Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I really don't care if somebody fast-forwards their character so they only get to sit down and play half as often - that doesn't affect me.
What does affect me is when I sit down at a table with a vast difference in powers and ability of the characters present. This often leads to players that feel ineffective, and definitely increases the possibility of character death if a low-subtier character ends up in the high subtier. Alternatively it can lead to a cakewalk, which takes a lot of the fun out of a scenario. The overpowering character can be a high-subtier character playing down, or it can be a character who has significantly more pieces of expensive kit, or it can simply be a far more effectively-built character. There's not a lot that can be done about the last one; it's the other two cases that are being discussed.
The proposed 2XP-for-playing-up scheme allows a character who has less XP to catch up with other players (much as happens in most home games).
|
To be sure, it seems like a dream for some, getting to level quicker, but I doubt that it would actually change the Wealth levels enough to make the change worth it for the developers.
So...you utterly ignored the math then...
Seriously that math has been shown MULTIPLE times now that this solution does in fact tackle the wealth issue about as well as the proposed solution and in fact has the bonus of making playing down more palatable even.
|
|
With the caveat of course that PP is also doubled and halved as well. The people who proposed this idea seems pretty unwilling to do this...Well, I'd be happy to give full prestige for it if we can get people to agree to that. I don't think we can, and prestige should be the first thing we're willing to compromise here. With the gain in XP, playing up will be rarer and the loss should be minimizd (hopefully).
We don't need full PP...just double and half it.
|
|
They generally won't end up with more gold either. The higher tier generally has slightly more than double the gold than the lower tier.Yeah, if you're going to double the XP, you need to double the PP. Otherwise, the character who plays up a couple times will fall quickly behind others of his level, somewhat the opposite of characters who play up now.I believe that is the whole point; to discourage playing up just for the sake of playing up. Instead the new system wants to propose that the only reason for playing up is to make a legal table.
The fact that they lose PP means someone is discouraged from playing up every game of their Pathfinder's life. They may end up with more gold but considerably less prestige.
I am not sure you understand the intent of this whole initiative. The goal is to provide an alternate system to the Podcast suggested system. The system of all risk and no reward for playing up and no way to make up for higher characters for playing down.
The double xp / double low tier gold is a system that gives the lower level characters the ability to play up and gain rewards still. It also speeds up their level so they catch up to the high level players so that the issue of playing up is no longer an issue because they would be playing in teir.
However without a limitation or a reduced amount, such as only recieving 2 pp or 3 pp, it limits the drive for players to "game the system" and play up every single scenario because over time they'll fall behind in how much gold they can actually spend.
MMJ are trying to stop players from playing up every scenario of their Pathfinder's life and ending up with sometimes 2 or 2.5 times the amount of suggested Wealth By Level. This system while not perfect would adress that issue as would several other systems presented in this thread.
Seriously...how is it that people seem to utterly be ignorant of the math STILL. You get double exp with the SAME gold as the play up tier with is about equal to two play at tier money. So there is absolutely NOWAY to reach 2x to 2.5x WBL...and if you did play up EVERY game, your actually at 3-4X WBL anyways. If you can't do the math right, then there is no point in adding to how to balance the system mechanically. Really folks...bashing a mechanical system when you can't even do the basic math for the system is utterly asinine...please stop. If you can not understand the math, ask or read the freaking 10+ pages that explains the math already. Gods almighty.
As for the lets punish people for playing up or down...WHY? Seriously? How about we make a system where we don't punish ANYONE so people can play with the friends they make and not feel any resentment and just have fun. Is that such a hard concept? Do you have such a small ego that you feel anyone who does not play EXACTLY like you MUST be doing it wrong and must be put down? Honestly I don't like the current rule as it stands. It is open to play up abuse and play down does punish you...not horribly so as you can play up to get back within range...but if you get bullied into playing down in 1-2 tier until your level 4 (I have seen this happen), your pretty dang well punished for being nice and playing down for the noobs. Like you may not even be able to function in tier badly punished. The double/half EXP and PP solution fixes BOTH play up and play down issues. It is actually something better then what we have now. It is the ONLY thing suggested that is better then what we have now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For reference, the main proposals that have been suggested, as I recall. I've described certain versions of them, but any individual one can always be tweaked. I've tried to stick mostly to description rather than evaluation of what I see as strengths and weaknesses.
- Podcast Proposal (PCP): When playing out-of-tier (OOT), receive GP either for the subtier (ST) appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. XP and PP reward unchanged.
- Delayed Credit (DC): Largely as PCP. When playing OOT, receive GP either for ST appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. Alternatively, players playing up can choose to hold the Chronicle Sheet, receiving no GP XP or PP right then, and apply the Chronicle for credit when the character reaches that level. In this case, the character receives full up-tier GP. Before holding credit, character can spend GP from the Chronicle to remove conditions and replace consumables spent during that adventure.
- Half or Double (HOD): When playing OOT, reward halved or doubled as appropriate. When playing up, receive 2 XP, up-tier GP, and 3 PP. When playing down, receive 1/2 XP, down-tier GP, and 0 PP. [The small PP penalty from pure half-or-double is included to discourage continuous OOT play. The GP and PP adjustments can of course be adjusted: e.g. it's been suggested to go with 2x low-tier GP and 1/2 high-tier GP instead of simply up-tier and down-tier.]
- OOT GP: When playing OOT, receive some GP reward in between ST appropriate to character and ST played. E.g., average of low-tier and high-tier GP. XP and PP reward unchanged.
- GP by Level (GPBL): Regardless of ST played, receive GP for ST appropriate to character level. XP and PP reward unchanged.
Have I missed any? At 800 posts and counting, it's a little difficult to keep track of everything here!
|
|
Does HOD incentivize playing down?
A couple folks have suggested a possible problem for HOD: that it offers players incentives to play down, play on "easy mode": they will be much more powerful than the scenario and will receive (in the long run) the same reward.
I'm not sure that I personally know any players who would choose to do this. What a boring way to play! But if you are worried about it, I think HOD can avoid it (i.e. can offer mechanical disincentives for continuous OOT play) in two ways.
