|
Doubling the PP makes no sense. The character earned more money, sure. They also would earn more "XP" at the higher tier, so are closer to leveling up. However, they've accomplished the exact same thing for the Pathfinders and their faction, so why should they gain more game/prestige?
If the purpose is to allow players to "catch up" with their friends a level or two ahead, the prestige deficiency shouldn't be very bad at all. However, it will dissuade anyone from trying to "power level" to 12.
It might be more impressive to the higher-ups that they managed to accomplish this difficult task successfully and safely despite their lower level. And lower prestige does put them at greater risk of being unable to afford a raise for their level...Ultimately, what happens with prestige is probably a question for later. First, we have to make a convincing case for why the double XP idea is a solid way to prevent the too-much-gold characters from existing without making playing up a 100% nonstarter possibility for all but the risktakers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doubling the PP makes no sense. The character earned more money, sure. They also would earn more "XP" at the higher tier, so are closer to leveling up. However, they've accomplished the exact same thing for the Pathfinders and their faction, so why should they gain more game/prestige?
If the purpose is to allow players to "catch up" with their friends a level or two ahead, the prestige deficiency shouldn't be very bad at all. However, it will dissuade anyone from trying to "power level" to 12.
A PP adjustment (away from the just-double-it preliminary suggestion) may well be required.
I've been hesitant on that front since the developers indicated in the podcast what sounded like potentially major changes to assigning PP.
But a less-than-double PP award might be a good suggestion, in part to discourage pure "power leveling" (if that's a concern), and in part for a PPPL worry, since it's not the assumption that characters in fact earn every PP available. Since it sounds like the change will make PP more difficult and interesting to acquire, it would make perfect sense (if something like the at-tier-or-double notion is adopted) to not just double the PP reward for playing up.
And the current 4 PP for a module seems (in my limited experience) to work just fine. So I have nothing at all against this.
Maybe instead of the flat 2, though, it would still be worth it to give out 3 if they complete all aspects of the faction mission. That way they're not getting dinged quite so much in the long run, but they'll still lose out. But again, that (like everything here!) is only a tentative suggestion since we don't know what the developers have in mind for the future of the PP system.
|
|
It might be more impressive to the higher-ups that they managed to accomplish this difficult task successfully and safely despite their lower level. And lower prestige does put them at greater risk of being unable to afford a raise for their level...Ultimately, what happens with prestige is probably a question for later. First, we have to make a convincing case for why the double XP idea is a solid way to prevent the too-much-gold characters from existing without making playing up a 100% nonstarter possibility for all but the risktakers.Doubling the PP makes no sense. The character earned more money, sure. They also would earn more "XP" at the higher tier, so are closer to leveling up. However, they've accomplished the exact same thing for the Pathfinders and their faction, so why should they gain more game/prestige?
If the purpose is to allow players to "catch up" with their friends a level or two ahead, the prestige deficiency shouldn't be very bad at all. However, it will dissuade anyone from trying to "power level" to 12.
Yes. I may sit down this weekend and try to collect the various concerns and suggestions we've seen so far. I feel like there's probably a fairly clear map of "here are the problems, here are some potential solutions, here are some problems with each" underlying our discussion, but it's going to be a slog to collect it all and organize it into an easily-legible format.
|
Many suggestions and comments have been given, some are very good (Zylphryx and Mergy). A lot of people are favoring doubling XP and Gold for playing up. In the long run if most people try to bend the system in favor of constantly playing up they’ll hit a Prestige Cap and won’t be able to buy high ticket items. I’m not sure if the true intent of the new rules are…was it to really stop gearing up power gamers or establishing a more balanced environment for everyone. Perhaps it’s to limit pressure that you always had to play up to be effective in PFS. I believe that the intent of a new system was that players shouldn’t feel the need to play up or be bullied to do so by other players.
I’ve never been in favor of the dreaded arms race. It does exist somewhat and I do believe that season four scenarios were designed not to be a walk in the park and provided adequate challenges. Those characters that were not geared adequately and were way lower level in their required tier: did poorly, got carried, or died. If things change and players are being penalized in playing outside their tier trying to make tables legal if the new rules go in effect may become a little more problematic if many folks are not pleased with the changes. I can understand why people may feel apprehensive like they are going to lose out on potential gear and gold if they group with lower level characters. Hopefully that won’t be the case.
I wholeheartedly agree with Tristan Windseeker that changing the play up/down rule was not a major problem that needed to be fixed. Then again I am speaking from my region and the coordinators here have done excellent job in grouping people together for games and have kept excellent checks and balance on players. I honestly believe that the VO’s and coordinators are the key in providing a fair and pleasant gaming experience for PFS. I haven’t seen much complaining locally here at my neck of the woods or an army of over geared characters for their level wondering about.
It’s my opinion characters that level faster than usual but will hit that Prestige cap to purchase gear other than what’s available on chronicles, and how effective will a character be at high tier when they’re playing their level 10 Character with 24 Prestige? Excellent players with sound tactics are not enough if you do not have the proper gear to be effective. So that in itself is a safety which may mitigate any possible abuse and players will want their full prestige. Anyways, I’m in favor a system that doesn’t get abused within the first two months it’s implemented and keeps in the spirit of good cooperative play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the double XP for playing up. Instead of doubling the PP/Fame why not give 3 PP/Fame for playing up. It is assumed that we don't get 100% of PP/Fame.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question I have for the board is "Why"? Why do we feel the need to change the GP award for "playing up"? Has this been a problem? Are we seeing a large number of characters that have a ridiculous amount of gold/gear? How prevalent is this problem? Is it really a problem? Season 4 has really ramped up the deadliness, and I would expect to see more out of Season 5. Playing up in the new seasons is asking to be killed.
