Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread


Pathfinder Society

451 to 500 of 945 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diomond wrote:
IMO you should not be allowed to play outside of your tier. If you get to a game where you do not have a character of the right level play a per gen or open up the characters form the npc codex for use.

I do not drive 2 hours to a con or 1 hour to game night to play a bland, unoptimized, and uninteresting character that I haven't made the backstory, mechanics, OR personality to.

Silver Crusade 1/5

BMW why don't you get your local group to use war horn to sign up for games? We use war horn in my area to sign up for game nights and cons. It works well for us.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

Lou Diamond wrote:

Stuff about gold and how little we get.

IMO you should not be allowed to play outside of your tier. If you get to a game where you do not have a character of the right level play a per gen or open up the characters form the npc codex for use. I really like the idea for season 5 of having a strict gp reward based on ones tier. I just want the gp reward increased. I also would like better items placed on chronicle sheets us rom items that are not normally avaible and also racial boons for various races.

I agree with you about the gold reward in that it does seem to be to little for a fighter. I believe that the current marks are an average for all classes combined.

Raising the overall gold rewarded isn't really going to change that it will be a limited pool of wealth. It is something that isn't really a concern as typically, one can pick and choose what to get vs. what they wait later for.

Playing out of tier isn't gonna stop, though, and the rewards are gonna change no matter what we suggest.

I am hoping that the regular NPC block will have the legal pre-gens from the NPC Codex added to it at some point, in the PDF. (Please, with a cherry on top)

I also agree with the better items on chronicles. Perhaps have more items like the Black Dragonhide breastplate my cleric wears. From what I understand, unique items are gonna start appearing on chronicles, like those from Thornkeep.

As an aside, Grog really likes his Goblet of Quenching.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Lou Diamond wrote:
BMW why don't you get your local group to use war horn to sign up for games? We use war horn in my area to sign up for game nights and cons. It works well for us.

What the warhorn page says will be there and what shows up at the table are often 2 vastly different things.

For me its not so much A local group (but that may be changing soon) as a hodgepodge of cons, online games and the occasional semi local group. Sometimes i don't even know i can make a con till a few hours before I leave. Not being able to play outside of subtier would have eliminated a good third of my games above first level i think.

Silver Crusade 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Don Walker wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Why are we playing with wealth when the problem is player bullying? The proposed system still results in bullying behavior.

Let's actually deal with the problem, and give GMs more leeway on how they handle abusive players.

No matter how hard we try, or how well we regulate, power gamers will power game. Trying to stop that from happening, well, the cure is worse than the disease.

I think player bullying should be discussed as a separate issue. We shouldn't try to correct player behavior by adjusting the reward system in PFS.

The problem is, by slashing the reward structure, we *are* treating it as the same issue. I think we need to step back and see if there is a better way to handle players who always play up, and if the community as a whole sees it as a problem.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Netopalis wrote:
The thing is, though, that this rule isn't about a typical table. If it were only about typical tables, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the typical table is sort of a rare thing.

Rules are supposed to govern the typical. That's what rules are for. That's why when it was discovered that the typical table was 6 players instead of 4, the rules got changed to match: the rules are supposed to be about providing the best experience to as many people as possible.

A rule that makes sure everything is okay for a few game days of certain sizes in certain circumstances, but does so at the cost of seriously harming the campaign for the other half-million people around the world, is a bad rule. That's where we're at with the current system: being able to play 3 levels out of the subtier helps certain fledgling game days make muster, but is undermining the campaign on a huge scale. That's why they're changing it in the first place.

A rule that keeps the campaign healthy for half a million people around the world, but causes difficulties for games days in specific unfortunate circumstances, is still imperfect but is far better. And although it's going to be unfortunate for some (perhaps including you), it's what we've got to prioritize.

Unfortunately, you're right: the typical table is sort of a rare thing. Which is something that needs to be fixed itself, rather than making sure the rules allow for exceptions to be the norm and the norm to be an exception.

Playing out of tier is not supposed to happen. It's allowed to happen, because scheduling is downright impossible if the whole table has to be exactly the same level, but significant variance (such as playing out of tier) is not supposed to be a good option. It's supposed to be a last resort that you can pull out if you really need to, but it's supposed to be something that everyone is working to avoid.

The system is not working as intended until people are looking for ways to avoid playing out of tier and only doing it if they really have to.

Let me say that again:

The system is not working as intended until people are looking for ways to avoid playing out of tier and only doing it if they really have to.

If playing out of tier is the go-to fix instead of the last resort when attendees' PCs span multiple levels, then the system is still broken.

Scarab Sages 4/5

The issue is not just player bullying. The first issue mentioned by MMJ was characters being overpowered because of too much wealth and the problems that is causing with power level creep. I'll grant them this, the Podcast solution does help that by lowering the overall wealth in PFS.

What it doesn't do, really, is anything for the bullying, which, arguably, could get even worse as players with characters in the lower tier will want to play up less. I think maybe it will help with one pocket case of that, which is when no one or a minority of players are in tier for the higher tier, and some of the lower tier player would have in the past wanted to play up. Now they won't get anything by doing that, so there's no incentive for those lower tier players to pressure anyone to play up. That's, at least, my understanding of the theory.

So what people have been trying to do here is come up with another system where players still have some extra reward for playing up, to cover the extra cost of playing up, but not so much that it skews their overall wealth, and, at the same time, lessen the bullying/pressuring that has been happening.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
BMW why don't you get your local group to use war horn to sign up for games? We use war horn in my area to sign up for game nights and cons. It works well for us.

This has been better expressed by others upthread, but the sentiment in the background here just seems misguided.

The problem of mixed tables or mismatch can't be solved purely through better planning. Life happens, as the cliche has it. We don't need a purely rigid system that tells coordinators and prospective players, do it this way or you can't play. We need a system that sets reasonable, broad boundaries that preserve organized play** while allowing coordinators and players the flexibility to adapt on-the-fly to unexpected situations and make the game fun and rewarding for everyone.

[** Hence, the need to fix screwed up WBL.]

I take this to be best satisfied when players can, for the most part, play the characters they brought with them to the adventure appropriate to their tier without suffering some penalty (e.g. the hard WBL penalty that the podcast proposal would impose on anyone playing down).

