PaizoCon 2013 Wealth and Playing Up spoiler


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 720 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

rknop wrote:

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.

Breaking the WBL curve is part of how power gamers can break the system.

I have seen at least one group of players that does deliberately game the PFS wealth system. If they only play with themselves this isn't much of a problem for anyone as long as the DM understands he is never going to actually challenge these players. The problems arise when they get mixed with other players.

5/5

Drogon wrote:
Care Baird wrote:
You get the Full Baird.
And once you go Full Baird...

You went full Baird, man. Never go full Baird. You don't buy that? Ask Joe Caubo, 2012, "Race for the Runecarved Key" Remember? Went full Baird, went home empty handed.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Drogon wrote:
Care Baird wrote:
Drogon wrote:
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...

You go deaf.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Breaking the WBL curve is part of how power gamers can break the system.

"You don't say? Full PA gained and nearly max possible gold at your level? Wow, you must be a great player! Oh? The scenarios are too easy? Yeah, they must be. Please have a seat right over here."

5/5

James Risner wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
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?

C'mon, man. You issued a grandiose statement about your personal capabilities and you were challenged to prove it. If you're not going to follow through at least have the grace to admit that.

And posturing aside, I would actually like for you to do this. Or explain your process to me, and I'll do it. Because I would love to track how it works, and make posts explaining what I did, so that the system can be thoroughly analyzed from an actual numerical perspective, instead of through anecdotal evidence. Or better yet, I'd like to have someone else do it, because I'm lazy but still want to read the results. So we're back to you, since it was your claim that was challenged: C'mon, man, do it.

Quote:
pathar wrote:
James Risner wrote:
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.

Your sample size of n=1 does not trump the feedback that campaign leadership gets through (1) the boards (2) what they see at conventions and (3) what they get through their feedback network (player/GM -> VO -> leadership). Also, the circumstances of your single example--playing up when you have the option--does not refute the original point, which required playing up every time.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

James, it's a difference betwenn "when we're at a breakpoint, like APL 3, we always play up" and "my 1st-level PCs always play with a team 4 levels higher, so I get 1800 gold every session at levels 1 and 2. Once I hit 3rd level, I play in Tier 3-7 adventures with 6th and 7th-level team-mates..."

Actually, that reminds me of a point. Some people do this because they have to.

Before Pathfinder Society, I stuck my toe into "Living Arcanis" when I moved to Iowa. There was a group already running, already well-established, playing weekly. I joined. My 1st-level PC was immediately playing with 6th and 7th-level team-mates. This was all kinds of screwed up -- I was taking "out-of-tier" penalties, and of course was still not able to participate in any game activity that involved character attributes.

Shadow Lodge

Well, part of the trick is picking the tier you play in; particularly, aim to ALWAYS be in the dead level, whenever you can.

Instead of playing that tier 3-7 at subtier 6-7 with a level 3 character, play a tier 1-5 at subtier 4-5. Under the new rules, you'd get subtier 3-4 rewards for that 6-7 (plus a bonus), but you'd get subtier 4-5 on the other. Once you hit level five, aim to play in tier 3-7s instead of 1-5s or 5-9s; at seven, aim for tier 5-9s instead of 3-7s or 7-11s.

Beyond that, if you can get away with playing up without needing more consumables, play up when you can't fit into a dead level, for the small bonus.

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

I'm more worried about how it affects playing down than up.

To use Ksenia as an example, I played down (tier 1-2) for all of her level 3, and part of her level 4 career, as a result, she was 'behind' in gold (behind being subjective). I then got to play her in a high tier scenario "It was so nice to be carried along, rather than do the heavy lifting" - Ksenia and earned 8-9 gold at level 5. Voila! any deficit was erased.

Part of the reason I did heavy lifting, (and saved lives in severing ties) is because I knew eventually I'd be the low man on the totem pole and 'make up' that lost gold. I'm not looking for 8-9 gold from high tier scenarios, I am looking for not being penalized (as much)for being the level 4 at the table when the rest are 1-2, sice I can't play the higher table to make up for 'taking one for the team'.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew,

What you describe was a rather larger concern of mine when the wealth brainstorming thread was going on.

I can't really comment on the specifics of the new system until I actually see it, but I am greatly concerned about how badly it will hurt a character to play down, now.


