|
Rule or not, but if this promise was made to entice the guy to play up, as a GM, I'm enforcing it regardless.
And I believe you are in you rights to do so.
If this particular problem is so common that Paizo actually needs to cover it with a specific rule then there is a much bigger problem here than just this.
|
This has been mentioned by several others but I fail to see the reasoning behind the assumption that if one person has a bad experience they won't be back but if 5 people have a bad experience they will.
So do we want the culture of this game to be “Majority Rules” even if it might chase away a new or casual player?
Because generally the assumption is that if there are 5 trying to play up and 1 trying to play down, the 5 are experienced players who have played PFS a lot and the 1 is relatively new to PFS. Experienced PFS players are more likely to realize that bad games happen occasionally and not be discouraged by them, whereas if new players have a really crappy time in one of their first games, there is a not insignificant chance that they will leave and never return.
|
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.
Ummm, given the choice of two tables in the tier I'm looking to play, I always choose the one with the most people I think would be fun to play with. amidoinitrong?
|
|
2. Lowbies must sell half their goods in order to invoke the promise. Death is a risk regardless of what subtier someone plays at. It's unfair to stick the entire group with a players death, especially when that player might have died if everyone had played a character appropriate to the lower tier. As a result, anyone who dies under this contract should have expend half their total wealth as part of the rez.
Something like this?
Five Heroes: "We want to play up. I need more...challenge...so I can afford to upgrade my Belt to +4."Lowbie Coward Bully: "I don't want to play up. I don't have enough PP for a Raise and I have about half the HP of the rest of you."
Five Heroes: "No problem, we'll chip in to Raise you as long as you sell half your stuff if you die."
So if a player dies because you want to play up and get more gold, they have to cripple themselves by halving their current WBL in order to remain "playable" (notice the air quotes dripping with sarcasm). You see this as an equitable solution?
This motivates the lowbie to play smart and not take stupid risks.
Stupid risks like playing up when they know they are inappropriately leveled?
Well, if it is a rule, it is easier to enforce, will likely have less negative backlash and complaints from the play up side, and be more consistently applied around the world.Eh, that seems a bit too specific for a rule; it might be better to have a more general rule, so that it can cover that, and more circumstances similar to it.
Maybe something like, I don't know, "don't be a jerk"? :P
One of the problems with "don't be a jerk" is that the definition of jerk is a bit hazy. Take a look at the comments in this thread about who is being a jerk (or bully), there appears to be more than one side to the discussion.
If the biggest problem with playing up (Mike and company would be in a better position to know) is of the play down player being coaxed (convinced, bullied, etc) to play up and dying (as it seems that the new rule for wealth for playing up will rectify any question of gold imbalance), then having a clear cut rule for it will likely resolve the problem, or at least lessen it.
|
|
You're the one who said all "6" players pool their money. Are you simply trying to be argumentative?I don't think we need additional rules for this.
How about instead, if 5 players desperately need to play up (you know, because of the challenge) and one player really wants to play down (because he's a bully that hates fun), the one player agrees to play up on the condition that all 6 characters pool the money for a Raise Dead and put it in escrow at the First National Bank of Absalom.
I said they should pool their money. I didn't say the the lower level character should have a fire sale and the rest will top it off.
I also said they should pool it beforehand so no one can weasel out and say "I'm not chipping in because it was your own fault you died." Pooling beforehand implies that the characters would be keeping their equipment.
Just to be explicit, should you feel the need to quote me later:
I am suggesting that all characters chip in equally--or at least to the best of their ability--before the scenario begins, to ensure that the bully can get a Raise in the likely event that he would need it.
Stupid risks like playing up when they know they are inappropriately leveled?Per RAW, the TEAM is appropriately leveled. So this line of argument is moot.
A level 3 playing up with five level 7s in a 6-7 is not appropriately leveled. It's legal for them to play, but they will likely die if they don't sit in the back covered in bubble wrap.
|
|
I am going to chop much of your original post away to get to the parts that I wish to respond to. Please read the full post above.
This argument is based on a flawed assumption and an unprovable premise: Playing up means the lowbie is at more risk.
Of course he is at more risk. The CR of the encounters for each tier is different. This is a measure of the danger to be encountered. Just because you haven't run the adventure yet doesn't mean that the danger isn't there and measurable.
The most risk I've been exposed to in a scenario was not from playing up in my subtier. In fact, those have been some of the safest and easiest missions for me. Even when I played my barbarian.
