|
You quoted that reply as responding to me, but actually that post was Mergy's.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.
quibble that is a distraction from the thread:I'm not sure that holds water, if you consider there are pregen Samurai, Ninja and Gunslinger. That last of those being both complex, and weird.The truth is more likely that creating pregens for the 11 core classes, 7 base classes, and 2 alternate classes (Anti-paladin being out.) Would be time consuming and and a bit of a distraction. If someone comes to the table asking for a pregen and you give them 20 choices, they are going to mull. Even 7 choices drags outs sometimes.
In spite of that, I would love if the NPC Guide to be sanctioned.
I also messed up my spoiler tag :) As I was trying to not threadjack, but here I go :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The main trouble I see with it is that the people who are hurt the most are the ones who we least want to--totally new players who are forced to take the losses dealt by the podcast system in order to advance, as waiting and staying permanently at level 1 with lower and lower gear (as consumables disappear and aren't replaced with new money between sessions) isn't an option.
I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying in this paragraph. Could you rephrase?
Heck, that's another big issue with it--unlike both of the other times you can delay credit, in this case you're playing your own character with your own consumables, and the problem isn't just that you might need them and lose them, it's that you might need them again next mission and be wholly unable to replace them.
I think this can be fixed by culture rather than rules, much like how unpredictable party composition is alleviated by "folks are encouraged to get their own healing wand ASAP" instead of "each party is required to have a healer".
Something like "Hey guys, since I'm not going to be able to replace consumables unless I choose low-tier rewards, could we make sure that we use you guys' stuff first (after found items, of course)? Thanks."
I suppose we could make a rule to allow the high-tier chronicle (if selected) to fund purchases of consumables prior to putting it on hold (just like we're proposing for condition-clearing). But honestly I don't even think that would be necessary if folks are considerate of the fact that their tablemates are getting cornered into playing up. If I'm going to expect you to play up (instead of me playing down or using a pregen or whatever) so that I can play in-tier, then I'd be one heck of a jerk to not cut you a little slack on consumable usage.
|
|
And then you caught up but you totally lack the fame score to buy anything you are supposed to have at that time?
I think that both those options are really bad for a lot of players, especially newer ones or people with few characters.
Even the original problem that seems to have caused this all seems to me as a luxury problem somehow. Right now this thread reached a point where totally theoretical buildings describing cornercases are thrown around.
Holding credit while playing character up or taking the lower level stuff will both never function because of very obvious problems that were already mentioned several times.
|
|
The main trouble I see with it is that the people who are hurt the most are the ones who we least want to--totally new players who are forced to take the losses dealt by the podcast system in order to advance, as waiting and staying permanently at level 1 with lower and lower gear (as consumables disappear and aren't replaced with new money between sessions) isn't an option.I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying in this paragraph. Could you rephrase?
I'll try:
If you are a new player under this proposal who is behind everyone else, you are essentially forced to play under the proposed podcast system and therefore being heavily punished. Meanwhile, the "problem gamer" never is. The eager bright-eyed new gamer who has no intentions of gaming the system is not the person we want to harm. And the podcast system is harmful.
I think this can be fixed by culture rather than rules, much like how unpredictable party composition is alleviated by "folks are encouraged to get their own healing wand ASAP" instead of "each party is required to have a healer".
Something like "Hey guys, since I'm not going to be able to replace consumables unless I choose low-tier rewards, could we make sure that we use you guys' stuff first (after found items, of course)? Thanks."
I suppose we could make a rule to allow the high-tier chronicle (if selected) to fund purchases of consumables prior to putting it on hold (just like we're proposing for condition-clearing). But honestly I don't even think that would be necessary if folks are considerate of the fact that their tablemates are getting cornered into playing up. If I'm going to expect you to play up (instead of me playing down or using a pregen or whatever) so that I can play in-tier, then I'd be one heck of a jerk to not cut you a little slack on consumable usage.
That only works if you're not the only one that has that consumable. Even for major lifesavers like scrolls of breath of life and even for an extremely collaborative bunch like we have up in my area (splitting for raises and such is by far the norm) it's difficult to get more than half the players to grab one of those.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok... as promised.. I will type up what the Halvies adjustment will look like.
Going from the explanation of playing up or down...
"Players that play up or down will be rewarded gold based on the gold reward of the character's original tier, with the following adjustments. Characters playing up will get the full amount of their own tier's gold plus half of that again. Players playing down will get half of their own tier's gold plus half of the lower tier's gold that they are playing down to. Those characters whose level falls between the tiers will be considered a part of the lower tier."
Thoughts?
|
I'm cautiously optimistic about the hold-credit option, at least as a viable alternative worth considering. I share RE's concerns about running through expendables of lower-levels and about making the level gap worse rather than better. I'm not reading too carefully right now, so not sure what's been said to address these concerns.
The other concern I have is how this proposal would handle higher levels who play down. So if we have a 2-2-3-4-4 table (can they play 4-5? I don't know the tier math and am working off my phone...), what happens if they play up, what happens if they play down? That's the case I'd like to answer for any proposed system. I see the way half-or-double would handle going up or going down, how would hold-credit handle each case?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's use a hypothetical situation: You are level 1 and go play a 1-5 scenario. Everyone has level 4s and you decide to play up with a level 4 pregen. You finish the scenario with a disease that you have to buy off (150GP). You also bribed an NPC(10GP for simplicity). So you subtract that off the chronicle sheet and hold it until you get to level 4.