Matthew,

From how I understand from Lady Ophelia's report, you won't take a hit playing down, you still get a "Out of Subtier" Gold bonus to make up for the lesser rewards for your level:

Lady Ophelia wrote:

1) If you are a lowbie playing up.. You will recieve a "Out Of Subtier" Gold bonus. It's not going to be the same as playing up for the big tier payout, but if you are the only one playing out of tier, it's a way to compensate you without getting too "grossly" as Master Compton stated paid out in gold.

And it's the same if you are required to play down. It will allow those who do not want to apply credits to another character the option to play down and not get screwed either on a lower payout.

So both get the "Out of Subtier" gold bonus from how I understand it.

The Exchange 5/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Andrei Buters wrote:
For what it's worth, my level 12 character earnt 125k. There was some playing up, but not that much.

When I played my -1 through Eyes of the Ten my character had earned only about 90k. Approximately 5-7k of that was lying around as diamond dust for "just in case" scenarios, so the character was quite a bit under the curve.

2/5 *

James Risner wrote:
Can I assume that since I've seen no uproar there is no change?

There's definitely a change, they've already said in the last blog.

The reason there's no uproar:
1) Obscure reference with no details
2) Their solution seems extremely reasonable (so far).

Basically how I understand it, it's using the WBL rules but with an "out of tier" bonus. That bonus will probably be a percentage (between 10-30% I'm guessing).

So if you're playing up, you will still get your WBL amount, with a +20% bonus for playing out of tier.

If you're playing down, you'll earn the wealth for the lower tier with a +20% bonus for playing out of tier (yes you lose gold, but not as much).

Something like that. Of course, that's just my interpretation, which could be completely wrong. :)

1/5

Hobbun wrote:

Matthew,

From how I understand from Lady Ophelia's report, you won't take a hit playing down, you still get a "Out of Subtier" Gold bonus to make up for the lesser rewards for your level:

Lady Ophelia wrote:

1) If you are a lowbie playing up.. You will recieve a "Out Of Subtier" Gold bonus. It's not going to be the same as playing up for the big tier payout, but if you are the only one playing out of tier, it's a way to compensate you without getting too "grossly" as Master Compton stated paid out in gold.

And it's the same if you are required to play down. It will allow those who do not want to apply credits to another character the option to play down and not get screwed either on a lower payout.

So both get the "Out of Subtier" gold bonus from how I understand it.

I think the concern is more "if you played down a lot, there'll be no way to recoup the gold you lost from playing down", which is what I, personally, am worried about.

5/5

FanaticRat wrote:
I think the concern is more "if you played down a lot, there'll be no way to recoup the gold you lost from playing down", which is what I, personally, am worried about.

If you do actually play down a lot, there is less chance of paying for a character's death and less gold spent on consumables.

5/5

FanaticRat wrote:
Hobbun wrote:

Matthew,

From how I understand from Lady Ophelia's report, you won't take a hit playing down, you still get a "Out of Subtier" Gold bonus to make up for the lesser rewards for your level:

Lady Ophelia wrote:

1) If you are a lowbie playing up.. You will recieve a "Out Of Subtier" Gold bonus. It's not going to be the same as playing up for the big tier payout, but if you are the only one playing out of tier, it's a way to compensate you without getting too "grossly" as Master Compton stated paid out in gold.

And it's the same if you are required to play down. It will allow those who do not want to apply credits to another character the option to play down and not get screwed either on a lower payout.

So both get the "Out of Subtier" gold bonus from how I understand it.

I think the concern is more "if you played down a lot, there'll be no way to recoup the gold you lost from playing down", which is what I, personally, am worried about.

If playing down splits the difference--which is what I think we're talking about here--and playing up does the same, then playing up can cover the gap left by playing down ... just like it does right now. It just won't be as important either way.

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

SCPRedMage wrote:
Well, part of the trick is picking the tier you play in; particularly, aim to ALWAYS be in the dead level, whenever you can.

Unless you suddenly need to GM. In which case your "Always be in the dead level" means you're always taking the low pay. One of my characters has fallen into that trap a few times.

Is there an official WBL chart specifically for PFS? I've come up with my own based on averaging the pay from the chronicles I have access to. Assuming you play right at your tier in every case:

estimate:
lvl 2= 1350
lvl 3= 2881
lvl 4= 7120
lvl 5= 11706
lvl 6= 17812
lvl 7= 26208
lvl 8= 37148
lvl 9= 51196
lvl 10= 67838
lvl 11= 90579
lvl 12= 113319

Looking at my 4 main characters, I'm at 132%, 98%, 97%, and 68% of what I should have. I expected the 97% character to be lower actually.

