|
Alright, I apologize my analysis doesn't go through all 11 levels, (1) I don't have that type of data, and (2) I don't want that big of a wall of text. To summarize before this all begins, the gold benefits don't matter playing up - PA is the limiting factor for all players. I feel that looking at the numbers, if a table wants to play up, they should be able to.
So, let's look at Average Gold from the different subtiers:
Tier 1-5
Subtier 1-2: 497
Subtier 4-5: 1488
Tier 1-7
Subtier 1-2: 507
Subtier 3-4: 1282
Use these numbers and slice and dice them anyway you can. Playing "by the book" and not playing up if you're in-between levels in terms of restrictions will still net you about a ~2000 gp difference from someone playing straight 1-5 vs. straight 1-7 to get to 5.
But it doesn't matter because honestly, gold averages out for all players. Willingly playing up, you will find when looking at averages for other subtiers they are eligible for, nets you about equal gold across all levels. Not only that, but you will be hard pressed to find someone play one particular tier to level. Also, a table willingly wanting to play up doesn't mean they always will or should - especially if they are doing mixes of 1-5 and 1-7 tiers. And including those higher level characters who play down a subtier so the table can be legal really means there are enough chances for those who want to play up to not outpace other folks.
Like I've said before, the hard limit in PFS is PA, not gold. And PA, in a good number of scenarios, scales with the subtier you play in terms of checks you need to make. The risk for playing up is higher chance of death AND harder to obtain PA. The reward is more gold and access to better items. But most of those items don't matter to begin with because (1) they typically appear over and over on other chronicle sheets, (2) you will most likely have more than enough PA, and (3) it isn't often that items outside your range end up being useful to your specific character and the items you want to buy.
In summary, if players want to play up a single subtier, they should be able to. I do not think they should not be beholden to APL because the risks and the overall average of gold intake will level out for all players.
|
I'm not sure I agree with your results. An extra $2k is an extra point of armor - and you can divide that by a ring, natural armor, etc.
So having the extra cash doesn't mean I can get that super +4 greatsword sooner, but it does mean I can have a bow AND a greatsword with some nice bonuses along the way.
I agree that PA is an excellent limiter, but playing up does have it's rewards. I think the limits are balanced and more an issue of playability rather than a cash limit. But then I'm not writing mods so I dunno for sure.
|
|
Stuff and analysis...
I somewhat agree. Gold doesn't matter (especially not when compared to roleplaying, character, and having fun).
Not sure I agree with your analysis (Euan nails it nicely), Joseph, but that doesn't really matter if you believe it to be true.
If so, would you be fine with just asking your judge (if it were legal via PFS rules) to run you at the higher tier (for challenge), but accept the correct/lower tier's gold?
After all, gold doesn't matter, right? You should be willing and happy to have that happen, if gold doesn't matter.
I suspect not, as gold DOES matter.
-Pain
|
So, let's look at Average Gold from the different subtiers:
Tier 1-5
Subtier 1-2: 497
Subtier 4-5: 1488Tier 1-7
Subtier 1-2: 507
Subtier 3-4: 1282
Just looking at your numbers. Assume a player plays up from 1-2 to 4-5 for all of first and second level.
Gold for playing at-tier = 6 x 497 = 2982gp
Gold for playing up = 6 x 1488 = 8928gp
Difference between the two = 8928 - 2982 = 5946gp
If the player gets full PA for all missions, he should have 12 PA at this point. One more mission should get him to 13TPA, which is enough to spend 3000gp on an item.
So the player who did not play up, can have bought a +1 weapon and a +1 armor (approximately 3K gold).
A player who has played up for every mission can buy the same +1 weapon, and +1 armor. He can also buy a +1 cloak, a second +1 weapon (for ranged, or two handed) maybe some +1 armor for his companion/familiar, and have enough money left over for several wands.
Your argument about TPA being a limiting factor is not valid. Just because the player cannot buy high cost items does not mean that he is not better equipped than the player who has played at level.
Several people have pointed this out to you, along with other excellent reasons why playing up should not be allowed, but you seem to simply be ignoring all arguments that you don't like.