This is exactly what is bein propsed except instead of a pregen it's your character. The only difference: you can choose to take the reward you qualify for instantly. What's so wrong with that?
|
|
And then you caught up but you totally lack the fame score to buy anything you are supposed to have at that time?
I think that both those options are really bad for a lot of players, especially newer ones or people with few characters.
Even the original problem that seems to have caused this all seems to me as a luxury problem somehow. Right now this thread reached a point where totally theoretical buildings describing cornercases are thrown around.
Holding credit while playing character up or taking the lower level stuff will both never function because of very obvious problems that were already mentioned several times.
Well here's the thing--let's say I'm Newbie McNewb and I just started, even though everyone else is level 4. After three scenarios, everyone else is is 5 and I'm level 3 and am no longer playing up to play with them. I've lost between 3 and 6 PP and Fame doing this depending on how well I completed my faction missions. That's going to essentially only knock me down one category of Fame, which isn't a big deal unless I'm a caster who doesn't use weapons or wear armor (and only then because 18 Fame is a long time to wait for your +2 stat item and there's nothing shiny and always-available).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The main trouble I see with it is that the people who are hurt the most are the ones who we least want to--totally new players who are forced to take the losses dealt by the podcast system in order to advance, as waiting and staying permanently at level 1 with lower and lower gear (as consumables disappear and aren't replaced with new money between sessions) isn't an option.I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying in this paragraph. Could you rephrase?
I'll try:
If you are a new player under this proposal who is behind everyone else, you are essentially forced to play under the proposed podcast system and therefore being heavily punished. Meanwhile, the "problem gamer" never is. The eager bright-eyed new gamer who has no intentions of gaming the system is not the person we want to harm. And the podcast system is harmful.
How about instead of "essentially the same as something else", you go with "this is what happens"? That would make it a lot easier to understand what you're talking about.
That only works if you're not the only one that has that consumable.
True, but do you need everyone in the party to have a scroll of breath of life? I find that there's typically a direct correlation between how necessary a consumable is and how many people have it. But again, if this is really a problem (I couldn't really say, beyond my own speculation), then letting the recovery of spent consumables be treated the same way as clearing conditions wouldn't be that big of a deal to implement. So either you take the reward you should have had to begin with, or you take the higher tier reward (using it to cover costs immediately, and delaying the rest), and it's always the player's choice according to the situation.
|
|
I'm cautiously optimistic about the hold-credit option, at least as a viable alternative worth considering. I share RE's concerns about running through expendables of lower-levels and about making the level gap worse rather than better. I'm not reading too carefully right now, so not sure what's been said to address these concerns.
The other concern I have is how this proposal would handle higher levels who play down. So if we have a 2-2-3-4-4 table (can they play 4-5? I don't know the tier math and am working off my phone...), what happens if they play up, what happens if they play down? That's the case I'd like to answer for any proposed system. I see the way half-or-double would handle going up or going down, how would hold-credit handle each case?
That table is APL 3 which could play either way. If they play up the ones that are level 4 apply their chronicle sheet immediately. The level 3 can choose the tier1-2 reward immediately or hold the chronicle until he reaches tier 4-5. The same is true of the level 2s. If they play down everyone gets the 1-2 reward.
|
|
That table is APL 3 which could play either way. If they play up the ones that are level 4 apply their chronicle sheet immediately. The level 3 can choose the tier1-2 reward immediately or hold the chronicle until he reaches tier 4-5. The same is true of the level 2s. If they play down everyone gets the 1-2 reward.
Actually, the way the rules are now (even with the MJM solution or with the delayed credit solution), the level 3s would get immediate high-tier credit, as would the level 4s. The level 2s would choose to either take immediate low tier credit or to delay credit til level 4.
|
|
How about instead of "essentially the same as something else", you go with "this is what happens"? That would make it a lot easier to understand what you're talking about.The main trouble I see with it is that the people who are hurt the most are the ones who we least want to--totally new players who are forced to take the losses dealt by the podcast system in order to advance, as waiting and staying permanently at level 1 with lower and lower gear (as consumables disappear and aren't replaced with new money between sessions) isn't an option.I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying in this paragraph. Could you rephrase?
I'll try:
If you are a new player under this proposal who is behind everyone else, you are essentially forced to play under the proposed podcast system and therefore being heavily punished. Meanwhile, the "problem gamer" never is. The eager bright-eyed new gamer who has no intentions of gaming the system is not the person we want to harm. And the podcast system is harmful.
I don't see what you don't like about the word essentially. In the end, a thing only is it's own essence. But anyway, the point is that the new player has a proposal of this:
"You have two options. There's Good Option 1, which it just so happens you can't take in your situation because you'll never catch up, caught in stasis while everyone else eventually leaves your tier entirely. Then there's Huge Punishment 2."
This is essentially (and even well and truly) equivalent to saying
"You in particular have one option. Huge Punishment 2."
