|
So I think the past 3 or 4 times I've GM'ed games, I've had a table of 7 players. Frankly, I'm sick of them and I think we need to outright ban them. Almost every encounter, at least 1 or 2 players are doing absolutely nothing, while the other folks are mowing down the baddies because of their superior PC tactics (also, we need higher INT baddies, but that's a different story). In fact, my whole 'gold doesn't matter' post is directly due to this fact. Even playing up a tier legally with so many people offers NO challenge whatsoever.
Even if 7 player tables stay legal, I'm making it a personal rule to never allow myself to GM another 7 player table. It just sucks the life out of me because it offers no challenge to the folks sitting down. It feels like a waste of time as well, and I really don't like feeling that way - especially as a GM.
|
So I think the past 3 or 4 times I've GM'ed games, I've had a table of 7 players. Frankly, I'm sick of them and I think we need to outright ban them. Almost every encounter, at least 1 or 2 players are doing absolutely nothing, while the other folks are mowing down the baddies because of their superior PC tactics (also, we need higher INT baddies, but that's a different story). In fact, my whole 'gold doesn't matter' post is directly due to this fact. Even playing up a tier legally with so many people offers NO challenge whatsoever.
Even if 7 player tables stay legal, I'm making it a personal rule to never allow myself to GM another 7 player table. It just sucks the life out of me because it offers no challenge to the folks sitting down. It feels like a waste of time as well, and I really don't like feeling that way - especially as a GM.
I disagree. While I would prefer to GM a table with 4 to 6 players (5 being the sweet spot, IMO), I want people to be able to play. When I GM at a home session, I make sure there's no more than 6 players. However, at gamedays I'd rather have a crowded table than someone turned away.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
So I think the past 3 or 4 times I've GM'ed games, I've had a table of 7 players.
It's always left up to the DM. If you don't want a 7th player, just be clear about it and let only 6 people sign up. I've even limited the size of the table to 5 players when the room wouldn't fit 6 players. Just be clear about it from the start. Like way in advance and have people sign up.
The 7 player hard ceiling is a tool for the DM, not for the players.
|
|
I disagree. While I would prefer to GM a table with 4 to 6 players (5 being the sweet spot, IMO), I want people to be able to play. When I GM at a home session, I make sure there's no more than 6 players. However, at gamedays I'd rather have a crowded table than someone turned away.
I hate turning people away, but I'm not going to continue sacrificing the fun factor for 1 extra person. That's why I'll have a backup GM and run 2 tables with 3 people and 1 pregen vs. having a table of 7. 7 flat out sucks.
|
Joseph, I completely agree with you with regards to 7 player tables.
They're noisy, it takes longer for each players turn to come around, so distraction is a big problem, no-one can roleplay because it just slows the game down, and sessions inevitably run over-time.
By comparison, smaller tables are more focused because each player's turn is only a moment away, everyone feels like they're contributing, and games run swifter with room for roleplay.
I agree with Auke, 7 player tables are an option open for GMs, not a player expectation. I limit my home-games to 5 players, and try my very best to limit public games to 6 players. I agree that GMing 7 player tables suck the life out of you, and aren't much fun for the players either.
Having said that, I GMed a 7 player table last weekend. Fortunately, I had a really good table of players, but it still suffered a few of the maladies mentioned above. Which is why I've asked three of the players to prep a scenario each before our next game day, so we have a few options for a second table if we should need one next time.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
|
While a table of seven can have a negative impact on the game at low levels, it is usually a pleasant surprise at higher levels when the challenges are extremely dangerous. Low level encounters are usually a grind-fest where missing one, or more, of the character stereotypes can be overcome by just beating the enemies into submission. At higher levels, there are a lot more save or suck type situations. More players means more resources, and more importantly, more different types of resources.
|
|
While a table of seven can have a negative impact on the game at low levels, it is usually a pleasant surprise at higher levels when the challenges are extremely dangerous. Low level encounters are usually a grind-fest where missing one, or more, of the character stereotypes can be overcome by just beating the enemies into submission. At higher levels, there are a lot more save or suck type situations. More players means more resources, and more importantly, more different types of resources.
