|
When calculating APL, one rounds to the nearest whole number.
There is only one situation in which the table may choose to play up or down – when the table's APL falls between two subtiers.
There is another situation in which the table may choose to play down – when rounding to the nearest whole number would force the table to play up to the next subtier.
In the latter situation, the table's calculated APL puts the table at the higher subtier, but the guide is giving the table a choice to play down. In this situation, I would rule that the decision to play down (play lower than the table's calculated APL, in effect) would need to be unanimous.
The former situation is a tougher call; I'd like to see a codified way to handle this.
What I've seen in my area, however (and I wish it would stop), is tables believing (and GMs agreeing with them) that the table always has the option to choose to play up, even when the APL clearly puts the table in the lower subtier.
|
To Mark's question though. I think that the new Season 4 APL calculation helps (doesn't fix but helps). That +1 to All was one of the reasons really low level characters were being asked to play up in the first place.
But the reasons mentioned are correct. When you're working for that +1 armor or weapon it's very difficult to want to lose 1k gp, and it only gets worse from there.
|
For all the people that say the reason they want to play up has more to do with challenge than the extra gold, I bet if PFS offered a hard mode with no extra rewards, that very very few people who say they want a challenge would actually choose to play hard mode.
I would. I have never played up because the group I play with generally does not opt to do so.
But if there was a hard mode, I would be playing the most streamlined character I could, instead of the experimental builds I have now (monk with severe dump-stat in Con).
|
I've always advocated a mojority rules stance on this, but I've deserted from the "majority rules" camp to the "one no vote means no playing up" camp just in the past month.
I was one of two 7th-level PCs at a thrown-together table that had no business playing up, but we were "encouraged" by the other 7 and the GM. Total disaster, and by all rights this should have been a TPK (it only wasn't cos the GM pulled punches, frankly).
The three (!) level 4s at the table were absolutely miserable. I will never put another player through that again, or sit idly by as someone else does, at any table at which I'm seated. I will leave first.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I don't get people saying is if I don't want to play up (or down) I have the option of walking. Am I going to be reimbursed for that? I mean, I paid for the scenario.
Keep in mind I only play PFS stuff at Gen Con, not at my FLGS, or with my normal group of players in a home game.
I have also been forced to play below my tier because the Scenario we had picked to play had only a few players to choose from. We had 3 lvl 7's and 3 lvl 1's in one instance. That kinda sucked.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
The games I've GM'd I've been lucky to have a good concensous at the table, but that's only 4 or 5 games.
As a player, I've come into 2 major divisions on how subtiers happen. These observations are only on levels 1-7, haven't gone above that. One thing in every case is that the GM took no part in deciding what subtier would be played. It was left entirely to the players.
1st division: weekly play. 2 of the players that show up every week are built around protecting other characters, and can keep lower level people generally safe. Most of us have characters at about the same level, and know how to work as a party. So we play up whenever we can, and trust the GM to give us a hard but fun time.
2nd division: convention play. Here the choice is much harder. I've walked from a table that was playing up when my character was just making it into tier (got into a different table). I've played my 3rd level gunslinger down into the subtier 1-2 because it was lowest character I had written at the time and the rest of the table didn't have 3-5th characters. (That was a snoozefest Goblinblood Dead). I've also played up a different level 3 gunslinger with a bunch of level 6's on a season 4 tier 3-7 and made it out (close call). And then there's some games where I decided going in that I wanted to play up for the money, and some where there was actual parity on levels.
There's a lot of factors that play into the choices in convention play. First decide if the character is able to play up. You have to know what your character is capable of. How are your saves? Can you take a hit? Are you in the back or the front? Second, is the table discussion. What are the levels of the people at the party, what do they want to play? How many of them are there? Do they want to deal with a "low level boat anchor"? Do they want to deal with a "high level showboat"? The time I walked, the players seemed to know each other and were ready to tear thru at high tier. The time I played up, the players were very welcoming, calmer, and seemed capable. They assured me they could get me thru, and they did. Third, look at your other options. How many other tables are open? What tiers are they? Do I recognize any other players or GM's? In the case where I played down, it was the only table open. So I played the lowest I had and tried not to overshadow things (the dice agreed with this plan).
