|
Here is now part 2. In part 1 I tried to show that the reason for level gap is the difference in frequency of play. There are several ways to reach equilibrium and I'm looking into these from a mathematical point of view.
Part 2 deals with the numbers of characters. I still haven't got around to finish the table size issue - so there will be a part 3. I do the simpler stuff first.
You can skip the spoiler if you remember how I defined players A-C in part 1.
Again I have my players A, B and C with A playing.
Player A is a frequent player with 1 XP per week
Player B is a medium frequent player with 1 XP every other week
Player C is the occasional player who is only gaining 1 XP every 4 weeks
[/player]
I did postulate rules 1 and 2 in my first part
Rule 1: Frequent players should be encouraged to have multiple characters.
Rule 2: Low Frequency players should be discouraged to have multiple characters.
[spoiler=Applying this to the generic rule to have 1 character every 3 levels]
Common wisdom here is that you should have 1 new character every 3 levels to enable you to play in every tier. This means a Character at level 1, 4, 7, 10. This means as soon as the first character reaches level 4 you generate a second one. Once these two are at level 4 and 7 you get a thrid one and so on.
But this rule assumes everyone plays with the same frequency. So lets take this generic rule and apply it to player B who is in the middle of A and C.
Player A plays twice as often as B. He needs twice as many characters. This means to avoid the level gap with B he needs twice as many characters. He will need Characters at level 1, 2 1/2, 4, 5 1/2, 7, 8 1/2 and 10.
Player C plays only half as often as B. He can only afford half as many characters. This means he needs characters at level 1 and 7.
But what about the slow advancement track?
Actually - if you look at my definition, then you see that players are defined by XP / week. If you play every week but are on slow advancement, then you move from Player category A to B or B to C.
What about C? Don't go there. Don't even think about it if you want to maintain equilibrium. A player who only advances 1/8 XP per week will just drag down his group. Trying to avoid a level gap to such a player is futile. Invite him, play with him. But he will likely never get beyond the lowest tier games if he ever generates a second character.
Summary
I tried to quantify by level how often a high frequency player or a low frequency player should generate another character. The important bit is - there is a difference ! High frequency players needs lots of characters but low frequency players can't afford them or they will keep the playing eternally on low tier (and worse - in small groups keep others playing low tier as well).
And this leads to the next rule that quantifies rule 1 and 2
Rule 3: The ideal number of characters to avoid level gap but maximize play together seems every 1 1/2 levels for high frequency players, every 3 levels for medium frequency players and every 6 levels for low frequency players.
I really have to stress how detrimental to higher tier play it is if a low frequency player generates multiple characters.
1 Character -> 1 year
2 Character -> 2 years
...
I guess you get the picture
If you need to wait for that player to get a full table then you have a problem.
|
|
I have a suggestion for further analysis:
APL.
If we assume that a player would rather make a new PC than play down, what happens?
I can see two iterations of this study:
-Players make new PCs when faced with playing down from between Subtiers, i.e. a 3rd having to play 1-2.
-Players make new PCs when faced with playing down from an upper Subtier, i.e. a 3rd will play 1-2, but a 4th won't.
Yes, 1-7s mess up the math. But you get the point.
I wonder...
-Matt
P.S. Locally, our problem is that players tend to lose interest once they hit level 5. Out of nine players who have made 5th over the course of fifteen months, only four are still with us.
|
Thod
Rule 1: Frequent players should be encouraged to have multiple characters.
Rule 2: Low Frequency players should be discouraged to have multiple characters.
Above is exactly what we are doing, this does allow us to keep playing, but it starts causing a problem after awhile. Frequent players start running out of low level scenarios to play and or it starts getting harder to schedule scenarios that everyone can play.
Edit: I have Tons of scenarios I have never ran, but because the Old players keep making new PCs every time I get new players I rarely have enough players to play them.
I have posted this before.. But we have run 104 Scenarios since June 2010, 98 of them have been Low tier scenarios.
|
|
The goal of any solution or option should be to allow every player to play and not tell people to go home. That is what I am looking for.