Playing up was never just "an option" that you could choose for fun regardless of your level, it required a specific set of circumstances to be met. It also required the consensus of the entire table (at least at our local tables). With the proposed changes, I can see a large contingent of players not wanting to play with characters that would lower their reward and reduce their WBL, which is what would happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, we have to make a convincing case for why the double XP idea is a solid way to prevent the too-much-gold characters from existing without making playing up a 100% nonstarter possibility for all but the risktakers.One way to do that is to propose something which appears to have actual drawbacks over playing in an appropriate level game. If the proposal simply allows power-gamers to get to 12 in 21 games, rather than 33, without any drawbacks, that gives you less negotiating power.
You may want to clearly state the goals you are hoping to accomplish with this proposal. Having them clearly framed will help folks ensure they are all on the same page -- including Mike, John, and Mark.
I'd think the following would apply, but you may have others:
• Create an avenue for ending level disparity within regular (isolated) gaming groups.
• Not create a new method for players to "game the system".
• Avoid allowing characters to accumulate far more wealth than normal.
This method has plenty of drawbacks, but you have to be looking at things from a gold per XP standpoint (the same standpoint that allows us to see that the current system is allowing for overpowered-for-their-level characters). And really, that's how we have to look at it--this is the reason that the current greatest way to twink your character is to intentionally fail lots of scenarios just before halfway, never gaining XP but still getting gold and a little bit of prestige. It's why I heard about Living Greyhawk characters who killed themselves on purpose (since raise dead made you lose levels in those days) so they could keep on playing with more wealth.
The 2 XP proposal, in fact, gives roughly the same amount of money per XP as the method proposed by MJM (as shown by Mergy). It does not allow accumulation of far more wealth than normal. It can't "gamed" really in any way. Heck, this hypothetical "power leveler" had better live in an area with dozens and dozens of other players because this requires playing with a different group entirely every few games or so (once you catch up, you can no longer play up). And in reality, you can already power level easily with Thornkeep more efficiently and with far less risk than you get from this proposal--remember, spamming the 2 XP proposal yields characters who have the same gold at any given level as characters who always got the low tier money (like MJM's proposal), so it's not like you're getting more and more powerful for your level. You're just leveling faster, and with greater risk. In fact, if you have more than double the chance of dying when playing up or spend more than twice the consumables (a very reasonable possibility), you still wind up worse for money than if you had played on tier, just not as much worse as with MJM's proposal.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, we have to make a convincing case for why the double XP idea is a solid way to prevent the too-much-gold characters from existing without making playing up a 100% nonstarter possibility for all but the risktakers.One way to do that is to propose something which appears to have actual drawbacks over playing in an appropriate level game. If the proposal simply allows power-gamers to get to 12 in 21 games, rather than 33, without any drawbacks, that gives you less negotiating power.
You may want to clearly state the goals you are hoping to accomplish with this proposal. Having them clearly framed will help folks ensure they are all on the same page -- including Mike, John, and Mark.
I'd think the following would apply, but you may have others:
• Create an avenue for ending level disparity within regular (isolated) gaming groups.
• Not create a new method for players to "game the system".
• Avoid allowing characters to accumulate far more wealth than normal.
Why the interest punishing ANYONE? Why do you have to punish anyone to play up? They are taking more risk. They use up more consumable. So why do you want them to end up being CRIPPLED at higher levels for taking more risks?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the interest punishing ANYONE? Why do you have to punish anyone to play up? They are taking more risk. They use up more consumable. So why do you want them to end up being CRIPPLED at higher levels for taking more risks?
Are they really taking more risks?
I don't see it that way. They are playing half the number of scenarios to get to that point. They are playing at tables with other more powerful characters at every juncture and those more powerful characters are almost certainly contributing more and likely taking the brunt of the enemies attacks as a result.
The people playing *at tier* are pulling the low tier guy along. They are taking on more risk by having a low-tier guy who doesn't contribute as much and they get no extra reward for doing it. Why should the low-tier guy who is causing the problem be able to short-cut the system and collect the same rewards as the guys who are pulling him along?
The whole point of the change is to encourage people to play *AT* tier. Your suggestion doesn't put any incentive on playing at tier. In fact many people would prefer to shortcut certain levels and would seek out playing up to do so. Lets align the rewards in the system in such a way that rewards playing the appropriate level.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the interest punishing ANYONE? Why do you have to punish anyone to play up? They are taking more risk. They use up more consumable. So why do you want them to end up being CRIPPLED at higher levels for taking more risks?Are they really taking more risks?
I don't see it that way. They are playing half the number of scenarios to get to that point. They are playing at tables with other more powerful characters at every juncture and those more powerful characters are almost certainly contributing more and likely taking the brunt of the enemies attacks as a result.
The people playing *at tier* are pulling the low tier guy along. They are taking on more risk by having a low-tier guy who doesn't contribute as much and they get no extra reward for doing it. Why should the low-tier guy who is causing the problem be able to short-cut the system and collect the same rewards as the guys who are pulling him along?
The whole point of the change is to encourage people to play *AT* tier. Your suggestion doesn't put any incentive on playing at tier. In fact many people would prefer to shortcut certain levels and would seek out playing up to do so. Lets align the rewards in the system in such a way that rewards playing the appropriate level.
So in a hypothetical world, it would be great if every game was always played with all characters exactly in tier. But the proposed system makes playing up so bad of a decision for low tier characters, that only the true thrill-seekers would do so without being extremely unhappy, so in the non-ideal situation when you don't have a full match, the lone lowbie will probably go home instead of playing, possibly stopping a legal table from happening.
