| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather playing down should not be punished. I find that punishing players is bad mojo, and there's no reason to play up and risk yourself if you don't get anything extra. It gives lower level players an arguably good excuse to drag players down.
I haven't actually seen any of the information about season 5 yet myself though(beyond the current threads), so I don't know what the current plan is.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Premise: As a store liaison, I've coordinated a good number of games. I've seen mostly playing on-tier but also a good amount of playing up. The current proposal would be quite harmful in mustering tables because I believe this is going to cause all but the most major thrillseekers to absolutely refuse to play up, even if they're the odd one out and the table will be high tier with or without them (like a level 5 sitting at a table with all level 9s). I expect we'll have people just have to walk out, and it will make it more difficult on liaisons to muster tables
Why?: Basically the extra wealth is a cushion for deaths and loss of consumables, which definitely do happen. The same reason, in part, that we rarely see slow progression.
But the idea of curbing the super-wealth characters is a good one.
Alternate Ideas:
1) Only after paying for raises and replaced consumables do you get capped at the lower tier when playing up. So for instance, let's say you are a level 3 playing in a 6-7 and you get 3000 instead of 1000 gold. You can start with 3000, pay for a raise or replaced consumables first, and then you are reduced to 1000 or however much is left, whatever is lower.
2) Wealth by level cap based on the chart in the CRB--this will stop playing up from getting you too high without penalizing people who die or lose lots of consumables from playing up when necessary (since sometimes it's the high tier, a pregen, or the highway).
More ideas as I think of them.
|
|
I like the proposed change since WBL can have a major impact on character capabilities and can greatly affect the challenge of each tier. It permits scenario designers to make more solid predictions of the capabilities that characters are likely to have at hand.
What about the other suggestions I gave in terms of fulfilling that goal without creating the problems some of us are worried about? Any good pointers to refine them?
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The proposed system will put a strain on event organizers in terms of mustering to balance tables.
Suppose the following NOT hypothetical example from a recent convention (Patrick, you know what I'm talking about). There is a table going off at Tier 3-7. One GM and six players are present. Two players are level 6, two players are level 7, and two players are level 3. This creates an APL 5 table.
With the new system, one of the following would occur:
1) The two level 3 players would have to play up, and experience an enormous amount of risk and greater consumable expenditure with no reward.
2) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play down, and be punished in terms of wealth earned.
3) The two level 3 players would have to play pregens, and not get to play their characters.
4) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play different characters (which was not an option for several players at the table), and would not get to play the character they wanted.
At least previously, the level 3s would be rewarded for surviving a much greater challenge (even if they needed some help). This new rule punishes players for an unavoidable circumstance: new and old players without a lot of available characters playing together.
As such, I am against this new system. In fact, I am personally against capping WBL in general. I would be interested in seeing how many players have actually managed gaming the system and getting to always play up (did they find a group that will always tolerate having a lower-level character along?).
Why not instead simply find a way to disincentivize seating players of mixed levels together that does not involve punishing someone? Perhaps loosen the pregen rules in some way? Or allow playing an "older" version of a character and getting to obtain the high-tier wealth if you're forced to play down?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The proposed system will put a strain on event organizers in terms of mustering to balance tables.
Suppose the following NOT hypothetical example from a recent convention (Patrick, you know what I'm talking about). There is a table going off at Tier 3-7. One GM and six players are present. Two players are level 6, two players are level 7, and two players are level 3. This creates an APL 5 table.
With the new system, one of the following would occur:
1) The two level 3 players would have to play up, and experience an enormous amount of risk and greater consumable expenditure with no reward.
2) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play down, and be punished in terms of wealth earned.
3) The two level 3 players would have to play pregens, and not get to play their characters.
4) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play different characters (which was not an option for several players at the table), and would not get to play the character they wanted.At least previously, the level 3s would be rewarded for surviving a much greater challenge (even if they needed some help). This new rule punishes players for an unavoidable circumstance: new and old players without a lot of available characters playing together.
As such, I am against this new system. In fact, I am personally against capping WBL in general. I would be interested in seeing how many players have actually managed gaming the system and getting to always play up (did they find a group that will always tolerate having a lower-level character along?).