So for convention play, you really don't know who you'll be with. Just communicate with the other players well though, and it seems to work out.
|
Something I don't get people saying is if I don't want to play up (or down) I have the option of walking. Am I going to be reimbursed for that? I mean, I paid for the scenario.
Keep in mind I only play PFS stuff at Gen Con, not at my FLGS, or with my normal group of players in a home game.
I have also been forced to play below my tier because the Scenario we had picked to play had only a few players to choose from. We had 3 lvl 7's and 3 lvl 1's in one instance. That kinda sucked.
I wouldn’t worry too much about being asked to play a particular sub-tier or walk, unless you are one of the bullies who tries to force their way on others.
In my opinion, as a GM, a musterer, and a gameday and convention coordinator, one should always err on the side of the lower level characters (especially if they are newer players).
It is, in my opinion, rude for a player with a higher level character to demand that the lower level character play up, when that lower level character may not have the resources to come back from death.
|
|
Something I don't get people saying is if I don't want to play up (or down) I have the option of walking. Am I going to be reimbursed for that? I mean, I paid for the scenario.
Keep in mind I only play PFS stuff at Gen Con, not at my FLGS, or with my normal group of players in a home game.
I have also been forced to play below my tier because the Scenario we had picked to play had only a few players to choose from. We had 3 lvl 7's and 3 lvl 1's in one instance. That kinda sucked.
So... Options C & D
C) the three 7th levels pull lower level PCs and play lower.
D) the three 1st levels pull higher level PCs (generics?) and play high.
or heck, Option E.
E) split it into two tables and get another judge.
For the record, I never consider playing a pregen an option when people have viable characters to play the scenario.
I don't think that should ever be considered an option, especially for the folks with the higher level characters.
It is just one more way for a bully to try and force their way on others.
|
I've just started GMing at a local store, and everyone is new, so it's not an issue yet as we are going through First Steps. But eventually we'll have folks who have come more often. We may get a few 4th levels showing up with 2nd levels, at which point this will become an issue.
The idea that "you can always walk", while 100% correct, has different implications under different circumstances. If you're at a Con, or game weekly (or more), then perhaps walking is not too big a loss. But if this is your one chance to play PFS this month either due to busy lives or a lack of other games, and you've set aside your Friday evening and driven 15-20 minutes to the store, I think the GM has an obligation to protect players with low level characters from feeling pressured to play up. For me, this means I will probably favor the "play down unless unanimous" approach. In my opinion, walking away from a higher subtier which is too dangerous for your lower level character is more of a loss than playing your higher level character at the lower subtier.
|
|
When the yeti dropped, a couple of us looked at the GM and asked if we could fight the 2nd yeti even though we wouldn't get anything extra for it. Had we not been running behind schedule, he probably would have let us.
Just curious... If the GM had agreed and put that second yeti out for you to fight, what would have happened if one of more of your party were killed by it?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Point of Clarification:
I could have sworn I read that if you have a character legal for play in a scenario, you cannot use a pregen. Am I correct in remembering this?
About a year ago, about the time the rules for pre-generated characters changed, there were a couple of discussion threads here that advocated that position, Sammy, so you haven't gone nuts.
But that was never an implemented rule. There are all sorts of reasons why you might not want to play a given scenario on a given day with a given in-tier PC. (Here's a quick example: you're at a convention, and you just played the morning slot, earning XP and a new level. Yay! But now you're playing in an afternoon slot, and you would like to consult a couple of sourcebooks before building the new level.) (Or, the only PC you have in a tier is redundant or inappropriate.)
|
|
When the yeti dropped, a couple of us looked at the GM and asked if we could fight the 2nd yeti even though we wouldn't get anything extra for it. Had we not been running behind schedule, he probably would have let us.Just curious... If the GM had agreed and put that second yeti out for you to fight, what would have happened if one of more of your party were killed by it?
