"You wanted to play high tier!"

[Chris Mortika]

Sorry, Undone. I don't see it that way.

1) A TPK wipes him entirely, because he doesn't have the 5 prestige to get a body recovery, and you can't pay for that with gold.

2) He didn't feel comfortable trying to navigate a 7th-level pre-gen. (And I couldn't blame him. There's aspects of the 4th-level gunslinger sheet that refer you to the 1st-level version, which neither of us had! The 7th-level sheet is even worse.)

I am not willing to say "Everybody gets a vote except the new guy."

--

Backing off for a second from that micro-issue, I think everybody at the table had a good time. There were a couple of tough fights; they did not, in fact, complete their mission; and the last fight could easily have dropped two or three characters. They had fun interacting with the NPCs, they were engaged in the storyline, and they came out of it with their skins intact.

I count that as a successful adventure.

[David Bowles]

Yes, this brings up a good point. When I went to play Kirin, we had a bit of a table quandry as to whether to go up or down. As a fluke of mathematics, it was the case that if the 3rd level PC at the table *wasn't* there, we would not have had a choice of which tier to play. So, therefore, we concluded that the 3rd level was just gravy on top of something we would have had to do anyway. It sounds like my group had a higher APL than the group in Chris's case. We were able to defeat Kirin pretty soundly even with a 3rd level tagging along. In a case like that, I certainly don't think its appropriate for the person playing the 3rd lever character to be able to veto everyone else who is clearly in the upper tier. Fortunately, it didn't even get close to that.

[WalterGM]

Jason S wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

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.

First off - sorry if I came across as singling you out. That was not the case. My post was more directed at the few other posts that touted an easy time playing up in Season 4, and did so while claiming no challenge there whatsoever. I used your game as an example of an easy time playing up because I had a simple and direct counter example. There was no intended slight against you or those involved. So again: apologies.

I've played up and it's been easy. I've played up and it's been hard. My post was intended to try and identify why, overall, that might be the case. My thought is that it's a GM's implemented level of difficulty, more than anything, that causes most tables to be hard.

And it doesn't bother me -- playing up -- as long as everyone is having fun, it's all good. And it sounds like you had a good time and it was a fun table. So yeah, play on! :)

[Cold Napalm]

About Pre-gens...around here, it is normal etiquette for anyone running a pre-gen to bow out of the vote for play up or down as they can adjust the pre-gen to what they end up playing in. They are not required to mind you, but I have never known anyone with a pre-gen to actually take a vote. They say I'm a pre-gen, I'll play either way. I have done the same a same as a pre-gen as well.

[Undone]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jason S wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

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.

First off - sorry if I came across as singling you out. That was not the case. My post was more directed at the few other posts that touted an easy time playing up in Season 4, and did so while claiming no challenge there whatsoever. I used your game as an example of an easy time playing up because I had a simple and direct counter example. There was no intended slight against you or those involved. So again: apologies.

I've played up and it's been easy. I've played up and it's been hard. My post was intended to try and identify why,...

This is what I'm talking about. It's entirely possible that as a player I'm rarely challenged in PFS (Despite playing up in several season 4 adventures.) That said I think it's largely because we obey math. I'm not talking about a group which is 3,3,3,3,4,4 playing up. I'm talking about a group like 5,5,5,6 or 4,5,5,5 or 4,4,4,4,5,6. If you don't have an actual level 5 APL then you should be restricted by legal math which also should be considered common sense! A 3,3,3,4,4,4 group should die to any minor challenge in combat. But when a group is 3,5,5,5,6,7 and you let the 3 or WORSE the pregen hold them back it just feels wrong. I'm not talking about suicide I'm talking about groups genuinely on the APL cusp.

Quote:

Yes, this brings up a good point. When I went to play Kirin, we had a bit of a table quandry as to whether to go up or down. As a fluke of mathematics, it was the case that if the 3rd level PC at the table *wasn't* there, we would not have had a choice of which tier to play. So, therefore, we concluded that the 3rd level was just gravy on top of something we would have had to do anyway. It sounds like my group had a higher APL than the group in Chris's case. We were able to defeat Kirin pretty soundly even with a 3rd level tagging along. In a case like that, I certainly don't think its appropriate for the person playing the 3rd lever character to be able to veto everyone else who is clearly in the upper tier. Fortunately, it didn't even get close to that.

