|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of allowing 3 high subtier players force 2 lower subtier players to play up based on "majority rules" is ridiculous.
I thought this idea should be moved to its own thread. It was moved from this thread.
What some GMs are proposing is that it's OK for the GM to bully the table to play down, even if the majority of players want to play up.
My opinion is that persuasion is OK, forcing is not.
The main problem with forcing your players is that without the majority of players, you possibly don't have a table to run. Also, bullying in any format is s@#!ty, even though not everyone has the spine to reject it (and walk from the table in this case).
If you're the minority, whether your table is playing up or down, you always have the choice to walk. No one made the lower subtier players stay there, they chose to stay there (and possible gain greater rewards). And when someone has a high level PC in a lower subtier scenario, nothing is stopping them from walking either, based on the majority decision. I think that's fair.
Not to derail my own thread, but there are a lot of factors that should go into a group's decision to play up or down.
I've played up in a few season 4 scenarios now and we've destroyed the scenario where others have failed. I've also played down. It just depends and shouldn't be left to the GM to decide. The players know what their PCs can do (and if they don't they should play down).
If your proposal were a standardized rule, all it means is that "walking" would be much more common (since most GMs currently let the players resolve it). When the majority of the table walks and ceases to exist, it will then reform with the subtier that the majority desires. Or not. Either way, not good for PFS imo.
I'm thankful that I haven't had to put up with these shenanigans myself. (Although it helps to have PCs in most subtiers).
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the party APL is in the middle ... I let the table know they have the choice, but that the table has to be unanimous on playing up -- if it's a lower level party and their are level 1s ... I also don't let pregens have a say in the matter as they have nothing to loose.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How I handle playing up is simple: if they are between tiers, when people fill out their initiative card (name, special notes, etc) I also have them vote "up" or "down". The cards go to me, the GM, with the side with the vote facing the table. If the table isn't unanimous in its desire to play up, they play down. No pressure on any individual to play up or to play down. It is quick, easy, and saves on drama.
|
Didn't I start a thread like this a while back? Oh yeah, now I remember.
High tier has nearly killed my character multiple times. I think the choice is up to the players, but must be done so with heavy caution. Or else you're cooked by two breath weapons. Or attacked by sinspawn with class levels. You get the idea.
Developer
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
In season 0-2, the risk of playing up is far outweighed by the reward. I don't think playing up is advisable in seasons 3-4.
I don't like playing my level 4 character in a 1-2 scenario because that's a chronicle where I'm getting sub standard reward and there will be very little challenge.
|
|
The reason they (and of course the ones who aren't that subtier) want to play up is simple... MORE CASH ON THE CHRONICLE SHEET. Characters have a fixed amount of Chronicle sheets in their lifetime, so the incentive there is to get the max cash per sheet. Some may want the the added challenge, but the first reason is what I hear every time as a PFS judge when it comes to a choice between tiers. I even once had a 1st level tier player try to shoehorn himself to a 5th 7th level group even if it meant that the other 3 first level players had to go home. As the one marshalling the tables at the event, I vetoed his move and made him play with the other first levels. the table went off successfully, but he made his unhappiness known through out the full session. (Now he was a problem player who was breaking rules with his Chronicles, but that's another story)Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
Absurd. Personally, I prefer to play first steps at one to reduce the amount of scenarios I burn through. Sure, I like to snag extra cash when it seems feasible, but never to this degree.
|
Nosig... it's simple ... say I don't want to play up .. then if the table decides to play up, you then have additional choice, stay and play or walk away...
it's unfortunate that it can't just be make that the table has to be in agreement but there are time when you might just have to walk away
That's the best way to do it. If a table decides to play at the tier you don't want too, thank them kindly for their time and politely excuse yourself. It's unfortunate, but better than playing in a tier you don't want too, up or down.
|
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
I will speak only for myself and my stable of friends. The reasons we would like to play up (we have not been given an opportunity to yet) is twofold.
1). We are relentless powergamers, and playing up has a much better chance of giving us a good challenge. Most scenarios and mods at our level just can't provide that challenge based off the way we enjoy building characters.
2). More cash per chronicle sheet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
Cash & Challenge.