More players = Less "face time" with the GM
More players = Less tactics needed to surviveEven at higher levels I'd rather be sitting at a 4 player table.
|
|
More players = Less "face time" with the GM
More players = Less tactics needed to surviveEven at higher levels I'd rather be sitting at a 4 player table.
I may not always agree with you Kyle, but thumbs up for this - games are much more challenging and typically exciting when you only have 4 or 5 at a table -- 6+ leads to almost a complete breakdown of tactics needed since you can pretty much just dash and smash...or you get so bogged down because there is so many people in such a small area tactics can't be used.
|
|
As a GM, I like tables of six best. More often than not, it pushes the APL up to the higher tier. Based on the board's contention that the challenges are not challenging enough, this helps. IMO, the scenarios "feel" like they are written with four players in mind. Perhaps, the ECL's should be pushed up one (or two) with a table of six in mind. Not sure if that would matter, though.
Also, there seem to be two approaches to scaling. (1) add more mooks (maybe giving them a slight level boost), and (2) adding 3-4 class levels to the BBEG. Your PC party mix can greatly influence which of these models is more effective. If you have a lot of AoE (spells, etc), then the former is easy as you can wipe out large groups of mooks in a single action. The latter is more applicable for groups with an uber-tank, like a Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin with a THW, or a single caster with save-or-suck spells.
|
I may not agree with your "gold is not an issue" thread, but I agree 150% in regards to table size. I still GM PFS for local groups, but when my home-game group of six players requested we move on to another game, this was cited as one of the principle reasons (amongst others).
The primary problem as I see it is that once we hit even six players, the APL calculation starts breaking down, and modules either start becoming too easy or too hard. At seven players everything goes pear shaped, my experience at my multiple seven-player tables during Gen Con taught me that. Less face time, less challenging encounters - to the point of triviality, and overall a much less pleasant experience.
In our local groups I coordinate, I'm working hard to keep table sizes at five players. I'll go to three with an NPC before I'd even consider seven.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Canada—Manitoba
|
As a GM, I like tables of six best. More often than not, it pushes the APL up to the higher tier.
+1. To me, the APL boost is more important than the increased face-time of a smaller table. Party of 4 tends to defeat encounters in 1-2 rounds, especially at lower tiers. I ran a table of 2-level characters (with 1 4th level) at Tier 4-5 due to table size and playing up, and the fights were challenging, interesting, and fun - easily our best lpay experience yet. Had they played down, even with fewer players, it would have been a cakewalk. Again. Too bad this is only possible now, when the +1 from table size puts them into the "dead" level 3 spot.
If only we could have the challenge of the higher-APL encounters, without having to cram more people around a table...
|
|
I just wanted to jump in and say if you read some of the reviews/threads for the most recent PFS scenarios, it should be clear that mid-level and high-level scenarios don't "need" the 6th player to bump the table up a tier. In fact, ever single 5-9 scenario from season two, I caution players to play down if they have a choice.
Oh, and in a very recent sub-tier 10-11 adventure I did 175 damage to a player in a single round. I had done 170 to someone else earlier in the same encounter.
BTW, she survived. She was taken to -50 hit points, hit with a breath of life which brought her to -17. She had an 18 CON. :-)
Yeah i know big groups
i dont play PFS so i dont need to conform tho regulations
But there was one week that most of my players for the game i teach (mostly 7-11 yr olds) was going to miss it due to conflicts so i planed out a mass battle where the "few" PCs got a lot of action but were not the focus of a veritable army of 150+ minis on the table
The first and second player show up, with a phone call saying a third would show late
so i get started
then the fourth through THIRTEENTH player show up
it was the biggest week we have ever had normally i have 8 so i'm no stranger to big groups but we play in a store so...i kinda dont think i SHOULD ban any one
|
|
I thought anything above neg con was insta death?...*Confused*
A spell you really should be familiar with: Breath of Life
|
|
I thought anything above neg con was insta death?...*Confused*A spell you really should be familiar with: Breath of Life
good to know.
