|
I think I just played that adventure. We played low tier - still nearly got tpk'd. The group next to us played high tier - they sounded very unhappy, indeed!
My first PFS adventure I played up a tier, and spent the entire time hiding and whipping sling stones at the opposition. I survived, after taking enough damage to leave me with 1 or 2 hit points several times. I have played DND for years, so it was not a big deal for me to hide a lot. I made up tier income, so my character gained a lot of cash, and was able to buy healing potions for my next outing, and better armor.
The consequences - death. Frequent and bloody. At first level, no big deal - you'll just roll up another character and you get no xp for the endeavor. But you come away wiser.........
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I played that one too, but my party had multiple ranged combat specialists so we kinda had a very different outcome.
Flying creatures don't do well against floods of missile fire, imagine that.
|
I know I have played up a few times, but its probably pretty rare compared to most. You can rarely make a mistake playing up and while the wealth is nice, I prefer to leave myself a higher chance of survival. Of course, I am also one who is more interested in the role-playing than the roll-playing so less combat means more time to do what I like best. :-)
I have seen too many tables of mine (when I GM) decide to play up. Due to the variables involved (player experience, PC optimization, randomness of dice, etc.) I do not advise players to play up or down except for my standard warning...If none of your characters are sub-tier appropriate (actually in the higher level tier) and you are only getting the option because of the +1 for a 6th player or due to rounding, DO NOT PLAY UP!.
For example, and this was my worst nightmare, 6 players (3@5th, 3@6th) preparing to run through Sniper in the Deep. Their average level is 5.5, rounded up to 6, add +1 for the 6th player for an overall APL of 7. They decide to play up despite my warning and you guessed it, TPK.
Sometimes the lure of more cash needs to be tempered with a little common sense. Remember, most encounters are anywhere from APL to APL+3. If you are 2-3 levels below the sub-tier you are playing in, that could result in a nearly unwinnable APL+6. The CRB calls an APL+3 "epic." I'm not sure we have a word that is twice as challenging as that to describe an APL+6, except maybe suicidal.
|
|
I think it depends. You've got to look at it from a logical perspective.
Let's say you have 4 level 8's and a level 5 in a non-season 4 tier 5-9. It's designed for 4 players, and the 4 level 8's would be subtier 8-9 anyway, so it's probably safe to play in that subtier.
If it's season 4, you have to take into account the assumption of 6 players all being in that subtier. If you're not even close, or don't even have anyone in the subtier, just don't go for it.
I mean, just be logical about it, people. I've found every time we've been "close" to forcing high tier and played up we were just fine. And every time we've been "not close" to being forced to play high tier and played up, it didn't turn out so well.
|
|
The difficulty of scenarios when playing up will vary depending on party make-up, and how frequently your players play together; I have found that a group of well-built characters, played by players who regularly game together, are generally fine.
Overall, Season 4 has had, on average, more pleasantly challenging encounters in the scenarios than the previous seasons, but there are still a number of scenarios from previous seasons that I would *really* recommend against playing-up in. (For example, Blasphemy followed-up by a Horrid Wilting chaser, shows up in more than one scenario, and is challenging enough when playing at tier, let alone when playing up.)
|
One of the GMs I play with regularly, probably the most bloodthirsty of those available, said to us once. "You are going to play up? Better bring your disposable character."
My reply to him, similar to how I would respond to you bugley, is "they are all disposable".
Bring it. ;). (Said with a non confrontational fun loving gleam in my eye).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the GMs I play with regularly, probably the most bloodthirsty of those available, said to us once. "You are going to play up? Better bring your disposable character."
My reply to him, similar to how I would respond to you bugley, is "they are all disposable".Bring it. ;). (Said with a non confrontational fun loving gleam in my eye).
That's exactly the right attitude. I have no problem with an informed decision to go for broke. A clever party can certainly earn big returns that way! Once in a while, though, I get someone who doesn't take the risk part seriously...
|
There are so many scenarios I've GM'd for where people barely got scratched, or maybe one person got to half health, that I've often thought they could've done perfectly fine if they played up.