Each character played up when I thought I could handle it, but I still wasn't able to very often.

Grand Lodge 1/5

I for one am simply happy. I am usually uncomfortable playing up, because I tend to make under-optimized characters, and now, I may get a little extra for those times when I have to play down. ^_^

1/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
FanaticRat wrote:
I think the concern is more "if you played down a lot, there'll be no way to recoup the gold you lost from playing down", which is what I, personally, am worried about.
If you do actually play down a lot, there is less chance of paying for a character's death and less gold spent on consumables.

I unno man, the last time I played down for a table (In Wrath's SHadow, brought a level 6 but everyone else had level 3's or so, so we did 3-4), I almost got one-shotted by the boss after he charged another player then full attacked me the next round. The barbarian would have died too had I not thrown in a timely minor image to keep the boss from attacking him. And I played down in some other scenarios where I almost got worked...but maybe it's just bad luck.

5/5

thistledown wrote:
Is there an official WBL chart specifically for PFS?

Yes.

5/5

FanaticRat wrote:
I almost got one-shotted by the boss

You made my point.

Imagine if you had been playing subtier 6-7. That "almost" would have likely disappeared.

1/5

So basically, I go from "good chance of dying" from playing down to "will definitely die" in playing in tier?

Why would I ever not play down then, much less even consider playing up? Now it seems like the problem is that you've fallen behind in money, now you have to keep playing down because you can't afford to get yourself fitted out to play up to recoup the dosh. Unless I'm missing something.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

FanaticRat wrote:

So basically, I go from "good chance of dying" from playing down to "will definitely die" in playing in tier?

Why would I ever not play down then, much less even consider playing up?

If "good chance of dying" is the norm for you when you're playing a subtier that's below your actual character level, then something's wrong. Either you've only played a few games and just happened to get a string of harder-than-average stinkers, or you (edit: or your tablemates) might consider asking around for gameplay tips.

5/5

FanaticRat wrote:

So basically, I go from "good chance of dying" from playing down to "will definitely die" in playing in tier?

Why would I ever not play down then, much less even consider playing up?

In that specific instance, yes.

I play up because I enjoy the constant threat of death. Of course you'd never know from my poor tactics and decisions...

I've said it a dozen times, but once again: "The #1 factor for whether or not a scenario is challenging is the Game Master."

It's far and away a bigger factor than scenario content, playing up or down, other people/builds at the table, etc.

4/5

Hmm, my Seeker has a career total gold earned of 110,803gp before Eyes of the Ten. That's before subtracting for Restorations, and Consumables.

He played up 6 times, and down 3. 435gp came from Day Job rolls. Looks like I was close to WBL even though I played up twice as often as I played down. Seems like I might have been a good bit behind the curve (about 8k as a rough estimate) under the new system.

Will be interesting to review this again after getting a chracter from 1-12 in the new system.

5/5

Keep in mind that scenario designs have a +/- % target gold per subtier. So even if you feel you're under where you should be, it could have just been your scenario selection.

3/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

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.

Chris, that may be how it is now but with some of the older scenarios you can play up with practically no increased risk of failure. There was a scenario I was playing up in where in tier 6-7 the enemies only had a +3 total attack bonus to hit because they were only a CR 2. The scenario made it harder by increasing the number of them to 7, but they were still only CR 2s. The only character they could hit in the party was the wizard, and that was only with a 19-20.

5/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:
Keep in mind that scenario designs have a +/- % target gold per subtier. So even if you feel you're under where you should be, it could have just been your scenario selection.

Tell that to whoever made Drow of the Darklands Pyramid... worst sheet ever! :P

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think part of what some people are missing is that it is not JUST about the wealth in the playing up or down.

In some of the tables I have heard about from some of the players at my tables is that they felt bullied in to playing up unfairly. They were in a table muster and grouped with some people and were in the tier break and when asked if they wanted to play up or down... everyone but two people in the group said they want to play up... so the GM did so. That is a mistake. As a player I would have walked away and had been very mad... rightly so! As a GM it has to unanimous and "ok" with everyone. I want no one and I do mean NO ONE to feel guilted in to playing up and or down.

If someone says "no they do not want to play up" then it is down they are playing. If everyone is ok with playing up and happy about it... and they fit with in the parameters of doing so I let them.

