Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I hope it's an uproar over there being a check in place to keep people from gaming the system by having a Level 7 or 8 tag along with a group of five or six Level 11s and sit in the back/middle and end up with an obscene WBL imbalance.
Well any diminished of gold for playing up will result in me (and a LOT of people I know) absolutely never playing up ever. Which will result in more games that don't fire. Which I guess the 2 or 5 people in all of PFS that might have slightly higher WBL than others get to make it harder to play the game. Great ;-(
This is a problem that didn't need fixing, but because of a lot of complaints about a handful of people.
|
|
I hope it's an uproar over there being a check in place to keep people from gaming the system by having a Level 7 or 8 tag along with a group of five or six Level 11s and sit in the back/middle and end up with an obscene WBL imbalance.Well any diminished of gold for playing up will result in me (and a LOT of people I know) absolutely never playing up ever. Which will result in more games that don't fire. Which I guess the 2 or 5 people in all of PFS that might have slightly higher WBL than others get to make it harder to play the game. Great ;-(
The increased gold amount will cover consumables, which is what most people complained about losing out on if they got low tier gold for playing up. This will discourage people from wanting to play up at any given opportunity, but it won't penalize the ones who are willing to do so to get a table off.
This is a problem that didn't need fixing, but because of a lot of complaints about a handful of people.
Do you have numbers on this, or are you just assuming it's only a handful?
|
I doubt I'll get that many games. The usual group I play with rarely plays anything above 3-4, and the other groups I'm with I'm having trouble scheduling things with. What do.
Sorry to hear that. I'm lucky, there is plenty to play here in the Denver/Colorado Springs area. I hear that the on line play is pretty good now. I don't have any experience with it though. Maybe someone else could point you in the right direction.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The increased gold amount will cover consumables, which is what most people complained about losing out
it won't penalize the ones who are willing to do so to get a table off.
Do you have numbers on this, or are you just assuming it's only a handful?
It doesn't cover a death and you are more likely to have a death.
I promise you, I shall never play up with the new rules. There is no point.
Well, as of tonight I've played a little over 125 scenarios. I haven't ran into anyone I'd say had "too much" gold and I've ran into far too many people who would be woefully under equipped if they were playing in a home game. So where ever these "huge group of offenders" are, I haven't ran into them.
|
I'd also missed this news. I think I'm ok with this, though I might change my mind after seeing the details. It's a less drastic change than what was originally announced and than some of the options that were being discussed, and that's probably a good thing. I just hope it's easily implemented on older scenarios. Some of the formulas that were being discussed to figure out an in between tier gold reward were just too involved, even though they seemed simple on the surface. A lot of sessions are rushed when it comes time for chronicles already, so it's easy to anticipate mistakes being made if math is involved.
I'm also curious what happens when someone plays up, but the group doesn't get all of the gold for the scenario. I guess we'll all see in a week. Or we're those details revealed? I didn't see them in the PaizoCon blog thread.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no point .
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that that's the intent.
My impression (and again, I could be wrong) is that the intent is for everyone to be playing in-tier all the time. The only reason it's even legal to play out of tier at all, and really the only reason subtiers even *exist*, is as a concession to the realities of scheduling issues, so that an imperfectly-leveled table can still fire.
If I'm correct in that understanding, then any motivation for playing up other than "out of the goodness of my heart so other people don't get sent home" is against that intent. Thus if players look at the new rule and then say "there's no longer any point in playing up", then mission accomplished. :)
I have never played up purposefully to gain more gold, only if the party table worked out higher than my character’s sub-tier level or I was stuck in the middle and had to choose.
So this doesn’t affect me too much on getting less gold. I am curious to see the specifics on the “adjustments” that will be made if you are at that level where between sub-tiers and how it will be handled.
That said, I don’t think lessening the gold was really needed if you did play up. The newer seasons are more difficult in that if you do play up, it could have dire consequences. So if they live, I feel they have earned that tiers gold.
I mean why was it done? Were a lot of people complaining too many players were getting too much money from playing up?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So if they live, I feel they have earned that tiers gold.
Is PC wealth supposed to be based on what they earned? I always thought it was called "wealth by level", not "wealth by merit". ;)
I mean why was it done? Were a lot of people complaining too many players were getting too much money from playing up?