While it would make the chronicle sheets even more gamist and less simulationist (and cause some other minor issues) I think a system where a group plays at a subtier appropriate for them and players receive rewards appropriate to their level regardless of what level the adventure was played at could be better than the current situation.
|
|
Sorry Alexander, anyone who says there is no pressure on any individual to play up or down is just not been sitting at tables I have seen.
I think you might have missed the point of my post. Players vote, anonymously, if they will play up or play down. I don't tell players the vote total, only if they are playing up or playing down. One vote for playing down results in the group playing down.
No one knows who was the vote to play down. Might have been everyone else, might have been only one person. No one knows, and I don't let players ask who voted what way. The game rolls on. The table has fun.
|
|
Nosig... it's simple ... say I don't want to play up .. then if the table decides to play up, you then have additional choice, stay and play or walk away...
it's unfortunate that it can't just be make that the table has to be in agreement but there are time when you might just have to walk away
yeah, this is true. No question. No arguement. And me? I'll walk.
And I've still seen it happen several times. And I have no problem selecting a PC for most any sub-tier (I've got lots - I usually get to select from 2 to 4 PCs). But other people do not.
Sorry to have been a desenting voice here. I'll take your advice and just walk away now.
I didn't see yours as a negative voice, instead I "read" what you said as someone who has gotten trapped into playing up when they didn't want to. The advice to walk away was from the table not the thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm almost always either GMing at or playing at a table that is tackling the 'correct' subtier for their group composition and overall level because I'm the liaison in charge of setting things up at our local store and I also run my home group, and I strive to give us balanced parties of the right level.
But let me tell you about it from the other side of most of these anecdotes. Last year at Paizocon, for the first time ever one of our home group players decided to try a con, and so the gf and I signed up to play a PFS game with him (we couldn't get into a ticketed event together). The gf wound up getting a ticket for Richard Pett's game, so it was down to me and my friend at a table of Icebound Outpost. We had a 7 player table, and I could either bring a level 2, a level 3, or a level 4. If I brought my level 4, our APL with the +1 for 6+ players was 4.43. So we technically were allowed to play down by that one clause in the guide. Anyway, our GM asked us to decide what tier we wanted to play. Needless to say, we wanted to play 4-5. Except one guy. He was level 2 (we didn't have any level 1s--we had 5 4 3 3 3 him and me), and he said he flat-out refused to play 4-5. He wouldn't be persuaded, he didn't offer to switch tables, and of course no one tried to pressure him to do so. Knowing it was going to be a letdown even with my level 2 character, I decided to just leave, even though I didn't get to play with my friend, since at least then the scenario would be more challenging and fun for everyone. My friend said it was still a cakewalk and one of his least favorite and most boring play experiences in his PFS history, even without me there. Turns out that the table of God's Market Gamble that I had the extreme fortune to walk into (it was literally the only thing offered that I could play and it happened to have a free seat) absolutely needed my character too or it would have been a certain TPK, so it worked out at least somewhat, but I didn't get to play with my friend and that table of Icebound still wound up being a major letdown for everyone even if I lucked out.
So I guess what I'm saying is, before this thread is completely filled with the horror stories of being forced to play up--bullying goes both ways. That level 2 player was a major bully because he should have been the one to walk. He was the only one who was even in Subtier 1-2 at a 7 player table, and he wound up ruining (or at least substantially decreasing) the fun for everyone else who stayed all by himself.
I'm glad that we've never had this drama about subtier as far as I've seen in the Boston Lodge. I think it's because of players with great attitudes who love the added excitement and don't mind when they have a challenging and exciting game with a noble and memorable death and then a split for a raise that lowers the money earned back to the lower subtier, even though it's the same reward as just playing the lower subtier to begin with.
Sidenote: Reading into Mark's query perhaps too much, if the system was changed so that playing-up characters got the lower subtier's gold, it would just make the bad part of the situation (when death happens) much much worse without the funds to defray, so please don't do that, if that's an option you're considering.
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up?
I my experience it is always the more gold, some may say challenge, but in the end they get excited about the gold.
What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
The same the but because of less gold, they are afraid of getting behind on gold.