Having played up a fair amount by now this is what I can say from a half dozen or so times doing it.

Spoiler:

Notes to put this in context:
1) I play with largely older DnD players who know all the tricks and grid tactics.
2) People determine the toughest two characters or most expendable animal companions. They take point.
3) Superb tactics are exercised.
4) Even though we've got a pool of ~15 players I can know at least ~13 of them have got my back and know what they're doing.
5) We generally (especially the casters) pass spell lists and changeable feature sheets around so we can mesh the group better.
6) I DM A weekly game with a group of 5 highly experienced players and one of the player's girlfriends. Her character was built by someone else resulting in 2 save or suck casters and 2 full casters and 2 high damage characters.
Note conclusion- I've only had experience with experienced players or new players who pick up the game quick after letting someone build their character.

This was our situation as well or rather similar. I at level 4 druid and a level 3 fighter were the first ones to sit down at the table. I was somewhat surprised when a 5 ranger, 6 summoner, 5 summoner and 7 cleric sat down. We elected to play up. While I wasn't the most useful character I was able to occupy the second wave by dumping my spell list (The group was on the low damage end since the summoners kept rolling sub 5) until they arrived to finish them off and the fighter nearly 1 shot crit the final boss. The four of them probably would have been able to do it alone but between us we had 4 pets and 6 players. If either me or the fighter had forced a play down it would have been a boring walk in the park with nothing threatening us. I was a little hesitant having never played up in PFS my only experience playing up has been living greyhawk and at present that has resulted in a 40% mortality rating over 20 play ups, we still played up, a lot. No one died and only 3 "People" went down, my lion who charged the thing in the tunnel, a summoners pet which did the same, and a summoners pet which failed to hit for 4 rounds in a row vs 4 enemies. Every experience so far in PFS playing up where you have and I must stress this a LEGAL table to play up has been positive. If you can't eyeball it to level 5 or the +1 puts you to 5 I'd consider playing down. The simplest way to eliminate this would be levels 1-6 share a tier set of 1-2,3-4,5-6 and high tier has 6-7,8-9,10-11. Then there is no ambiguity there is only table level.

[Tim Statler]

In a 5-9 I played today, our party average was 7. I was the top guy at a 9. The rest of the party was 7 and below. I initially bowed out of the voting, but when the level split was revealed I said to play down.

[David Bowles]

Tim Statler wrote:

In a 5-9 I played today, our party average was 7. I was the top guy at a 9. The rest of the party was 7 and below. I initially bowed out of the voting, but when the level split was revealed I said to play down.

Probably a wise idea. Due to the way critters scale, I think its easier to get in over your head at 5-9 than 1-5.

[FanaticRat]

In my experience playing with others, the group either completely roflstomps the scenario or things go terribly and we almost all die. There's no in between.

[Feral]

If given the choice, I'd rather play high and TPK every time than play low and steamroll the mod.

[Jason S]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I've played up and it's been easy. I've played up and it's been hard. My post was intended to try and identify why, overall, that might be the case. My thought is that it's a GM's implemented level of difficulty, more than anything, that causes most tables to be hard.

It's ok, I just don't like to be misinterpreted. Season 4 is definitely hard!

I agree, the GM has an extremely strong effect on the scenario but fellow players (and their PCs) do as well.

If you can believe it, my worst tables have actually been playing *down* with incompetent players/PCs in challenging scenarios. Luckily the GM took pity on us and we ran out of time.

[TriOmegaZero]

Feral wrote:

If given the choice, I'd rather play high and TPK every time than play low and steamroll the mod.

I'd prefer the latter over the former. *shrugs*

[Lab_Rat]

Going to play Waking Rune high tier in hard mode on Tuesday. I don't expect the GM (Our VL Nathan King) to pull any punches. I expect him to pull out all the stops, gank us when we are not looking, counter every tactic he thinks we will do, all while being the awesome soon to be 5 star GM he is. I also expect his mouth to drop open multiple times as we (the adventuring party) pull out all the stops, enter Krune's lair guns blazing and buffed to the max, and throw every odd ball underhanded tactic we can dream up. We are treating this more like EotT than just another scenario. If we only get one crack at hard mode we are definitely going to give it everything our characters and pocket books can give. We want our bragging rights.

