Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
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.
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. This is unmodified from current rules.
I don't believe that last sentence should be there - that's not the way the current rules work (it's how the 'podcast' rules work, but those are still only proposed changes).
|
|
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.
You guys are a bit accusing there by assuming someone would use this to play down or up all the time. If you had read what i wrote before you could see that this serves the main purpose to bring characters in a similar range. You don´t have the freedom to choose playing up or down, because this will be decided by the characters that are there and eventually end after a few scenarios where all are in range.
If you have the possibility to choose playing up or down you would actively seek out tables or set tables like that, which at least i consider as cheating.As i said, it´s up to the GM´s and players to play by the rules. If they don´t, PFS is not the place for them i guess, but a home game.
So if you can choose to abuse this system, you already have the oportunity to choose between different games and there should be a possibility for you to find a fitting game.
|
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
No you wont.
You play in 2 1-2 tier game, you have 1670 exp, 1k gold and assuming full prestige 4 pp...which can be converted to 1500 GP worth of consumables and access to higher gear.
You play in 1 3-4 game and you have 1670 exp, 1250 gold and 2 PP which can be used for 750 GP of consumables.
You come out 500 GP and 2 fame ahead to play down.
And it gets even worse with the 2 3-4 vs 1 5-6 where the base gold for playing down not even counting the extra PP is 2500 vs 2170...with the same exp gained.
So yes this system will lead to fame and PP farming unless you tie the PP gained with the exp gained.
|
Hayato and SCPRedMage, what is your alternate solution to the issue?
If we cannot come up with another solution, we are going to be stuck with the podcast rules. The developers (earlier in this thread) did not like changing the amount of XP that each scenario gave a player.
SCPRedMage, you are correct that delayed chronicles keeps wealth the same as the podcast system. In fact, that's the point; MJM want to limit wealth to this level. However, there is one key difference; because the chronicle sheet for the 4-5 game played at 1-2 does not apply yet (including consumable expenditure, condition removal, etc), a player who dies or contracts a condition that is not curable with 1-2 wealth in a 4-5 game is not dead. They would be able to use the 4-5 gp to recover from conditions.
|
|
With some of the new proposals on the table, I am liking Delayed Credit and "Out of Tier gold" options the best so far.
I am having more issues with delayed credit because as much as you would like to ignore it, I STILL see plenty of new players that cannot seem to grok how to hold credit when playing pregens and/or GMing (especially because they work different mechanically). I know it sounds simple in our heads, but believe me when I say it is not as easy as it sounds.
I think "out of tier gold" is the most easy to understand but second in elegance. If new chronicle sheets were printed for older scenarios with new loot tables already printed, this would be my hands down favorite.
Besides, try to put yourself into the shoes of a new player. I got to my game day with my brand newly-leveled to level 2 barbarian. I play in a 1-5 but have to play up, I'm the only low player on the table, everyone else is 4-5. At the end of the day, everyone else gets to apply their sheets and get some loot, while I have to sit on it until later, or take the lower reward. I may feel a bit jaded.
I think "out of tier gold" still has the best selling point: doesn't blow WBL out of the water by playing up, and helps out when having to play down.
I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm still probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date).
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm stil probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date.
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
That is the point. There isn't supposed to be an incentive to play up. That is the goal of this entire discussion.
|
|
I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm stil probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date.
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
Merkatz, the difference is that with the podcast system, you would take high risk and not get any extra reward at all. A character death or a high consumable expenditure would have to come out of the 1-2 gold pieces.
With delayed credit (please see Jiggy's post for a summary), you at least can use high-tier gold to clear your conditions and get your consumables replenished. Your WBL ends up being the same as the value the developers would like, but you are not punished if you die when playing up to make a table.
Remember that when comparing proposed solutions, we need to be comparing them to the Podcast ruleset, not the current ruleset. If we do not propose a better solution, we will be getting the Podcast ruleset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is the point. There isn't supposed to be an incentive to play up. That is the goal of this entire discussion.I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm stil probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date.
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
Then the only way I would play up is if I am "bullied" into doing so. And we a wanted to avoid that, remember?
|
|
Hayato and SCPRedMage, what is your alternate solution to the issue?
If we cannot come up with another solution, we are going to be stuck with the podcast rules. The developers (earlier in this thread) did not like changing the amount of XP that each scenario gave a player.
SCPRedMage, you are correct that delayed chronicles keeps wealth the same as the podcast system. In fact, that's the point; MJM want to limit wealth to this level. However, there is one key difference; because the chronicle sheet for the 4-5 game played at 1-2 does not apply yet (including consumable expenditure, condition removal, etc), a player who dies or contracts a condition that is not curable with 1-2 wealth in a 4-5 game is not dead. They would be able to use the 4-5 gp to recover from conditions.
My solution is the 2xp/1/2xp solution that i described several times, which takes clearly care of what i critized. You can read upthread what i said.
|
|
Then the only way I would play up is if I am "bullied" into doing so. And we a wanted to avoid that, remember?That is the point. There isn't supposed to be an incentive to play up. That is the goal of this entire discussion.I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm stil probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date.
