|
@Cold Napalm: Is it bullying if the players of the lower level PCs had said, "I don't want to play my 3rd/4th level PC in a Season 4 scenario at sub-tier 6-7. I am going to find another table which offers me the chance pof playing my character at an appropriate risk level."?
Truly, if your response is that asking the player of the 7th level PC to think about choosing a different PC to play is bullying, you would also have to admit that, also, that player of the 7th level PC is bullying the table to play up by not choosing to play one of his PCs oir a pregen that is of a more appropriate level for the rest of the table.
IS there a second table to make this happen? If yes...then fine. The coordinator should in fact be doing this by default. But once again, this assume that one person is willing to do this (because with 4 players, your playing down). Your under the mistaken assumption that there IS A SECOND TABLE and that ONE OF THE PLAYER IS WILLING TO LEAVE THE TABLE. Yes there are MANY ways to manipulate the table...and if somebody is willing to accommodate, then there is no problem. That isn't the issue. The issue is what happen when people all want to play. And the answer is bad bad things under the current system unless your combat optimized. So just assume that everyone who played at that table wants to be there and there is no option to split it. Find a solution that does not involve bullying now...and not suck it and have a terrible game is not a solution.
And yes if you followed my arguments against the current system, I have already pointed this being an issue. Where a player could in theory grief others to make tables play up. So yes, thank you for agreeing with me that this system has some rather sever flaws.
No, your argument is that inflexible players make this a bad system.
If the four lower level players left, and killed that table, then formed another table and asked the GM to join them, what would your response be?
Also, to be honest, the GM for this 3, 4, 4, 4, 7 lashup messed up. "Look, folks, your current PC setup is going to make you play this at sub-tier 6-7. For the lower level PCs, especially the third level PC, this will be a high risk endeavor. Remember that the CR of encounters that are possible includes up to your CR + 4, so it is possible for you to run into a CR 10 or 11 encounter. If this is a single BBEG, that could be up to a 12th level caster. Can you handle, that is survive, being the target of a 6th level spell? This includes spells that, even if they don't outright kill your PC, can render your PC effectively dead for PFS. Baleful polymorph, disintegrate, finger of death, and many, many more. I really want to verify, before we start, that this kind of lopsided game is something you think you'll enjoy."
|
|
There was no bullying.
I was just stating ways that could have prevented PC deaths; such switching out characters. Yes, I did mention that it was silly, if a player who has a 7th character doesnt also have a 3, 4, or 5 level character, because it is. Players shouldnt just rely on the one character. If that was the only character they brought that day because it was a faction scenario, then so be it. However, they all did agree to playing in the 6-7 tier whether they wanted to or not. Were there options that could have allowed them to play in the lower sub tier or even have characters in the appropriate sub-tier, Yes, they choose to play the characters they did and it ended badly.
Don't blame the system because players were greedy.
So...now playing the character you want is being greedy?!? Umm yeah...no bullying here...yep no siree bob. SERIOUSLY?!?
|
|
No, your argument is that inflexible players make this a bad system.If the four lower level players left, and killed that table, then formed another table and asked the GM to join them, what would your response be?
So...your solution is that the 4 lower level people leave, bully the GM into running their table and then bully the level 7 into not playing?!? WOW...just WOW. I thought I made it clear that the solution had to involve NOT BULLYING. You just proved that the current system is prone to bullying and does not work...thank you so much for making my point for me.
|
|
So...now playing the character you want is being greedy?!? Umm yeah...no bullying here...yep no siree bob. SERIOUSLY?!?There was no bullying.
I was just stating ways that could have prevented PC deaths; such switching out characters. Yes, I did mention that it was silly, if a player who has a 7th character doesnt also have a 3, 4, or 5 level character, because it is. Players shouldnt just rely on the one character. If that was the only character they brought that day because it was a faction scenario, then so be it. However, they all did agree to playing in the 6-7 tier whether they wanted to or not. Were there options that could have allowed them to play in the lower sub tier or even have characters in the appropriate sub-tier, Yes, they choose to play the characters they did and it ended badly.
Don't blame the system because players were greedy.