If this is desired behavior, then why not just make it so that a level 1-2 is simply banned from playing a subtier 4-5 and so on? That's de facto what will happen in all but corner cases anyway (I'm personally a corner case who would play up for excitement alone, but I know most others wouldn't).
|
|
OK, enough people have posted here with differing opinions on the question of "What are our (the PFS community's) end goals in changing wealth?" that I'm going to try to collect all of the hypotheses here, and maybe someone official could help the brainstorm by letting us know which of these are truly our goals--then we can help brainstorm better:
Possible Goals--
1) Prevent characters who are ridiculously overpowered for their level (RE's Note: I think this is the main goal)
2) Prevent pressure and friction between players at two ends of the tier when the discussion of whether to play up or down comes up (RE's Note: I think this is the secondary goal)
3) Discourage playing down with a powerful high level character and cakewalking the scenario by making it as unappealing as possible.
4) Discourage playing up by making it as unappealing as possible.
5) Generally decrease out of tier play, preferring players to play a pregen instead or leave
5) Prevent the problem of perpetual out-of-tier play when one person falls behind in a small group and can't help but always play up
Anyone have more we can add?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
So in a hypothetical world, it would be great if every game was always played with all characters exactly in tier. But the proposed system makes playing up so bad of a decision for low tier characters, that only the true thrill-seekers would do so without being extremely unhappy, so in the non-ideal situation when you don't have a full match,
If the goal is to encourage people to play on-tier (and I think it should be), then the system should work best for people who play on tier. Having a system that gives outsized rewards for playing up is a huge incentive for players to play out-of-tier.
Obviously there are going to be times when people are stuck playing out of tier, but right now the system actively encourages people to seek out those situations.
the lone lowbie will probably go home instead of playing, possibly stopping a legal table from happening.
This reminds me of the big uproar over replay. Lots of people saying why it was essential to their play group and how people would be going home disappointed... but now 2? years later the campaign is healthier for it's lack.
|
|
So in a hypothetical world, it would be great if every game was always played with all characters exactly in tier. But the proposed system makes playing up so bad of a decision for low tier characters, that only the true thrill-seekers would do so without being extremely unhappy, so in the non-ideal situation when you don't have a full match, the lone lowbie will probably go home instead of playing, possibly stopping a legal table from happening.
If this is desired behavior, then why not just make it so that a level 1-2 is simply banned from playing a subtier 4-5 and so on? That's de facto what will happen in all but corner cases anyway (I'm personally a corner case who would play up for excitement...
If the goal is to encourage people to play on-tier (and I think it should be), then the system should reward people who play on tier. Having a system that gives outsized rewards for playing up is a huge incentive for players to play up.
Obviously there are going to be times when people are stuck playing out of tier, but right now the system actively encourages people to seek out those situations.
Agreed that right now the system encourages playing up if your team can do it safely. A change is good. However, the proposed change doesn't just disincentivize playing up--it makes you expected value much weaker for your own level if you have to play up, with that negative expected value concentrated in large losses based on having to pay for raises and the like. So much so, that playing up is just going to be a non-starter for pretty much everyone who isn't a thrillseeker, and those non-thrillseeker players are going to walk instead.
the lone lowbie will probably go home instead of playing, possibly stopping a legal table from happening.This reminds me of the big uproar over replay. Lots of people saying why it was essential to their play group and how people would be going home disappointed... but now 2? years later the campaign is healthier for it's lack.
Except the difference is that even now, with the system that encourages playing up if you can handle it, there's a lot of people out there who are forcing a play down with the threat of walking, or just walking. There's no reason to believe that making playing up less attractive will not make this more likely to happen. I know I'll walk before I play a cakewalk played-down (the only time I've ever seen a real tier dispute, at last year's Paizocon where a lone lowbie forced an entire table to play down to 1-2 and my friend at the table said it was still a cakewalk without my character)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the difference is that even now, with the system that encourages playing up if you can handle it, there's a lot of people out there who are forcing a play down with the threat of walking, or just walking. There's no reason to believe that making playing up less attractive will not make this more likely to happen. I know I'll walk before I play a cakewalk played-down (the only time I've ever seen a real tier dispute, at last year's Paizocon where a lone lowbie forced an entire table to play down to 1-2 and my friend at the table said it was still a cakewalk without my character)
"...a lot of people"...
I've played or GMed PFS since it was first introduced at Paizocon in season 0. Something like 100 games maybe more, I've been to cons, home games, and helped organize a local shop. I have yet to see a single person walk or even threaten to walk because of the table's choice or tier.
Maybe it's a regional thing? Considering I've yet to see it happen, I'm pretty sceptical it's 'a lot of people'.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Following is my understanding of the issues that were brought up in the podcast.
MBM are trying to address a fundamental problem with the way that wealth has been distributed to characters in PFS to date. The system that we currently use was designed under the assumption that although there are high and low tiers of wealth distributed in each scenario, the amount of wealth for a character would average out because the expectation was that characters will play in both high and low tiers over the course of their adventuring careers in about even amounts. There would, of course, be occasional outliers that had too much or too little wealth for their level, but as a whole, PFS characters would maintain wealth somewhat comparable to the Character Wealth By Level chart in the Core Rulebook.
The fundamental flaw in the system is that players have too much of a choice as to whether they get more wealth. Players can far too often choose to play up (at greater risk), which causes the following problems:
- There are too many characters that are overpowered because they consistently play up, giving them too much wealth for their level. That issue is exacerbated at higher levels (for instance, some Level 8 characters are actually as powerful as Level 9 or Level 10 characters should be due to their increased wealth).
- It promotes a culture where groups of characters that have no business playing up are pressured into doing so. Remember that most of the time, the creatures and dangers in higher tiers are not just twice as powerful than the lower tiers, they are closer to four times as powerful.
- The imbalance of too many characters that are overpowered cause players to complain that scenarios are too easy, forcing writers to design more deadly encounters. The overall problem is that the characters are too powerful, not that the scenarios are too easy. This is the case where you have an imbalance in the system directly causing power creep.
