|
I like the consensus method too. It's usually not too hard to convince one player or show him the group wants to play up/down and have him swap tables. The reasons for this are usually that 3-5 players are level/teir appropriate and most at tier adventures can be handled by 3 players or for season 4, 4 players. If the last player hangs back focuses on helping in social roles and assisting the higher level characters instead of deciding to play the tank they'll do fine.
Auto play down is almost as bad as auto play up. If the APL system allows you to play up you're legally permitted to play up because it's level appropriate but difficult. Playing down will be like playing on easy mode. The biggest problem with PFS is that it only has two switches for when the APL is between. "Absurdly easy" and either "Very hard" for less optimized characters or "Normal threat" to optimized characters.
I've had enough absurdly easy to last a lifetime from season 0-2. I like the fact that Season 4 makes myself and my tablemates think about what we want to do.
|
It all worked out, though... I think they were looking at a 7 person table (or at least had a person who hadn't yet been seated)?
I was playing the Halls of Dwarven Lore that the player moved to, and we were short a player at that time. So, in reality, it all worked out!
In fact, given that there was a slot on a tier 5-6 that his 5th (or 6th, cannot recall) character could play at would make it more likely to do what Chris did.
I also know that the player of the pregen (who had played the week before in a game of mine) was fresh enough that having him play a level 7 pregen would have been rough for him (and the table). In the case of pregens, as well as anything else, you should only take on what you are comfortable handing.
Other than a single comment by the player when he changed tables, I did not notice any animosity, so I believe it was a good deal for all. Kudos for Mr. Mortika for how he handled it.
I do have to admit that when I saw you there, Chris, I was thinking, "Great! I get to make up for my poor showing at The Cyphermage Dilemna at CotN, where my table decided to play up (before I got there) and we eneded up failing." This was after Chris said, several times, the only TPKs he had seen were from failing to run away. That was my third PFS game... and he handled it with supreme care. He did apologize afterwards... because the balance of the table changed slightly when I arrived (on time, but not early), which caused the calculations to slip just enough so that we likely did not qualify to play up. Also, I did not speak out and give strong opposition, so there is some fault in my hands, as well. But, it was a good lesson learned!
I believe he did so on the above occassion as well.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Undone asks how a guy playing a pre-gen gets a vote.
I'm not sure how you say the character has no risk. He doesn't know the rules very well, can't estimate challenges as effectively as somebody who knows the rules, and runs a greater risk. If the character dies, he has no prestige to pay for a raise dead, and it's unlikely that other players will shell out gold for a full "raise dead-and-two-restorations" for him. If he dies, he never gets credit for that scenario.
Moreover, it's his introduction to PFS. If the party gets overwhelmed and his gunslinger dies quickly, definitively, and badly, I wouldn't bet on him coming back.
(If a party has the choice and decides to play in the high sub-tier, I assume they want the challenge, and I oblige. I never try to kill PCs, but under those circumstances the kid-gloves come off, and very little slack is cut.)
Acouple of relevant bits:
- it was a new player at his very first PFS session. (EDIT Corrected by Silbeg. Thanks. He gave me the impression that he was brand spankin' new, though.)
- he didn't know about the core class pre-gens. He'd printed out and studied the level 4 gunslinger. He'd printed out the Level 7 gunslinger, too, but hadn't looked through the rules as well. He knew he could choose to play up; he didn't want to.
- I don't know the gunslinger rules well enough to be confident in any answers to questions he might have, and neither of us had a handy copy of Ultimate Combat.
If it had been someone more familiar with PFS, I might well have suggested that he play a level 7 pre-gen at the higher sub-tier.
Undone asks, hypothetically, "if that was the only potential high level table occurring and there was a low level table would you tell the pregen player 'I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have somebody play below tier against his will.'?"
I admit, I don't understand the question. Let me answer the question I think you're asking. If there were another table that was playing low sub-tier, I'd try to get the guy who wants to play down to move there.
But, in general, if one person below the midpoint wants to play in his native sub-tier, I won't let the rest of the table pressure him into playing up. I watched that happen a few times early in my career, and it never ended well.
|
|
But, in general, if one person below the midpoint wants to play in his native sub-tier, I won't let the rest of the table pressure him into playing up. I watched that happen a few times early in my career, and it never ended well.