I am glad that Mr Brock is trying to come up with a solution to the "playing up" situation and the problems that arise because of it. I want everyone at my tables to walk away happy with what they did and how they did it. Regardless of playing up or not. As GM it is important to make sure this happens. As a player... we too have the responsibility to make sure everyone at the table is having fun too.. it is not just up to the GM to make sure it happens. If one player is not having fun as a player you should be asking yourself why and what happened to make it so. We all are the face of the Pathfinder Society.. when sitting at the table. it is time to show it and make sure we are all having fun! :)

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

Deanoth wrote:

Personally I think part of what some people are missing is that it is not JUST about the wealth in the playing up or down.

In some of the tables I have heard about from some of the players at my tables is that they felt bullied in to playing up unfairly. They were in a table muster and grouped with some people and were in the tier break and when asked if they wanted to play up or down... everyone but two people in the group said they want to play up... so the GM did so. That is a mistake. As a player I would have walked away and had been very mad... rightly so! As a GM it has to unanimous and "ok" with everyone. I want no one and I do mean NO ONE to feel guilted in to playing up and or down.

If someone says "no they do not want to play up" then it is down they are playing. If everyone is ok with playing up and happy about it... and they fit with in the parameters of doing so I let them.

I am glad that Mr Brock is trying to come up with a solution to the "playing up" situation and the problems that arise because of it. I want everyone at my tables to walk away happy with what they did and how they did it. Regardless of playing up or not. As GM it is important to make sure this happens. As a player... we too have the responsibility to make sure everyone at the table is having fun too.. it is not just up to the GM to make sure it happens. If one player is not having fun as a player you should be asking yourself why and what happened to make it so. We all are the face of the Pathfinder Society.. when sitting at the table. it is time to show it and make sure we are all having fun! :)

I am not sure how MAJORITY RULES = BULLYING. Nor am I clear on why you think the minority should trump the majority. That is not to say that the majority can't bully the minority, just that the concept of taking a voted has always seem the fairest method I can think of and is hardly what I would call bullying.

Sovereign Court 5/5

trollbill wrote:
I am not sure how MAJORITY RULES = BULLYING. Nor am I clear on why you think the minority should trump the majority. That is not to say that the majority can't bully the minority, just that the concept of taking a voted has always seem the fairest method I can think of and is hardly what I would call bullying.

For me it equals bullying due the consequences of a failed mission. The death of the lower level characters. I have talked some players into playing up before but if in the end they want to play down I feel that I have to honor their request.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
thistledown wrote:
Is there an official WBL chart specifically for PFS?
Yes.

Its the same WBL chart used in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chris Mortika wrote:
Actually, that reminds me of a point. Some people do this because they have to.

In smaller cities, have to is a common occurrence.

SCPRedMage wrote:
aim to play in tier 3-7s instead of 1-5s or 5-9s; at seven, aim for tier 5-9s instead of 3-7s or 7-11s.

I stopped playing PFS right after season 3 started for all of season 3 and just started back at the tail end of season 4. Why? I was sick of going to Conventions and not being able to play anything at all. Wait two years and suddenly there are all these games I can play now.

Kyle Pratt wrote:
my character had earned only about 90k.

That puts you about 20k gp below the curve of "playing tiers including your level" expected value.

I can't help but think this whole problem is because a table full of yahoos who engineered their whole PFS life to get the most gold possible. And the change is a knee jerk reaction.

Kyle Baird wrote:
FanaticRat wrote:
"if you played down a lot, there'll be no way to recoup the gold you lost from playing down"
If you do actually play down a lot, there is less chance of paying for a character's death and less gold spent on consumables.

The same problem I worry will exist. I worry it will make me never want to play down or up under any circumstances.

If you do play down, there is virtually no chance of party death. So it is a non-issue ;-)

Deanoth wrote:
felt bullied in to playing up unfairly.

The only true fix is to do away with tiers and make each module one tier (3-5, 4-6, 5-7, etc) One gold award, one tier. Everyone is happy.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Trollbill. It is not about majority or minority.. It is about whether EVERYONE at the table is comfortable with playing up. If they are not.. and they end up doing so. Everyone is NOT going to be happy. As Todd mentioned, what if one of those people died because they voted to play down but the "majority" to play up? Is it fair for that player that had his character die then?