Its a cooperative game.
For example: here in a couple of weeks I am going to be playing Sanos Abduction (3-7) with a 6th levl character. However, when I get to that table and its a bunch out of tier characters and I am skewing the APL to make them play up, Ill ask them if they have a in tier character to play. If they say no, looks like I will play a lower level charcter to keep the APL down so there wont be a bunch of PCs out of tier. More then likely, causing a bunch of PC deaths.
Will I be disappointed that I didnt get to play the character I wanted, sure, but it more then likely kept PCs from dying. Yes, i could be greedy or inflexable and play the character that I want to play, but is that fair to the noobs who are barely level 3 to make them play up, resulting in their death. No, its not.
However, if I am set on playing a certain character, regardless of whether I had other and better options, then I shouldn't blame the system if my stubbornness resulted in PC death.
|
|
So...now playing the character you want is being greedy?!? Umm yeah...no bullying here...yep no siree bob. SERIOUSLY?!?There was no bullying.
I was just stating ways that could have prevented PC deaths; such switching out characters. Yes, I did mention that it was silly, if a player who has a 7th character doesnt also have a 3, 4, or 5 level character, because it is. Players shouldnt just rely on the one character. If that was the only character they brought that day because it was a faction scenario, then so be it. However, they all did agree to playing in the 6-7 tier whether they wanted to or not. Were there options that could have allowed them to play in the lower sub tier or even have characters in the appropriate sub-tier, Yes, they choose to play the characters they did and it ended badly.
Don't blame the system because players were greedy.
Its a cooperative game.
For example: here in a couple of weeks I am going to be playing Sanos Abduction (3-7) with a 6th levl character. However, when I get to that table and its a bunch out of tier characters and I am skewing the APL to make them play up, Ill ask them if they have a in tier character to play. If they say no, looks like I will play a lower level charcter to keep the APL down so there wont be a bunch of PCs out of tier. More then likely, causing a bunch of PC deaths.
Will I be disappointed that I didnt get to play the character I wanted, sure, but it more then likely kept PCs from dying. Yes, i could be greedy or inflexable and play the character that I want to play, but is that fair to the noobs who are barely level 3 to make them play up, resulting in their death. No, its not.
However, if I am set on playing a certain character, regardless of whether I had other and better options, then I shouldn't blame the system if my stubbornness resulted in PC death.
So...because your generally accommodating (so am I...just ask how often I drop from a table so I can GM for walk ins or extra tables around here), that means that everyone else is greedy or inflexible because there are times when they just want to play their character?!? I'm sorry, but to say the system being inflexible is okay because the player play twister to work around it is asinine. So it's not the inflexible system's fault, but the inflexible player?!? How about we fix the system so player can play what they like and not force other players into a freaking death trap? I REALLY dislike this whole trust the system BS. Screw systems. I trust the people I play with 1000x more then any system.
|
|
This is the system that Campaign Leadership decided on.
Yes, there used to be flexability when it came to APL, but now there is not. So, players have to become adjusted to this new system of non-flexability. If that means players have to be more accomidating, then so be it. When there was flexability people complained about it being to easy when the played with 6 or 7 people during seasons 0-3, even though it was geared for 4 players. Then 4 and 6 player scaling was established in season 4. People trusted their PCs too much and with the increased CR from scaling they still chose to play up, and it ended in PC deaths. So people complained about it being too hard, even though they might not have had a single PC who was in tier. So now, leadership has taken the choice away from the players, hoping this would decrease player deaths. Has it? It is probably to soon to tell. However, people are still complaining.
If people do not like the system that PFS has established, for whatever reason, no one is forcing them to play. If PFS, is too structured there are APs or even home brews those players can play in.
|
|
This is the system that Campaign Leadership decided on.
Yes, there used to be flexability when it came to APL, but now there is not. So, players have to become adjusted to this new system of non-flexability. If that means players have to be more accomidating, then so be it. When there was flexability people complained about it being to easy when the played with 6 or 7 people during seasons 0-3, even though it was geared for 4 players. Then 4 and 6 player scaling was established in season 4. People trusted their PCs too much and with the increased CR from scaling they still chose to play up, and it ended in PC deaths. So people complained about it being too hard, even though they might not have had a single PC who was in tier. So now, leadership has taken the choice away from the players, hoping this would decrease player deaths. Has it? It is probably to soon to tell. However, people are still complaining.