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
This isnt about bullying. It's about fixing WBL gaps caused by people continuouslyto playing up. The bullying problem isnt due to the system, it's due to the people playing the system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Seriously, the benchmark should not be the horrible thing that was proposed. Coming up with something better then utter crapola does not mean it is actually GOOD. If we can't come up with anything better then what we have now, we should just support keeping what we have now.
|
|
Then the only way I would play up is if I am "bullied" into doing so. And we a wanted to avoid that, remember?
The issue is that with the podcast system, you get nothing if you play up. The podcast system does nothing to stop bullying aside from remove the potential "carrot" of high-tier gold and leave the "stick" of the other players.
With delayed credit, at least you are getting higher tier gold later down the line, and with the consumable exception, the direct risk to you is mitigated somewhat.
Like I have said before in this thread, I do not think that the current tiering system needs to change at all. However, because campaign staff wants to make a change, I have attempted to come up with a good compromise.
|
|
My solution is the 2xp/1/2xp solution that i described several times, which takes clearly care of what i critized. You can read upthread what i said.Hayato and SCPRedMage, what is your alternate solution to the issue?
If we cannot come up with another solution, we are going to be stuck with the podcast rules. The developers (earlier in this thread) did not like changing the amount of XP that each scenario gave a player.
SCPRedMage, you are correct that delayed chronicles keeps wealth the same as the podcast system. In fact, that's the point; MJM want to limit wealth to this level. However, there is one key difference; because the chronicle sheet for the 4-5 game played at 1-2 does not apply yet (including consumable expenditure, condition removal, etc), a player who dies or contracts a condition that is not curable with 1-2 wealth in a 4-5 game is not dead. They would be able to use the 4-5 gp to recover from conditions.
Hayato Ken, do you have a response to my post about the 1/2 system incentivizing playing down?
The issue is that MJM want to create a system where playing in-tier is the most encouraged option. The 2-or-1/2 system does not seem to accomplish this goal.
Rogue Eidolon suggested a change to the fame rules; this is one possible solution to make 2-vs-1/2 work, but some quick math would be required to balance the system.
Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
|
|
Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
Merkatz, the podcast alternative is that your character would be permanently dead at level 4 instead.
I agree with you to be honest; I think the current system is fine. But since the campaign staff has stated that the rules ARE going to change to meet their goals, we should be trying to find a compromise.
|
|
I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm stil probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date.
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
Merkatz, the difference is that with the podcast system, you would take high risk and not get any extra reward at all. A character death or a high consumable expenditure would have to come out of the 1-2 gold pieces.
With delayed credit (please see Jiggy's post for a summary), you at least can use high-tier gold to clear your conditions and get your consumables replenished. Your WBL ends up being the same as the value the developers would like, but you are not punished if you die when playing up to make a table.
Remember that when comparing proposed solutions, we need to be comparing them to the Podcast ruleset, not the current ruleset. If we do not propose a better solution, we will be getting the Podcast ruleset.
The way Jiggy wrote that, you only can do that if you delay the credit, which won´t hepl a lot of players in any way and you don´t even level actually.
All it does is not allowing some abusers to play up, which should actually be handled by GM´s (and yes, to me it seems to make this even possible some GM and players cheat in a way). I doesn´t help other players or mitigate real problems that other people could have.Also the middle play and downplay suggested seem very situational to me.
|
|
This isnt about bullying. It's about fixing WBL gaps caused by people continuouslyto playing up. The bullying problem isnt due to the system, it's due to the people playing the system.Then the only way I would play up is if I am "bullied" into doing so. And we a wanted to avoid that, remember?That is the point. There isn't supposed to be an incentive to play up. That is the goal of this entire discussion.I'm still seeing 0 incentive in wanting to play up, even with the Delayed Credit option in play. I'm still taking an increased risk and I'm stil probably spending more money to play up, but still get no extra gold to compensate. Delayed Credit does nothing to change that (it just means pushing off losses to another date.
Your two playing up "options" just look like this to me: Play up and risk your PC to take a wealth hit (A) now or (B) later.
If the WBL system ACTIVELY encourages bullying, then oh hell yes it is a WBL system issue. The current one does in fact kinda encourages this. The proposed system or the delayed system will make this MUCH worse as neither side will have even remotely an incentive to change out of tier. Hell it actively PUNISHES you to do so. As it stands, playing up has an incentive.
|
|
Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
You shouldnt get an advantage for getting carried though. There shouldnt be an incentive for playing up other than to help make a legal table when there are no better options (such as not wanting to play a pregen). This solution addresses that perfectly while still allowing people to use the gold gained during the scenario to buy off conditions before saving the sheet for later.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may be a bit jaded on this after reading 714 posts, but the phrase "bullying" keeps coming up, over and over again.
I've been playing and gming for pfs for close to 6-7 months now and have never seen an instance of bullying. I don't understand what regions that exists where PFS is akin to fourth grade recess. Are the higher level characters pulling someone's hair and teasing them for not wanting to play up? I have yet to hear an example of someone being bullied into playing up which is an issue that keeps being brought up.
If someone feels like they are being bullied they should either bring it up with a VO or get up and walk away.
|
|
My solution is the 2xp/1/2xp solution that i described several times, which takes clearly care of what i critized. You can read upthread what i said.Hayato and SCPRedMage, what is your alternate solution to the issue?
