|
@Cold Napalm: I'm sorry, but that kind of mentality is wrong. I can't imagine someone coming up, seeing the four person table and thinking "I wasn't going to play PFS today, but darn it, I want these people's characters to DIE!", and then join the table so they play up a tier. That kind of behavior is not tolerated in PFS play (at the very minimum under the "Don't be a Jerk" rule) and someone trying to ruin a game would be kicked out by any GM worth their salt. Likewise, someone wanting to play a game when there's room and they have a valid PC to play shouldn't be denied just because the tier would get kicked up a notch. Just means the table prepares strategies/tactics, puts on their A game, has some fun.
I understand you're worried about gold losses from lack of higher tier amounts and extra consumables spent for being forced to play up. In that case, what system would you suggest to make a fairly standard way to set tiers and difficulty for semi-random group of players that reduces party bullying for tiers, makes it more efficient for the GM to appropriate the mission scale for tier, and provides a fairer way to distribute gold when playing out of tier?
No, seriously, this isn't even about gold loss anymore. A griefer can now see a table of all 3...or even worse a 1-2 and a few 3 and choose to play their 4-5 to force a play up in make it mortally dangerous for the 1-2 at the very least. And what's worse, if by some miracle they make it through, they don't get as much gold as the guy who put them in that danger to begin with. The reason this is a problem is that with the choice to play up or down, there was a discussion. That means that you can spot said griefer and kick him out or just out vote him if it comes down to it to play down. With the no discussion this is how you tier things, there is no discussion. There is NO CHANCE to find out he is griefing. It means the system is set up in a manner where you can grief and get away scott free because the system said so. Your right, such actions have no place in PFS...however PFS has now taken away ANY ability to actually find such behavior out and squash it as the system say you do this and so you now do not have a discussion.
As for what to do about the gold...I say you do the you get X gold at Y level if the goal is honestly to standardize wealth...which is all this system really does...because the VERY first game with this rule, I witness my FIRST attempt at bully. Yeah not ONE issue I have seen under the old rule system...and the very first day under the new one and yep, an attempt to bully. Squashed REAL quickly mind you...but go figure, higher risk, higher pay seems to be okay with a lot of people...higher risk with reduce pay...not so much. Then again this could be just a reaction to change (it happens)...but I would not call this a good start. So really, what would I do? Go back to the old system...because I have already seen less bullying in the old system vs the new one. Barring that, I would change it so dead level PCs get tier played gold and leave the OoT gold only for those that are fully OoT...so in a 1-5, the 1-2 and 4-5 would get OoT gold if they play OoT while the 3s get what ever tier they played.
|
|
Hahah. Oh so funny. Situation
P1:Level 1 Cleric
P2:Level 2 Fighter
P3:Level 2 Fighter
P4:Either Level 1 paladin or level 5 druid
P5:Either level 1 wizard or level 5 WitchP4 and P5 have absolute control over the tier which they play at. If they say "I'm playing my 5th" The level's 1 and 2's must play up. Bullying will still happen.
Nope. They don't.
This has happened 3 times in the 6 games I have been at. All three times they were given the option to play a level 1 pregen, play their level one, or find another table. In one case someone came from the other table, to take their place, and sent them over there. The GM and the table can say who they are willing to play with. And if they persist in dragging underlevel characters into a challenge they are not ready for, they are violating the jerk rule.
(In fact one of the venues I played at pretty much defined playing with a 3 level difference without the consent of the low level characters as being a violation of the jerk rule, and therefore not allowed.
So...the players are a jerk because they want to play a certain character but the GM is not for forcing them NOT to?!? Mind boggles. You do realize that until last Wednesday or Thursday, that table had FULL option to play up or down right? So those last 2 players could play their 5s...but unless the other 3 players agreed, they would be playing down and getting level 1-2 gold. So they would have absolutely NO control back then. NOW they do...and as I pointed out, that is a problem. Because if the solution here is that GM can veto who plays at their table...I'm not sure that is a valid solution...and even if it, I am not sure that SHOULD be the solution.