PP penalty. In response to this concern, a small PP penalty for playing OOT has been suggested for HOD. 0 PP when playing down, 3 PP when playing up. That's a loss of 1 potential PP any time you play OOT. This is not a huge loss (cf. module play currently), but it is something. The hope is that the small loss won't cause huge problems forming tables but could add up enough that players don't try to continually play OOT.
GP penalty. This one is a bit more tenuous right now as there are two versions of HOD that have been suggested. But under the version most discussed, playing up nets up-tier gold and playing down nets low-tier gold. This amounts to a not-insignificant GP penalty for playing down. If ST 1-2 is about 500 GP reward and ST 3-4 is about 1500 GP reward, playing down twice will result in a 500 GP loss in terms of WBL.
This is potentially made up for by a slight GP gain when playing up. And both GP gain for playing up and GP loss for playing down will be affected by the relative level of consumables used.
But the point remains: continual playing down will add up to a not-insignificant GP loss under this version of HOD.
The other version of HOD that has been suggested is simply 2x low-tier GP for playing up and 1/2 high-tier GP for playing down. I can see considerations for either version but haven't given the matter much thought and so remain neutral between them.
|
|
The main problem I see with dis-incentiving OOT play in general is does it make it harder to form tables?
That is a worry. It's one of the main objections to PCP, that its severe penalty on playing down and no reward for playing up will make it very difficult to form tables.
For HOD, I'd personally be fine with pure HOD, no guaranteed mechanical penalty for OOT play. But a lot of folks here seem wary of that. So if there is a penalty, make it something light, something that shouldn't make players object to playing OOT if the table needs it but does slightly disincentivize OOT.
I'm not sure how much such a disincentive is needed, at least in the case of playing up: if Season 4 is as tough to play up as people say (I've only played a handful of Season 4 scenarios, and I don't think I've played up on any of them), then the increased difficulty should be disincentive enough (if you think some extra disincentive, on top of removing the skewed-WBL mechanical incentive of the current system, is desirable). Playing down, who knows.
Also how do faction missions play a role in PP penalty?
No idea, since they're changing how faction missions work for Season 5. I can see the problem under current faction mission rules too: why would a purely-mechanically-motivated player bother with the faction mission when playing down if it nets 0 PP? So maybe the PP penalty isn't the best overall. But it's at least a possibility. The HOD general framework looks pretty good to me, I trust the developers, if they adopt the general framework, to hit on the right details.
With the GP penalty:
Currently playing down gets you low-teir gold. Under HOD the penalty is reduced as you are only playing down for .5xp instead of 1xp.
Yes. Under the current system, WBL lost by playing down can easily be made up for by playing up once or twice. But under HOD (as under PCP and DC), that's not really possible. So the WBL penalty for playing down needs to be lightened.
|
none of the suggestions fix the 2PA 750gp issue with WBL. That's worth 10-20K of expendables by 12th level.Thats not a bug its a feature. Expendables are, by definition, expended. Wealth by level is what you KEEP after expenses, not what you earn.
Actually, BNW, I think this is an excellent observation. Free consumables in the form of Prestige purchases completely changes the wealth calculations of every player. Expendables are by definition expended, but the game system itself does not assume that they are expended with no cost. By removing the gold piece cost of wands of cure light wounds and infernal healing or scrolls of useful utility spells you vastly decrease the effective "cost" of playing up by granting an approximately doubled reward without a commensurate increase in the cost of the consumables required to survive that increased challenge. Thus far, the only proposal I've seen that would impact that outcome would be double XP/normal PP/normal gold for playing up.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I still don't think any adjustments to exp/PP earned will be a good idea. (I would like to know what that would do to a slow track)
Halvies would midigate the loss of gold for those playing down while giving a small extra for playing up. I would rather do it by the character tier rather than having a mid tier gold calculation.
Having thought of it more, I think that those falling between tiers (a level 3 in a 1.5, for example) would count the group tier as their own. (getting regular gold for that tier)
So, to reword it slightly, how it would appear in the book...
"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 would receive the gold reward of the tier played."
I should clarify that the three tiered scenarios (1-7) would still have level 3 out of play for the 6-7 tier group.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Even with twice WBL is a character really going to ruin the game worse than a slumber hex happy witch?
A point few in the nerf wealth camp could understand.
The question becomes if the benefits are smaller than the costs (increased difficulty making tables, increased pressure to play up when out of tier) why should we bother adopting the new system?
To be clear, it is something that can be done that will appease the very vocal minority of folks screaming for a fix to a problem they probably don't fully understand anyway. What the minority calling for a fix like this doesn't understand just yet is this fix won't fix the problem they are witnessing. There will still be people dominating combats due to having a heavily optimized character. And everyone who isn't a part of the problem will be made to suffer as a result in the quest for fixing a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as whether or not faster advancement is "fair"... why should we care? I've said repeatedly that the only thing we're supposed to be doing here is keeping wealth in line with level; we're not supposed to be "de-incentivizing" playing up or down.
In fact, I vehemently disagree with the idea of penalizing the PP characters earn while playing out of tier in the HOD system, because it's not our place to be judging other people's play styles. Yes, playing "in-tier" should be encouraged, because that's what the game was designed for, but if a player wants or needs to play out of tier, who are we to say that they should be punished for that?
If a player plays up because they want the challenge or greater rewards, so long as the system isn't being broken, who are we to say they should be punished? If a player plays down so that they have less risk, who are we to say THEY should be punished?
Other players do NOT need to have the exact same rate of advancement as YOUR characters in order to be "fair". If a player chooses to take more risks, they'll reach the end of their careers sooner, if they take less risks, they'll reach the end of their career later, but in the end, they are on equal footing, and that's all that matters. Players are NOT entitled to have everyone else go through the exact same experiences that they themselves went through.
Nice rant. I certainly agree with the sentiment. I wonder what MJM think about the question. I imagine there could always be some non-punishy reasons to be wary of the possibility of a 2XP award.