I find it hard to challenge a 7 player table.
Maybe the APL should be modified by +2 for these.
I have had that thought too. Since it has been stated several times before that the prime number of characters for a PFS scenario is 5, I think it would be reasonable to do normal APL for 4 or 5, +1 APL for 6 and +2 APL for 7. In the same vein, I could also see applying a -1 APL to a party of three PCs with a GM-run pre-gen making the table legal.
|
|
I have had that thought too. Since it has been stated several times before that the prime number of characters for a PFS scenario is 5, I think it would be reasonable to do normal APL for 4 or 5, +1 APL for 6 and +2 APL for 7. In the same vein, I could also see applying a -1 APL to a party of three PCs with a GM-run pre-gen making the table legal.I find it hard to challenge a 7 player table.
Maybe the APL should be modified by +2 for these.
Only problem with that is you would get into a Situation where a group of Level 1s ask to play up to 4-5 because their APL is then 3, Which with even 7 of them will get some or all of them killed.
|
|
Only problem with that is you would get into a Situation where a group of Level 1s ask to play up to 4-5 because their APL is then 3, Which with even 7 of them will get some or all of them killed.
This is only one of the problems relating to the +2 APL. I can name at least four instances where modules are virtually unplayable with level 2 characters at tier 4-5. Forcing a table of seven level 2's to play up to that level of difficulty via the APL system isn't fair to the players. At least when they're +1 APL their deaths become their own fault for choosing to play up.
|
|
Only problem with that is you would get into a Situation where a group of Level 1s ask to play up to 4-5 because their APL is then 3, Which with even 7 of them will get some or all of them killed.I have had that thought too. Since it has been stated several times before that the prime number of characters for a PFS scenario is 5, I think it would be reasonable to do normal APL for 4 or 5, +1 APL for 6 and +2 APL for 7. In the same vein, I could also see applying a -1 APL to a party of three PCs with a GM-run pre-gen making the table legal.I find it hard to challenge a 7 player table.
Maybe the APL should be modified by +2 for these.
Which ones are those because I've actually had a table of 7 level 2's play up 4-5 and they cakewalked it. And the APL increase doesn't matter for lower tier because what happens when that same party reaches level 4 and starts cakewalking through 4-5 and 6-7. It can and will happen.
Anyway, I think for tier 1-5 and 1-7 module, you should divide the sum of party levels by 4, and for 5-9 and 7-11 you should divide the sum by 5.
Because I was thinking about the suggestion earlier and realized, what if you do a 5-9 with 6 level 6s? Sum party level of 36, divided by 4 is 9. That doesn't seem right. But divide by 5? 7 seems spot on, especially with how much harder those higher tier games go.
/I apologize if this references another thread, I just realized it might.
|
|
Only problem with that is you would get into a Situation where a group of Level 1s ask to play up to 4-5 because their APL is then 3, Which with even 7 of them will get some or all of them killed.This is only one of the problems relating to the +2 APL. I can name at least four instances where modules are virtually unplayable with level 2 characters at tier 4-5. Forcing a table of seven level 2's to play up to that level of difficulty via the APL system isn't fair to the players. At least when they're +1 APL their deaths become their own fault for choosing to play up.
Luckily a Group of 7 Level 1's with a +1 to APL can't choose to play Up.
|
|
Even level 2 can have problems playing up to 4-5, though it is dependent on the Scenario.
For Example I have had Level 3 and lower have a lot of problems playing The Penumbral Accords at Tier 4-5. Every time I have run it the group has decided to play up, and Every time I have either almost killed everyone in the very first encounter, have killed someone, or used up so much of their resources in the first encounter, I had to do some funky things to let them be able to finish the scenario.
|
|
Luckily a Group of 7 Level 1's with a +1 to APL can't choose to play Up.Even at +2 APL they could not. At least not as the rules are written today.