I admit that the crux of this idea is the assertion that the Podcast Proposal is, in fact, a huge punishment for those who play up. I think the predominant voice I've seen from this thread is in agreement with that.
That only works if you're not the only one that has that consumable.True, but do you need everyone in the party to have a scroll of breath of life? I find that there's typically a direct correlation between how necessary a consumable is and how many people have it. But again, if this is really a problem (I couldn't really say, beyond my own speculation), then letting the recovery of spent consumables be treated the same way as clearing conditions wouldn't be that big of a deal to implement. So either you take the reward you should have had to begin with, or you take the higher tier reward (using it to cover costs immediately, and delaying the rest), and it's always the player's choice according to the situation.
True, you don't need everybody to have a BoL. You just need a few. But the point is if you're the one who has it, you can't just have someone else use it. Allowing repurchase of consumables just like clearing conditions would be an excellent adjustment. It only leaves the issue of the player who is in the position where they can't take the delayed credit.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm cautiously optimistic about the hold-credit option, at least as a viable alternative worth considering. I share RE's concerns about running through expendables of lower-levels and about making the level gap worse rather than better. I'm not reading too carefully right now, so not sure what's been said to address these concerns.
The player who's out of tier has the option of taking either a delayed high-tier chronicle or an instant chronicle for the tier they should have been in, at THEIR choice. Also, if they take the delayed high-tier chronicle, they can immediately use that sheet's gold to clear conditions (and maybe even to replace consumables, if needed) prior to putting that sheet on hold. So there would not be an issue with consumables.
The other concern I have is how this proposal would handle higher levels who play down. So if we have a 2-2-3-4-4 table (can they play 4-5? I don't know the tier math and am working off my phone...), what happens if they play up, what happens if they play down? That's the case I'd like to answer for any proposed system. I see the way half-or-double would handle going up or going down, how would hold-credit handle each case?
That table is APL 3, and could choose either subtier. In the current system, they simply take rewards for the tier they play, regardless of whether it's up or down.
In the Delayed Credit system, choosing to play down is unchanged from the current system: everyone gets tier 1-2 rewards. Choosing to play up (tier 4-5) would be unchanged from the current system for the PCs at 3rd level and higher: they simply get those rewards. The 2nd-level PCs playing at 4-5 would each get to choose whether to take a 1-2 sheet NOW; or to take a 4-5 sheet, spend that sheet's gold on clearing conditions and possibly replacing consumables, and then put the rest of the sheet on hold until they reach 3rd level.
|
|
Rogue Eidolon, I see your point about holding credit not working for cases where a brand new player is joining a group of level 4s or 5s. Ideally, the holding credit solution assumes that these events are rare, and that it is not a common occurrence for a level 1 to be playing all the time with a group of level 5s. Then again, the whole issue of playing up and down is less of a problem at tier 1-5, as in this case and this case alone, the higher-tier players always have the option of playing a "brand new" character. Additionally, many times (though this depends on region), there are multiple new players that can be grouped together, further mitigating the issue. The issue to me seems to be most prominent at tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11.
To be honest, it seems like:
1) For regions with low player and table count, where playing up is common to make tables, double XP is the best solution.
2) For regions with high player and table count, where playing up is generally rare, delayed credit is the best solution.
Honestly, I'd be ok with either delaying credit (the system I prefer) or double XP, as both are much better than the blog post/podcast suggestion.
|
|
That table is APL 3 which could play either way. If they play up the ones that are level 4 apply their chronicle sheet immediately. The level 3 can choose the tier1-2 reward immediately or hold the chronicle until he reaches tier 4-5. The same is true of the level 2s. If they play down everyone gets the 1-2 reward.Actually, the way the rules are now (even with the MJM solution or with the delayed credit solution), the level 3s would get immediate high-tier credit, as would the level 4s. The level 2s would choose to either take immediate low tier credit or to delay credit til level 4.
I'm advocating for the simplicity approach by making it exactly the same as if a GM holds credit. I think it's only fair too since if you give a level 3 tier 4-5 rewards, that will be the spot that that you can maximize your wealth. All the levels between tiers would allow you to do it.
I don't understand the support for the "Delayed Reward" proposal. It seems like the illusion of a solution rather than actually solving anything. I mean what concerns that people had with the podcast change does it actually address?
-If I play down a few games will this let we recoup my losses later? No.
-If I would incur extra losses for playing up would I get anything extra to take care of that? No.
And heck, don't most people like building up characters and playing characters at higher levels? I know for a fact that I don't want to play extra scenarios at lower level and limit the number of times I can actually play my character at a lower level.
Not to mention, unless this "Delayed Reward" proposal 100% covers all GP and consumable expenditures made in the scenario I am going find myself in a worse off situation next week than I was this week (less gold and eq but same xp and pa...)
I'm just really not seeing what this does...
|
|
Rogue Eidolon, I see your point about holding credit not working for cases where a brand new player is joining a group of level 4s or 5s. Ideally, the holding credit solution assumes that these events are rare, and that it is not a common occurrence for a level 1 to be playing all the time with a group of level 5s. Then again, the whole issue of playing up and down is less of a problem at tier 1-5, as in this case and this case alone, the higher-tier players always have the option of playing a "brand new" character. Additionally, many times (though this depends on region), there are multiple new players that can be grouped together, further mitigating the issue. The issue to me seems to be most prominent at tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11.