As far as I'm concerned, the PFS scenario ended when the main bad guy was killed. Any additional fight after that is just the group playing around with non-PFS play for the fun of it. No consumables used, no risk of death, no additional reward.
And yes, I've actually done it. Once was unintentionally - the GM made us fight the higher tier battle by mistake, then realized afterward and let us have some of our consumables back under the assumption that we wouldn't have used that many cure potions/wand charges if we'd been doing the right fight. Luckily, we actually did win with no deaths, even before we realized the mistake.
As for the original discussion, people keep talking about someone walking away from the table as if that's a good option. Even if letting a player leave disappointed was considered a good thing, there are times when there are worse consequences than not getting a chance to play at that table.
What if that player was counting on the XP from that adventure to level up their PC to qualify for the next adventure they're scheduled to play? What if walking away from the table means spending the next 6 hours twiddling your thumbs waiting for your next session with nothing else to do? That last one's not a hypothetical question - it happened to me a couple of months ago. As if I don't have enough to bring to conventions, now I apparently need to always bring something to read on the side in case I get screwed out of playing, too.
|
|
Sorry, I don't think so. I'll pick choice C or D.
I agree those are the choices I would personally make, but you're missing the point. In your example, the players are making a choice or a concession with each other, the GM is not forcing them to play down. That's the key word: CHOICE. A+B are still valid choices.
Also, in season 4 you never play up with 4 characters. The scenarios aren't properly scaled for 4 players in my experience. (Maybe they are now, but not in the first 6 scenarios). With only 4 players, you're already "playing up". And yes I would consider walking from an underpowered table in season 4 with only 4 players. A lot of time, it is suicide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that it's really dangerous to have a predefined method to determine how you figure out what the subtier is. I know, by saying up front that it needs to be unanimous to play up or majority rules or whatever it sounds more fair, but if you're worried about players bullying each other into playing up or down, defining the rules is only going to hurt, not help. You're just defining what kind of bullying is allowed at your table. And every table is different. As seen in this thread, some problems come from playing down when you should've played up, playing up when you should've played down, and shenanigans with subtiers from 1-7. There isn't a fair rule to cover all these situations. As a GM, you need to look at the players you currently have and see what would be most fair. This doesn't mean there shouldn't be player input, there absolutely should. But as a GM, you need to interpret that input into what you think would be most fun. And if it means you piss off a player, oh well. Can't please everyone.
EDIT: Also nosig, two more reasons why a player might want to play a specific character:
- He's trying to get that character to a certain tier so that he can play that tier of scenarios (say he has one scheduled later in the con)
- It's part of a series of scenarios and he wants to finish the series on all of one character (series by name or by thematic link)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sorry, I don't think so. I'll pick choice C or D.
I agree those are the choices I would personally make, but you're missing the point. In your example, the players are making a choice or a concession with each other, the GM is not forcing them to play down. That's the key word: CHOICE. A+B are still valid choices.
Also, in season 4 you never play up with 4 characters. The scenarios aren't properly scaled for 4 players in my experience. (Maybe they are now, but not in the first 6 scenarios). With only 4 players, you're already "playing up". And yes I would consider walking from an underpowered table in season 4 with only 4 players. A lot of time, it is suicide.
4 players is intense but doable (not playing up) at season 4 in my experience.
5 players is suicide.
|
|
Your example is years old. Have you changed anything? If it happened again, what choices do you have? Do you have another PC waiting in the wings?
Nosig, I acted as VC for Minneapolis/St. Paul for nearly two years, so yes, I have plenty of alternate characters now. At the time that story happened though, it seriously turned me off to the way that PFS could permit bullying, and I swore I wouldn't allow it at my tables. As a player, I'm actually one of the most flexible when it comes to offering up a character (having 4-stars worth of GM credits and a pretty hefty set of played scenarios).