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
In my regular group, it's a pretty even split between "Better Challenge" and "More Money". I'm looking to run more season 3-4 scenarios soon, though. We'll see which side wins out. ;)
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up?I my experience it is always the more gold, some may say challenge, but in the end they get excited about the gold.
What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?The same the but because of less gold, they are afraid of getting behind on gold.
Exactly this
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players generally want to play up?
Different questions so I thought I would separate them.
Lower subtier PCs generally do not want to play up, but sometimes it's needed at conventions or even home play if there is a level gap.
For example I'll have a level 1 and 2 PC playing at my subtier 4-5 table this weekend because the majority of PCs are level 5. They either play up or not at all.
Another example. At Gencon in the past, my (overcrowded) lower subtier tables have had to fill out an upper tier table. No volunteers so I volunteered. If your PC is good, you play cautiously, and you have rez funds, you can handle it. After awhile, you get to like the challenge.
What is the primary reason most that those between subtiers generally want to play up?
Depends. Sometimes you don't play up when your group is between subtiers. Playing up 100% of the time (regardless of circumstance) is dumb. You have to be sure your party can handle it. Are you optimized? Are you prepared? How is the group composition? Are the players experienced? Can the high level PCs carry the table?
You play up when you know you can. If you're APL 3 and you can do it, why is that seen as a bad thing? It's a challenge, there is risk, you get more gold, making it generally more fun.
What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
Imagine for a moment a level 5 martial PC playing in subtier 1-2. (This is typically where I would pull out another PC btw).
Why not play down?
1) You dominate the scenario, making it unfun for the other players and GM.
"Thanks ... for killing everything." (said sarcastically) << That was an actual comment I got from a player when I played my 3rd level PC down to subtier 1-2 (which is very reasonable right?). Why would I want to play down and get snide comments like that?
2) Lower amounts of gold that gimp you later. Yes, every 1000 gold adds up. It's ok to do it rarely, but if you do it often you'll be weaker than your level indicates.
|
|
Didn't I start a thread like this a while back? Oh yeah, now I remember.
This isn't the same at all. Your thread was asking about how much success players have had playing up. My thread is about forcing players to play down, even when the majority of players want to play up.
The difference is that in one of the two cases, the group is pushing someone into taking on a degree of risk that could very well end with that player permanently losing their character, or possibly even a TPK.
The one person isn't pushed into anything, they can always walk. No one is forcing them to play.
Any GM that forces the majority to play down is bullying. And yes, these players also have the choice to walk, which will kill the table. So the table is either reset or over.
I notice that no one feels bad for the 1 guy at the table that wants to play up and the majority wants to play down. Me neither. Why? If that's what the majority wants, you either decide to play or not, it's your choice. The same goes for the 1 guy who wants to play down, either play or not, it's your choice.
The other case involves people getting less cash, oh noes.
You don't understand the mentality of people who like to play up. We like the challenge. Especially in seasons 0-2, the session wasn't even fun unless you played up. And if you're not having fun, why play?
Less gold is a big deal, sorry. It's OK to take the occasional hit, but if it's too often then your PC is too weak for their level. Which leads to further deaths and The Downward Spiral.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
70% =Playing at sub tier is too easy. Playing below tier is WAAAAY too easy. People want to feel some some crunch, some visceral resistance when their combatant crashes through the scenario
30%= Mo money!
|
|
To OP, this is where knowing your group helps. If you play with the same people you know you can depend on, it is less of an external push and more of an internal one. "We have a X,Y, Z and Billy Bob can bring either an C or a D, we should be able to play up." If someone comes up with a good reason not, "All of these characters have horrible will saves, one batch of Harpies and we die," then the situation gets reevaluated. Just like in real life, friends should push each other to be better. If it is with strangers, personal space should be respected a bit more.
To Mark's questions,money is a good driving force. If you plan out what you want in advance, there is never enough cash. But also some scenarios can just be too easy. A week or so ago we had four people playing a game at tier and there was almost a TPK in one fight and two people went unconscious in another. Last night, four people (three of which were in the previous game) walked through an at tier game in a bout 2.5 hours and when the GM asked at the end what was the hardest part, we all laughed "crawling down the rope, we had two people fall and take damage." When you optimize to get through the rough games, others just aren't challenging. Luckily we had a great GM that was very graphic, but the mechanics simply weren't challenging.
