Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread


Pathfinder Society

351 to 400 of 945 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some other thoughts from reading through past posts:

  • The current WBL version - works, but sure, the WBL may be unbalanced a little - most of the other 'reasons' behind this change should really not even be considered.
  • The proposed change - horrible idea for so many reasons that has all been said; forming tables probably being the biggest issue
  • Double XP for playing up - essentially the same penalty for playing up as the proposed change, just with a different name and disguise - and think about this - do you want the so-called "greedy" player who always plays up to reach those higher tiers in 1/2 the time?
  • Changing the Fame caps - the fame caps are pretty solid as they are in matching magic items with tier - altering these by 2-4 levels would be a very bad idea
  • Having a specific amount of gold for every level within a mod - brilliant. I mean, I like getting a ton of gold when I play up, but if you're looking for balance, there you go. Everyone gets rewarded for the level of their assumed contribution to the party. Even RP-wise this makes sense - the veteran of 8 years would get more than the relatively new 5th year adventurer, etc.

And I'm sorry, saying it's too hard for scenario writers to write for various levels of wealth/power - they're already doing that. If you write a 5-9 tier mod, the first thing you would look at is how to challenge levels 5-9, yes? From there, I'm guessing you're probably looking at encounters with CRs from around 5-8 for low tier and 8-11 for high tier. So maybe the CR 11 encounter isn't as hard for a twinked 9 as it will be for a 'vanilla' 9. So what? This game is about diversity at many levels - races, cultures, regions, experience, fame, wealth, skills, magical heritage, material goods - why look to limit what someone wants to do? If we disregard that idea, then we might as well all play pregens, forming a perfect party of 4-6 (cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue and one or two support chars) and call it a day. Of course, every party will die, but whatever.

Or, you don't put this bad idea into place and things are ok when two wizards, a melee rogue, a negative cleric and a pregen sit down at a 5-9 table because one or more of them probably has a little more utility or support from magical items.

And once again...we all should ask, "as of April 17, 2013, in the middle of season 4, is this even a real issue anymore???" Honestly, fewer and fewer people play up since mid-Season 3, and as long as the mods continue the challenge and excitement level they're at now, it will continue to decrease.

Now, in reply to this:

Michael Brock wrote:
And then we come full circle and I will quote Jiggy's post from last page."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."

Why are we making the people that want to play up the bad guy here? What about the reverse scenario? APL comes out at 7 for a table of 6: four people want to play up, two down - because they feel they are too important to die, don't want to "lose their eidolon" (yes, I've heard it, though at a lower level), etc. - why should the four who want to play up cave and/or get penalized at that table??

Finally - bullying. My first response to everyone...grow a pair, it's not like your life is in danger here. My second response...as I said in reply to VonHasseln, bullies are going to bully - no...matter...what. M. Brock, you should know this as much as anyone with your background. The solution to this is, in so many words, to kick that player out or as the GM, force the up/down vote and go with the majority. These types of players are one of the reasons why VCs, VLs, etc. run these cons - they are there to supervise things (among other duties). I understand this whole 'protect me from bullies' thing is way bigger than PFS (i have 7 year olds in a Catholic grade school with a dedicated program dealing with bullying, and disagree with about 50% of what they preach), but you're supposed to be somewhat mature to play this game...so... be mature about playing this game!!

And M.Brock - people really have trouble figuring out slow-track?? Wow.

BTW, in the spirit of offering a solution instead of just trying to refute things - I think having a gold amount based on character level in each mod is the best option all-around here. It's simple, clean and is most likely the "fairest of them all...."

OK, my two long-winded rants are over, sorry if I offended anyone, that was not the point to any of it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

I know this has been mentioned already to some degree or another, but I agree that PCP is actually more likely to cause social pressure to play up than already exists. As it stands right now, I don't have a lot of problems playing down because I know I might play up in the next mod and the wealth is a wash. But with PCP all you can do is lose wealth. You can never regain it. So the pressure to play up is a lot higher.

Dark Archive 4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
I know this has been mentioned already to some degree or another, but I agree that PCP is actually more likely to cause social pressure to play up than already exists. As it stands right now, I don't have a lot of problems playing down because I know I might play up in the next mod and the wealth is a wash. But with PCP all you can do is lose wealth. You can never regain it. So the pressure to play up is a lot higher.

Agreed. A mixed party of level 2s and 4s in a 1-5 will have both sides clamouring for their subtier, because there is no advantage to them playing up or down. I think more pressure, not less, is the result in a lot of gamespaces.

Not every gamespace is like yours. Not everyone will respond well to being told they need to play a pregen, or not play the character they have been waiting to play. That doesn't make them bad people either.

Grand Lodge 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thought ...

If we go the 2 XP for playing up route, let's drop the Slow Advancement too.

Players who are behind the group they play with can play up to catch up. This is better than expecting the rest of the group to go Slow Advancement since it is the new player's problem, not theirs.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Don Walker wrote:

Another thought ...

If we go the 2 XP for playing up route, let's drop the Slow Advancement too.

Players who are behind the group they play with can play up to catch up. This is better than expecting the rest of the group to go Slow Advancement since it is the new player's problem, not theirs.

I know that 'Math is hard' was bandied about earlier, but I don't like this. It's treating the flu with antibotics.