I personally have major problems about pregens. Players hate them when they show up at tables, and they do not support the idea of PFS and having your own character. My personal feeling is that players should not be using them unless 1) they are new players and show up to a game without a character, or 2) they WANT to play one because they show up, have no characters in-range and really want to play that particular scenario at that particular time. Any option that involves pregens usually gets the stink-face from me.
|
|
I have never, in oer 150 games had anyone get up and walk away from my table because of playing up or down. I think they realize when it's explained up front that everyone (cept pregens and I explained that in my original post) gets a vote, no one is to be coerced, and it's unanimous .. people accept it when you give them guidelines.
|
|
I have never, in oer 150 games had anyone get up and walk away from my table because of playing up or down. I think they realize when it's explained up front that everyone (cept pregens and I explained that in my original post) gets a vote, no one is to be coerced, and it's unanimous .. people accept it when you give them guidelines.How do you combine "everyone gets a vote, no one is to be coerced, and it's unanimous"?
Unanimous consensus is great, but what do you do when it isn't achieved?
I believe you require consensus to play up, so any one player can force the rest of the table to play down, right?
I get that it won't often come up. Most people are reasonable and would rather play then walk away. And most people won't stand alone if they find the rest of the group is opposed. So things usually work out.
It's simple .. the players talk it out ... they will ask me questions and I answer to the best of my ability w/out giving away spoilers. I've never had it take more than 5 minutes for the players to come to an agreement. Generally players can act like adults, and reason things out for themselves -- I think it's a matter of acting that way yourself (as the GM) and going in expecting them to be that way.
I've always run with the attitude that if I expect it to be a bad table -- it will be.. If I go in with an open mind and open attitude, I'm able to work back the incidentals and it is a great table.
Same thing with adult vs. childlike... if I go in expecting someone to be all complainy and whiney, inevitably there is a whiney jerk on the table.. if I go in expecting a table of awesome gamers, there is rarely a jerk.
|
|
Nosing, this happened three years ago. Since the scenario was 1-7 it was permitted.
Are you sure three years ago, maybe a little longer? The rule you can only play up 1 Sub-Tier, which means the level 2 could only play in tiers 1-2 & 3-4 in a tier 1-7 scenario started August 1st 2009, so little over 3 years ago.
So could be within that time frame... Not that I am checking if a Prior VC was following the rules correctly.. ;)
|
|
As a GM, I don't allow bullying at the table.
If someone doesn't want to play up, the table doesn't play up, and the guys trying to bully have the option to walk if they don't like it.
If you have two sides who want different things, it's not bullying. Bullying is making the choice for them.
First option should always be to find some compromise that makes everyone happy. Not forcing X or Y. If there's no solution (which is rare), someone is going to be unhappy, would you prefer 1 player being unhappy or 3+ players?
I had that situation come up last weekend, level 4 barbarian in a 1-2 tier mission.
I was playing "nice" and it still ended up that way. Part of the problem was that it was season 0 and most of the team was playing casters and I had a martial.
You would have thought it would be ok to play down with a 3rd level PC into subtier 1-2 without gimping yourself. I started to use gauntlets only (which is silly) but I actually hated the experience. After that I vowed to either play up or play another PC. Only play down a subtier if several other factors fall into place.
The only reason we didn't die in...
You carried the table. And that's exactly what you would expect the high level PC to do, otherwise you don't play up.
In your situation your table should have played down because you didn't have enough PCs in the level 5+ range. So yes, bad table choices.
This whole experience was horrible for the level 2, who couldn't hit anything, couldn't contribute
Level 2 monks can't even hit things at the correct subtier. :)
On that note, that table was illegal. To the best of my knowledge, level 2 PCs have never been able to play @ subtier 6-7. The table either needed to play at subtier 3-4 or the level 2 needed to play a pregen at subtier 6-7 (or find another table).
In any case, that example is irrelevant since it's not even possible now.