This is anecdotal and although it may help form your opinion is not a fact and isn't proof of what you say.
We certainly don't know that the character is going to die. It isn't a certainty and we don't even know if the likelihood is greater.
Of course you know that the likelihood is greater, the CR is higher the 'monsters' are bigger and badder as they are designed to be.
What we do know is that all the characters will receive less gold.
Most likely true, but not a fact and not a certainty. If you don't complete the encounter you don't get the rewards. It is totally possible to receive less gold playing up than you would have by playing down.
So since we can't prove or know whether the lowbie is actually exposed to more risk . . .
As a group you may be right, there are so many variables in play that I certainly have no way of knowing how the group will do, but the individual low level character is in more danger from the larger attacks of the high CR encounter than he would have been in a more appropriate CR encounter and if this worries that player and the other players at the table can't convince him that they can protect his character and the table wasn't announced as a specific sub-tier table then I think that it is OK for the table to be played at the low tier.
Making a promise in order to get someone to agree to play up and then reneging on said promise once it becomes necessary to make good on it is clearly "being a jerk", and the GM is not only justified in busting them on it, but should do so.
The reason that I want it to be an option of the GM, is that I don't want people to be able to abuse the situation either way.
If the play down player purposely does something to get killed so that the other have to spend gold, then I consider that to be a form of griefing, of being a jerk. In a case like this, I don't think that the play up group should be forced to pay for rezzing.
In the example given earlier, where the play up group used their higher initiative to retreat behind the play down player, leaving the play down player as the main target for a creature with five attacks, then I would say that the play up group should be compelled to pay for rezzing.
Context is important in these cases. Which is why I suggested that the rule allow the GM the option to impose the gold cost, and not make it mandatory in all cases.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
At my local game store, they are running tier 3-7. I see that a bunch of level 7's have signed up. So you think it's a net win for PFS for me to show up with my level 3 and have the GM force all those level 7's to player tier 3-4?
How is that possible, dude? If there's a bunch of 7th-level characters and a single 3rd-level PC, how does the party play in the 3-4 sub-tier?
I keep running into this thought-experiment in the thread, and it isn't possible. The only way a group has any choice of sub-tiers is if the APL is at the breakpoint. If that's the case, then there are either a couple of the PCs below the break, or several characters teeetering between the two sub-tiers. In either case, they shouldn't have sat down at the table expecting to play up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you are saying is, as a GM or game day coordinator, you will simply inform the less experienced player, whether it is because they are newer or casual, that they can go with what the other 5 want to do, no matter how much he is uncomfortable with it, or they can go home?
You feel this is acceptable behavior?
Seriously?!
I notice it's a common technique to argue something by shifting the goal posts. Introducing new facts to the discussion as an ad hominem is disingenuous. We are not talking about less experience vs more. Someone playing a "lowbie" is not someone who is a "newbie."
If show up at a game store and five people are playing something I'm not comfortable with, you seriously think I'm not being jerk by telling them they have to play something else?
At my local game store, they are running tier 3-7. I see that a bunch of level 7's have signed up. So you think it's a net win for PFS for me to show up with my level 3 and have the GM force all those level 7's to player tier 3-4?
Seriously?
Your assertion is simply not true. There is no changing of goal posts or ad hominem anything.
I think people like to throw around accusations of straw man, ad hominem, and disingenuous because they literally haven't anything better to say.
If the coordinator of the game day isn't doing his job, then your example might happen that a newer player might walk in and not have an appropriate table to play at. That's the coordinator's problem.
If a coordinator is doing their job, they post the scenario they are running, ask for RSVP's, and ask for level/class of characters. Then they can post what Tier is most likely based on those answers.
We actually have pretty good luck with that here in the Twin City area.
That being said, there are always game days where someone comes in with a lower level character or walk-ins that know they might not get a chance to play. We do have one store in our area that specifically has 2 tables ever Sunday set aside for walk-ins (Deanoth runs that game day).
But by and large, if, as a coordinator, I see a guy I've rarely or never seen before, with a significantly lower level character, I discuss it privately with them. Tell them that the sub-tier expected is way above theirs.
Basically I deal with the problem before it becomes a problem at the table.
But inevitably, there are always those moments where which tier is getting played becomes an issue.
And in the name of protecting newer and casual players, I will err on their side every time.
And if the veteran players who "MUST" play up have an issue with it (invariably, unless they are all jerks, that will only be one, maybe two of them), they can be the one that goes home.