Why not instead simply find a way to disincentivize seating players of mixed levels together that does not involve punishing someone? Perhaps loosen the pregen rules in some way? Or allow playing an "older" version of a character and getting to obtain the high-tier wealth if you're forced to play down?
This is a great example. And if one of those level 3s was a level 4 instead, then you don't even have all those options even. You can't play 3-4.
|
|
I like the idea of gambling.
I feel every fight your character gets into is a gamble. When you roll the dice to survive that is a gamble.
I think the pressure to play up is silly. I believe players and DMs at the table are great deciders of what to play. Because a few people have a few stories about playing up being a head ache they make a rule change that creates other problems is not a solution.
Now people will nt want to play together as much. Higher tiered people would not want to play with lower teired people.
They may force people to still play up to keep their money at the risk to the lower people. I do not see it solving the problem really.
|
So we need either of two options.
Playing up gives you greater rewards.
Playing down does not give you lesser rewards.
Seriously, barring either of this happening, I do not see how your gonna get a balanced wealth system while not causing even more of a fubar at getting tables together. Not even just at cons. I can seriously see this being an issue locally.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the desire to limit wealth disparity, but I agree that removing the incentive to play up is a bit heavy handed in my opinion. It seems that it will force more tables to play down or not at all.
I also do not think this will be a "fringe case" as Mark referred to it. When playing at a store, the decision to play up or down happens fairly often. I was faced with the decision 4 days ago. The fact that there was a gold incentive to play up led me playing along and completing a table. I was on the fence, but if there was no extra gold at the end of the rainbow, I would have without a doubt dipped out and the table wouldn't have happened.
I think I saw someone earlier suggest an out of tier gold amount, like getting paid half for playing up. As of right now that would be my suggestion to address the wealth disparity without completely removing all mechanical incentive of playing up.
Another possibility would be something like a luxury tax. A table that would have each level listed and the max gold you could spend at one time without incurring a tax on the item. This tax could mitigate the wealth difference a bit while feeling much more indirect.
|
|
How does receiving extra gold not cover all of those things? :S
It does--but extra PP is less powerful. Remember, the goal of the change is to restrict the power of PCs who play up all the time. Our job is to offer MJM a viable alternative that still achieves that goal while avoiding the negative aspects of the current plan, at least if we can think of one. We're a powerful brain trust, so I have faith in us! Great ideas from everyone so far--I will try to collect them all at some point.
|
|
I do not agree with this as it rewards people not challeneging themselves. But you could say you get your teired level no matter what.
This would stop all the fighting as you get the same gold no matter what tier you play.
Although I know the people in my area that would do this EVERY time. I would nto have respect for their characters.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for playing down you get an automatic 1/2 xp or 1/4 xp while you get the full gold or at least such that when you gain another level, you are on curve with gold and PP?
That could also help even character levels and after some scenarios lower level PC will have catched up without gimping or penalizing the ones who play down too much.
|
|
The cure in this case is far worse than the disease. When higher level characters are forced to play down, it makes the scenario unchallenging and thus boring. To add insult to injury, these same high level characters get penalized gold for doing the low level characters a favor. End result: Boring mod and gold penalty. Due to this, in many cases these higher level characters are just going to walk away. If they don’t they may be quietly seething and wishing they were not there or at least at another table.
At the very least, the higher level charters should get gold commensurate with their level, thus they are not getting double penalized.
From their descriptions of how bad it is to have a high level character play down and solo the scenario (and I agree that this is not a good thing to have happen), I think MJM might prefer the higher level character's player walking away or playing a pregen over the cakewalk--at least in that case it affects fewer players. So in that regard, the current system works as intended vis-a-vis giving playing down characters their subtier of gold. Incidentally that is also why I predicted the current change rather than that other similar change.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for playing down you get an automatic 1/2 xp or 1/4 xp while you get the full gold or at least such that when you gain another level, you are on curve with gold and PP?
That could also help even character levels and after some scenarios lower level PC will have catched up without gimping or penalizing the ones who play down too much.
That's...actually fascinating. And you could give 2 XP for playing up. Hmmmmmmm...wealthwise that could really work. I'll have to mull on it.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we want to keep to the WBL curve but still reward people for playing up, why not give people who play up 1/2 the difference between high and low tier?