To be honest, it seems like:
1) For regions with low player and table count, where playing up is common to make tables, double XP is the best solution.
2) For regions with high player and table count, where playing up is generally rare, delayed credit is the best solution.Honestly, I'd be ok with either delaying credit (the system I prefer) or double XP, as both are much better than the blog post/podcast suggestion.
Yeah, I think delayed credit, with the consumable clause, is a good option for those who can take it. But foisting the Podcast Proposal on people who for some reason cannot choose this option is not good. I'm thinking we can use the delayed credit idea for sure--I really do like it; we just need a better option 2 than the Podcast Proposal.
|
|
Well here's the thing--let's say I'm Newbie McNewb and I just started, even though everyone else is level 4. After three scenarios, everyone else is is 5 and I'm level 3 and am no longer playing up to play with them. I've lost between 3 and 6 PP and Fame doing this depending on how well I completed my faction missions. That's going to essentially only knock me down one category of Fame, which isn't a big deal unless I'm a caster who doesn't use weapons or wear armor (and only then because 18 Fame is a long time to wait for your +2 stat item and there's nothing shiny and always-available).
Ok i see your point. But still isn´t that prestige missing then to get some other stuff like clearing conditions and such? Or raise dead etc? Don´t forget, the rest is still two levels above you.
|
|
Can we come up with a way to mod this idea that fixes that? I'm open to ideas--one might be to replace the non-hold option with getting double XP, all the gold for the high tier, and absolutely no increase in prestige. Essentially a combination of the two most popular ideas, but with the kicker that prestige is intentionally left at a horrible rate in the double XP case. So since it is crippling your prestige to do it, powergamers wouldn't take that option--you would only take this option if you legitimately were trying to catch up with your buddies.
The trouble with is the crippling prestige. Not being able to even afford a +2 weapon until well past level 6 seems like a bad bad thing. If we do this, we need to redo the fame limits. The amounts at the lower levels can go higher and the amount at higher levels goes down maybe?
|
|
The trouble with is the crippling prestige. Not being able to even afford a +2 weapon until well past level 6 seems like a bad bad thing. If we do this, we need to redo the fame limits. The amounts at the lower levels can go higher and the amount at higher levels goes down maybe?
Can we come up with a way to mod this idea that fixes that? I'm open to ideas--one might be to replace the non-hold option with getting double XP, all the gold for the high tier, and absolutely no increase in prestige. Essentially a combination of the two most popular ideas, but with the kicker that prestige is intentionally left at a horrible rate in the double XP case. So since it is crippling your prestige to do it, powergamers wouldn't take that option--you would only take this option if you legitimately were trying to catch up with your buddies.
If you made it to level 6 under the 2 XP proposal while playing up every time, then you were for some reason (I don't know why, but for some reason) intentionally attempting to play up whenever you could and cripple your prestige. If you start off three levels behind everyone else, you'll catch up to the point where you don't play up any more in two levels. At worst if you're four levels behind everyone else, then you actually will be locked out of playing with them anyway after three scenarios. So absolute worst case scenario you play up three games and then you've caught up close enough not to play up. You can't get to 6th level having played up every time without engineering it on purpose by switching groups once you catch up.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"You have two options. There's Good Option 1, which it just so happens you can't take in your situation because you'll never catch up, caught in stasis while everyone else eventually leaves your tier entirely. Then there's Huge Punishment 2."
This is essentially (and even well and truly) equivalent to saying
"You in particular have one option. Huge Punishment 2."
I admit that the crux of this idea is the assertion that the Podcast Proposal is, in fact, a huge punishment for those who play up. I think the predominant voice I've seen from this thread is in agreement with that.
How is it a "huge punishment" for a 1st or 2nd level PC to get exactly the rewards they're supposed to have?
You're brand-new and have a 1st-level PC, and you just finished a tier 4-5 scenario. Somehow, your brand-new PC managed to be the only one at the table with relevant consumables (which were apparently necessary to complete the scenario), so you choose to take level-appropriate rewards and buy them back. Then when you hit 3rd level (between tiers), you play up once and make up all that gold in one fell swoop.
How was that a huge punishment?
|
...Fame/Prestige then becomes the disincentive to play up. So, its still allowed, you may do it once in a while, but it becomes something you don't want to do all the time. I think you should still be able to play "slow" (for 1/2 gold and XP) however. I've never been a big fan of the "3 games per level" system in pathfinder society. Its simple, sure, but we've dealtThat 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).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.
Play down all the time and you'll be ahead in fame and behind in wealth then. Its the player's choice.
|
|
I don't understand the support for the "Delayed Reward" proposal...
Merkatz, I understand your concerns. Unfortunately, campaign staff feels that a change must be made to the rules in order to stop character wealth from getting too high due to repeated playing up. Because of this, they proposed forcing low-tier characters to always take low-tier gold, no matter what tier they played at.