According to a podcast interview, there were folks who engineered their tables to the point that they played up in every single game of their entire career. That adds up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the current wealth system, if a player always plays scenarios within a sub-tier that lists their level, they make around 110k by 12th level. If they manage to play up every single scenario, they make around 180k. I'd say a 63% increase in wealth is significant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The newer seasons are more difficult
There's no evidence to support this. Season 4 was harder than Seasons 0-3, but MM&J have made it extremely clear that nobody will know how hard Season 5 will be until they are playing it. From their repeated assurances of same, I've gotten the impression that they intend to make it slightly less difficult.
That's strictly conjecture, by the way. I can't point to any specific wording. It's just a hunch.
That said, I think it would be a great move. If playing up isn't quite so deadly--if it goes back to the way it used to be, where maybe you use some more consumables but it's not an instance death sentence--then there's no real reason not to play up to make a table go off, and no real reason to want to play up otherwise. Reducing the possibility of constantly getting extra gold also reduces the power of items in play, which in turn makes characters not as powerful, which in turn regulates the playing field--because for every two or three people I've seen complaining that Season 4 is too hard, I've seen at least one responding that it's still a cakewalk. Maybe if people can't play up, even optimized builds will be slightly more challenged, while still allowing non-optimized builds a fair chance.
Besides, I think they've demonstrated conclusively that haters gonna hate--no matter what they try to do, people complain. So it makes sense to strive for a balanced solution to each problem and just let the outliers complain.
And finally, despite the anecdotal assurances of various posters that they've never seen broken WBL curves, I can vouch for the fact that I have definitely seen them. And clearly, so have the coordinators of the campaign.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
With the current wealth system, if a player always plays scenarios within a sub-tier that lists their level, they make around 110k by 12th level. If they manage to play up every single scenario, they make around 180k. I'd say a 63% increase in wealth is significant.
As a side note to present evidence from the field, I GMed the complete Eyes of Ten arc for a group and all 6 characters had between 160-175k wealth at the start of Part 1.
Is PC wealth supposed to be based on what they earned? I always thought it was called "wealth by level", not "wealth by merit". ;)
I’m not going to continue to try and make a case for playing up, because as I said, it’s something I have not done unless I’ve had to. However, just one thing about the WBL, is it’s always said it’s a guideline and not something you need to follow strictly. I don’t see why that can’t be the same in PFS, as well. If there are those who want to take that extra chance with their character, and they survive, then yes, I do feel they have earned the extra gold.
That said, what I could see doing is only allowing playing up on season 4 and above, because I think most of us know that earlier seasons there ‘wouldn’t’ be a lot of risk.
According to a podcast interview, there were folks who engineered their tables to the point that they played up in every single game of their entire career. That adds up.
Ugh. That is very annoying, I hate when people ‘game’ the system like that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"there's no longer any point in playing up", then mission accomplished. :)
Great, less games will be play. Mission accomplished?
around 110k by 12th level. If they manage to play up every single scenario, they make around 180k. I'd say a 63% increase in wealth is significant.
While 180k would be impressive, I think you will find in reality it is more like 120 to 130k in practice with people playing up whenever possible.
all 6 characters had between 160-175k wealth at the start of Part 1.
I can engineer that with your proposed season 5 rules (with the nerf on play up gold). Should I? As a demonstration?
My point is you don't fix exploitation by plugging the exploit holes. You fix it by the players shaming the exploiters.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can engineer that with your proposed season 5 rules (with the nerf on play up gold). Should I? As a demonstration?
My point is you don't fix exploitation by plugging the exploit holes. You fix it by the players shaming the exploiters.
If you feel it is necessary, then by all means demonstrate.
And no, I will never support shaming some one in public. You praise in public and discipline in private.
|
|
My point is you don't fix exploitation by plugging the exploit holes. You fix it by the players shaming the exploiters.
I know quite a few shameless players. And if there is an entire group doing it, they aren't any other players to shame them.
That said, we should probably wait to see the final rule text before getting too excited about it either way.
|
As I have said before, I am pretty sure that if some of the loopholes are closed, tables able to make this choice will be more limited.