I don't think this happens all the time, but I seem to be an easy GM to run with. Not sure what I'm doing wrong to go harder! I run tactics as written which I feel constantly hampers me here; I'm not sure if other GMs do.
|
I've played up several times. Only died the once. Growing my region, I sometimes have my back up GM run things and I take the new folks on an adventure with a damage absorbing paladin. They get to see the dangers of playing up, without running a huge risk of dying. They usually enjoy the risks and rewards far more when life is more assuredly on the line.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
Played up twice in the same weekend. Party was ok on the first scenario, second one resulted in three people (including my character) enslaved. Since I knew the risks ahead of time, I was prepared for the creation of a "relative" character to seek vengeance. Regardless, it was fun!!!
|
|
There are so many scenarios I've GM'd for where people barely got scratched, or maybe one person got to half health, that I've often thought they could've done perfectly fine if they played up.
I don't think this happens all the time, but I seem to be an easy GM to run with. Not sure what I'm doing wrong to go harder! I run tactics as written which I feel constantly hampers me here; I'm not sure if other GMs do.
I think a lot of it is the parties you get to run for.
Seems like, these days, when I am playing online, it is one of my localized battlefield control fighters, and both of them tend to make a mess of enemy tactics...
It is hard for the BBEG to damage anyone when he is prone and disarmed....
What I do as a GM for tables that are playing up is that after an encounter, I will ask them if they want to continue playing that tier or if they want me to drop them down. The only times that this doesn't happen is when I notice that the encounter is going too rough for them and I start to throttle back. This has happened on more than one occasion, but at least gives the players a little more control of what,s going on.
|
I play up always when it is available (with the exception to Season 4 scenarios) because I like the challenge, and the players in my area are good with respect to teamwork, party roles, etc. It is usually more and I feel like we actually accomplish great things.
I would rather have a character take a memorable dirt nap than to walk through a scenario with little to no risk.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the adoption of the 6-person party assumption, the threat level for PCs playing up has increased dramatically, even when encounters are scaled down to the 4-PC version. More than ever, I recommend players not play up on anything released in the last 2 years and going forward. Encounters in the low subtiers should be sufficiently challenging for PCs who fall in the middle level between the two subtiers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the adoption of the 6-person party assumption, the threat level for PCs playing up has increased dramatically, even when encounters are scaled down to the 4-PC version. More than ever, I recommend players not play up on anything released in the last 2 years and going forward. Encounters in the low subtiers should be sufficiently challenging for PCs who fall in the middle level between the two subtiers.
You can say that as often as you want; people aren't going to listen. Players (myself included) are greedy. We want the big money.
|
|
Played up once in Season 3, the 5th level character pulled most of the combat weight.
Let my group play up once in Season 3 and once in Season 4. Both times the party got annihilated. Not recommended unless you have one or two higher leveled characters that can pull the group through.
I'd revise that to say--don't play up unless you have one or two characters that can pull the group through, higher level or no. For instance, in a recent 1-7, I was planning on playing my level 6 ninja if we had a table of solid 6-7. Instead, it was a precarious table around APL 5. So I played my level 4 sorcerer. My ninja has lots of fun little tricks to put spotlight on the other characters in an adventure we're already likely to win, but the sorceress is just flat-out more powerful by a significant margin. I'm not sure we would have won with the ninja, though probably--there wasn't time for the optional encounter, which is the only encounter in that particular scenario with more than one credible enemy in it (and they aren't evil and we had a paladin), meaning it would have been the hardest for our group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A well balanced and coordinated team with players experienced with the game can be a significant force multiplier.
Conversely a bunch of random loners that happen to be traveling together can operate at much lower capacity than their individual character power levels might indicate.
As such, whether a given party can safely play up or not varies wildly. Hopefully the GM can judge the situation and make adjustments as needed.
-j
|
|
@Rogue Eidolon: With the way the Samurai was wiffing all of his rolls that night, yes the optional would have been tough for us.
I personally prefer to play up when I can. But if I'm looking at the table and I see significant holes in the group make up then I don't recommend it. This is part of the reason why I leveled up a front line to level 9 in two months. I wanted to be sure that any high level group I play with had the option of having a person who can tank everything up to the last encounter.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A well balanced and coordinated team with players experienced with the game can be a significant force multiplier.