The "Delayed Reward" system is an attempt to find a compromise between the campaign staff solution and a solution that allows players to play their own characters and receive the high-tier rewards. Under this proposal, a player would always be free to take low-tier rewards if they played up (which is what was chosen as the only option by the podcast). Alternatively, a player could hold credit from the adventure until they reached the correct level. The Delayed Reward system allows players to not lose out on any rewards they feel they earned by playing up.
If I understand what we were suggesting correctly, conditions gained/consumables used/etc would be taken care of once the delayed chronicle was applied, and not beforehand. Basically, if you used a Potion of Darkvision in a scenario in which you played up and wanted to replenish it, you would do so on the Delayed Credit chronicle itself. This would make the delayed credit not unbalanced for low-tier players playing up.
The specifics are of course up to campaign staff; I was simply hoping that we could find a compromise that meets campaign staff goals without punishing players or organizers.
|
|
I don't understand the support for the "Delayed Reward" proposal. It seems like the illusion of a solution rather than actually solving anything. I mean what concerns that people had with the podcast change does it actually address?
-If I play down a few games will this let we recoup my losses later? No.
-If I would incur extra losses for playing up would I get anything extra to take care of that? No.And heck, don't most people like building up characters and playing characters at higher levels? I know for a fact that I don't want to play extra scenarios at lower level and limit the number of times I can actually play my character at a lower level.
Not to mention, unless this "Delayed Reward" proposal 100% covers all GP and consumable expenditures made in the scenario I am going find myself in a worse off situation next week than I was this week (less gold and eq but same xp and pa...)
I'm just really not seeing what this does...
It's not a perfect solution, but it is the best compromise ive seen. If you dont want to wait, then take the lower tier. The point of this system is to discourage playing up for any reason other than to make a legal table. You can either take your lower reward now, or the higher reward later. If you play down, sure you wont get to make up the "lost gold", but you got to play and have fun. Playing down can happen, you have choices: play a different character, take the loss, play a pregen, walk away. You have these same options currently in the same situation. In the end isnt it about having fun?
|
|
Yeah, I think delayed credit, with the consumable clause, is a good option for those who can take it. But foisting the Podcast Proposal on people who for some reason cannot choose this option is not good. I'm thinking we can use the delayed credit idea for sure--I really do like it; we just need a better option 2 than the Podcast Proposal.
I agree with you, Rogue Eidolon. If we can find a better backup plan for small regions that allows delayed credit to not result in someone being unable to level up at all without taking the Podcast option, I would be in favor of it.
I don't really like the 2XP solution though, both because of the fame issues and because it breaks the "three scenarios or one module per level" rule. While people have discussed this rule, I think that for a compromise to be acceptable to campaign staff, we need to leave the core of the game as close as possible to what it is now.
So far, it sounds like most people would be willing to accept either 2XP or Delayed Credit if the option was the podcast solution, with individual preferences between the two systems being different. Am I correct in this?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I really don't know. An IOU is not something I want to complicate the game with. We already have players applying credit of games played with a higher level Pregen at the level of the pregen. Even that seems... cagey to me.
Anyone want to comment on the wording of the halvies plan above, or did everyone miss it?
Edit -- Here it is from above... it would be in the area that concerns playing up or down...
"Players that play up or down will be rewarded gold based on the gold reward of the character's original tier, with the following adjustments. Characters playing up will get the full amount of their own tier's gold plus half of that again. Players playing down will get half of their own tier's gold plus half of the lower tier's gold that they are playing down to. Those characters whose level falls between the tiers will be considered a part of the lower tier."
This would basically be giving mid tier gold. I believe it would average out to the basic wealth one would get if you played within tier throughout the character's career.
|
|
It's not a perfect solution, but it is the best compromise ive seen. If you dont want to wait, then take the lower tier. The point of this system is to discourage playing up for any reason other than to make a legal table. You can either take your lower reward now, or the higher reward later. If you play down, sure you wont get to make up the "lost gold", but you got to play and have fun. Playing down can happen, you have choices: play a different character, take the loss, play a pregen, walk away. You have these same options currently in the same situation. In the end isnt it about having fun?
But under the current system, the wealth loss will probably be balanced out by playing up a few times here and there. Same problem as the podcast proposal.
So under the delayed-credit proposal (as under the podcast proposal), the 4s in the 2-2-3-4-4 case have a very strong reason (permanent mechanical loss for their character) not to play down.
Whatever the delayed-credit does for playing up, does it address playing down? No. So the 2X-or-1/2X proposal is a bit more flexible in this situation.
Or does the delayed-credit do better with playing down than I've thought?
|
|
SCPRedMage, even though I was one of the people who proposed the delayed credit system, to be honest, I think the tiering system is fine as it is. I haven't seen any abuse of playing up at tables I've run or events I've been to. I would be perfectly happy leaving the system as it is.
But, since the rules are being changed to what was proposed in the podcast, I am hoping that the Delayed Credit (or Double XP, or Out-of-Tier rewards) systems will at least allow players to not be heavily punished for playing up.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
-If I play down a few games will this let we recoup my losses later? No.This does look like a problem with the delayed-credit proposal.
It's not a problem if between-tier PCs (like a 3rd level PC in a 1-5) can play up and receive the chronicle immediately.