It is going to be a blast, even if our GM wipes the floor with us.

[Undone]

David Bowles wrote:

Tim Statler wrote:

In a 5-9 I played today, our party average was 7. I was the top guy at a 9. The rest of the party was 7 and below. I initially bowed out of the voting, but when the level split was revealed I said to play down.

Probably a wise idea. Due to the way critters scale, I think its easier to get in over your head at 5-9 than 1-5.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html

Not sure this is true. With the exception of spells/SLA's monsters don't scale as well as players in this game. It's more problematic if you've only got +0/+1 con and no toughness feat but at level 1 monsters do ~5-10 damage. At level 5 monsters do ~20-30. At level 9 monsters do 40-50. It scales faster at level 1 because 5 -> 20 = 4 times, 10->30 = 3 times. 20->40 = 2 times. 30->50 = 1.66 times. While as early as level 5 you can have over 60 hit points.

Quote:

Feral wrote:
If given the choice, I'd rather play high and TPK every time than play low and steamroll the mod.
I'd prefer the latter over the former. *shrugs*

I'm a strong supporter of the former. You can either stay in the shallow end or go swimming with the big boys in the deep end. Then again that might be because I prefer old school harder games along the lines of IWBTG, dark souls, demon souls, contra, exct.

[GreySector]

David Bowles wrote:

nosig wrote:

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!".

Maybe they watch Cougar Town?

[Lab_Rat]

Undone wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Tim Statler wrote:

In a 5-9 I played today, our party average was 7. I was the top guy at a 9. The rest of the party was 7 and below. I initially bowed out of the voting, but when the level split was revealed I said to play down.

Probably a wise idea. Due to the way critters scale, I think its easier to get in over your head at 5-9 than 1-5.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html

Not sure this is true. With the exception of spells/SLA's monsters don't scale as well as players in this game. It's more problematic if you've only got +0/+1 con and no toughness feat but at level 1 monsters do ~5-10 damage. At level 5 monsters do ~20-30. At level 9 monsters do 40-50. It scales faster at level 1 because 5 -> 20 = 4 times, 10->30 = 3 times. 20->40 = 2 times. 30->50 = 1.66 times. While as early as level 5 you can have over 60 hit points.

Yep. An appropriate CR monster will scale more than a single character of that level. This is because the monster has to scale for a party of adventurers, not just 1. This also means that if the levels are too far off, a player can easily be killed by the monster.

[Sheppard]

I'm going to be a little blunt but I don't mean it in a rude way.

If a player doesn't like the fact that at my table I allow anyone to veto playing up, they always have the option to walk away. I don't think people realize how brutal playing up can be if you have a tactically smart gm with lucky dice rolls, or at the very least they underestimate such a thing happening.

As for a pre-gen new player not getting a vote. Do you realize how insulting that can be to a person? "Oh I'm sorry you don't deserve a vote because you're new and not important." is pretty much how people are going to receive that mentality, and I don't think that is what PFS needs at all. Shouldn't we be trying to attract people to the game by treating them equal and fair?

[David Bowles]

Undone wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Tim Statler wrote:

In a 5-9 I played today, our party average was 7. I was the top guy at a 9. The rest of the party was 7 and below. I initially bowed out of the voting, but when the level split was revealed I said to play down.

Probably a wise idea. Due to the way critters scale, I think its easier to get in over your head at 5-9 than 1-5.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html

Not sure this is true. With the exception of spells/SLA's monsters don't scale as well as players in this game. It's more problematic if you've only got +0/+1 con and no toughness feat but at level 1 monsters do ~5-10 damage. At level 5 monsters do ~20-30. At level 9 monsters do 40-50. It scales faster at level 1 because 5 -> 20 = 4 times, 10->30 = 3 times. 20->40 = 2 times. 30->50 = 1.66 times. While as early as level 5 you can have over 60 hit points.