And as pointed out upthread:

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Actually a really good point has come up a few times during the last 50-odd posts:

If Season 5 is going to encourage people to want to play characters of specific factions in specific scenarios, then Season 5 is a bad time to start making it difficult for people at different subtiers to play together. "Shut up and play a pregen" is a valid argument in the current system, but not when scenarios are targeted to specific characters.

1/5

thaX wrote:

I really caution against rewarding extra EXP. Character level up quickly enough, and even slow progression is not slow enough for some. (Though I think slugging through six scenarios for three scenarios' worth of reward is insane)

Players can enjoy the game with the exp track that is in place now. I believe the only question here is how to change the wealth distribution to discourage playing up for upper tier gold.

I had thought that 4th season had already eliminated the +1 APL, that it is only used for season 3 or lower. Wasn't that pointed out earlier?

I still like my Halvies plan. It is really minor math.

It may even look at inbetweeners as playing up or down no matter what. (level three in a 1-2 or 4-5 tier)

I am aware that +1 APL was removed in season 4. Not every table plays only season 4 scenarios though. The fact that some people can use this rule in order to qualify for higher tier makes it relevant when you look at what contributes to the wealth disparity. If less people are eligible to play up, then it won't happen as much, therefore it should be looked at as a valid option.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston

Majuba wrote:

Add Out-of-Tier category for:

  • Low playing High
  • Mid playing Either
  • High playing Low…
  • I like this idea.

    One of the other ways to get past this is to get rid of the 1xp/scenario and 3xp/level mechanic and go back to the one in the CRB. Want to play up? Fine. You hit the level and WBL bumps at the same time instead of level progression being divorced from the wealth progression (such a change would be a logistical nightmare, I know).

    Owner - Pikes Comics

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Rogue Eidolon you stated exactly what I was thinking with the proposed system.

    The problem will get worse. I know we dont allow bullying but what if then the 4 Level 6s decide they will sit this round of the con out so not to punish/negatively effect there character. Now you are left with your level 3...all by himself.

    Now I know some of you might think this is extreme but I can tell you I have seen it happen at a con and will become more prevalent.

    3/5

    9 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jiggy wrote:

    A rule that makes sure everything is okay for a few game days of certain sizes in certain circumstances, but does so at the cost of seriously harming the campaign for the other half-million people around the world, is a bad rule. That's where we're at with the current system: being able to play 3 levels out of the subtier helps certain fledgling game days make muster, but is undermining the campaign on a huge scale. That's why they're changing it in the first place.

    A rule that keeps the campaign healthy for half a million people around the world, but causes difficulties for games days in specific unfortunate circumstances, is still imperfect but is far better. And although it's going to be unfortunate for some (perhaps including you), it's what we've got to prioritize.

    I don't think that we should be so cavalier about throwing people in marginal gaming situations under the bus in the name of fairness or preventing gaming the system or any of the other rationals being given in this thread to make organizing and play more inflexible.

    In the last year especially PFS has made great strides in trying to expand and serve people in places who previously had little or no chance for gaming. This demographic is important to PFS since as an organized play campaign one of the strengths it has is being modular and easy to play if your opportunities are only sporadic. The people who are saying "just man up" or "organize better" are really working directly against where I think PFS needs to go, being more flexible, more available. Without new rules made to "solve" things that are not as much of a problem as everyone thinks.

    I am seeing what can only be a distinct lack of perspective from people who seem to be in circumstances where there is little to no opportunity cost for walking or choosing to DM for a week or otherwise loosing a chance to play at a given event. PFS needs to serve the people who will be more likely to have to choose permanently damaging their character's advancement, wasting a looked forward to scenario on a pre-gen, or wasting the hours spent to make time and travel to an event. Not everyone has multiple FLGS's around, multiple gamedays per month, or groups organized enough to use warhorn. PFS is moving to help people in places without the opportunity for gaming, and the podcast wealth rules as well as some of the other things said in this thread directly damage that mission.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Ah.

    Of course.

    I see.

    The new wealth limit by tier thing is something for season 5, hence my mentioning the 4th season not having the.. errmm.

    My overall concern is that the gold reward is gonna change regardless, I think my halvies solution is a good fit for that, keeping gold at a lower rate of reward as well as giving players a bit more for playing out of tier.

    Also give inbetweeners a bit extra. (Depending on what tier the party is)

    The APL +1 is a tool to put past scenarios in a place to be challenging to the players instead of cake. I don't believe removing it will effect much overall.

    What do all of you think?

    1/5

    thaX wrote:

    Ah.

    Of course.

    I see.

    The new wealth limit by tier thing is something for season 5, hence my mentioning the 4th season not having the.. errmm.

    My overall concern is that the gold reward is gonna change regardless, I think my halvies solution is a good fit for that, keeping gold at a lower rate of reward as well as giving players a bit more for playing out of tier.

    Also give inbetweeners a bit extra. (Depending on what tier the party is)

    The APL +1 is a tool to put past scenarios in a place to be challenging to the players instead of cake. I don't believe removing it will effect much overall.

    What do all of you think?

    That's exactly what causes this problem though. You can play a season 0 1-5 scenario with a level 1,2,2,3,4,5 and qualify for 4-5. You play that with your level 1 and get two maybe three times as much gold as you should get for one scenario. It should definitley be on the table when looking for solutions to the wealth problem.

    Edit: better yet, you can play up with a level 1 pregen, and make a new character with their first or second chronicle sheet giving them 1500 gold. This is mostly due to the +1 APL rule. Most tables wont even qualify to play up with a level 11 at the table if you do nothing more than remove this rule. It might make earlier scenarios cake, but with all the new player options out these days they already are.

    Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Saint Caleth wrote:
    I don't think that we should be so cavalier about throwing people in marginal gaming situations under the bus in the name of fairness or preventing gaming the system or any of the other rationals being given in this thread to make organizing and play more inflexible.

    Until we find a rule that works in 100% of situations, a rule that works in 90% of situations is better than a rule that works in 10% of situations. Facing that reality is not "cavalier" and is not "throwing people under the bus", and it's rather dishonest of you to present it as such.

    Quote:

    Without new rules made to "solve" things that are not as much of a problem as everyone thinks.

