|
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.
I like it.
|
here's an easy fix. Get rid of the current XP system associated with PFS, and put it on the medium track. If you play up, you're also getting more XP, and so your WBL in theory should balance out.
Suggested XP/Gold breakdowns:
Intro (1) 670 XP 340 Gold
Tier 1-2 835 XP 500 Gold
Tier 3-4 1670 XP 1250 Gold
Tier 4-5 2350 XP 1670 Gold
Tier 5-6 3340 XP 2170 Gold
Tier 6-7 4670 XP 2840 Gold
Tier 7-8 6670 XP 3750 Gold
Tier 8-9 9000 XP 4840 Gold
Tier 10-11 19170 XP 7670 Gold
Tier 12 31670 XP 10670 Gold
using tier 3-4 as an example, I arrived at the numbers by taking the xp to reach 5 and subtracting the XP for 3 (15000-5000=10000) and dividing by 6 (3 games per level) and round up to the nearest 10 XP. Gold done in a similar way. Intros and Tier 12 I divide by 3 instead since they represent only 1 possible level of characters.
|
here's an easy fix. Get rid of the current XP system associated with PFS, and put it on the medium track. If you play up, you're also getting more XP, and so your WBL in theory should balance out.
Suggested XP/Gold breakdowns:Intro (1) 670 XP 340 Gold
Tier 1-2 835 XP 500 Gold
Tier 3-4 1670 XP 1250 Gold
Tier 4-5 2350 XP 1670 Gold
Tier 5-6 3340 XP 2170 Gold
Tier 6-7 4670 XP 2840 Gold
Tier 7-8 6670 XP 3750 Gold
Tier 8-9 9000 XP 4840 Gold
Tier 10-11 19170 XP 7670 Gold
Tier 12 31670 XP 10670 Goldusing tier 3-4 as an example, I arrived at the numbers by taking the xp to reach 5 and subtracting the XP for 3 (15000-5000=10000) and dividing by 6 (3 games per level) and round up to the nearest 10 XP. Gold done in a similar way. Intros and Tier 12 I divide by 3 instead since they represent only 1 possible level of characters.
That is similar to the double exp route. It still suffers from fame issues however. If you end up getting double the exp and not the fame, you will quickly end up being unable to purchase anything even remotely level appropriate. The whole reason you want people to play up or down (if your not gaming the system) is to help with mustering a table. Many PFS locals do not have enough player base to run a table for each sub tier after all. Although...since you don't have the dead level issue with this, it could be not a bad way to normalize wealth...just have to deal with the fame issue (which I honestly would not mind going away if we are gonna normalize the wealth).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Throughout this entire discussion, I have not seen any numbers to back of the "claim" of "too many people have too much wealth". How many people have too much wealth? On what evidence is this being based? Simply because they find the scenarios "too easy"?
All there has been so far is anecdotal evidence that this occurs. The proposed changes have been, so far as I can tell, based on agian, more anecdotal eveidence.
Let's assume that some people find the scenarios "too easy". We should be asking ourselves WHY? not simply jumping to the conclusion that all characters have too much wealth.
1. The tactics in scenarios are often questionable. GMs are to run RAW. Therefore, those questionable tactics MUST be run, regardless of the ideas and tactics of your group. It is difficult enough to plan for in a home-game (providing a good challenge for your players), let alone 7 or so random strangers playing the scenario you wrote.
2. Character make-up and player ability (including metagaming) have more to do with overcoming challenges than are given credit. The right mix of players and characters can WIPE some encounters, while others can not. That happens. We need to get over it.
Without any solid numbers to back up the claim that "too many characters have too much wealth" I find the claim suspect at best.
I dont think that we have acurately defined the problem and gotten to the real root cause. WBL and some characters with too much money seems to be the easy scapegoat.
|
|
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.
While this idea might have potential after some tweaking +/-1 might be still too restrictive. Off the top of my head I can think of three people I really enjoy playing with that play less often than I do, one of which is my wife, that will need to play up more often than me to play at my table (I do have an alternative I enjoy that is catching up to them creating the reverse problem. I know the suggestion of get more characters has been said but I have seven, only two of which i care to still play and it was enough work to convince my wife play a second one).
Additionally, if a person plays down at low level and up at higher levels, or vice versa, it isn't exactly a wash anyway.
I think it runs the risk of getting complicated, but perhaps combine this idea with the previous one of max wealth but only track over and under amounts on a chronicle. You play up GM notes +500 gold on a box you play down, similar note. Your net difference can only be level times X or socialism kicks in and your personal gains are adjusted to keep you in range.
|
Let's assume that some people find the scenarios "too easy". We should be asking ourselves WHY? not simply jumping to the conclusion that all characters have too much wealth.