As the VC of an area where PFS is booming (yay!) I am responsible for organizing lots of games, and dealing with player complaints. I've run and played tons of scenarios. The experiences I've had in the past year support the assertions above that MBM were making. These are real, valid issues.
My opinion is that the changes they suggested in the podcast are elegant and effective. The solution they gave addresses the fundamental problem, which helps to solve all of the problems listed above, without the need for a new tracking system.
I've been following this thread most of the evening, and the only other viable option that I saw was the use of a chart like the Character Wealth by Level table to enforce wealth limits. While that would solve the problem as well, it requires additional tracking to be added to an already complex system. Also, as a player I don't like the idea of having to wait until I gain a level before gaining more gold (that's a minor quirk, but that's my opinion).
Most of the rest of the thread seems obsessed with options that don't fix the primary flaw. Remember, the problem isn't one of trying to get less powerful characters even with their overpowered buddies, the issue is trying to stop characters from becoming overpowered in the first place.
Even if I'm misunderstanding how offering more XP (and PP?) is supposedly helping to keep characters from becoming overpowered, it is still the antithesis of the very real problem of pressuring low level characters to play up. As an organizer, I see first hand that characters die way more often than players think they do, and more often than not, it's due to the party choosing to play up. I think that changing the system so that the only reason to play up is because you like the challenge will definitely help solve this problem.
Let me go through some other arguments that I've seen in the thread that are, in my opinion, misnomers.
'My character is being 'punished' because of the proposed changes.'
In reality, there has been a flaw in the system that has been allowing you to become overpowered over time. Correcting this flaw, and allowing your character to develop in a manner that is more in line with the game rules is not the same thing as punishing your character.
'I take more risk by playing high, so it is only fair that I should get more reward.'
This line of thinking is a trap. The amount of risk that you take has no correlation to whether or not your character was given the correct amount of wealth for her level.
'Having the option of gaining more wealth by playing high is what is balancing the fact that dying is so expensive.'
The system has the cost of paying for death (or afflictions, or curses, or other conditions) built into it without having to play high. Also, consistently playing in a tier appropriate to your level will keep you from dying as much.
'Having a pre-gen at the table or having to play one at all is not a viable solution.'
There are lots of reasons that people have to play pre-gens (not just to make a 4th), and with as many games that go off in my area there are plenty of people that have to play them. Far more often I hear that someone was grateful to have an option to play, or that they were glad someone sat down with Kyra at their table, then I do hearing people complain about how badly the table goes with a pre-gen there. In my experience pre-gens are a totally viable option. Even more so in an environment that isn't filled with characters that are overpowered because they have too much wealth.
'Organizing games will be more difficult because of these changes.'
The rules for which characters can play in which scenarios, and the rules GMs follow to determine which tier to run remain completely unchanged. The choices are all in the player's hands. If you're literally having a problem with players that will consistently drop just because of these wealth changes, please get a hold of the Venture Officer for your area, or come here to the boards to see how we can help. This issue should, in and of itself, not be causing lots of players to drop from games.
Once again, these are just my opinions, but I hope I bring some clarity to the discussion.
Edit: Changed spacing to make it more legible.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading and reflecting upon the elimination of higher rewards for higher risk, I have to say, i don't agree (and did post) for several reasons:
1. With no chance to earn higher rewards, every purchase needs to be optimal/optimized, since there will be NO room for error to maintain your WBL relative to this "ideal" that PFS has about how much wealth a character should have. It is difficult now (to do so) when a previous decision is sub-optimal (even though it seemed like a good idea at the time), such as purchasing item X because you like the concept/cool power, etc that turns out to be virtually useless in PFS based on the general style of play and how *most* of the scenarios are written. I feel that this path will hurt the average and newer gamer, who now has to spend much more time in creating characters, as now every feat choice is critical, every spell chosen in place of another, every rage power needs to be optimal, since there is no chance to make it up in better gear, reselling at no loss, etc. It continues to benefit the munchkin, min/maxer, rules lawyers and powergamers of PFS, as this is already how they game/create characters, etc. Again, nothing wrong with that per se, as we all have fun different ways, but as for me, this is not what I want out of playing a
roleplaying game.
2. I am giong to go out on a limb here and say that the WBL was created in such a way that a balanced (in terms of tank, healer, DPS, etc) party of X number of PCs with gold each will give the appropriate challenge per CR. Since PFS is all about sitting down at any given table with ANY and I do mean ANY mix ofcharacters, the odds of having a traditionally "balanced" party is very slim. Why is this important? Consumables, ESPECIALLY in the form of healing. Arcane is easier to work around, healing is not.
Characters will get injured and helaing will be required in all games. So a party of zero, or limited healers (UMD) will need to spend a disproportionate amount of consumables on healing than a traditional party would, skewing their WBL with no chance to make up the difference.
3. Metagaming & replacing consumables for other players, etc: It will be even more difficult to be altruistic in the following regard (Please bear with the example): A spellcaster casts a spell with an expensize component (or a scroll) such as: Raise Dead, Breath of LIfe, stoneskin, restoration, etc. There is no way that the character that benefit form the spell can pay back the caster who originally made the purchase (I understand WHY PFS doesn't allow this, but again, disagree. If people are going to cheat, they are going to cheat and this just hurts those that choose to play this way). Currently, with the
ability to play up, there is a chance that a player could choose to take on a more dangerous mission to make up for the loss in wealth that the PFS system affords, but now, will not be able to. Just like our party of all martial characters who bought a whole bunch of higher level healing potions (sorry, but CLW just doesn't cut it in battle past level 2) are now FOREVER behind the wealth curve. I say metagaming, since our characters don't know they can't "play up and get more money".