The Delayed Credit model tries to minimize increased losses from playing up, but could still allow places where you could get a little extra gold. This means someone could still game the system to play up at "dead levels" as often as possible, but the effect on WBL for that compared to playing much further up at almost every level under the current system, would be a huge improvement.
|
|
The trouble with is the crippling prestige. Not being able to even afford a +2 weapon until well past level 6 seems like a bad bad thing. If we do this, we need to redo the fame limits. The amounts at the lower levels can go higher and the amount at higher levels goes down maybe?
It's not crippling prestige unless they play up and take the 2XP every single time. If a new player is doing that, people should discourage them. If an experienced player is doing that, they're doing it to themselves.
Yes, actually; you're misunderstanding my complaint.
I hypothetically just played this subtier 4-5 adventure with my level one character, with all of the risks that entails. I was stating that I played the adventure at the level my character has already reached; I didn't play it at level three or four, I played it at level one. So now my choices are to either not get the money to offset the risk I took, or wait until level three or four to apply the credit.
Ah, yes, I see what you're saying.
I still find it to be the least offensive proposal so far, personally.
--
Edit: Removed mild snideness. My bad; we're having a civil conversation here.
|
|
But under the current system, the wealth loss will probably be balanced out by playing up a few times here and there. Same problem as the podcast proposal.
So in the 2-2-3-4-4 case, the 4s will have a very strong reason (permanent mechanical loss for their character) not to play down.
Whatever the delayed-credit does for playing up, does it address playing down? No. So the 2X-or-1/2X proposal is a bit more flexible in this situation.
Or does the delayed-credit do better with playing down than I've thought?
You are right; delayed credit doesn't handle playing down very well. This issue is the same in both the current system, the podcast proposal, and the 2X system; for high level players, playing down incurs penalties.
However, the 1/2X proposal would lead to no mechanical disadvantage at all for playing down; it would effectively mean that a high-tier player could play down every scenario, and have no challenge while still leveling and getting the same WBL as if they were playing slow track. It seems to create a problem in the other direction.
|
|
But under the current system, the wealth loss will probably be balanced out by playing up a few times here and there. Same problem as the podcast proposal.
So in the 2-2-3-4-4 case, the 4s will have a very strong reason (permanent mechanical loss for their character) not to play down.
Whatever the delayed-credit does for playing up, does it address playing down? No. So the 2X-or-1/2X proposal is a bit more flexible in this situation.
Or does the delayed-credit do better with playing down than I've thought?
You are right; delayed credit doesn't handle playing down very well. This issue is the same in both the current system, the podcast proposal, and the 2X system; for high level players, playing down incurs penalties.
However, the 1/2X proposal would lead to no mechanical disadvantage at all for playing down; it would effectively mean that a high-tier player could play down every scenario, and have no challenge while still leveling and getting the same WBL as if they were playing slow track. It seems to create a problem in the other direction.
Hmmm, maybe give no prestige when playing down for 1/2 XP? Since it's really not that impressive/famous that you can beat the crap out of underleveled enemies? Although then that means you can pay less attention to doing the mission I guess.
|
|
It's not a perfect solution, but it is the best compromise ive seen. If you dont want to wait, then take the lower tier. The point of this system is to discourage playing up for any reason other than to make a legal table. You can either take your lower reward now, or the higher reward later. If you play down, sure you wont get to make up the "lost gold", but you got to play and have fun. Playing down can happen, you have choices: play a different character, take the loss, play a pregen, walk away. You have these same options currently in the same situation. In the end isnt it about having fun?But under the current system, the wealth loss will probably be balanced out by playing up a few times here and there. Same problem as the podcast proposal.
So under the delayed-credit proposal (as under the podcast proposal), the 4s in the 2-2-3-4-4 case have a very strong reason (permanent mechanical loss for their character) not to play down.
Whatever the delayed-credit does for playing up, does it address playing down? No. So the 2X-or-1/2X proposal is a bit more flexible in this situation.
Or does the delayed-credit do better with playing down than I've thought?
Or if the level 2s want to play down you can use a different character or play a pregen if you are level 4. I have 3 characters and im sure others have more, so if this comes up you can switch characters or play a pregen and make a new one after. I see no problem with this and would be willing to do it to make a table work.
|
|
I just want a system that doesn't penalize being a team player, playing up or playing down as an in-the-middle table thinks best. I think 2x-or-1/2X manages that. I'm not yet persuaded that delayed-credit handles the 2-2-3-4-4 well.
Or if the level 2s want to play down you can use a different character or play a pregen if you are level 4. I have 3 characters and im sure others have more, so if this comes up you can switch characters or play a pregen and make a new one after. I see no problem with this and would be willing to do it to make a table work.
Maybe this is enough to cover it. I always have a lower level ready to go or a new character planned I've been itching to try anyway. But as Patrick Harris pointed out upthread, this might not work as well with Season 5, in which (hopefully!) there are much stronger reasons to play a particular character with a particular scenario. Maybe it isn't a problem overall, but it does look like it might be a problem.
|
|
I just want a system that doesn't penalize being a team player, playing up or playing down as an in-the-middle table thinks best. I think 2x-or-1/2X manages that. I'm not yet persuaded that delayed-credit handles the 2-2-3-4-4 well.