If people do not like the system that PFS has established, for whatever reason, no one is forcing them to play. If PFS, is too structured there are APs or even home brews those players can play in.
And you do realize that people complaining kept the system changing...RIGHT? So what is wrong with us complaining NOW to get a system we don't particularly like change yet again? Or is the system perfect in your mind and all of us who dislike should just shut up and leave PFS? Because that is what it sounds like you just said with that last statement. Input for the playbase keep the game ever changing and one would hope improving overall (even if there is a misstep here or there)...like things that were banned getting unbanned and thing that are not banned getting banned from player input is a GOOD thing...so when there is a valid complaint against the new tiering system, I find it baffling that you seem to assured that there is no problem, when obviously there IS. Just not FOR YOU.
|
|
And you do realize that people complaining kept the system changing...RIGHT? So what is wrong with us complaining NOW to get a system we don't particularly like change yet again? Or is the system perfect in your mind and all of us who dislike should just shut up and leave PFS?
Honestly, yes, I do feel this is the most balanced the system has been.
When authors are creating scenarios, the system needs to be balanced, because otherwise some scenarios will be really easy (Goblinblood Dead)and some will be really hard (Dalsine Affair). So there needs to be balance so scenarios can be created and balanced the best they can be.
Or is the system perfect in your mind and all of us who dislike should just shut up and leave PFS? Because that is what it sounds like you just said with that last statement.
Im just responding to your comment about "screw systems. You trust PCs." Unfortunately, PFS is about the system. Im just stating, that for those, like yourself, who hate the system no one is saying this is the only way to play Pathfinder. However, it is the only way to play Society.
Yes, I like the system as it is. Will I mess with the system to play in the subtier that I want to, yes, you better believe I will.
What changes would you recommend be made to the system? I think the biggest issue is trying to keep the scenario balanced between 5 levels and I have no suggestions on how to do that.
|
|
I would rather give the option to play up or down back to the players. Let the people who are gonna play pick what they want. If that means more players get to 12 by playing down and having an easy time, so be it...as long as they are having fun along the way. Like I said, I trust my players to know what is fun for them WAY more then a system can...and the point of all this is to have FUN. Despite my reputation as a killer GM (not sure where I got this from...I only caused a few deaths so far), I do not find murdering PC when they have no chance to succeed because they are playing in the wrong tier because the system said so very fun (also those badly tiered 1-7 also bug the bejeezers out of me). If your gonna TPK at my table, it's gonna be your own damn fault and not because the system said to play something the table can't handle.
As far as scenario balance...yeah the current system won't help that. The trouble is your writing for 5 levels of play and people are not always very good with tiering things up or down. Unless they hire a GOOD mechanics editor to go and make sure the encounters are tiered up/down properly, nothing we do with who plays what sub tier will matter...at all. So until paizo is rolling in enough money to hire somebody else, none of this is really relevant to that.
And you thought goblin blood dead was easy? Funny, because I nearly caused a TPK running that one.
And yes, there are other ways to play PF...I have several home games I am a part of as well. That doesn't mean I dislike PFS...I find the lack of difficulty level in PFS (generally speaking...waking rune on hard mode for example is quite a nice challenge) quite refreshing. It lets me do some of my wackier, weaker builds and have a bit more silly fun instead of the usually more seriously build characters for APs or the uber builds for my we're gonna optimize and fight things at APL+10 or more games.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is the system that Campaign Leadership decided on.
Yes, there used to be flexability when it came to APL, but now there is not. So, players have to become adjusted to this new system of non-flexability. If that means players have to be more accomodating, then so be it.