We know that one of the big underlying reasons for this (which was fixed in season 4): The game assumes and makes challenges for a party of 4. Most tables have been parties of 6 +.(they have actual numbers for that). Force multipliers being what they are, 2 extra characters makes an enormous difference.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I didn't mind the 2XP system, until someone pointed out that it will allow inexperience players to get into higher-level play too quickly, before they have the chance to really learn how to handle it. We'll end up with people who have only played 9 to 10 games in 7-11 scenarios and still don't really know what they're doing.But brand new players are already doing this when they play a level 4 or level 7 pregen.
At least with the 2 XP solution, new players that always play up have to play several games (with more experienced players) to reach higher levels. And a side effect is that they will be able to catch up to the current groups level and continue to play with them - rather than having to use a pregen if there are no other tables to play at.
RL example. We have a player who is Lantern Lodge, He's played 'up' enough with level 7 Pre-gens to make a table that if he plays one or two more scenarios with his LL character (who the sheets are asigned to) he'll shoot right past 7th level. Like (I assume most LL/SL players) he wants to play his Lantern Lodge character through the final scenario.
So he has two options. Sit on this PC he likes for at least a month before I* can run the scenario or not play him. (I'm assuming he can't 'move' those pre-gen credits to another PC, I checked with our VC). This is ignoring the fact that basically he'll be an 8th level character without 'experiencing' 7th and having 3 scenarios to learn the reprecussions of his choices.
*
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
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...
That is exactly what i proposed right from the beginning. Reading whole posts would help there a lot. Like i hinted at several times also, the thing is to fix APL and CR now for some cases.
And Jiggy what you said upthread is totally right. Playing up or down should be an exception and playing in tier should be the standard.
|
|
Let's assume that some people find the scenarios "too easy". We should be asking ourselves WHY? not simply jumping to the conclusion that all characters have too much wealth.We know that one of the big underlying reasons for this (which was fixed in season 4): The game assumes and makes challenges for a party of 4. Most tables have been parties of 6 +.(they have actual numbers for that). Force multipliers being what they are, 2 extra characters makes an enormous difference.
So we have solved one of the underlying issues regarding scenario "easiness". So going forward, this will play itself out and *should* become less of an issue in the future.
|
|
And Jiggy what you said upthread is totally right. Playing up or down should be an exception and playing in tier should be the standard.
How often should it happen to any one character? 1 time in 3? 1 in 4? 1 in 10?
Even if it only happens to a character 1/10th of the time, a table of 6 would have it happen at (its been a while since stats but i think this is right)
(1-.1)^6= 53% of tables.
Even if its unlikely for anyone its very likely for someone.
That would mean that half the time you'd be booting someone or forcing them to play a pre gen. Either way they're pretty unlikely to come back next time, and that creates a downward spiral: less attendance g= lower level characters that can't play= less attendance = ....
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".
I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.
I'll try to work up a chart of the difference between playing up every mod, playing on tier and playing down by total wealth.
Then I'll look at every character I have, how often I played up, on tier, and down. Compare my wealth to the chart and subtract the amount of difference to see what items I'd be missing or how much this would effect me.
I think we are in one of the two states and I think this might help illuminate which one:
1) We are getting excited over a non issue since the extra wealth didn't contribute in a meaningful way.
2) I must be very ineffectual in spending money and there must be a way to spend money to be more obnoxiously effective I don't know.
Is it due to consumables? I've bought across all my characters 0 in consumables ever in roughly 60 adventures. The only consumables I'll buy are ones I can get with 2 PP. I don't ever spend gold (waste gold) on consumables. Does this make me more effective? (my quirk) or less effective? (because consumables are more powerful?)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
James, assuming your premise were true for a sec, what would you recommend that the campaign actually do about it?
There isn't much to do about it. So I'd say try to ignore it.
If something must be done about it, then the campaign needs to do some or all of the following (many of which are hard/impossible to do):
1) Examine what makes many optimized characters tick and prohibit it (stop CHA/INT/WIS 7 characters; avoid this item; avoid that feat; etc)
2) Empower DMs to manually adjust modules to cater to the PCs playing by increasing HPs or add monsters to balance it out (some DM can do this, some can not)
3) Have a voting system where players can vote on other players who are "not fun to play with" and publish this list to DM to reject play past a threshold.
In short, I think it is an intrinsic problem with organized play involving a rules system that allows for optimized characters.
|
That is exactly what i proposed right from the beginning. Reading whole posts would help there a lot. Like i hinted at several times also, the thing is to fix APL and CR now for some cases.
It's been a long thread! Mea culpa and all that. But the thread tended to focus on playing up, and I know the 1/2 for playing down got some objections upthread. I wanted to bring it back to remind myself and everyone else and re-ask whether it would be needed (looks likely!).
I'll go poking back through to find that discussion when I get a chance, if someone else doesn't get there first.
And I will have that chance at some point today, since everyone around here’s been ordered / asked by the Governor to stay home with our doors locked ... :-(
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Stay safe Joe.
I do like the 'offer of half for play down' aspect of it too, it would really help those cases where you show up with a level 3, and sit down with a table of 5 level ones. OF course it could also be fun to RP being 'stuck with the newbies' for a mission. (Provided you don't cross the line from "fun role playing" to "angering other players, being a Richard."
|
|
To support part of my esteemed wall of water above...