Me neither.
Also in the "original" game you have the option to start at any level.
In PFS you don´t have that option and never will.
Still you want to grow the game and make tables happen, best without penalize some/new players.
It´s really difficult because there are several different problems udnerlying.
-players that try to take advantages
-new players or players for other reasons left behind or no char in tier
-conventions
-"big" areas with many oportunities
-"small" areas with few oportunities
|
|
I just want a system that doesn't penalize being a team player, playing up or playing down as an in-the-middle table thinks best. I think 2x-or-1/2X manages that. I'm not yet persuaded that delayed-credit handles the 2-2-3-4-4 well.
The goal of this rules change is to encourage playing in tier. A split table has to make a choice one way or the other; with a 1/2x system in place, it seems that the table would have a high incentive to play down (rather than the choice being balanced).
I don't have an issue with 2x (though I prefer a system that keeps 1 XP per scenario), but how do you suggest dealing with the issues that 1/2x introduces in terms of incentive to play down?
The new rules system proposed by the blog creates the system:
1) Play up; the level 2s get low-tier gold, everyone else gets high-tier gold.
2) Play down; everyone gets low tier gold.
In the end, while delayed credit is not perfect, it would give the table two options:
1) Play up; the level 2s can either take low-tier gold or take high-tier gold with a delay
2) Play down; everyone gets low tier gold.
Whereas a 2x-or-1/2x system would create:
1) Play up; everyone gets high-tier gold, and level 2s get double XP.
2) Play down; everyone gets low-tier gold, and the level 4s get 1/2 XP.
What is the incentive to not play down in the 2x-or-1/2x system?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be a lot of confusion over the finer details of the Delayed Credit model (and some back and forth on what those details should even be), so here's a (hopefully) clear and thorough synopsis of the Delayed Credit idea as I see it.
Playing Up
If your PC level is within the lower subtier of a scenario (such as being 1st or 2nd in a 1-5) and you play the higher subtier, you have two options:
1) You could take a low-tier chronicles sheet, receiving exactly the normal wealth you're supposed to receive at your level.
2) You could instead opt to take a chronicle for the higher tier played. If you do so, first resolve any deaths, diseases, or other conditions your PC acquired, using gold from this chronicle sheet (plus any contributions from your tablemates, as normal). You may also use this gold to replace lost consumables. Once you have finished with that, any remaining conditions apply immediately to your PC, as normal. The high-tier chronicle sheet (minus whatever was taken to resolve afflictions and consumables) is then put on hold. It will be applied to your PC as soon as you reach the level immediately before the subtier of that chronicle sheet (so for a 4-5 sheet, you apply it when you reach 3rd level).
The player makes this choice at the conclusion of the scenario, having seen how things panned out, using their own judgment/preference.
In the middle
If your PC is between subtiers (such as 3rd level in a 1-5 scenario), you get rewards for whatever you play. This is unchanged from current rules. This also means that if, despite measures taken to the contrary, you end up short on cash as a result of past games; you can potentially make up the difference at these levels. There is also still room for people to abuse the system, but not to the degree possible in the current system.
Playing down
This would be unchanged from the current system: if your PC is in the higher tier and plays down, you get the rewards for the tier you played. This is likely to be very rare, and if you do get cornered into it, there are still levels at which you can make up the difference (see "In the middle", above).
|
Wow. Lots of activity. Just stopped to eat, so I've only been able to glance through.
I'm glad the "hold the chronicle" option is being looked at. Jiggy and Tristan are doing a fine job addressing how it would work, so the only things ill add (which may have been said already) are that what it has that the podcast system doesn't is a way to help mitigate risk for low tier characters playing up, since presumably you would decide at the end of the scenario whether or not to take the higher tier rewards. If your character dies or is blinded or something, at least you have that option. As has been pointed out, it doesn't do anything to help characters catch up to their group if they fall behind. It shouldn't slow anyone down, though. At least not when compared to playing a pregen or the podcast system, since you could always take the immediate xp and lower gold. Unless your character dies and you need the higher tier gold to resolve it, but a character death should slow things down. Is it a perfect solution? No, but nothing is. Is it better than the podcast version, while accomplishing the same wealth balancing? I think so. Does it do anything to keep players playing in tier? A little, I think.
I'm still a fan of the double xp for playing up half xp for playing down idea, as I think that closely mirrors what I'm used to in RPGs. You fight tougher scenarios, you advance faster. But if that's not somewhere campaign management wants to go, "hold the chronicle" is at least fairly consistent with other things they have done in the past, which I think is why it seems more acceptable on the surface.
The out of tier rewards idea is also one I still like, and I'm sure any math or method to update old scenarios could be worked out.
Anyway, back on the road. I'm interested to see what's been posted after another 5 hours of driving.
|
|
I just want a system that doesn't penalize being a team player, playing up or playing down as an in-the-middle table thinks best. I think 2x-or-1/2X manages that. I'm not yet persuaded that delayed-credit handles the 2-2-3-4-4 well.The goal of this rules change is to encourage playing in tier. A split table has to make a choice one way or the other; with a 1/2x system in place, it seems that the table would have a high incentive to play down (rather than the choice being balanced).