Sure they Could, 1+2 = 3, which falls between 1-2, 4-5. When you are between sub-tiers *in the same tier* you can choose to play up if you wish. That is if it was changed to +2 APL for 7 players.
|
|
Sure they Could, 1+2 = 3, which falls between 1-2, 4-5. When you are between sub-tiers *in the same tier* you can choose to play up if you wish. That is if it was changed to +2 APL for 7 players.
IMO this would be a very bad idea. I have seen what happens when two level fours are traveling with two level ones and they play up to 3-4...the one's are road kill nearly every time. I can only image allowing seven level one's to play up to 4-5 would be a blood-bath.
|
|
Meh.
I actually think the best way to handle this is to empower gameday and convention coordinators to make decisions for their players based on their knowledge of their local players and judges.
As long as the core tenets* of PFS aren't touched, I have no problem with coordinators making decisions to modify modules (combats, encounter difficulty) to fit APLs as they see fit.
-Pain
Not trying to start a threadjack, and I'm not really sure PFS has any written core tenets, but I'd like to think that one of them would be:
Don't screw with the PA/Gold/XP curve.
|
|
Sure they Could, 1+2 = 3, which falls between 1-2, 4-5. When you are between sub-tiers *in the same tier* you can choose to play up if you wish. That is if it was changed to +2 APL for 7 players.Luckily a Group of 7 Level 1's with a +1 to APL can't choose to play Up.Even at +2 APL they could not. At least not as the rules are written today.
I know that is the concensus.
I repeat "At least not as the rules are written today".I say this because of GtPSOP p. 27. which most people choose to ignore.
Rarely, PCs may be allowed to play "up" a Tier if they're lower level than all of the other players.
Until that is rewritten it is technically illegal for any party of equal level characters to play up at all.
|
|
I repeat "At least not as the rules are written today".
I say this because of GtPSOP p. 27. which most people choose to ignore.
Rarely, PCs may be allowed to play "up" a Tier if they're lower level than all of the other players.Until that is rewritten it is technically illegal for any party of equal level characters to play up at all.
Wow, nice catch.
As a side discussion (not a threadjack, I swear!), when your table has willing chosen to "play up," do you as a GM, run the game any differently? Do you take the proverbial gloves off?
And as a similar yet different discussion point, do you run the game differently with 7 players? (whether that be tactics, role play, style, etc).
|
|
As a side discussion (not a threadjack, I swear!), when your table has willing chosen to "play up," do you as a GM, run the game any differently? Do you take the proverbial gloves off?
|
|
I know that is the concensus.
I repeat "At least not as the rules are written today".I say this because of GtPSOP p. 27. which most people choose to ignore.
Rarely, PCs may be allowed to play "up" a Tier if they're lower level than all of the other players.Until that is rewritten it is technically illegal for any party of equal level characters to play up at all.
You are reading that Line wrong. "Rarely" is not a definitive No they can't. What that line means is that rarely they can play up, unless the fall under the following rules, and that rule is if the APL warrants it they can choose to play up. If they added a +2 to APL for 7 player games, that line would not stop them from being able to play up, though the word "rarely" would not fit as well, then it should be changed to "sometimes".
|
|
As a side discussion (not a threadjack, I swear!), when your table has willing chosen to "play up," do you as a GM, run the game any differently? Do you take the proverbial gloves off?
No, I hope I don't. I try to have a consistent GMing style. I don't need to take the gloves off.
When playing up the scenarios tend to be more challenging, but that is just the way it works.I try to be fair and follow the described monster tactics.
And as a similar yet different discussion point, do you run the game differently with 7 players? (whether that be tactics, role play, style, etc).
IF i deviate from what I mentioned above it is probably in cases like this. If I see the adventure is going to be a cake walk I tend to make monsters more cunning/tactically inclined. If anything, because experinece has taught me players have more fun if they feel they have something at stake.
Again I try to be fair.|
|
You are reading that Line wrong. "Rarely" is not a definitive No they can't. What that line means is that rarely they can play up, unless the fall under the following rules, and that rule is if the APL warrants it they can choose to play up. If they added a +2 to APL for 7 player games, that line would not stop them from being able to play up, though the word "rarely" would not fit as well, then it should be changed to "sometimes".