The WBL Curve being thrown off by people consistently playing up is a part of the problem. Any steps made have to correct this first. As was explained, if a player consistently plays up, his wealth is increasingly higher than the norm, allowing purchases beyond what is "tier appropriate" for that Tier Range of challenges.
We hear all the time that the scenarios aren't challenging enough. That can be traced back to characters with above average WBL. When you have more than your average of wealth, you can afford solutions others can't... adamantine back-up weapons, cheap wands, etc. The Prestige limits keep a player from purchasing that ONE scenario breaking item, but have no control over the dozens of legal options that do not cross that spending threshold.
And then factor in the intimidation factor of experienced players brow beating new players into playing up with them so they can break the WBL. I've seen this happen and those new players never return. All because some players get greedy... is that the message we want to give?
All in all, the solution on the table might be bitter to swallow, but it was placed there as a medicine for the problem.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The proposed system will put a strain on event organizers in terms of mustering to balance tables.
Suppose the following NOT hypothetical example from a recent convention (Patrick, you know what I'm talking about). There is a table going off at Tier 3-7. One GM and six players are present. Two players are level 6, two players are level 7, and two players are level 3. This creates an APL 5 table.
With the new system, one of the following would occur:
1) The two level 3 players would have to play up, and experience an enormous amount of risk and greater consumable expenditure with no reward.
2) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play down, and be punished in terms of wealth earned.
3) The two level 3 players would have to play pregens, and not get to play their characters.
4) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play different characters (which was not an option for several players at the table), and would not get to play the character they wanted.At least previously, the level 3s would be rewarded for surviving a much greater challenge (even if they needed some help). This new rule punishes players for an unavoidable circumstance: new and old players without a lot of available characters playing together.
As such, I am against this new system. In fact, I am personally against capping WBL in general. I would be interested in seeing how many players have actually managed gaming the system and getting to always play up (did they find a group that will always tolerate having a lower-level character along?).
Why not instead simply find a way to disincentivize seating players of mixed levels together that does not involve punishing someone? Perhaps loosen the pregen rules in some way? Or allow playing an "older" version of a character and getting to obtain the high-tier wealth if you're forced to play down?
This is a scenario that comes up more often then you might think.
I totally agree with Mr. Windseeker.|
|
But it would need more flexibility with the different xp tracks, which would be adapted to the challenge then. That´s actually how the "original" xp in the game work too. Would be a bit more bookkeeping perhaps, but i think it could be done.
-More xp for playing up would need more gold too though, since you level faster then and would fall behind in gold else.
-Special PP that take care of consumables and cures for playing up could even things out without gold.
-Less xp for playing down, but a reward curve that keeps you on your track as you level.
I´m not sure, but extra items from chronicles could be a problem then too because it seems they also scale in power. Perhaps that should be level adequate then if playing down or a reward for playing up. But if playing up you probably lack the gold to buy it and need the chance to buy it later.
|
Premise: As a store liaison, I've coordinated a good number of games. I've seen mostly playing on-tier but also a good amount of playing up. The current proposal would be quite harmful in mustering tables because I believe this is going to cause all but the most major thrillseekers to absolutely refuse to play up, even if they're the odd one out and the table will be high tier with or without them (like a level 5 sitting at a table with all level 9s). I expect we'll have people just have to walk out, and it will make it more difficult on liaisons to muster tables
Why?: Basically the extra wealth is a cushion for deaths and loss of consumables, which definitely do happen. The same reason, in part, that we rarely see slow progression.
But the idea of curbing the super-wealth characters is a good one.
Yes, yes, yes. I'm very skeptical of a hard rule, only the wealth of your subtier, for these reasons. A WBL cap is a very good thing to try for, but surely it can be managed in a way that doesn't put such a difficulty on putting tables together. I regularly play at the store for which RE is the liason, and even in an active PFS group there are up and down adjustments frequently. A hard rule would put too much friction on it.
How to get out of this? Some "escape clause" for death or conditions would be nice, at least. A split-the-difference reward would probably be easier to manage and would keep a (restrained) bonus for playing up.