I still don't think any adjustments to exp/PP earned will be a good idea. (I would like to know what that would do to a slow track)I had suggested simply getting rid of the slow track; the stated purpose was to give an option to allow lower level characters to catch up, and the HOD system renders it redundant.
Yep. It is an advantage of HOD (Half-Or-Double) that it could replace the slow advancement track. Assume, for the purposes of this post, that we're working under a version of HOD with no PP penalty. Here's how the system might work.
Three possible rewards at the end of a scenario: the standard award, the slow advancement award, and the playing-up award:
- The standard award: 1 XP; GP for the subtier appropriate to the character's level; 0-2 PP as earned during the adventure.
- The slow advancement award: 1/2 XP; 1/2 GP for the subtier appropriate to the character's level; 0-1/2-1 PP as earned during the adventure.
- The playing-up award: 2 XP; 2x GP for the subtier appropriate to the character's level; 0-4 PP as earned during the adventure.
How those awards are assigned:
- When playing down, a character is ALWAYS awarded the slow advancement award.
- When playing at-tier, a player may choose EITHER the standard award OR the slow advancement award.
- When playing up, a player may choose EITHER the playing-up award OR the standard award.
Characters whose level falls between subtiers in a standard, 2-subtier scenario count as at-tier for whichever subtier is played (usual limitations for scenarios with more than 2 subtiers). So in a tier 1-5 scenario, a lvl 3 is at-tier for either subtier 1-2 or subtier 4-5. She never counts as playing down or playing up; accordingly, she will only receive the slow advancement award if she chooses it and will never receive the playing-up award.
***
[This fits easily with whatever version of HOD you choose. I've gone with 2x and 1/2x GP here, though I remain neutral between this version of HOD and an up-tier / down-tier version. It wouldn't be difficult to restate this with up-tier / down-tier. If you want a PP penalty, that's easy enough to apply, too.]
|
|
Joe, that is the best rendition of the system so far, but it would require we change the current slow-track system to be at-will and not chosen when you level as it is now. I am not saying this would be a problem, but pointing it out. People could game the system with it (oh, my character died... NVM I'm not on slow track, I'm on standard instead).
Just as a note for SCPRedMage and others, slow-advancement is not only (or maybe even primarily geared to) for people people who want to slow down and let friends catch up. It is also for players who simpley want to play a certain character longer. I myself have a level 11 character on slow track because I don't want her to reach 12 yet. She just got some cool abilities and just last module an incredibly awesome item. If I had not slowed her at level 10, I would be past level 12 by now, as she played 2 modules in a row after being 10. I want to have a few more chances to play her with all her new toys.
|
you know, I haven't quite grokked why the "slow advancement" had to be chosen level by level.
Also, since the GP awards are given to the players, at least in part, by the Pathfinder Society (and not necessarily directly in correlation to the items recovered), I don't see why we don't just go to a standardized wealth by tier. It is close, already, but not 100% so.
So, example:
sub-tier normal slow
1, 1-2: 500 250
3-4: 1300 650
4-5: 1800 900
5-6: 2500 1250
...
I am stopping there, because I haven't really seen the award for higher level stuff. However, this does a couple of things... 1) Makes the calculations easier. 2) takes care of "early season" mismatches.
I also see no real reason that we need to prevent a player from choosing to run a scenario at slow... he would need to declare that at the beginning (when the GM is determining sub-tiers, etc). I would also say that playing down while on slow progression is the same effect.
Since the Society is paying characters, I also don't necessarily see a reason why they wouldn't pay based on the character's level, rather than the sub-tier actually played.
|
|
Joe, that is the best rendition of the system so far
Thanks!
[..] but it would require we change the current slow-track system to be at-will and not chosen when you level as it is now. I am not saying this would be a problem, but pointing it out. People could game the system with it (oh, my character died... NVM I'm not on slow track, I'm on standard instead).
I should say that I don't understand the current slow-advancement system. I've been with the Society only 3-4 months, and have never played or talked to someone who's played slow-track. So I'm not aware of its supporting reasons, the problems people have with it, and so on.
So I don't understand why the scenario you describe is problematic or why, if it is problematic, it can't be fixed easily enough as Silberg suggests:
he would need to declare that at the beginning (when the GM is determining sub-tiers, etc)
Not saying there isn't a problem here, of course! Just that I don't see one, with my limited experience in Society play. Care to explain?
*****
I don't see why we don't just go to a standardized wealth by tier. It is close, already, but not 100% so.
[...]
I am stopping there, because I haven't really seen the award for higher level stuff. However, this does a couple of things... 1) Makes the calculations easier. 2) takes care of "early season" mismatches.
Yeah, GPBL (GP-by-level) is a very straightforward solution. IIRC, the main problems suggested upthread are: (i) that it might lead to continuous playing-down—hey, no danger and I still get the same reward!—; (ii) that it fails to sufficiently compensate lower-levels for playing up.
The first (i) would especially be a problem for the play experience of the lower-level characters who are at-tier, and who don't get a challenging play experience with the higher-levels stomping the encounters.
The second (ii) is mostly a problem if you're concerned about the greater expenditure of resources that lower-level characters playing up are likely to incur (consumables, removing conditions, etc). This looks like a "WBL penalty" for accommodating a table and playing up.
Those don't decide the case against GPBL, of course. I'm still fairly attracted to it: it's better than PCP (Podcast Proposal) and it's as simple as it gets, which is a big plus. But they are possible problems worth considering. (I may have forgotten another objection or two to GPBL. I haven't been keeping record [as I'd like to've been] of all the possible pros and cons that have been suggested for each proposal.)
|
|
Half or Double (HOD): When playing OOT, reward halved or doubled as appropriate. When playing up, receive 2 XP, up-tier GP, and 3 PP. When playing down, receive 1/2 XP, down-tier GP, and 0 PP. [The small PP penalty from pure half-or-double is included to discourage continuous OOT play. The GP and PP adjustments can of course be adjusted: e.g. it's been suggested to go with 2x low-tier GP and 1/2 high-tier GP instead of simply up-tier and down-tier.]