Okay. Guess I was thinking of my home game. At level 9 what I make them fight is way more brutal than level 5. Not even close. Good to know that's not the case in PFS. Play up it is!

[David Bowles]

David Bowles wrote:

Sheppard wrote:

I'm going to be a little blunt but I don't mean it in a rude way.

If a player doesn't like the fact that at my table I allow anyone to veto playing up, they always have the option to walk away. I don't think people realize how brutal playing up can be if you have a tactically smart gm with lucky dice rolls, or at the very least they underestimate such a thing happening.

As for a pre-gen new player not getting a vote. Do you realize how insulting that can be to a person? "Oh I'm sorry you don't deserve a vote because you're new and not important." is pretty much how people are going to receive that mentality, and I don't think that is what PFS needs at all. Shouldn't we be trying to attract people to the game by treating them equal and fair?

Depends on whether its relevant that day would determine if I would even consider getting up and leaving. But I don't think the GM should be enforcing any kind of policy in this arena at all. It needs to be 100% player decision, not one player backed up by the GM.

Looking at the rules for organized play, I don't see where the GM actually does have any input on the decision. It says "the players may choose". It does't say the GM has a magic veto power.

[Cold Napalm]

Sheppard wrote:

I'm going to be a little blunt but I don't mean it in a rude way.

If a player doesn't like the fact that at my table I allow anyone to veto playing up, they always have the option to walk away. I don't think people realize how brutal playing up can be if you have a tactically smart gm with lucky dice rolls, or at the very least they underestimate such a thing happening.

As for a pre-gen new player not getting a vote. Do you realize how insulting that can be to a person? "Oh I'm sorry you don't deserve a vote because you're new and not important." is pretty much how people are going to receive that mentality, and I don't think that is what PFS needs at all. Shouldn't we be trying to attract people to the game by treating them equal and fair?

So...one person who doesn't even really have any skin in the game so to speak + the GM can bully the other 3-6 players into doing something?!? Seriously, if the campaign heads were worried about play up bully happening, I think they are mistaken since your not the first to admit that you basically bully the table into playing down based on one person?!? Yeah...I think the campaign heads have their focus definitely in the wrong area with all that is coming out on this thread.

And it's not about the NEW guys not getting a vote, it's about the PRE-GEN not getting a vote. I played pre-gens while NOT BEING NEW. So has a slew of other people. Your pre-gen can be of 1 4 or 7. That means you have something in tier for MOST cases (barring the 10-11). So why do you INSIST on playing that 4 pre-gen and making everyone who is 5-7 play down in a 3-7 game?!? That is why everyone around here abstains from the vote when they use a pre-gen.

Also I am a firm believer that GM should not back ANYONE in particular at a table. That is not FAIR to everyone else. If one person wants to play down and 5 play up, then you as the GM should open up for discussion to get a unanimous vote one way or the other. You can facilitate the discussion, but this is something that should VERY much be a player discussion...not the GM backing one side or the other. I have yet to fail to meet a unanimous vote one way or the other under the current system. Yes they discuss their builds and what they can do and then you come to a pretty good idea of what you can and can not handle.

[thunderspirit]

Whether or not you think they do, a player with a pre-gen still has skin in the game.

Cos they're playing the game.

[David Bowles]

Well, I know other people are making an issue of it, but I really don't care if there are pregens in involved or not. The players should agree on what to do, and that is what happens for tiering. No GM invovlement.

Honestly, this line of reasoning for GMs "making a call" sounds very close to that in the "not at my table" thread. Both involve GMs making rulings that they don't appear to have the authority in society play to make.

I don't see why giving players fair warning about playing up with a so-so group make up and then letting them make the decision is such a big deal. And a pregen at the table is already a big step in the direction of so-so make up.

[Cold Napalm]

thunderspirit wrote:

Whether or not you think they do, a player with a pre-gen still has skin in the game.

Cos they're playing the game.

Fine significantly less skin then? Because a pre-gen can be applied to a new character with no loss in gold so no weakening of the normal characters OR if they are in the proper tier, getting proper tier gold. Normal PC forced to play down can have their wealth significantly impacted...especially if the GM who decides that anyone can bully the table into playing down is the normal GM and playing down happens often. I have seen this happen in person. It leads to BAD things.