It is my assumption that much of the "gaming of the system" comes about in seasons 0-3 at table sizes of 6-7, where you get a +1 APL. Removing this loophole will serve to limit the opportunity. Add to this the fact that, apparently, in some areas, the players and GMs seem to think that they always have the choice, and are choosing to play up even when they are not in the mid-point APL or higher.
I think that Paizo could (and should) start tracking the level of the characters being played in each scenario, and the sub-tier that they are playing in. This would be a trivial mod to the only tracking system (IMHO), and would allow the campaign leadership to have clear-cut statistics as to where any abuses are happening (if, in fact, they are happening).
AS for the new mod, I am fully in support of it! In fact, it gives a reason for players to play down to support a table that wouldn't normally happen (example, a table at 1,1,1,5) - since I think we all agree that the level 1s should not be playing at a 4-5 tier.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With the current wealth system, if a player always plays scenarios within a sub-tier that lists their level, they make around 110k by 12th level. If they manage to play up every single scenario, they make around 180k. I'd say a 63% increase in wealth is significant.
It is. What surprises me is the success rate of those ambitious players. If I finagle my way into playing up over and over and over, I'd expect to experience a fair number of mission failures (everybody escaped alive, but with very little to show for it) and at least 1 death, at 7K for getting back in the game. So I'm surprised that someone can go in over their head, again and again, and come out with full rewards each time.
By the way, are you factoring in the wealth generated by spending prestige points?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My point is you don't fix exploitation by plugging the exploit holes. You fix it by the players shaming the exploiters.
I can't help wondering if it's not always deliberate exploitation.
I mean, I could easily see someone joining the campaign and seeing the subtier system, and coming to the conclusion that the intent of having subtiers is to empower players to choose their preferred level of risk/reward. They could very well think that they're supposed to be making that choice according to their own preferences, and that their excess gold is what the campaign has deliberately rewarded them with.
With that in mind, the solution might be not so much to "shame" players, but to educate them. Someone in Kyle's chronicle layout suggestion thread mentioned having a chart on each chronicle that would show the expected wealth of a PC of any given level (within the level range of that scenario). I can't help wondering that including such a thing would go a long way toward getting players to question their assumptions about earning wealth.
"Wait a minute, I'm only supposed to have that much? Why isn't it accounting for playing up?"
It wouldn't singlehandedly convince someone that something was wrong, but it might at least get them asking questions. I'm totally speculating here, but I'd guess that a substantial portion of the players who are consistently playing up would do otherwise if they were simply informed (non-confrontationally) that the increased wealth is outside the intended parameters of the campaign.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the current wealth system, if a player always plays scenarios within a sub-tier that lists their level, they make around 110k by 12th level. If they manage to play up every single scenario, they make around 180k. I'd say a 63% increase in wealth is significant.It is. What surprises me is the success rate of those ambitious players. If I finagle my way into playing up over and over and over, I'd expect to experience a fair number of mission failures (everybody escaped alive, but with very little to show for it) and at least 1 death, at 7K for getting back in the game. So I'm surprised that someone can go in over their head, again and again, and come out with full rewards each time.
Many GMs are complicit in this behavior, I've found, and not only encourage and condone the "play up for better rewards" mentality, but enable it by not even playing the upper tiers to their capabilities. I've also found that, even when a table makes a conscious decision to up the "danger factor" GMs will STILL be unwilling to kill people.
Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, feel it is a GM's job to kill PCs. But if a group wants more danger, I am unsure how soft-balling the resulting high tier play actually provides that feeling.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you feel it is necessary, then by all means demonstrate.
Is it worth the time to demonstrate? I suspect it would provoke yet another rules change to close the "hole" instead of demonstrate there are always going to be "holes" in the system. No?
apparently, in some areas, the players and GMs seem to think that they always have the choice, and are choosing to play up even when they are not in the mid-point APL or higher.
I think that Paizo could (and should) start tracking the level
The first problem boils down to people not reading the GtPFS or the rules. Is there any way to force people to read the rules? Plus making more edge case rulings (like this new one) doesn't mean that people will follow them?
Your second idea is great, but Paizo seems to have been from the start not wanting to record these type details. I'd love to see four fields per character (level, gold awarded, gold spent, pp spent.) That would do more beneficial than this fix with wealth.
like 120 to 130k in practice with people playing up whenever possible.Where are you getting these numbers?