Now that said, IF there is a high sub tier and a low sub tier table, the coordinator has every right to move the two want to play 5 characters to the higher sub-tier table. But going play what we want or else I believe is quite frankly bullying...and exactly what I was warning against with this change.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Napalm. Up above. You just said that the guys forcing everyone else to play up were griefers.
*YOU* just said they were jerks.
*YOUR* whole rant has been about people showing up and intentionally wrecking games for other people
GM's who step in and say "no you can't be bullies, you can help make game fun for everyone or you can find a different game that will be fun for you" are not jerks. If you are going to say "anybody who enforces the "don't be a jerk" rule is a jerk because it is being a jerk to tell a jerk that they can't have fun being a jerk, then you are basically saying "We shouldn't have a don't be a jerk rule because it makes game less fun for jerks."
|
|
I could get behind a system of 'you receive gold for your level, not the subtier you played'. Then we'll see who really wants the challenge and who just wants the gold.
Honestly so could I as long as the campaign heads are clear that what they want is standardized wealth. There are many benefits to such (and penalties I admit...like using up more consumables in play up not being covered), but if it clear, then we can analyse from that PoV. This whole we want to improve EVERYTHING doesn't help much...and as always, when you try to do EVERYTHING, more often then not, you do NOTHING at best, and make things worse in most cases.
|
No, seriously, this isn't even about gold loss anymore. A griefer can now see a table of all 3...or even worse a 1-2 and a few 3 and choose to play their 4-5 to force a play up in make it mortally dangerous for the 1-2 at the very least.
...and that's when the group says 'Sorry champ, not gonna happen, play nice or push off'.
You make it sound like telling someone to go forth and procreate isn't a think people do. Or are we just uncouth in Australia that griefers go home with a bonus black eye? ;p
|
|
Napalm. Up above. You just said that the guys forcing everyone else to play up were griefers.
*YOU* just said they were jerks.
*YOUR* whole rant has been about people showing up and intentionally wrecking games for other people
GM's who step in and say "no you can't be bullies, you can help make game fun for everyone or you can find a different game that will be fun for you" are not jerks. If you are going to say "anybody who enforces the "don't be a jerk" rule is a jerk because it is being a jerk to tell a jerk that they can't have fun being a jerk, then you are basically saying "We shouldn't have a don't be a jerk rule because it makes game less fun for jerks."
No my point was that a griefer CAN DO THIS. That does not mean EVERYONE who does this is a griefer. For pete sake. And with the old system, people who are griefers are easy to spot and deal with (because you talk with each other to figure out play up or down). With the new system, there is almost no choice...so no way to actually spot somebody who is doing this because s/he is a griefer or because they just wanna play their character.
|
|
No, seriously, this isn't even about gold loss anymore. A griefer can now see a table of all 3...or even worse a 1-2 and a few 3 and choose to play their 4-5 to force a play up in make it mortally dangerous for the 1-2 at the very least.
...and that's when the group says 'Sorry champ, not gonna happen, play nice or push off'.
You make it sound like telling someone to go forth and procreate isn't a think people do. Or are we just uncouth in Australia that griefers go home with a bonus black eye? ;p
And how pray tell, do you tell the griefer from the person who just wants to play their 4-5 now? Does ANYONE who wants to use a 4-5 in a group of 3 automatically a griefer and goes home with a black eye? Remember there is NO DISCUSSION about playing up or down with this rule. So you have pretty much NIL chance to find said griefer to send home with a black eye. That is what I mean when I say the system is ripe for griefer abuse. Seriously, I beta test many MANY MMO and I specifically look for issues like this one. I actually get INVITED to closed beta and alpha tests because I am good at finding abusable systems. And this is an abusable system. WILL it be abused? Not necessarily. But that does not make the system any less open to such abuse.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Napalm. You seem to be under the impression that if you do not get your way, you are being bullied. I don't believe you understand the cooperative nature of this hobby. You have gone from "if these guys show up and they want to play their level 5s, they are bullying the other players. Then the moment we point out that the table has options, now you are saying "well if they don't get to play their level fives and force everyone to play up, then you are all bullies."