I know I've looked at 'playing down' as an option for my current and future characters, once Talyn hits 12th. I'm 'rushing' him to get Eyes of the 10 at Origins, (and Tomb of the Iron Medusa) but I want to be able to 'savor' future PCs. Ksenia, for example is going to be interesting and I might want to slow play her for a while because I don't know what part of my psyche she's manifesting.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Player 1: "I expect the campaign to conform to my schedule. If I'm out for a few sessions, everyone else should find a way to accommodate me."

You know, I could have made the same argument against Michael Brock's suggestion that I have the higher-level players go slow-track to accomodate the newer players.

Jiggy wrote:
Player 2: "Even though I have multiple other places to get my gaming fix, the campaign rules should be such that I can attend this one too without having to make any concessions to their limited resources or otherwise do anything but be a leech."

You've been living in the big city too long; not everyone has "multiple other places to get my gaming fix." The bi-weekly game I run is the only PFS within almost 100 miles. If one of my players gets subtiered out of my game, and they can't make the 1.5 hour drive to Asheville, they don't get to play for a month.

Jiggy wrote:
"I should always be able to play exactly the PC I want, in exactly the scenario I want, on exactly the date I want. I should never have to use a pregen, play a different PC/scenario, or even wait for a better opportunity.

Again, need I remind you how peeved you were when that happened to you at that Con we went to? When the only place you could play in Race for the Runecarved Key was the 12+ table with a level 10 character, wouldn't you have been even more upset if you didn't get 12+ level rewards?

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow jiggy ... just wow.

To address your "counters" in sequence.

1) no its not the end of the world. But if you drove 1-2 hours to play and find out you can't play the PC you brought with you, it's damn inconvenient. One could say irritating ... or even infuriating if it occurs more than once, which this change could result in, depending on what route is ultimately taken. Having it happen everyone once in a blue moon wouldn't result in a lost player, but once a month might.

2) Granted with extenuating circumstances folks should be more flexible, however, if the system itself loses flexibility to accommodate these types of situations, as could happen, then we're talking about more than just being flexible on the part of the players. They would either end up having to play a pregen or drop the game for the day. Bottom line, you lose players for that day, and if it gets coupled with (1), then you increase the likelihood of losing players for good.

3) Level range at a table happens. We've all seen it.

4) If the PC is legal for the scenario, they should be able to play the PC. The MMJ proposal would make playing a PC out of tier a penalized action, so your options are play your PC and be penalized or play a pregen, which many view as a penalty in and of itself. Players should not be penalized for playing.

5) We agree, sometimes an extra GM will not solve the issue.

6) Most folks don't have the $$ to print up new fliers every week with all the relevant info. Yes, you can use warhorn, but what about folks who do not have internet access? What about folks who just realized they have the day free and stop in to grab a game? What about the folks who are from out of town and the folks organizing the event don't have online sign up for slots? What about people who were in the store for something else and decide to "give PFS a go"? What if a local TV station reports on the event and you have lots more folks show up than anticipated?

There are PLENTY of scenarios that can and do pop up for any event which can play havoc with the event. They are completely valid concerns and dismissing them out of hand as you did is a pretty myopic view of the entire situation.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Netopalis wrote:
Jiggy, with all due respect, you are attacking straw men and are being rather rude. You might want to tone your language down.

Fair enough; it hits close to home. Sorry.


Dennis Baker wrote:
Assuming you have two reasonably competent players, a level 5 character is always going to contribute vastly more to combat than a level 1 character. Sure it's an improvement over no character at all...

It might not even be an improvement over no one..

If the party tries to keep the level 1 alive, then they might be pushed into reactive vs proactive actions in order to do so.

The level 1, through no fault of his/her own, might be a liability and in the net cost the party actions rather than give them. And the actions he costs might be worth more than the actions than those he supplies.

But level is not the end all judgement for effectiveness. At low levels it can be telling, but especially as you increase the build, party composition, and player tactics impact far more.

If the campaign gives an incentive (positive or negative) for certain choices, then they are forcing the hands at the table. Pure and simple.

Leave these choices with the table, unfettered.

Give rewards simply based on PC level. That removes the pressure, whether stated or unstated.

If that pressure to play up was strong under the current rules when it was simply more cash, then under the proposed ones it will only increase as players will feel that they are robbed playing down.

Remove it entirely and let the table handle it. If there are bad eggs at the table then there can always be issues regardless of the rules. You just don't want the rules of the campaign causing problems when there otherwise wouldn't be.

If the entire table wants an easier challenge, then let them choose it. If they want a tougher challenge, then let them choose it. If there is disagreement then at the very least remove the fuel from the fire.

-James

Dark Archive

I'll back off and say you have choice on any fractions (2.1 to 3.9 all round either up or down, your choice); same as the current system. Let the table decide which way you go; if you play down, the highs lose 1 PA, which shouldn't be a horrible ordeal (heck, right now you lose 2 for playing a Mod).

Does that solve the issue for everyone? No reward for playing up (well, potentially a little extra item access); minor penalty for going down (1 PA, but you still get proper wealth), and if you're "on the cusp" you can decide which route you want to go (whether you can handle it well enough to get the high-level his extra PA).

1/5

The devs should hold a poll on this. There seems to be 2 clear stances people are taking on this issue:

Playing up awards 2 XP

and

You are awarded based on your level whether you play up or not.