Which is to say, I don't have any great ideas right now, but I want to follow this discussion as it develops!
|
|
If we want to keep to the WBL curve but still reward people for playing up, why not give people who play up 1/2 the difference between high and low tier?The WBL Curve being thrown off by people consistently playing up is a part of the problem. Any steps made have to correct this first. As was explained, if a player consistently plays up, his wealth is increasingly higher than the norm, allowing purchases beyond what is "tier appropriate" for that Tier Range of challenges.
We hear all the time that the scenarios aren't challenging enough. That can be traced back to characters with above average WBL. When you have more than your average of wealth, you can afford solutions others can't... adamantine back-up weapons, cheap wands, etc. The Prestige limits keep a player from purchasing that ONE scenario breaking item, but have no control over the dozens of legal options that do not cross that spending threshold.
And then factor in the intimidation factor of experienced players brow beating new players into playing up with them so they can break the WBL. I've seen this happen and those new players never return. All because some players get greedy... is that the message we want to give?
All in all, the solution on the table might be bitter to swallow, but it was placed there as a medicine for the problem.
I hope and believe that we can find a solution that can solve this problem without causing as many negative side effects as I perceive the current one will.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've been thinking about this for a while now.
Let me preface by saying that I feel there needs to be motivation for EVERYONE to play up. I will also say that I feel there needs to be some sort of motivation for a higher level player to stay at a lower level table. The only solution I can think of that pleases everyone? A mixed rate.
So, essentially what I'm proposing is a WBL curve to apply, determined by what level you are playing, offset by an incentive to play up. Those characters that are level 1 and 2 that play in the 1-2 subtier will get roughly their WBL gold, and those that are 4 and 5 that play in the 4-5 subiter will get roughly their WBL gold. If a higher level character plays down, they will get their WBL gold with some penalty, and if a lower level character plays up, they will get their WBL gold with some inflation. Let me do some math as an example.
Here, I'll give an example of a PURE WBL CURVE. I do not claim this curve to be completely accurate, but this will be part of my example, using a 1-5 tier scenario:
Normal WBL Curve
1st: 400
2nd: 600
3rd: 750
4th: 1,100
5th: 1,500
So, the above is an example of what a character should get, regardless of what subtier they are playing in. I don't think this is the best way to do it, so see below.
Now that we've established a "regular WBL curve" let's examine the "skewed WBL curve" based on subtier. The scenario in question has a 1-2 subtier and 4-5 subtier. Here is what I would propose each level gets based on subtier. I do not claim for these percentages to be set in stone, this is just an example:
1-2 subtier
1st: 400
2nd: 600
3rd: 675 (-10% from normal WBL)
4th: 880 (-20% from normal WBL)
5th: 1,200 (-20% from normal WBL)
4-5 subtier
1st: 480 (+20% from normal WBL)
2nd: 720 (+20% from normal WBL)
3rd: 825 (+10% from normal WBL)
4th: 1,100
5th: 1,500
This way, there is incentive to play up for lower levels, and higher levels don't get so penalized for playing down.
It's not perfect, however it *greatly* decreases the need to play in a particular subtier for wealth purposes, as well as not really allowing anyone to get more than 20% (percentage pending) than their normal WBL.
The biggest disadvantage of this system? It would be nigh-impossible to retroactively implement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that wealth is restrained by fame needed to purchase items.
I think new idea of wealth hurts honest players.(I know a guy that bought one neckalace of fireballs and used it well over a dozen times.) Those forced to follow the wealth will be hurt and those that feel they need extra will have extra consumables and such at their disposal.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Seems to me that playing up has been a bit deadly in 4th season. I have seen situations where the one max level upped the party to the middle of the tiers, and everyone played up. (Mainly for gold, though one or two do it for the challenge) It ends up a much harder game that gets real hard once the one high level character goes down.
It looks like a long overdue change to me, and of course those playing down are gonna get less gold. Why reward sloth?
|
|
I don´t know how this works in U.S. and your areas where you actually have bigger player and GM bases, but i have the impression that most player bases are kind of similar. Which means there are always a certain amount of people with characters at one level, which is probably the same or a similar level.
Or do you have changing players so often? Or do your players change characters often?
Something like that could really impact the system and possible solutions.