I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this topic and only a rewriting of the rules will change that.
The word "rarely" has very little to do with it.
The words "... if they're lower level than all of the other players." is the interesting bit.
|
|
You are reading that Line wrong. "Rarely" is not a definitive No they can't. What that line means is that rarely they can play up, unless the fall under the following rules, and that rule is if the APL warrants it they can choose to play up. If they added a +2 to APL for 7 player games, that line would not stop them from being able to play up, though the word "rarely" would not fit as well, then it should be changed to "sometimes".I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this topic and only a rewriting of the rules will change that.
The word "rarely" has very little to do with it.
The words "... if they're lower level than all of the other players." is the interesting bit.
If that was true, the way you interpreted it, then they could never play up, and the examples that followed would be wrong.
Edit: And you can't just ignore one part of a sentence to get what you think it means. You have to take the sentence in the whole context of the sentence, and this case the whole context of the paragraph.
|
|
If that was true, the way you interpreted it, then they could never play up, and the examples that followed would be wrong.
That is why I think the section needs to be refrased.
Edit: And you can't just ignore one part of a sentence to get what you think it means. You have to take the sentence in the whole context of the sentence, and this case the whole context of the paragraph.
I am not. It is actually because I read the entire page in context that the wording does not add up to the common interpreation of the rule.
EDIT: It is not personal, but I am not really interested in discussing interpretations of this rule in this thread. I have heard all the arguments a dusin times and I still think the rules are too ambiguous - which is what I am pointing out.
Prior to your stickied thread on this topic there was constant debate about this, but the wording in the GtPSOP has not been changed yet.
|
|
In all that arguing over the word rarely you skipped the more important sentence right before it in the Guide:
Tiers are a level restriction for play. Anyone playing a level 1 character must always play in a Tier 1–2 sub-Tier whenever possible.
that is a Much stronger line, but it still leaves it open for Level 1s to play up, the whenever possible part does that.
Basically a GM should always try to avoid it, but sometime it is just not possible.
|
|
I agree though, it really does need cleaning up, we all know that, Mark and Hyrum knows that. But the meaning behind the rule has already been established, continuing to argue over it is useless. Wait until they put out another version of it, then argue over that.
That Said, I think a +2 for APL for 7 players is a bad idea unless it is Made clear a Group of all 1's can't play up using that rule, which the current rules do not.
|
|
If it was necessary for them to get the opportunity to play sure, they still have the option. But as far as a table full of 1st level characters opting to play up because +2 APL put them between 1-2 and 4-5, it is clearly possible for that table to play subtier 1-2 and they should do so according to the guide. It's really a corner case though and I see your point in a more general example.
As far as the 7 player topic of discussion- I typically gm lower level scenarios, but often 6 players are difficult to challenge there. (I hear season 2 scenarios are more difficult, but I haven't run any yet.) On the one or two occasions I have run a 7 player table it had the combination effect of them steamrolling it while still managing to run over the alloted time. That might speak more to my organizational ability with a large table, but it was enough to convince me that scenarios as written weren't enough to challenge a 7 player table.
Considering I run online games with a sign up well in advance it was simple enough to just limit the sign up to 6 players.
|
|
Instead of making players play up a tier, couldn't encounters be adjusted to appropriate CR? Particularly at lower levels, where playing up could mean certain death. I understand that with events, you never know just how many you're going to get. However, if you know that the group will be maxed, can you adjust the encounters?
With the group I play with, we nearly always have a maxed table because that's how many friends we have. We can't play different days, or split the table due to schedualing and budget concerns. We certainly don't want anyone to have to sit one out. So what can we do?
So far, nothing that hasn't been a challenge would have been one with few people. The unchallenging things were usually downed in a single hit, or compleately nutralized by certain tactics (grappling a spellcaster, enguaging the giant scorpion at range from a rooftop, etc). We have had a few encounters where we've been held rank and file due to corridors, but all in all those were resolved fine due to party composition balence. We certainly have had a few challenging encounters, even in tier 1-2.