The community has been a powerful driving force behind this game since its inception and I believe this issue is no exception.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RainyDayNinja wrote:
Again, need I remind you how peeved you were when that happened to you at that Con we went to?

That's how I know what the attitude in here is. In looking back at my own attitude and behavior at CotN, I'm disgusted with myself. And now that toxic mindset with which I ruined my own (and possibly some others') experience is congregating here and trying to bend policy to its will. Now that I know first-hand what it really is, it's become rather important to me to not let it do any more damage.

Dark Archive 4/5

I forget who posted the idea originally, but what about the compromise between getting gold based on your character level and getting the rewards for the subtier you play?

Then the only issue is to make high tier loot and boons attractive, but not so ludicrously so that level 2 characters become greedy on a suicidal level. To take our Taxfest boon for example: the lower values give bless, while the higher values give aid, heroism, good hope, heroes feast.

So what if there was a boon at 1-2 subtier that gave you a bless for a minute, while the 4-5 version gave you aid? That along with some better partially charged wands, and I could see a team of 3s and 4s going for the higher tier without the WBL being an issue. I could similarly see a party of 3s saying "It's not worth it, let's play down", and they wouldn't be punished for what is essentially playing smart.

The Exchange 2/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
This party is undeniably stronger than the 4 level 6s without the new friend.

Not really. Adding a level 3 to a pile of level 6s is a rounding error in terms of power. He'd almost certainly not going to sway things one way or the other, particularly since you suggest outright they can 'clearly win' the scenario before he shows up.

Quote:

The new guy says "Absolutely not! I'm likely to be one-shotted or swept up in an AoE or killed by a trap and there's no way to cover that expense. We're playing in 3-4, and that's final. GM, they can't bully me into playing up right?"

And the GM says "The lower level isn't in favor of playing up, so we play down."

Nothing like a nice contrived and statistically improbably scenario filled with irrational people to prove your point eh?

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

I forget who posted the idea originally, but what about the compromise between getting gold based on your character level and getting the rewards for the subtier you play?

Then the only issue is to make high tier loot and boons attractive, but not so ludicrously so that level 2 characters become greedy on a suicidal level. To take our Taxfest boon for example: the lower values give bless, while the higher values give aid, heroism, good hope, heroes feast.

So what if there was a boon at 1-2 subtier that gave you a bless for a minute, while the 4-5 version gave you aid? That along with some better partially charged wands, and I could see a team of 3s and 4s going for the higher tier without the WBL being an issue. I could similarly see a party of 3s saying "It's not worth it, let's play down", and they wouldn't be punished for what is essentially playing smart.

I think this is the only thing that could make the Podcast system work. I know there was already a push to make chronicle loot more relevant, so this should dovetail with what they're already doing. More partially-charged wands, higher CL potions and scrolls, and even free/discounted items (like in the Fortress of the Nail, but not sucky). Of course, that would fall apart if the new wealth rules applied to Seasons 0-4 as well.

5/5

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually a really good point has come up a few times during the last 50-odd posts:

If Season 5 is going to encourage people to want to play characters of specific factions in specific scenarios, then Season 5 is a bad time to start making it difficult for people at different subtiers to play together. "Shut up and play a pregen" is a valid argument in the current system, but not when scenarios are targeted to specific characters.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Actually a really good point has come up a few times during the last 50-odd posts:

If Season 5 is going to encourage people to want to play characters of specific factions in specific scenarios, then Season 5 is a bad time to start making it difficult for people at different subtiers to play together. "Shut up and play a pregen" is a valid argument in the current system, but not when scenarios are targeted to specific characters.

That is a good point! +1

4/5

Dennis Baker wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
This party is undeniably stronger than the 4 level 6s without the new friend.
Not really. Adding a level 3 to a pile of level 6s is a rounding error in terms of power. He'd almost certainly not going to sway things one way or the other, particularly since you suggest outright they can 'clearly win' the scenario before he shows up.

Sorry, by "undeniably stronger" I meant greater than or equal to. Clearly it's not weaker, right? Even though the APL is lower.

Quote:
Quote:

The new guy says "Absolutely not! I'm likely to be one-shotted or swept up in an AoE or killed by a trap and there's no way to cover that expense. We're playing in 3-4, and that's final. GM, they can't bully me into playing up right?"

And the GM says "The lower level isn't in favor of playing up, so we play down."

Nothing like a nice contrived and statistically improbably scenario filled with irrational people to prove your point eh?

I've seen this exact level spread before (but the people were all reasonable and played up) at gamedays. I've seen the unreasonable version before too at Paizocon with a similar level spread, albeit in 1-5 (and I had to walk from the table to avoid a cakewalk).

Dennis, I love every scenario of yours that I've read, and you were a great GM at the one table I was lucky enough to meet you. I promise you I'm not trying to make this up in any way, especially not to "win" or "prove my point". I'm just trying to let my experience as an organizer be known. You mentioned before the number of games you've seen--well I've seen plenty of games too, and while bad stuff and tier bullying almost never happened (only the once), there were lots of times when I think back on it and I'm pretty much positive they would have happened in the proposed method, but it all worked out because the extra cash made the low characters agreeable to play up.

The Exchange 2/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

james maissen wrote:
Dennis Baker wrote:
Assuming you have two reasonably competent players, a level 5 character is always going to contribute vastly more to combat than a level 1 character. Sure it's an improvement over no character at all...

It might not even be an improvement over no one..