The argument "because I want to" really doesn't convince me.
|
|
Like I've said before, the hard limit in PFS is PA, not gold.
This is false. A character with 4 extra 500 gp feather token (whip) is much stronger than a character without.
There are many useful items available to players when they reach mid-level. Most of these items aren't "essential" but make the character more valuable.
The reason to limit you from playing up has to do with the OVERALL Pathfinder Society experience. It's not just about gold or TPK's, it's about the players having a good time. If they "need" to play up in order to have a good time, they should consider making characters that aren't optimized or so gold dependent.
|
Like I've said before, the hard limit in PFS is PA, not gold. And PA, in a good number of scenarios, scales with the subtier you play in terms of checks you need to make.
You have said this before, but it has not been my experience. I just did a quick scan of 10 scenarios that I have run, and there was not 1 mission that had a scaleable DC for a Prestige Mission.
To be fair, a Mission which requires you to defeat a monster would obviously scale.
However, in the majority of cases the choice of sub-tier will not limit PA. Which means it is not a limiting factor in regards to "playing up".
|
|
Stuff and analysis...I somewhat agree. Gold doesn't matter (especially not when compared to roleplaying, character, and having fun).
Not sure I agree with your analysis (Euan nails it nicely), Joseph, but that doesn't really matter if you believe it to be true.
If so, would you be fine with just asking your judge (if it were legal via PFS rules) to run you at the higher tier (for challenge), but accept the correct/lower tier's gold?
After all, gold doesn't matter, right? You should be willing and happy to have that happen, if gold doesn't matter.
I suspect not, as gold DOES matter.
-Pain
Yeah. Really. If you really want to play up, and your argument is that gold doesn't matter - then it's pretty simple. Ask your judge to run the module at the higher tier for the challenge, but only get the gold for the tier you are allowed to have. That way, you can have your challenge, without unbalancing the game for the rest of us.
|
|
So I would post more numbers and running different mixes, but that's a lot of numbers and a headache to read (if only I could post tables or other non-headache inducing ways to display information!).
Euan, that extra $2000 gp isn't even from messing with system and playing out of tier. In fact, that difference comes from the strictest interpretation of the rules.
The whole point is, people should be able to play up if they want to. Things DO average out because not everyone is going to play with the same group and want to play up, nor will they always be able to play up or at the subtier they want, but everyone wants to point to the worst case scenario of playing up from Level 1 onward. This is a moot point because the worst case scenario doesn't even take into account the risk/reward payout and likelihood of death.
And at least 1 PA of 2 PA scenarios should scale with subtiers. The jump in DC of a check is typically by +5, at least in the ones I've GM'ed so far.
|
|
I'm going to do some number crunching on my level 8 cleric based on what I actually played (sometimes at a lower tier) and what it would look like in a 'i could have played up every time' world. I assure you the results will be shocking.
Once again, that's a worst case scenario which, on the whole, will be a statistical outlier due to the fact there are many things preventing you from being able to make your way to level 8 always playing up.
For instance, will a level 1 character have a good chance of surviving a subtier 4-5? Probably not. Will that same character have a good chance of surviving a subtier 3-4? I'd say so. Also, what's the likelihood of playing up 4-5 compared to 3-4? It'd be easier to get the level 1 into 3-4 than 4-5, because more higher level players would have to be in the 4-5 group than the 3-4 group to get APL in range (based on current rules). But what's the difference in gold for playing up 4-5 vs. 3-4? About 200 gold.
|
|
The whole point is, people should be able to play up if they want to. Things DO average out because not everyone is going to play with the same group and want to play up, nor will they always be able to play up or at the subtier they want, but everyone wants to point to the worst case scenario of playing up from Level 1 onward. This is a moot point because the worst case scenario doesn't even take into account the risk/reward payout and likelihood of death.
I believe in the other thread, you had posted about how you played with one core group of players that would prefer to play up. Using your group as an example, since you all are playing up together, you will all be getting that 3-5k more gold than most other people. Coming to Origins or GenCon with that group, it would probably not be too fun for teribithia9's character who doesn't have the insane amounts of loot that your core group does. This is why there is the strict tier system in the first place: so everyone who is playing PFS is on an equal playing field.
|
|
The whole point is, people should be able to play up if they want to. Things DO average out because not everyone is going to play with the same group and want to play up, nor will they always be able to play up or at the subtier they want, but everyone wants to point to the worst case scenario of playing up from Level 1 onward. This is a moot point because the worst case scenario doesn't even take into account the risk/reward payout and likelihood of death.