I´m totally lacking data though.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that wealth is restrained by fame needed to purchase items.
Every PC I play (I'm on my 9th slot now), after about 3rd-4th level I never touch the Fame cap. For any given price, there's about 3-6 items I want to buy. I might have to wait on Fame for the first one, but as soon as I can afford X, suddenly I'm getting a stat belt for 4k, then a stat headband for another 4k, then upgrading my armor from +1 to +2 for 3k, then doing the same with my shield for another 3k, then the same with my cloak of resistance for another 3k... By the time I finish the list and move on to pricier things, I've accumulated so much Fame in the interim that I never have to look at it again.
If Fame is honestly restricting your wealth, then you're part of the "playing up too much" problem that we're trying to solve.
I don´t know how this works in U.S. and your areas where you actually have bigger player and GM bases, but i have the impression that most player bases are kind of similar. Which means there are always a certain amount of people with characters at one level, which is probably the same or a similar level.
Or do you have changing players so often? Or do your players change characters often?
Something like that could really impact the system and possible solutions.
I´m totally lacking data though.
I am from a college town and about every 8 weeks the groups changed, and every semester there would be a radical change in the groups as a whole. It meant I essentially had to retire my first character early to keep playing with people until they caught up and then I had another character I was with. I've been informed they changed the way they sign up and now many groups have been playing down lately because they no longer favor a tier.
That's how it worked back when I played at a store anyway.
|
|
If we want to keep to the WBL curve but still reward people for playing up, why not give people who play up 1/2 the difference between high and low tier?
This is a good idea. A little extra, not a lot extra.
The other option is to leave it "as is". With wealth by level, playing up is insane now (unless between subtier), players just won't do it (unless they are martyrs). Playing down is unchanged, not sure why people are complaining.
Wealth by level will strongly affect small venues of unorganized tables. Players will just show up, players won't want to play up, and people will go home unhappy. Friends won't be able to play together as easily. I hope Paizo plans on making a lot more subtier 1-5 scenarios, we're going to need them!
It will also affect even larger conventions somewhat, tables will be harder to muster and there will be a musical chairs effect. Players that were willing to play up before (to fill a 6th table spot) won't do it, and 7 player tables will be more common, as no one wants to budge.
It will have only a minor effect on extremely organized small venues (other than people just don't sign up or participate).
It will not affect home games, where everyone is more or less the same level.
There will be more 3 player and 7 player tables as a result of this. I guess we'll see whether scenarios are scaled to 4 players now more than ever.
|
|
I believe that some kind of wealth by level cap is appropriate. Many players in this community are very good character builders, and can routinely play up for much greater money with little more threat.
Perhaps something that might be considered for those who play up is an additional prestige point for than extra gold? This will largely maintain WBL balance between equal level PCs, while giving those who take risks a slight advantage/reward.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK Hayato Ken--are you ready for why you are a (maybe unintentional) GENIUS? My girlfriend (And co-liaison) just came up with this, and it makes me lobby heavily for your idea--
So take the version of Hayato Ken's proposal where you get 2 XP every time you play up, and the high tier gold. First off, this stops you from getting too much gold for your level. But second, think about why you're playing up all the time in the first place. So why? Probably because you joined your group a bit late and you're perennially one or two levels behind everybody else. With Hayato Ken's idea, you catch up. And then you never have to play up again. All while keeping WBL and not causing a serious problem with consumable cost and raise dead. This is brilliant.
That's...actually fascinating. And you could give 2 XP for playing up. Hmmmmmmm...wealthwise that could really work. I'll have to mull on it.Maybe for playing down you get an automatic 1/2 xp or 1/4 xp while you get the full gold or at least such that when you gain another level, you are on curve with gold and PP?
That could also help even character levels and after some scenarios lower level PC will have catched up without gimping or penalizing the ones who play down too much.
I actually kind of like the idea of giving double xp, so long as it still adds up to a good wealth. Would let you play more characters through more scenarios, while giving less would force you to play the same character for longer and make xp more complicated I think.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that wealth is restrained by fame needed to purchase items.Every PC I play (I'm on my 9th slot now), after about 3rd-4th level I never touch the Fame cap. For any given price, there's about 3-6 items I want to buy. I might have to wait on Fame for the first one, but as soon as I can afford X, suddenly I'm getting a stat belt for 4k, then a stat headband for another 4k, then upgrading my armor from +1 to +2 for 3k, then doing the same with my shield for another 3k, then the same with my cloak of resistance for another 3k... By the time I finish the list and move on to pricier things, I've accumulated so much Fame in the interim that I never have to look at it again.