The magic item system already has something in place to mitigate the worst effects of extra wealth: Quadratic costs for linear benefit.
7th level fighter at wbl (23,500 gp)
+2 sword 8k
+2 armor 4k
+2 Belt of giant strength 4k
+1 Amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4k
7th level fighter at over 9th level wbl (is this even possible?) (49,000)
+3 weapon 18k
+3 armor 9k
+4 Belt of Giant strength 16k
+1 amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4k
Instead of +14 to hit he has +16. Instead of 2d6+10 damage he has 2d6+13 damage. More than doubling the gold gets you a pretty minor increase.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
That is exactly what i proposed right from the beginning. Reading whole posts would help there a lot. Like i hinted at several times also, the thing is to fix APL and CR now for some cases.It's been a long thread! Mea culpa and all that. But the thread tended to focus on playing up, and I know the 1/2 for playing down got some objections upthread. I wanted to bring it back to remind myself and everyone else and re-ask whether it would be needed (looks likely!).
I'll go poking back through to find that discussion when I get a chance, if someone else doesn't get there first.
And I will have that chance at some point today, since everyone around here’s been ordered / asked by the Governor to stay home with our doors locked ... :-(
No worries. It´s maybe good thing if several people get the same or similar ideas. I explained some more stuff to it upthread. Also the fluff and rpg reasons that could come along. Matthew Morris idea is nice too!
Playing up and get more fame/PP would be like you´re new or unknown but proove a good sport.|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
To support part of my esteemed wall of water above...
The magic item system already has something in place to mitigate the worst effects of extra wealth: Quadratic costs for linear benefit.
7th level fighter at wbl (23,500 gp)
+2 sword 8k
+2 armor 4k
+2 Belt of giant strength 4k
+1 Amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4k7th level fighter at over 9th level wbl (is this even possible?) (49,000)
+3 weapon 18k
+3 armor 9k
+4 Belt of Giant strength 16k
+1 amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4kInstead of +14 to hit he has +16. Instead of 2d6+10 damage he has 2d6+13 damage. More than doubling the gold gets you a pretty minor increase.
I don´t think that the real problem with more wealth. It´s probably more that you can afford a lot more of those items that are not so expensive, but offer a lot of extra stuff, making you a real christmas tree. This even gives a fighter a lot more options there, changing between amulets or trinkets, having several different affects at hand for special situations.
|
People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".
I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.
I actually fully agree with you that the character build is the primary force in trivializing encounters. But that said, adding a ton of wealth on top of that adds considerably more impact than I believe you realize.
Let's use level 7 for test purposes. Run the numbers of all scenario at-tier play up to that level vs. all scenario next tier up to that level. Depending on the scenarios in question, you will find that the WBL is anywhere from +50% to fully double that of playing at-tier. Now this may end up reduced if raise dead is needed - but it also may not.
The difference is that it is both fair and reasonable to regulate the wealth towards a universal standard. With the exception of race boons, character creation is regulated to a universal standard.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James, assuming your premise were true for a sec, what would you recommend that the campaign actually do about it?
There isn't much to do about it. So I'd say try to ignore it.
If something must be done about it, then the campaign needs to do some or all of the following (many of which are hard/impossible to do):
1) Examine what makes many optimized characters tick and prohibit it (stop CHA/INT/WIS 7 characters; avoid this item; avoid that feat; etc)
2) Empower DMs to manually adjust modules to cater to the PCs playing by increasing HPs or add monsters to balance it out (some DM can do this, some can not)
3) Have a voting system where players can vote on other players who are "not fun to play with" and publish this list to DM to reject play past a threshold.In short, I think it is an intrinsic problem with organized play involving a rules system that allows for optimized characters.
I am sorry but I can't stand reading this anymore. THESE CONCEPTS ARE SERIOUSLY IN NEED OF A REALITY CHECK!
[rant]
1) There is no objective standard for too much optimization. Ask anyone what over optimization is an the answer is almost always going to be "any character that is more optimized than my own." There has been times when I realized my character is dominating the table and times when that same character felt dominated by everyone else at a different table. You can't regulate this to the extreme you are suggesting. You can only regulate the extreme and more abusive cases.
2) This doesn't solve the problem if the reason the players like to optimize is because they like cakewalks. In fact, it will make it worse because the optimizers will simply ramp things up to keep making things cake walks.
3) A company allowing a group of its customers to publically vilify another group of its customers because the first group thinks using the product in their way is the only right way too do it is just plain wrong. I have been playing D&D since it first came out and I have been fighting against this mentality ever since then. The concept that I am playing D&d the right way (my way) and you are playing it the wrong way (your way) justifys me using any means necessary to make you play my way is the same justification humanity has used throughout time to oppress, demonize and strip the rights from others. There are as many different play styles of D&D as there are people who play it. Forcing some arbitrary ridged standard on PFS would destroy it and deservedly so. If such a thing were to come to pass I would fight against it body and soul.