If the party tries to keep the level 1 alive, then they might be pushed into reactive vs proactive actions in order to do so.

It's also worth mentioning that in season 4+ if you have a table of 4 and add a low level character it bumps the challenge rating of every encounter up by one, increasing the difficulty of the scenario far out of proportion to the contribution the lower level character adds.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The suggestion that I am hearing about making the low level characters take low tier treasure when they play up is pretty much universally reviled in my local society group. The lower level characters are already irritated with the high level players who stick to lower tiers because the 7th level caster causing the table to play up already reduces the survivability of the 3rd level rogue. Playing the higher tier often means incurring more expenses (restoration, healing, breath of life scrolls, etc) but when the lower level characters do not get any compensation for being pushed out of their tier they will not want to play with higher level characters. The higher level characters now will find themselves increasingly forced to play up into a higher tier making them the weak link with less chance of survival and no compensation for it. In the end this means more conflict between players or much more work for organizers who now have to run games by subtier rather than tier. Let's face it, there are always going to be inequities and even if players get equal gold over their careers, better studied and prepared players will always have a big leg up on their less min/maxed brethren. It is not the job of organized play to try and impose a one size fits all solution on a problem that is as old as the hobby. Organized play is not about stopping power gaming, it is about making it easier for disparate people to play together, under established rules, and without having to commit to a regular home game. Anything that makes that harder should have no place in Pathfinder Society.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
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?

Well, since no one else seems to have considered it, I figure I should put this out there.

If playing up results in 2 XP, and playing down results in 1/2 XP...

Would we still need a slow advancement track?

The entire stated purpose of the slow track was to allow lower level friends to catch up, but the 2 XP solution already has a "catch-up" mechanic built-in; doubly so if you include the 1/2 XP for playing down.

Yes, this may cause a bit of a problem for a character that wants to play Eyes of the Ten, and they WILL have to be more careful about how they select their adventures, but you can fix that by allowing characters with either 33 or 33.5 XP to play it. Or, you know, not let that one corner case dictate the entire system.

EDIT: Also, in the "play down, get 1/2 XP" idea, the point is to NOT adjust the GP you get; you're trying to match XP gained to the wealth gained. So it'd be "gained 1/4 XP, 1/2 GP (because of the slow track), and either 1/4 or 1/2 PP, depending on whether you also want to adjust PP gain, too".


I never completely understood why you had to have slow progression for the entire level. Why not allow:

Before the session starts:

Playing within your Tier: you can chose either slow or normal progression for that session.

Playing up: You have to play normal progression and you get double exp and the normal gold you get for that tier for playing up.

Playing down: You have to play normal progression and you get 1/2 exp and you get the normal gold for the lower tier.

You stay withing the WBL, you can also catch up with the friend that might be ahead of you with 2x exp and and a higher level doesn't miss out on to much gold for playing down.

5/5

In the 4.2 version of the Guide, people starting Retirement arcs just lost any XP over 33. Fame, PP, and Gold were reduced by set amounts for each XP. Couldn't we just reinstate that rule and make it "for each full XP removed."

Alternately, make it "33 or 33.5." It's an imperfect world; let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.

The Exchange 2/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I've seen this exact level spread before (but the people were all reasonable and played up) at gamedays. I've seen the unreasonable version before too at Paizocon with a similar level spread, albeit in 1-5 (and I had to walk from the table to avoid a cakewalk).

I don't disbelieve you. And I shouldn't use the phrase contrived.. because it does happen (and ascribes motivation which is rude, sorry I get excited sometimes), but it is not common.

You're right, it happens. I've been in a very similar situation to what you suggest and I'm a big believer in "Low tier gets to choose if you play down". Most of the time, the guy who is the outlier doesn't want to stink up the game for the whole group though. In my case, when the low-tier player hesitated, I suggested that rather than risk his character he play a pregen and he quickly agreed. Everyone had a blast.

Lots of things about this game involve people exercising judgement and when people do a poor job of that, the game suffers. Rules can't fix that.

Silver Crusade 3/5

I'll start with my own experiences.

On one hand, I have asked a table of mostly second, and one first, to play a 3-4 subtier because I was 3 and had played the last 2 games down in the 1-2 subtier. I needed to make up that gold loss. They agreed. The first level character died. I felt like sh*t for it then, and I still do now. Dying sucks. I won't specifically ask to play up again because of this.

On the other hand, this last week, we had a 7 player party for a season 0, tier 7-11, scenario. We were all level 7 or 8. We wiped the floor with the monsters so bad that PCs didn't get to act in combat. Needless to say, the rest of the group wants to play up next week for the better gold.

I'm fairly sure I'm not a fan of the "podcast wealth system." I'd never want to play up because I really don't want my character to die, and without any reward for the extra risk I'm taking, I'd rather just walk away.

I'd never play down because because without the option to later play up and make up the gold I'd lost, playing down causes me to permanently gimp myself on the WBL curve. If the table is playing a subtier that is below mine, I will walk away. If this sort of thing happens often enough, I'll simply stop playing PFS and find a home game.

Players not showing or walking away because there isn't a subtier for them could become an issue for PFS. It also may not.

I like the 2 XP / double gold / 3 PP idea. It seems to deal with the WBL/play up game breakers, though it doesn't deal with the "play-up bullies." The only thing I can suggest there is to direct GMs to run whichever subtier is appropriate to the group based on party's average level. With this option, you take the choice away from the players.