First off, why would people want such a player playing up with them in a season 4 mission? Now for seasons 0-2, and yes, even 3 most of the time, playing up is almost like a default. New person plus pregen PC should have been a big red flag for these people.
But, to me, I'm there to run the tier that the players want to play, not dictate to them what tier they will play.
I think the whole "no risk" for pregens thing comes from GMs letting people slough dead pregens onto new PFS characters that never get played. Ie, the death literally doesn't count for anything.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the whole "no risk" for pregens thing comes from GMs letting people slough dead pregens onto new PFS characters that never get played. Ie, the death literally doesn't count for anything.
Except that it still counts as that player's one playthrough, so they can never play it for credit again, ever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Chris on this one: when I GM, if there's a choice between tiers, one player wanting to play down is tantamount to veto power. I make that clear to players before the votes are cast (aside: I rather like the anonymous method he uses), and players are welcome to find another table that suits them better if they object, no questions asked.
I can understand the perspective others have on majority rules, and it's certainly possible for those players to seek another table too. I have seen too many "discussions" about it that are tantamount to bullying in convention settings, however, for me to be comfortable with it, as a GM or as a player.
|
|
I think the whole "no risk" for pregens thing comes from GMs letting people slough dead pregens onto new PFS characters that never get played. Ie, the death literally doesn't count for anything.Except that it still counts as that player's one playthrough, so they can never play it for credit again, ever.
Okay, but it's not like there's not 5 seasons of scenarios. It's still way less of a penalty than 16PP. To my knowledge, the GM is supposed to find out which character the pregen's chronicle is being applied to and then apply the death to that PC. But that's never what happens. That's also why I never play pregens. If I'm going to take a death on a PC, I'm actually going to have that PC die in the flesh.
|
|
I'm with Chris on this one: when I GM, if there's a choice between tiers, one player wanting to play down is tantamount to veto power. I make that clear to players before the votes are cast (aside: I rather like the anonymous method he uses), and players are welcome to find another table that suits them better if they object, no questions asked.
I can understand the perspective others have on majority rules, and it's certainly possible for those players to seek another table too. I have seen too many "discussions" about it that are tantamount to bullying in convention settings, however, for me to be comfortable with it, as a GM or as a player.
I actually frequently argue in favor of playing down far more often in season 4 than playing up. However, I don't think its the GMs place to decree a sub-tier.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the whole "no risk" for pregens thing comes from GMs letting people slough dead pregens onto new PFS characters that never get played. Ie, the death literally doesn't count for anything.Just so you know, this is not permitted by the rules.
Respectfully, Walter yes it is.
|
|
This is the relevant line from the Society Guidelines:
"You may also opt instead to apply the credit from the non-
1st-level pregenerated character played to a newly created
character with the gp gained reduced to 500 gp (or 250
for characters using the slow advancement track)."
However, this doesn't really determine if you have to pick which PC the pregen is being applied to before the scenario starts or not. That's the determining factor here.
Oh, never mind. My eyesight is bad from the flu I guess. I just followed the link. The big guy has ruled on this and, yeah, it's legal.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Respectfully, Walter yes it is.I think the whole "no risk" for pregens thing comes from GMs letting people slough dead pregens onto new PFS characters that never get played. Ie, the death literally doesn't count for anything.Just so you know, this is not permitted by the rules.
Thanks for the respect! Perhaps we were just shooting past one another.
The death does "literally count for something" because: "you don't ever get to play that scenario or module again for credit."
That's what I meant.
If your PC dies, I think you should be able to play that scenario again with credit.
Yes, you know what’s going to happen, but I think having that extra knowledge for that one scenario is small benefit for paying with your life.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
For some reason I always have difficulty explaining this correctly, but maybe this will be helpful to someone...
In response to people that are having a super easy time with everything and nothing is ever challenging enough.
Even though a scenario or module presents the GM with some set factors (tactics, room layout, creatures, etc), its still all rests with the GM to present and play those factors with his own spin and style. You can have two different people GM the same scenario and have two entirely different levels of difficulty in the fights. That's part of the reason why each reoccurance of a scenario is an entirely different experience.