That a preemptive post before someone suggests it.
Edit: Also not giving credit for there time playing is not an option either, at that point I might as well not be running PFS becasue it is the same thing.
|
Dragnmoon,
I used to be in that mentality as well, wanting everyone to play. It's frustrating, but sometimes you do have to turn people away. I don't think I've had to do that yet, but breaking from that mentality was/is hard to do. Now, I feel more freedom to schedule what I want, and hopefully players show up :P
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I have posted this before.. But we have run 104 Scenarios since June 2010, 98 of them have been Low tier scenarios.
I have recorded 122 sessions since February 1st, 2011. Of those sessions, 78 are tier 1, tier 1-5, or tier 1-7. 22 of them are tier 3-7 or tier 5-9. 22 of them are tier 7-11.
It is extremely unusual for us to have a player with a level gap problem. I can only think of a couple, and that is because they really wanted to get their high level characters to level 12 so that they could play through the Eyes of the Ten, therefore ignoring low level play. Now, of course, they are trying to get a character into that 7-11 range and having a hard time of it. I'm enjoying playing Nelson by pointing at them and saying, "Hah! Hah!" Because I had warned them that this would happen.
Todd is correct, Dragnmoon. You need to schedule the games, run them as planned after taking sign ups, and tell people who sign up after the table is full, "Sorry, you can't play this time. Be sure to watch for it being announced next time so that you can get a spot."
Following these tenants, and those proscribed by Thod, our player group has had a good number of people get to 10th level and above within 18 months, and many of us are starting to retire characters.
Just putting in my own observations. If I'm off-track, I apologize.
[Edit] By the way: we *never* get replays, and never have to ask people to play pre-generated characters. We almost always fill every table, and the rotation of faces through the store is very steady. Most players get to play 3 to 4 times per month, if they watch for announcements, and we have a good number of "casual" players who only play once or twice per month, if that.
|
|
stuff
By your numbers it looks like you have a larger amount of Regular players then I do if you have been able to run that many High Level.
I don't have that.
I still say telling people to go home should not be a goal to fix a problem and I won't do it.
And I schedule my Games regularly and they sign up to attend, been doing that since day 1.
|
|
stuffBy your numbers it looks like you have a larger amount of Regular players then I do if you have been able to run that many High Level.
I don't have that.
I still say telling people to go home should not be a goal to fix a problem and I won't do it.
And I schedule my Games regularly and they sign up to attend, been doing that since day 1.
no one is saying that it's a goal. but, sometimes, it's something that's unavoidable. an an event organizer, i've never had to turn anyone away, but there have been some times where it's been close. if it had come to it, i would have had to let it happen because, sometimes, there's just no way to make it work.
part of what makes it work is that you need others who are willing to bend a little bit so that things go smoothly. if you've got a group full of players who say it's their way or else, then you've likely got more problems than just a level gap. (that wasn't specifically directed at you, DM. just a nebulous, general 'you.')
|
|
part of what makes it work is that you need others who are willing to bend a little bit so that things go smoothly. if you've got a group full of players who say it's their way or else, then you've likely got more problems than just a level gap. (that wasn't specifically directed at you, DM. just a nebulous, general 'you.')
There is bending and then there is breaking..
Telling people they can't come or can't play is breaking. It is ridicules that I am even hearing these suggestions.
Now asking people to GM is one thing, though I can't force them to.
|
|
One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is player responsibility. There seems to be some level of entitlement, from many players, who believe that all they need to do is show up and the organizer will cater to them. Personally, this offends me.
Organizers, especially those with multiple groups and many players spend huge amounts of time scheduling events. I hear about large spreadsheets of scenario tracking to try and offer the "perfect" scenario for players. That is a daunting task. Increasingly so, the more frequent your sessions are.
I hear about players who refuse to preregister or signup for games in advance when the opportunity exists and then complain when they arrive and cannot play at the table of their choice. Many organizers describe having to scrap the scheduled offerings and switch to alternate scenarios or modules because unexpected (regular) players show up.