You do a poor job of convincing me of this. Things do NOT average out, if people are allowed to play up 'if they want to' then some groups will play up every time. The 'average' will be the next higher tier treasure.
Yes there is a chance that characters will die, but players can mitigate this by invest in items like scrolls of dimension door, potions of gaseous form, etc. and just bail on a mission that's gone south and still have a solid chance of grabbing their PA and some gold.
|
|
Joseph, perhaps you could cite a specific scenario with a scaleable skill DC for a PA mission. I have not run all of the scenarios, but have prepped/played several beyond what I have run, and still can't recall any (except kill x opponent).
Regardless, gold is still a huge balancing/design factor at low levels. Using your numbers, a PFS PC cannot buy a +1 weapon until after at least 4 scenarios (level 2.2 or more likely 3rd). If that PC plays 2 scenarios at sub-tier 3-4, they get the magic weapon.
And access to magic weapons is a factor which gets taken into account when designing scenarios. Not for the attack boost, but for bypassing DR.
Or just look at it in terms of Potions of CLW... playing up will greatly increase access to healing at low levels.
I agree that at higher levels PA restrictions outstrip gold, but gold is a major factor at low level.
|
|
Joseph, perhaps you could cite a specific scenario with a scaleable skill DC for a PA mission. I have not run all of the scenarios, but have prepped/played several beyond what I have run, and still can't recall any (except kill x opponent).
Regardless, gold is still a huge balancing/design factor at low levels. Using your numbers, a PFS PC cannot buy a +1 weapon until after at least 4 scenarios (level 2.2 or more likely 3rd). If that PC plays 2 scenarios at sub-tier 3-4, they get the magic weapon.
And access to magic weapons is a factor which gets taken into account when designing scenarios. Not for the attack boost, but for bypassing DR.
Or just look at it in terms of Potions of CLW... playing up will greatly increase access to healing at low levels.
I agree that at higher levels PA restrictions outstrip gold, but gold is a major factor at low level.
Neil, they exist but only in a few recent ones. Heresy of Man comes to mind (i think). Sorry I'm too lazy to look it up for you, but they do exist. :-)
The whole point is, people should be able to play up if they want to.
I don't think that's really for the best. Greater challenge, greater reward, etc., but it's more complex than that. For example, in LG there was basically no limit on playing out of tier. So I took my level 1 wizard on an adventure with a bunch of my high-level friends and played an APL 12 module. To be fair, I did it entirely for a roleplaying reward only available in that mod, but I also happened to gain a lot more gold and XP than I really should have gotten from a single module.
Also, better than my personal story, that whole thing about breadth of gear rather than depth seems highly relevant, too.
|
|
Based on my level 7 Cleric and the actual mods she played vs the option of always playing up. The green colored cells are where I actually played that mod, the yellow would be playing up. I would only have 50% more gold. I've also made some notes from the level/TPA/gold breakdowns specific to those Chronicles.
- At the end of level 1 I could have had a +1 weapon and +1 armor. Assuming a normal 500ish gp/session for 1-2 I couldn't have done that till level 2, but probably not till 3.1 or so.
- If I always played up by the end of level 2 I would have +1 weapon/armor and a CHA +2 item and maybe Amulet of Natural Armor +1
- By 3rd level I could have Amulet of mighty fists +1, Natural Armor +1 and Ring of Protection +1 are now duh buys. INT +2 item.
- 4th level I'm not seeing much that my TPA limit doesn't now allow me to buy, good thing I've got tons of cash to buy everything I want/need. Oh wait, here is a +2 longsword and +2 shield I can easily afford.
- 5th level merciful morningstar before TPA limit, easily. Upgrade to RoP +2. +2 short sword.
- 6th level, now the TPA spend limit probably does blow away anything listed on a Chronicle going forward. I guess it's a good thing I have every level 1 wand on my spell list.