And although I despise playing pregens, I could also get behind a plan that allows players to use pregens that are appropriate level to the subtier, but allow the rewards to be appropriate for the character the chronicle is applied to.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

Dennis Baker wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Dennis Baker wrote:
Assuming you have two reasonably competent players, a level 5 character is always going to contribute vastly more to combat than a level 1 character. Sure it's an improvement over no character at all...

It might not even be an improvement over no one..

If the party tries to keep the level 1 alive, then they might be pushed into reactive vs proactive actions in order to do so.

It's also worth mentioning that in season 4+ if you have a table of 4 and add a low level character it bumps the challenge rating of every encounter up by one, increasing the difficulty of the scenario far out of proportion to the contribution the lower level character adds.

You want to hint that this could then end in a TPK or heavy losses not only by the low level player, but the others too?

That might indeed cause new problems then.
I cannot really understand this con discussion too. Might be because i never were at one and things here are much smaller.
But even if the player base here would be growing and there were such a thing as a fixed day at a fixed place were you can just walk in, that would give more problems because the character levels would become more inconsistent. On top of that i´m also pretty sure that regular players here then would not like to come up with a new low level character or play down very often, but prefer to have some consistency in their play.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you'd still need a slow advancement track. Some people really like their characters and want to get as much time with them as humanly (or elvenely or dwarvenly) possible.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Short thoughts expanded below:
  • 1. WBL as is today - works fine as is.
  • 2. The New WBL - horrible idea and creates a bigger problem.
  • 3. Double XP instead - The 1/2 XP was created to slow advancement for a reason.
  • 4. Fame buying caps - May be too low as is.
  • 5. Same gold all levels - perfectly workable solution.
  • 6. Ban Optimized Characters (OC) from play - best solution

1) I'll start off saying I don't think there is a problem and I wonder if the problem is either in a vocal minority of players or frankly in whiny GM's hosting tables full of optimized players. There isn't anything wrong so don't fix it.

2) Doesn't fix OC's. You can OC Druids, Fighter/Monk Maneuver Masters and Archers to break games with little or no gold. I've DMed level 1 to 14 of a group with a game breaking Monk and Archer that dominates anything but severely overpowered encounters.

3) Not a problem, creates another problem of "what to do after level 11"

4) Lowering this is a bad idea, as most players I know have money saved up for big ticket items and are just waiting. Prolonging the wait won't make them spend it on smaller items. It just makes them unhappy they have to wait more.

5) This is a fine solution if you believe the problem exists (I don't) and you need a fix. This is the only good solution I've seen mentioned.

6) In the end, gear plays little in the power of a OC PC's. I'm pretty sure if no gold was every provided past the 150 gp starting, people could still build OC to dominate mods. This is the only true solution.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zylphryx wrote:
Wow jiggy ... just wow.

Yeah, sorry. Deleted my other post. Here's the calm version:

Quote:

To address your "counters" in sequence.

1) no its not the end of the world. But if you drove 1-2 hours to play and find out you can't play the PC you brought with you, it's damn inconvenient. One could say irritating ... or even infuriating if it occurs more than once, which this change could result in, depending on what route is ultimately taken. Having it happen everyone once in a blue moon wouldn't result in a lost player, but once a month might.

If it happens that often, the fault is not with the wealth system.

Maybe the coordinator needs to start posting the scenario offerings in advance for a change. Or maybe you failed to check those offerings before you drove so far. Or maybe the coordinator isn't rounding up GMs until the last minute and/or isn't getting backups. Or maybe someone invited a friend a while back but isn't willing to GM or maybe go slow-track for even one level so they can catch up a little.

Quote:
2) Granted with extenuating circumstances folks should be more flexible, however, if the system itself loses flexibility to accommodate these types of situations, as could happen, then we're talking about more than just being flexible on the part of the players. They would either end up having to play a pregen or drop the game for the day. Bottom line, you lose players for that day, and if it gets coupled with (1), then you increase the likelihood of losing players for good.

Sometimes weird crap happens and the best-laid plans fall through. Adults roll with that. But if that situation is happening "once a month", then it's because one or more people are not willing to be the one who makes a difference. The current subtier rules simply made it easy for everyone to be less responsible than they could have been and (sort of) be okay. Now we're finally seeing the long-term effects of that irresponsibility, but people aren't connecting the two.

Quote:
3) Level range at a table happens. We've all seen it.

And if it's happening regularly, then there's more going on; unfortunately, the real causes of level disparity were hidden because "that's alright, just play up". Instead of having to see if we should be organizing better, or planning better, or giving back more, or being more flexible; we were able to just throw the "play up" band-aid on the problem instead of treating the real problem. And now that there's a suggestion of removing that patch, people are seeing the festering wound underneath and acting like it's just how things are and we neeeeed that patch! But if we were just willing to look honestly at how those situations arise in the first place and what we could do about it, we might not find that patch so necessary.

Quote:
4) If the PC is legal for the scenario, they should be able to play the PC. The MMJ proposal would make playing a PC out of tier a penalized action, so your options are play your PC and be penalized or play a pregen, which many view as a penalty in and of itself. Players should not be penalized for playing.