There's also the idea that PP shouldn't be penalized at all, and go with a flat 2x/.5x (round down?) PP gained.
This is because the reason for change isn't to discourage people from playing up or down, just to prevent people from getting far away from desired PFS WBL when they do so.
|
|
Half or Double (HOD): When playing OOT, reward halved or doubled as appropriate. When playing up, receive 2 XP, up-tier GP, and 3 PP. When playing down, receive 1/2 XP, down-tier GP, and 0 PP. [The small PP penalty from pure half-or-double is included to discourage continuous OOT play. The GP and PP adjustments can of course be adjusted: e.g. it's been suggested to go with 2x low-tier GP and 1/2 high-tier GP instead of simply up-tier and down-tier.] There's also the idea that PP shouldn't be penalized at all, and go with a flat 2x/.5x (round down?) PP gained.
This is because the reason for change isn't to discourage people from playing up or down, just to prevent people from getting far away from desired PFS WBL when they do so.
Yes, of course. I probably shouldn't have baked in the PP penalty in that summary post. I was influenced by the state of the discussion at that time. But it would have been better to present the basic versions of each proposal and then note the main modifications that have been suggested. (Then, HOD would look like it does in my elaboration here.)
(And FWIW: as I've mentioned, I would personally choose a version of HOD that doesn't include the PP penalty for OOT play, for reasons you suggest and SCPRedMage stated so emphatically above.)
So let me include an adjusted version of the summary post (NB I've adjusted the suggested PP penalty under HOD to -1 playing up and -1/2 playing down; that's what it should have been anyway). I'd like to keep this summary up-to-date as discussion continues, including links to posts elaborating the basic features and proposed modifications of each suggestion. I doubt I'll be able to keep up with it as I'd like, but I'll do what I can.
- Podcast Proposal (PCP): When playing out-of-tier (OOT), receive GP for the subtier (ST) appropriate for character level (STCL) or ST played (STP), whichever is lower. XP and PP reward unchanged.
- Delayed Credit (DC): When playing OOT, receive GP for either STCL or STP, whichever is lower. But players playing up can choose to hold the Chronicle Sheet, receiving no credit right then and applying the Chronicle for credit when the character reaches a level appropriate for STP. In case of a held Chronicle, full up-tier gold is included in the delayed reward. [Main modification(s) suggested. (i) Before holding credit, player can spend GP from up-tier GP amount to remove conditions and replace consumables spent during that adventure. Remaining GP held till Chronicle is applied.]
- Half or Double (HOD): Standard award, Slow-Advancement award (1/2 everything in standard award), Playing-Up award (2x everything in standard award). Players playing STCL receive Standard award by default but can also choose Slow-Advancement award if they like. Players playing down always receive Slow-Advancement award. Players playing up receive Playing-Up award by default but can also choose Standard award if they like. [Main modification(s) suggested. (i) A PP penalty for OOT play as a slight disincentive: -1 PP from PP earned for playing up, -1/2 PP from PP earned for playing down. (ii) GP award either up-tier / down-tier gold or 2x / 1/2x at-tier gold?]
- Out-of-Tier Gold (OOTGP): When playing OOT, receive a GP award in between STCL and STP. XP and PP reward unchanged. [Main modification(s) suggested. Pick your favorite math for calculating OOTGP.]
- GP by Level (GPBL): Regardless of STP, always receive GP for STCL. XP and PP reward unchanged.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Podcast Proposal (PCP): When playing out-of-tier (OOT), receive GP either for the subtier (ST) appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. XP and PP reward unchanged.
There's a refinement of this proposal as well.
You get gold appropriate to your subtier (or whichever played if you fall between), but you get access to items and boons based off whichever subtier you played. So a level 2 playing up in a 4-5 gets 1-2 gold but 1-2 and 4-5 items and boons. Going forward, write more exciting boons, scaling unique items, partially charged higher level wands/scrolls, etc as rewards on chronicle sheets to keep the incentive of "playing up" an option.
Pros: it fixes WBL by enforcing a strict "you get gold appropriate to level" ruling. It still gives incentive playing up with the access to better items and boons.
Cons: The incentive of boons and items may not be enough.
Remarks in defense of this proposal: People are going to have to get used to having less gold. That's what fixing WBL means -- everyone has appropriate wealth per level. Gold can not be an incentive any longer. Boons and access to items seems like the easiest fix, as it wouldn't require any retconning of previous season's chronicle sheets. Also, this proposal could be explained to players in one sentence.
"You get the gold appropriate for your level, but access to loot appropriate to what subtier you played."
Quick and simple.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Another thought I had, what about players who never use any of their gold for consumables. They get the 2PP/750GP consumables and nothing else.
Say a scenario where someone plays on tier from level 1 to 12, but never spends a single gp on consumables. Wouldn't they also be vastly out of WBL calculation? Without ever playing up and gaining additional gp? Do we need to punish these players as well?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Why would you punish a cleric or oracle that doesn´t need that much consumables? Or someone who regularly plays with one?
Presuming we are in the punishing game (punishing players who play up by nerfing gold), then the next step is punishing players who deliberately choose to not buy consumables so they have more gold for gear. They would in effect be as "powerful" as those that spend money on consumables.
|
|
I have been doing some more thinking regarding this issue. It seems that there is a mixed problem that the campaign leadership is trying to solve. The first issue is WBL and the second is playing within sub-tier. If everyone played within their sub-tier all the time there would not be a perceived issue. (Though I could argue that you could do so and still end up significantly over the WBL curve if you plotted your scenarios appropriately.) The second issue appears to be scenario difficulty. Low level characters playing up are at more risk and seem to suffer bad ends more frequently. High level characters playing down tend to stomp the adventure and diminish the experience for all involved.
Based upon what I heard in the podcast, I take it that the campaign leadership is trying to find a solution to both issues with a single change.
Reading through this thread and looking at the issue more closely, I have gathered the following:
The perceived problems today with playing up:
• Playing up awards more GP and throws off the WBL curve
• Creates pressure for lower level characters to play up so as not to penalize higher level characters.
