|
Tomorrow I'm GMing a pfs home game for our regular monday night group. Presently, some in the group are lvl 6, and some are lvl 7. If everybody turns up, and noboy chickens out in the last minute because of sick children/angry wives/broken backs/having to do the groceries, there's gonna be six or seven players at the table.
Now, I could prepare a tier 5-9 scenario, and we would either run it at tier 5-6 if only a few turn up, or we could run it at tier 8-9 if a lot can make it. Both options are less than optimal. Tier 5-6 is gonna be a boring walkover even with only four or five players at lvl 6-7. Tier 8-9 might be okay for a large group of lvl 6-7 PCs, but it might also be overwhelming, and the rewards are too large for their lvls.
What I would prefer to do, and what I had planned to do, was to run a tier 7-11 scenario, #2-12, at tier 7-8. Knowing my group, this is the perfect chalenge level, and they would have a blast. Sadly, as I was preparing for tomorrow night, it was put to my attention that it isn't legal for a lvl 6 character to participate in a tier 7-11 scenario, and the players would have to use pregens. It IS legal, however, for lvl 6 characters to participate in a tier 8-9 running of a tier 5-9 scenario, and that just doesn't make sense to me.
Is there a really good reason for the way the rules are now on this subject, or could we possibly look at changing them a bit?
This has been brought up in the past under previous PFS heads, but I cannot remember the official replies without doing a search. But a level 4 cannot play up to a tier 5-9 scenario and a level 6 cannot play up to a tier 7-11 scenario or down to a tier 1-5 scenario. And now that they are publishing tier 3-7 scenarios, that creates even more characters that cannot be played up or down that single level.
|
Clearly the answer in this situation is to spread rumors amongst the wives that their spouses don't really play PFS, but spend the time away from home with their mistresses. This should do an adequate job of reducing the table size to a more challenging quantity.
If that doesn't work, get some of the kids invited over to a play date with that kid down the street who has a cold and never covers his mouth when he sneezes. Or, in a last case scenario, invite a couple of the players over to help you rearrange the living room or garage; this should result in the requisite back complaints if they are of typical gamer proportions.
Disclaimer: all suggestions made with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
|
|
Mark and I are looking at various options to make play experiences better in Season 4. Until now, the rules are what they are. Please have patience while we work toward those changes. They will come but it isn't a quick fix. It takes some time to institute properly.
I apreciate this. That's why this is a perfect time to point out problems and spur a healthy debate, as was my intention. Hopefully, we can get a fix in season four. In the meantime, I'll play tier 8-9 scenarios for the lvl 6 characters.
And Howie; Great plans. I might also imply that the wives might be having the mailman stop by while the man are playing.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Mark and I are looking at various options to make play experiences better in Season 4. Until now, the rules are what they are. Please have patience while we work toward those changes. They will come but it isn't a quick fix. It takes some time to institute properly.
This feels like "Play, Play, Play" rearing its ugly head again, and makes me nervous.
Keeping characters inside their tier is perfectly acceptable, and easily accomplished by proper planning. Please don't institute rules that can be "gamed." If you allow characters to play outside of tier, the next arguments will be about how to keep 5th level characters out of the Tier 7-11 mods, because they're "getting so far ahead on gold!", and why is that necessary when 6th level characters can already "jump" the system, etc.
Ugh, my head already spins imagining the debates...
Mike,
Would one of the fixes possibly include, for example, taking a tier 7-11 scenario and expanding it to 6-11, but leaving the sub-tiers within it unchanged? That way a level 6 character could legally play up to sub-tier 7-8.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Play, play, play isn't coming back. Players will be kept inside their tiers and that isn't going to change. We are discussing different changes. Don't worry, we are looking to make PFS better, not worse.
I'm not too worried. You have proven to be very level headed and competent in your management. I am vocal, however, and will often (okay, always) speak my mind when it wants to be spoken.
For instance: "make it better" is relative to the person/people making the decisions/arguments. While you and I may think it is "better" to stay inside tier, I guarantee that there are people who don't agree.
But you know that. It's part of what makes you level headed and competent. Keep it up. (-:
|
|
I might now risk sounding like I want to beat a dead horse, or risk sounding like I just want to argue untill I get my will. It's not the case, I just want to understand the system and help improve it.
