7 player table suggestion

[Tarma]

So, 7 player tables are pretty unpopular lately, but no seems certain as to whether or not they should be removed from PFS. Instead of out right removing them, why not have a negative gold modifier for them instead?

So if a 4 player table would get 1800 gold, the 7 player table would get say 1400 gold per player. This would simulate how there's less gold to be split among everyone in the party, since there's more people in the party.

This would leave the 7 player option for those who need it, and discourage it for everyone else.

[nosig]

actually - on the other 7 player table thread this was suggested, along with the idea of giveing a 4 player table more money.

the actual suggestion was to give a 7 player table 85% of the gold gained in each encounter, and a 4 player table 125% - so for example in the First Steps Part 3, the awards would be thus...

7 player 356gp
5-6 players 419gp
4 players 523 gp.

the reaction on the other thread was... reserved.

thou I think one person did say it would be a problem, as it would require the Judge to do the math....

[Fromper]

I hate the idea of adjusting the rewards. That could lead to players feeling like they didn't get as much treasure as they should because too many people were at the table, and would lead to a lot more people refusing to play at 7 player tables than we already have. Anything that causes people to skip playing is a bad thing.

I'd rather just see the difficulty of encounters adjusted more flexibly based on number/level of players, instead of just being entirely based on sub-tier. For instance, design a tier 4-5 adventure around a group of four PCs, with two at level 4 and the other two at level 5 (18 total player levels). Then add extra of the weak henchmen to some encounters if the PCs have more than a certain number of total levels, such as 25. So five 5th level players or seven 4th level players would have a slightly tougher adventure than a minimal group for that adventure.

[Howie23]

I also am not in favor of adjusting rewards based upon the number of characters. It will lead to non-inclusive decisions and motivations to keep tables small. I don't care for 7 player tables. I also understand some are fine with them. They are a problem because there is currently a spectrum of opinion that ranges from them being expected and just fine, through the official position that they are exceptions, to those that view them as a case worse than playing Go Fish.

[Drogon]

I don't like reward adjustments, either.

For one thing, nosig is absolutely right: it inflicts yet more math on GMs, and during a point in the game where people are frantically gathering things up so they can take off.

Also, the idea of upping the gold for 4-player tables just gives people the opportunity to game the system there, instead. Why fix something merely so you can break something else? I don't get that...

7-player tables are boring and frustrating. Let that be its own deterrent for players to avoid them. However, they need to remain in place as a tool that coordinators can use. Taking them away removes flexibility for play options. And to be clear: the option doesn't have to be a standard. I have coordinated over 300 tables in the last two years. In all that time we've had a 7-player table happen exactly twice. It's pretty easy to avoid.

[0gre]

Not much to say that Drogon hasn't already said fairly well.

The 'reward' for 'right sized' tables is better play. The 'punishment' for wrong sized tables is a less fun play. In the 18 months or so we've been running PFS locally I think we had one or maybe two seven player tables.

[TwilightKnight]

Tarma wrote:

why not have a negative gold modifier for them instead?

This would be a poor idea for a number of reasons including but not limited to further deviation from the WBL system, encourage more playing up, and influencing players to get up and walk away from a table to avoid being "cheated" on their rewards.