It is a situational thing that occurs way to often. It is not JUST about wealth when it comes to the above situation and Mike Brock and the team address this with a hopeful fix, if I am reading it right? :)

I do not want to dictate whether a person should or should not play up as a GM or a player. But I feel I should be happy as either one no matter the situation. Is it fair for everyone that I am a single player hold out to play down because I feel better playing down... yes and no. It is a double edged sword.

To clarify. A player once told me a story...

-Player
I was at a table and I was told we had to play up because everyone at the table wanted to play up but me.. I was 3 levels lower then the tier we were playing at and my character ended up dying. It was not fun for me and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth for PFS in general. I did not play for over a year because of it. The group left me there and I ended up walking away.

Now, as a player or GM is it fair that the above happened? Could it have been prevented in a way that was easy to do? They were in between the two playable tiers when they voted and the above player was the hold out. The GM said it was majority rules. And the player HAD to play up or leave. The group said they would protect him and the player even though he was a fighter stayed in back because he was well under powered for it and STILL died.

So it is not just a majority/minority thing. It is a thing where is every player going to be happy AT the table.. if not.. how do we as a table assure that everyone is in such a way that it is fun for all and not just a compromise all the time?

Mike and the team are trying to give us such a solution. So again to myself and some people like the player I mentioned above (which I am happy to say is playing PFS once again) it is about fairness and fun too!!

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

Todd Lower wrote:


For me it equals bullying due the consequences of a failed mission. The death of the lower level characters. I have talked some players into playing up before but if in the end they want to play down I feel that I have to honor their request.

Just to be clear, my statements below refer to situations where the APL is on the border of two tiers and not situations when it is clearly one tier or the other.

I understand being considerate to people who really are worried about playing up but how is forcing the people who want to play up, to play down any less bullying than forcing the people who want to play down to play up. You can't always make everyone happy so you try to make the most of them happy as you can. That is why majority rules works. Either way, the minority always has the option of not playing, albeit this may occasionally mean the table doesn't make.

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

Deanoth wrote:
...

You are assuming everyone at the table will be happy playing down. I see no logical reason this would be a true statement.

Grand Lodge 5/5

James Risner,
Doing away with tiers is not the ONLY way. What Mike Brock is proposing is a way to deal with the problem and when I see the final rule when the guide comes out in 6 days.. I will weigh in further on opinions on whether or not I feel it is a true fix.

Until then I am of the opinion Mike has our backs and wants this to be fun for all concerned. Is this a knee jerk reaction as you so aptly put it.. not even close. They have put a lot of thought in to this. Doing away completely with the tier system is not possible right now. coming up with another solution is something they are trying to do in regards to wealth and the problems I listed above.

So please stop saying how this is a knee jerk reaction type of thing when clearly it is not. Is it going to fix every problem with the system and wealth and or other problems.. the answer lies in us the players. As long as there are players who will game the system... there will never be a true fix.. as someone will always come up with a way to break it.

Grand Lodge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
...
You are assuming everyone at the table will be happy playing down. I see no logical reason this would be a true statement.

I am not assuming anything. But if playing up and one of the low leveled and under-powered PC's dies because the majority ruled. Is it fair? Is it fair that they higher leveled people well above the playing-down tier indicates... receives less gold but still lives?

In those situations someone is always going to be unhappy. if what Mike is proposing he is hoping to make it less so with a bonus for playing up or below but not get the low tier gold if playing down but not get the huge reward for playing up either.. but a bonus none the less. if playing out of tier and up because the party is for the most part.. a better bonus for more danger being applied. It is a form of a fix.. is it a total fix. Not likely as someone will come up with a way to game the system still and or break it.

Because of the problems of wealth and the above problems I am listing is the fix needed in the first place. Mike and the team care about PFS and us in general. We as players in PFS should try and make PFS fun for everyone.. not just ourselves.


James Risner wrote:
The only true fix is to do away with tiers and make each module one tier (3-5, 4-6, 5-7, etc) One gold award, one tier. Everyone is happy.

Except that now you have far less scenarios available at any given tier and you'll have more trouble putting a table together at all.

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:

Lady Ophelia's reporting

I think she was one of six at that panel; everyone else was too busy playing scenarios across the hall. How dare they have fun!

Achievement Unlocked: Getting John Compton or Mike Brock to cite something I wrote!