That said: Can someone please point out to me what the design thoughts are behind a system where a lvl 6-7 party can't play tier 7-8 but CAN play tier 8-9? Is there a reason behind this that I can't see? What would happen if it was legal to play into the next tier that doesn't already happen when people play up to the next sub-tier? How would anyone take advantage of this unfairly?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has there ever been any thought about changing the gold rewards to align with each PC's level? For a tier 1-5 scenario, there'd be 5 different options for gp. We'd have to remove the direct link between loot encountered and gold received (which could in theory open up scenario design a bit).
Something like this would remove the biggest incentive to play up and would keep people from gaming the APL for better gp. Now the only reason to choose to play up is if you enjoy a higher difficulty.
|
|
Has there ever been any thought about changing the gold rewards to align with each PC's level? For a tier 1-5 scenario, there'd be 5 different options for gp. We'd have to remove the direct link between loot encountered and gold received (which could in theory open up scenario design a bit).
Something like this would remove the biggest incentive to play up and would keep people from gaming the APL for better gp. Now the only reason to choose to play up is if you enjoy a higher difficulty.
Kyle,
I gotta disagree. If my players took the greater risk they know the consequences, the risk and deserve the greater reward. The tables I've played or GM in which a pc has died has always been in a table playing high.
I might now risk sounding like I want to beat a dead horse, or risk sounding like I just want to argue untill I get my will. It's not the case, I just want to understand the system and help improve it.
That said: Can someone please point out to me what the design thoughts are behind a system where a lvl 6-7 party can't play tier 7-8 but CAN play tier 8-9? Is there a reason behind this that I can't see? What would happen if it was legal to play into the next tier that doesn't already happen when people play up to the next sub-tier? How would anyone take advantage of this unfairly?
Because a 7-11 scenario is written to be more difficult than a 5-9 scenario, or at least that is what I think I can remember now from past explanations. So the 7-8 sub-tier of a 7-11 scenario is actually supposed to be harder than 8-9 sub-tier of a 5-9 scenario. Meaning it will be easier for a level 6 character to survive a sub-tier 8-9 than a sub-tier 7-8.
|
|
:this part Has there ever been any thought about changing the gold rewards to align with each PC's level?
I still don't see what there is to disagree with. I was asking if anyone had already discussed doing something like that. I'm not even sure I like the idea, but it is something different that we're doing now and it removes incentive to play up and would keep characters on a very tight wealth curve.
|
|
:this part Has there ever been any thought about changing the gold rewards to align with each PC's level?I still don't see what there is to disagree with. I was asking if anyone had already discussed doing something like that. I'm not even sure I like the idea, but it is something different that we're doing now and it removes incentive to play up and would keep characters on a very tight wealth curve.this was my replies on a different thread where Jiggy was suggesting this.
Currently:
a player who plays up all the time has more money (as much as everyone playing at that tier), thus better able to survive and continue to play up.
Proposed:
a player who plays up would have less money than someone who is playing a higher level character - no matter what level (tier) they adventure at. The high level guy gets more reward for ... being older? He get's to be the "noble" to the lower level "serf".
is this what you want?
"Sir Oldfellow, here is your 1400GP, sir.
"Boy, here's your 450gp - and be sure to say thank you to Sir Oldfellow for keeping you alive."Though, you know, I could really RP a PC who always got a lesser reward than the other player... the Serf to everyone elses nobles... Talk about funny. My Cheliaxian halfling servant Brownnose Impmaster being sure that the Andorian Eagle knight in the party got the correct cut, "here's your share of the money from that slaver gov'ner! 60gp, da' nobles cut, and here's my 20 gp. Thank yea again for letting me cook breakfast, and I'll try to get to your boots as soon as we stop for the night." (lord, this would be so funny!).
LOL Love this post!
Huh? Really?
Because a 7-11 scenario is written to be more difficult than a 5-9 scenario, or at least that is what I think I can remember now from past explanations. So the 7-8 sub-tier of a 7-11 scenario is actually supposed to be harder than 8-9 sub-tier of a 5-9 scenario.
Yep, but like I said this is the best I remember of the reason Joshua Frost gave for not letting a level 6 play in a tier 7-11 scenario.
|
My suggestion to Entropi is to run at subtier 7-8. The level 6 PCs would have to use pregens and could only apply the subtier 7-8 chronicle when they get to level 7. There's no need to go outside the current rules. Having said that, I wish it was possible for players to use their own PCs instead of pregens if they want to.