- 7th level early access to +4 STR item without a second thought. Sold.
In an always play up world, the obvious choice is a fighter as he'd be able to make the most consistent use out of the highlights from my Chronicles.
And yes, please don't slow me down with some lame-o under optimized players at a Con. *sheesh*
Do.not.want.
|
|
And yes, please don't slow me down with some lame-o under optimized players at a Con. *sheesh*I once encountered an under-optimized female cleric of Sarenrae at Gen Con. I wonder what happened to her. ;-)
Had she remember her Fire Resistance 10 maybe she wouldn't have had to go and have a chat with mama.
|
I have had to play up in a few modules, because the only other option was to go home. While it is nice to get the extra loot, I find that being the "sidekick" in a party of higher level characters is not as much fun as being a valuable party member. I just don't enjoy playing as much when my only viable strategy is "Stay out of the way and try to shoot something."
|
|
Data & Analysis
Here's my main problem with that: just because you are given the opportunity to play up, doesn't mean you will survive your encounter. Yours is a 'best possible' scenario, which means you are surviving every single time. The likelihood of your level 1 dying playing 4-5 because it wanted to play up and was not in APL range with the rest of your party is really really high. Your model doesn't cover that risk, just rewards. And in fact, playing up when you shouldn't play up assumes your APL does not fall to 3 or higher, so you are really screwed.
For instance, I just ran Delirium's Tangle tonight. I think if I had a whole squad of level 1s and 2s who wanted to play up to 4-5, you would be hard pressed to have found any of them alive.
/PS. My other point of contention with the sheet is that it's assuming a baseline of a 3-4 person playing a 1-7 scenario is playing down to 1-2. Because the optimum baseline is looking at you playing with people of similar level and therefore your APL will not allow you to play up. A group of level 3s will have the APL to do 3-4. You just happened to be playing with lowbies and had to take the gold hit. :P
|
Okay, I've read this thread and the related one and I don't understand. Regardless of sub-tier, all the rewards are the same, except for gold. So therefore doesn't that mean that gold is the only thing that matters? If by your insistence gold doesn't matter, then why bother playing up? The only reward for playing up is more gold, but you take a much bigger risk of death. Maybe I'm in the minority, but 5,450gp is a lot to my characters. And spending PA on a raise is great, until your body is unrecoverable and it costs you 32 PA for a resurrection. BTW, thanks Kyle ;-). By mid-level, we've shown the difference is at least a few thousand gold. And by high level, the gap could be even more egregious. Yes, TPA, still caps your next major purchase, but we could all use extra potions, scrolls, wands, a second/third magic weapon, or accumulating the network of +1 items (cloak, ring, amulet, etc) that takes a few mods to get.
Also, your contention that not everyone will play up all the time is not really accurate either. If allowed, most of the players in my local group would attempt to play up every time. (1) because they enjoy the challenge, but (2) let's face it, more LOOT! If it was allowed, yes some of them would be slain (I've learned a few things from Kyle and Doug afterall ;-), but some would show up at GenCon next summer with a few thousand more gold and some extra bling-bling.
|
|
The likelihood of your level 1 dying playing 4-5 because it wanted to play up and was not in APL range with the rest of your party is really really high.
That may be true, but there are also a number of 1-7 mods, with more to come in the future. By your own admission, playing up to 3-4 is not a big deal. So it is possible that a character could play up quite a few times. Since survival has been proven to more affected by player experience and party mix than to APL, it is probable that a PC could survive and be very wealthy in comparison to his peers.
EDIT--Also, the survivability of a level one up one sub-tier is also related to the class. I have seen support clerics/wizards/bards do just fine playing at APL 4-5. I have also seen level 3 tanks get crushed playing in legal 4-5 APL. It's not just about level.
|
|
You do a poor job of convincing me of this. Things do NOT average out, if people are allowed to play up 'if they want to' then some groups will play up every time. The 'average' will be the next higher tier treasure.
Yes there is a chance that characters will die, but players can mitigate this by invest in items like scrolls of dimension door, potions of gaseous form, etc. and just bail on a mission that's gone south and still have a solid chance of grabbing their PA and some gold.
