|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
I have played a pre-gen a few times, it doesn't even feel like I am playing a role playing game. I couldn't care less about the role of party pre-gen cleric; I am a tag along mechanical device. There is a big plus to being able to play a character you designed and feel attached to.
What's the problem with extra exp tied to your extra gold?
|
I'll go ahead and tentatively say I'm in favor of the 2XP approach. At first glance, it seems like a better solution than what was presented. Consumable and raise dead costs are valid concerns for the players that do end up having to play up.
I also think increased wealth is only a small part of the power spike for characters. I think with all the newer products and the guides to building optimized characters a lot of level 1s are starting off overpowered for tier 1-2, at least for early season scenarios. That isn't going to stop by restricting wealth. Anytime a power attacking two-handed weapon build shows up, most creatures in a tier 1-2 seem to have less hitpoints than that character's bonus to damage, and that has nothing to do with wealth.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:
1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.
2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
Except that I know folks who refuse to play pregens. The pregens are, pretty much, not equipped well, are less than ideal builds (and I'm not even talking min/max here) and there is no player investment with the pregen.
And if the pregen dies, so does the lower level PCs they would be applying the credit to.
So the choices with the upcoming change is:
1) Higher level PCs play down (if possible) and takes a GP hit
2) Player with lower level PC plays a pregen that they have no investment in
3) Player with lower level PC walks away from the table (which could result in no table being run)Not really an ideal set of choices.
It's been clarified that death with a pregen just means the death of your next unused slot - for example, I have 4 characters. If I were playing a pregen now and died, it would kill off slot number 5.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. Pregens are sub-optimal, and rather silly. I wouldn't be happy playing at a 7-11 with a pregen, and I don't think anybody else would be either. You've earned the right to play at that high level table, and having to do it with a character that's not your own, that doesn't have the personality that you so enjoy playing, is rather pointless.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I vote yes on the 2 xp idea. We already have the slow advancement track. Playing up should be the fast advancement track. You could make it that you gain +1 more XP for each tier up that you play. For example: If you are tier 1-2 and play 3-4, you gain 2 XP. If you play 4-5 you gain 3 XP and so on. You might still make more gold over the course of your adventuring career than players that don't play up, but it at least closes the wealth gap a little while still rewarding those that take the risks.
And the PP? If you get 2 exp and 2 pp...your gonna quickly end up not being able to afford anything. A simple +2 weapon requires 27 fame. That is 13 sessions of gaining full 2 PP and and getting 1 on one...which is 1 session short of level 6. So if played up 4 times lets say...your not gonna get a +2 weapon until level 7...assuming full PP gained and you do no modules or adventure paths. So barring a disconnect from fame and purchase limits, this won't work very well.
The simple solution is what I said before. Playing up gives you better rewards (current system) OR playing down does not reduce your rewards.
If you want to actually get into more complicated solutions and you wanted ABSOLUTE equalized WBL, we need to scrap the sub tier reward system and do what Yiroep suggested (sans boost and penalties)...which honestly means we need to get rid of the sub tiers period in all honesty if we want to keep play balance (because if you don't penalize playing down, your gonna see a lot of level 5s with a bunch of levels 1 in a 1-2 game). But that is how you would equalize wealth by level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:
1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.
2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
Except that I know folks who refuse to play pregens. The pregens are, pretty much, not equipped well, are less than ideal builds (and I'm not even talking min/max here) and there is no player investment with the pregen.
And if the pregen dies, so does the lower level PCs they would be applying the credit to.
So the choices with the upcoming change is:
1) Higher level PCs play down (if possible) and takes a GP hit
2) Player with lower level PC plays a pregen that they have no investment in
3) Player with lower level PC walks away from the table (which could result in no table being run)Not really an ideal set of choices.
It's been clarified that death with a pregen just means the death of your next unused slot - for example, I have 4 characters. If I were playing a pregen now and died, it would kill off slot number 5.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. Pregens are sub-optimal, and rather silly. I wouldn't be happy playing at a 7-11 with a pregen, and I don't think anybody else would be either. You've earned the right to play at that high level table, and having to do it with a character that's not your own, that doesn't have the personality that you so enjoy playing, is rather pointless.