SCENARIO DESIGN
-----------------------------------------------
Regarding scenario design, I think scenarios would be much better if they were designed for 6 players. That way:
1) Most games are played with 6 players, it makes sense to create scenarios with this amount of players in mind. Scenarios could be more easily designed with proper challenges.
2) 7 player tables wouldn't be such a radical change and that problem would basically go away. (Except for the problem that problem players create in the first place).
3) A mechanism could be created so that scenarios could be adjusted down for 4 players. If the PCs are extremely powerful, the judge could waive the adjustment and everyone would still have a good time.
4) PC wealth would be kept within the proper subtier more often, and playing up would be a serious challenge.
5) Groups of 6-7 PCs would be appropriately challenged, unlike now. Currently, playing down is extremely boring, and playing up isn't difficult, but there's a good chance someone will die.
6) It's a lot harder to game the system for more rewards, as well as being clearer which subtier you should play in.
7) The current system is rewarding and promoting groups to "zerg" scenarios, by bringing 6-7 PCs. And why shouldn't they want to zerg a scenario? With 6-7 PCs, you get the same challenge but twice as much gold! I think that's the exact opposite of what makes sense, we should be rewarding 4 PC tables, not 6 PC tables, but for various reasons (gaming the system), we can't do this.
Obviously you don't bump the APL for 6-7 players with the new scenario design, since that's the intended party size.
Anyway, I think that's the best idea I've seen regarding adjusting the challenge level of scenarios.
I'd still like to be able to round the APL to the nearest integer however, to give players the choice of whether to play up or down.
|
7) The current system is rewarding and promoting groups to "zerg" scenarios, by bringing 6-7 PCs. And why shouldn't they want to zerg a scenario? With 6-7 PCs, you get the same challenge but twice as much gold! I think that's the exact opposite of what makes sense, we should be rewarding 4 PC tables, not 6 PC tables, but for various reasons (gaming the system), we can't do this.
The solution to everything you suggest is for organizers to plan around 4-5 player tables which is the ideal sized group for PFS scenarios. This is also coincidentally the most fun sized group to play in with Pathfinder so it works out well.
Organizers determine party size and table levels offered. If your organizers and GMs are are complicit in helping players game the system, the campaign system isn't going to be able to 'fix' that sort of soft cheating.
|
I'd still like to be able to round the APL to the nearest integer however, to give players the choice of whether to play up or down.
You do. According to the Guide p.25,
"You should always round to the nearest whole number.If your group is APL 6.5, that can either be 6 or 7. If you are talking about a tier 1-7 scenario, they play sub-tier 6-7.
If you are talking a tier 3-7, again they are firmly in sub-tier 6-7.
If it's a tier 5-9, either they call it APL 6 and play sub-tier 5-6, or call it APL 7 and choose to play either sub-tier.
If it's a tier 7-11, there are at least one (likely more) level 6 (or lower PC's) and therefore cannot play.
Personally, I see no problem with the tier system we have. Anytime you are dealing with overlapping math and how it applies to people (being an analog) you are going to have edge cases that "violate" the general rules. As Drogon said, if we allow 6's to play in 7-11, then what? Level 4's playing in 5-9's? Level 2's playing in 3-7? Why not level 1's play in 5-9's if they can survive? I saw two level one's illegally play with four level sixes in a sub-tier 6-7 and survive by largely staying in the back out of the way. they would have earned nearly 3500gp had I not caught it and voided their chronicles. Are we suggesting they should be allowed to play that and earn seven times the normal gold?
|
|
The solution to everything you suggest is for organizers to plan around 4-5 player tables which is the ideal sized group for PFS scenarios.
Organizers determine party size and table levels offered. If your organizers and GMs are are complicit in helping players game the system, the campaign system isn't going to be able to 'fix' that sort of soft cheating.
Theoretically it's a good idea to cap tables at 4 players, but realistically I don't think organizers could suddenly cap at 4 players when they're currently struggling with capping at 6 players (and sometimes need 7 PC tables). Lack of GMs etc.
I'm not an organizer, but if you asked organizers whether they thought it was possible to cap at 4 players, I'm not entirely sure it could be done. Or that they'd want to do that (expose less players to the game).
There's nothing stopping organizers from having 4 player tables now, so why aren't they doing it?
Personally, I like to GM to 5-6 PC tables, so that if someone doesn't show up, the game isn't canceled.
At small conventions, it's the same thing, we had 2 "no shows" this weekend, if the table was capped at 4 players instead of 6, the table wouldn't have happenned because there were no walk-ins.