under the old system, the problem was that people would put out of game pressure, true bullying, on the lower levels, to play up. So a better example would be that 2 2nd levels, and 2 fifth levels sit down at a table with a first level. The first four guys are all friends, and the objective of the evening is to get maximum wealth payout for their 2 2nd level characters. The first level player isn't sure he can survive, but is pushed and persuaded and told that season one adventures are easy and he is being a coward and that with 2 fifth levels it will be a cake walk. Then, because no one at the table really cares what happens to him, when he gets hit by the 3d6 channel negative energy that is totally appropriate to their level, he goes down, and is shortly dead. Obviously it would defeat the whole point of the exercise to pool their money to revive him, so they finish out their adventure and go their way *and that 1st level player never plays PFS again*
That is bullying. And that is what this rule is about. I have seen it. I watched 3 guys try to bully someone they game with often to let them play up. She was playing a 3, I was playing a 2. Even though I wanted to play up, the only way I could get them to back off her and play down was to claim that I was scared and didn't want to play up. So that's what I did, and we played down. So don't tell me they didn't have control, because until I made it clearly an untenable violation of the rules, they were going to try to bully her to play up. (Not saying it would have worked, she seems pretty strong minded and the GM is a good guy, but it would have got a lot uglier.)
|
|
That's right, there is always a discussion.
And when the 'griefer' is told that we aren't all that interested in playing up, and suggest that he consider a plan B, he can quickly reveal he isn't a griefer and come on in with the majority view. Or he can feel free to join another table. What doesn't happen is one person hijack the game on us.
As I say CN, you are the one complaining about griefers, we just don't have much trouble with them.
|
|
You have gone from "if these guys show up and they want to play their level 5s, they are bullying the other players. Then the moment we point out that the table has options, now you are saying "well if they don't get to play their level fives and force everyone to play up, then you are all bullies."
I noticed that too.
It is a co-operative game, and we benefit from being co-operative.
|
|
Or you could ask the griefer if he has any other characters that would suit the scenario and not upset the APL so badly. You can have that discussion and root out the bad apples that way.
So...how is a group of 4-5 levels 3 and 1-2 level 4 or 5 for instance unbalancing the APL to a point where the 4-5 needs to make a level 1 if they don't have a 1-3 again? And if there is a 1-2 with a few 3 and a 4-5...why should the 4-5 be made to use something else? The 1-2 can use a level 4 pre-gen after all. I am already seeing a BAD trend here to view the higher level player as being AUTOMATICALLY BAD. No...just NO. I pointed out how the system can be abused...that does not mean that EVERYONE who does this is abusing the system. And just because they want to play with whatever does not make them any less worthy to play at a table. Seriously, that is just a bad bad road to head down.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Napalm. I have *run* closed beta tests. And there is usually someone there like you. And they are very useful to have because they point out every possible thing that could someday be a problem somewhere somewhen. Which is useful to know and why I invite people like you on board.
But 90% of the flaws they find just aren't. Sure they are things you keep an eye out for going forward, but most of the time they just fizzle. But you are building an elaborate example where you seek to impose victimhood on somebody in an attempt to prove that the change is broken. And the moment we demolish one false victimization you shift it to another person, all the while ignoring the fact that the rule change occurred because there were real victims being hurt and the change was implemented to protect them.
|
|
That's right, there is always a discussion.
And when the 'griefer' is told that we aren't all that interested in playing up, and suggest that he consider a plan B, he can quickly reveal he isn't a griefer and come on in with the majority view. Or he can feel free to join another table. What doesn't happen is one person hijack the game on us.
