|
I think that many are missing the point. Making corrections to the WBL curve within the framework of PFS is not going to fix the problem of the huge gap between the most/least powerful characters. It is intended to address a symptom of the problem. By throttling the potential for extremes in wealth, it helps mitigate the problem. Sure there are still other issues to examine, but some are much more challenging than others. No one really wants leadership to simply start banning "over-powered" builds. Who is to say what is/not over-powered? Remember, one player's fluff class is another's curb-stomp. Mike is trying to allow the widest available options for player creativity and limiting bans, as much as possible, to things that are out of place for the campaign world.
|
|
Rather than erroneously thinking that others are playing 'wrong' because they are not playing the same as you, embrace the difference and allow a coexistence without requiring one to submit to the others terms.
Since you quoted me, I assume this comment is targeted at me. I did not imply that anyone was playing "wrong." My comments merely address the issue of power disparity between characters and that the diversity in character wealth is a contributing factor to the problem. And yes, it is a problem when characters with wealth disparity are seated together. The opportunities to have a moment in the spotlight is diminished for the lower-wealth character.
While your idea of player's-choice of tier (I assume you mean sub-tier) doesn't solve the problem, it might add another option to mitigate it. It only works when you play a PC of the lower sub-tier level and play in the higher sub-tier. It would have an impact on a level 4/5 PC in a tier 1-5 game. In fact, it might make those situations worse. By encouraging characters to play up (as I feel your system would) a wider set of characters would be out of synch with WBL. YMMV
EDIT--It occurs to me that you might also be suggesting the elimination of tiers, as we know them. If a player had the option to play up more than one level (requiring scenarios to have a wider band of sub-tiers), I suppose this would work, but that creates an entirely new problem with scenario writing/organization that is beyond the scope of what appears to be doable.
|
|
By encouraging characters to play up (as I feel your system would) a wider set of characters would be out of synch with WBL.
James has been advocating for this since before PFS began. IIRC, in what he proposes, PCs would receive wealth appropriate to their level, whether they played up, down, or at-level.
-Matt
|
|
Except that the new / non-optimizers typically DON'T go looking to play up at every opportunity, while the uber-players do. This adds a wealth disparity on top of the difference due to build and tactics. So WBL isn't an issue with most everyone except the ones who already have a distinct advantage.They're simply trying to eliminate the ability to obtain additional wealth (= power) by building characters that can play up consistently without much fear of consequences. As it is now, the rich get richer, the poor get sacrificed in the name of playing up, or hide in the background.
Except of course is that uber players don't exactly do that either as there are specific rules for when you can play up. You have to REALLY cherry pick your games if your gonna play up every game to blow past WBL. Seriously, most PFS communities will not support something like this at all. It is a freaking fringe case. Will it be nice to stop this? Yes. Is stopping this worth have WAY more people have table mustering issues and possible not even getting to play and maybe even causing the death of smaller local PFS groups? I'm gonna say no to that one.
What more commonly happens is that at the dead levels, the uber players play up. At the dead levels the casuals play down. That is a difference of about DOUBLE gold for the ubers...not DOUBLE WBL mind you. This is because all play up at dead levels gives you 150% WBL while all play down nets you 75% WBL. The proposed system will not fix this at all. So really the question remains and it is one the leadership has not answered. Do we want to equalize wealth? Because honestly the current or proposed system does NOT equalize wealth...not even close.
|
|
What problem does it create?
I just don't see it fixing anything, just shifting the issue to a different dynamic. Now we have PCs being forced to play their level-appropriate sub-tier (ie down) when they may think they can/should play up. Okay, so let's remove the restriction. That's fine, except now all those players have even more opportunities to break the WBL curve. That means that they are even more capable of "cake-walking" when their actual level is in the higher sub-tier and they don't have the option to play up.
I'm not saying that giving players more options is a bad thing, on the contrary, it is one of the most important aspects of PFS, IMO. However, I just don't see your proposal making much of a difference in any but the most limited of situations. Maybe MJM can consider something like it, but I have my doubts it would actually "fix" anything. YMMV
|
|
There is an underlying problem to all of this and it's one that I've seen before. This is the same, tired old argument that you hear from MMO players all the time. There is always this unstoppable chase towards game balance. I do not want to see Pathfinder reduced to a bunch of squabbling power gamers agonizing over minutiae. It's true that no matter what you are always going to have more dedicated, hardcore players that are going to blow everyone else away. Thankfully, it's usually the case that these players are a small minority of the population. Sometimes nerfs need to happen but I don't see it in this case.
It comes down to risk/reward. If there is no reward for the extra risk then few players will take on that risk. So what if people are ahead of the curve, they took the risk and they earned it. I'll use myself as an example. My highest level character in PFS is level 6 (one point from seven), he has 30k in wealth with 8k saved. The recommended WBL for me is 16k which I am over by 14k(or maybe I'm where I should be according to Kinevon)> But sometimes the dice aren't on your side and you end up failing. News flash: death is expensive. To get raised is going to cost 5450 for the raise dead and 2760 for the two restorations you'll need for the two negative levels you'll get for a total of 8210gp (hence the reason for my nest egg. Or you could use prestige for it, costing 16 for the raise dead and 8 total for the restorations for a total of 24 prestige (29 if your party completely wiped). I don't know about anyone else but I would like a little buffer in case something bad happened.