The problem I have seen with making schedule changes, etc. to accommodate all of these issues is it becomes circular. The players get "used" to the organizer catering to them, and it "encourages" them to continue that behavior.
There are a lot of challenges faced by organizers and players need not make it more difficult by failing to be proactive and helping to reduce/eliminate the obstacles. Sometimes that will mean, just stay home or not getting seated. Sure that is an extreme case and I do not suggest it lightly, but sometimes, enough is enough.
I am not privy to all the issues in all the regions, but if an organizer is truly having an extremely difficult time scheduling, IMHO, the players are likely creating unnecessary challenges, at at minimum, not taking an interest in their own success. Or perhaps the organizer is just too accommodating.
Of course, this does not necessarily apply to brand-n00b players, but you should have a solid plan in place to cater to them. Often, scraping the scheduled scenario and making all the regulars roll up new characters is not the best way to address it. YMMV
EDIT--Another thing that occurs to me that we may not want to accept is that in some cases, organized play is not the right "fit" for an area. If you are struggling with a small group of players with little to no flexibility on someone's part, you might have to face facts. Please don't take this as me saying "go away," that is not my intent. I am just saying that the concept of inclusion is probably only 99% effective. There are going to be edge cases, where PFS does not meet the needs of that local area, no matter what the organizer tries to do. Those groups may be better off just focusing on free-form gaming.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I hear about players who refuse to preregister or signup for games in advance when the opportunity exists and then complain when they arrive and cannot play at the table of their choice. Many organizers describe having to scrap the scheduled offerings and switch to alternate scenarios or modules because unexpected (regular) players show up.
The problem I have seen with making schedule changes, etc. to accommodate all of these issues is it becomes circular. The players get "used" to the organizer catering to them, and it "encourages" them to continue that behavior.
Bolding for emphasis is mine, and I could not agree more with this sentiment, or the statements leading up to it.
Also, I would like to point out that we have our own Yahoo Group for the local community, and this discussion regarding the module sanctioning has prompted a lot of players to give Denver area organizers kudos for doing such a great job. They have made the observation that it is nice to have organizers who set the rules of play and abide by them, allowing everyone to participate equally. After reading through these threads, more than a few players have commented on how difficult it seems for most other areas to achieve any kind of regular play, and they now realize how good they have it.
I think our scheduling method and insistence on adhering to that schedule is what allows that.
Last: Dragnmoon, has it occurred to you that the reason we have so many players in Denver is because of all of this that we are discussing? You live in a city that is far larger than ours. You should be able to outpace our player base with ease. I think that, because you insist on letting them dictate the pace, you are never able to attract a steady group and are always having to react and cater to the existing players demands.
By the way: I never send people home. I do tell people who sign up after the table is full, "Sorry. Try again in a couple weeks, and we'll see you then." There's a huge difference.
|
|
Hey Bob, I agree with one point there, if it is no one’s faults but the players that they can't play, I as an Organizer should no accommodate them.
If they are not signing up for my Game or have not been coming and then show up out of the blue, it is no one’s fault but their own that the game scheduled is something they already played. That has happened in my group and I don't feel guilty about it.
But that is not what we are talking about here.
We are talking about situation that arrives that it is no fault of the player, if I start telling those players they need to play without credit or they can't come that is just a terrible idea and I would start losing players, it is the equivalent of not playing PFS at all.
Our goals of coming with ideas for fixing this issue should not involve ideas where players don't get to play or don't get credit especially when it is not their fault.
Everyone should get to play as long as they don't lose that right to play. If policy goes around not playing or not getting credit the PFS will not grow.
I don't think people are clear what is going on here. I am not making schedule changes that cause these problems, I am not accommodating the players, and it is not a problem of player entitlement.
This happened because of the things Thod mention above, which is not linked to either of those.
The attitude I am getting about this would make sense if it was the Player's fault, but since it is not, the attitude is not warranted and the suggestions do not fit the situation.
|
|
Last: Dragnmoon, has it occurred to you that the reason we have so many players in Denver is because of all of this that we are discussing? You live in a city that is far larger than ours. You should be able to outpace our player base with ease. I think that, because you insist on letting them dictate the pace, you are never able to attract a steady group and are always having to react and cater to the existing players demands.