You can have a debate about whether PFS should be created for 4 players or 6 players (and it's worthy debate), but I think most store games and conventions would prefer to cap at 6 players, not 4.
To me, it makes a lot more sense to change the product to how we typically play the game, rather than change how we play the game to fit the product.
|
|
"You should always round to the nearest whole number.
If your group is APL 6.5, that can either be 6 or 7. If you are talking about a tier 1-7 scenario, they play sub-tier 6-7.
Thanks for pointing that out. Did it ever say round down?
Are we suggesting they should be allowed to play that and earn seven times the normal gold?
I think you misread. Isn't it possible to play a pregen, get the chronicle and apply it to a PC when he reaches level X?
|
|
There's nothing stopping organizers from having 4 player tables now, so why aren't they doing it?
I just might do this for my next event (space permitting). Allow the same number of players as before (12/2 tables), but change it to (12/3 tables). Requires an extra GM, but I wonder what would happen.
And extrapolate that to my next regional convention. Instead of say, six tables of six over six slots, we'll schedule nine tables of four over six slots. Both provide play for 216 seats (scheduled), but the later allows for 108 walk in seats. And if we are short players, there are plenty of seats for the released GM's to sit and play. Hmmmm...
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out. Did it ever say round down?
I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. I don't keep old versions of the Guide. I see no value in arguing what it used to say and some trolls like to throw outdated rules as some kind of a justification for current issues.
I think you misread. Isn't it possible to play a pregen, get the chronicle and apply it to a PC when he reaches level X?
Yes, but you don't get access to those rewards until you are level appropriate. What was suggested above is that a level 6 should be able to play a tier 7-11. What if the APL allows the PC to play at sub-tier 10-11? That could mean 50-100% more gold than is appropriate and create a lot of buying power even if there isn't enough Fame for early entry into higher level items. More medium power items can be just as effective.
I hope we are not suggesting we allow lower level characters to play out of tier and then just sit on their reward until they reach the appropriate level? That would be a disaster. That's like the old module rules that most disliked and we decided, changing it was better for the community.
|
|
Theoretically it's a good idea to cap tables at 4 players, but realistically I don't think organizers could suddenly cap at 4 players when they're currently struggling with capping at 6 players (and sometimes need 7 PC tables). Lack of GMs etc.The solution to everything you suggest is for organizers to plan around 4-5 player tables which is the ideal sized group for PFS scenarios.
Organizers determine party size and table levels offered. If your organizers and GMs are are complicit in helping players game the system, the campaign system isn't going to be able to 'fix' that sort of soft cheating.
I didn't say 'cap' games at four players I said *plan* for 4-5 players. It is only marginally more difficult than planning six player tables.
If we get enough no-shows we can always consolidate tables. It's rarely an issue with us because usually we get more people than are on the schedule.
|
|
To those who DM PFS at CONs, what do you do if you have a table of 4 underpowered/poorly matched PCs?
Run the scenario as written. If the challenge provided in the scenario would clearly result in a bad experience for those at the table, I use as poor tactics (within the limits of theprovided tactics).
Part of the convention experience is getting paired up with random people with random characters. Sometimes you get a great table, sometimes you don't.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Lafayette
|
I am an organizer for local Society game days and I GM and assist the admin at conventions as often as I can.
Locally I plan for 5 player tables and usually get them. Occasionally with last minute GM issues and late players I get a 6 player and rarely a 7 player table. I'll admit that it does take a little bit more effort, especially when people are late, but it is doable.
I have GMed and organized enough tables and discussed this topic with plenty of GM to be of the very strong opinion that the current set up is fine and that altering the scenario design to use a base of 6 players or allowing characters to play out of Tier is a bad idea. However I am not against having scenario encounters designed so that they can be adjusted by the GM to accommodate party size. (Not as a whim by the GM to add things/mooks that are not written into the scenario)
I have to agree that it comes down to the organizer and those mustering tables to keep table size and party level composition balanced. Things are never perfect and mistakes are made but with a little effort it is possible to set things up so that more often there are 5 player tables and people are playing as close to tier as possible.
I also understand that some areas have a much smaller player and GM base which makes this more difficult. If players are a little more flexible about which character they play and when the play a scenario I believe this can be worked out.
This is a situation, like many that have been very passionately debated lately, that should be handled at a local level instead of having Paizo change the OP rules.