This isn't a "good 'ole boys" club. We want to bring in new people and be friendly to their needs and desires. And if I see a 'good 'ole boys' attitude start, I'll stop it.
At my tables, as a GM, playing up must be unanimous.
|
|
And if the veteran players who "MUST" play up have an issue with it (invariably, unless they are all jerks, that will only be one, maybe two of them), they can be the one that goes home.
To add to this. Here in Denver/Co Springs this doesn't become an issue because almost all high level players have other characters that they can play if level becomes an issue. I have seen a few cases where someone was trying to level a character to meet a future obligation and wanted to play a specific character but that's about it. Very little drama over what sub-tier to play.
|
|
I am suggesting that all characters chip in equally--or at least to the best of their ability--And if said character is level 2 having just finished the FS series, they probably have all of 1300 gp to their name. Half their equipment is going to be a lot less than their fair share of a rez.
But point taken. I was thinking of low levels, not high. At higher levels, half the gear would pay for the rez. So maybe an equal split after a a few levels or half your gear below them.
It's legal for them to play, but they will likely die if they don't sit in the back covered in bubble wrap.Completely unknowable and if they don't lift a hand to help, probably false. If the party can legally play up, then the statement that said character will "likely die" is saying that they have a greater than 50% chance of dying. Do you have any facts whatsoever to back up that assertion?
Okay, let's do some math.
The last scenario I ran was a Season 4 (3 - 7). If I played my Barbarian at level 3, and played up, she'd be facing the tier 6 - 7 NPCs:
Me: 43 HP, AC 14 when raging
1st encounter: +18/+13 (1d10+13/x3)
Both hit on anything other than a 1. Both confirm a crit on anything other than a 1. Average damage per hit is 18.5. Average damage on a crit: 55.5 (5% chance on any given hit). So one full attack takes me down to 6 HP. One more hit takes me to -6, I drop out of rage and die.
Now remember, I'm not in the back covered in bubble wrap, right? So I'm on the frontline, frontlining. Also remember that as a Barbarian, I'm on the upper end of hit points for a character of that level. Oh, and there's three of those things.
Later encounter: +12 (2d4+9/18-20)
Still hits on anything other than a 1. Average damage is 14. So I can take some hits. Oh, except he's probably power attacking. So make that
+10 (2d4+15/18-20). Or +12 (2d4+15+2d6/18-20) if he's flanking and gets Sneak Attack. Average damage 20 and 27 respectively. Three of these guys, too.
Lest you accuse me of cherry-picking, I'll increase the sample size. How about the one I ran before that (also 3 - 7)?
BBBEG: +14/+9 (2d6+11/18-20) Power attack: +14/+7 (2d6+17/18-20)
Average damage 24. Dead in two hits. Or one crit (15% chance). And that's assuming he didn't first hit me with a Curse, dropping my Constitution by 6 points, dropping me to 34 HP. Or realistically down to 28, since that likely means I'm now out of rage rounds (and thus fatigued, to boot).
|
|
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?
So...you think that if one person wants to play down and 5 play up and you then force a play down that the other 5 players will be happy?!? Are you serious?!? So they play down, they cakewalk the adventure. The low level guy feels completely marginalized. The optimized people are bored out of their skull for 3-4 hours. Humm...not seeing how everyone is happy in this scenario...or even if ANYONE is gonna be happy....
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who doesn't understand how this actually works out in practice needs to GM more. It's never a case of black and white and is best left to the judgement of a GM in which you trust. If you don't trust your GM to handle a situation like this, then you don't belong at that table.
|
|
So...you think that if one person wants to play down and 5 play up and you then force a play down that the other 5 players will be happy?!? Are you serious?!? So they play down, they cakewalk the adventure. The low level guy feels completely marginalized. The optimized people are bored out of their skull for 3-4 hours. Humm...not seeing how everyone is happy in this scenario...or even if ANYONE is gonna be happy....
So why aren't your high level optimizing players being good neighbors and playing their alternate characters? This argument is getting a little old with the assumption that these high level players only have one character that they can play. Do people really run this way? Most times I sit at a table we are discussing what people are bringing to the table and some players (me included) will have 2-5 characters in tier range that they can bring. If there is a newer/casual player that only has one character we can usually accommodate their needs whether to play up or down. See, less drama.