As I say CN, you are the one complaining about griefers, we just don't have much trouble with them.
First, about what you said before, I NEVER SAID EVERYONE WHO DOES THIS A GRIEFER. I just pointed out how a griefer can ABUSE the system. Seriously people?!? You think that because I pointed out a flaw in the system, I was saying EVERYONE who has such behavior is a griefer? That is what you REALLY thought or are you just misconstruing my words on purpose because you don't have anything better?
As for this comment...so you don't have issues with a griefers. That nice...but why WOULD YOU?!? This wasn't even an issue until less then a week ago. Come on people...some common sense. And also so your solution IF such was to happen was to ask the player of the level 4-5 to play something else...possibly a level 1 pre-gen or make a new level 1...and if he refuse...well he's a greifer right there. Just because he wants to play what he brought and signed up for, he's a griefer sure and true and so should be kicked out (assuming there isn't another table for him to get moved to)?!? REALLY?!? Wow...that is great. It's nice to know that the solution to the bully to play up issue is to bully to play down now...or pretty much what I said was gonna happen.
|
|
Napalm. I have *run* closed beta tests. And there is usually someone there like you. And they are very useful to have because they point out every possible thing that could someday be a problem somewhere somewhen. Which is useful to know and why I invite people like you on board.
But 90% of the flaws they find just aren't. Sure they are things you keep an eye out for going forward, but most of the time they just fizzle. But you are building an elaborate example where you seek to impose victimhood on somebody in an attempt to prove that the change is broken. And the moment we demolish one false victimization you shift it to another person, all the while ignoring the fact that the rule change occurred because there were real victims being hurt and the change was implemented to protect them.
This isn't a false victim issue. This is a rules abuse issue. Yes NOTHING may come from this NOW. Or hell even in the future. I admitted this readily enough. And how is table manipulation an elaborate example? It happened in the old system, it will continue to happen in the new system...so no, it's not something elaborate or obscure. It's common practice in the more optimized focused PFS players.
Oh and the rules change was to protect from bullying you say? And yet, first game with the new system and I see bullying...for the FIRST TIME SINCE I STARTED PFS. So yeah...the whole no victim thing seems to fall a bit flat no?
|
|
But there is always discussion about party composition.
Maybe where YOU play...and to be honest some of where I play as well. But there are locals where I play where your lucky to get A table off...so yeah there is no discussion in such places. Even at the bigger places, I have been at tables that don't really discuss that (or when they do, they don't REALLY discuss it...It's become quite popular to make battle clerics and call themselves paladins for example...which is perfectly fine for when the game starts...not so much when your talking about party composition...also talking about level or bonus to hit or skill bonuses or spells memorized seems faux pas in many tables).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Oh and the rules change was to protect from bullying you say? And yet, first game with the new system and I see bullying...for the FIRST TIME SINCE I STARTED PFS. So yeah...the whole no victim thing seems to fall a bit flat no?
No, it doesn't fall flat.
Because you *haven't* given us your version of what was bullying. And what you said up thread was bullying, that we had to be protected from, you then turned around and said was *not* bullying, but was just people who wanted to play the characters they like to play. It feels like you are trying to have it both ways, and it feels like you didn't get to play up and you are bitter about it, because you *haven't* given us an explicit illustration of how this was bullying that affected you.
I gave you the example, that I actually witnessed and was involved in, of the bullying that this rule was meant to prevent.
Right now, I keep going back to "I didn't get to play up, that means I didn't get my extra gold, so I was bullied." which is what I am taking away from your argument.
|
|
Yeah...but like I said, it's become faux pas to speak of such things in some tables. I mean I have to beat it out of them as a GM (sometimes as a player when the GM get wishy washy on the subject) so I can figure out what sub-tier your suppose to play in...much less anything beyond a curt one word (sometimes I get fingers) answer I get as the GM. Yeah I know, it's weird for me too.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
When I said party composition I meant character levels more than character classes.