Side note--7-11 is actually the exception; if you have a table forced to 10-11 and a player with a level 7 character under the proposed change, this is the only time that a level-appropriate pregen isn't even an option. That player either plays up with huge risk and the lower reward or leaves, no other choice unless you force everyone else at the whole table to play a level 7 pregen.
|
|
I vote yes on the 2 xp idea. We already have the slow advancement track. Playing up should be the fast advancement track. You could make it that you gain +1 more XP for each tier up that you play. For example: If you are tier 1-2 and play 3-4, you gain 2 XP. If you play 4-5 you gain 3 XP and so on. You might still make more gold over the course of your adventuring career than players that don't play up, but it at least closes the wealth gap a little while still rewarding those that take the risks.And the PP? If you get 2 exp and 2 pp...your gonna quickly end up not being able to afford anything. A simple +2 weapon requires 27 fame. That is 13 sessions of gaining full 2 PP and and getting 1 on one...which is 1 session short of level 6. So if played up 4 times lets say...your not gonna get a +2 weapon until level 7...assuming full PP gained and you do no modules or adventure paths. So barring a disconnect from fame and purchase limits, this won't work very well.
The simple solution is what I said before. Playing up gives you better rewards (current system) OR playing down does not reduce your rewards.
If you want to actually get into more complicated solutions and you wanted ABSOLUTE equalized WBL, we need to scrap the sub tier reward system and do what Yiroep suggested (sans boost and penalties)...which honestly means we need to get rid of the sub tiers period in all honesty if we want to keep play balance (because if you don't penalize playing down, your gonna see a lot of level 5s with a bunch of levels 1 in a 1-2 game). But that is how you would equalize wealth by level.
If that's the case I'm sure you could award characters double PP as well. Let's not forget that higher tier rewards include higher tier magic items as well, and your +2 weapon could easily be in that 6-7 tier that you played into with your level 3 or 4 character.
|
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
|
And the PP? If you get 2 exp and 2 pp...your gonna quickly end up not being able to afford anything. A simple +2 weapon requires 27 fame. That is 13 sessions of gaining full 2 PP and and getting 1 on one...which is 1 session short of level 6. So if played up 4 times lets say...your not gonna get a +2 weapon until level 7...assuming full PP gained and you do no modules or adventure paths. So barring a disconnect from fame and purchase limits, this won't work very well.
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.
But depending on how big the change in faction missions is, maybe this won't be quite appropriate. I don't think we have the information needed to really get a good answer, but we can flag it as a point of concern and keep our approximate suggestion for the developers' consideration: at-tier-or-double.
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
In an ideal world you'd always be playing at tier. That's not the case though I don't think. I'm okay with making additional characters to play scenarios, I don't feel like getting double XP would keep me from playing other scenarios at all. I feel like I might have more as I may have more characters spread at different levels.
|
|
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
With a double XP system in place though, it would slightly curb the incentive to play up because the rewards won't be as unbalanced as they are right now. If you play up and still want to play your 33 chronicles for your character, you can play slow advancement track. You would instead gain 1 XP when playing up while gaining half gold and half PP.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.
So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
You're reducing a character's lifetime by one scenario, yes, but so are you when you apply GM credit or play in a module. The scenarios are still available for your other characters, and you could only take the 1 XP if you preferred.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:
1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.
2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
Played up in a couple season 4...not really an issue if I am with other players who I consider smart good players. Seriously, the writers they have now doesn't really punish none optimal mechanical choices...but they do punish none optimal play. Even more so in season 4. So the issue with death is less an issue of party balance issue...it's an issue of play.
Overshadowing from a few extra grand here or there ain't gonna happen nearly as much as system mastery differences. The rogue with 14 dex, 10 con and 18 int and 16 charisma isn't gonna be overshadowed by the the barbarian with 26 str in combat because the barbarian player has a couple extra gold...he's gonna be overshadowed because that isn't his forte and he is built horrible for combat.
And pre-gens? Honestly? If the new system has to rely on pre-gens to make tables happen, seriously, I'm out. Pre-gen are horrible enough that I trust VERY few players to make one relevant. If they becomes the norm to make tables happen, I'm just gonna stop playing. I don't need the headache of an extra escort mission thank you very much.
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.
If you double everything including your progress to the next level you would be the same as someone who played two scenarios. You wouldn't have anymore. In the current situation you end up with the same progress as someone who played one at level, but much more gold.
|
|
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
Sure. If you select the doubled reward (under the proposed at-tier-or-doubled system), you've got one less scenario to play with that character before retirement. But you don't have to select the doubled reward and you don't have to play up if you don't want to.