• Creates pressure for lower level characters to play up when there is a large table and the APL places the group on the cusp and the table needs to choose up or down.
• Playing up leads to more character deaths and TPKs
The perceived problems today with playing down:
• Playing down awards less GP and throws off the WBL curve
• Higher level characters throw off the challenge of the scenario as they breeze through or stomping the encounters.
• Playing down leads to boring and dissatisfied play for all players and GM.
Expected problems with the Podcast proposal if implemented:
• Will make table mustering more difficult as most players with higher level characters will refuse to play down and most players with lower level characters will refuse to play up.
• Wealth lost to playing down will be harder if not impossible to recover by playing up in the future.
• No extra reward for the extra risk when playing up.
• Does nothing to prevent the higher level characters from breezing through or stomping the encounters if they do play down.
• Will only adjust WBL curve for new characters. Characters made before the rule change may still be well above the WLB.
Here is another proposal which tries to deal with the play up/play down problem:
Prior to Season 4, playing up was used to provide more challenge to the party. The Season 0-3 scenarios were designed with 4 players in mind. Playing up was sometimes a function of having out of sub-tier characters and sometimes as a result of having large tables with 6 or 7 players. It was the only way to scale the adventure. The +1 to APL for table of 6 or more could dictate that a table must play up. There were only two options for difficulty.
Now scenarios are designed with 6 players in mind. There are now guidelines for scaling back the adventure for 4 players within the sub-tier. There are now four options for difficulty.
If you have one or more players with characters out of tier playing up, the table must play the soft option for the higher sub-tier. If you have one or more players with characters playing down, the table must play the hard option for the lower sub-tier. Characters which fall between sub-tiers do not sway the hard or soft option, only the out of sub-tier characters would.
Essentially we have the following:
• low-tier soft – Used by in sub-tier groups with 4 characters
• low-tier hard – Used by in sub-tier groups with 5 or more characters or groups of 4 or more characters with an out of sub-tier character playing down
• high-tier soft – Used by in sub-tier groups with 4 characters or groups of 4 or more characters with an out of sub-tier character playing up
• high-tier hard – Used by in sub-tier groups with 5 or more characters
Prestige/Fame would not be impacted. Gold awards could be left alone but if you wanted to make a change, the fairest way would be to set a GP award value per sub-tier and difficulty which is at the end divided by the number of characters who participated. If there were four characters, each would receive 1/4th of the scenario award. If there were seven characters, each would receive 1/7th of the scenario award. This would more accurately compensate reward for risk. It would mean less treasure for larger groups but would mean the greatest chance for success.
For scenarios before Season 5, this might require an addition of GP Awards to the reference document which was talked about for the replacement of faction missions.
Impacts if this were implemented:
• Lower gold for playing down but not the lowest gold.
• Higher gold for playing up but not the highest gold.
• Raised level of challenge when higher level characters play down.
• Lower level of difficulty when lower level characters play up.
• Reduced gold for each character when large groups succeed at an adventure.
I think that this solution would address the WBL issue somewhat by lessening the rewards for playing up and lowering the penalties for playing down. It can also address the level of difficulty issues for groups with characters mixed between the legal sub-tiers.
Is it perfect? Unlikely but it is another option.
|
|
For reference, the main proposals that have been suggested, as I recall. I've described certain versions of them, but any individual one can always be tweaked. I've tried to stick mostly to description rather than evaluation of what I see as strengths and weaknesses.
- Podcast Proposal (PCP): When playing out-of-tier (OOT), receive GP either for the subtier (ST) appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. XP and PP reward unchanged.
- Delayed Credit (DC): Largely as PCP. When playing OOT, receive GP either for ST appropriate for character level or for ST played, whichever is lower. Alternatively, players playing up can choose to hold the Chronicle Sheet, receiving no GP XP or PP right then, and apply the Chronicle for credit when the character reaches that level. In this case, the character receives full up-tier GP. Before holding credit, character can spend GP from the Chronicle to remove conditions and replace consumables spent during that adventure.
- Half or Double (HOD): When playing OOT, reward halved or doubled as appropriate. When playing up, receive 2 XP, up-tier GP, and 3 PP. When playing down, receive 1/2 XP, down-tier GP, and 0 PP. [The small PP penalty from pure half-or-double is included to discourage continuous OOT play. The GP and PP adjustments can of course be adjusted: e.g. it's been suggested to go with 2x low-tier GP and 1/2 high-tier GP instead of simply up-tier and down-tier.]
- OOT GP: When playing OOT, receive some GP reward in between ST appropriate to character and ST played. E.g., average of low-tier and high-tier GP. XP and PP reward unchanged.
- GP by Level (GPBL): Regardless of ST played, receive GP for ST appropriate to character level. XP and PP reward unchanged.
Have I missed any? At 800 posts and counting, it's a little difficult to keep track of everything here!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Essentially we have the following:
• low-tier soft – Used by in sub-tier groups with 4 characters
• low-tier hard – Used by in sub-tier groups with 5 or more characters or groups of 4 or more characters with an out of sub-tier character playing down
• high-tier soft – Used by in sub-tier groups with 4 characters or groups of 4 or more characters with an out of sub-tier character playing up
• high-tier hard – Used by in sub-tier groups with 5 or more charactersPrestige/Fame would not be impacted. Gold awards could be left alone but if you wanted to make a change, the fairest way would be to set a GP award value per sub-tier and difficulty which is at the end divided by the number of characters who participated. If there were four characters, each would receive 1/4th of the scenario award. If there were seven characters, each would receive 1/7th of the scenario award. This would more accurately compensate reward for risk. It would mean less treasure for larger groups but would mean the greatest chance for success.
For scenarios before Season 5, this might require an addition of GP Awards to the reference document which was talked about for the replacement of faction missions.
Impacts if this were implemented:
• Lower gold for playing down but not the lowest gold.
• Higher gold for playing up but not the highest gold.
• Raised level of challenge when higher level characters play down.
• Lower level of difficulty when lower level characters play up.