I also suspect that people who fall into the "even season 4 is a cakewalk" camp rarely get the chance to GM. I don't say this lightly, or to accuse people of not contributing to the campaign. I say it because when you GM a scenario, you get to see everything from a new perspective. You see all the spells, all the stat blocks, all the combinations of abilities, and all the possible ways you can spin a fight. The tactics for creatures are only a few sentences long -- that's not nearly enough to determine how every aspect of a fight will go. The rest is up to the GM at the table.
Lets look a 4-14 as an example. Previously, Jason S stated that he had a party below the subtier play up and have no challenge whatsoever (more or less). I then stated that I GM'd the scenario in the higher subtier and the players barely made it through. My table was also higher level. By the numbers -- they should have done better. Why didn't they? We can nit pick at various builds and skill levels but I'll argue that my players are competent. They've got strong characters, solid tactics -- they've been around. The reason why the game was more difficult was because they like a challenge, and I know how to deliver one.
No written tactics were changed, but my GM style was. I was more ruthless with my spell and ability placement, my combat decisions, and explotation of their weaknesses. I made it a fight they were able to barely survive because I "know how to play the game."* I suspect that the people that rick-roll Season 4 also "know how to play the game." I also suspect that if they turned those skills around, and sat on the other side of the screen, that they would agree that Season 4 can be quite hard.
If GMing isn't your style (or isn't an option) for the cake-walkers, then perhaps they can "make their own challenges." Little mini-games within the game. Trying to get through a scenario without healing, without dealing lethal damage, etc. I am did something like this in the Moonscar . I tried to get through the module without ever healing my druid. It was all good until I got hit for 190 damage in the surprise round and decided being at more than 5 health would be a good idea!
*this is in quotes because there's no right way to enjoy Pathfinder; think of this more like a deep understanding of the rules and using them to optimal advantage.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So, by that explanation, the person playing the pre-gen does indeed have far less at risk. They can just dump the death off on Deaddy McDoorKnob whereas the person playing a real PC can't do that. And both are denied access to playing the scenario again. Am I missing something?
I never stated they had less risk. I was merely correcting the statement "the death literally counts for nothing."
It counts for something. It counts for one death. It prevents you from ever getting a player chronicle from that game. It is still a death.
|
|
So, by that explanation, the person playing the pre-gen does indeed have far less at risk. They can just dump the death off on Deaddy McDoorKnob whereas the person playing a real PC can't do that. And both are denied access to playing the scenario again. Am I missing something?I never stated they had less risk. I was merely correcting the statement "the death literally counts for nothing."
It counts for something. It counts for one death. It prevents you from ever getting a player chronicle from that game. It is still a death.
Okay, yeah, "literally nothing" was a poor choice of words. It's technically 16PP less of a loss, since the death sloughed off onto the new PC will never be addressed. Still, its enough for me to not like the "let's vote" and have the GM enforce it method.
|
|
Lots of good stuff
I don't find season 4 to be easy, except for a couple outliers. That's fine with me. It take some really potent and well thought out builds (ie powergamers) to trivialize the encounters. Whereas in seasons 0-2 most encounters could be trivialized by having a druid or summoner with a pulse in the group. Seasons 0-2 rarely gave the GM the tools to do as you describe. The NPCs would be overwhelmed by bodies and that was that.
|
|
I heard a player complaining about how easy a scenario was.
"A real Cakewalk!"...
I later found out they only had one PC death at the table, and two different combats where over half the party was down (3 of 5 paralysed in one fight, 3 below zero with one bleeding out because they couldn't get a CLW wand on him in the middle of combat).
seems to me that some people just have a different picture of "hard" ...
No, that's just borderline lying. Because that scenario in no way fits the descriptor "cakewalk!".
|
|
A couple of relevant bits:
- it was a new player at his very first PFS session. (EDIT Corrected by Silbeg. Thanks. He gave me the impression that he was brand spankin' new, though.)
I could be thinking the wrong player. Did you have 2 pregens at the table?