    I am seeing what can only be a distinct lack of perspective

    The people with all the data (i.e., Mike & co.) believe there's a problem. You have only your own experience (and perhaps a bit of hearsay) as data. If you believe your own little corner of the PFS experience is a better indication of the state of the campaign than all the data Mike and Mark and John have access to, then you're the one with the "distinct lack of perspective".

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Reasons I've wound up out of tier.

    I'll admit to some groups being "More gold!"

    I'll admit to some groups saying "Hit me with your best shot!"

    My first character only recently hit level 8. Most of level 7 was spent playing up because my online group (which was by some bizarre coincidence also a semi local group) was running high level games and 7 was as high as i could go.

    Many times cons will only have 3(or less) pfs tables going at once. If I've played 2 scenarios before I have one option left-its not as uncommon as you think because some scenarios are run more often at cons than others. Or I've played 1 scenario and didn't have a character high enough level for the other. Or another table filled up, or a dm didn't show. I realize some posters spend their days at megacons where they can line up a character and a tier exactly even during a bout of the bird flu but some cons are smaller than that. OR slot 1 has a game I'm planning on playing in slot 6... sometimes a con scheduel looks like one of those moving tile puzzle pieces.

    Some con organizers reaaaaaaaly don't like warhorn. Like how i feel about brocoli reaaaaaaly.

    Sometimes another character would be better for the group despite being of the same class. Sure, I can put a 4th level archer inquisitor in with 2 other archers and two melee fighters... but I think everyone (myself included) would be happier with a low level channel happy cleric.

    No credit card, no warhorn at a con. Paid cash at the door THEN signed up.

    I had one con where the day before the con my leg was hurt too bad to move. The pain went to manageable levels. I got out the door for a pizza, and said to hell with it I'm going to that con and kept driving to jersey, walked in the door and said "Where do you have room?"

    Dealing with a large number of geeks requires flexibility that you're advocating taking out of the system. Trying to impose order on it is futile, it simply isn't in anyone's control.

    Chaotic: its not just an alignment its a lifestyle.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    Jiggy wrote:
    The people with all the data (i.e., Mike & co.) believe there's a problem. You have only your own experience (and perhaps a bit of hearsay) as data. If you believe your own little corner of the PFS experience is a better indication of the state of the campaign than all the data Mike and Mark and John have access to, then you're the one with the "distinct lack of perspective".

    They only have data on how often it happens, there's no way to track WHY its happening.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    I see your point, I really do.

    But I am trying to met out a solution that works with what is already proposed to happen, which is to have character get gold from the character tier, not the tier that they are playing when playing up, or that those playing down get the lower tier's gold.

    Halvies is a compromise to that, lowering the gold reward for playing down, but giving a little more for playing up.

    The overall party level calculations changes nothing about the gold rewards as it pertains to what is proposed, so in the example you have in your last post, the lower levels will only get (average) 500 gold for 1-2 tier while the 4 and 5 (and the 3?) will get the higher tier gold for playing in their own tier. That is the current proposal that was in the Podcast. If they play down if it had been a 4th season scenario, then all the players would get the lower tier gold.

    I don't want that. You don't either. I realize your proposing this in place of the wealth by tier change. I maintain that this isn't even a consideration. Hence why I offered the Halvies plan.

    Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    The people with all the data (i.e., Mike & co.) believe there's a problem. You have only your own experience (and perhaps a bit of hearsay) as data. If you believe your own little corner of the PFS experience is a better indication of the state of the campaign than all the data Mike and Mark and John have access to, then you're the one with the "distinct lack of perspective".
    They only have data on how often it happens, there's no way to track WHY its happening.

    ...Which would apply just as much to every random forumite here who thinks they know how small of an issue it really is. They can't track it either.

    Let's also not forget that Mike has access to more than just event reporting data. There's a whole different forum where only the VOs can go, whereby Mike can get a feel of what's going on all over the world.

    Basically, Mike has all the data (both hard and anecdotal) that any of us has, and then some. Anyone who thinks they have a better idea of what's going on in the campaign as a whole than Mike, well, they're simply incorrect.

    Assuming we trust Mike to be a functional and honest adult at all in the first place (and anyone who doesn't has little reason to be in this discussion), then we have to assume that if he says something's going on in the campaign, then he's seeing it all over the world rather than basing it on one local area's anecdotal viewpoint like any of us would have to do.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jiggy wrote:
    Assuming we trust Mike to be a functional and honest adult at all in the first place (and anyone who doesn't has little reason to be in this discussion), then we have to assume that if he says something's going on in the campaign, then he's seeing it all over the world rather than basing it on one local area's anecdotal viewpoint like any of us would have to do.

    I don't disagree with you here, and I don't think many on the forum would question that Mike is looking at all the information he has or that he will make what he thinks is the best decision based on that information. But let's not forget, Mike, Mark, and John asked for this forum and asked for alternate ideas from the community. These are not unsolicited opinions. It may be that when all is said and done, they stick with their original plan. Until then, people are providing the input that was requested by campaign management, presumably so that they can broaden their picture of what is happening.

    We shouldn't presume to know more than campaign management, but we shouldn't feel that our own local experiences don't matter, either.

    Dark Archive 4/5

    My question is do they even have data? or just accounts of this happening from their own views and some VC/VL's? as when I fill in the reporting for my games days I do not indicate the parties levels or even what tier they played.

    Which means we are making a major campaign decision on basically what amounts to personal experiences, and yet at the same time denouncing other peoples experiences and concerns as "isolated incidents that shouldnt happen."

    Yes it is possible to game the system as is, but is it common? I do not believe it is apparently Mike ran EoTT for an impossible player once, which is interesting I know I personally started EoTT with the wealth of a level 11 PC because of previous Resurrections, so how many such players actually exist? and is it worth punishing those who are not gaming the system for trying to be inclusive?

    Personally I can just run only T1-2 games all the time at my games day, as in general the players are new enough that they are quite happy to try a new concept every month.

    Sometimes its nice for them though to actually progress, and as they are really new players they tend to have issues once they get past the first few levels.

    I am personally for out of tier players getting the average of the 2 tiers as their income (its a better balance of risk vs reward for lowbies and less of a punishment for the higher level players). As I dont actually see the playing up as an issue big enough to fix, I mean I know of no PC's at all who have played up every game, and with the tools available to the GM in season 4 (and assumably season 5) they should have no troubles killing off a PC who is playing up.