4. Is higher character wealth even an issue? Again, power/meta/min-maxers will always be there and will work whatever system exists to their maximum benefit. I haven't GMd any high level scenaios yet, but for the likes of GMs who GM high level scenarios, have you seen this unbalancing scenarios to the point of walkthroughs? I can think of an example where I was at a table where an extremely efficiently built character took the lead, but was that due to the build or his gear, or some combination, it’s hard to say (since I was playing and didn’t review his sheets)?
5. What are they trying to accomplish? A good question. Since the inception of season 4, I have seen fewer and fewer tables, when they have the option to play up, play up. Why? PFS is evolving and learning what types of challenges are needed in terms of balance for games. They are now all balanced for 6 PCs, with a reduction for four, as opposed to the other way around. I see this positive step in game design and challenge balance solving (in the long run) the majority of the current extreme cases of wealth imbalance. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that season 4 has been much, much more deadly for playing up than previous seasons (intentionally killer scenaios aside.... you know who you are). This will automatically lower the tables that play up, giving much needed balls to the lower level players trying to be goaded (and we know it happens) into playing up (NO friggin' way am I playing up! Timmy played up last week and they/he/she/it got slaughtered!)
I'll stop here, but suffice it to say, I strongly disagree that risk/rewards needs to be changed. Insert your favourite cliche here about bad apples ruining the bunch, but overall, I see playing up going by the wayside due to the better design of scenarios we have seen starting in season 4 and expect to see continue in season 5.
One final thought: I DO THIS FOR TALDOR!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to those people who have to travel a great distance to play being negatively effected by this proposed change are those who have very limited opportunities to play, due to real life obligations (family, work, etc). And then only getting a chance to play once a month or less after clearing their schedule that far in advance.
Four of my last five games were plagued with a tier imbalance that operated much as the proposed Season 5 would. Although I signed up (via Warhorn) for and cleared my real life schedule for games that were supposedly going to be filled by characters matching my character's tier and level, when the game finally came about, more than half of those who signed up did not attend and the seats were filled with latecomers with lower tier characters leaving me the odd high level. My options were to either play at about a 1/3 lower gold reward (not to mention play a less exciting adventure) or not play at all.
Could I have played a new lower tier character or a lower level pregen? Sure. But why would I want to when I had been excited to play a character I have invested my time and energy in and only get to play once a month with a month's advance scheduling? And that I had had to plan my schedule around a great deal in advance? It was incredibly frustrating to be put in that situation. If that situation became the rule and norm as opposed to a bad string of luck why would anyone with limited play opportunities want to invest their time and energy in a system that is purportedly in place to allow those without a dedicated gaming group be able to play an advancing character?
I can't be the only person who has to deal with this kind of issue.
|
|
Going back to doing pure WBL that some have mentioned (not saying anything about the XP solution in this one).
Why ever play up with this system? Play down all the time, don't die, have the most gold possible. That doesn't sound like fun to me, just having a bunch of high levels carrying people through (which is what would happen. Oh, we're 9.98 APL in this 7-11? Time to play down!)
This is why I propose the bonus/penalty system based on subtier (somewhere on page 1). That way, the least your WBL will be 80% of everyone else, and the most is 120%, so you wouldn't have people with 2 or 3 times the amount. As well, those playing for 120% all the time might have to pay for a raise more often, and those doing 80% will not have to do it as often. It equalizes it even more. And the incentive to play up is still definitely there, but it's not the end of the world to not do so.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, let me say that we appreciate all of the feedback provided thus far. It will be invaluable as we continue to discuss internally.
The option Mark presented on the podcast is only one option we are considering internally, and we still have many hours of discussions before we decide on what the best course of action we want to take that is best for the campaign. At this point, I am not discussing this topic in depth publicly as we still need to evaluate pros and cons internally. Your feedback will certainly help with those discussions.
I know one of the main problems we are focusing on is people not playing at tier, and instead, players that choose to play up every game.
A second, very real problem is the bullying of some players to play up, even when it is supposed to be a vote as to whether the table wishes to play up.
Another problem I've seen personally, is characters that sit down for Eyes of Ten and are far above where they should be in regard to WBL. The last Eyes of Ten I GMed, one 12th level character had the wealth of what a character who should almost be 15th level is supposed to have.
I will say I'm currently not a fan of double xps ideas that have been presented here. That isn't to say I can't be convinced otherwise. But, as others have mentioned, it adds yet another system on top of what we already have that just complicates things further, especially for new players.
This is a complicated problem and we will address what is best for the campaign in Guide 5.0 before season 5 starts. But, we need time to review this problem from several different perspectives, and come up with several different solutions, before we make that final decision. So, please don't take the one option presented as a final decision for the campaign going forward. I haven't made that decision yet.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd also point out that the 'stuck playing down' method leads to one other problem...
you never get that back.
To use Ksenia as my current example, she's level 3. Under the current system, I have an incentive to keep a copy of her at hand at all times, since I can stick her in a tier 1-2 game, because I know later on I can play her in a 4-5 (or 6-7 challenge in a 2-6 scenario) and get some of that gold back (albiet with higher risk)
If we have 8 players (it's happened) and the table splits into a 1-2 and a 4-5 I can play (assuming I'm not GMing) either table.
Under the current system I have the community incentive to play her at the 1-2 table, because next week I can assume a higher tier pay out, or that someone else (edited for clarity) will 'take one for the team' and play down.
Under the MMJ system, if we have 8 players, I have the personal incentive to leave her at home and only bring Rey, because if next week's table is a 3-7 scenario, Ksenia won't get that gold 'back' for taking the hit for the Society of playing down. Instead I say "I only have a level 5, sorry" and someone else takes the hit, or I lose the fun of playing my character and GMing instead, because Ksenia's a high GP consumption character. (witch = spellbook = reserve of GP if spellbook dies) If no one takes the hit, the curious guy who showed up with his brand new level 1 finds it sucks to be him. Maybe if he signs up (on a website he may not have known about) next time...