Actually, our usual pregame conversation, in any game I'm in, (PFS or whatever) usually goes along the line of "Okay, do we have a healer? What about a tank? Anyone with social skills? How about a trap finder?" Then it gets down to levels and stuff.
The one time we didn't do this we wound up with a cook, a medic (think thief with a +20 heal skill and no magical healing, and no back stab. And no stealth.) a disguised mermaid using levitation to get around, a young noble woman who had run away from home, and Rose (don't ask about Rose, you don't want to know and I can't tell you without breaking forum rules. Just know that asking about Rose in certain groups provokes groans, and in the case of one player, projectile vomiting.) Worst batch of caravan guards ever. (Oh yeah, and a very bad elvish bard.)
(But fun, and they didn't die for a very long time. Mostly because we knew we were dead, and played *very* carefully)
|
|
Oh and the rules change was to protect from bullying you say? And yet, first game with the new system and I see bullying...for the FIRST TIME SINCE I STARTED PFS. So yeah...the whole no victim thing seems to fall a bit flat no?No, it doesn't fall flat.
Because you *haven't* given us your version of what was bullying. And what you said up thread was bullying, that we had to be protected from, you then turned around and said was *not* bullying, but was just people who wanted to play the characters they like to play. It feels like you are trying to have it both ways, and it feels like you didn't get to play up and you are bitter about it, because you *haven't* given us an explicit illustration of how this was bullying that affected you.
I gave you the example, that I actually witnessed and was involved in, of the bullying that this rule was meant to prevent.
Right now, I keep going back to "I didn't get to play up, that means I didn't get my extra gold, so I was bullied." which is what I am taking away from your argument.
Umm...no. You didn't read everything. I witnessed an issue of a bully to play down today. What I am talking about with griefers being able to abuse the current tiering rule is irrelevant to that incident. The table today as it was mustering, we talked about the new tiering system and how playing down as a table that was all 3s ATM would be mechanically better off playing down vs up. There was a 5 joining us, and I knew that at the start because we came to game together. The 5 was the ONLY character in tier and since we were starting fresh 1s tomorrow to run together, it seemed less then optimal to have him make a 1 for today and then another 1 for tomorrow (remember the point is to run these synched). Anyways, at pre-muster there was a mention of forcing the 5 to play down...or else. It was fairly quickly and easily squashed mind you (even before the level 5 sat down in fact)...but I have NEVER seen even that amount of an issue in the old system. So while I don't disbelieve that others had issue under the old system, I ask that you don't disbelieve that I have seen an issue under the new one. So yes, the whole it's victimless I think we can put to rest (at least for the bully to play down...the abuse by griefer I admit I still have not seen...nor do I EVER want to see...but I really do not like a system that can support such abuse). Two separate things.
|
|
CN the notion of griefers coming and kicking sand on a game was happening before this rule change, this is just the latest possible avenue of approach for them. Regardless of this new avenue of approach, we still have the tried and true 'Get bent' that stops the griefing.
The dude who comes along with his character has an option, to game or not to game, to enjoy the banter and chat with a level appropriate player or to go hang out at the bar or do something else. Should we as a collective choose to play up (you know, democracy) then he might be in luck, but no, no player is a protected species where his needs and wants get to dictate to the group what they will be doing for the next while.
Why should they go from kicking it and having fun to some grim and determined game of risk just because some dude wanted it his way?
Nah mate, not gonna happen.
You joined a table, they didn't join you.
|
|
Some missions are just going to be harder than others. As long as your playing out out tiers is at approximately 1:1 with playing down, it should work out okay.
For the above example, I'd try to find a higher level replacement if I were the level 7. I know *my* level 7 wouldn't try that mission.
Agreed. Groups won't always be ideally suited for the task at hand. Sometimes you don't have healing, or melee, or ranged, or arcane casting. You make do with what you've got or you bail if you're not willing to assume the risk.
|
|
So either you're forcing them to skip their retirement arc, or forcing them to not play their ACTUAL Character in their last adventure on it. Just because a player wants to play their character doesn't make them a griefer.