    The only thing I can actually see occurring is an entirely new issue of woefully under geared PC's for their level.

    1/5

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I think most anyone who reads these boards regularly would agree that Mike does a great job, but I don't think an appeal to authority is a good reason for people to silence their opinions. Let's also not forget that player feedback, like what is happening here, is also a source of data piazo has historically valued.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jiggy wrote:


    ...Which would apply just as much to every random forumite here who thinks they know how small of an issue it really is. They can't track it either.

    No, but what i can do is point out the myriad of reasons that the "just stay in your tier" solution isn't workable. You're assuming a lot of things that ALL need to be in place or your system is going to go belly up.

    -Players with characters in the right tier
    -all being available in advance at the same time
    -Room in the venue for multiple tables
    -Multiple DMs
    -Said Dms have other scenarios prepped and ready to go
    -The players haven't already played the prepped alternative
    -signing up is in use AND is actually followed: People don't bail or show up unexpectedly

    I don't think I've seen a PFS even yet where SOMETHING didn't need to be done on the fly. Unless the event is huge something has to give.

    Mike also hasn't (as far as i've seen) Suggested the stick to your tier solution, so i don't see how you justify saying his data supports the idea that that needs to be done or is even workable.


    The problem is players being above the WBL. So how did we get there.
    1. Players playing out of their tier on a regular basis.
    Why did this happen.
    A. The first four seasons were designed for a table of 4. So tables of five and six played up for any challenge.
    B. Greed.
    2. The free consumables in the adventures.
    3. PP/Fame is able to be used as gold.
    4. Gold on chronicles out paces the WBL chart. ( at least at the low lvls I did not crunch the numbers at high tier)
    5. Pregens.

    What can we do to fix or have done to fix these.
    1.
    A.
    1. The adventures are now wrote with a six player mind set.
    2. The modules were sanctioned for PFS.
    3. The APs are being sanctioned for PFS.
    4. Thornkeep.
    B. ???
    2. Eliminate this rule maybe.
    3. ???
    4. Reduce the gold on new chronicles across the broad to bring it back to the WBL chart
    5. ???
    We know that the playing out of tier is the biggest problem. I do see this less and less now due to season 4. So have MJM fixed some of the problem already with 1-A. With us just not seeing the results yet. It may be that we are just seeing all of the rich characters from the early seasons right now. I would like to see 2 and 4 put into place for season 5 and see if that helps.

    Dark Archive 4/5

    4. Is not actually a problem, the WBL chart is wealth that the PC should have on hand at that level, costs for spell casting services, used consumables, raise deads etc are assumed in the gold given by PFS scenarios (and even then its not a huge disparity at high levels) also PCs are generally behind the WBL curve until level 4-5 anyway (unless they play up).

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Well, I know that my friend had a character save his money and eventually bought a Ring of Invisibility.

    The words "you have what?!?!!?" have been heard more than once.

    In my mind, Halvies would be preferable to what was proposed in the Podcast.

    So I will think on this and post a clearer version of it tomorrow, before I go to the reg Friday game.

    WBL I assume means Wealth By Level. I think limiting wealth is a bad mechanic in any system, but I see the need for it in an organized environment. It puts the players on an even field of everything works out right. The reason for the change now, and why it is an issue, is that lower level players (Most of the time, I think it would be those in the first five levels of the 11) keep getting a bunch of gold for playing up and their character typically has better EQ as a result, making a character that becomes a bit more than the others that have only played in tier.

    Not particularly earth shattering in my mind, but something that is now being addressed with this adjustment, one that we have been asked to give advice on.

    So, really, all this about why and what and how it is effecting or not, we already know that it is enough of a concern to where this change is being done. My only concern is to do it in an even handed manner and in such a way as to still provide level appropriate gold without excessively, needlessly punishing those that play out of tier .

    Do we have any other ideas in that regard?

    5/5

    FFS if the problem is consumables why don't we just stay that low tier people playing up get low tier rewards but get their consumables back at the end of the session?

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    I've gone back and made a rough transcription of the relevant segment of the podcast (beginning around 47:00). It helps me get a sense of what MJM are concerned with here. Looking over it, MJM raise most of the concerns brought up here:

    • Too-high WBL by playing up under the current system

    • Too-low WBL by playing down too much

    • "Arms race"

    • Power gap at a table between high-wealth or high-level and at-wealth or at-level PCs

    • Arguments at-table about what tier to play at

    • "This is sort of an effort to remove the mechanical incentive to play up"

    • Need to be flexible enough to accommodate the unexpected, but probably will end up with a lesser-of-the-two-evils solution

    I want to especially highlight this last exchange.

    KnowDirection Podcast wrote:

    Mark: Anyone listening to this, I think, can understand what our motives are in doing this. It's not to punish anyone or tell people they're playing the wrong way, it really is more to try and bring the game in line with the expectations of the game in terms of character wealth and to try and provide the best play experience for the community as a whole regarding, you know, as Perram mentioned, the pressure to play up and things like that. So it's possible that someone on the messageboards has a better suggestion of a way we can achieve that goal, and we're open to that. But currently that's what we're thinking.

    Ryan: There seems to be a lot of responses in chat, people saying, people asking lots of very specific questions about very specific mixes. But it seems like, once there's a large enough disparity, surely someone has a lower level character, or can create a lower level character, or can use a pregen from the NPC Codex that's more appropriate for that level.

    Mark: Exactly. And ultimately, I think that the goal is that this happens on such a rare occurance that it's a fringe case rather than being the norm. And I think that as long as we're always aware of those fringe cases and provide other options and resources for those people to be able to continue to play, and to have an enjoyable experience that most players likely won't notice the difference when they sit down at a table and start playing a game.

    The major problem with the particular proposal considered in the podcast remains the same: that it deals a heavy, irreparable WBL penalty to any higher-level who plays down. This doesn't have to be an extreme case, the one fifth-level and five first-levels. It could be a much more even spread, say 4-3-2-2-2. If the low levels vote to play down, the level 4 can't play that character without taking a permanent mechanical penalty.