If you're peacing out with scrolls, you'll need someone to make a CL check for you. And yeah, potion your way away, but either way you're going to miss out of the majority of the gold and probably put yourself at average gp for the scenario (since the majority of gp is found at the later encounters of the scenario).
|
|
you'll need someone to make a CL check for you
LOL, no offense, but I've always laughed at this. In most cases, a caster can make the check 90% of time since you won't have the PA to buy a scroll of a level significantly higher than your own. And even if the check fails, there is rarely more than a 10% of a mishap. That means roughly 1%* of the time, trying to cast a scroll above your level will be a bad thing. I'll take that risk any day of the week.
* note that these numbers are just approximations based on my experience as a player (37** sessions) and GM (85+ sessions)
** dropped the number as some of those where GM credits. oops
|
|
Okay, I've read this thread and the related one and I don't understand. Regardless of sub-tier, all the rewards are the same, except for gold. So therefore doesn't that mean that gold is the only thing that matters? If by your insistence gold doesn't matter, then why bother playing up? The only reward for playing up is more gold, but you take a much bigger risk of death. Maybe I'm in the minority, but 5,450gp is a lot to my characters. And spending PA on a raise is great, until your body is unrecoverable and it costs you 32 PA for a resurrection. BTW, thanks Kyle ;-). By mid-level, we've shown the difference is at least a few thousand gold. And by high level, the gap could be even more egregious. Yes, TPA, still caps your next major purchase, but we could all use extra potions, scrolls, wands, a second/third magic weapon, or accumulating the network of +1 items (cloak, ring, amulet, etc) that takes a few mods to get.
Also, your contention that not everyone will play up all the time is not really accurate either. If allowed, most of the players in my local group would attempt to play up every time. (1) because they enjoy the challenge, but (2) let's face it, more LOOT! If it was allowed, yes some of them would be slain (I've learned a few things from Kyle and Doug afterall ;-), but some would show up at GenCon next summer with a few thousand more gold and some extra bling-bling.
Gold doesn't matter because it still averages out when you factor in the risks of dying and not always in a situation to play up (and in fact, in a world where you always can play up, you can still play down - like a level 7 cleric playing a crap ton of level 1s and 2s). You can number crunch all day and show how it a character can outpace by always playing up, but it's an exercise in futility because it's not factoring in all the costs. I mean, it's a great predictor for the best case scenario, but the statistical likelihood of that happening starts decreasing rapidly.
So with your local group, not all of them would survive, and in fact you'd probably find a majority of those players with wasted scenarios because they could no longer earn credit. So out of a group of 5 hardcore players, I'd say maybe 1 or 2 guys would survive consistently. But then the guys who died would be behind, and their want to play up would be reduced because (a) they died already and (b) the others who survived are outpacing them in level.
But even as the system stands now, you can actually still play up with a character legally, you just have to make sure the table you are sitting at will have high enough characters to counter-act your lower level. And really, Mark's best case scenario for gp is a helluva a lot more likely for that character actually happening because he'd have other party members carrying him through and making sure he survives.
|
|
Stuff
If playing-up was open to player whim, when would there be a situation where you couldn't play up?
I have played up (legally) a sub-tier more than a dozen times and was never, really at risk of dying. In comparison, I've only played down twice and one of those was due to an out-of-tier player being allowed to sit at the table. The others were scared for him and played down. Had the "illegal" player played a pregen or moved to another table, it wouldn't have happened. Regardless, IMO, playing down occurs at a much lower frequency than playing up. And that is with limitations on playing up. Remove them and the gap grows even larger. A well balanced party of six can usually play up and still have a decent chance of success without any deaths. The real wild card to this is that once you start playing up, it snowballs. Maybe at first level, playing up to 3-4, might be a risk. But when you survive and get that extra loot, it makes you increasingly more likely to survive as you gain levels because you'll have more resources to get the job done.