If we cannot come up with another solution, we are going to be stuck with the podcast rules. The developers (earlier in this thread) did not like changing the amount of XP that each scenario gave a player.
SCPRedMage, you are correct that delayed chronicles keeps wealth the same as the podcast system. In fact, that's the point; MJM want to limit wealth to this level. However, there is one key difference; because the chronicle sheet for the 4-5 game played at 1-2 does not apply yet (including consumable expenditure, condition removal, etc), a player who dies or contracts a condition that is not curable with 1-2 wealth in a 4-5 game is not dead. They would be able to use the 4-5 gp to recover from conditions.
Hayato Ken, do you have a response to my post about the 1/2 system incentivizing playing down?
The issue is that MJM want to create a system where playing in-tier is the most encouraged option. The 2-or-1/2 system does not seem to accomplish this goal.
Rogue Eidolon suggested a change to the fame rules; this is one possible solution to make 2-vs-1/2 work, but some quick math would be required to balance the system.
Excuse me, but this drives me kind of crazy at the moment. I stated all of this upthread, but i can repeat it for you.
Playing down or up should not be an option you just choose freely, but rather determined by the GM and table composition. That means it should only happen in regions with few gaming oportunities, where you can´t find another suited game. Then the GM takes a look and judges to play up or down according to characters that are there. The sense of this is to give players a chance to develop characters in the range of the other quickly, so that the reason you play out of tier goes asap. That´s why the xp change is there at all. The gold and PP change is to keep characters in the supposed power curve.So the incentive not to play down on purpose is not to be a jerk. Same for playing up on purpose. It seems with some people that can´t be helped, but that then can´t be helped anyway and shouldn´t be the concern of the rest.
@SCPRedMage this system was actually my idea with help from RogueEidolon and JoeM. I don´t expect anything to get out of it, but i think it´s the most promising at the moment.
|
|
...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. ItsThat 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.
Edit...
Well, it turns out the opposite was true.
Using my above numbers, if you were to play up Every Single Game, as much as possible, you could be 13th level in only 21 single slot scenarios, and have a final wealth earned of 134,070 gold, down about 6000 gold for 13th WBL.
If you play down every game as much as possible, you make 13th level in 83 scenarios, and finish with wealth awarded of 169,650 gold, or almost 30K above WBL.
Obviously the extreme difference in scenarios played needs to be addressed, awarding only 1 Fame/prestige per scenario when playing down might work - you'd have 80+ prestige instead of 160+.
But neither of these account for Day job money, or the 750gp items bought for 2PA which dramatically increase wealth if you ask me, so you should be knocking down wealth awarded some.
12 levels, 3 chronicles per level, 1.8 prestige per chronicle (average guess) you get about 64 prestige by level 13. Assume half that is spent on 750 gp items. 32 prestige spent, on 16 750 gp items, is about 12,000 wealth you could take out of the formulas.
over 36 chronicles, that's about 333 (call it 300) you could take out of each chronicle. But you don't want to take out that much on the early ones, (you wouldn't have much awarded gold left over!) so you have to scale it somehow.
Take out half as much earlier, and 50% more later. 150/300/450
Intro (1) 670 XP 340-150= 190 Gold
Tier 1-2 835 XP 500-150= 350 Gold
Tier 3-4 1670 XP 1250-150= 1100 Gold
Tier 4-5 2350 XP 1670-150= 1520 Gold
Tier 5-6 3340 XP 2170-300= 1870 Gold
Tier 6-7 4670 XP 2840-300= 2540 Gold
Tier 7-8 6670 XP 3750-300= 3450 Gold
Tier 8-9 9000 XP 4840-450= 4390 Gold
Tier 10-11 19170 XP 7670-450= 7220 Gold
Tier 12 31670 XP 10670-450=10220 Gold
If you play down, you max out at 1 prestige/fame per chronicle.
|
|
Hayato Ken, that's a fair point. However, MJM obviously feel that some sort of enforcement mechanism on playing up or down needs to be codified into the rules; otherwise, we would not have had the Podcast ruleset. If you had to choose between the 2-vs-1/2 system you proposed with the "GM discretion/table composition" clause, and simply the current ruleset for tiers with not change, which would you prefer? What is to stop certain GMs and players from breaking either system? At this point, it is clear that MJM feel that some sort of hard rules change is necessary.
SCPRedMage, do you have an answer to how to fix the imbalances in the 2-vs-1/2 system (such as incentive to always play down) without greatly complicating the fame system?
|
|
I may be a bit jaded on this after reading 714 posts, but the phrase "bullying" keeps coming up, over and over again.
I've been playing and gming for pfs for close to 6-7 months now and have never seen an instance of bullying. I don't understand what regions that exists where PFS is akin to fourth grade recess. Are the higher level characters pulling someone's hair and teasing them for not wanting to play up? I have yet to hear an example of someone being bullied into playing up which is an issue that keeps being brought up.
If someone feels like they are being bullied they should either bring it up with a VO or get up and walk away.