In any case, it doesn't matter. Every player in the game has a stake in in... pregen or not.
|
|
well maybe. But to him, his PC "hadn't been stressed".No, that's just borderline lying. Because that scenario in no way fits the descriptor "cakewalk!".I heard a player complaining about how easy a scenario was.
"A real Cakewalk!"...
I later found out they only had one PC death at the table, and two different combats where over half the party was down (3 of 5 paralysed in one fight, 3 below zero with one bleeding out because they couldn't get a CLW wand on him in the middle of combat).
seems to me that some people just have a different picture of "hard" ...
I guess they could just be that self-centered. I could actually see this kind of scenario with a power build that revolves around huge AC but mediocre offense. So he watches other party members get sliced and diced all the while never in any danger himself. Power builds that revolve dpr have a tendency to keep the rest of the group safe proactively.
However, even the scenario I described does not make it a "cake walk". Scenarios that soloable by pets are "cake walks". And I've been on both ends of those from seasons 0-2.
|
|
The only time I have played up was during The Hydra Fang Incident. I was using my gnome barbarian, and we were doing fairly well. We rushed on without snagging loot though, so one of our heavy hitters decided to stay behind and search the bodies without telling everyone else (I think it had to do with his faction mission), which meant that I couldn't just hang out and avoid combat. I ended up getting mauled viciously by a Seacat after falling into the water near it. 2 hp left, I stuck my hook hammer in his eye for a 4x critical. Had I fallen from its first attack, or not gotten lucky with an uncommonly powerful critical, it would have dragged me off to be eaten.
Moral of the story? There are a lot of variables, and playing up is likely to get someone killed, even if you have a large party.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Okay, yeah, "literally nothing" was a poor choice of words. It's technically 16PP less of a loss, since the death sloughed off onto the new PC will never be addressed. Still, its enough for me to not like the "let's vote" and have the GM enforce it method.So, by that explanation, the person playing the pre-gen does indeed have far less at risk. They can just dump the death off on Deaddy McDoorKnob whereas the person playing a real PC can't do that. And both are denied access to playing the scenario again. Am I missing something?I never stated they had less risk. I was merely correcting the statement "the death literally counts for nothing."
It counts for something. It counts for one death. It prevents you from ever getting a player chronicle from that game. It is still a death.
No worries -- I am frequently at fault for poor word choice. It took me like 30 minutes to write that longer post because I kept changing it.
|
|
The only time I have played up was during The Hydra Fang Incident. I was using my gnome barbarian, and we were doing fairly well. We rushed on without snagging loot though, so one of our heavy hitters decided to stay behind and search the bodies without telling everyone else (I think it had to do with his faction mission), which meant that I couldn't just hang out and avoid combat. I ended up getting mauled viciously by a Seacat after falling into the water near it. 2 hp left, I stuck my hook hammer in his eye for a 4x critical. Had I fallen from its first attack, or not gotten lucky with an uncommonly powerful critical, it would have dragged me off to be eaten.
Moral of the story? There are a lot of variables, and playing up is likely to get someone killed, even if you have a large party.
Season 0-2 encounters are pretty easily countered with raw bodies since they are balanced for four players. Many of them become trivial with a single pet class because the NPCs just can absorb or generate enough damage to deal with the extra bodies.
|
|
I am quite accustomed to running my players to the razor's edge and then dialing back to give them a chance. When they are in their appropriate sub-tier, it works. When they play up, things get iffy. So far one of my two PC deaths in PFS has been due to a 2nd level character being in a 4-5 sub-tier and not having the HP to survive.
|
|
Even though a scenario or module presents the GM with some set factors (tactics, room layout, creatures, etc), its still all rests with the GM to present and play those factors with his own spin and style. You can have two different people GM the same scenario and have two entirely different levels of difficulty in the fights. That's part of the reason why each reoccurance of a scenario is an entirely different experience.