[Sheppard]

Let's be very clear about something, I'm not forcing anyone to sit and play at my table. So to claim that I'm "bullying" players is a flat out lie. When APL is calculated the vast majority of the time a very clear sub-tier is established. However; if the group falls between sub-tiers, I will allow as I mentioned before Anyone(and I mean ANYONE) the option to veto playing up. They have just as much risk as anyone else playing. If a player doesn't want to play down they do not have too. No one is forcing them to stay at the table. I wish them well and point out the other various tables in the shop so that they can find a game they might be more suited for.

It sounds to me like people are advocating making players play up because the majority rules, and I'm sorry but that just isn't how I run my tables.
I mean right now we've only said if one person wants to play down, but what about if two people want to play down should the majority still rule at that point?

And I just have to say when 6 level 2 players can qualify for the 4-5 tier something seems off. I know that's heading off in a different tangent but it just seems like a flaw in the system.

[nosig]

ok, here's an input that might upset some players.

If I (as a player) sit at a table and we are "on the line" between sub-tiers, and one of the other players expresses worries about playing up, I'll swap to a lower level PC. There, we're below the line now.

Not a problem. That's one reason why I have so many. And I often play with other people who will do the same thing.

We're APL 3? I'm willing to swap to a 1st level guy. (Or for that matter, I'll swap out to a 5th level if the party wants to "play up".)

[Benrislove]

nosig wrote:

ok, here's an input that might upset some players.

If I (as a player) sit at a table and we are "on the line" between sub-tiers, and one of the other players expresses worries about playing up, I'll swap to a lower level PC. There, we're below the line now.

Not a problem. That's one reason why I have so many. And I often play with other people who will do the same thing.

We're APL 3? I'm willing to swap to a 1st level guy. (Or for that matter, I'll swap out to a 5th level if the party wants to "play up".)

this is what i usually do, though it's generally "I don't want to play down with this guy, so I'll play this other character instead" or vice versa

[Chris Mortika]

nosig wrote:

We're APL 3? I'm willing to swap to a 1st level guy. (Or for that matter, I'll swap out to a 5th level if the party wants to "play up".)

I confess confusion, nosig. If the party plays down, you'll swap PCs. If the party plays up, you'll swap PCs. Whey did you bring the 3rd-level character to the table to start with?

[nosig]

Benrislove wrote:

nosig wrote:

ok, here's an input that might upset some players.

If I (as a player) sit at a table and we are "on the line" between sub-tiers, and one of the other players expresses worries about playing up, I'll swap to a lower level PC. There, we're below the line now.

Not a problem. That's one reason why I have so many. And I often play with other people who will do the same thing.

We're APL 3? I'm willing to swap to a 1st level guy. (Or for that matter, I'll swap out to a 5th level if the party wants to "play up".)

this is what i usually do, though it's generally "I don't want to play down with this guy, so I'll play this other character instead" or vice versa

yeah!

and the players talk it over and we build a team to play. Each of us listening to the concerns and feelings of the other players.

I really only see this as being an issue when someone is in the Higher sub-tier, and has no PCs in the lower, and has no interest in modifying the way they play. "All I got is my Paladin - youz guys just need to make do with that."

[Chris Mortika]

Well, maybe not "all I have is my paladin." It might also be "This character is my paladin / hellknight, and I'd love to play him through this encounter with the Order of the Nail." or "This is my only Shadow Lodge PC and this is the retirement arc."

[nosig]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, maybe not "all I have is my paladin." It might also be "This character is my paladin / hellknight, and I'd love to play him through this encounter with the Order of the Nail." or "This is my only Shadow Lodge PC and this is the retirement arc."

and the rest of the players are more likely going to be good with that.

Funny you should say that though. When I played Fortress of the Nail, I had planned to play my 5th level Hellknight wannabe... but we had a player who only had a higher tier PC, and had no wish to play down. So we played high tier, and I ran my 9th level Arcane Trickster.

So... what I'm trying to say is, talk to the other players. Be flexable. These guys are your friends (we hope), treat them that way.