For all the people that say the reason they want to play up has more to do with challenge than the extra gold, I bet if PFS offered a hard mode with no extra rewards, that very very few people who say they want a challenge would actually choose to play hard mode.
Or maybe not play at all. If your only choices are to play a scenario where your dice and choices are irrelevant (you just crush everything), or to play something so difficult with no compensation, how about play nothing? Playing up, you can (and will eventually) die, you need the extra gold. Also, you need to pay for consumables.
4 players is intense but doable (not playing up) at season 4 in my experience.
5 players is suicide.
I find the opposite, the extra players help a lot more than the weak scaling. I've read some of the scenarios after the game and it's definitely true. Obviously having the 6th player is much better though.
Four players in season 4 is risky. The PC/player mix/competency matters a lot. And playing up is not really an option, unless all the builds are uber.
It is, in my opinion, rude for a player with a higher level character to demand that the lower level character play up, when that lower level character may not have the resources to come back from death.
Maybe that's where we differ. Every table I've ever been at, if we played up and someone died, we all pitched in and paid for their rez. It's the only fair thing to do. Maybe your tables are different. Maybe that's why they have problems playing up, the players aren't team orientated.
Something I don't get people saying is if I don't want to play up (or down) I have the option of walking. Am I going to be reimbursed for that? I mean, I paid for the scenario.
Keep in mind I only play PFS stuff at Gen Con, not at my FLGS, or with my normal group of players in a home game.
At Gencon, you can "walk" by making the GM/organizers aware of the situation. They will help to find you another table and/or shuffle players (perhaps finding someone who doesn't mind playing up). Lots of options without losing your ticket. You don't have to sit there being miserable though, either way.
I think CatBunnyGnome is right, most players and GMs are reasonable (or at least everyone I've met). However, the (theoretical) idea that you could have 5 PCs in the correct subtier and 1 PC in a lower subtier and have the GM force everyone to play down really bothers me. Maybe that's an extreme circumstance that just doesn't happen because common sense prevails. Hopefully that's the case and I'll leave it at that.
|
|
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.
I could be mistaken, but I don't see that the group had a choice of whether to play up or down.
Is this the quote you're thinking of (somewhat out of date):
If, however, the APL was calculated for six players (thus having added +1) and this pushes a low-level table out of their subtier and into the level between two subtiers, the players should be strongly cautioned about playing up, as even a party of six players may not be able to handle situations and challenges that the higher subtier will present.
That's if a group of L.2's is pushed up to L.3. One level 2 with a 4.43 average... that's not choice-zone. Or am I wrong?
|
|
I am happy to play any game. I am the guy in the group that always says to play up. I will happily play down if the rest of the group decides that. I try and nudge people in that direction, but I am happy I am not required to DM.
I have yet to see someone get upset about playing up or down. I know some people are deathly scared fo playing up, and I accept that is thier opinion. But I still try to nundge that opinion to risk it.
|
|
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.I could be mistaken, but I don't see that the group had a choice of whether to play up or down.
Is this the quote you're thinking of (somewhat out of date):
If, however, the APL was calculated for six players (thus having added +1) and this pushes a low-level table out of their subtier and into the level between two subtiers, the players should be strongly cautioned about playing up, as even a party of six players may not be able to handle situations and challenges that the higher subtier will present.That's if a group of L.2's is pushed up to L.3. One level 2 with a 4.43 average... that's not choice-zone. Or am I wrong?
I'll look for it later, but by then someone else may have posted it--there's definitely a different clause in there that says you can choose to play down if the only thing forcing your tier is the +1 from 6 players. Believe me, in this particular case I wish there hadn't been, but there is (if not, then a 2,2,2,3,3,3 party could be forced to play 4-5 in early season scenarios).
|
|
Four players in season 4 is risky.
Fortunately, in season 4 the encounters get modified for four players. Unfortunately, some scenarios are still a cakewalk for four players in season 4. The Sanos Abduction comes to mind.