I can't agree with this enough. A perfect example is the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. My group made it through that without ever seeing half of the bad things we could have. It was still completely enjoyable, but nothing of a challenge. Discussing it later with TriOmegaZero, I found out about all kinds of nasties that we missed due to the timing of player choices and the fact the the GM hadn't had time to prepare before hand. As much as I appreciated his willingness to run a scenario he wasn't completely familiar with, I wish it had been a different one.
|
|
Discussing it later with TriOmegaZero, I found out about all kinds of nasties that we missed due to the timing of player choices and the fact the the GM hadn't had time to prepare before hand. As much as I appreciated his willingness to run a scenario he wasn't completely familiar with, I wish it had been a different one.
Maybe some time I run the 4-5 subtier for you guys and see how differently it plays. >:)
|
|
I don't know if this is a derail or not, but I wanted to suggest a scheme to solve the "playing up" issue. What if we changed the rules for playing up as follows:
1) Earn appropriate gold for the level of the character, regardless of the played tier. For instance, for a tier 1-5 scenario, the scenario awards tier 1-2 gold for a level 1, 2, or 3 character and tier 4-5 gold for level 4 and 5 characters.
2) Award normal prestige when playing down.
3) Award additional prestige for playing up, as follows: level 4-5 characters earn the usual prestige. Level 3 characters gain 1 additional prestige for successfully completing the mission. Level 1-2 characters gain 2 additional prestige for successfully completing the mission.
In my view, this seems to solve the issue of having an overly high wealth total, since no one earns additional gold. The benefits to awarding additional prestige are subtle but neat:
a) It does not increase the buying power, only the buying maximum (based on the prestige chart). Early access to item maximums is a neat perk, but not a huge one.
b) It allows additional smaller (consumable) purchases, which is nice for low level characters, but not a big deal for high-level ones. In other words, it's a benefit that normalizes among characters as they level.
c) It helps to (slightly) defray the cost of a raise dead and/or condition removal, which is more likely when playing up.
d) It gives a slight incentive to playing up, but one that does not severely widen the gap between those who play up and those who don't.
Finally, remove the limitations on whether a group can play up or not and replace it with a recommendation of the suggested tier. This also allows for a "hard mode" that's built naturally into the tiering rules.
What do you think?
This has been discussed before...oh has it been discussed. What you propose has some serious downsides. For one thing, getting the same gold regardless of tier played means the system breakers will now bully to play DOWN instead of up in most cases and just cakewalk (even more so) the scenarios while everyone else just watches. Seriously, my LEAST optimized characters can play down (even in season 4) and basically solo everything...image what people who actually make optimized characters would do. They already trivialize at tier in season 4 and playing up is barely a challenge.
Also your system of basically give play down gold means you'll force everyone at 75% WBL at the end of the dead level. That is not a good thing. Yeah having too much gold is bad...so is having too little. FYI, play up at dead levels nets you around 150% WBL at the end of dead level. You could technically avoid this with some micro of scenarios...but that is also a bad thing to encourage in a system as that will reduce play unless your willing to end up perma weakening yourself.
Buy maximums are a seriously HUGE deal at lower levels. You wanna break the system, that's how you do it...and you wanna make that EASIER?!? Sorry, but having a ton of gold but a lower buy limit will prevent wonk WAY more effectively then low gold buy you can buy pretty much whatever you want. Honestly they should tie fame to your exp basically and have it so your buy limit is half your WBL for your level. That would mean no 9th level characters with +6 stat items...because seriously, the CR system assumes you really shouldn't have such an item at that level.
When you DO play up, your system does not adequately account for consumables used. I play up often. I spend over a grand in scroll often with over 2k happening on a regular basis. Yes there are groups where I can play up and not have to use anything...and some where I blew through some 4k in scrolls to get everyone done alive as the lowest level party member. And yes, even my martials have scrolls (well they usually use more portions however). 1 or 2 extra PP does not cover that. If that can't be covered...that means either I stop playing up...or I gimped my character so they can't be played very well at the highest tier scenarios.
|
|
I have found the single most determining factor in whether a scenario is hard or not is the GM's dice luck.
I have played and run the same scenarios so have a feel from both sides. When I run, I am very unlucky in my dice rolls, usually! (nosig can vouch for this)
I've had CR11 BBEG get stuck in a tanglefoot bag!
A couple of my fellow GMs, have phenomenal dice luck OTOH. A scenario that my players cake walk can be near TPKs under them.