So while I think that panel should be on Sunday night when all the PFS is done, I am still very happy with the solution that has been provided. In my realm, we have a lot of players all over the place in levels. So doing this, keeps those who play down to not bully tables a chance to get some gold. And those who wish to take the risk, don't get over-golded. Yeah so it's a little more paperwork, but whatever.. I have come to expect that in Society Play and I bring a calculator now. :D

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

Deanoth wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
...
You are assuming everyone at the table will be happy playing down. I see no logical reason this would be a true statement.

I am not assuming anything. But if playing up and one of the low leveled and under-powered PC's dies because the majority ruled. Is it fair? Is it fair that they higher leveled people well above the playing-down tier indicates... receives less gold but still lives?

In those situations someone is always going to be unhappy. if what Mike is proposing he is hoping to make it less so with a bonus for playing up or below but not get the low tier gold if playing down but not get the huge reward for playing up either.. but a bonus none the less. if playing out of tier and up because the party is for the most part.. a better bonus for more danger being applied. It is a form of a fix.. is it a total fix. Not likely as someone will come up with a way to game the system still and or break it.

Because of the problems of wealth and the above problems I am listing is the fix needed in the first place. Mike and the team care about PFS and us in general. We as players in PFS should try and make PFS fun for everyone.. not just ourselves.

I am not arguing there isn't a problem (though I think this is just treating a symptom, not the disease). From what I have seen of the current solution, I am not opposed to it. But I am, in general, opposed to any system that lets the minority dictate to the majority.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
But I am, in general, opposed to any system that lets the minority dictate to the majority.

You mean like having a Campaign Coordinator? ;)

Grand Lodge 5/5

Trollbill. It might help if you not look at it as a form of dictation from the minority but rather a means to try and make people happy (including both the minorty and majority). Everyone involved. I do not view this as just treating the symptom.. but a start at curing the disease as a whole. A START. Without an attempt at treating the symptoms (using your analogy) the disease will never be treated at all. This is a start at it. The rule can and I am sure WILL be modified at a later date. but for now Mike and the team need to start somewhere and I think this is a good choice.

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

Deanoth wrote:
Trollbill. It might help if you not look at it as a form of dictation from the minority but rather a means to try and make people happy (including both the minorty and majority). Everyone involved.

I am looking at it that way. That is why majority rules works. Minority rules does not make everyone happy.

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

Jiggy wrote:
trollbill wrote:
But I am, in general, opposed to any system that lets the minority dictate to the majority.
You mean like having a Campaign Coordinator? ;)

Okay, just to make the snarky little dragon happy...

To clarify, I mean in situations where all other things are equal. The people who want to play down should not have more rights than the people who want to play up, and letting a single person who wants to play down trump 5 people who want to play up is giving that individual more rights.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In reality, the system that is going to make the most people happy is for everyone to sit down at the table and work things out amongst them. Also, in reality, this doesn't always work, so you go with the system that makes the most people happy, and that is majority rules.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've just hashed through a couple hundred posts on this, in the players section, trollbill. Suffice it to say, here, that I disagree with both your points: hashing things out isn't necessarily productive, and majority-gets-to-pick-how-deadly-the-scenario-is isn't necessarily the best choice.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The proposed system is designed to *reduce* conflicts, by reducing the prevalence of situations where a majority will (possibly unwisely) wish to play up, and to ameliorate the pain of playing down when that is the only equitable solution. That's gp-pain and cakewalk-pain as well (though we don't know the details of the latter).

Situations where there actually is a choice are common. Situations where there is a choice and one player vastly misaligned with the rest, and where playing up would be a wise idea, are few (1,4,4,4,4 perhaps?).

5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
thistledown wrote:
Is there an official WBL chart specifically for PFS?
Yes.
Its the same WBL chart used in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

No.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If majority gets to decide, will they pay for the minorities death? Or is them forcing him to play up still his responsibility?

If i was forced to play up by majority rules and i was really serious about wanting to play down, i might walk away even if it means the table cant happen.

Grand Lodge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Trollbill. It might help if you not look at it as a form of dictation from the minority but rather a means to try and make people happy (including both the minorty and majority). Everyone involved.
I am looking at it that way. That is why majority rules works. Minority rules does not make everyone happy.

How is "Majority Rules" going to make everyone happy if "Minority rules" does not make everyone happy?

As someone put it well... If the minority person dies because the majority ruled they play up... then they should too be willing to put in for the cost of a raise dead too... and NOT make the person that was forced to play up to do so!!

51 to 100 of 720 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PaizoCon 2013 Wealth and Playing Up spoiler All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.