[Matthew Morris]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, maybe not "all I have is my paladin." It might also be "This character is my paladin / hellknight, and I'd love to play him through this encounter with the Order of the Nail." or "This is my only Shadow Lodge PC and this is the retirement arc."

Tangentally, it's one of the, um, bugbears of scearios for me. I'd love to have a 'thematic character' (run Ksenia though all the Hao Jin scenarios, or run a character through q4p) not for any benefits that might come, but because it would be fun. The downside is you run into issues where you might play pts 1 and 2, but 'level out' of pt 3, for example.

[Cold Napalm]

Sheppard wrote:

It sounds to me like people are advocating making players play up because the majority rules, and I'm sorry but that just isn't how I run my tables.
I mean right now we've only said if one person wants to play down, but what about if two people want to play down should the majority still rule at that point?

No, I am saying you should get an UNANIMOUS (seriously folks?!? You all don't know what this word means if you want to keep insisting it means majority?) vote one way or the other before proceeding. That means there will almost certainly be a discussion about it and you as the GM should butt out of that discussion other then to keep it civil.

[David Bowles]

Sheppard wrote:

Let's be very clear about something, I'm not forcing anyone to sit and play at my table. So to claim that I'm "bullying" players is a flat out lie. When APL is calculated the vast majority of the time a very clear sub-tier is established. However; if the group falls between sub-tiers, I will allow as I mentioned before Anyone(and I mean ANYONE) the option to veto playing up. They have just as much risk as anyone else playing. If a player doesn't want to play down they do not have too. No one is forcing them to stay at the table. I wish them well and point out the other various tables in the shop so that they can find a game they might be more suited for.

It sounds to me like people are advocating making players play up because the majority rules, and I'm sorry but that just isn't how I run my tables.
I mean right now we've only said if one person wants to play down, but what about if two people want to play down should the majority still rule at that point?

And I just have to say when 6 level 2 players can qualify for the 4-5 tier something seems off. I know that's heading off in a different tangent but it just seems like a flaw in the system.

Six level 2 players can do just fine in a lot of the older content at 4-5. NPCs rarely have amazing armor class in 4-5, etc. In season 3-4, it may not be wise, but older content really has a lot of problems with being overwhelmed by bodies

There is no GM "veto" on sub-tier mentioned in the guide for society play, just as there is not GM "veto" for PFS legal PC builds. As far as I can tell, the GM has *zero* input on sub-tier.

[David Bowles]

nosig wrote:

ok, here's an input that might upset some players.

If I (as a player) sit at a table and we are "on the line" between sub-tiers, and one of the other players expresses worries about playing up, I'll swap to a lower level PC. There, we're below the line now.

Not a problem. That's one reason why I have so many. And I often play with other people who will do the same thing.

We're APL 3? I'm willing to swap to a 1st level guy. (Or for that matter, I'll swap out to a 5th level if the party wants to "play up".)

Yeah, I've done the same thing. Why should anyone care? You're deciding what to play based off the situation.

[Cold Napalm]

nosig wrote:

I really only see this as being an issue when someone is in the Higher sub-tier, and has no PCs in the lower, and has no interest in modifying the way they play. "All I got is my Paladin - youz guys just need to make do with that."

Or they are new and this is their ONLY character to date. You should not in all honesty push new players into making new characters before they are ready to.

[nosig]

Cold Napalm wrote:

nosig wrote:

I really only see this as being an issue when someone is in the Higher sub-tier, and has no PCs in the lower, and has no interest in modifying the way they play. "All I got is my Paladin - youz guys just need to make do with that."

Or they are new and this is their ONLY character to date. You should not in all honesty push new players into making new characters before they are ready to.

OK, let's discuss this.

a player with a 4th level guy has 9-11 XP, a 5th level has 12-14...
so, he has played 9 to 14 games.

so he sits at a table with several person with 0-8 games, and says:

4th/5th level guy "I'm new and this is my ONLY character to date. You should not in all honesty push me into making a new character before I am ready to."

1st/3rd level guys: "ok guy, play a Generic and create the real PC later when you have time. It's your XX-2 PC and you can try out a different class, and play back here with the rest of us..."

4th/5th level guy "But I want to play my guy in this one! You guys play a 4th level Generic!"