I'm not disagreeing with you, of course: I think these are real things you point to. But I'm still convinced that the at-tier-or-double solution is the best plan proposed so far. It's not perfect—nothing is—, but it looks like it does an excellent job addressing the major concerns, and (in my opinion) a better job than the other options considered so far in this thread.
|
|
Played up in a couple season 4...not really an issue if I am with other players who I consider smart good players. Seriously, the writers they have now doesn't really punish none optimal mechanical choices...but they do punish none optimal play. Even more so in season 4. So the issue with death is less an issue of party balance issue...it's an issue of play.Overshadowing from a few extra grand here or there ain't gonna happen nearly as much as system mastery differences. The rogue with 14 dex, 10 con and 18 int and 16 charisma isn't gonna be overshadowed by the the barbarian with 26 str in combat because the barbarian player has a couple extra gold...he's gonna be overshadowed because that isn't his forte and he is built horrible for combat.
And pre-gens? Honestly? If the new system has to rely on pre-gens to make tables happen, seriously, I'm out. Pre-gen are horrible enough that I trust VERY few players to make one relevant. If they becomes the norm to make tables happen, I'm just gonna stop playing. I don't need the headache of an extra escort mission thank you very much.
This is how I feel. Thank you for saying it better than me.
|
|
The new pregens aren't bad and the ones in the NPC codex are pretty snazzy. I don't think they are off the table as an option. For me, if it's a choice between playing a pregen or not playing at all, I'll play a pre gen.
That's all well and good, but there are those folks who will not play a pregen. And if they do not have the ability to play their PC without being penalized (and let's face it, playing up should have a higher payout that the lower tier) they will walk if there is no other table available.
The problems that were discussed were 1) the overpowered aspect that exceptional wealth for level can give and 2) the coercion of lower level PCs to play up.
Doubling the XP, FP/PP and gold would take care of #1. It keeps the WBL concept intact while mimicking the character growth that would be experienced at a home game if a lower level PC was introduced to the group.
As far as #2 goes, a unanimous vote should be required before playing up. A GM who witnesses coercion should stop it. It basically boils down to the GM enforcing the "Don't be a jerk" rule ...
|
|
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
Agreed, but I also think this is more of a problem at higher levels than low, coming up with another low level character to play a scenario isn't that tough. In my experience high level tables are not as prone to the need to play up or down (not to say it never happens). But getting everyone in the same subtier for level 7 down is probably more uncommon than it is common.
Half progression also allows a way for the player to savor any level they like, something several people in my area take advantage of.
Why would it curb the incentive to play up? Get high tier gold AND 2 XP? It's every power gamers dream!
Twice your own subtiers gold and xp is not getting anything extra out of it but having to play one less game to level up. You would have no more gold than someone who played at your tier! You might have less if you leveled with 1 xp. Having twice the gold and 1 xp might be the power gamers dream, and that's what they've had. The problem I have with the current fix is that it punishes everyone and gives no extra reward, but does make additional challenge in making events!
|
|
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.
Doubling everything may seem like it's feeding greed, but actually that's only an illusion. The main problem is the characters with too much gold for their level, like twice as much by playing up. By doubling everything else too, you are actually bringing the character to ordinary WBL from before. It's exactly the same WBL as the current proposed plan, but since it gets it to it through a different method, it mitigates the problem of needing more consumables and raises when playing up.
Everyone, we need to respectfully address Relmer's concern here in order to proceed. Mike's watching, and he favorited the post to which I'm responding.
|
|
Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:
1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.
2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
Played up in a couple season 4...not really an issue if I am with other players who I consider smart good players. Seriously, the writers they have now doesn't really punish none optimal mechanical choices...but they do punish none optimal play. Even more so in season 4. So the issue with death is less an issue of party balance issue...it's an issue of play.
Overshadowing from a few extra grand here or there ain't gonna happen nearly as much as system mastery differences. The rogue with 14 dex, 10 con and 18 int and 16 charisma isn't gonna be overshadowed by the the barbarian with 26 str in combat because the barbarian player has a couple extra gold...he's gonna be overshadowed because that isn't his forte and he is built horrible for combat.