"Your options are play your PC and be penalized or play a pregen"? What about planning ahead better, or helping with coordinating, or doing any number of things that reduce the occurrence of that type of situation in the first place? Why isn't "take measures to make it easier to seat you in-tier" an option? You say "players should not be penalized for playing", but what you're actually talking about is not just "playing", but "playing out of tier". If you play in-tier, there's no penalty whatsoever. If you play out-of-tier, it's less satisfactory than playing in-tier. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Quote:
6) Most folks don't have the $$ to print up new fliers every week with all the relevant info.

Who said anything about new fliers? (And people say *I* am attacking strawmen?) If you make a flier that says "Show up on DAY at TIME", people will just show up and expect to be accommodated. If instead your flier (your ONE flier) says "PFS happens here, visit/call/email for details" then people have to seek information before they attend. It has nothing to do with printing new fliers.

Quote:
Yes, you can use warhorn, but what about folks who do not have internet access?

"Call for details!"

"See Bob at the front counter for details!"
"Register on Meetup for our next game! Don't have internet access? Call Fred at ###### and he'll sign you up!"

That's basic. Any other organization with attendance rules would handle events this way. The ability to play up as freely as we have so far has just made it possible to not handle things like any other organization would, and (sort of) get away with it. And now that we're looking at removing that crutch, people are aghast at the idea of having to walk upright without it like they would for any other organization.

Quote:
What about folks who just realized they have the day free and stop in to grab a game?

Doesn't that fall under "adults are flexible with extenuating circumstances"? If I suddenly have a day free, should I show up to the theater and expect them to switch to a movie I haven't seen?

Quote:
What about the folks who are from out of town and the folks organizing the event don't have online sign up for slots?

If the organizers don't have online sign-up, then they need to take other measures (have more than one scenario/tier prepped to run, do signups by email, something). Again, we're talking about doing what any other organization already does. Loose subtier rules let us get away with less, and now folks have come to expect that as the baseline, and basic organizational measures are being seen as too much to ask.

Quote:
What about people who were in the store for something else and decide to "give PFS a go"?

An adult doesn't walk up to an event and say "I'm playing". An adult walks up to the event and asks whether they can play, and accepts the entirely reasonable possibility that maybe they'll need to sign up for next time instead.

Quote:
What if a local TV station reports on the event and you have lots more folks show up than anticipated?

Right back to "adults are flexible with extenuating circumstances". Honestly, how often is that going to happen at a given venue? Maybe once, EVER?

Quote:
There are PLENTY of scenarios that can and do pop up for any event which can play havoc with the event. They are completely valid concerns and dismissing them out of hand as you did is a pretty myopic view of the entire situation.

A group of individually-listed extenuating circumstances - which put together will still only happen occasionally - is not a valid dataset around which to build policy. And everything anyone has mentioned that DOES happen with noteworthy frequency is something which a basic level of preparation (on both the players' and organizers' sides) would nearly eliminate.

4/5

How about we just have a hard cap on total gold earned for a given level. If you have to play down to accomodate a table or you GM then you can still make up for it all later by playing up. Instituting a hard cap will prevent power gamers from taking over, while still perserving the ability to play up or down. If the problem is a small number of players who are min maxing the system then take that away just for them, not for everyone.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

6 is impossible. Its like trying to ban bad art, there's no objective standard.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeff Kosky 360 wrote:
How about we just have a hard cap on total gold earned for a given level. If you have to play down to accomodate a table or you GM then you can still make up for it all later by playing up. Instituting a hard cap will prevent power gamers from taking over, while still perserving the ability to play up or down. If the problem is a small number of players who are min maxing the system then take that away just for them, not for everyone.

Then what you have is people who are over/getting near the wealth limit auditing their characters after every session and then having a buffing potion drinking contest.

Scarab Sages 4/5

While I don't think this should be a major concern, I do feel it's worth pointing out that both the Podcast proposal and the double xp/gp proposal have one advantage that the everyone gets gold based on their level solution doesn't. They shouldn't require any changes to the existing chronicle sheets. That's assuming the double gp part actually means high tier gp (essentially double xp, but a little more than that at lower levels).

A standard gp per level wouldn't be too difficult. Just publish a chart in the guide and have the GM cross out the listed gold on the chronicle and replace it. But then it would be removing any connection between actual items found in a scenario and gold earned. A gp by level reward calculated individually for each scenario would require new chronicle sheets and all the logistics associated with them, not to mention a ton of work on Paizo's part to go through and figure out what those numbers should be.

<EDITED to correct autocorrect. Paizo=Paulo apparently>

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And once again for good measure, I'd like to apologize for the tone of some of my earlier posts in this thread. I've deleted the worst one. Sorry about that, folks.

Dark Archive 4/5

Jiggy wrote:
And once again for good measure, I'd like to apologize for the tone of some of my earlier posts in this thread. I've deleted the worst one. Sorry about that, folks.

We like you too much to hate you Jiggy.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saint Caleth wrote:


Brent Holtsberry wrote:

'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.

Just to clarify, it wasn't my intention to make it sound like you should be 'reporting' players. I'm trying to say that if you're having problems while organizing games, there's people out here who would be happy to help you figure out and overcome issues. :-)

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigNorseWolf wrote:
6 is impossible. Its like trying to ban bad art, there's no objective standard.

I assume you mean my #6.

But the desire to fix the optimizers is where the idea to limit their wealth originated. I don't think the wealth changes will accomplish the goal.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
6 is impossible. Its like trying to ban bad art, there's no objective standard.