    Now, maybe this table shouldn't play 4-5! (Make up a spread that shouldn't play 4-5 but has one lvl 4 in there, I didn't put any thought into this one.) But system suggested in the podcast means the 4th level can't, without serious mechanical penalty, play his own character at the table. Sure he can play a pregen or he can start a new one, but that's no fun.**

    The 2XP proposal that has been popular here might not win the developers' approval. I still like it.

    But at the very least, we can recognize the significant way in which the proposed plan fails to best solve the problems it's aimed at of (i) messed up WBL and (ii) mechanical incentives leading to at-table conflicts in picking tier. A reward fixed by level would do much better at these counts, it seems to me.

    And I'm sure they see the problem! It's great that they'd explain their concerns and what they're currently thinking, and openly solicit suggestions about how better to address the concerns. And the discussion here has been thorough and enjoyable, and, I hope, helpful for them.

    So again: anything but the podcast proposal! :-)

    *****

    [**] Notice a problem with this single level 4 example. Even the 2XP proposal, popular here, will impose a serious mechanical penalty on the player for playing his own character. Currently it's not a problem because he can later play up and make the lost gold back. But can't do that! Perhaps a solution is to double reward for playing up and halve reward for playing down. Or maybe that's a terrible idea. I don't know. But it's worth noticing a problem case. Maybe the best to do is a pregen or a new character at this point.

    But then imagine the other case that 2XP was designed to accommodate, the group that could realistically play 4-5 but for a lower level who is resistant ... etc. etc.

    *****

    P.S. Ironically, Mark's very first statement on the matter is the problem of playing down, which the system considered would make the problem: "And sure, if you are a character who's continually playing down, your PC will be behind the wealth curve, and at higher levels it'll start to get fairly significant. But the converse of that is that if you're someone who's always playing up ..."


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Huh... Can someone explain to me how now making playing down cause irreparable damage to your wealth based level is going to stop players from bullying others to play up? That seems like an incentive to do so if you have a higher level player.

    Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

    13 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'm just stopping by to let people know that I've been listening in and am taking into account several of the proposals, arguments, and counter-arguments raised in this thread. For me, reading over civil and well-reasoned discussion is very helpful in determining what steps to take for the campaign.

    Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MrSin wrote:
    Huh... Can someone explain to me how now making playing down cause irreparable damage to your wealth based level is going to stop players from bullying others to play up? That seems like an incentive to do so if you have a higher level player.

    Pretty fair point, this.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    Last thing I'll say before I call it a night...

    I think in any solution, simplicity to implement will be important. That's one thing the Podcast solution has going for it. No changing of chronicle sheets or existing scenarios. And no math, really.

    Of the other solutions I've seen, double XP, double GP, some form of increase PP could also be made simple if the conditions are clearly defined and the math is easy, and it could be recorded on existing chronicles without having to alter the scenarios.

    Some version of thaX's and Majuba's out-of-tier option could also be made relatively simple. I think the key here is that the math to calculate the out-of-tier gold needs to be simple. Very simple. Halfsies might be a step too complicated when compared to just taking the average of the higher tier and lower tier gold, or, essentially, thaX's "playing down" part of Halfsies. I also think with this option that, from what I've seen, MJM will take a lot of convincing to actually increase the rewards a player gets for playing down. Maybe debating the merits of that and how it might positively or negatively affect pressuring and bullying at a table is worth it.

    Another issue that affects both of the forum options above is how to handle missed gold in a scenario. In the double XP/double GP option, I think it's pretty obvious... double the missed GP. So if an encounter provides 100gp and the group doesn't succeed at that encounter, deduct 200gp from any characters playing up.

    In the out-of-tier option, we need a similarly easy calculation, and this is where I think the Halfsies formula makes things more complicated. What was it again? Low Tier plus half the low tier? So you'd have to do the same on the GP of an encounter. Or, using my suggestion, you just average the high tier and low tier GPs for an encounter and that's what would be missed.

    The static GP by level chart, in my opinion, while simple on the surface, would separate GP gained too much from what's actually in the scenario, and would require too complicated of an alteration. You look at a chart to see what gold to apply, but then how do you reconcile that with the gold by encounter if something is missed? And, it gives higher level players the same gold when they play down as when they play in tier, which arguably still breaks WBL since someone could conceivably always play down and rarely have to use consumables.

    I'm sure I've missed something, but that's where my head is now. I'll leave it to smarter people to decide if any of this is worth anything.

    Dark Archive 4/5

    I do think the proposed podcast solution in the tier 1-5 area is not a huge deal as people should have PC's at the lower tier or can make one in most cases given advance warning by the signups. Although with the new faction focus this might also become more difficult as people will have PC's they want to play during certain scenarios and these PC's might not mesh well on levels.

    In the higher tiers this will probably not be the case as after level 5 most players in my area have fewer PC's to play, and picking up a pregen is in general not an option for many players (honestly I would never play Ezren or Kyra for a scenario when I can just skip playing for a month or so and play my own PC later on).

    Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5 **** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Midwest

    JohnF wrote:
    Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
    I forget who posted the idea originally, but what about the compromise between getting gold based on your character level and getting the rewards for the subtier you play?
    That could have been this post from me. I don't know if I was the first to make that suggestion.

    I dunno, but a few minutes later I posted this:

    post describing earning by level not tier :P

    I'd be willing to share blame ;)

    Scarab Sages 1/5

    What about having a cap on equipment value based on your level. Gold could still be earned as it is now. This would allow for people to have the extra gold if they need to pay for consumables, death, etc., but not punish players for choosing to play up or down to make a table. That allows for the authors to know what to expect for power level since equipment can only be so powerful. It is simply an extension of the system already set in place to limit the amount of gold that you can spend on an item based on fame. There is less incentive to always play up since you can only spend so much gold anyway, but still provides incentive to play up when it is necessary to make a table.

    For characters created prior to season 5, they should be able to maintain their current equipment wealth, but can't buy more gear until they level into the new wealth system. That way you are not punishing players who were under the old system.

    Shadow Lodge

    John Compton wrote:
    I'm just stopping by to let people know that I've been listening in and am taking into account several of the proposals, arguments, and counter-arguments raised in this thread. For me, reading over civil and well-reasoned discussion is very helpful in determining what steps to take for the campaign.

    From what was said in the podcast, we were kinda assuming that, but it's good to hear, none the less.