From me. My first character I played from 1 to 12 straight (no other characters) and when given a choice between tables I picked the table that would have been playing up using the APL calculations.
Of the 33 games played, I acquired 120,173 gp after expenses (conditions removed cost paid) and played up (subtier above my level) 18 times and my level or down 15 times. I always tried to pick tables that would be up with me in APL if possible.
What surprises me is the success rate of those ambitious players.
Most of this is because an optimized character can often play up beyond his level effectively. So I'd be shocked if a table legally capable of playing up doesn't stand an excellent chance of playing up and surviving.
Once you start playing up, you only have to succeed a few times before the additional wealth makes it easier to succeed at playing up. Vicious cycle, even if it's on accident.
Maybe, but my 12th level character (120k gp)
+2 to 4 stats
+16 to AC total bonus including stat items above
+2 to hit
+3+1d6 to damage
In the scheme of things, the only thing that makes me more effective that isn't a class feature is the +16 AC. That costs a total of 39,650 for +15 of the AC and +13,500 for the last point (monk's robe) which counts for +1 AC and +2 damage (average between 1d6->1d8)
The other 80,000 gp was spent on things that don't mechanically make my character a more effective character.
I am unsure how soft-balling the resulting high tier play actually provides that feeling.
I doesn't and defeats the "play up when legally allowed to for more white knuckle fun."
|
Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, feel it is a GM's job to kill PCs. But if a group wants more danger, I am unsure how soft-balling the resulting high tier play actually provides that feeling.
*Retells story of group demanding to play up before calculating APL for Rebel's Ransom*
Want to play up? Great! You get the Full Baird.
|
I've seen some complaints on message boards about players who bring non-optimized characters to the table. (Aside: I haven't seen these complaints on actual play, nor have I seen universal cheesily-optimized characters, so there is some sample bias involved.)
Put this together with the widespread complaint that seasons 0-3 are too easy, and I can't help but wonder if the complaining optimizers are complaining that people aren't bringing play-uppable characters to the table.
I am kind of shocked by the sense of entitlement I'm hearing under the complaints about this change. What a lot of this sounds like is power gamers complaining because they won't be able to get as much money beyond what they're supposed to according to the design of the campaign as they've been able to in the past.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
If you feel it is necessary, then by all means demonstrate.Is it worth the time to demonstrate? I suspect it would provoke yet another rules change to close the "hole" instead of demonstrate there are always going to be "holes" in the system. No?
...
Sure it's worth the time if it can, in fact, be demonstrated. There won't be another rules change at this time. The Guide is in the last day or two of final editing and scheduled to be released in 6 days. So, if you can demonstrate it, then go for it.
|
|
The first problem boils down to people not reading the GtPFS or the rules. Is there any way to force people to read the rules? Plus making more edge case rulings (like this new one) doesn't mean that people will follow them?
Well, one could hope that at least the GMs have read the guide... after all, it is part of the Core Assumption (which means that it is assumed that GMs have read the book).
My point is that if this information (level of character, sub-tier ran) were collected, it would allow campaign leadership to contact "repeat offenders" and hopefully point out the errors.
In fact, there could be validation upon data entry that would tell the GM/organizer that the table was not sub-tier legal. They would probably need to be able to override, but I would also have some sort of tracker showing the GM/Organizer trends (you've had 3 tables in the past that were not sub-tier legal).
If there are habitual repeat-offenders, then campaign leadership could take more drastic measures (starting with discussions from the VOs, moving to even more drastic if they are not paid attention to).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
if this information (level of character, sub-tier ran) were collected, it would allow campaign leadership to contact "repeat offenders" and hopefully point out the errors.
Which would have diminished the need to change the system at all. I personally and others have advocated this sort of information to be added in the past, but I guess the code involved to implement it was more costly than any "possible" harm by not implementing a system to record that data.
To be clear, I've always been a fan of recording this type of data.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, feel it is a GM's job to kill PCs. But if a group wants more danger, I am unsure how soft-balling the resulting high tier play actually provides that feeling.*Retells story of group demanding to play up before calculating APL for Rebel's Ransom*
Want to play up? Great! You get the Full Baird.
And once you go Full Baird...