We may have to agree to disagree, but since you are the only one who has posted in favor of your position and all the other posters (including quite a few well respected VC's) disagree, it appears that you are in a very small minority. I would not expect Mark/Hyrum to open the doors to playing up at your leisure.
|
|
you'll need someone to make a CL check for youLOL, no offense, but I've always laughed at this. In most cases, a caster can make the check 90% of time since you won't have the PA to buy a scroll of a level significantly higher than your own. And even if the check fails, there is rarely more than a 10% of a mishap. That means roughly 1%* of the time, trying to cast a scroll above your level will be a bad thing. I'll take that risk any day of the week.
* note that these numbers are just approximations based on my experience as a player (71 sessions) and GM (85+ sessions)
I don't see how you're getting 90%. What DC are you setting for a magic user to read a spell at a higher level than they are able to cast? I highly doubt it should be 90% if lowbies are trying to get those type of spells off.
|
|
I could see them opening it up, but with the stipulation you still take the Actual APL Sub-tier reward. In other words, all the dangers of playing up with none of the rewards.
I'm okay with this change, but why would you ever choose this option? I guess if your party is especially well balanced and you all knew each other's style, strengths, and weaknesses, and just wanted a greater challenge, then maybe...MAYBE! Not for me thanks.
|
|
I could see them opening it up, but with the stipulation you still take the Actual APL Sub-tier reward. In other words, all the dangers of playing up with none of the rewards.I'm okay with this change, but why would you ever choose this option? I guess if your party is especially well balanced and you all knew each other's style, strengths, and weaknesses, and just wanted a greater challenge, then maybe...MAYBE! Not for me thanks.
I have a cleric who would LOVE to play up, regardless of gold. In fact, he has played up in parties where it was APL-appropriate and he was lower than everyone else - and he was the ONLY reason any of the subtier appropriate guys survived! :P
|
|
I don't see how you're getting 90%. What DC are you setting for a magic user to read a spell at a higher level than they are able to cast? I highly doubt it should be 90% if lowbies are trying to get those type of spells off.
Because of PA limitations, you won't be able to afford any "high" level scrolls, only a couple of levels higher. The DC is only caster level+1. You'll have a mix of scrolls maybe 1-3 levels higher. Call it an average of two. Remove your caster level from the equation and you'll need a 3 or higher to succeed. So, my math was off slightly, change the 90% to an 85%. Heck call it only 80% if you like. That still only drops the chance of the mishap to around 2-3%. Still well within a comfortable risk when compared to damage vs. HP's or saves vs. spell DC, where the negative is likely much worse.
|
|
I have a cleric who would LOVE to play up, regardless of gold. In fact, he has played up in parties where it was APL-appropriate and he was lower than everyone else - and he was the ONLY reason any of the subtier appropriate guys survived! :P
Maybe because...he's a cleric. In my experience, the cleric is usually the one who survives or is the last one out of a combat. My cleric can make the same claim in many of his sessions. I don't attribute that to mean that he therefore is powerful enough to challenge opponents up to fives levels higher. Of course if I had a few thousand in extra gold from multiple sessions of playing up, I might be more inclined.
|
|
Because of PA limitations, you won't be able to afford any "high" level scrolls, only a couple of levels higher. The DC is only caster level+1. You'll have a mix of scrolls maybe 1-3 levels higher. Call it an average of two. Remove your caster level from the equation and you'll need a 3 or higher to succeed. So, my math was off slightly, change the 90% to an 85%. Heck call it only 80% if you like. That still only drops the chance of the mishap to around 2-3%. Still well within a comfortable risk when compared to damage vs. HP's or saves vs. spell DC, where the negative is likely much worse.
Aw man, that's a load of crap mechanic. That just doesn't feel right at all. I'm going to chew on that one for a while.
|
|
I have a cleric who would LOVE to play up, regardless of gold. In fact, he has played up in parties where it was APL-appropriate and he was lower than everyone else - and he was the ONLY reason any of the subtier appropriate guys survived! :PMaybe because...he's a cleric. In my experience, the cleric is usually the one who survives or is the last one out of a combat. My cleric can make the same claim in many of his sessions. I don't attribute that to mean that he therefore is powerful enough to challenge opponents up to fives levels higher. Of course if I had a few thousand in extra gold from multiple sessions of playing up, I might be more inclined.