No one is forcing them to do squat.
Option A: Make their case to the table, who may elect to go ahead with the session. Some people may play Pre-gens or something, compromise is reached.
Option B: The group elects to pass on this one and play a different session instead.
Option C: The two players keen on playing up realise the others aren't up for it and wish to pursue the game at their appropriate level, wish them all the best, and find another table.
You guys have a funny idea of what 'forcing' means.
|
|
More scenarios with narrower level ranges, but that's a lot more work. It also still leaves it harder to seat valid tables.
Which is why it is important for people to remain flexible, have a few characters they can play, and learn to roll with the group rather than expect everything to go neatly every time - without crying that they are being 'forced' or 'bullied' into things.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I think I am officially done with these threads. The people complaining are complaining over such a little thing relative to the problem this was created to fix, that I just no longer care.
I like the idea of just having a stable of widely dispersed characters, and playing whatever fits everyone else.
|
|
There are so many characters I'm interested to play that I'll never run out :)This is what I call 'a healthy and well balanced perspective'. :)
And somebody who wants to focus on one character at a time has a unhealthy and unbalance perspective then? Yes, I have a wide range of character too because I LIKE THAT. But there is NOTHING wrong with somebody who likes to focus on one character at a time. You all are seriously starting to head into badwrongfun territory here....
|
|
I think I am officially done with these threads. The people complaining are complaining over such a little thing relative to the problem this was created to fix, that I just no longer care.
I like the idea of just having a stable of widely dispersed characters, and playing whatever fits everyone else.
Lets see...the changes were made to reduce bullying.
The change in my case INCREASED bullying. So your saying bullying somebody to play down is a little thing because you know, that sort of bullying is acceptable and all. If your okay with people bullying other to play down but not up, then yes, you really have nothing further to add because at that point, anything you say is meaningless. Bullying is NOT OKAY EVER. And THIS IS HAPPENING. So unless you are unwilling to believe me that it happened (in which case I can VERY much apply that same logic of I never saw a bully to play up so it NEVER happened so the change was completely unnecessary), then no this change did not do what it set out to do...just shift things.
|
|
And somebody who wants to focus on one character at a time has a unhealthy and unbalance perspective then? Yes, I have a wide range of character too because I LIKE THAT. But there is NOTHING wrong with somebody who likes to focus on one character at a time. You all are seriously starting to head into badwrongfun territory here....
Mate, its a 'social hobby'. Play how you want, but try not to lose sight of the social part - you join groups to play a social game with social people. You can at ANY POINT elect to concentrate on one character and one character only, just don't be too upset when the wider social circle says 'sorry mate' and your singular focus is not always accommodated.
There's nothing wrong with liking One Direction either, but your love of One Direction doesn't mean you can turn up at the next social event and comandeer the PA system to play One Directions hits all night - other people might not be up for that.
Focus all you like, diversify all you like, but really, if you want to be 'the perpetually offended' looking for something to be offended about, then go right ahead - it seems that you keep looking for offence and scream griefing to bullying to forcing at the slightest provocation (or perceived provocation). So no, if you cant compromise, are more interested in 'self' than 'social', perhaps Fighting Fantasy or Choose Your Own Adventure is a safer bet for solo play where you can dictate the lot.
|
|
Lets see...the changes were made to reduce bullying.
AFAIK, the changes were made to normalize the wealth by level. The bullying was a secondary aspect. And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.
As for what to do about the gold...I say you do the you get X gold at Y level if the goal is honestly to standardize wealth...which is all this system really does...because the VERY first game with this rule, I witness my FIRST attempt at bully. Yeah not ONE issue I have seen under the old rule system...and the very first day under the new one and yep, an attempt to bully. Squashed REAL quickly mind you...but go figure, higher risk, higher pay seems to be okay with a lot of people...higher risk with reduce pay...not so much.