If Fame is honestly restricting your wealth, then you're part of the "playing up too much" problem that we're trying to solve.
No, I buy few magical items for my characters.
My level 8 gnome has purchased with money the following
Headband of alluring charisma
Sky rocket
philter of love.
Rod of persistence.
I save up tons of money by not using money to buy consumables. So your assumption is wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we want to keep to the WBL curve but still reward people for playing up,
Are those both actual goals?
It was stated by Mike/Mark/John that they want to protect WBL, but do we actually have a goal of rewarding people for playing up? I was under the impression that what we want to encourage is to play in-tier as much as possible, and that the fact that there's even a legal option to play out of tier (in either direction) is a concession to organizational needs but is still a deviation from the intended experience.
Some folks in this thread make it sound like playing up is something that's supposed to be an option from the get-go, and anything that would make it less desirable than playing in-tier is somehow bad. But that's not the impression I get from what I see/hear from the Guide or Mike or anywhere else.
|
|
Well, thanks Rogue Eidolon.
I´m not totally sure about it. But besides being greedy that´s the only reason i can see there for playing up or down.
Even in a setting like MrSin decribed, things could be evened out faster then and people can have more fun together and with their characters.
Perhaps gold would still need to be adjusted in one or the other way so you actually stick to the expected curve.
@Jiggy: People playing up should not be rewarded, but compensated if necessary. Which leads to the reason why they play up. Playing up because of greed shall be made unattractive or impossible to protect WBL and game balance, which is fair. Playing up because you have no other oportunity should not be punished though.
|
|
If we want to keep to the WBL curve but still reward people for playing up,Are those both actual goals?
It was stated by Mike/Mark/John that they want to protect WBL, but do we actually have a goal of rewarding people for playing up? I was under the impression that what we want to encourage is to play in-tier as much as possible, and that the fact that there's even a legal option to play out of tier (in either direction) is a concession to organizational needs but is still a deviation from the intended experience.
Some folks in this thread make it sound like playing up is something that's supposed to be an option from the get-go, and anything that would make it less desirable than playing in-tier is somehow bad. But that's not the impression I get from what I see/hear from the Guide or Mike or anywhere else.
I think Patrick means by reward "do something to ameliorate the greater risk and give players of low level characters who aren't thrill-seekers a reason to agree to play up instead of walk away and break the table" rather than "make playing up the strong option compared to playing on-tier"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, thanks Rogue Eidolon.
I´m not totally sure about it. But besides being greedy that´s the only reason i can see there for playing up or down.Even in a setting like MrSin decribed, things could be evened out faster then and people can have more fun together and with their characters.
Perhaps gold would still need to be adjusted in one or the other way so you actually stick to the expected curve.
But that's the beauty of it--in most tiers, the low tier gets about half the high tier gold. So your gold per experience point stays constant. It's elegant, powerful, and without (as far as I can tell) any serious drawbacks. And it's all based in the math that the original game works on anyway (pairing XP and gold rewards).
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure this was a good idea.
I personally havent seen many players game the system to this extent where the WBL rule is totally broken that they imbalance the game or lead it to power creep.
I mean who are we kidding? Power creep is the result of all the new books that keep coming out that give the players the ability to come up with some powerful builds, so lets not blame it on playing up or that scenarios are not challenging - Author's can't possibly design an encounter that is challenging for everyone all the time.
I think this going to make it harder to get tables in areas where the player base is smaller. At least before there was the incentive that if something did happen to the character, he would have the gold to fix the issue (getting killed).
Instead of 6 player tables I can see it moving to 3 players and a pregen so that everyone can stay in tier and not take a loss or a risk without reward. I think the higher level folks will balk at always having to play down for a gold loss throwing their WBL off.
I mean there is no win-win solution to this. We've got to find a happy medium and honestly I thought we already had it.