I´m wondering about this too. For all people i know to play this game and i ever played with, the shared experience and the friendship, companionship and spending time interacting with other and having fun all the while experienceing the fantasyworld is the driving force behind doing this. That is what makes it different from computer games and other stuff.
It seems to some people, having virtual values on a piece of paper is more important than that though. Or at least that´s the impression one could get sometimes.|
|
You shouldnt get an advantage for getting carried though. There shouldnt be an incentive for playing up other than to help make a legal table when there are no better options (such as not wanting to play a pregen). This solution addresses that perfectly while still allowing people to use the gold gained during the scenario to buy off conditions before saving the sheet for later.Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
Why do you assume you get carried for playing up? I sure as hell don't. My last play up session at level 4 cost me 2k of expendables to do. Was a lot less bad level 5...but your suppose to have the choice to play 6-7 at that level. If I don't get a way to make up for things like that, why the hell would I EVER play up?
|
|
Hayato Ken, that's a fair point. However, MJM obviously feel that some sort of enforcement mechanism on playing up or down needs to be codified into the rules; otherwise, we would not have had the Podcast ruleset. If you had to choose between the 2-vs-1/2 system you proposed with the "GM discretion/table composition" clause, and simply the current ruleset for tiers with not change, which would you prefer? What is to stop certain GMs and players from breaking either system? At this point, it is clear that MJM feel that some sort of hard rules change is necessary.
SCPRedMage, do you have an answer to how to fix the imbalances in the 2-vs-1/2 system (such as incentive to always play down) without greatly complicating the fame system?
Mileage there may really vary, but i see no sane reason to cheat in PFS. It would just make any reason to play PFS dispensable. In the system i proposed campaign management can see if they "cheated" or not in the reports. Especially if they do it repeatedly it will become very obvious, because player names and numbers as well as character numbers are recorded and also the GM and the region.
That said, as an organization researcher i know that there is always a way to cheat any system´and sooner or later someone who wants to will find it. Best way to prevent that in this case is make sure there "beliefs" and "mission" in the whole organization are the same.|
|
I have to get off the forums at this point, but I just want to make a point.
1) The "Delayed Chronicle" system uses rules that already exist for playing pregenerated characters, does not mess with the XP per scenario or fame per scenario ruleset, and allows playing up for low-tier characters when necessary. It accomplishes MJM's goal of holding wealth by level to a certain value AND their goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier. However, it can be more complicated due to held chronicles and requires a consumable exception as stated by Jiggy.
2) The "2-vs-1/2" system is a simple method to adjudicate playing up that allows doubling of XP and gold if one plays up and halving of XP and gold if one plays down. It allows both playing up and playing down to make a table without penalty. However, it does not accomplish
MJM's goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier, as the tier of the game does not matter for character advancement. In order to encourage staying in tier, an adjustment to earned fame would be required.
In the end, I'd be ok with either of these systems over the podcast ruleset (though I prefer the delayed chronicle approach, perhaps because I come from a region with plenty of tables), but would still prefer the current ruleset over all three.
I think that the Delayed Chronicle approach has the most chance of being accepted by campaign staff.
I'm glad that we could have a civilized discussion about all of this.
|
|
Why do you assume you get carried for playing up? I sure as hell don't. My last play up session at level 4 cost me 2k of expendables to do. Was a lot less bad level 5...but your suppose to have the choice to play 6-7 at that level. If I don't get a way to make up for things like that, why the hell would I EVER play up?You shouldnt get an advantage for getting carried though. There shouldnt be an incentive for playing up other than to help make a legal table when there are no better options (such as not wanting to play a pregen). This solution addresses that perfectly while still allowing people to use the gold gained during the scenario to buy off conditions before saving the sheet for later.Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
To make a legal table if you don't have another character and don't want to play a pregen. That should be the only reason. There shouldn't be any reason other than this.
|
|
I have to get off the forums at this point, but I just want to make a point.
1) The "Delayed Chronicle" system uses rules that already exist for playing pregenerated characters, does not mess with the XP per scenario or fame per scenario ruleset, and allows playing up for low-tier characters when necessary. It accomplishes MJM's goal of holding wealth by level to a certain value AND their goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier. However, it can be more complicated due to held chronicles and requires a consumable exception as stated by Jiggy.
2) The "2-vs-1/2" system is a simple method to adjudicate playing up that allows doubling of XP and gold if one plays up and halving of XP and gold if one plays down. It allows both playing up and playing down to make a table without penalty. However, it does not accomplish
MJM's goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier, as the tier of the game does not matter for character advancement. In order to encourage staying in tier, an adjustment to earned fame would be required.In the end, I'd be ok with either of these systems over the podcast ruleset (though I prefer the delayed chronicle approach, perhaps because I come from a region with plenty of tables), but would still prefer the current ruleset over all three.
I think that the Delayed Chronicle approach has the most chance of being accepted by campaign staff.
I'm glad that we could have a civilized discussion about all of this.
I disagree about what you say of 2. and not meeting MJM´s goal. With system 1 differences between characters would not go away, but eventually grow. System 2 mitigates those differences and then you don´t have to play up or down anymore, because you are in range. You don´t win something by playing up or down, so there is no encouragement of that. You still afer best and get the most milage out of your character by playing in tier.
|
|
I have to get off the forums at this point, but I just want to make a point.