A game without optimization isn't a game at all. Even checkers has optimization. Remove optimization from PFS and no one will play it. The problem isn't optimization, the problem is table domination by excessive optimization. Extremes you can combat. Basic underlying concepts that make something what it is never should be.[/rant]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Remove the rule that 6 players gives you +1 APL. This will severely reduce the number of tables that are even able to play up.
Let's say for example you have a 1-5 table that looks like this:
1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5
Your APL is 2.8. 6 Players you add +1 to make 3.8, round up, and you qualify for 4-5. Remove the +1 APL and you do not qualify.
I hadn't seen anyone else correct this, so I wanted to mention that the assumptions here are a bit off.
Specifically, APL 2.8 can already play up. 2.8 rounds to 3, 3 has the option to play 1-2 or 4-5. As they should - half the group is 3+. The +1 for 6 players in seasons 0-3 actually requires them to play up. Again, probably as they should. The 3,4,5 are 3/4's of a balanced 4-player group for a Tier 4-5 in seasons 0-3.
This situation is quite common for the gameday I organize and others nearby. Just finding scenarios that can be played by old and new players can be difficult - matching sub-tiers all the time is far more difficult.
For the Out-of-Tier option:
No need to re-do prior season chronicle sheets - the value is simply the average of the two tiers. Actual mid-level tier gp value might be slightly different, but not enough to make a large difference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Remove the rule that 6 players gives you +1 APL. This will severely reduce the number of tables that are even able to play up.
Let's say for example you have a 1-5 table that looks like this:
1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5
Your APL is 2.8. 6 Players you add +1 to make 3.8, round up, and you qualify for 4-5. Remove the +1 APL and you do not qualify.I hadn't seen anyone else correct this, so I wanted to mention that the assumptions here are a bit off.
Specifically, APL 2.8 can already play up. 2.8 rounds to 3, 3 has the option to play 1-2 or 4-5. As they should - half the group is 3+. The +1 for 6 players in seasons 0-3 actually requires them to play up. Again, probably as they should. The 3,4,5 are 3/4's of a balanced 4-player group for a Tier 4-5 in seasons 0-3.
This situation is quite common for the gameday I organize and others nearby. Just finding scenarios that can be played by old and new players can be difficult - matching sub-tiers all the time is far more difficult.
For the Out-of-Tier option:
No need to re-do prior season chronicle sheets - the value is simply the average of the two tiers. Actual mid-level tier gp value might be slightly different, but not enough to make a large difference.
You are correct. I forgot that APL between subtiers gets a choice to play up or down. Perhaps there needs to be a rule that you must be within 1 level of a subtier in order to be eligible with that character. Like if you want to play in a 4-5 scenario you must use a level 3 or higher character. Instead of using APL to determine eligibility, use a minimum/maximum level for each individual character in order to qualify.
3-4 Requires you to be level 2
4-5 Requires you to be level 3
5-6 Requires you to be level 4
6-7 Requires you to be level 5
7-8 Requires you to be level 6
8-9 Requires you to be level 7
10-11 Requires you to be level 9
These changes, in addition to others could help solve the issue.
|
|
People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".
I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.
I actually fully agree with you that the character build is the primary force in trivializing encounters. But that said, adding a ton of wealth on top of that adds considerably more impact than I believe you realize.
Let's use level 7 for test purposes. Run the numbers of all scenario at-tier play up to that level vs. all scenario next tier up to that level. Depending on the scenarios in question, you will find that the WBL is anywhere from +50% to fully double that of playing at-tier. Now this may end up reduced if raise dead is needed - but it also may not.
The difference is that it is both fair and reasonable to regulate the wealth towards a universal standard. With the exception of race boons, character creation is regulated to a universal standard.
So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.
So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".
So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Remove the rule that 6 players gives you +1 APL. This will severely reduce the number of tables that are even able to play up.
Let's say for example you have a 1-5 table that looks like this:
1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5
Your APL is 2.8. 6 Players you add +1 to make 3.8, round up, and you qualify for 4-5. Remove the +1 APL and you do not qualify.I hadn't seen anyone else correct this, so I wanted to mention that the assumptions here are a bit off.
Specifically, APL 2.8 can already play up. 2.8 rounds to 3, 3 has the option to play 1-2 or 4-5. As they should - half the group is 3+. The +1 for 6 players in seasons 0-3 actually requires them to play up. Again, probably as they should. The 3,4,5 are 3/4's of a balanced 4-player group for a Tier 4-5 in seasons 0-3.
This situation is quite common for the gameday I organize and others nearby. Just finding scenarios that can be played by old and new players can be difficult - matching sub-tiers all the time is far more difficult.