• Reduced gold for each character when large groups succeed at an adventure.I think that this solution would address the WBL issue somewhat by lessening the rewards for playing up and lowering the penalties for playing down. It can also address the level of difficulty issues for groups with characters mixed between the legal sub-tiers.
Is it perfect? Unlikely but it is another option.
This is a more complicated version of my halfvies plan. Despite what Red Mage says, it isn't that complicated.
Doing it by 1st level numbers, those playing up will get around 750 gold, while those playing down will end up with around 1200 gold.
1-2 tier player (say a second level character) playing up. Tier normally rewards 500 gold. Half of that is 250. That equals 750 gold.
If playing down, the 3-4 tier player (say a 4th level character) playing down. Tier normally rewards 1800 gold. Half of that is 900. Half of the 1-2 tier is 250 (see above). The two halves equal 1150. (which is close to 1200)
The result is that low level character are not getting to much gold, and those playing down are not losing as much as they would. (500 vs 1150? quite a difference.)
I don't see the EXP change as something viable, as it introduces abuse in other ways, and the character is still getting more money just the same as before. I also believe that the PP rewards should stay the same throughout the scenarios. (2 per play, if you get both mission and faction) Slow track already halves this, but the character is committed to playing the whole level and will recoup the loss. Most times, it ends up being "1" anyways.
The adjusted "Pregen" rules for holding a chronicle... no. Just no.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Unfortunately, though I agree with you, the census of the three that was in the podcast is that the perceived problem needs to be addressed. My suggestion is an alternative to "everyone playing out of tier gets low tier gold" solution proposed in the podcast.
Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm checking in again with a question and a comment.
First, campaign leadership is continuing to study and discuss this issue, and I'm still following this thread's developments. There are certainly some good ideas out there for a problem--or as 1970Zombie observed, a composite problem--and I am not interested in issuing a campaign change just to issue a campaign change. If the best answer proves to be no change at all, then that may be the answer. If a change does occur, it is because it aims to improve the overall play experience for the campaign as a whole.
Here's a question for the HOD crowd:
From a player's perspective, does the HOD proposal introduce increased pressure at the table to play up or play down? A player shows up at a convention with a 2nd level character with 4 XP to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, and in looking at the list he discovers that many of the tables are already full for the following slot. It looks like the only available table that he could realistically play with is going to play in Tier 3-7. To play at that table in the next slot, he has to play up in the Tier 1-5 to make 2 XP.
Alternatively, we might have someone in a Tier 1-5 who just needs 1 XP to reach level 5, and she signed up for a Tier 5-9 game at this convention three months ago with the understanding that she would be 5th level exactly for that second game. When a bunch of low level characters force her to play down, her entire convention schedule may be ruined.
Pervasive yet anecdotal, the pressure that comes from a split-level table's deciding to play up or play down is a real force and a relevant factor. In trading out the wealth-based pressure to play up for the XP-based pressure, would we introduce a new problem? No scenarios require that one have a certain amount of gold in hand to participate, but many scenarios require that one have a certain number of XP; in this way the pressure--spoken or unspoken--may be higher.
I recognize that these will be uncommon occurrences, but as a player and as a coordinator they would be really brutal to deal with. Can you address this concern with the HOD model without relying on pregenerated characters (pregens are always an answer, but I'd prefer they not be the answer)?
|
|
Do Nothing: Its a perceived problem, and not a real problem. People should be rewarded for playing above their weight.
My vote
I have to say, after all the ideas presented, and imagining all the problems that each one would create(complexity and rewriting of rules mainly), I wouldn't be too upset if they do this in the end. WBL is going to be skewed no matter what they do. If they fix that, what are they going to do about the being able to get a free wand each scenario, or get a free scroll or potion of any spell up to spell level 4 or 3 with PP. Also, yea people keep harping on consumable expenditures when playing up, yet most of the time when I see people buying consumables they spend PP and save their gold for equipment (Myself included).
|
|
I'm checking in again with a question and a comment.
First, campaign leadership is continuing to study and discuss this issue, and I'm still following this thread's developments. There are certainly some good ideas out there for a problem--or as 1970Zombie observed, a composite problem--and I am not interested in issuing a campaign change just to issue a campaign change. If the best answer proves to be no change at all, then that may be the answer. If a change does occur, it is because it aims to improve the overall play experience for the campaign as a whole.
Here's a question for the HOD crowd:
From a player's perspective, does the HOD proposal introduce increased pressure at the table to play up or play down? A player shows up at a convention with a 2nd level character with 4 XP to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, and in looking at the list he discovers that many of the tables are already full for the following slot. It looks like the only available table that he could realistically play with is going to play in Tier 3-7. To play at that table in the next slot, he has to play up in the Tier 1-5 to make 2 XP.
Alternatively, we might have someone in a Tier 1-5 who just needs 1 XP to reach level 5, and she signed up for a Tier 5-9 game at this convention three months ago with the understanding that she would be 5th level exactly for that second game. When a bunch of low level characters force her to play down, her entire convention schedule may be ruined.
Pervasive yet anecdotal, the pressure that comes from a split-level table's deciding to play up or play down is a real force and a relevant factor. In trading out the wealth-based pressure to play up for the XP-based pressure, would we introduce a new problem? No scenarios require that one have a certain amount of gold in hand to participate, but many scenarios require that one have a certain number of XP; in this way the pressure--spoken or unspoken--may be higher.
I recognize that these will be uncommon occurrences, but as a...
Hey John--those are some very good examples. The solution to the not-getting-enough-XP-due-to-playing-down-for-half issue in one version of the HOD proposal (and the best solution in any version) is to allow the player to be able to choose to take the low tier gold with 1 XP (whether they played up or down) if they wish to do so. This will be unfavorable unless they are in an XP crunch like you describe, and it will probably rarely be chosen except in those circumstances. This also fixes another example you didn't give, where you're signed up for a 7-11 followed immediately by a 3-7 in a con with your only 3-7 character, who's 7 1/3 going into the first of the two, and you have to play up to 10-11.