Overall, I really enjoy the difficulty level in season 4. I might be in the minority, though :)
|
|
The sanos abduction can be rough. I had the players scrambling. Also consider one crit in the last fight can do well over 40 damage.
Oh, I meant low-tier with four players. Check the encounters ;) That, and the fact how they're timed. I'm tempted to give it two stars just for that, even though there are redeeming qualities in the scenario.
|
|
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 usually want my PCs to play in a tier with appropriate challenges. For the most part, that means playing at level or playing down. However, I have made at least two PCs who were well ahead of what I took to be the normal power curve. I want to play at-level or up with them.
I also have one character with whom I will not play down as the build requires an inordinate financial investment in keeping her near the normal power curve.
But, for the most part, I want to play at level. I want to feel challenged (remembering that there is a difference between challenging a PC and frustrating the player, all scenario writers who think it is a great idea for all baddies from 6-7 up to have True Seeing...while taking my complaint with a grain of salt since not all scenario writers are doing this as of yet) and playing down with some of my PCs eliminates that. I don't like playing up unless I am convinced in my PC's abilities. And like I've written, that is about two of the nine I have for PFS.
|
|
And I practice what I preach. I have PCs levels (1,2,4,6,6) that I can play at Tier 1-7. And I can always just run a generic (I've looked at them and know HOW to run them - I've put a little time into that, rather than just saying how bad they are). Why? So I don't get in that situation again.
(I could be wrong, but I thought that a player could never play 2 sub-tiers up. Even in season 2. I know we did it, but then we have made many mistakes in the past. I'm sure we will in the future too. I do know that CURRENTLY we are not allowed to play up or down more than one sub-tier, even if the scenario supports it.)
I can testify that Nosig is always ready with multiple characters.
Sometimed the hardest part is his deciding which to play. :)|
|
The GM should be the final arbiter of the decision. For a season zero scenario, I would side with the majority. For dalsine affair, I'd side with the single player.
And I humbly disagree. As the GM, I'm not the one who will either have to experience a cake-walk or a dead PC. I will make every effort to provide a fun, challenging experience, but I cannot possibly be expected to make the "right" decision for the players. There are too many variables: player experience, player skill, player game/tactical intelligence, player focus (hard-core vs. casual), party mix, optimized vs. non-optimized, expendables vs. single, big-ticket items, core material vs. full Paizo library, sleep (or lack thereof), moodiness due to issues with work, family, etc. The list goes on and on. I have seen tables cake-walk what I expected to be a "hard-mode" session and other tables that tpk'd on an "easy" encounter that was at or below their CR.
I abstain from giving advice outside of the mechanical parts of APL determination. I remind them of where they are in the scale, if players, have multiple PCs, I calculate how that will affect their APL, and if the number of players has an impact (season 0-3 with the +1 or not, and season 4 with the change at 4 players vs. 5+).
Outside of brand-new players, I do not change how I GM, so I don't soft-ball or dial it up to "hard" mode. I strive for an equal challenge for all players/tables and the choice (if there is one) for what sub-tier to play is completely on the players.
That being said, I closely watch for bullying. If the table cannot come to their own decision, and I am "forced" to decide for them (only happened once btw) I will choose down for the survivability of the lower-level players. I think that no matter what you do, someone will get bullied. The minority will have to make a choice and regardless what, it will be less desirable than the one they intended to make, whether that be a different character, pregen, walk away, etc.
The important thing to take from this, IMO, is that in the VAST majority of the cases, the table comes to a decision that all players are okay with. It is a rare occasion where a player is bullied into a decision they are truly not happy with. I think the RAW for APL/sub-tiers works just fine in 99.9% of the cases. I just don't see the need to change it for the sake of the 0.1% of players that seem incapable of accepting how the system works and actively fight against it.
|
|
I'm with Mr. Jonquet on this one. The players really need to hammer this out on their own. In most cases, I find this choice to be pretty easy, once season and party composition are factored in. A good rule of thumb is that martial builds that are level 3 play tier 4-5 better than their caster counterparts.