Fortunately, you won't likely challenge someone 5 levels higher than you by playing up (I can only think of 1 scenario off the top of my head where this would be the case, and that scenario is prone to kill characters who legal APL for that subtier). The cleric has also played down a subtier 2 times, and I can tell you those were the WORST experiences I've ever had in PFS. Being able to channel 6d6 to heal a mix of 1's, 2's, and 3's - all the while being the main tank and dps guy (because I could hit), wasn't actually satisfying because it wasn't a challenge. And it definitely wasn't worth the hit in gold.
|
|
I think that many players want to 'play up' as a result of too many players at the table. Demand for PFS is high compared to the number of GMs available, at least in my area. When I play with 5 other players at the table, quite frankly I am bored. My contributions are less significant at a 6-player table than at a 4-player table. Often when there's a single opponent to face, he's going down within 10-12 player turns at a 6-player table. That means I get one or two chances to contribute and then we're out of initiative. The opponent only got to attack once or twice as well. It is no wonder that players feel they have to play up in order to have a challenge.
At a 4-player table, the opponent is going to get more turns as well, thus more chances to take out a PC. It is certainly more significant when a PC drops at a 4-player table than at a 6-player table. It is also more exciting. Suddenly the way I decide to make use of a Move action after casting a spell becomes much more important.
If you want to have more fun at the game, then try to play with three other players. Suddenly playing within-tier is a lot more interesting.
This came from Doug in this thread. Aside from the statistical reasons why I don't think gold actually matters, this is the other reason why gold doesn't matter. I can't begin to express how true this captures how I feel as both a GM and as a player when you consistently have 6-7 players at a table and you're constrained to only able have 1 table due to location / times being played / etc. It just isn't a challenge anymore, for both players and GMs alike. That +1 bonus to APL when you have 6 or more players doesn't accurately reflect what the party level probably should be at.
|
|
The cleric has also played down a subtier 2 times, and I can tell you those were the WORST experiences I've ever had in PFS. Being able to channel 6d6 to heal a mix of 1's, 2's, and 3's - all the while being the main tank and dps guy .
Joseph - I was reading this. I understand were you are coming from and I can sympathise. But here you lost some credibility - 6d6 channel needs a lvl 11 cleric. Either this is a typo - or you added it for effect. And even if it is a level 7 with 4d6 I would say mixing level 7 with 1 is a very bad idea.
Back to the thread:
I'm just back from a CON - I did GM 10 slots. I did have a few players playing up - especially as we had tables of six. My experience:
I roll dice openly. I did hit a first level in the surprise round with a critical bomb. Damage 4d6 + 8. I roll a 6,6 on the normal damage and go pale. 20 damage already and 2d6 to go. I don't mind killing people. But a first time player with a PreGen on full health shouldn't go down in the surprise round without ! Playing up. Luckily I rolled 1,3 on the damage for the crit and he survived on -13 HP (11HP, 14 CON)
Time !!! All Cons in the UK are four hour slots. There is a discussion elsewhere about time. Characters playing up do slow down play. Especially with damage reduction it can be a serious issue.
As a GM I can pull all the plugs or I can do suboptimal / sub deadly strategies for monsters. One monster during the CON killed.a sheep. It ripped through it, it was a great cinematic moment. Mechanically what I was doing was to use some 'food' one of the characters brought along as an excuse for a one round breather. The main fighter was on the ground and I was in a position to start serious killing. Having a ripped apart sheep and half the group on the floor was a much more fun experience as killing half the group in the entrance room.
I did GM Voices in the Void for the seventh time at the CON. The group was very strong and the question to play up was discussed as they were at the edge to play a higher tier. It was the very first time I went nasty with all that the module offers as GM. They did survive, they had fun, I had fun - but I left them with the clear understanding that playing up would have been deadly - unless I would have cut corners / gone soft.
The occasional player playing up. It is unavoidable. I did have a lvl 1 on my table in a sub tier 4-5. I felt bad that he was relegated to shooting second row. He still said he enjoyed it a lot. But it restrains my option - I can't target characters like that with the stronger monsters without risking outright kills in a single combat round.
Just my 2p why I would dislike general play- up.