Under the 'double' system, I can take the hit, because the next week, I can choose to take the double gold/XP with the higher risk (and thus get closer to caught up from last week) or I choose to take the low tier gold/XP.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One problem with the wealth by level chart is that its WEALTH, not income. It assumes a certain amount of expenditures on consumables, loss of selling gear, bribes, expenses, etc.
Anyone know roughly what % of your income its assumed you spend on consumables?
Another 'problem' with WBL is it assumes 'refunds.'
As Sean argued in the raise dead thread a while back. If you spend 10k in diamonds in a home game on a raise dead, it's assumed that you will get gold by your next level to be at that level's WBL, not WBL - 10k diamonds. PFS doesn't compensate for that. Come to think of it, that works for consumables. WBL assumes 'on hand' for that level, not 'on hand, minus the 5k I've spent in potions of CLW to this point'
Now if Season 5 scenarios write the high tier judging for 6 characters of the highest level (i.e, a 3-7 high tier assumes 6 7th level characters) then that low tier guy constantly playing up should generate eyebrows, as they should have died at least once along the way.
(aside, Talyn now is using his 'I act, familiar vanishes me via wand, next round, I act (with sneak attack) familiar vanishes me via wand' at 15 gp/round, so I do maintain a 'consumables' budget along with my alchemical supplies, applying modules [which he's at the bottom level for] on my 'race to 12 for Origins' is manipulating wealth to make up for his consumables.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't be the only person who has to deal with this kind of issue.
Just about any of the proposed changes to out-of-tier play is going to screw people with especially marginal chances to play.
This should be avoided at all costs because I was under the assumption that people without the chance for a real game were one of the core gaming communities that PFS is intended to serve (the other being people at cons). I urge the VO's to please take inter consideration the effects that any change that makes it more frustrating to muster a table will have on those players who rely on rather marginal PFS in order to have any chance to game at all.
'Organizing games will be more difficult because of these changes.'
The rules for which characters can play in which scenarios, and the rules GMs follow to determine which tier to run remain completely unchanged. The choices are all in the player's hands. If you're literally having a problem with players that will consistently drop just because of these wealth changes, please get a hold of the Venture Officer for your area, or come here to the boards to see how we can help. This issue should, in and of itself, not be causing lots of players to drop from games.
I want to point out how uncomfortable I feel about a representative of the campaign leadership even implying that it is wrong or the player's "fault" that they would rather walk from a table than damage their character's advancement under any new rules. Ditto for the implication that organizers should start reporting players for being picky about what scenarios they play in what tiers with what characters.
I might have read this statement very differently than it was intended, and I kind of hope that that is the case.
|
Come to think of it, that works for consumables. WBL assumes 'on hand' for that level, not 'on hand, minus the 5k I've spent in potions of CLW to this point'
... now that's a drinking problem.
Now if Season 5 scenarios write the high tier judging for 6 characters of the highest level (i.e, a 3-7 high tier assumes 6 7th level characters) then that low tier guy constantly playing up should generate eyebrows, as they should have died at least once along the way.
Thats very class/build dependent. A melee Fighter should be dying more often than nodwick. A bard or a channel cleric can stand waaaaaay in the back and still contribute. An ethically questionable druid could keep sending the pet in while hiding in the shadows. You can even stuff a rogue in a bag of holding with a bottle of air and only take him out for the traps.
You could be really tough and assume that the PP cover all of your consumable needs, but then you wouldn't get many consumable until level 5 or 6 when you can save up for that raise dead.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that's a lot of posts between last night and now... Definitely did not read them all.
Just from skimming, I do have this question:
Why are we trying to make a system in which no one ever has to play a pregen or make a new 1st-level PC or announce/check the game day's scenarios ahead of time, ever?
The main complaint I'm seeing against the solution presented in the podcast is that:
1) If there's a game where there's only one table, AND
2) If somehow a one-table game day has managed to produce PCs spanning a 4 or 5 level range, AND
3) All of the low-level players would rather go home than play a pregen, AND
4) All of the high-level players would rather go home than either play a pregen or start a second PC, AND
5) No one is willing to step up and GM a second table, AND
6) Either the organizer did not announce the scenario ahead of time, or none of the players could be bothered to pay attention to such an announcement and see the problem BEFORE arriving;
THEN, if all six of those conditions are met, we have an uncomfortable situation worthy of throwing the system out.
Are you guys serious?
Unless I'm missing something, every single situation used as a case against the "Podcast System" can be solved by one or two people just deciding to NOT be the most important person for one day.
I've played or GMed PFS since it was first introduced at Paizocon in season 0. Something like 100 games maybe more, I've been to cons, home games, and helped organize a local shop. I have yet to see a single person walk or even threaten to walk because of the table's choice or tier.
Maybe it's a regional thing? Considering I've yet to see it happen, I'm pretty sceptical it's 'a lot of people'.
I've seen it a lot actually. Its the main gig. "Play this tier or I walk!" because people aren't willing to take the risk or refuse to play down for someone else. Its ended with people walking away several times. The fact the local store I used to go to decided to no longer post which tier they favored doing only made this worse from what I've been told.(2nd hand reports, haven't been there myself).
I don't think double rewards sounds complicated at all btw. I don't see where people get this from. Doubling is not a percentile that you have to spend time calculating. Its easier than fractional BAB...
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
I don't think double rewards sounds complicated at all btw. I don't see where people get this from. Doubling is not a percentile that you have to spend time calculating. Its easier than fractional BAB...
And yet, there is confusion all the time about slow track....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so the game mastering section of the phb breaks equipment down like this
PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins.