I don't have an issue with 2x (though I prefer a system that keeps 1 XP per scenario), but how do you suggest dealing with the issues that 1/2x introduces in terms of incentive to play down?
The new rules system proposed by the blog creates the system:
1) Play up; the level 2s get low-tier gold, everyone else gets high-tier gold.
2) Play down; everyone gets low tier gold.In the end, while delayed credit is not perfect, it would give the table two options:
1) Play up; the level 2s can either take low-tier gold or take high-tier gold with a delay
2) Play down; everyone gets low tier gold.Whereas a 2x-or-1/2x system would create:
1) Play up; everyone gets high-tier gold, and level 2s get double XP.
2) Play down; everyone gets low-tier gold, and the level 4s get 1/2 XP.What is the incentive to not play down in the 2x-or-1/2x system?
No No, play down would be the high tier award/2, which means half of everything you would get for your tier normaly.
Of course it´s easier for the higher chars and therefore for the whole group. There is always gonna be a compromise one way or the other.
|
|
There seems to be a lot of confusion over the finer details of the Delayed Credit model (and some back and forth on what those details should even be), so here's a (hopefully) clear and thorough synopsis of the Delayed Credit idea as I see it.
** spoiler omitted **...
Well stated, Jiggy. While this system is not perfect, I think it is the best out of the proposed systems so far because it does not break the 1 xp per scenario expectation, making it more palatable to campaign staff. It also does not encourage playing down and tries to allow playing up without creating WBL issues.
|
|
The incentive not to play down would be that you are not supposed to play down and actually want to play in yor tier. You´re only playing down if the situation makes it really necessary.
Of course this has something to do with trust, which the whole game is build upon. If you as a GM and players want to do s!!~, nothing is gonna stop you.
|
|
Whereas a 2x-or-1/2x system would create:
1) Play up; everyone gets high-tier gold, and level 2s get double XP.
2) Play down; everyone gets low-tier gold, and the level 4s get 1/2 XP.What is the incentive to not play down in the 2x-or-1/2x system?
No No, play down would be the high tier award/2, which means half of everything you would get for your tier normaly.
Of course it´s easier for the higher chars and therefore for the whole group. There is always gonna be a compromise one way or the other.
So as it is stated currently, playing down would simply be equivalent to going slow-track, and not carry any penalty in the 2x-or-1/2x system?
This seems to allow the potential for abuse, as a character could simply play on "easy mode" throughout their career by always playing down without any penalties...it creates the exact situation MJM want to avoid, which is characters with too much wealth having no problems in scenarios.
|
|
Rogue Eidolon, I see your point about holding credit not working for cases where a brand new player is joining a group of level 4s or 5s. Ideally, the holding credit solution assumes that these events are rare, and that it is not a common occurrence for a level 1 to be playing all the time with a group of level 5s. Then again, the whole issue of playing up and down is less of a problem at tier 1-5, as in this case and this case alone, the higher-tier players always have the option of playing a "brand new" character. Additionally, many times (though this depends on region), there are multiple new players that can be grouped together, further mitigating the issue. The issue to me seems to be most prominent at tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11.
To be honest, it seems like:
1) For regions with low player and table count, where playing up is common to make tables, double XP is the best solution.
2) For regions with high player and table count, where playing up is generally rare, delayed credit is the best solution.Honestly, I'd be ok with either delaying credit (the system I prefer) or double XP, as both are much better than the blog post/podcast suggestion.
The solution shouldn't be just better then the posted blog suggestion (which is bloody awful). It should be better then what we have NOW...otherwise why the heck are we changing it to something WORSE?!?
|
|
Whereas a 2x-or-1/2x system would create:
1) Play up; everyone gets high-tier gold, and level 2s get double XP.
2) Play down; everyone gets low-tier gold, and the level 4s get 1/2 XP.What is the incentive to not play down in the 2x-or-1/2x system?
No No, play down would be the high tier award/2, which means half of everything you would get for your tier normaly.
Of course it´s easier for the higher chars and therefore for the whole group. There is always gonna be a compromise one way or the other.
So as it is stated currently, playing down would simply be equivalent to going slow-track, and not carry any penalty in the 2x-or-1/2x system?
This seems to allow the potential for abuse, as a character could simply play on "easy mode" throughout their career by always playing down without any penalties...it creates the exact situation MJM want to avoid, which is characters with too much wealth having no problems in scenarios.
Eliminating prestige when you play down for 1/2 XP, as I mentioned a few posts back, could be a fair disincentive, while not crippling the character like the gold loss would (unless the same character plays down every time, in which case they are exactly the abuser we're hoping to stop).
|
|
I don´t think the Jiggy version is good at this point.
I have to say, this really leaves out some problems.
When you choose to get the lower chronicle immediately, how you gonna be repaired for expendables and conditions that are out of your tier?
That is a real flaw!
Also it doesn´t change the situation that the next time you probably have to play up too if you are not lucky enough to live in a region where you can choose from a lot of games.
I think that is kind of a limited view you have there.