This is the most detail I've seen on the bullying you encountered. Would you mind giving us the whole story? Because there aren't a whole lot of configurations where the party has a choice on what tier to play.
|
I have yet to see this work, but I'm sure I will soon.
And I'm seeing it as a great RP oppertunity!
I can really RP a PC who gets a lesser reward than the other players... the Serf to everyone elses nobles... Talk about funny. My Cheliaxian halfling servant Percy Footman being sure that the Andorian Eagle knight in the party got the correct cut, "here's your share of the money from that slaver gov'ner! 60gp, da' nobles cut ya know, and here's my 30 gp. Thank yea again for letting me cook breakfast, and I'll get to your boots as soon as we stop for the night." (lord, this will be so funny!).
(edit: looking on the bright side of life!)
|
|
And somebody who wants to focus on one character at a time has a unhealthy and unbalance perspective then? Yes, I have a wide range of character too because I LIKE THAT. But there is NOTHING wrong with somebody who likes to focus on one character at a time. You all are seriously starting to head into badwrongfun territory here....There are so many characters I'm interested to play that I'll never run out :)This is what I call 'a healthy and well balanced perspective'. :)
Nothing is stopping someone from powering through a single character. Well, other the lack of high level tables, of course. They may take some gold hits compared to the old system, however. Of course the devs stated that this was their intent, so I don't see why you are so surprised.
|
|
I have yet to see this work, but I'm sure I will soon.
And I'm seeing it as a great RP oppertunity!
I can really RP a PC who gets a lesser reward than the other players... the Serf to everyone elses nobles... Talk about funny. My Cheliaxian halfling servant Percy Footman being sure that the Andorian Eagle knight in the party got the correct cut, "here's your share of the money from that slaver gov'ner! 60gp, da' nobles cut ya know, and here's my 30 gp. Thank yea again for letting me cook breakfast, and I'll get to your boots as soon as we stop for the night." (lord, this will be so funny!).
(edit: looking on the bright side of life!)
Though I could see it from the other side of the equation too.
Play the "Snotty Noble" type PC who always treats the rest of the party as her servants, and is careful to claim the "noble's portion" of the loot when she is playing down.NPC "I'll pay you 200 gp each for this operation."
High level PC "Well, that seems a bit low..."
NPC "For you Lady, it's understood that I'll up that a bit..."
H.L. PC "As is my due." Big smile...
|
This is my biggest problem with the new system. Paying you more for doing less is just objectively silly.Lets see...the changes were made to reduce bullying.AFAIK, the changes were made to normalize the wealth by level. The bullying was a secondary aspect. And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.
Just remember -- it's a union contract.
|
well in most cases (with my mathings) It's pretty close to break even playinig down for OOS as it is playing correctly at level.
unfortunately it's pretty much always better to play down, mechanically speaking after the change.
It's actively more gold to play a level 9 at tier 7-8 than it is to play the same character at tier 8-9. (~6k vs ~5500) that's the only one that really breaks. Playing the higher end of a tier is always bad though. Playing a 7 in a 6-7, playing a 5 in a 4-5. It is what it is.
I honestly think it's good for the overall campaign. Though if they are going in the abstract (not you get what was in the scenario, just here's the gold you get) they should have just said "characters of the following level receive the following amounts of gold"
level 1 - 500
level 2 - 750
level 3 - 1250
level 4 - 1800
level 5 - 2250
level 6 - 3000
level 7 - 4400
level 8 - 5500
level 9 - 6000
level 10- 7000
level 11- 8000
and been done with it. huzzah, you get the gold you get. playing up/down/equal/whatever doesn't matter. You just make tables, and wealth shakes itself out.
i'm sure those numbers aren't perfect, but they are close.
It used to be "you find this much, here's your share" now it's more WBL focused. I don't know why fixing WBL doesn't work in fixing wealth by level, but it is as it is.