I have had a total of almost 50 players since June 2010, but never more then around 20 at once.
The population of San Antonio has exactly 1 store in a reasonable distance that caters to Role-playing Games.
I have tried finding other locations to play, Schools, Book stores, other Gaming stores that don't cater to RPG and none of them where options.
My reason of lack of growth beyond a certain number is not due to any of thing you mention, but due to lack of Space.
Once we admit there is a problem and look for solutions instead of excuses we may be able to solve it.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Hey Bob, I agree with one point there, if it is no one’s faults but the players that they can't play, I as an Organizer should no accommodate them.
If they are not signing up for my Game or have not been coming and then show up out of the blue, it is no one’s fault but their own that the game scheduled is something they already played. That has happened in my group and I don't feel guilty about it.
But that is not what we are talking about here.
We are talking about situation that arrives that it is no fault of the player, if I start telling those players they need to play without credit or they can't come that is just a terrible idea and I would start losing players, it is the equivalent of not playing PFS at all.
Our goals of coming with ideas for fixing this issue should not involve ideas where players don't get to play or don't get credit especially when it is not their fault.
Everyone should get to play as long as they don't lose that right to play. If policy goes around not playing or not getting credit the PFS will not grow.
I don't think people are clear what is going on here. I am not making schedule changes that cause these problems, I am not accommodating the players, and it is not a problem of player entitlement.
This happened because of the things Thod mention above, which is not linked to either of those.
The attitude I am getting about this would make sense if it was the Player's fault, but since it is not, the attitude is not warranted and the suggestions do not fit the situation.
Hm. I'm not trying to give attitude. I'm trying to point out differences in what we each do versus what Thod is proposing. I guess I'm off-base, though, so I'll just leave you alone.
Sorry to irritate you.
|
|
Dragnmoon, while not unique, your issues do not seem to be experienced by the vast majority of posters. There is a disconnect between what you are doing and experiencing that others just cannot understand. It makes it appear that you (or your players) are doing things that, however unintended, are negatively impacting your own success. I am not saying that you (or your players) are doing anything wrong, just that it can be perceived that way.
I have read many/most of your posts over a period of time about this topic, and I just do not think you are going to get the answers you want in these forums. You are getting frustrated because we cannot understand what you are experiencing and we are getting frustrated because our advice, however unhelpful, feels like it is being dismissed.
You seem to have an ongoing and pervasive issue with level disparity to a degree that others cannot understand. I'm not sure how much more help me can be other than to continue to recommend the same resolutions you have heard, likely dozens of times.
|
|
Hm. I'm not trying to give attitude. I'm trying to point out differences in what we each do versus what Thod is proposing. I guess I'm off-base, though, so I'll just leave you alone.
Sorry to irritate you.
Denver has a lot more options then we do, you have one of the largest PFS areas in PFS so less likely to run into these problems.
You are off base because the options you are giving me discourage play; we should be encouraging play and try to get more consistency of play since it is the lack of consistency for the small groups that causes the problem.
I am going to admit I am only a few games short of pulling out of my problem. My current group of players is a lot more consistent then my past groups.
But because I know what it is like to have the problem I am willing to argue for it.
|
|
Dragnmoon
I had a look at your sign-up page for this weekend.
Something I noticed: In the afternoon you have 2 low tier tables but they are open to everyone. As I tried to show in my analysis part 3 - random sign up is bad.
Did it occur to you to add for one of the tables - level 1-2 and for the other one level 3+.
If I'm a player on level 4 then you want me to get to level 5 to play higher tier modules. But if I don't sign up as a group and occupy the whole table I might be forced to play tier 1-2 as you are inclusive and bad luck - but a newbie who doesn't care which table he signed up for did sign up for my table.
You can't leave it to chance - you need to activly shape this. I don't think you are non-inclusive if you add a level to the table - especially if you have 2 tables.