Conversely a bunch of random loners that happen to be traveling together can operate at much lower capacity than their individual character power levels might indicate.
As such, whether a given party can safely play up or not varies wildly. Hopefully the GM can judge the situation and make adjustments as needed.
I absolutely agree with this. There is an over-emphasis placed on building "optimized" characters, and many players seriously overestimate their effectiveness just because they can output big numbers. Clever tactics, creative problem-solving and teamwork are MUCH more important. Play smarter and better, not crunchier.
I agree that there needs to be GM judgement on the issue, but I'm also a strong advocate of risk in PFS games. If players choose to play up, they get an increased reward because of an increased risk. That is something that they need to understand and learn, sometimes with hard lessons. Hopefully those lessons will also teach them to play smarter too. Knowing how to best teach that lesson is one of those truly aspirational GM skills.
Again: "Adventuring is tough. Wear a cup." Kristie Schweyer, VC Florida*
*And you know when two Lady VCs are saying it, it must be true *wink*
|
|
That is something that they need to understand and learn, sometimes with hard lessons. Hopefully those lessons will also teach them to play smarter too. Knowing how to best teach that lesson is one of those truly aspirational GM skills.
I agree. It's easy to GM a loss to players playing up and have them come out angry, or dripping with tears that you can collect as part of your Dirge of Doom Bairdic performance. It takes a truly special GM to deliver a loss and make it a milestone moment that convinces the players to think smarter and try better next time, even more determined than ever to have a great game.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
With the adoption of the 6-person party assumption, the threat level for PCs playing up has increased dramatically, even when encounters are scaled down to the 4-PC version. More than ever, I recommend players not play up on anything released in the last 2 years and going forward. Encounters in the low subtiers should be sufficiently challenging for PCs who fall in the middle level between the two subtiers.You can say that as often as you want; people aren't going to listen. Players (myself included) are greedy. We want the big money.
Then you accept the consequences of your actions. :-)
Our local group knows to avoid 3-4 play ups like the plauge, like Mark said. 0-2 we're pretty good on.
I played a level one, hastily cobbled together (because I was an idiot and forgot my computer) Wednesday, in Frostfur captives. We got hurt a lot, and drained a lot out of the only level 2's happy stick, because all my (hastily picked) spells were close range. It was funny because if I'd had Ray or Dex, I'd have been the 'big damn hero' even playing up, because of their superior spell selection. If we'd played up with the party we had, we'd have been 'Big DEAD heroes.'
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always vote to play up, and I know several others at my FLGS who do as well. Death is common, but the games are more interesting and we're generally prepared with contingencies. It makes the game feel more like the dangerous adventuring it is and not something any ol' commoner could do.
We also generally follow the "single down vote carries" rule, and make a big point to everyone (especially those newer to our group) that there is no stigma or hard feelings about voting down if you don't feel comfortable. If playing up is unanimous and no one has been pressured into it, it makes the risk more acceptable and the rewards well earned.
That said, I have been making a point of pointing out the added risk in Season 4 for playing up, and cautioned my tables who were discussing playing up.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once watched a party gently pressure a player to play up. (Sniper in the Deep, 4 players, levels 6, 7, 7, and 8. Two clerics, two rogues.) Since that incident, I decided that the vote up or down should be anonymous.
If you've sat at my table, you know that I begin by asking you to fill out a little 3 x 5 card with some initiative rolls, Perception checks, default spell section, and so on.
When the party is between subtiers and has the option to play up or down, I also ask you to indicate a little up or down arrow, indicating which subtier you'd like to play. If anybody with a character in the low subtier wants to play down, we play down. If half the party wants to play down, we play down.