And pre-gens? Honestly? If the new system has to rely on pre-gens to make tables happen, seriously, I'm out. Pre-gen are horrible enough that I trust VERY few players to make one relevant. If they becomes the norm to make tables happen, I'm just gonna stop playing. I don't need the headache of an extra escort mission thank you very much.
pregens are already the normal way of getting a table off (especially for slot zeros in my region) if a 4th player is needed, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement.
|
|
Why would it curb the incentive to play up? Get high tier gold AND 2 XP? It's every power gamers dream!
I don't know that the desire was to curb the incentive to play up, it was to fix the wealth disparity. And as you said in an earlier post, some people don't want to lose the ability play their characters as much as possible.
|
|
Why would it curb the incentive to play up? Get high tier gold AND 2 XP? It's every power gamers dream!
I did say it would slightly curb the incentive. I am fully aware it will not fully eliminate it, but why should it eliminate it? Some people like to play on hard mode. The issue at hand is WBL. I believe the double XP, double PP for playing up is the best way to remedy the WBL issue, by making it so people don't perform at a higher level than they actually are. It may look enticing to some players, but their powergaming with that character will be short lived as that character will level into retirement twice as fast as someone that plays in tier every game. This would also reward people for taking risks once in a while that don't play up all the time instead of them playing up and being forced to take the lower level reward even though they took the higher level risk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.
(1) WBL is "wealth by level": if you double gold and double XP, the WBL curve stays the exact same (because 2/2 = 1/1).
(2) PP may be a harder case, as mentioned, since they're tweaking how it works. I'm trying for the simplest solution possible here, to outline a suggestion for the developers to consider in their fuller knowledge of the relevant factors. So, building on what everyone's doing here, I think "at-tier-or-double" is the simplification that captures the general thrust of this proposed solution. If it needs to be not-quite-that-simple, I'm sure they can figure it out.
(3) I completely agree with you that playing for fun, and not for some extra reward, is the goal. The reason why I'm attached to the at-tier-or-double proposal is that it gets around certain problems forming tables.
As has come out of my previous posts, I'm especially concerned about the case of a couple low-levels with a larger group of high-levels: wouldn't be fun to play low-tier, but the low-levels could rightfully reject playing high-tier if it were extra danger and extra resources spent for the same outcome: it's probably necessary to give them a reward commensurate with the danger. Personally, I enjoy playing up in large part for the challenge. I imagine that I will continue to do so if the developers decide to stick with an at-tier solution. But not everyone's a reckless thrill-seeker like me.
The concern is that there isn't, for many PFS players, an abundance of sessions to pick from. If you can't form a table, you might just not get the chance to play. So we want to make that process as easy as possible for everyone involved.
|
|
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.
No.
Here is how the double everything works out...
If you played 2 1-2 games, you would have ~1k gold, 2 exp and 2-4 PP.
With the double everything, if you played up 1 game at 4-5, you would have ~1500 gold, 2 exp and 2-4 PP. So you end up a bit ahead in gold and slightly better chronicle sheet that most people really don't care much about.
Now if we just doubled the PP, the faction mission becomes double jeopardy...not sure about that. I think maybe just a flat +2 pp for playing up (after all there really is the added risk of death here)...but I can see how the be balanced crowd can decry this.
But this doesn't handle the dead level issue. Playing a 4-5 instead of 1-2 at level 3 is a difference of 3 k and 6-7 vs 3-4 at level 5 mean a difference of around 8 grand in those 6 sessions. That's not exactly chump change. Seriously, the sub tiers need to go away if you want a real equalized WBL in PFS.
|
|
I don't think it's greedy to double everything for a low-tier character playing up.
We have to ask ourselves what the problem is. If the problem is that low tier characters shouldn't ever play in higher tiers, then the option from the podcast, as a deterrent to playing up, is a good choice. However, if the problem is merely that we don't want characters to have significantly more wealth than their WBL should allow, then the proposed solution of double experience for playing up alleviates the problem a great deal.
Looking at a chronicle sheet I have up, the tier 1-2 option gives 520 gp, while the tier 4-5 option gives 1904 gp.
Using the proposed method:
1-2: 520 gp/xp
4-5: 952 gp/xp
There is a difference there, but not nearly so significant. Furthermore, anyone who is only playing up to catch up with their buddies can without their buddies having to take a break from their characters. A level 2 playing up could also be expected to spend 300 gp on a potion to survive the adventure, and that would nullify most of the difference right there.