You could even do 2 tables the same scenario and you sort it out on the day - player who have level 3+ to one table - new players the other table.
This will likely work a lot better - especially with a new scenario (there is one new every month) as having the new scenario once in the morning and once in the afternoon.
Or another suggestion: You schedule a brand new scenario only once. All new tier 1-5 are first offered on tier 4-5 only (players need a level 3-5 to play). Yes - a newbie will be 'forced' to the other scneario - but he likely doesn't mind. If he only played 0-5 scenarios before he should be fine with it.
The issue is - if you open a new scenario to a brand new player you are burning through the most valuable asset you have - a low level scenario that can be played by everyone and that might help a level 3+ to get up to level 5.
Random sign-up will cause you grief. And your players will thank you in the long run. After all - a newbie is also resticted from signing up to a higher tier scenario. So why not discourage him on a brand new one if his participation means everyone else playing tier 1-2.
|
|
Stuff
This happens in the background, not something you notice by looking at the sign up.
An assertive effort has been getting players with 5th level PCs, once enough players have this my option open up.
Due to consistency of play with the recent group this has been possible.
But like I said before that I did have what you described which led to my problems, Inconsistent play mixed with a few players that show up all the time.
Also your suggestion doesn’t work well for groups smaller than mine that only have 1 table.
|
|
Rule (lost track of count): Offer new scnearios of tier 1-5 only for sub-tier 4-5 in the first month of availability.
It's your house version of exclusivity - similar to the 4-Star, VC Exclusive.
2Dragnmoon - great if something similar is already been done. No - I didn't register - I just tried to better understand your issues. And great to see that you now have at least one weekly tier 5+ scheduled and it seems on average the most booked up table.
Off course - the above also applies (or even more) to the esxclusive. You seem close to 4th star - so it likely happens sooner than later.
|
|
Rule (lost track of count): Offer new scnearios of tier 1-5 only for sub-tier 4-5 in the first month of availability.This is what this does in my group..
Veteran players end up with more then 1 4+ level PCs, new players play Up all the time.
Maybe we mean the same. But what the rule is about - a new player who has not at least a level 3 won't play at all on my table.
Level 3 is inbetween - so yes - technically it is a play up. A level 2 wouldn't play. If that is your highest level - play some other scenarios first and then come back.
I tend to avoid level 1 in tier 3-4 and level 2 in tier 4-5 as much as the plague.
|
|
Maybe we mean the same. But what the rule is about - a new player who has not at least a level 3 won't play at all on my table.Level 3 is inbetween - so yes - technically it is a play up. A level 2 wouldn't play. If that is your highest level - play some other scenarios first and then come back.
I tend to avoid level 1 in tier 3-4 and level 2 in tier 4-5 as much as the plague.
Most of the time I would not have enough players to just run a Tier 4-5 with only player with levels 4-5, that is why I have players playing up.
I am a bit worried about that, one of my players has almost played up every game.
|
|
"soften the punch"
Of course this does not apply to truly new players. We should endevour to teach them during their initial exposure. After that, take the gloves off. YMMV.
|
|
on a side note:
there is the player - the "experienced player" - who tends to try to always play up. when setting at a table of 5th level characters, he pulls his 2nd. He may have a 4 or 5, but his 2 or 3 just seems to always be "the guy I want to play in this adventure." You would think this guy should know better, but he always plays up, relieing on his fellow adventurers to pull him thru (and the judge to "soften the punch" on the little guy at the table). And surprizingly, it seems to work most of the time - even getting him raised by his team if he gets killed.
Sorry for the tangent mini-rant. I just ran into one of these guys again resently.
I allowed it once here. A player with a barbarian level2. Declaring how many HP he has - especially with Die Hard. I can take (some number in the high 30 range) damage and still fight !!
It was a season zero - not too much danger on tier 4-5.Despite his swagger ahead of the game he was spending the complete game last row - afraid to be hit. He was baggage for the other players and at least one player with a non-fighter type constantly in the front row was truly annoyed.
If it is the only option to seat a legal table - yes. But otherwise - no thanks. I learned my lesson.