Now the problem here is 1) is diamond dust accounted for in the disposable and 2) whats the turn over rate for your disposables? IE, if you burn through your budget once per level its a lot higher than if you assume that someone sticks a potion of CLW in their back pocket and keeps it for life.
If i assume a turn over rate of 1/level and 15% disposables, You can just get a gold reward based on your level.
Amount/adventure
1 383
2 767
3 1,150
4 1,725
5 2,108
6 2,875
7 3,642
8 4,983
9 6,133
10 7,667
11 9,967
12 12,267
And thats easy enough to justify in character, you don't pay the guy that just started working there as much as the guy who's already put his life on the line 20 times for you.
|
|
And yet, there is confusion all the time about slow track....
I don't think double rewards sounds complicated at all btw. I don't see where people get this from. Doubling is not a percentile that you have to spend time calculating. Its easier than fractional BAB...
True, but there are extra nuances in slow track, like only being able to change into/out of slow track between levels. If you play a module it can prevent you from switching between the tracks. Prestige/fame gets wonky as well...
I am not advocating (yet) that the double xp is the correct solution. It definitely addresses the WBL problem, but still doesn't fix the "bullying" people to play up. Even then, I believe the correct formula should be double xp, double low-tier gold (not get high tier gold), and +1 PP/fame (not double) to be more in line with 4pp/3xp from modules.
We locally have solutions to the bullying problem. We allow a single player to veto playing up, and the vote can be secret if needed. We have had players agree to cover the FULL cost of a raise dead and restorations for the player being "asked" to play up in the event that he dies. But all of these would not work as something to be implemented campaign wide.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I'm missing something, every single situation used as a case against the "Podcast System" can be solved by one or two people just deciding to NOT be the most important person for one day.
Nice try.
Of course, the current system works fine if 'one or two people decide not to leverage the system for one day'.
Congratulations Jiggy, you've just argued that the system is fine as is, and doesn't need to be changed.
|
|
Jiggy, you´re absolutely right with what you say.
What i suggested really has some conditions and one of the is that people are not playing up or down to gain something, but to be able to play and not get punished in some way. Therefore the intention of the system i proposed is to be including for such people as much as possible. Besides this need to play up or down to make a game happen at all or to prevent a player from not being able to play, one should simply not be allowed to play out of tier.
So the only situation where this solution will be deployed is your points 1-4.
At conventions or game days where you can know what tiers will be played you simply go to your tier. Exception would/could be that there is no game in your tier. But that´s the only exception and shouldn´t happen very often. Actually only if there is no 1-2 tier.
If there are enough people to have a second or more tables i think there will be enough people willing to GM and then it should be possible to find a fitting tier. If no ones GM a lot of people won´t be able to play so eventually someone will say ok. Idealy GMing would shift.
I think this system would encourage to play in your tier, but at the same time provide flexibility to people and offer the possibility to catch up to higher levels fast so you keep playing up or out of tier at a minimum. The altered reward system also prevents characters from getting too much gold and becoming overpowered or too less gold and becoming underpowered.
Summary:
Play up (only if no other chance to play):
2xp, double gold, 2+1PP
Play down (again only if no other chance to play):
1/2xp, half gold, 1/2+1/2PP
This would still only happen if you could legaly play up or down.
Also i don´t think this is complicated at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, there is confusion all the time about slow track....
I don't think double rewards sounds complicated at all btw. I don't see where people get this from. Doubling is not a percentile that you have to spend time calculating. Its easier than fractional BAB...
There is confusion about gaining/spending PP.
There is confusion about GM credit.
There's too much confusion, can't get no relief. Wait that belongs on a Battlestar Galactica thread.
I don't think the 'confusion' is the issue. "Corner cases make bad law."
So far the campaign administrators, both yourself and your predecessors, have been good at not letting Corner cases restrict things that most don't abuse. It may be the consensus of management that WBL needs to be addressed. It may be that consensus of peer pressure being too much needs to be addressed.
But to take cases of confusion as being a reason not to consider is a case of a) corner cases, or b) insulting the intelligence of your base.
Paizo doesn't keep Pathfinder G rated because you (rightly) look at the maturity of the majority of the base. Please don't underestimate our intelligence.
|
The main complaint I'm seeing against the solution presented in the podcast is that:
1) If there's a game where there's only one table, AND
2) If somehow a one-table game day has managed to produce PCs spanning a 4 or 5 level range, AND
3) All of the low-level players would rather go home than play a pregen, AND
4) All of the high-level players would rather go home than either play a pregen or start a second PC, AND
5) No one is willing to step up and GM a second table, AND
6) Either the organizer did not announce the scenario ahead of time, or none of the players could be bothered to pay attention to such an announcement and see the problem BEFORE arriving;
THEN, if all six of those conditions are met, we have an uncomfortable situation worthy of throwing the system out.Are you guys serious?
Unless I'm missing something, every single situation used as a case against the "Podcast System" can be solved by one or two people just deciding to NOT be the most important person for one day.
^THIS!!^
While changing the XP/PP gained for playing up does help the WPL some it still doesn't fix the main problem of people not playing in-tier to begin with. Jiggy has pretty much listed all of the posible solutions to the playing up/down scenarios in this post. If you can't accomplish any of these then maybe you should be trying to actively grow your PFS community to be able to achieve some of these.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
Summary:
Play up (only if no other chance to play):
2xp, double gold, 2+1PPPlay down (again only if no other chance to play):
1/2xp, half gold, 1/2+1/2PPThis would still only happen if you could legaly play up or down.
Also i don´t think this is complicated at all.
So, if you play down, and are on slow track, you receive 1/4 XP, 1/4 GP, and 1/4 PP. You don't think that is making things more complicated?