Double fame and prestige for playing up? For the same reason that we don't want players to have too much gold, we don't want them to have too little fame.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ok with the doubling everything solution. It isn't greedy at all; all it does is cause that character to be able to play one less scenario but stay within expected WBL. It also awards them enough gold to cover the higher consumable expenditure that playing up causes.
Honestly, I would prefer the "leave it as it is" solution. Remember, the APL of the table still has to fall within the correct range for playing up to even happen. How many players are actually abusing the system and always playing up? Shouldn't we instead be trying to encourage people not to carry lower level players along when playing at higher tier in general?
The current system allows us some flexibility in seating. I have GMd several tables where the only way the table happened was due to one or two people playing up. Let me tell you, these players ended up burning through consumables, and would have not been happy if they weren't going to get higher tier gold to compensate.
Why not, rather than punishing low-level players that have to play up to make a table (with the all risk, no reward situation these new rules create) instead make it part of the rules (or at least a strong suggestion) that in a multi-table environment, players should be grouped by Tier?
The only way to really fix this situation is to not allow tier-jumping at all. This is not a fix I advocate, as it will cause an enormous headache for mustering and cause many tables to not happen at all.
Mike/Mark/John, can you comment on how big of a problem this has been for you? I have not noticed any issues with characters having "too much" wealth for their level, but then again, we tend to muster by tier first here...
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.
Well, I disagree that people would play up for the extra XP after a while, and here's why.
After having GMmed 40-some tables of PFS, I've realized that actual level matters very little. What matters is level relative to the scenario that you are playing. This is a constantly shifting goal, and it is impossible to game for too long. Yes, a level 4 PC is stronger than a level 1, but the challenges that a level 4 faces are also harder. You can briefly eke out an edge in the arms race, but it quickly disappears the moment you level out of a particular tier.
If this concept is hard to grasp, instead think about XP as a timeline. Scenarios can happen anywhere within a certain section of the timeline. When you gain XP, you move yourself closer to the end - you don't necessarily gain anything.
|
|
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.Doubling everything may seem like it's feeding greed, but actually that's only an illusion. The main problem is the characters with too much gold for their level, like twice as much by playing up. By doubling everything else too, you are actually bringing the character to ordinary WBL from before. It's exactly the same WBL as the current proposed plan, but since it gets it to it through a different method, it mitigates the problem of needing more consumables and raises when playing up.
Everyone, we need to respectfully address Relmer's concern here in order to proceed. Mike's watching, and he favorited the post to which I'm responding.
I see adding "variable XP" to the mix as an unnecessary complication to a system that is already, in some ways, bogged down by too many additional rules and choices ("Hey new player, you know how you had a hard time picking feats? Now you have to pick traits too!").
We already have two experience tracks. Adding the possibility to get more XP by playing a session "at the right tier" is just another way to "game the system"; you have changed "wealth cheating" to "fast leveling cheating."
To play in PFS you already need to play Pathfinder with an additional "layer" of complication added on top. The solution to the WBL problem should not make that worse. The solution should be simple and easy to follow at minimum (i.e. a single sentence). Ideally, the solution will also solve other problems like setting up players at tables and encouraging people to play the sessions they want by removing mechanical advantages to character advancement.
|
|
I don't think it's greedy to double everything for a low-tier character playing up.
We have to ask ourselves what the problem is. If the problem is that low tier characters shouldn't ever play in higher tiers, then the option from the podcast, as a deterrent to playing up, is a good choice. However, if the problem is merely that we don't want characters to have significantly more wealth than their WBL should allow, then the proposed solution of double experience for playing up alleviates the problem a great deal.
Looking at a chronicle sheet I have up, the tier 1-2 option gives 520 gp, while the tier 4-5 option gives 1904 gp.
Using the proposed method:
1-2: 520 gp/xp
4-5: 952 gp/xpThere is a difference there, but not nearly so significant. Furthermore, anyone who is only playing up to catch up with their buddies can without their buddies having to take a break from their characters. A level 2 playing up could also be expected to spend 300 gp on a potion to survive the adventure, and that would nullify most of the difference right there.
Double fame and prestige for playing up? For the same reason that we don't want players to have too much gold, we don't want them to have too little fame.