1) The "Delayed Chronicle" system uses rules that already exist for playing pregenerated characters, does not mess with the XP per scenario or fame per scenario ruleset, and allows playing up for low-tier characters when necessary. It accomplishes MJM's goal of holding wealth by level to a certain value AND their goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier. However, it can be more complicated due to held chronicles and requires a consumable exception as stated by Jiggy.
2) The "2-vs-1/2" system is a simple method to adjudicate playing up that allows doubling of XP and gold if one plays up and halving of XP and gold if one plays down. It allows both playing up and playing down to make a table without penalty. However, it does not accomplish
MJM's goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier, as the tier of the game does not matter for character advancement. In order to encourage staying in tier, an adjustment to earned fame would be required.In the end, I'd be ok with either of these systems over the podcast ruleset (though I prefer the delayed chronicle approach, perhaps because I come from a region with plenty of tables), but would still prefer the current ruleset over all three.
I think that the Delayed Chronicle approach has the most chance of being accepted by campaign staff.
I'm glad that we could have a civilized discussion about all of this.
I agree with everything except the consumable exception with delayed chronicle. You don't get a bonus consumable budget when playing normally, why should you get a bonus just because you are taking on a scenario above your level? The consumables found during the scenario should be more than enough as they are consumables intended for higher level characters so they will benefit you more anyway. For example if a tier 1-2 has potions of cure light wounds as treasure, they will likely be potions of cure moderate or cure serious at tier 4-5. The potions in the tier 4-5 will likely heal a level 2 character to full with one use and you didn't have to purchase them. Think about what you might spend on consumables. Remove disease, remove affliction, remove curse are about all I can think of right now and those are all 150GP IIRC. So what are we referring to with this "extra consumable use"? Are you using extra charges of the wand you bought with prestige points? That didn't cost you any gold anyway so why does it matter?
|
|
I may be a bit jaded on this after reading 714 posts, but the phrase "bullying" keeps coming up, over and over again.
I've been playing and gming for pfs for close to 6-7 months now and have never seen an instance of bullying. I don't understand what regions that exists where PFS is akin to fourth grade recess. Are the higher level characters pulling someone's hair and teasing them for not wanting to play up? I have yet to hear an example of someone being bullied into playing up which is an issue that keeps being brought up.
If someone feels like they are being bullied they should either bring it up with a VO or get up and walk away.
I see it. It's not hair pulling or teasing...but the pressure put on players to play up or down is there in any group. Oddly enough, I see more pressure to play down then up actually. The play up pressure runs along the lines of, come on lets play up...we got your back, you'll be fine...and look at the shinies you get. More often then not, I see a table with a few level 3 and maybe a 4 at a table with two noobies and they the GM or even the venue owner will pressure the high level players to play down...to protect the new players. And when the store owner says something...if you don't think that is pressure and a form of bullying...yeah you and I have differing definition of the term. That isn't to say that it is bad per say...it's a part of dealing with people. But there is DEFINATELY pressure to play one way or the other.
|
|
I disagree about what you say of 2. and not meeting MJM´s goal. With system 1 differences between characters would not go away, but eventually grow. System 2 mitigates those differences and then you don´t have to play up or down anymore, because you are in range. You don´t win something by playing up or down, so there is no encouragement of that. You still afer best and get the most milage out of your character by playing in tier.I have to get off the forums at this point, but I just want to make a point.
1) The "Delayed Chronicle" system uses rules that already exist for playing pregenerated characters, does not mess with the XP per scenario or fame per scenario ruleset, and allows playing up for low-tier characters when necessary. It accomplishes MJM's goal of holding wealth by level to a certain value AND their goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier. However, it can be more complicated due to held chronicles and requires a consumable exception as stated by Jiggy.
2) The "2-vs-1/2" system is a simple method to adjudicate playing up that allows doubling of XP and gold if one plays up and halving of XP and gold if one plays down. It allows both playing up and playing down to make a table without penalty. However, it does not accomplish
MJM's goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier, as the tier of the game does not matter for character advancement. In order to encourage staying in tier, an adjustment to earned fame would be required.In the end, I'd be ok with either of these systems over the podcast ruleset (though I prefer the delayed chronicle approach, perhaps because I come from a region with plenty of tables), but would still prefer the current ruleset over all three.
I think that the Delayed Chronicle approach has the most chance of being accepted by campaign staff.
I'm glad that we could have a civilized discussion about all of this.