Kristen, with respect, this is not good for the game. Frankly, if I were playing a 4th level PC and the GM explained, a la kinevon: "For the lower level PCs, especially the third level PC, this will be a high risk endeavor. Remember that the CR of encounters that are possible includes up to your CR + 4, so it is possible for you to run into a CR 10 or 11 encounter. If this is a single BBEG, that could be up to a 12th level caster. Can you handle, that is survive, being the target of a 6th level spell? This includes spells that, even if they don't outright kill your PC, can render your PC effectively dead for PFS. Baleful polymorph, disintegrate, finger of death, and many, many more. I really want to verify, before we start, that this kind of lopsided game is something you think you'll enjoy" then I would not choose to play that game. Most of the players I know, I would recommend quitting that game.
Or I might reply with something like: "I trust you to use your judgement and discretion to help us have a good time. We are not looking to get slaughtered. If you can't give us a play experience you think we'd enjoy, please don't run this game."
As for setting aside a 4th-level PC and playing a 7th-level pre-gen, I direct you to a parallel thread, in which it is reported that Mike Brock has asked Venture Officers not to allow people to play pre-gens in scenarios for which they brought in-tier PCs.
If people do not like the system that PFS has established, for whatever reason, no one is forcing them to play. If PFS, is too structured there are APs or even home brews those players can play in.
It's not a case of 'too structured,' Kristen; PFS has always had structure. But since the campaign started, Season 0, there has been a tone of welcome. "Bring the PC you want. Play the character you like. Party composition is not as important as players playing what they want. This is not a killer campaign unless you specifically vote for a challenge." This is what I've been telling people who come to my table.
If I can no longer tell people that a reasonable party of non-optimized characters has a reasonable chance to succeed at an adventure, then that's a bad change.
|
|
You both make very good points.
So far at my tables I have the APL come out in the middle a couple times and my tables have been happy with which tier they ended up playing. I GM quite often, so after this happens once or twice and it ends poorly, I'm sure my thoughts will change.
Honestly, players should be able to play whatever characters they want to play and the new system does keep that from happening. As much as I like the idea of the structuredness, it does have its flaws.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
(This has led to a local group of players who now refer to themselves as "The Dammed", they each took a 7th level pre-gen which got offed during a scenario and they've now created new characters to whom that death will be applied to when they hit seventh.)
You know, if your pregen dies, you can just skip that new character instead...
|
Mis-read the OP's post. Original post deleted.
Then the GM was just a coward, who should have closed the table at 6. Sorry, you sometimes get bad GMs who don't prepare their scenarios. Lesson being, don't play with that GM in the future. A GM who allows 7 players and makes a party of 1s and 2s and a single 3, play up-tier obviously never read the scenario and should be branded as a crappy GM.
As I pointed out in my previous example. The Glass River Rescue ends with a lvl. 6 lightning bolt, I'd never allow a lvl. 1-2 party get forced into an up tier situation in that case. I'd have closed the table at 6 people, to keep that from happening, or ask the 7th person if he thinks he can survive 6d6 lightning damage.
That party you describe would not even have the option of playing up. The weighted average must be 2.5 or 3.5 for the players to even have a choice. And even then, there is an opt-out clause for parties forced to play up without a PC in that actual sub-tier.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(This has led to a local group of players who now refer to themselves as "The Dammed", they each took a 7th level pre-gen which got offed during a scenario and they've now created new characters to whom that death will be applied to when they hit seventh.)You know, if your pregen dies, you can just skip that new character instead...
More importantly, if a character dies, they are reported as dead immediately. You cannot keep playing with them.
|
|
-bites lower lip and tilts head-
There is no "Good, Better, or Best" answer to the original situation is there? Is said situation an exception to the rule? If it's an exception, must the rule be changed for something that rarely happens? If not, can we chalk this up to "a singular event," and leave be?
-hides-
|
|
-bites lower lip and tilts head-
There is no "Good, Better, or Best" answer to the original situation is there? Is said situation an exception to the rule? If it's an exception, must the rule be changed for something that rarely happens? If not, can we chalk this up to "a singular event," and leave be?-hides-
Well, other than the fact that that judge did not follow the tiering rules correctly at all. I suspect this is not a singular event of applying the tiering rules incorrectly. Wait as sec: that's from 2009! Holy necrothread!