For the Out-of-Tier option:
No need to re-do prior season chronicle sheets - the value is simply the average of the two tiers. Actual mid-level tier gp value might be slightly different, but not enough to make a large difference.You are correct. I forgot that APL between subtiers gets a choice to play up or down. Perhaps there needs to be a rule that you must be within 1 level of a subtier in order to be eligible with that character. Like if you want to play in a 4-5 scenario you must use a level 3 or higher character. Instead of using APL to determine eligibility, use a minimum/maximum level for each individual character in order to qualify.
3-4 Requires you to be level 2
4-5 Requires you to be level 3
5-6 Requires you to be level 4
6-7 Requires you to be level 5
7-8 Requires you to be level 6
8-9 Requires you to be level 7
10-11 Requires you to be level 9These changes, in addition to others could help solve the...
Organizing game day/convention tables is hard enough already without further restricting level ranges.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".
I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.
I actually fully agree with you that the character build is the primary force in trivializing encounters. But that said, adding a ton of wealth on top of that adds considerably more impact than I believe you realize.
Let's use level 7 for test purposes. Run the numbers of all scenario at-tier play up to that level vs. all scenario next tier up to that level. Depending on the scenarios in question, you will find that the WBL is anywhere from +50% to fully double that of playing at-tier. Now this may end up reduced if raise dead is needed - but it also may not.
The difference is that it is both fair and reasonable to regulate the wealth towards a universal standard. With the exception of race boons, character creation is regulated to a universal standard.
So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.
So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".
So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?
The beauty of D&D is that it allows for many different play styles. Your way of playing D&D is not the wrong way anymore than mine is the right way. Each of us is going to play the game the way we enjoy it the most. The only issue is when my way of playing interferes with yours. It is the nature of humanity that this conflict will occurs. We have social rules to deal with this at a common level and laws to deal with this at extreme levels. PFS is no different. I would not want to play PFS if it only catered to one limited play style, regardless of what that play style is and I think most people would discover the game considerably less fun if this were ever to come to pass.
|
|
To support part of my esteemed wall of water above...
The magic item system already has something in place to mitigate the worst effects of extra wealth: Quadratic costs for linear benefit.
7th level fighter at wbl (23,500 gp)
+2 sword 8k
+2 armor 4k
+2 Belt of giant strength 4k
+1 Amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4k7th level fighter at over 9th level wbl (is this even possible?) (49,000)
+3 weapon 18k
+3 armor 9k
+4 Belt of Giant strength 16k
+1 amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4kInstead of +14 to hit he has +16. Instead of 2d6+10 damage he has 2d6+13 damage. More than doubling the gold gets you a pretty minor increase.
The difference between a +2 and +3 weapon is huge. That opens the door to a whole new list of possible enchantments you have access to. Same with armor. For example if you have the ability to buy a +3 weapon, you could buy axiomatic, anarchic, negating, or dispelling burst. All fairly decent enchantments.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps there needs to be a rule that you must be within 1 level of a subtier in order to be eligible with that character.
Intriguing. This fixes the stated wealth issue that MMJ brought up just as well as their initial idea would, but shields high-tier PCs from getting cornered into the perma-loss of playing down, and also shields low-level PCs from the prospect of having to play up without additional compensation. Folks in the middle can still do the "I can play down this time and play up next time" thing people are talking about, but no one who should definitely be in the low tier can ever be bullied into the high tier, no matter what.
This idea also has the virtue of simplicity, being literally a single-sentence rule: "You must be within 1 level of a given subtier in order to play in that subtier."
I think I could probably support this as a solution.
|
|
The beauty of...People keep saying "it isn't optimized characters it is wealthy characters causing problems".
I'm not convinced this is true, I believe optimization has more to do with making encounters trivial and the wealth has very little.
I actually fully agree with you that the character build is the primary force in trivializing encounters. But that said, adding a ton of wealth on top of that adds considerably more impact than I believe you realize.
Let's use level 7 for test purposes. Run the numbers of all scenario at-tier play up to that level vs. all scenario next tier up to that level. Depending on the scenarios in question, you will find that the WBL is anywhere from +50% to fully double that of playing at-tier. Now this may end up reduced if raise dead is needed - but it also may not.
The difference is that it is both fair and reasonable to regulate the wealth towards a universal standard. With the exception of race boons, character creation is regulated to a universal standard.
So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.
So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".
So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?
By all means, I fully agree and everyone has fun and defines fun their own way (not trying to say otherwise, but tone and the typed word). But the entire question of eliminating the ability to play up taking on greater risks for greater rewards comes back to the question of why is this an issue (in terms of difficulty of scenarios)? PFS has already taken the large step of setting scenario difficulty for a challenge of 6 people. Regardless of whatever challenge they put forth, there will be some groups that WALK through secnarios and other that will struggle (and then vice-versa) SOLELY based on the make-up of characters at the table. Never have I said that those sessions where we walked through were "not fun/or challenging". It was nice to be able to flex a little muscle every now and then.