I'm gonna have to agree with Tristan when he says that giving half xp for playing down will incentivize playing down. People will essentially gain equal rewards for playing easier missions. You will have very little risk with the same reward.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To make a legal table if you don't have another character and don't want to play a pregen. That should be the only reason. There shouldn't be any reason other than this.Why do you assume you get carried for playing up? I sure as hell don't. My last play up session at level 4 cost me 2k of expendables to do. Was a lot less bad level 5...but your suppose to have the choice to play 6-7 at that level. If I don't get a way to make up for things like that, why the hell would I EVER play up?You shouldnt get an advantage for getting carried though. There shouldnt be an incentive for playing up other than to help make a legal table when there are no better options (such as not wanting to play a pregen). This solution addresses that perfectly while still allowing people to use the gold gained during the scenario to buy off conditions before saving the sheet for later.Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
So if they don't happen to run my sub tier I should either play a pregen or walk? WTF? SERIOUSLY?!? I thought the main motto of PFS was PLAY...not play in tier or go home.
|
|
I agree with everything except the consumable exception with delayed chronicle. You don't get a bonus consumable budget when playing normally, why should you get a bonus just because you are taking on a scenario above your level? The consumables found during the scenario should be more than enough as they are consumables intended for higher level characters so they will benefit you more anyway. For example if a tier 1-2 has potions of cure light wounds as treasure, they will likely be potions of...I have to get off the forums at this point, but I just want to make a point.
1) The "Delayed Chronicle" system uses rules that already exist for playing pregenerated characters, does not mess with the XP per scenario or fame per scenario ruleset, and allows playing up for low-tier characters when necessary. It accomplishes MJM's goal of holding wealth by level to a certain value AND their goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier. However, it can be more complicated due to held chronicles and requires a consumable exception as stated by Jiggy.
2) The "2-vs-1/2" system is a simple method to adjudicate playing up that allows doubling of XP and gold if one plays up and halving of XP and gold if one plays down. It allows both playing up and playing down to make a table without penalty. However, it does not accomplish
MJM's goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier, as the tier of the game does not matter for character advancement. In order to encourage staying in tier, an adjustment to earned fame would be required.In the end, I'd be ok with either of these systems over the podcast ruleset (though I prefer the delayed chronicle approach, perhaps because I come from a region with plenty of tables), but would still prefer the current ruleset over all three.
I think that the Delayed Chronicle approach has the most chance of being accepted by campaign staff.
I'm glad that we could have a civilized discussion about all of this.
Okay so you are of the opinion of play your sub tier or go home. Well if that is what the campaign head wants to do they should just plain old say play in your sub tier or walk and not allow play up or down PERIOD instead doing this passive aggressive BS that is just gonna frustrate people.
|
|
So if they don't happen to run my sub tier I should either play a pregen or walk? WTF? SERIOUSLY?!? I thought the main motto of PFS was PLAY...not play in tier or go home.To make a legal table if you don't have another character and don't want to play a pregen. That should be the only reason. There shouldn't be any reason other than this.Why do you assume you get carried for playing up? I sure as hell don't. My last play up session at level 4 cost me 2k of expendables to do. Was a lot less bad level 5...but your suppose to have the choice to play 6-7 at that level. If I don't get a way to make up for things like that, why the hell would I EVER play up?You shouldnt get an advantage for getting carried though. There shouldnt be an incentive for playing up other than to help make a legal table when there are no better options (such as not wanting to play a pregen). This solution addresses that perfectly while still allowing people to use the gold gained during the scenario to buy off conditions before saving the sheet for later.Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.
You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.
Play pregen, walk, play a different character, or play up. The same options that are available to you currently. The exception being if you play up, you either take the lower tier reward or hold it until you reach the appropriate tier. It's the best option to address the WBL problem and the simplest to implement.
|
|
Okay so you are of the opinion of play your sub tier or go home. Well if that is what the campaign head wants to do they should just plain old say play in your sub tier or walk and not allow play up or down PERIOD instead doing this passive aggressive BS that is just gonna frustrate people.snipped
You're fighting straw men. Let's try to keep the discussion civil. We've come up with a lot of good ideas so far that I'm sure the developers are considering, and there are likely more to come.
|
|
I see it. It's not hair pulling or teasing...but the pressure put on players to play up or down is there in any group. Oddly enough, I see more pressure to play down then up actually. The play up pressure runs along the lines of, come on lets play up...we got your back, you'll be fine...and look at the shinies you get. More often then not, I see a table with a few level 3 and maybe a 4 at a table with two noobies and they the GM or even the venue owner will pressure the high level players to play down...to protect the new players. And when the store owner says something...if you don't think that is pressure and a form of bullying...yeah you and I have differing definition of the term. That isn't to say that it is bad per say...it's a part of dealing with people. But there is DEFINATELY pressure to play one way or the other.I may be a bit jaded on this after reading 714 posts, but the phrase "bullying" keeps coming up, over and over again.
I've been playing and gming for pfs for close to 6-7 months now and have never seen an instance of bullying. I don't understand what regions that exists where PFS is akin to fourth grade recess. Are the higher level characters pulling someone's hair and teasing them for not wanting to play up? I have yet to hear an example of someone being bullied into playing up which is an issue that keeps being brought up.
If someone feels like they are being bullied they should either bring it up with a VO or get up and walk away.
Maybe its just something I don't get, it sounds like its an issue of peer pressure then. I guess peer pressure is a form of bullying to some? I'd just consider that to be life, peers pressure and someone flexes or they break.
If the establishment tells someone to play down, then like I said, say no and if that causes a ban from that venue then that sucks and its probably better in the long run cause it sounds like the venue is a tyrannical government. Which is of course perfectly okay, the owner is the owner and thats final.