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
I generally want to play up for the challenge. My primary has been walking though even tier scenarios without much resource expenditure.
I dislike playing down for a variety of reasons. Primarily, I can solo lower tier scenarios: they are no fun for me or the other players.
End reward is also a consideration. When your saving up for an entire level for that next special upgrade, playing down repeatedly can double the wait time and your character will have fewer chances to enjoy hit new prize. (i.e. I've played 5 or six scenarios instead of 3. My character is now a level closer to retirement before he gets his toy.)
|
|
I think at times people forget that they only have a choice to play up or down is when you are right in between all not whenever you want.
Nate Meyers
NYC GM/Player
I've been running into the situation a lot lately.
Most players in my area are terrified of playing up in Season 4 scenarios but willingly play up Season 1 & Season 2 scenarios.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I GM, if they are between subtiers I always ask the players whether they want to play up or down. I give them a spoiler-free GM assessment on whether I think the higher subtier will be particularly brutal based on the group and the scenario (no more than "You could probably handle it without too much trouble", "It will be very tough, but you would probably make it", or "This one's really hard, so you probably ought to stay away").
At that point, I ask for consensus. I mediate if necessary if things are getting heated. But my personal rule is that if there is not a consensus on playing up, then we play down. This is because the risk faced by playing down (less gold and easy encounters) is far less than the risk faced by playing up (character death). Also, my VC has indicated that she doesn't want to force any player to play up if they don't want to ;-)
|
|
I like the silent vote method with a little input from the GM.
I'm hoping that the GM with a little prodding will say something like "this is a season two game and you have a well balanced group. Since you are right in the middle you guys can go either way."
Then take a silent vote and go from there.
Players can get far further behind if they die playing up. Gold or prestige cost is very expensive, especially in the mid character levels.
(and a character ender at lower levels of course.)
I've seen it mixed about 50/50 on challenge vs. greed on why folks play up.
|
|
I just want to say that no-one who has paid to attend a convention, and who has gotten a ticket for the event, should have to walk.
Unfortunately, there's no way around it. If I think the group is going to suicide, or if there are munchkin builds that render my PC useless, I'll do something else. The latter can be harder to know a priori. I'm considering whether it's appropriate to leave after the first encounter.
|
Good point, nosig!
Wish I would have thought of that back a month or so ago, when at Con of the North I (sort of) got bullied into playing up in The Cyphermage Dilemma (with my Rogue 1... *shudder*).
Had I thought more about it, I should have played a prefab at level 4... we would probably have succeeded at the adventure. Thankfully our GM took some pity on us, and allowed us to withdraw (he knew that the choice was not a good one, and that at least one of us [me] wasn't involved in the choice... they decided 5 minutes before the scheduled games start... I came on time, but...)
Then, again, there was the time I played #52: The City of Strangers—Part II: The Twofold Demise with the same rogue, now level 3, with a party of 6 that was borderline. We easily could have played up, but we had a relatively new GM who didn't suggest it. I recall that it was suggested that I probably shouldn't play at the level 6-7 table, but... As it was, the adventure was really a cake walk.
However, this is really probably the only time that I looked back and thought that we should have played up. Of course, most of the time I have been in groups that have been strongly in sub-tier.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I will usually try to ask the group's thoughts when I run. If they're on the edge I'll nudge them with advice one way or the other depending on the difficulty of the scenario. After seeing several killer scenarios in seasons 3 & 4, most of my players have realized that its usually not worth playing up in them. Season 0-2 on the other hand tends to see more playing up if they're between levels. I tend to give the low levels the main vote. I let the others say their peace, but the low level characters have the most to lose, and they have the least amount of resources if something happens to their character that they need to fix.