???

Can't we just talk it out like adults?

[David Bowles]

nosig wrote:

Cold Napalm wrote:

nosig wrote:

I really only see this as being an issue when someone is in the Higher sub-tier, and has no PCs in the lower, and has no interest in modifying the way they play. "All I got is my Paladin - youz guys just need to make do with that."

Or they are new and this is their ONLY character to date. You should not in all honesty push new players into making new characters before they are ready to.

OK, let's discuss this.

a player with a 4th level guy has 9-11 XP, a 5th level has 12-14...
so, he has played 9 to 14 games.

so he sits at a table with several person with 0-8 games, and says:

4th/5th level guy "I'm new and this is my ONLY character to date. You should not in all honesty push me into making a new character before I am ready to."

1st/3rd level guys: "ok guy, play a Generic and create the real PC later when you have time. It's your XX-2 PC and you can try out a different class, and play back here with the rest of us..."

4th/5th level guy "But I want to play my guy in this one! You guys play a 4th level Generic!"

???

Can't we just talk it out like adults?

That's always worked for me. No need for votes or vetoes

[JohnF]

I've encountered several tables where the GM was mandating additional restrictions, mostly on pregens.

I've known a few GMs who very much dislike pregens. Some feel that you should 'run what you brung', and that if you have a PC of the appropriate level you should run it (although opinion is divided as to whether appropriate is at the subtier level, or whether any tier-legal PC qualifies). And just lately I've seen at least one table of the faction-ending scenarios where it was announced that no pregens would be allowed.

[David Bowles]

Yeah....... I'm not sure GMs can actually mandate any of that by society bylaws.

[David_Bross]

People willing to compromise and run pregens make this game a better thing. People willing to compromise for the enjoyment of others is a great thing. I think virtually everyone would like to play their character, but if you have 3 4-5 and one 1 who isn't comfortable playing that character in the 4-5 subtier (understandably), playing that pregen is their way of making a table happen reasonably.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

We did that Sunday.
Two of the players only had PC's for the upper tier (6-7). Two of the players only had PC's for the lower tier (3-4). One had either. Mine was level 5, right in the middle. We talked about it and decided to run up.
Three of us ran level 7 pregens. (I did also since we needed a martial much more than my sorc caster.) We will still get the credit once our PC's get high enough level. Fun was had by all.

I will say that in our local, often running up is pretty difficult.
1) We often have a very wide range of system mastery. So a lot of people just don't really know what they could be doing to help and/or have pretty poor builds.
2) The groups seem to always be very lopsided. Everyone is a DPS martial build or everyone is a primary caster.
3) Our local is actually pretty large (which is generally a good thing) so usually I am at a table with people that I have rarely game with before. So we are not a smooth running machine like many people describe.

[Jiggy]

On the topic of compromise and up/down decisions, I was at a table this past week where they could have played 3-4 or 6-7 (in a 1-7 scenario) and were planning on 6-7, but my only available PC was 2nd level, so they were willing to play 3-4 so I could play. If anyone from that table is reading, thanks again guys! :)

[redward]

Cold Napalm wrote:

Sheppard wrote:

It sounds to me like people are advocating making players play up because the majority rules, and I'm sorry but that just isn't how I run my tables.
I mean right now we've only said if one person wants to play down, but what about if two people want to play down should the majority still rule at that point?

No, I am saying you should get an UNANIMOUS (seriously folks?!? You all don't know what this word means if you want to keep insisting it means majority?) vote one way or the other before proceeding. That means there will almost certainly be a discussion about it and you as the GM should butt out of that discussion other then to keep it civil.

That sounds a lot to me like the other players should get a chance to "convince" the other player to play up.

Not everyone wants to be convinced.

In fact, that describes approximately 100% of the people who post on these forums.

It is the GM's job to enforce the rules of the PFRPG and the OP campaign:

Pathfinder Society Special Rules wrote:

Do Not Bully Other Players

Bullying can mean different things to different people. It doesn't just mean "play up or we'll take your lunch money." It can also mean "play up or we're all going to complain and roll our eyes and stare daggers at you every time we roll through an encounter."