I assume you mean my #6.

But the desire to fix the optimizers is where the idea to limit their wealth originated. I don't think the wealth changes will accomplish the goal.

You cannot put a number on optimization, you can put a number on Net worth.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
And once again for good measure, I'd like to apologize for the tone of some of my earlier posts in this thread. I've deleted the worst one. Sorry about that, folks.
We like you too much to hate you Jiggy.

Yeah, I think I saw that in an FAQ somewhere.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Hi my name is Andi and I am a WBL abuser.

My venue is running an Eyes of the Ten over the summer, and I really wanted to get into it, even though my character was only 8th at the start of March (and had played up a couple times before then). The only options I had to play the character was in 7-11 modules, and invariably these modules legitimately worked best at 10-11 with the player group. So I am 1xp short of 10th, and am sitting on 81k worth of treasure. Now I would have about 20k less if I used the new system, but would it be fair when I had to risk it all (and died once) in these higher games?

I am a fan of the x2 XP with some sort of modifier on the PP. If I had been using this system, I would be nearly 11th now, almost on par with the rest of the people I was playing with.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, so, Jiggy, let me ask you more directly a point that I have made clear a few times, but which you have not yet responded to.

I GM a lot. An awful lot. I've GMmed 43 tables since December, and I started this campaign in November. I consider myself primarily to be a GM, but I occasionally like playing.

I have a particular character that I *really* love playing. He's a local favorite, and I've alluded to him a number of times on this forum. He's a private investigator, reminiscent of black-and-white film noir movies. He routinely plays some stereotypical detective music as he monologues his way through the scenario. I've gotten nothing but praise from people who have been at tables featuring him.

Only problem - he's just now getting to level 4. He's also a gunslinger, one of the spendier classes.

Now, locally, I know that we end up playing a lot of 1-2. We have some people who keep dying, and we have a steady trickle of new recruits. We also have a few people who really enjoy making new characters and have about 7 of them. Nothing wrong with this, but it does make organizing games...interesting.

I mentioned that I rarely play. When I do, it's usually because I'm reading through scenario descriptions and see something that would be particularly interesting to one of my characters. I will be playing my kitsune Lantern Lodge character in Way of the Kirin. I play my detective whenever there's a good mystery-sounding scenario. I specifically choose to not GM on the days when a particularly good scenario for a particular character comes up.

When this happens, under the current proposal, I'll often either have to start halfing Issac Quinn's gold or play a pregen. Playing a pregen is soulless and sort of obviates the point of me playing for a change. Playing as Quinn and getting less loot is OK, but as a gunslinger, it's not all that sustainable. I'd have to apply a bunch of GM credits to him, which means that I'll get to play him less as it speeds his progression to retirement. Neither option is a good one for my situation. I am not saying that my fun is any more important than anybody else's at the table - but I do hope that my fun is at least as important as everybody else's.

This is why I am truly excited about some of the changes, even if it means the dissolution of my favorite faction. I love investigation, I love creative solutions and I love roleplaying. It's why I'm here at all. I could honestly care less about combat. I think it's great that scenarios are going to have non-stated objectives and that they'll actually require some finesse. This does, however, make character choice vital. Now, I ask you this: My local lodge is the only game in the state. As it stands, I'd have to drive about 3 hours to Columbus to make any other game. I have no other options, save my online group, for which I am usually the GM. Is it really right to put me and the many others who are similarly situated as me in such a difficult position?

Scarab Sages 5/5

RainyDayNinja wrote:
Dhjika wrote:

Perhaps there should be a limit to the total value of items a character can have based on LEVEL.

Thus people can play up and get more gold, but until they reach the level for their total they cannot spend it on items.

It can perhaps still be used for consumables, or not, that would need the number crunchers to decide how that affects things.

Playing up would give you the extra gold for when you reached an appropriate level, but would not give you an advance over your common level folks.

That would be a nightmare to enforce.

Enforce? People generally follow the rules and those that don't won't.

One might add a box on the chronicle sheet magic item value that they can add or subtract to based on the sheet. there can be a list online for maximums - or appendix in games with them.

The other idea is track lifetime gold (I prefer lifetime gold minus condition removal costs, but perhaps too complicated) - and when a character hits a too high value they count as that next level or the next after with character for APL and their games. So a 7th character might have too much lifetime gold to play a 1-7 game. Lifetime gold could be an ongoing total - fit on existing sheets and tracked on old game sheets like fame is now.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

On another thought, I don't know if it is relevant to this discussion (I think it may be.)

I DM a level 14 group that started at level 1 as PFS and left PFS at level 7.

We couldn't find enough modules that could be played together by level 1 (new players replacing ones that left) and the current level 7 players. If they got to level 8 the problem would have been worse.

So for level 8 the group voted to stop doing PFS and request me to do homebrew, which I have done.

Maybe we wouldn't have this option now with the AP added and other "one group together" options. But I feel the tension from the player base that want an optimized character and feel their reward isn't being provided if gold is reduced and the players just wanting to play will be increased by any thing that encourages players not to play for fear of being nerfed.

4/5

Dennis Baker wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I've seen this exact level spread before (but the people were all reasonable and played up) at gamedays. I've seen the unreasonable version before too at Paizocon with a similar level spread, albeit in 1-5 (and I had to walk from the table to avoid a cakewalk).