Thod
|
|
Joseph - I was reading this. I understand were you are coming from and I can sympathise. But here you lost some credibility - 6d6 channel needs a lvl 11 cleric. Either this is a typo - or you added it for effect. And even if it is a level 7 with 4d6 I would say mixing level 7 with 1 is a very bad idea.
Phylactery of Positive Channeling adds 2d6 to your channel. And yes, I have the necessary PA for it. :)
|
|
Aside from the statistical reasons why I don't think gold actually matters, this is the other reason why gold doesn't matter. I can't begin to express how true this captures how I feel as both a GM and as a player when you consistently have 6-7 players at a table and you're constrained to only able have 1 table due to location / times being played / etc. It just isn't a challenge anymore, for both players and GMs alike. That +1 bonus to APL when you have 6 or more players doesn't accurately reflect what the party level probably should be at.
While I disagree that your statistical analysis has supported your original point, I can definitely see how consistently having 7 at your table could be frustrating. I have only had the pleasure of that experience a couple of times and it was less than stimulating. I do enjoy a six player table best, but there just seems to be a significant change when you add the seventh. But I also do not think that supports your contention that playing up should be allowed whenever you want.
As far as you having trouble getting additional GM's, I am having a similar issue. Four of my part-time GM's are unable to anymore (not entirely their fault). Perhaps that will change in the future, but I'm not sure. Leaving me with only one GM, besides myself and, in the neighborhood of, 18-20 somewhat regular players. He would like to play on occasion and not GM every week, as has been the trend.
So I have done two things.
(1) Scheduled all our sessions through the end of June including new release material as it is published. Two tables per event, one low tier, one mid/high tier. This will allow players to schedule when they want to appear and also for GM's to decide, in advance, what and when to run. If no one volunteers, I will run one table of whichever scenario I choose.
(2) I have a sign in sheet with both tables listed and six lines for players with a seventh, "stand by" player. It's first come first serve. As much as I want to have a seat for everyone, I cannot force anyone to play or GM. It's also not fair for the coordinator to take the blame 100% for the in/ability to sit players every week within the optimal sub-tier.
If you have a large local community, then others have to step up and participate. Otherwise, if everyone wants to be selfish and just in it for themselves, then it's not much of a community, is it? Being a GM in a structured environment, like PFS, is not as daunting as many seem to think. There are a lot of players out there who would make good GM's but are afraid that they don't have the "stuff." I ask, please give it a try. You'll find that, with a little experience and confidence, you'll do just fine. And if not, who cares, just be a player.
/threadjack
|
|
Honestly, I think we're all looking at the wrong thing here.
What is this whole conversation about really? Having fun with your characters in PFS. Now, the group I play with - we typically are more optimized and cracked out a bit - that's how we like to play. We are not huge RPers, we tend to like the game for tactics, strategy, for beating the heck out of monsters, and having the RP in the background more.
That doesn't mean we shun people who like to RP, mind you, it just means that is what we tend to play for/get out of the game, just like there are those out there that play only for RP purposes.
In an organized world, this is good and this is inevitable; what this means is that one side may like playing up and getting gold more while the other side likes playing down or at level and getting the "experience" more.
Who's right? Neither and both.
So maybe we shouldn't be arguing/discussing about playing up or down or all around.
Maybe, we should be looking at the challenge of the tiers/subtiers themselves a little more. Maybe, we should talk about scaling the PA missions and monsters more for a given subtier. Maybe we need to throw out ideas on how to re-tier the mods. Maybe even discuss the gold curve and XP curve as it stands so that players get more out of their career than just 36 mods.
I really don't think there's this huge issue around playing up or down and how much gold is gotten. If you want to sub-op, play down and get less gear...so be it! That's obviously how you want to play, and if you get stuck with those of us who optimize, tend to play up and get better gear...be prepared for a reality check when you "have" to play up.....just as the optimized should be prepared to have a reality check when they have to play down from time to time, sacrificing some of the challenge they seek for more of an RP experience...again, so be it!
This is a diverse and broad system centered around having fun, and fun is different for each person playing. No, we should not be able to simply make our own rules up - this is organized play. But instead of arguing who is right and who is wrong, maybe we should look at how to find that sweet gooey center of goodness instead.