If the play down player purposely does something to get killed so that the other have to spend gold, then I consider that to be a form of griefing, of being a jerk. In a case like this, I don't think that the play up group should be forced to pay for rezzing.That, itself, would fall under the "don't be a jerk" rule, and I certainly agree that the other players shouldn't have to foot the bill for the lowbie's trolling.
In the example given earlier, where the play up group used their higher initiative to retreat behind the play down player, leaving the play down player as the main target for a creature with five attacks, then I would say that the play up group should be compelled to pay for rezzing.I would say that a GM would currently be well within their rights to force those players to pay for the raise, under the "don't be a jerk" rule. All he has to do is deduct it from the total GP earned, and probably report the player to a VO, so that they're aware of the attempted douchebaggery.
I have no objections to what you are saying. I am simply saying that not all GMs will be willing to put up with the potential or real hostility that doing so will cause. Nor do they want to deal with the complaints (take a look at the audit threads and the reaction of players when a GM does an audit).
It adds a tool to the GM's arsenal if the GM can point to something in the guide that specifically authorizes them to deduct the gold (or PP if it goes that way) if they make promises that they don't keep.
|
|
Any time you empower a minority the risk of abuse of that power is higher simply because it takes less people to cause the abuse to happen.
The complaint is that 5 people shouldn't be allowed to be abusive to 1 person, but the proposed solution is to give enough power to one person that they can be abusive to 5. What's more likely to happen? Having 5 jerks at your table or just 1?
I remember a couple that used to play LFR. They hated anything remotely challenging. They wanted to kick ass and take names without breaking a sweat. They insisted on always playing low tier even if it was clearly below their APL and were very agressive in their insistence. People hated playing with them but they would show up at Cons where organizers would feel obliged to seat them because they paid money. People who knew them would avoid them but there were always a few who didn't or ouldn't and these people invariably walked away with bad experience.
I do not want to empower people like this.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At my local game store, they are running tier 3-7. I see that a bunch of level 7's have signed up. So you think it's a net win for PFS for me to show up with my level 3 and have the GM force all those level 7's to player tier 3-4?How is that possible, dude? If there's a bunch of 7th-level characters and a single 3rd-level PC, how does the party play in the 3-4 sub-tier?
I keep running into this thought-experiment in the thread, and it isn't possible. The only way a group has any choice of sub-tiers is if the APL is at the breakpoint. If that's the case, then there are either a couple of the PCs below the break, or several characters teeetering between the two sub-tiers. In either case, they shouldn't have sat down at the table expecting to play up.
Inspired by Chris I wasted some time and chunked through this.
Chris is correct, that situation isn't possible.I used the example of a single level 3 forcing higher level players to play down.
By higher levels, I meant players that would normally play in the appropriate tier.
So level 6 or 7 PCs. APLs that would allow a party to choose up or down in a 3-7 game are 4.5 to 5.4999.
These are the following combinations that could create an APL in that range.
If someone wants to check the math on this I encourage it.
My process was to take the high end APL (5.4999) and multiply it by the amount of players to give me the total level of the party.
So four players would require a total level of less than 22 (ie. 21).
I then worked with that to figure out series of levels that would work.
So with four players, 6+6+6+3=21, making it the highest possible APL of 5.25 for four players.
Results are below.
Four players
6, 6, 6, 3 = APL 5.25
7, 6, 5, 3 = APL 5.25
7, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5
6, 6, 5, 3 = APL 5
7, 5, 4, 3 = APL 4.75
6, 5, 5, 3 = APL 4.75
5, 5, 5, 3 = APL 4.5
Of those seven combinations, only one is the situation where all three other players are in tier for 6-7.
The other six have a mix of people in tier, in between, and below.
Five players
6, 6, 6, 6, 3 = APL 5.4
7, 7, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.4
7, 7, 6, 4, 3 = APL 5.4
6, 6, 6, 5, 3 = APL 5.2
7, 6, 6, 5, 3 = APL 5.2
7, 7, 5, 5, 3= APL 5.2
6, 6, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5
7, 6, 5, 4, 3 = APL 5
7, 7, 4, 4, 3 = APL 5
7, 6, 4, 4, 3 = APL 4.8
6, 6, 5, 4, 3 = APL 4.8
7, 5, 4, 4, 3 = APL 4.6
6, 5, 5, 4, 3 = APL 4.6
With five players, we have thirteen legal 'between tier' combinations with only one level 3.
Again, only one is a situation where everyone but the level 3 is in the higher tier.
Six players
7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 7, 5, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 7, 7, 4, 4, 3 = APL 5.33
6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 6, 5, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.17
7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 3 = APL 5.17
6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.17
etc.