Getting back to the original point (trying to anyhow, since the entire thread weaves, its just the way it goes) why do we need to fix something that only a handful of people (again, we have no numbers to back this up) seem to have broken?
|
|
Perhaps there needs to be a rule that you must be within 1 level of a subtier in order to be eligible with that character.Intriguing. This fixes the stated wealth issue that MMJ brought up just as well as their initial idea would, but shields high-tier PCs from getting cornered into the perma-loss of playing down, and also shields low-level PCs from the prospect of having to play up without additional compensation. Folks in the middle can still do the "I can play down this time and play up next time" thing people are talking about, but no one who should definitely be in the low tier can ever be bullied into the high tier, no matter what.
This idea also has the virtue of simplicity, being literally a single-sentence rule: "You must be within 1 level of a given subtier in order to play in that subtier."
I think I could probably support this as a solution.
I like since one would still ahve the ability to play up every now and then to make up for potential losses.
|
|
The difference between a +2 and +3 weapon is huge. That opens the door to a whole new list of possible enchantments you have access to. Same with armor. For example if you have the ability to buy a +3 weapon, you could buy axiomatic, anarchic, negating, or dispelling burst. All fairly decent enchantments.
And all very situational, and thus impossible to make a comparison between their mundane alternatives.
|
|
So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.
So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".
So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?
Not exactly. Let me say this in another way, preceded by this statement:
I am an optimal min-maxer. Character building is something I greatly enjoy, and contesting my creations against game content brings great joy to me. So in that sense, no, I am absolutely not advocating for less optimization. All players should be able to design and play their characters in whatever manner is fun for them, within the rules of the additional resources ofcourse.
In regards to my previous statement, the short and skinny of my point is this: character creation is closely regulated by the additional resources in such a way that it makes character design equal for all players (race boons aside). My personal opinion is that WBL should be regulated in a similar manner.
To answer your question specifically? Yes, I believe someone is gaming the system in choosing the games, tables, and tiers that allow them to play up. I do not fault them for this, however. I'd make the same choice every day of the week. Instead, we need to alter the system in such a way that this no longer provides them greater wealth than their peers.
If optimization is a problem in PFS, that issues is separate to the one I am discussing. I am discussing that players of equal level not having very comparable WBL is a problem.
|
|
I don't recall who (and can't find, since there are a lot of posts, I don't take credit) but did try and discuss the difference between wealth and income. I ran some numbers an was intruiged by what I found. Though my characters income was almost 20k over tier, his wealth (including all consumables) was only 7k over tier. Never did I feel I was trying to game the system to ensure maximum gold. But if someone didnt have the same expenditures are someone else, then, yes, they would be well over tier. But how do you regulate that, if it needs to be regulated?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The difference between a +2 and +3 weapon is huge. That opens the door to a whole new list of possible enchantments you have access to. Same with armor. For example if you have the ability to buy a +3 weapon, you could buy axiomatic, anarchic, negating, or dispelling burst. All fairly decent enchantments.To support part of my esteemed wall of water above...
The magic item system already has something in place to mitigate the worst effects of extra wealth: Quadratic costs for linear benefit.
7th level fighter at wbl (23,500 gp)
+2 sword 8k
+2 armor 4k
+2 Belt of giant strength 4k
+1 Amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4k7th level fighter at over 9th level wbl (is this even possible?) (49,000)
+3 weapon 18k
+3 armor 9k
+4 Belt of Giant strength 16k
+1 amulet of natural armor 2k
+2 cloak of resistance 4kInstead of +14 to hit he has +16. Instead of 2d6+10 damage he has 2d6+13 damage. More than doubling the gold gets you a pretty minor increase.
Also +3 enhancement is where automatic DR begins to kick in. Cold iron and silver are overcome at that point, I believe.
And, yes, BNW, that level of wealth is possible. I know of one character in that range, locally (though he, himself, is not abusing it, really, beyond the fact that he never wants for anything).
I am curious whether anyone has analyzed what effect higher wealth has on one's ability to make outsized purchases, instead of "christmas tree" purchases. Locally we also have one character who owns celestial armor at 7th level (a 22,00 gp item - which shouldn't be available, according to the WBL chart and the "can't have an item be worth more than 50% of wealth" line in the CRB, until 9th level at the earliest). That armor makes him a pretty tough customer at his tier.
|
|
So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand.
So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem".
So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters?
Not exactly. Let me say this in another way, preceded by this statement:
I am an optimal min-maxer. Character building is something I greatly enjoy, and contesting my creations against game content brings great joy to me. So in that sense, no, I am absolutely not advocating for less optimization. All players should be able to design and play their characters in whatever manner is fun for them, within the rules of the additional resources ofcourse.
In regards to my previous statement, the short and skinny of my point is this: character creation is closely regulated by the additional resources in such a way that it makes character design equal for all players (race boons aside). My personal opinion is that WBL should be regulated in a similar manner.
To answer your question specifically? Yes, I believe someone is gaming the system in choosing the games, tables, and tiers that allow them to play up. I do not fault them for this, however. I'd make the same choice every day of the week. Instead, we need to alter the system in such a way that this no longer...