Also note that for everything other than 1-5, it's more like double going up one subtier, so the gold/xp is basically equal. Only 1-5 has even the advantage listed there. For instance, the Chronicle Sheet I have up gives 4398 low tier and 7703 high tier, which would be 3851.5 gold/xp playing up, which is less per xp than playing at subtier.
|
|
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.Doubling everything may seem like it's feeding greed, but actually that's only an illusion. The main problem is the characters with too much gold for their level, like twice as much by playing up. By doubling everything else too, you are actually bringing the character to ordinary WBL from before. It's exactly the same WBL as the current proposed plan, but since it gets it to it through a different method, it mitigates the problem of needing more consumables and raises when playing up.
Everyone, we need to respectfully address Relmer's concern here in order to proceed. Mike's watching, and he favorited the post to which I'm responding.
I think the secondary concern that zylphryx mentioned earlier is something Mike is looking closely at:
2) the coercion of lower level PCs to play up
I don't know that any of the proposed solutions prevent coercion, though. They just shift it around. In a situation where there is no incentive to play up, you'll run into a situation where players are going to be coerced to play down or they're going to be coerced to play a pre-gen so that the table can play up.
Doubling everything allows players to power level a character, yes, but the only thing it really gains them is time. They'll still be at WBL. The only incentive is to advance faster, and by allowing a "slow" track, players who don't want to miss out on playing extra scenarios with their characters won't have lost anything either.
|
|
Why would it curb the incentive to play up? Get high tier gold AND 2 XP? It's every power gamers dream!
Neither the proposed system or the double XP system is perfect, however, I think the proposed system does a better job of incentivizing people to play in tier than the double XP plan does.
I thought the main goal was to address the messed up WBL that you get by playing up under the current system.
An additional concern may be encouraging players to play in-tier. If that is something the developers feel strongly about (I don't know one way or the other), then sure, this thought enters in.
I can definitely agree to the value of a strong presumption in favor of playing in-tier. But given the sorts of concerns about forming tables that have been raised (and again: I play in a *very* active PFS area, but you still have mismatched levels fairly frequently!), I think that it's probably best that there exist some option that makes playing up (when the table's weighted that way) not only an extra danger and use of resources for the low-level player. Personally, I like the extra danger! I would take that proposition! But not everyone would, and that's fine. I want to have something to offer lower levels other than the option of leaving or dragging down the table to the lower tier, where it's not challenging for anyone and pretty boring for the higher level players.
None of these systems are going to be perfect. Maybe instead of at-tier-or-double, some at-tier + stipend for extra expenses like consumables and conditions would satisfy many of the concerns that get that going while preserving other values? I just like the simplicity and apparent flexibility (as a preliminary proposal) of at-tier-or-double.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neither the proposed system or the double XP system is perfect, however, I think the proposed system does a better job of incentivizing people to play in tier than the double XP plan does.
Is the goal to try and get people to play in tier? I thought it was to try to deal with the perceived imbalance of having extra gold (which honestly this really doesn't fix as you can still play up in the dead levels to make up extra gold). Okay I will admit that if you play up EVERY game, you can end up with game breaking gold...if you survive. Seriously if you want to have people play in tier that badly, just get rid of the sub tier and just say you can't play up or down. To cripple players to try and get them to play in tier is just silly passive aggressive way of doing things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.Doubling everything may seem like it's feeding greed, but actually that's only an illusion. The main problem is the characters with too much gold for their level, like twice as much by playing up. By doubling everything else too, you are actually bringing the character to ordinary WBL from before. It's exactly the same WBL as the current proposed plan, but since it gets it to it through a different method, it mitigates the problem of needing more consumables and raises when playing up.
Everyone, we need to respectfully address Relmer's concern here in order to proceed. Mike's watching, and he favorited the post to which I'm responding.
I see adding "variable XP" to the mix as an unnecessary complication to a system that is already, in some ways, bogged down by too many additional rules and choices ("Hey new player, you know how you had a hard time picking feats? Now you have to pick traits too!").
We already have two experience tracks. Adding the possibility to get more XP by playing a session "at the right tier" is just another way to "game the system"; you have changed "wealth cheating" to "fast leveling cheating."
To play in PFS you already need to play Pathfinder with an additional "layer" of complication added on top. The solution to the WBL problem should not make that worse. The solution should be simple and easy to follow at minimum (i.e. a single sentence). Ideally, the solution will also solve other problems like setting up players at tables and encouraging people to play the sessions they want by removing mechanical advantages to character advancement.