HOD doesn't have a solution for the person who wants to play up to get 2 XP in one session in order to play the tier they need next session, but with any other proposal, including status quo, they were stuck with a pregen no matter what in this case--HOD is the only one that even offers them a glimmer of hope. Fortunately, this should hopefully be rare enough that we wouldn't see a systematic pressure to play up.
|
|
I'm checking in again with a question and a comment.
First, campaign leadership is continuing to study and discuss this issue, and I'm still following this thread's developments. There are certainly some good ideas out there for a problem--or as 1970Zombie observed, a composite problem--and I am not interested in issuing a campaign change just to issue a campaign change. If the best answer proves to be no change at all, then that may be the answer. If a change does occur, it is because it aims to improve the overall play experience for the campaign as a whole.
Here's a question for the HOD crowd:
From a player's perspective, does the HOD proposal introduce increased pressure at the table to play up or play down? A player shows up at a convention with a 2nd level character with 4 XP to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, and in looking at the list he discovers that many of the tables are already full for the following slot. It looks like the only available table that he could realistically play with is going to play in Tier 3-7. To play at that table in the next slot, he has to play up in the Tier 1-5 to make 2 XP.
Alternatively, we might have someone in a Tier 1-5 who just needs 1 XP to reach level 5, and she signed up for a Tier 5-9 game at this convention three months ago with the understanding that she would be 5th level exactly for that second game. When a bunch of low level characters force her to play down, her entire convention schedule may be ruined.
Pervasive yet anecdotal, the pressure that comes from a split-level table's deciding to play up or play down is a real force and a relevant factor. In trading out the wealth-based pressure to play up for the XP-based pressure, would we introduce a new problem? No scenarios require that one have a certain amount of gold in hand to participate, but many scenarios require that one have a certain number of XP; in this way the pressure--spoken or unspoken--may be higher.
I recognize that these will be uncommon occurrences, but as a...
I stood behind the Double XP portion of that idea, but disagreed with the idea that you should get half XP for playing down. I like the hold for credit option better but if the double XP option has you guys interested this is my view on the best solution:
Playing below tier = 1 XP, 2 PP max, gold for tier played
Playing at tier = 1 XP, 2 PP max, gold for tier played
Playing above tier = 2 XP, 2 PP max, gold for tier played
It disincentivizes playing down for easy mode as you will be awarded the low tier gold at the end, this is the same way it is already done so no change here. It also disincentivizes playing up repeatedly as your XP to PP ratio will be skewed in such a way that you won't be able to spend all the gold you saved up on one item. Playing up once in a while won't put you too far behind, but doing it repeatedly will keep someone's fame below the 5000GP threshold for a significant portion of their adventuring career. If you play up for 50% of your games and succeed at all your faction missions you will achieve 18 Fame by about level 4 or 5. (enough to buy +2 armor or headbands/belts). This doesn't like an unreasonable level to have access to that kind of equipment. Even if you fail at some of your faction missions, those items are usually on a chronicle sheet so you will still most likely have access to them.
To summarize: The double XP idea is good, the half XP idea is not. Do not double PP as it incentivizes playing up to level faster.
Edit: After further consideration, this idea would fix problem #2 that you presented, but problem #1 is a real doosie. There's no real way to prevent someone that plans to play up in order to get their character into the tier they want to play other than the fact that they wouldn't have as much prestige if they do.
|
Here's a question for the HOD crowd:
From a player's perspective, does the HOD proposal introduce increased pressure at the table to play up or play down? A player shows up at a convention with a 2nd level character with 4 XP to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, and in looking at the list he discovers that many of the tables are already full for the following slot. It looks like the only available table that he could realistically play with is going to play in Tier 3-7. To play at that table in the next slot, he has to play up in the Tier 1-5 to make 2 XP.
Hi John, Praise Razmir. ;)
For this situation, the idea was floated of allowing to play for 1XP (giving up the extra XP, PP and GP). This would make that a voluntary option for the how a player wants their PC to advance. More player options is not necessarily a bad thing.
Alternatively, we might have someone in a Tier 1-5 who just needs 1 XP to reach level 5, and she signed up for a Tier 5-9 game at this convention three months ago with the understanding that she would be 5th level exactly for that second game. When a bunch of low level characters force her to play down, her entire convention schedule may be ruined.
This one poses a more significant issue with the HoD. The same solution can't really be put in play. That said, if the rules for playing down remained as is (that is the change only goes into play for playing up, it becomes pretty much a non-issue.
As a side, congrats on the job! Hope to sit at another of your tables as long as I don't turn to stone again. ;)
And thanks to you, Mark and Mike for opening the change up for discussion rather than just imposing a change without feedback. It really speaks volumes of the nature of the company and the people who work there.
|
|
To add on to my last post, let's say you played up your first two games as a level 1. You will most likely have between 2000-3000GP and you will be Level 2 1/3. You only have 4 PP whereas someone that played in-tier to get that much XP would have 8 PP, but you can buy your +1 weapon or armor, or depending on the scenarios you played, maybe you can afford both. Someone that plays in tier to Level 2 1/3 though will actually break 5 fame. At the early levels, playing up will give you a better equipment advantage than those that play in-tier every game. As you increase in level though, you will be outpaced in fame and be unable to spend your vast quantities of gold. Keep in mind that someone that plays up will still earn more gold per XP than someone that plays in tier.
Playing a 3-4 or 4-5 earns you about 1200-1800 gold or so as opposed to the 1-2 reward which is usually about 500 gold. If you are concerned about playing down and "losing wealth", you could still play up and "catch up" so to speak.