    I know that I, for one, wouldn't mind hearing what you think of some of the ideas floating around here, and I also wouldn't mind hearing some of the ideas you guys have been floating internally on the subject...

    Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5 **** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Midwest

    Ok, really, I've only seen a few proposals that really make sense to me.

    1) The first is one I proposed yesterday (among others)... and has been copied here. Have gold based purely on level. That does really address the wealth by level. However, I will also admit that it does give incentives to playing down, etc. It also does not address potential issues caused by additional expenditures of expendables required by playing up.

    2) Another proposal (which is not exclusive to the above), which probably does more to balance things is Robert Matthew's proposal to get rid of the +1 for 6-7 players for Seasons 0-3. Ok, so that means that more of these scenarios might be cake walks. This is not the case for ALL of them. Robert, correct me if I am wrong, but you were in the game where I played Munny in Darkest Vengeance. We had 7 players, and there were a couple of times we were at risk for TPK. No, we were not playing up! That may not be the norm, but it can happen.

    3) Perhaps the most elegant solution I've seen would be the "out of tier" gold solution proposed by Majuba. I would go a step further, and standardize the gold in all scenarios, just for WBL balancing. For Paizo's part, they'd need to push out new chronicles for all existing (and not retired) scenarios (modules can stay different, in my eyes). Since all that would be changing would be the gold earnings (and perhaps modernizing the sheets to bring them to Season 4 standards, with the fame broken out, and Day Job listed, etc), I think that this could be done relatively easily.

    Will there be GMs using the wrong sheets? Perhaps... you'll have to think about it when you are printing them out. However, the GM could just edit the sheet to the standard gold distributions (which would be stated in the Guide as well!!!)

    My 2cp would be to design something that includes #2 and #3. Make it harder to play up and make playing out of tier less game breaking in the terms of gold.

    Also, I would add to the reporting system the tier played, and the level of the characters being played (for confirmation, etc). Have an additional radio button set of: Played Character, Played Pregen 1, Played Pregen 4, Played Pregen 7. Then, reporting could be done on compliance to the sub-tier rules. My guess is that a lot of the abuse is being done by coupling older season scenarios with misrepresenting the choice of up vs. down. I could be wrong though. However, at least if we are getting reports, we could be notifying GMs and VOs a out abuses of the system, and reinforcing the proper calculations.

    Ok, I am getting tired now, and have ranted more than enough!

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    John Compton wrote:
    I'm just stopping by to let people know that I've been listening in and am taking into account several of the proposals, arguments, and counter-arguments raised in this thread. For me, reading over civil and well-reasoned discussion is very helpful in determining what steps to take for the campaign.

    Glad it's helpful!

    ***

    One more note before I call it a night. The example from my previous post is bothering me. It's starting to look like the 2X proposal needs to be amended to:
    2X for playing up; 1/2X for playing down.

    Case (A): group with a minority of low levels

    2X was designed (against the podcast proposal) to facilitate this scenario by helping persuade the low levels to play up (a bit extra gold to cover extra consumables costs, level faster if that's a motivation for you) and by helping catch them up to the others if they play together with any regularity.

    But I was fixated on Case A. I think this is in part explained by the fact that I'm new to PFS and haven't played much of Season 4 yet, in which I can expect to play up less than I have been, and by the fact that I'm a thrill-seeker and so "Yeah! Let's do it!" is almost always my first reaction.

    But I hadn't noticed the obvious, that the same sort of problem can go the other way too! 2X doesn't help with ...

    Case (B): group with a minority of high levels

    Under the podcast proposal or the 2X proposal, these high levels suffer a serious and irreparable WBL penalty for being "team players" in this instance. That's bad! (Let's describe this as a case in which the level disparity isn't too great, if that matters.)

    I'm starting to think that, to adequately address this case, the 2X proposal needs to include a 1/2X for playing down clause.

    Perhaps the first reaction will be: why ever play down then??? I admit, that was my first reaction! A few things. (i) This isn't necessarily a bad thing to discourage. Cakewalking worries. (ii) The higher levels can always use pregens or lower level characters if they want a full 1 XP for the scenario. And maybe this will account for almost all Case B's!

    But (iii) there are plenty of reasons they may want to play their particular characters: they really enjoy them, the characters fit well with the scenario (this will be more of a thing if Season 5 lives up to the promises John was making on the podcast!), and so on.

    I think it's obvious that there can be legitimate situations like this. Which means that the 2X proposal needs a non-WBL-damaging way to let the higher level in this situation play down. 1/2X for playing down would do it.

    A gold-by-character-level approach would also remove the WBL penalty for playing down. It might be best overall! Simple, solves most of the problems on the table.

    But if, for whatever reason, we prefer 2X to gold-by-level, then it looks (to me at the moment) like we'll need to make it a 2X-up-1/2X-down proposal instead. (I like the 2X-or-1/2X because it's a little more flexible for whatever the group needs than a fixed gold-by-level, and doesn't trigger the cakewalk worries that cropped up on that one.)

    Thoughts? I know something like this was discussed briefly upthread, but I don't remember why it was rejected. And I'm not confident in my judgment here: it's late, I'm not thinking straight, and I'm new enough to PFS I may be missing something obvious.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    The Halfvies would be from the reward that is on the chronicle sheet, so the GM would see what gold is gonna be rewarded and then calculate.

    So trying to figure this out. The GM would most likely have to figure both tiers in question to make out the rewards when playing down, so one playing up would be getting x, the higher tier reward, normally if playing within their tier, now you get half of x plus half of y (the lower tier). Those within tier would get y, the lower tier reward.

    With more thought, I think the inbetweeners would simply be considered either in tier or playing up.

    You wouldn't actually adjust the gold until you have done up the total for the tiers. Most of the time, it ends up being max most of the time anyways.

    Tired right now, so I will go more into it tomorrow.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 *

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Okay, just an FYI...the proposed system will NOT fix the WBL issue. You will play in level 1-2 at level 1-2 for 500ish a pop. At level 3, you play in 3 4-5 games that gives you 1750ish a pop. And 4 you play 3-4 for ~1500 a pop. At 5 you play 6-7 for ~3k a pop. At 6, you play 5-6 for ~3k a pop. At 7 you play 8-9 for etc etc.