If you're coercing the person to do something they don't want to do, you're bullying. If they cautiously and begrudgingly agree to play up and spend the entire scenario avoiding combat because they're convinced they're going to die, you bullied them into it.

If they cheerfully say "okay, let's play up!" after you explain the Season 0 difficulty curve, the 4-person balance, and the optimization of everyone else, then sure. But even then, if that character dies, I'm willing to bet the player's going to feel pretty burned.

[David Bowles]

It's kind of a stretch to me that preventing bullying (which I have never seen, btw) gets to translate into "GM picks the sub-tier for the whole group".

Uh, Jiggy, a level 2 is not allowed to play in a 3-7 game under any circumstances as per the bylaws.

[David Bowles]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

We did that Sunday.

Two of the players only had PC's for the upper tier (6-7). Two of the players only had PC's for the lower tier (3-4). One had either. Mine was level 5, right in the middle. We talked about it and decided to run up.
Three of us ran level 7 pregens. (I did also since we needed a martial much more than my sorc caster.) We will still get the credit once our PC's get high enough level. Fun was had by all.

I will say that in our local, often running up is pretty difficult.
1) We often have a very wide range of system mastery. So a lot of people just don't really know what they could be doing to help and/or have pretty poor builds.
2) The groups seem to always be very lopsided. Everyone is a DPS martial build or everyone is a primary caster.
3) Our local is actually pretty large (which is generally a good thing) so usually I am at a table with people that I have rarely game with before. So we are not a smooth running machine like many people describe.

Then don't worry about playing up. Pretty simple solution. It's far from mandatory.

[SCPRedMage]

David Bowles wrote:

Uh, Jiggy, a level 2 is not allowed to play in a 3-7 game under any circumstances as per the bylaws.

He was talking about a Tier 1-7 scenario, which is divided into subtiers 1-2, 3-4, and 6-7. In such a scenario, you're not allowed to play more than one subtier away from your own level, his level two character couldn't play in subtier 6-7; likewise, the level six and seven characters couldn't play in subtier 1-2, which meant that party HAD to play subtier 3-4.

[David Bowles]

SCPRedMage wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Uh, Jiggy, a level 2 is not allowed to play in a 3-7 game under any circumstances as per the bylaws.

He was talking about a Tier 1-7 scenario, which is divided into subtiers 1-2, 3-4, and 6-7. In such a scenario, you're not allowed to play more than one subtier away from your own level, his level two character couldn't play in subtier 6-7; likewise, the level six and seven characters couldn't play in subtier 1-2, which meant that party HAD to play subtier 3-4.

Oh right, reading comprehension. He said that. Okay got it.

[redward]

David Bowles wrote:

It's kind of a stretch to me that preventing bullying (which I have never seen, btw) gets to translate into "GM picks the sub-tier for the whole group".

Uh, Jiggy, a level 2 is not allowed to play in a 3-7 game under any circumstances as per the bylaws.

"Protecting a player's right to not risk their character so you can get some more gold" is not the same as "GM picks the sub-tier for the whole group."

Other decisions you're not allowed to force on a player at my table include:
Where to move their character
What spell they will cast
Whether they drop everything to heal you
Whether they expend their own resources to heal you
Whether they buy a CLW wand (although that decision on their part may lead to me enforcing the prior two)

I have seen all of the above bullying in addition to the "c'mon, just play up."

Incidentally, the last (and I do mean last) time I allowed a party to "convince" another player to play up, they very nearly TPK'd. I helped them figure out how to leave the room in one piece and played out the rest of the scenario at the lower tier. And I was being very generous with tactics by that point.

[David Bowles]

Who in the hell do you play with? That list is absurd. I've never seen players try to force actions out of other players.

The GM does not "allow" players to tier up if they are legally allowed to do so. That decision is out of the GMs hands, at least that's what it looks like from the bylaws.

Old saying: "Pain brings wisdom". Allow players to make mistakes. They'll figure out the conditions for playing up all own their own.

[Serum]

David Bowles wrote:

Old saying: "Pain brings wisdom". Allow players to make mistakes. They'll figure out the conditions for playing up all own their own.

Of course, one-two people didn't really want to learn when it was okay to play up in the first place.