Great reply. Since comparable wealth is subjective (+/- 2k, 5k, etc), we have PFS execs make that call.
The question is, how do we get there and what about those that fall behind due to poor luck or sub-optimal tables that expend larger than normal consumables, if anything?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Isn´t that regulated through fame scores in PFS?
The within one level of subtier seems like an elegant solution too.
A new player coming into a level 4 group with a level 1 character would still be a different problem though, probably forced to play a pregen untill there are enough new players for a new group or low level scenarios or the others agree to start new characters.
Not really related to the WBL problem, but kind of to the playing up/down thing. And clearly a problem of areas with a smaller PFS base.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...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.
.....
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.
That would be why I never connected my comments about Mike's data to my comments about how I think things should be.
Someone claimed that the initial problem that this thread is trying to solve wasn't actually a problem in the first place, that it wasn't actually happening as much as people thought. So I replied to that specific claim by pointing out that if Forumite X and Mike Brock have different perceptions about how often something happens in the campaign, Mike's perception is going to be the more complete and accurate one. That's all. I did not use that as a reason to favor this or that solution, only to say that claiming there wasn't a problem in the first place is silly. So please don't put words in my mouth.
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.
I never said otherwise. I didn't say "Mike has more data, therefore we shouldn't be discussing solutions". I said "Mike has more data, therefore we shouldn't be saying he's wrong about there being a problem in the first place". See my reply to BNW, above.
Don't waste time showing why a statement doesn't support something it was never meant to support.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps there needs to be a rule that you must be within 1 level of a subtier in order to be eligible with that character.Intriguing. This fixes the stated wealth issue that MMJ brought up just as well as their initial idea would, but shields high-tier PCs from getting cornered into the perma-loss of playing down, and also shields low-level PCs from the prospect of having to play up without additional compensation. Folks in the middle can still do the "I can play down this time and play up next time" thing people are talking about, but no one who should definitely be in the low tier can ever be bullied into the high tier, no matter what.
This idea also has the virtue of simplicity, being literally a single-sentence rule: "You must be within 1 level of a given subtier in order to play in that subtier."
I think I could probably support this as a solution.
But I don't want to see people sign up for a 7-11 scenario, show up with their level 8 character, and not be able to play because even though their character is a legal level for the tier, they're not really legal, because they fall outside the unadvertised subtier.
|
|
Organizing game day/convention tables is hard enough already without further restricting level ranges.snipped
I hate to put it this way, but if a table can't be put together with the characters on hand, the level requirement solution would still leave open the possibility of using a pregen to qualify.
Tier 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 can use the level 4 pregen
Tier 5-6, 6-7, 7/8, and 8-9 can use the level 7 pregen
As long as you are within 1 level of the subtier, you will be eligible to play it. I don't think that will be too limiting. I also think there is no one perfect solution that will fix everything. To fix this problem it will require a small collection of changes.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Robert: Your point would be a good one, if not for the fact that pregens suck.
They are not even slightly optimized. Kyra PREPARES Cure Light Wounds. What?
Not all of the classes are available. There is no pregen Magus, or anything from the APG.
Most importantly, though, they are personalityless. Playing through The Immortal Conundrum or The Blakros Matrimony with a pregen would put me to sleep, and it would be a waste of a great scenario that can only be played once. My groups still tell stories about their experiences in these scenarios, months after they've been ran. Do you think they'll talk as much about Ezren's activities in it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps another thing that would help (at least towards making legal tables) would be to introduce level 10 iconics/pregens. Then, people would have a choice for a tier 10-11 table?
However, I have heard tell that the biggest "abusers" are people who will play a level 7 pregen in a tier 10-11 scenario (and assign the chronicle to an unplayed level 1 if they die). This could solve that issue.
Of course, having a full set of pregens at levels 1, 4, 7, 10 would really be a help (and needed if this rule were implemented). Perhaps also change the rule for when you can apply a pregen chronicle to read that you apply the chronicle to a character as soon as it qualifies at the lowest sub-tier, much like you would for a GM chronicle. This would also help to alleviate some of the abuse, IMHO.
Even if the +/-1 tier rule was applied to pregens only, this could help.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I am disappointed at all of the talk about pregens. One of the big selling points for PFS has always been "You can go to a convention and play *your own* character!" If we're telling people to use pregens so much, then it really guts that argument. It undermines character attachment and investment. It's simply not a realistic option.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to see a solution to the wealth by level thing that wouldn't be worse than a problem you'd need half an hour and an excel sheet to really pin down.
People not getting to play is bad. People not getting to play their characters is bad. Even with twice WBL is a character really going to ruin the game worse than a slumber hex happy witch?
|
Frankly, I am disappointed at all of the talk about pregens. One of the big selling points for PFS has always been "You can go to a convention and play *your own* character!" If we're telling people to use pregens so much, then it really guts that argument. It undermines character attachment and investment. It's simply not a realistic option.
This.