Additionally, in a perfect world, you play up if no other chance to play. We currently have people who play up every game of their character's career. I don't think instituting double of XP and gold is going to convince them to only play up if no other chance to play.
|
|
Play down (again only if no other chance to play):
1/2xp, half gold, 1/2+1/2PP
1/2 xp is sadly not an elegant solution. Some people with a 0.5xp hanging around will end up trying to play Eyes of the Ten (which requires exactly 33xp) and be unable to do so. If they are at 32.5 xp they will need to purposefully try to find a 7-11 game to play down in. And believe me, a level 11 in a 7-8 will demolish everything.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy: Let's put this in a more realistic situation. I'll use my store's most recent game day as an example.
Table 1 is playing Severing Ties at Tier 1-2. All PCs are in tier, and it has 6 players.
Table 2 is playing Rebel's Ransom at Tier 5-6. All PCs are in tier, with 6 players.
Table 3, my table, is playing The Beggar's Pearl, which is a 1-7. I have four players at my table. [This is from memory, so it may not be 100% accurate, but I think it was pretty close]
Player 1 has a level 3 and a level 8.
Player 2 has a level 4 and a level 6.
Player 3 has a level 1 and a level 4.
Player 4 has only a level 1.
Let's assume that this was a 1-5. APL would be 3.0 if the highest tier characters were played and 2.1 if lowest tier characters are selected. However, if lowest tier characters are selected, the Level 4 needs to either build a new character or select a pregen. Pregens are horridly built, though, and it's frowned upon to play a pregen if you have an in-tier PC. On the other hand, Player 2 will get half gold if he plays down. Player 2 can't go to a different table, since that would make me play a GMPC, and would make one of the other tables a real stretch.
Let's throw another wrench into the works. Let's say this was Season 5, and that this scenario had a Taldor faction mission. Let's also say that Player 2's level 4 is a Taldor PC. We are told that you should try to get your characters to play their factions' missions. It makes for a great RP opportunity. Player 2 would either have to burn a scenario that he would otherwise be able to experience a faction mission, or he would have to take half gold. That's not a great situation. Sure, he could play the pregen for the faction mission, but that wouldn't be *his* character, and it may not make a lot of sense to make Kyra suddenly Sczarni for a faction mission.
So, then, the level 4s and 3s are going to want to push the level 1 to play up. However, if the team plays up, the level 1 is going to be facing increased risk with no real reward.
What a quandary. If you think that bullying happens now, just wait until *this* happens.
|
|
There is also confusion about reach weapons, cover rules, lighting conditions, AoO`s and a lot of other stuff.
I think the system as i presented it would also take care of peer pressure because you are either simply not allowed to play up or down, or if in the supposed minority case, you won´t be playing up or down long since either you or the others will catch up very quickly.
Yes you loose the possibility to play more scenarios or longer on a certain level, but if you want this you can search another in-tier group. The suggested solution only takes account when there is no other group.
That also makes a slow track advancement mostly unneccesary. It could be used if you need to play up for one evening only.
Also i did not intend for this to work under the normal slow/normal track advancement, but to be an exception.
It could just be implemented on the chronicle sheets, what would make applying it for GM´s really easy too.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that's a lot of posts between last night and now... Definitely did not read them all.
Just from skimming, I do have this question:
Why are we trying to make a system in which no one ever has to play a pregen or make a new 1st-level PC or announce/check the game day's scenarios ahead of time, ever?The main complaint I'm seeing against the solution presented in the podcast is that:
1) If there's a game where there's only one table, AND
2) If somehow a one-table game day has managed to produce PCs spanning a 4 or 5 level range, AND
3) All of the low-level players would rather go home than play a pregen, AND
4) All of the high-level players would rather go home than either play a pregen or start a second PC, AND
5) No one is willing to step up and GM a second table, AND
6) Either the organizer did not announce the scenario ahead of time, or none of the players could be bothered to pay attention to such an announcement and see the problem BEFORE arriving;
THEN, if all six of those conditions are met, we have an uncomfortable situation worthy of throwing the system out.Are you guys serious?
Unless I'm missing something, every single situation used as a case against the "Podcast System" can be solved by one or two people just deciding to NOT be the most important person for one day.
At the local game that I run, we do have only one table. The PCs do range in level, because not everyone started at the same time. It's the same players every week, so if we made people play pregens instead of playing up, that's all they would ever be able to play, because they'll never catch up. I got the older players to start new characters, but then the new guy gets his PC up to level 2 or 3, then invites a friend to start at level 1, and the whole thing is about to happen all over again.
At my not-so-local game where I play, just about every game day we have an entire table worth of people showing up without having registered, so things get shuffled around, and people play in games or at tiers they didn't expect (you DO remember what happened at Con of the North with all those tables we signed up for ahead of time, right?).
These are not imaginary issues. While some players gaming the system will end up a couple of levels ahead in the WBL curve, as someone noted above, that difference pales in comparison to the difference caused by different levels of system mastery. While this new solution might make things a little more fair from a certain perspective, it does so by removing options for putting tables together, that will only make it harder to organize.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
There is also confusion about reach weapons, cover rules, lighting conditions, AoO`s and a lot of other stuff.
I think the system as i presented it would also take care of peer pressure because you are either simply not allowed to play up or down, or if in the supposed minority case, you won´t be playing up or down long since either you or the others will catch up very quickly.
Yes you loose the possibility to play more scenarios or longer on a certain level, but if you want this you can search another in-tier group. The suggested solution only takes account when there is no other group.
That also makes a slow track advancement mostly unneccesary. It could be used if you need to play up for one evening only.Also i did not intend for this to work under the normal slow/normal track advancement, but to be an exception.
It could just be implemented on the chronicle sheets, what would make applying it for GM´s really easy too.
So can GMs opt to take either 1 or 2 XPs with their GM credit?