Example 1-5 or 1-7 scenario playing at 3-4 or 4-5
Playing up 3 times - 6 XP, ~4000 gold
playing in tier 6 times - 6 XP ~3000 gold
You still earn more gold, you just don't gain as much PP
|
|
I stood behind the Double XP portion of that idea, but disagreed with the idea that you should get half XP for playing down. I like the hold for credit option better but if the double XP option has you guys interested this is my view on the best solution:
Playing below tier = 1 XP, 2 PP max, gold for tier played
Playing at tier = 1 XP, 2 PP max, gold for tier played
Playing above tier = 2 XP, 2 PP max, gold for tier played
You might as well just say you can't play out of tier then. You play up and your fame hit will get you boned. Yeah one or two ain't bad...but happens to the poor sap that started off with a bunch of level 3-4s? That is 6 games playing up to catch up in tier. That is 12 fame gone. 12 fame is a freaking HUGE deal. Like your gonna end up have to scrape your character huge when you find out that you can't afford even a +2 weapon until like level 8. And even before level 8, when you can't get anything outside of always available at the start...yeah...not a good thing.
And then playing down is gonna be worse then it is now. You have the same penalty as it is now...except that if you play up, you don't actually come up ahead in gold AND you take a fame hit.
I seriously doubt this making the game better then it is now as I see more pressure to play up or down being applied...even at the dead levels...hell especially at the dead levels as that is where the money will be at now.
|
|
snippedWe should NOT be punishing players for playing the game the way THEY want to play it;
It's not about punishing players for playing the way they want. If they want to play up, they still can do that, they just won't be able to play up every game, have 20000 GP at level 4, and buy one giant item.
From what you are saying, you seem to think that players who play down should be punished because they didn't take the same amount of risk you did, and that those who played up should be punished because they took more risk than you did.
Not at all. I said in the post that the rules for playing down would be left exactly as they are currently. Same goes for playing in-tier. The problem mentioned in the podcast is that people are playing up too much and amassing huge quantities of wealth. The change I proposed attempts to remedy that with as few changes as possible.
It's one simple change. Playing above your tier gives you 2 XP. That's all. To be perfectly honest I am not married to this idea anyway. I like the delayed credit idea best. When you play up you hold the credit until you are eligible for that tier as if holding pregen credit or gm credit. You could instead go the podcast route and apply it instantly with your in-tier reward.
|
|
snipped
You might as well just say you can't play out of tier then. You play up and your fame hit will get you boned. Yeah one or two ain't bad...but happens to the poor sap that started off with a bunch of level 3-4s? That is 6 games playing up to catch up in tier.
What does somebody do under the current rule system when they get into a group of level 3-4s with a level 1? They can play up with them but those 3-4s are going to move onto 5-9 content before that level 1 catches up. I don't understand your argument here.
That is 12 fame gone. 12 fame is a freaking HUGE deal. Like your gonna end up have to scrape your character huge when you find out that you can't afford even a +2 weapon until like level 8.
12 Fame is a big hit for a low level. That's why it's best to not play up every game. The system is designed to prevent playing up every game, which is the problem identified in the podcast. If you don't play up every game, it won't affect you much at all, in fact you'll still have more gold than others of your level.
And then playing down is gonna be worse then it is now. You have the same penalty as it is now...except that if you play up, you don't actually come up ahead in gold AND you take a fame hit.
You do come up ahead in gold when playing up. Check out my other post where I break down the math of playing up vs. playing in tier. In this proposed system you still earn more gold than someone playing in tier even with the double XP.
In the end it's going to come down to two question: How serious is this WBL issue? Is it worth changing the rules to prevent abuse of the system?
|
|
snippedWe should NOT be punishing players for playing the game the way THEY want to play it;It's not about punishing players for playing the way they want. If they want to play up, they still can do that, they just won't be able to play up every game, have 20000 GP at level 4, and buy one giant item.
From what you are saying, you seem to think that players who play down should be punished because they didn't take the same amount of risk you did, and that those who played up should be punished because they took more risk than you did.
Not at all. I said in the post that the rules for playing down would be left exactly as they are currently. Same goes for playing in-tier. The problem mentioned in the podcast is that people are playing up too much and amassing huge quantities of wealth. The change I proposed attempts to remedy that with as few changes as possible.
It's one simple change. Playing above your tier gives you 2 XP. That's all. To be perfectly honest I am not married to this idea anyway. I like the delayed credit idea best. When you play up you hold the credit until you are eligible for that tier as if holding pregen credit or gm credit. You could instead go the podcast route and apply it instantly with your in-tier reward.
Do you even understand how this game works?!? Even if you played up every single game since level 1 to even get that much money by level 4, you will not have enough fame to BUY a 20k item. Or even at item worth HALF that. If you happen to have a 20k item on a 6-7 sheet that you perfectly want and willing to blow your entire wealth on...then yeah, you could technically do that...but what 6-7 chronicle even has a 20k item at all...much less one that is perfectly tailored for your character? So while having 20k of wealth at level 4 is an issue...what you mentioned certainly is not. Not unless your local players are ignoring fame limits and cheating.
And under you idea, play down IS punished. Currently, you can play down and make it up by playing up as playing up will get you the money you missed out on. Under your idea, play down gets you less gold and if you play up, you don't get any extra gold AND you lose fame...that sure as hell sounds like a punishment to me.
|
|
Do you even understand how this game works?!? Even if you played up every single game since level 1 to even get that much money by level 4, you will not have enough fame to BUY a 20k item. Or even at item worth HALF that. If you happen to have a 20k item on a 6-7 sheet that you perfectly want and willing to blow your entire wealth on...then yeah, you could technically do that...but what 6-7 chronicle even has a 20k item at all...much less one that is perfectly tailored for your character? So while having 20k of wealth at level 4 is an issue...what you mentioned certainly is not. Not unless your local...
The 20K example I gave was an exaggeration, but the problem comes to a head at higher level, where you will likely have 40-50 fame. This is a problem identified by the developers in the podcast. If it's not an issue I expect them to treat it as such. That doesn't appear to be the case since they said they are working on a possible rules change for it.
And under you idea, play down IS punished. Currently, you can play down and make it up by playing up as playing up will get you the money you missed out on. Under your idea, play down gets you less gold and if you play up, you don't get any extra gold AND you lose fame...that sure as hell sounds like a punishment to me.
Playing up does get you more gold. It gets you more than double what your in-tier reward is. Tier 1-2 typically awards ~500 GP. Tier 3-4 typically awards ~1200 GP. That is 200 more gold than playing the Tier 1-2 twice.