The difference between "wealth cheating" and "fast leveling cheating" is that "wealth cheating" actually makes your character overpowered for your own subtier, whereas "fast leveling cheating" does not (Netopalis put it elegantly with his timeline analogy). Heck, you want "fast leveling cheating"? Play Thornkeep. 3 XP per floor and some of the floors aren't even longer than a scenario.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so look at this another way, where X is the lower tier GP level):
Current system:
at tier -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
play up -> ~2X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
play down -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
Proposed system:
at tier -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
play up -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
play down -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
Doubled Proposal:
at tier -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
play up -> 2X GP, 2 XP, 0/2/4 PP (equivalent to playing 2 scenarios)
play down -> X GP, 1 XP, 0/1/2 PP
So what are the drawbacks?
A player could end up playing fewer scenarios to get to high level? They can also accomplish that via modules. This is not really an issue ... it is really a player decision as to how fast they want to level up, similar to an inverse of playing the slow progression. the plus side is they keep more scenarios available for other charcters they may want to run.
It breaks the WBL curve? Not really. It actually maintains it when playing up. It also keeps the ability for those who do play down to allow a table to run to be able to regain some of what was lost if they choose. This option would no longer be available with the proposed solution and would most likely result in fewer folks being willing to play down due to the loss of revenue and the resulting loss of potential power.
It seems greedy? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Yes, they are getting a higher payout at one time, but they reduce the amount of scenarios they can play with the PC, so it is really just a trade out more than anything.
It really boils down to the player deciding on the course their PC will take in advancement. And with the emphasis on Player action having consequence for this upcoming season, it seems this would also fit into that mindset.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding the possibility to get more XP by playing a session "at the right tier" is just another way to "game the system"; you have changed "wealth cheating" to "fast leveling cheating."
I want to point this out specifically, since we're throwing around a lot of different concerns / values / things to watch out for.
You may feel that the extra XP amounts to cheating, leveling faster than a character should. I'm not sure how I feel about that, whether I think the faster leveling is problematic or not. But at the very least it's not a crazy thing to be worried about, and perhaps the developers would be worried about this.
But it's worth noticing that the "cheating" is different in these two cases.
With the "wealth cheating" problem that helped get this conversation going, the problem was that a player was able to have, say, a level 5 character with an insane amount of GP for his level. Among other problems, this makes the job of the scenario author incredibly difficult.
With the "fast leveling cheating" problem, you won't have this disproportion between character power and character level. There may be other concerns here, but they're not this concern.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
The difference...What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.Doubling everything may seem like it's feeding greed, but actually that's only an illusion. The main problem is the characters with too much gold for their level, like twice as much by playing up. By doubling everything else too, you are actually bringing the character to ordinary WBL from before. It's exactly the same WBL as the current proposed plan, but since it gets it to it through a different method, it mitigates the problem of needing more consumables and raises when playing up.
Everyone, we need to respectfully address Relmer's concern here in order to proceed. Mike's watching, and he favorited the post to which I'm responding.
I see adding "variable XP" to the mix as an unnecessary complication to a system that is already, in some ways, bogged down by too many additional rules and choices ("Hey new player, you know how you had a hard time picking feats? Now you have to pick traits too!").
We already have two experience tracks. Adding the possibility to get more XP by playing a session "at the right tier" is just another way to "game the system"; you have changed "wealth cheating" to "fast leveling cheating."
To play in PFS you already need to play Pathfinder with an additional "layer" of complication added on top. The solution to the WBL problem should not make that worse. The solution should be simple and easy to follow at minimum (i.e. a single sentence). Ideally, the solution will also solve other problems like setting up players at tables and encouraging people to play the sessions they want by removing mechanical advantages to character advancement.
I should probably point out here that, unlike in a console RPG, fast leveling is not the solution to all of your woes. In a console RPG, one can grind out 10-20 levels and stomp the entire game. In PFS, this is not the case, because PFS sets level caps on what can be played. In a console RPG, your level 20 can fight a monster intended for level 1. In PFS, this would never happen.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright RE, I'm going to log this down using a 1-5, 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11:
(Numbers are approximate, as I'm only opening up a single chronicle sheet; Scenario names are in the spoilers)
1-5
1-2: 520 - 520/xp
4-5: 1904 - 952/xp
3-7
3-4: 1309 - 1309/xp
6-7: 3260 - 1630/xp
5-9
5-6: 2512 - 2512/xp
8-9: 5512 - 2756/xp
7-11
7-8: 4342 - 4342/xp
10-11: 8053 - 4026.5/xp
So the advantage is only really to 1-2 players playing up. Even then it's only a minor advantage, and they could easily die based on their wimpy hit points at that level. Everyone else ends up with negligible advantage, but is still able to get up and out of that subtier so they can play with their higher-level friends.
|
|
So what are the drawbacks?