In some runs I've been on I've been the highest level person and maybe lost some money playing down. I've also had the opposite in playing up in runs where I was the lowest level person there. As I've heard in my MMO days everyone gets carried and eventually you're gonna carry someone else.
I do disagree with the idea of lower level or less experienced players being bullied into playing up. The very idea of it goes against the principled of the Pathfinder Society and there is no place for such behavior.
There is another problem that may be related to this. I have noticed over the years the issue with adversarial GMs. I understand the need to provide a challenge. I understand that the dice just sometimes hate you. It's entirely another to hear a GM actively cheering for you to miss on an attack or to fail a save. I actually had this happen to me and yes, I did question him in front of the table. I smoothed things over with the GM after the session but to me it just seemed wrong. We have a lot of people running optimized builds. It's seems that the encounters are also starting to become optimized as well, even to the point that it breaks the rules. You get NPCs with feats or spells they shouldn't have. There are other examples of it on the boards but to me that's just terrible writing.
I just hope we can get a solution that benefits the most players. In this instance the best course would be to do nothing.
|
The bottom line to me is that equalizing wealth is a futile goal. I truly don't understand why the WBL curve is even relevant. I can take a character with a 1/4 of the wealth of another and break the game twice as hard. What is the concern with wealth, when we've already decided we can't control builds or tactics?
|
|
The bottom line to me is that equalizing wealth is a futile goal. I truly don't understand why the WBL curve is even relevant. I can take a character with a 1/4 of the wealth of another and break the game twice as hard. What is the concern with wealth, when we've already decided we can't control builds or tactics?
Because with enough wealth you can break it three times as hard rather than two.
|
|
IMO, its not really germane to use the recovering from death perspective to justify any of the WBL issues. If you allow extremes in wealth such that recovering from death does not impact the WBL equation, then it becomes an irrelevant condition. The expense (Fame/PP or gold) to recover from death should be coming from the wealth you should have and represents an expendable in lieu of that next "cool" item. Having wealth such that your spending power compared to APL/CR is not affected trivializes the "death matters" component. YMMV
|
|
That would be a fundamental change in the tiering system. The only way I could see it working is if the idea of the tiers is eliminated and each scenario just lists the APL it was designed for. Then players could simply decide that their character is appropriate for APL -1, +2, +5, whatever. You would likely see a greater mix of PC levels playing together. Sounds interesting, but IME most players under/over estimate the abilities of their character. Sure that should correct itself over time, but in the meantime how many other players at the table will suffer because a player made a poor choice?
I suppose it could also become an issue at high level where PFS caps scenarios at 10-11. Characters could with a much higher opportunity to crash the WBL system have little to no challenge at high levels because their characters would be looking for CR 12+ challenges.
I do not get the impression from MJM that this idea interests them or that they think it would have a positive impact on the game.
|
|
The bottom line to me is that equalizing wealth is a futile goal. I truly don't understand why the WBL curve is even relevant. I can take a character with a 1/4 of the wealth of another and break the game twice as hard. What is the concern with wealth, when we've already decided we can't control builds or tactics?
Because with enough wealth you can break it three times as hard rather than two.
Broken is broken. Wealth is not making the scenarios too easy; it's the fact that most scenarios crumple like a cheap suit to fighter archer builds.
|
|
That shouldn't be too much of a change in the actual scenarios, if any at all.
In the actual scenario, no. In fact it would increase available word-count since only one version of the encounter would need be developed. But, it would make publishing a bit more problematic. If you base the "new tiers" in even numbers (tier 1-2, 3-4, etc) we would need 5-6 tiers to cover 1-12. With only releasing two scenarios per month, the frequency one would be released in *your* tier would be reduced.
This is something that's been an issue for a long, long time. It has shown itself in the boards multiple times.
Personally, I don't tend to focus on the vocal minority on the messageboards that more often than not rely on anecdotal evidence to make their "arguments." Rather I pay more attention to real observations based on roughly 300+ tables as a player or GM. The vast majority of players seem to be happy with things as they are.
|
|
Or you don't change the scenarios at all
Then I do not understand your proposal. What's the point of a tiering system if players can choose to play whatever they want? If there is truly no restriction, then offering a scenario as a 7-11 with sub-tiers 7-8 & 10-11 means nothing if you allow a level five PC to play it.
|
|
If I get James right, he just wants a GP by level wealth system and no restrictions on what type of Tier you can play in. Scenarios would just have 2-3 challenge ratings that you could choose to play at. His reckoning is that the player understands better than the writers as to what amount of challenge they are best at.
I agree that level based wealth system is the easiest way to implement a wealth change that gets the effect the developers are looking for.
However, removing restrictions on what you can play creates an atmosphere in which a lot of players will make poor decisions that lead to character death. The issue of agreeing to an appropriate challenge rating for the table becomes very important. This is a decision that the current Tier/Sub-Tier system helps players with. In addition, a small minority will game the system by always playing under tier and reaping the same benefit. - There need to be restrictions on what level characters can play in a scenario.