I also ALWAYS council to play down. And after a number of local deaths, most players readily agree.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't know if this is a derail or not, but I wanted to suggest a scheme to solve the "playing up" issue. What if we changed the rules for playing up as follows: . . .
We know that the rules for playing up/playing down have been changed for season five. While some of the information has been made public at PaizoCon (and excerpts posted on the forums) it seems fairly pointless to spend much time arguing against the old season four rules; why not wait until all the season five rules have been announced, give them a fair trial, and maybe then there might be a basis for a fruitful discussion.
|
|
I also ALWAYS council to play down. And after a number of local deaths, most players readily agree.I feel this is best for season 4 and maybe 3, but for 0-2 you are mostly throwing money away.realizing the only TPK I have judged at a PFS table was in a season 0 scenario.
Group of 4 players, playing up - had no problem until
"ok, you all made the will save? good. Now do it again, twice more..."
I said mostly. And most of the "play ups" I saw in those seasons were due to number players. And, indeed, those scenarios *for the most part* crumple like lawn furniture with six PCs or six PCs and a pet.
|
|
My Enemy's Enemy: Party APL 5, I had a level 4 melee monk, played up to subtier 6-7. We destroyed the scenario, especially the final encounter. Hardly any damage of consequence was taken.
So funny - my players had the exact opposite experience.
I had all 6-7s with a party of 6 get destroyed in that game. I was one PC death shy of a TPK. But their gunslinger had to drink his potion of invisibility, saunter up to the remaining baddie, and critically hit with his musket
And all I could say was, "clever girl".
And that's exactly why I'm writing about my experiences which run contra to several others.
I forgot to mention, no healers in either scenario, except for a Divine Hunter paladin and a ranger.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If one of the locals is reading this, he can chime in a counter-measure, but I really don't think it's the GM's business to counsel people one way or the other, when they have a choice.
I don't know your characters as well as you do. I don't know how you play, or how well you know one another's PCs. I don't want to say the adventure is tough -- that you should steer clear of the top subtier, and end up with less gold. I don't want to say the adventure is easy, and walk you into a meat blender.
I do have the following advice, though: if the first few encounters are pretty tough, stop. If you're using breath of life or raise dead after the first or second fight, rest assured that they're not going to get any easier.
And I'll pass along this, from Bob Jonquet: unless you are twinked-out battle monsters, consider how many characters you have in the party that are actually at home in the high sub-tier. In Season 2, a party of {2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3} has an APL of 2.3 + 1 = 3.3, which puts them in the negotiable area. But they have nobody in that group that's actually level 4 or 5. That's not going to end well.
|
|
I also suspect that people who fall into the "even season 4 is a cakewalk" camp rarely get the chance to GM. I don't say this lightly, or to accuse people of not contributing to the campaign. I say it because when you GM a scenario, you get to see everything from a new perspective. You see all the spells, all the stat blocks, all the combinations of abilities, and all the possible ways you can spin a fight. The tactics for creatures are only a few sentences long -- that's not nearly enough to determine how every aspect of a fight will go. The rest is up to the GM at the table.
Lets look a 4-14 as an example. Previously, Jason S stated that he had a party below the subtier play up and have no challenge whatsoever (more or less).
What are you talking about? This thread is an accumulation of people's experiences "playing up", most of them horrible and unsuccessful. I'm here to represent the 10% who can play up successfully (occasionally). I'm sorry if that bothers you.
For the record, I never said playing up in season 4 was easy, it's borderline suicidal actually. But... as a group we've played up successfully a few times (and without healers), which is why I posted.
Also, I said the second time we played up it could have gone either way. What do you think that means? That means we could have easily died (or some PCs should have died). If you think that was me saying it was easy, you're wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
IAccording to the WBL charts, a 4th-level character ought to have about 6K gold worth of equipment. I haven't checked to see if the pre-gens abide by that, but let's say they do. Selling all of Lirianne's equipment, down to her garments, would net her 3K, which isn't enough for a raise dead, let alone the two restorations.
A 7th-level pre-gen's equipment, recovered and sold for half value, should net 11,750, which would get her back.