    At end of level 2, you have 3k gold...or WBL. At the end of level 3, your at 8250...or about 2250 more then you should. At the end of 4, you at 12750...which is still only about 2 grand out of step. At the end of level 5 however, your at ~25 grand...which is 9 grand outside of WBL.

    Now lets see what happens when you play DOWN. At the end of level 2, you still at 3k. At the end of 3 you at 4500...or just a bit above HALF the other fellow and quite below WBL. At the end of 4, you at 9 grand...okay ~4 grand less isn't hurting so badly. At the end of 5 however, your gonna be at HALF the other guy.

    So what the does the proposed change actually do then? Well it makes it so you can't play up every single session and have 3-4x your wealth by level...but that is a fringe case and you all know it. So we screw over people who are playing this game in not the ideal situation to deal with a few fringe cases? Seriously? It WILL make the discussion of playing up or down even more heated and bullied then it is now. I am okay with playing up right now because I get greater rewards but if I did not, I would in absolutely no short term EVER play up. When I played up at level 3-4 a few times, I spent 1-2 grand in consumables. If I get the standard 3-4 treasure, I either make 500 gold to LOSE 500 gold after all is said and done...with ASOLUTELY no way to make that up. Yeah crippling my character for future games so I can play in one now ain't gonna happen. And anyone who can do some quick math will come to the same conclusion and so you will get a lot more play this tier or I walk.

    So what exactly is the goal of the change? To better balance WBL? Well this ain't gonna do it. One guy gets half the other guy depending on dead level play. To reduce player bullying? Well nope, that gets actually worse under this system.

    So if you want to actually balance WBL, you have two options.

    Get rid of sub tiers and dead levels. All session are either 1-2, 3-4. 5-6. 7-8, 9-10, 11-12. None of the old stuff can be used and only new materials maybe used if you choose to go this route as there is no way you can rewrite all the PFS scenarios to fit this. On the plus side, we will see a lot less silly things down in sub tiers under this model. On the downside...we basically have to start over.

    The other option is what Yiroep first suggested (sorta as the penalty and bonus needs to go away). That is you get a fixed amount of gold dependent on your level.

    Barring either of these two options, your not actually gonna fix the WBL disparity issue as playing up in dead levels vs not builds up to rather huge chunks of money already anyways.

    Shadow Lodge

    Cold Napalm wrote:
    blah blah stuff

    Uh... you're not factoring in consumables, man; the Wealth-by-Level guidelines are for what characters have on-hand at the moment, not including past consumables, so the PFS scenarios give a little extra to cover the cost of those.

    5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Any suggestion based on capping equipment-by-level is nigh unenforceable. Anyone who's audited character's sheets would know how hard it is at the moment to audit a 10th level character's sheet.

    Trying to trace back and work out if the player violated wealth-by-level back when he was playing tier 8-9s while level 6 is impossible.

    I am of the firm belief that if a rule is unenforceable, it probably shouldn't be in place. How many of you can accurately tell me your own character's worth, three levels ago?

    As I see it, the "2XP for playing up" system seems the most elegant - it has discouragement (lower fame), doesn't break WBL (the GP/XP ratio goes down), and intrinsically allows a lower-level player to catch up (much better than "force the other players to slow-track for you"). It also doesn't make the end of scenario procedure any more difficult.

    A lot of the examples here are with tier 1-5. This seems like it's the tier that can most be aided by creating a new character, and playing at 1-2.

    Locally, it seems that the policy on choosing to play up is "if one player doesn't want to, we don't". Given the reports in this topic of bullying to play up, this is obviously not the case elsewhere.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 *

    SCPRedMage wrote:
    Cold Napalm wrote:
    blah blah stuff
    Uh... you're not factoring in consumables, man; the Wealth-by-Level guidelines are for what characters have on-hand at the moment, not including past consumables, so the PFS scenarios give a little extra to cover the cost of those.

    What does that have ANYTHING to do with what I am talking about?!? Did I say the amount you should get per scenario should be 1/3 of the WBL chart? And considering that PP can are often used for consumables is also not something accounted for the WBL chart I believe...unless PP is a part of the core rule book and I missed it somewhere. What I am talking about is EQUALIZING wealth. This assumes that the game directors actually WANT equalized wealth. The thing is, the proposed plan does not equalize wealth. One player at the start of level 6 will have ~25 grand while the other has ~13 grand depending on dead level play choices. That is not equalized wealth. That isn't even normalized wealth in all honesty. So the question remains...do we actually care about equalized wealth or are we okay with somebody having twice what the next guy has?

    1/5

    Silbeg wrote:

    Ok, really, I've only seen a few proposals that really make sense to me.

    1) The first is one I proposed yesterday (among others)... and has been copied here. Have gold based purely on level. That does really address the wealth by level. However, I will also admit that it does give incentives to playing down, etc. It also does not address potential issues caused by additional expenditures of expendables required by playing up.

    2) Another proposal (which is not exclusive to the above), which probably does more to balance things is Robert Matthew's proposal to get rid of the +1 for 6-7 players for Seasons 0-3. Ok, so that means that more of these scenarios might be cake walks. This is not the case for ALL of them. Robert, correct me if I am wrong, but you were in the game where I played Munny in Darkest Vengeance. We had 7 players, and there were a couple of times we were at risk for TPK. No, we were not playing up! That may not be the norm, but it can happen.

    3) Perhaps the most elegant solution I've seen would be the "out of tier" gold solution proposed by Majuba. I would go a step further, and standardize the gold in all scenarios, just for WBL balancing. For Paizo's part, they'd need to push out new chronicles for all existing (and not retired) scenarios (modules can stay different, in my eyes). Since all that would be changing would be the gold earnings (and perhaps modernizing the sheets to bring them to Season 4 standards, with the fame broken out, and Day Job listed, etc), I think that this could be done relatively easily.

    Will there be GMs using the wrong sheets? Perhaps... you'll have to think about it when you are printing them out. However, the GM could just edit the sheet to the standard gold distributions (which would be stated in the Guide as well!!!)

    My 2cp would be to design something that includes #2 and #3. Make it harder to play up and make playing out of tier...