While some of them might enjoy more of a challenge sometimes, it almost always comes down to the money.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three years ago at a convention when I had a table of the following:
Level 6 Wizard (me)
Level 4 Bard
Level 4 Barbarian
Level 4 Fighter
Level 4 Ranger
Level 2 Monk
Because we were a last group arriving we were put at a table where the scenario was going to be picked on the spot. After much asking around we figured out that about the only scenario we all hadn't played that was available in 1-7 was "Voice in the Void".
The GM did the math (APL 5) and asked the table what to do. The Level 2 wanted nothing to do with playing up. I (the level 6) sided with the level 2 player, figuring it was unfair to do that to him. Nosig brought up a good point about playing a different character, but I did not actually have one with me to play, otherwise I would have. The rest of the table demanded that they would play up to 6-7 (again with a group of 4's and a 2). The GM, rather than deciding on unanimous decision went with majority rules.
The only reason we didn't die in...
...was because...
The only reason we didn't die in...
...was because...
We skipped another of the huge major battles by just the happenstance of taking the right path, and the only reason we didn't die in the last fight (having run the fight numerous times I can tell you we would have been murdered) is because we ran out of time and never got to it.
This whole experience was horrible for the level 2, who couldn't hit anything, couldn't contribute, and basically needed to stand in the back in fear of death because he was so underclassed for the scenario. We didn't have a group of six, we had a group of five who got to play a 6-7 scenario because they were jerks to the Level 2.
That one experience put me on the same exact path as suggested by The Gnome above, "If the party APL is in the middle ... I let the table know they have the choice, but that the table has to be unanimous on playing up -- if it's a lower level party and their are level 1s ... I also don't let pregens have a say in the matter as they have nothing to loose." If you don't like it, you can walk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?Imagine for a moment a level 5 martial PC playing in subtier 1-2. (This is typically where I would pull out another PC btw).
Why not play down?
1) You dominate the scenario, making it unfun for the other players and GM."Thanks ... for killing everything." (said sarcastically) << That was an actual comment I got from a player when I played my 3rd level PC down to subtier 1-2 (which is very reasonable right?). Why would I want to play down and get snide comments like that?
I had that situation come up last weekend, level 4 barbarian in a 1-2 tier mission. He decided to balance things by punching them (without gauntlet's mind you, so he provoked AoO each time); he still did good damage, but didn't one-shot things (although he did wish he one-shot the ghoul before it pushed him off a cliff). He still survived and made sure things lasted long enough for others to have their shot killing it. And when things went south (BBEG and my dice felt like they had to start 1-hit dropping PCs), he finally equipped his greatsword and started wailing on the boss. He arguably saved the day by being there and played so everyone still had fun.
Although he missed the extra gold, he still got his XP and everyone went home happy.
|
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up?
I don't have this problem often, but I would probably agree with everyone else and say it's the rewards.
What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
I have to play down all the time, and I don't like it. A lot of times when we play down, the higher level character is left with the choice of sitting there and doing nothing, or making everyone else feel useless.
I am also a huge fan of challenge. I love when we all look at each other and say "aww poop, how are we getting out of this one?", which doesn't happen when you play down.
I don't really have the money issues because I'm playing down all the time and don't need beefy gear. Although when I prep for GM'ing scenarios, and I look at some of the level equivalent tiers, my character would have a REALLY tough time with his current load out. In the interest of full disclosure, most of the people I play with are either causal gamers that never buy consumables, leaving that burden to me, or just want MORE POWERZZZ and never buy consumables leaving that burden to me.
|
|
MisterSlanky - I wasn't there and I can't judge it, but a couple things jump out.
(unless I am mistaken) The 2nd level CAN'T play at 6-7. you are not allowed to play up or down more than one sub-tier. This normally only is even possible in Tier 1-7 scenarios (or in Specials).
Also, there is always the option of playing a Generic. Either you OR the 2nd level could have played a Generic. (Picture how the game would have been different if the 2nd level had played a 7th level Kyra - or you had played a 4th level wizard?)
It just seems to me we need to remember these options. To not get trapped into thinking there are only two options (A or B).
Nosing, this happened three years ago. Since the scenario was 1-7 it was permitted.
Also...don't get me started on telling people they can play generics, that's another story that pissed me off because of bullying (same place I might add).
|
Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
The better cash and items available. Generally that's what I hear people say at tables I run.