I'll probably get a lot of flak for this but, being bullied or pressured into doing something against a persons will isn't a good reason to stick around that store or play area. If someone goes back to a table that has knowingly bullied them in the past, "Its the only place to play within an hour of driving", then they get no right to complain. We are all theoretically adults, I see no reason why a mature adult can't talk to a VO and discuss their opinion on bullying that is happening at the tables or for that matter talk to their fellow mature adult players.
|
|
I'm gonna have to agree with Tristan...I disagree about what you say of 2. and not meeting MJM´s goal. With system 1 differences between characters would not go away, but eventually grow. System 2 mitigates those differences and then you don´t have to play up or down anymore, because you are in range. You don´t win something by playing up or down, so there is no encouragement of that. You still afer best and get the most milage out of your character by playing in tier.I have to get off the forums at this point, but I just want to make a point.
1) The "Delayed Chronicle" system uses rules that already exist for playing pregenerated characters, does not mess with the XP per scenario or fame per scenario ruleset, and allows playing up for low-tier characters when necessary. It accomplishes MJM's goal of holding wealth by level to a certain value AND their goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier. However, it can be more complicated due to held chronicles and requires a consumable exception as stated by Jiggy.
2) The "2-vs-1/2" system is a simple method to adjudicate playing up that allows doubling of XP and gold if one plays up and halving of XP and gold if one plays down. It allows both playing up and playing down to make a table without penalty. However, it does not accomplish
MJM's goal of encouraging players to play within their own tier, as the tier of the game does not matter for character advancement. In order to encourage staying in tier, an adjustment to earned fame would be required.In the end, I'd be ok with either of these systems over the podcast ruleset (though I prefer the delayed chronicle approach, perhaps because I come from a region with plenty of tables), but would still prefer the current ruleset over all three.
I think that the Delayed Chronicle approach has the most chance of being accepted by campaign staff.
I'm glad that we could have a civilized discussion about all of this.
That becomes more clear when you actually read what i wrote about that upthread. You are only going to play down in a very specific situation. Namely when there are 1 or 2 higher levels players, but the rest of the group is significantly lower. And that should actually only happen 6 times with this system, after that you should be in the same tier.
Also i repeat, that is only gonna happen if you can´t find another appropriate game.
I´m afraid some people here make wrong conclusions. You treat this thing as if people are free to choose to play down or up all the time.
Maybe that is so, but as i get it, it´s already wrong.
And then this is really a player and GM problem, not a system problem.
In this case, the new system will punish the honest rest playing this game and make things for the much more complicated. Jiggy´s suggestion won´t change anything too then.
But this would bring their characters into the same tier quicker than anything else.
|
|
Play pregen, walk, play a different character, or play up. The same options that are available to you currently. The exception being if you play up, you either take the lower tier reward or hold it until you reach the appropriate tier. It's the best option to address the WBL problem and the simplest to implement.
And if the different character isn't with in tier either? That leave play pregen or walk. Because lets see...
I play up at level 4. If I take the reward now, I spend 2 grand to succeed. Instead of getting 3k gold, I get 1500...so I'm out 500 gold.
I hold the sheet til level 6. Well I STILL don't get the extra consumable used amount back. I can get the exact same amount of gold playing in a 6-7 game instead of applying the credit. I am down 2k gold for 3-6 sessions to even USE this sheet that I worked bloody hard for.
Yeah not seeing play up as an option here...I mean at ALL.
That leaves pre-gen or walk...umm yeah...WTF? Seriously?!?
|
|
You're fighting straw men. Let's try to keep the discussion civil. We've come up with a lot of good ideas so far that I'm sure the developers are considering, and there are likely more to come.Okay so you are of the opinion of play your sub tier or go home. Well if that is what the campaign head wants to do they should just plain old say play in your sub tier or walk and not allow play up or down PERIOD instead doing this passive aggressive BS that is just gonna frustrate people.snipped
WHAT strawman?!? The rule system they propose and the one your supporting both punish playing out of tier badly enough that it is basically a none option from a mechanical stand point. That is a freaking text book passive aggressive behavior if you want to get players to play in tier and that is more important then fixing the WBL issue. I am not saying that the campaign heads are being passive aggressive...but if major goal is to get players to play in tiers...and that is a big IF...then the way they are going about actually is passive aggressive.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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!
Actually, there's a multi-part solution that you missed:
• First, if you're a low-tier PC playing up (not a middle-level PC, since they are not impacted by this system at all), then that means most of the people at the table are 2-3 levels ahead of you. That means that in practice, your consumables are going to be less needed (or even less relevant, especially in a 1-5 situation) than what the high-level PCs have, so you're not likely to use all that much (except possibly healing).• Second, a little bit of human decency of "Hey, since I had to play up, could we try to spend your consumables before mine?" goes a long way. Weren't you saying something about trust earlier?