And as a final thought, less face time with the GM isn't always bad, if you have a group of RP heavy individuals. Inter-player dialogue is always fun.
|
While I’m sure we all agree the ideal table size is 4 to 5 players and one GM. I prefer that size myself. And yes a seven player table could simply be banned.
I think there are three environments in which a Pathfinder Society game is played.
First there is the home game. In a home game you have the most control over attendance. Usually you are either inviting your friends and acquaintances over to your home, or you are going to a friend’s home to run a game. A game held in a college dorm room would probably be very similar.
Then there is the Hobby Store game. Here you run a PFS game at your local hobby shop. Here you have less control over attendance. People probably drift in and out, but you most likely have a core group of players. You also have space considerations. Space and the number of available number of tables are probably finite. I am going to guess a game held in a college classroom would be very similar. Time can also be a factor, in that stores have closing times.
Then there is the Pathfinder Society game held at a convention. Here I’m going to guess you have the least control over attendance. Here you have a combination of people who try to stuff themselves into every available time slot, and others who drift in and out here you have little control over attendance Space may be less of a factor, but time may be more of a factor with time slots ranging between 4 to 6 hours.
Each of these environments have different considerations and limitations.
If you want to be inclusive, you may have to run a seven man table. You may have to break the 7 man hard ceiling, if you want to be inclusive and not turn players away. If you have 8 players including the GM, and you preferred a smaller group, you could break the group into two tables of one GM + pregen, and three players. This of course depends on space and if someone is willing to step forward and GM.
I think as GMs we need a little bit of freedom to match the parameters set forth by the rules with the conditions on the ground. Is a 5 person table more preferable to a 7 man table? Yes. Is it a good idea to turn people away? Well I would prefer to find a way to be inclusive.
Just my two cents.
|
|
I love 3 person + 1 iconic tables both as a judge and a player. Everyone get a chance to shine, you get the iconic to fill whatever role you need, and things move really quickly.
I have instituted a personal ban on 7 person tables. I refuse to judge a 7 person table and if I somehow get seated at a 7 person table I'll bow out and do something else with my time.
|
|
I love 3 person + 1 iconic tables both as a judge and a player. Everyone get a chance to shine, you get the iconic to fill whatever role you need, and things move really quickly.
I have instituted a personal ban on 7 person tables. I refuse to judge a 7 person table and if I somehow get seated at a 7 person table I'll bow out and do something else with my time.
I'll be honest. At the local game I coordinate I have a ban on 7 player tables too. They're terrible to run, and they're even less fun to play at. I try very hard to make sure that table sizes cap out at five players, but even then six happens on occasion. I'll also be honest that if at all possible I'll split six players into two tables with an iconic NPC at each. The more personal attention a player can have, usually the more fun the game winds up being.
|
|
What does "ban on 7 players" mean? What happens if
(1) there is seven players
(2) no one wants to GM a second table
Would you turn a player away?I have experienced a few instances of this type and we ran with a 7-player table. Of course it is not the preferred, but inclusiveness should win out.
In Georgia, we do a lot of advanced scheduling, especially for the bigger gamedays. If people sign up on our forums and there are a lot more seats than what's available, then we try to get another GM in who can run something. Fortunately for us, there is a decent amount of GMs to pull from down here, so this tends to be less of an issue.
|
|
I understand that. Most of us, in some form or another, provide advanced notice of what's being offered.
What I am asking is if the circumstances arose that you're at the event, and there were 7 players plus yourself (acting as GM) what would you do? Would you suspend your personal ban on a legal, seven-player table or would you turn someone away? Or refuse to GM and turn everyone away?
I'm not trying to paint you out to be the Satan of PFS, just trying to understand other coordinators thoughts and actions. I have heard quite a few people say they "refuse" to participate in a 7-player table, but I have never seen anyone actually take a hard-line stance when the situation occurs and there is no alternative other than not playing.