My Honest Opinion, Experiences may vary.
Personally, I see no problem with the tier system we have. Anytime you are dealing with overlapping math and how it applies to people (being an analog) you are going to have edge cases that "violate" the general rules. As Drogon said, if we allow 6's to play in 7-11, then what? Level 4's playing in 5-9's? Level 2's playing in 3-7? Why not level 1's play in 5-9's if they can survive? I saw two level one's illegally play with four level sixes in a sub-tier 6-7 and survive by largely staying in the back out of the way. they would have earned nearly 3500gp had I not caught it and voided their chronicles. Are we suggesting they should be allowed to play that and earn seven times the normal gold?
Bob, I do not think anyone is saying to change the limit on only being able to play up or down one sub-tier. This is more about the long-standing disadvantage that level 6 characters have had since the start of PFS. They can't play down to sub-tier 4-5 in a tier 1-5 scenario and they can't play up to sub-tier 7-8 in a tier 7-11 scenario. And while there are tier 5-9 scenarios, it seems like everyone complaining about the lack of scenarios for their level 6 characters has already played them, either while their characters were level 5 or level 7-9, or the 5-9's are never offered where they play. And yes, there are the old, rare tier 1-7 scenarios, and now the newer tier 3-7 scenarios, but level 6 characters always seem to have fewer choices than any other mid-level character. I know it could just be a vocal minority, but it has always seemed this one character level is the hardest to play.
|
Well, as long as we're talking about possible rule changes, here's a suggestion to think about. Maybe it's not the best idea, but it seems logical to me, so I'm curious what others think.
Currently, the rules allow PCs to play in any adventure of the appropriate tier, regardless of sub-tier, and they're not allowed to play outside their tier. This leads to anomalies like the one discussed in the first post of this thread - level 6 players can play up two levels in subtier 8-9 of a 5-9 scenario, but can't play up one level in subtier 7-8 of a 7-11 scenario.
So how about changing the rule so that players can only use a PC within 1 level of the subtier, regardless of tier? This would reverse the situation above (level 6 PCs could play subtier 7-8, but not 8-9, regardless of the tier that the subtier was pulled out of). It would also prevent stuff like the lowest level player in a tier playing in the highest subtier (ie level 5 playing subtier 8-9 of a tier 5-9 adventure).
The one down side I can think of is that it limits the range of player levels at a table to 4, rather than the current 5 (or 7 for tier 1-7 adventures), so there's a little less flexibility in scheduling. But do we really want PCs that far apart in level to be at the same table, anyway?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The one down side I can think of is that it limits the range of player levels at a table to 4, rather than the current 5
Are you sure the range would even be that big? Not long ago I played in a Tier 5-9 with a group of six players. Five 6th level and one 8th or 9th. We couldn't have done that under your proposed system.
If everyone at a 6 or 7 person table is the higher of the levels in a subtier (say 2nd level in subtier 1-2), then they'll have APL 3. Currently this would land them between 1-2 and 4-5 and have the choice to play up or down. But with your idea, they'd be forced to play down no matter what.
In fact, the only way to actually get to choose (under your idea) is if you have a table of 4-5 players AND they're ALL exactly between tiers. If any single PC is higher or lower than that single level, then the whole group MUST play into that tier. (For instance, a group of four 3rd's and a 2nd must always play 1-2, and a group of four 3rd's and a 4th must always play 4-5.) And if you've got a 2nd, three 3rd's and a 4th, you simply can't play; you have to boot someone, and it has to be either the 2nd or the 4th.
|
|
A sixth level character shouldn't be playing in either subtier 7-8 or subtier 8-9. I know it happens but it should be avoided.
The fact that one is technically legal doesn't justify legalizing the other.
Not to nitpick..
but a table of 6 level 6 PCs in a subtier 7-8 is not just technically legal.. there's quite a few who'd consider it optimal.
Not just from a 'playing up' standpoint, but also from a challenge standpoint.
|
|
Care to share what scenario has a subtier 7-8 scenario that six level six PCs can legally play in?
Well the example doesn't necessarily mean only lvl 6 in a 7-8 subtier.
What I thought was the important relationship is the characters are level X, where the high subtier is Y-Z, and the low subtier is V-W.
So, a few scenarios:
Any 5-9 scenario: A table of 6 7s playing up into the 8-9 subtier.
Any 1-5 scenario: A table of 6 3s playing up into the 4-5 subtier.
etc.