I don't disbelieve you. And I shouldn't use the phrase contrived.. because it does happen (and ascribes motivation which is rude, sorry I get excited sometimes), but it is not common.

You're right, it happens. I've been in a very similar situation to what you suggest and I'm a big believer in "Low tier gets to choose if you play down". Most of the time, the guy who is the outlier doesn't want to stink up the game for the whole group though. In my case, when the low-tier player hesitated, I suggested that rather than risk his character he play a pregen and he quickly agreed. Everyone had a blast.

Lots of things about this game involve people exercising judgement and when people do a poor job of that, the game suffers. Rules can't fix that.

I think you're right that most of the time the outlier doesn't want to stink up the game for everyone else. These are the best folks to play with, but not everyone is like that. But if everyone was like that, even the current system wouldn't be bad. There's going to be people who won't budge (like the play down bully in my example), thus causing other players to suffer (in my case, I actually had a blast playing God's Market Gamble due to extreme luck and a spot opening, but the others who remained were not happy). It seems to me that the new proposed system exacerbates the amount and likelihood of collateral damage from the intransigent players. If we only had great players who were striving for the good of all, it would be fantastic, and we wouldn't even need a change.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigNorseWolf wrote:


You cannot put a number on optimization, you can put a number on Net worth.

True but I can optimize to the point of being a problem with little or no (0 gp), so it is fix that doesn't actually fix anything. It make people happy the problem was fixed tho, so I guess if we are content with a pat on the back that we "fixed" the problem then it does it's job.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@Netopalis - What do you currently do in that situation? You say that under "Podwealth" your PC would often have to either play down or be set aside in favor of a pregen. But I don't know what you're currently doing that "Podwealth" changes.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, Jiggy, first, sorry about the flier thing. From your post I obviously misread what your intent was there. No strawman intended, but to me that seemed like it was what you were getting to with the "getting the event information out there".

Second, for item (1) it could very well become more commonplace. PCs do die, things pop up to make people drop slots, bottom line crap happens and a person could show up to find their table makeup is completely different from what they were expecting from when they first signed up. currently it is not an issue (PC could either play up or play down), but it could become an issue for the reasons already laid out (won't play down due to the permanent WBL damage, or won't play up for no added benefit for doing so and doesn't play pregens for whatever reason).

Third, speaking from experience, with the Asheville Pathfinder Lodge (APL), we do use Warhorn, we do have folks sign up in advance, we do have fliers and bookmarks floating around with both the Warhorn, facebook and Paizo URLs on it indicating when and where we play. We list our games up to a month out.

And we still get walk ups, we still have unexpected things pop up that have players either not be able to attend or be able to attend (also GMs), etc. We still have the proverbial wrench thrown into the works and have to juggle tables. We still have tables with mixed levels and we have folks who do need to occasionally play either up or down.

The point? Mixed level tables are a fact of life and "better planning" is not really an answer. There will always be mixed tables as we are not a homogenous batch of PFS Players ... we have different PCs at different levels, different schedules which can lead to us being able to play at different times. Any solution that begins with "you should all plan to start new characters together" is doomed to fail because of the ebb and flow from week to week.

And because mixed tier tables are inevitable, any solution which takes a PC that is LEGAL for the scenario and essentially penalizes them for playing is bad policy in my book.

The APL organizes as best we can in the time we can afford ... it comes off pretty well the vast majority of the time ... but event organization is not a job for any of us, nor should it be. The goal for ANY PFS event should be to seat every player who wants to play. We achieve this goal regularly.

If the WBL rules change and we end up having to penalize those who find themselves at a mixed tier table, I don't think we will be able to accomplish that with the level of success we have so far.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Jiggy wrote:
@Netopalis - What do you currently do in that situation? You say that under "Podwealth" your PC would often have to either play down or be set aside in favor of a pregen. But I don't know what you're currently doing that "Podwealth" changes.

Currently, we play up a lot locally, unless it's Season 4. Season 4 is...contentious. Luckily, it's not come up as much in Season 4 scenarios.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

So, whatever the new system ends up being, some other questions. Is this only on new modules, or does it change the past season modules too? What about chronicles already issued?

Being the scheduler for my group... I know I'm going to be pressured to make sure every module between now and August is one they can play up in, so they can get the gold while it lasts.

The Society's Coffers are running dry!

4/5 *

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
zylphryx wrote:
And because mixed tier tables are inevitable, any solution which takes a PC that is LEGAL for the scenario and essentially penalizes them for playing is bad policy in my book.

QFT.

This is the most compelling argument against the new wealth proposal.

Anecdotally speaking, I personally almost never play up, regardless of the scenario season. When I have, it's been at conventions or public game days when 1) it was the only table playing a scenario I really wanted to play with a particular PC, and/or 2) there was no other way to get a table pulled off.

I have played down a number of times, and always to make sure a table runs. Any incentive I might have had for doing that? Gone.

Why should I have to punish the player with a level 9 who showed up by giving her level 5 gold because everyone else is playing a 6, particularly if that's the player with which she really, really wants to play that scenario? (I didn't want to play Blakros Matrimony, for instance, with any PC except my Taldan who had built a history with the family and museum over the course of scenarios. I can't imagine I'm the only one who felt that way.)

If anything, this proposal encourages more selfishness among players, not less. And that's bad for the Society.

351 to 400 of 945 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.