A player could end up playing fewer scenarios to get to high level? They can also accomplish that via modules. This is not really an issue ... it is really a player decision as to how fast they want to level up, similar to an inverse of playing the slow progression. the plus side is they keep more scenarios available for other charcters they may want to run.
It breaks the WBL curve? Not really. It actually maintains it when playing up. It also keeps the ability for those who do play down to allow a table to run to be able to regain some of what was lost if they choose. This option would no longer be available with the proposed solution and would most likely result in fewer folks being willing to play down due to the loss of revenue and the resulting loss of potential power.
It seems greedy? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Yes, they are getting a higher payout at one time, but they reduce the amount of scenarios they can play with the PC, so it is really just a trade out more than anything.
It really boils down to the player deciding on the course their PC will take in advancement. And with the emphasis on Player action having consequence for this upcoming season, it seems this would also fit into that mindset.
This is well-put. Thanks, zylphryx. It's late and I'm fading fast, so I'm going to bow out of the thread for the night. I'll check back in in a couple days. It's been great so far, though! Isn't it nice to brainstorm a tricky problem of common concern with a smart and well-intentioned community like this? Thanks RE for kicking it off.
|
|
pregens are already the normal way of getting a table off (especially for slot zeros in my region) if a 4th player is needed, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement.
ONLY if there are 3 players. Right now, in my area, that is RARE to say the least. If we have the new rule in effect now, most of our 6 player tables would end up with 3-4 players (and yes if 3, one pregen) with 2-3 players going home due to unwillingness to play up or down. That sounds BAD to me. But lets continue and assume I am one of the players who gets to stay. We have 3 players so we get a pre-gen. Great, now I have to worry more about keeping everyone alive as the horrible weak pre-gen bogs us down. I mean seriously, I have met just ONE person EVER who made a character worse then a pre-gen (and I mean EVER...not just PFS, in all my using this system). Not even a completely new person walking in and seeing the core rule book for 10 min makes characters as bad as the pre-gen. So the added difficulty makes the session into an escort mission (aka the part of the game NOBODY likes). On a side note, I play casters...so yes it is my job to keep people alive...either with healing or with negation of damage or making them into machines of death. I do a pretty good job of it. Pre-gens make my life much harder and much less enjoyable.
That is not to say that you can't be useful with a pre-gen. I have been terribly useful with mine when I had to use them. But then again, I can break anything really...and if you need somebody like me to play one in a useful manner...that is just plain old bad news.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pregens are already the normal way of getting a table off (especially for slot zeros in my region) if a 4th player is needed, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement.ONLY if there are 3 players. Right now, in my area, that is RARE to say the least. If we have the new rule in effect now, most of our 6 player tables would end up with 3-4 players (and yes if 3, one pregen) with 2-3 players going home due to unwillingness to play up or down. That sounds BAD to me. But lets continue and assume I am one of the players who gets to stay. We have 3 players so we get a pre-gen. Great, now I have to worry more about keeping everyone alive as the horrible weak pre-gen bogs us down. I mean seriously, I have met just ONE person EVER who made a character worse then a pre-gen (and I mean EVER...not just PFS, in all my using this system). Not even a completely new person walking in and seeing the core rule book for 10 min makes characters as bad as the pre-gen. So the added difficulty makes the session into an escort mission (aka the part of the game NOBODY likes). On a side note, I play casters...so yes it is my job to keep people alive...either with healing or with negation of damage or making them into machines of death. I do a pretty good job of it. Pre-gens make my life much harder and much less enjoyable.
That is not to say that you can't be useful with a pre-gen. I have been terribly useful with mine when I had to use them. But then again, I can break anything really...and if you need somebody like me to play one in a useful manner...that is just plain old bad news.
At 1-2, the rebuild rules mitigate this somewhat. However, if using a pregen is considered to be a campaign-endorsed approach rather than a last-resort approach, then the focus when building pregens should be less one of "Make them want to build their own character" and more "Build an effective character to use when you can't play your normal character."