Pregens have their place, and most people will end up playing one at some point, but any solution that encourages more playing of pregens and less playing of a character legal for the scenario is creating a bigger problem than it's solving, in my opinion.
|
|
I'm against builds as the ruin the scenario as much as anyone, but I find that is *builds* that are the killer, not the gold being thrown around. Feat combinations and class feature combinations are the killer, not $$. I personally don't see what the big deal about wealth is at all. At higher levels, a deviation of 5-10K is not the difference between effective and ineffective characters.
|
|
Robert: Your point would be a good one, if not for the fact that pregens suck.
They are not even slightly optimized. Kyra PREPARES Cure Light Wounds. What?
Not all of the classes are available. There is no pregen Magus, or anything from the APG.
Most importantly, though, they are personalityless. Playing through The Immortal Conundrum or The Blakros Matrimony with a pregen would put me to sleep, and it would be a waste of a great scenario that can only be played once. My groups still tell stories about their experiences in these scenarios, months after they've been ran. Do you think they'll talk as much about Ezren's activities in it?
While lacking some customization, the pregens, especially the level 7 incarnations, are decent enough to handle themselves in a competent group.
I'll address these points in sequence:
1) Kyra PREPARES Cure Light Wounds. What?
Kyra has the healing domain. Her other domain has some nice spells, but situational, and so it actually makes sense that she would prepare a cure spell in her domain slot. Her other option at first level is endure elements, and that doesn't come up very often. On the other hand, her sun domain makes her an absolute killer when any undead show up. No problems here.
2) There is no pregen Magus, or anything from the APG
APG stands for Advanced Player's Guide. If I'm giving a player a pregenerated character, it is not going to be an alchemist, inquisitor, or magus, because those classes are incredibly complicated. Pregens are built for ease of play while still being able to contribute.
3) Most importantly, though, they are personalityless.
Only if you let them be. We have comics about the pregens, we have backstories written on their character sheets. I have had a Kyra who, by the end of her adventure, was convinced that she had converted every single member of her party over to Sarenrae. I have had a Meresiel that flirted with and then pickpocketed several members of the Throaty Mermaid, and I have seen Ezren crow with delight at grabbing every single killing blow in an adventure with only his trusty walking stick.
Don't blame the pregen for not roleplaying. Don't call pregens the worst thing ever, because they're certainly not.
I'm against builds as the ruin the scenario as much as anyone, but I find that is *builds* that are the killer, not the gold being thrown around. Feat combinations and class feature combinations are the killer, not $$. I personally don't see what the big deal about wealth is at all. At higher levels, a deviation of 5-10K is not the difference between effective and ineffective characters.
The problem is people have much more than 5k-10k when they've mostly played up.
Builds are up to the individual. They help create a character. I have no problem with someone building a character.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mergy,
I agree with you that they are great for new players. However, when we start talking about telling somebody with a level 10 character that they should play a pregen for the 7-11 scenario that they signed up for, we are far, far beyond the point of new player. It's frankly insulting, in my opinion, that we'd be telling them to do this when they have a character that they have a long history with, that they've been looking forward to playing, and that they know how to play well. We're talking about characters that these players have spent hours on, playing, honing and building.
|
|
Robert: Your point would be a good one, if not for the fact that pregens suck.
They are not even slightly optimized. Kyra PREPARES Cure Light Wounds. What?
Not all of the classes are available. There is no pregen Magus, or anything from the APG.
Most importantly, though, they are personalityless. Playing through The Immortal Conundrum or The Blakros Matrimony with a pregen would put me to sleep, and it would be a waste of a great scenario that can only be played once. My groups still tell stories about their experiences in these scenarios, months after they've been ran. Do you think they'll talk as much about Ezren's activities in it?
While lacking some customization, the pregens, especially the level 7 incarnations, are decent enough to handle themselves in a competent group.
I'll address these points in sequence:
1) Kyra PREPARES Cure Light Wounds. What?
Kyra has the healing domain. Her other domain has some nice spells, but situational, and so it actually makes sense that she would prepare a cure spell in her domain slot. Her other option at first level is endure elements, and that doesn't come up very often. On the other hand, her sun domain makes her an absolute killer when any undead show up. No problems here.
2) There is no pregen Magus, or anything from the APG
APG stands for Advanced Player's Guide. If I'm giving a player a pregenerated character, it is not going to be an alchemist, inquisitor, or magus, because those classes are incredibly complicated. Pregens are built for ease of play while still being able to contribute.
3) Most importantly, though, they are personalityless.
Only if you let them be. We have comics about the pregens, we have backstories written on their character sheets. I have had a Kyra who, by the end of her adventure, was convinced that she had converted every single member of her party over to Sarenrae. I have had a Meresiel that flirted with and then pickpocketed several members of the...
Good points, but pregen Kyra at certain levels actually prepares cure spells that aren't domain spells. From a game-world perspective, it makes absolutely 100% no sense to do so, but my guess is that from a metagame perspective, it might be there in case new players don't remember they can swap out spontaneously and GMs don't remind them?