I announce which subtier, but not anybody'sindividual vote, and we assemble for the Venture Captain'sbriefing.
|
|
Then you accept the consequences of your actions. :-)
Oh, no question! I'm just saying--the advice to never do it is going to be ignored. We all like to bet that it's going to be the guy next to us who dies, while we will crawl home with buckets of loot. It's just the nature of the best (... at least in my experience).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always vote to play up, and I know several others at my FLGS who do as well. Death is common, but the games are more interesting and we're generally prepared with contingencies. It makes the game feel more like the dangerous adventuring it is and not something any ol' commoner could do.We also generally follow the "single down vote carries" rule, and make a big point to everyone (especially those newer to our group) that there is no stigma or hard feelings about voting down if you don't feel comfortable. If playing up is unanimous and no one has been pressured into it, it makes the risk more acceptable and the rewards well earned.
That said, I have been making a point of pointing out the added risk in Season 4 for playing up, and cautioned my tables who were discussing playing up.
Yeah we play that if anyone wants to play down and you're in between subtiers, we play down (in other words, you need unanimous to play up). If you are actually at the higher subtier solidly (so like you have APL between 4 and 4.5 in a 1-5) due to 6 players in a pre Season 4 scenario, then instead you need a majority to play down instead of playing at the appropriate subtier.
That said, I'm a reasonably good judge of when too much is too much, and so I generally offer my frank advice when a group is unsure, based on my knowledge of the scenario and the group's capacities and cohesiveness. I've never been badly wrong about which subtier to play so far (in that I've never suggested playing up to a TPK or deathgrind and I've never suggested playing down to a cakewalk). If possible, I want the group to experience a fun challenge, with neither a cakewalk nor a deathgrind.
|
Prior to Season 4, I almost always encouraged the table to play up if the option was there barring any serious party imbalance in terms of levels/roles. Why? Because it was generally very do-able and for a long time it was the only way for 7 player tables to be challenged back in when they were allowed.
Season 4? Hell no, I don't want to play up unless we have a full 5-6 PCs at the table and good balance. I had one go at playing up without this arrangement and it was disastrous.
Good on Paizo for fine tuning encounters/difficulty, though. The above used to be my standard with Living Greyhawk/Bandit Kingdoms.
|
On Season 3 or 4, or tough scenarios from earlier, I always advise down for all of my tables. I will not pull any punches or play 'tactics lite' for a party that qualifies for the choice and selects 'up' but is ill-prepared for the challenge. You want the shinies - be prepared to earn them.
Nani quotes me correctly.
Adventuring IS tough. Wear a cup.
;)
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
*still fondly remembers a table insisting on playing up in Rebel's Ransom despite my advice*
and I bet they paid the price too or did well, lol!!!
At my tables, if the playing up option comes up, it must be a unanimous vote in order to play in the higher subtier. I will also let them know the risks before we start.
|
|
I admit to having a bit of compassion for players with non-optimized builds or where their skills are just not really suited for the style of scenario being offered. That's those times when you pull back a bit on ruthless tactics, don't go for the easy coup de grace, etc. However, if you CHOOSE to play up you are essentially saying you want to play the game at maximum challenge, with the safety off. Give it to you full force, with both barrels. In those cases, I oblige. It doesn't happen often, but occasionally I get a player who b*tches and complains about how hard a scenario is, despite playing up, and was not even in the level range for the sub-tier played. Sorry, but as Kristie/Nani have said, "Wear a cup." If you cannot take the pressure, stay outta the kitchen.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I can appreciate that position, Don, but I disagree.
If everybody who is below the break-point wants to play up, and the majority of players want to play up, then that carries at my table. I've seen a couple of players who routinely try to bring in a character above the playing tier (for example, bringing a 6th or 7th level character to a table and wanting to play at subtier 3-4).
If you've got a 3rd-level PC, you have the right to veto playing at subtier 6-7. If you've got a 7th-level character, you have a vote, but not a veto.
That the way I run things. Your mileage may vary, and that's okay.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
Chris, in a situation like you described, I agree with the level 7 having the vote but not veto. With that being said, I may have to revise my unanimous policy to a majority rules (levels being considered of course) once the risks of playing up are presented. I would just have a concern for the person(s) at the pivot point of a scenario and not want to play up.
Off Topic: I do appreciate threads such as this being a relatively young GM (1 star) and all as they provide guidance and other approaches that may seem better than your own experience. Thank you all.