• Third, at every "dead level" (3rd in a 1-5, 5th in a 3-7, etc) you're still able to play up for full (and immediate) rewards. This means you can earn 4-5 gold at level 3, potentially up to 3 times. Playing up even once at a given "dead level" will almost always cover any extra consumable loss suffered at the previous tier. I.e., if you somehow managed to lose 500gp more in consumables during 1st and 2nd level while playing tier 4-5, playing 4-5 at 3rd level even once (the other times playing at 3-4) will make up that difference and put you back on track. Play up at 3rd level more than once and you're coming out ahead. The only way there's actually a problem is if you spend so much in extra consumables so fast that you can't make it through 3 sessions before making it back. But if you're playing up enough to be losing money hand over fist, then there's a bigger problem at work that no wealth system will fix.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am having more issues with delayed credit because as much as you would like to ignore it, I STILL see plenty of new players that cannot seem to grok how to hold credit when playing pregens and/or GMing (especially because they work different mechanically).
That could be changed. I imagine that if playing up, playing a pregen, and taking GM credit all worked the same way, it'd be a lot easier.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to offer a few opinions on the playing up debate thus far.
I have done it twice... or rather, definitely done it once and was prepared to do so a second time (but it got called off for scheduling reasons). So far I have about 3 or 4 PFS games in.
In the first case, it was because the group was already slated to play in that tier anyway but they were being nice in letting me tag along. My character still contributed some useful things to the story and the party's success. Took some risks too, so while I figure I 'earned' the extra rewards for them... I would not be upset if Paizo were to instead significantly reduce what I'd gotten due to ongoing WBL concerns. Getting extra rewards wasn't my concern; being able to play at all was. If I hadn't played up, I wouldn't have been able to play at all. Nobody bullied me into that, they agreed to let me get in on it at my own risk because I'd been unable to get into any other games at that point.
It worked out okay. It would have even worked out fine if my PC were given Level 1-2 rewards instead of the playing-up rewards they got. I just wanted to play, and playing up let me do so.
In the second instance, a friend asked me if I was willing to play so far up that none of my characters could currently use the resulting chronicle sheet; I'd have to use a pregen healing Cleric. Any other time I would have said 'no', but this friend has been rather good to me and they wanted some help getting their character set up right for upcoming faction-retirement adventures. Nonetheless, the prospect of playing up, and playing a "heal plz" for hours, with no practical reward (I don't get to play in tons of PFS games, so my level up rate is slow) while everyone else got cool stuff... ew. I was going in with the attitude that I was doing a MMORPG style grind without even the slightest reward.
Was willing to do it to help a friend (they didn't bully me into it, I agreed to the request because I like them), but I wasn't going to like it. It was either I step up to do that in order to make a legal table, or the session wasn't going to happen at all because they were a player short without me. Ultimately the session got canceled due to a schedule conflict, but this was otherwise how it was going to happen.
Whatever solution we come up with, I hope it acknowledges there are legitimate and benevolent reasons to want to play up. Both times I've done it so far were because either I personally wouldn't get to play otherwise, or nobody in the group was going to get to play. Those shouldn't be grounds for suspicion, absurdly delayed rewards, or reduced rewards/punishment. I don't need extra rewards for playing up, but I don't want to be punished or given nothing for it either.
|
|
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!Actually, there's a multi-part solution that you missed:
• First, if you're a low-tier PC playing up (not a middle-level PC, since they are not impacted by this system at all), then that means most of the people at the table are 2-3 levels ahead of you. That means that in practice, your consumables are going to be less needed (or even less relevant, especially in a 1-5 situation) than what the high-level PCs have, so you're not likely to use all that much (except possibly healing).
• Second, a little bit of human decency of "Hey, since I had to play up, could we try to spend your consumables before mine?" goes a long way. Weren't you saying something about trust earlier?
• Third, at every "dead level" (3rd in a 1-5, 5th in a 3-7, etc) you're still able to play up for full (and immediate) rewards. This means you can earn 4-5 gold at level 3, potentially up to 3 times. Playing up even once at a given "dead level" will almost always cover any extra consumable loss suffered at the previous tier. I.e., if you somehow managed to lose 500gp more in consumables during 1st and 2nd level while playing tier 4-5, playing 4-5 at 3rd level even once (the other times playing at 3-4) will make up that difference and put you back on track. Play up at 3rd level more than once and you're coming out ahead. The only way there's actually a problem is if you spend so much in extra consumables so fast that you can't make it through 3 sessions before making it back. But if you're playing up enough to be losing money hand over fist, then there's a bigger problem at work that no wealth system will fix.
Yes i missed that. Thanks for explaining.
You´re right about the trust and personaly i would support that. But you are kind of dependant of the other players then and what they bought or not, without being able to contribute much yourself. Which means you have to be carried a little bit, what others complained of.This would also make the game even more tactial, which i enjoy.
The other thing is, is playing up between level tiers then wanted or not? By the old system you can legaly win there, with the new system you only have a harder challenge when i understand it right? But that would most times need wholte groups playing up, where the bullying comes into play?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would telling the people whining about bullying to sit down and shut their mouth be useful?
More seriously, I think this is a non issue and dealing with it complicates things unnecessarily. Planners now need to designate which tier beforehand instead of players working it out on their own, almost always amicably, like adults.
My prediction this change will last one season before people are complaining to change it back.
Bluntly, being able to occasionally accommodate someone playing out of tier is useful, and solves more headaches then it creates. Also, the increasing lethality of the scenarios should be sufficient enough to prevent people from making it too much of a habit.