    Oh yea I remember darkest vengeance all too well. It's true not all the old scenarios are cakewalks, one more reason removing the +1 APL rule is a good idea IMO. I'm referring to the abundance of newer player options that let you build even more powerful characters(even at level 1) than the CRB and even APG in some cases would even allow. (Aasimars pretty much auto-win encounters involving darkness or deeper darkness for example)

    Darkest Vengeance:
    Getting attacked by a bat swarm on a boat after climbing through the secret door had my pretty worried for a bit. We were mostly level 1's though fighting a swarm that only a few players could even damage. If we didn't have as many spellcasters as we did, we probably would have had to flip the boat over and just swim lol. In fact some people from another table mentioned afterward that they had to do that when playing it because they only had 4 players and nobody could damage the swarm.

    I can get behind updated chronicle sheets and standardized gold for scenarios, but I'm not sure the developers would be willing to dedicate the resources to do it. I'm sure they are looking for the most sensible solution that requires as little work(money) as possible to implement.

    Sczarni

    Having read through *every... single... post* up to Silbeg's post 487 (it's been daunting), I too am in support of Majuba's "out of tier" solution over all other proposals so far.

    It feels like the least penalizing and most even handed option for both lower players playing up and higher players playing down. Yes, it would require a modernization for older chronicle sheets but as Silbeg points out, the older sheets could well do with exactly that.

    I'm against the double XP option as it reduces my overall opportunities to play my favorite characters and I am generally against power-leveling as it is. As for the podcast option, that one also seems the worst-case option and in the 487 posts I've read through tonight is the one the majority of posters is also against.

    For what it's worth, unless an even better solution is proposed, my support is for Majuba's solution.

    1/5

    SCPRedMage wrote:
    Cold Napalm wrote:
    blah blah stuff
    Uh... you're not factoring in consumables, man; the Wealth-by-Level guidelines are for what characters have on-hand at the moment, not including past consumables, so the PFS scenarios give a little extra to cover the cost of those.

    Wealth by level guidelines, as I understand, are meant to show how much gold a character has earned over their entire career. You should be counting everything you have spent gold on as well as the amount of gold you haven't spent. You don't just omit consumable expenditures. If you gained gold from anywhere it should be factored in. The treasure section next to the WBL chart in the CRB states:

    Table 12–4 lists the amount of treasure each PC is
    expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table
    assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games
    might award only half this value, while high-fantasy
    games might double the value. It is assumed that some of
    this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure
    (such as potions and scrolls)

    Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5 **** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Midwest

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

    Oh yea I remember darkest vengeance all too well. It's true not all the old scenarios are cakewalks, one more reason removing the +1 APL rule is a good idea IMO. I'm referring to the abundance of newer player options that let you build even more powerful characters(even at level 1) than the CRB and even APG in some cases would even allow. (Aasimars pretty much auto-win encounters involving darkness or deeper darkness for example)

    Darkest Vengeance:

    I can get behind updated chronicle sheets and standardized gold for scenarios, but I'm not sure the developers would be willing to dedicate the resources to do it. I'm sure they are looking for the most sensible solution that requires as little work(money) as possible to implement.

    If that is all that would be preventing it from happening (the updating of the chronicle sheets), I'd think that there would be enough volunteers to make it happen. Either that, or it could be part of a summer intern's job ;)

    Seriously, if it were something that I could help with, I would volunteer to help edit some of the chronicle sheets. The only problem is that I don't have access to Adobe Acrobat (but could try using some free/open source tools). I'd expect that Paizo has a template that they use, and we'd only have to add in details like the items found (and this would give them a chance to correct typos!)

    Sczarni

    Silbeg wrote:
    Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

    Oh yea I remember darkest vengeance all too well. It's true not all the old scenarios are cakewalks, one more reason removing the +1 APL rule is a good idea IMO. I'm referring to the abundance of newer player options that let you build even more powerful characters(even at level 1) than the CRB and even APG in some cases would even allow. (Aasimars pretty much auto-win encounters involving darkness or deeper darkness for example)

    Darkest Vengeance:

    I can get behind updated chronicle sheets and standardized gold for scenarios, but I'm not sure the developers would be willing to dedicate the resources to do it. I'm sure they are looking for the most sensible solution that requires as little work(money) as possible to implement.

    If that is all that would be preventing it from happening (the updating of the chronicle sheets), I'd think that there would be enough volunteers to make it happen. Either that, or it could be part of a summer intern's job ;)

    Seriously, if it were something that I could help with, I would volunteer to help edit some of the chronicle sheets. The only problem is that I don't have access to Adobe Acrobat (but could try using some free/open source tools). I'd expect that Paizo has a template that they use, and we'd only have to add in details like the items found (and this would give them a chance to correct typos!)

    If you needed to give the volunteer base an incentive to aiding such a task, perhaps a special "one per player" volunteer boon? If it's a monetary issue that requires liquid assets (to pay for printing, peoples time, etc.) perhaps a kickstarter program to receive player donations?

    Dark Archive 4/5

    SCPRedMage wrote:
    Cold Napalm wrote:
    blah blah stuff
    Uh... you're not factoring in consumables, man; the Wealth-by-Level guidelines are for what characters have on-hand at the moment, not including past consumables, so the PFS scenarios give a little extra to cover the cost of those.

    An insulting quote is not conducive to a brainstorming thread. Please control yourself.

    Sovereign Court 3/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Okay, I've just read through the entire thread, and one thing that I saw mentioned quite a few times was that people were willing to play down and take a hit because they knew they could play up on another occasion to make up for it.

    Well, if we're trying to stop characters that are always playing up, why not bring in a limit on how often characters can play up (I did see this mentioned in one post but I'm going to add something), and then allow every time they play down to buy off a time that they played up.

    What I would suggest is that players can never be more than +/- 1 from playing their own subtier. If a player plays a character up on one scenario, it is noted on his character sheet, and he can't play that character up again until he has played down, and has it noted on that chronicle. If you make it really visible on the chronicles, it should be really easy for a GM to flip through them to see if the character is able to play up/down or not.

    You could keep the monetary benefit for having played up, as long as you take the monetary hit for playing down. At most a character could be one up on his expected wealth. (Yes, I suppose they could try to game it by trying to play up at break points where they might get higher amounts, but it shouldn't allow a character to get too far ahead.)

    This would allow for someone to be able to adapt to a game day having an occasion where people can't fill the same level ranges, but not have that occasion happen all the time.

    451 to 500 of 945 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.