With six players, I wasn't even able to find a single combination that allowed for a single level 3 to "drag down" the other 5 level 6 or 7 players out of the high tier.
All possible combinations of 'between tier' tables with 6 players, where one is a level 3, also have mid or low level PCs as well.
The same holds true for 7 players.
It is also interesting to note that in both examples of a level 3 forcing higher level characters to play down, neither has a single level 7 present.
So when we're talking about "one level three preventing higher level characters from playing up," we are either talking about one of two possible situations.
|
|
There have been occasions where I've voted to play down because of a variety of circumstances, not the least of which being left with the choice of playing the low man on the pole or going home. There have been occasions where the GM went with the Majority Rules line of reasoning and forced me to play up. The party assured me they would protect my squishy little lowbie and that they'd help pay for my return should I die.They lied.
I was absolutely slaughtered because when combat happened, they all retreated and left me (with the lowest initiative) in front of the big nasty thing with teeth, claws, rend, and other unpleasantness. I was shredded in one round.
Not only did they not help protect me, but they left my corpse there, finished the scenario, and then refused to help me with my raise dead because I "Hadn't contributed meaningfully to the scenario, nor had I pulled my weight at any point."
Majority rules is horrendously unfair when it's what determines the lethality of a scenario versus potentially making it a tad boring and a unchallenging. You may disagree, but that's just my two coppers.
The GM should have stopped the scenario at the point where they left you to get shred as the other players were being jerks and given them a chance to fix their actions. If they continued with their ways, then the GM should have given them all a 0/0/0 sheets because they pretty much took the don't be a jerk rule to the top of mount Everest built a temple to jerkdom, raised a bar over that and danced all over it. So basically, the other players broke the rules. Changing the wealth rules will not help them not be jerks. Enforcing the don't be a jerk rule WILL. This is what is kinda frustrating. The core issues isn't really wealth...it's don't be a jerk. So why are we working so hard to fix wealth and not putting that effort into the don't be a jerk?
|
|
Any time you empower a minority the risk of abuse of that power is higher simply because it takes less people to cause the abuse to happen.
The complaint is that 5 people shouldn't be allowed to be abusive to 1 person, but the proposed solution is to give enough power to one person that they can be abusive to 5. What's more likely to happen? Having 5 jerks at your table or just 1?
I remember a couple that used to play LFR. They hated anything remotely challenging. They wanted to kick ass and take names without breaking a sweat. They insisted on always playing low tier even if it was clearly below their APL and were very agressive in their insistence. People hated playing with them but they would show up at Cons where organizers would feel obliged to seat them because they paid money. People who knew them would avoid them but there were always a few who didn't or ouldn't and these people invariably walked away with bad experience.
I do not want to empower people like this.
Typically, in a local setting, your regular GM's and game day coordinators know who these people are and can mitigate any potential abuse of a unanimous system.
At a Convention, it becomes more difficult. But you can have a conversation with everyone involved like an adult, instead of as an authoritarian or child.
You find out what folks reasons are for wanting to play up or down. You know the scenario. You can give ambiguous, but informed comments to them about whether you feel it would be too dangerous to play up given the current levels and party make-up, or you can assuage the concerns of the one guy regarding the fact its a push-over or mainly roleplay scenario.
Ultimately though, even at a convention, if the one guy who wants to play down, is a newby or generally more casual lesser experienced gamer, I will go with unanimity requirements to play up. If that upsets some of the veterans, they can find another GM.
But generally, this isn't going to be a group of level 7's and a 3 in a 3-7. That will always be playing at 6-7, because the APL will be 6 or higher. More likely it will be a couple 3s a couple 4s and a couple 5s. The 5s have no legitimate argument regarding WBL demanding to play up.
|
How is that possible, dude? If there's a bunch of 7th-level characters and a single 3rd-level PC, how does the party play in the 3-4 sub-tier?I keep running into this thought-experiment in the thread, and it isn't possible. ..
It is possible if some of those "7s" are people wanting to play pregens - leaving a 3rd and a 7th.
My understanding is that pregens do NOT count in the calculating of tier - and are determined by the Tier that is being played
but I might be wrong - I am a novice GM
|
|
How is that possible, dude? If there's a bunch of 7th-level characters and a single 3rd-level PC, how does the party play in the 3-4 sub-tier?I keep running into this thought-experiment in the thread, and it isn't possible. ..
It is possible if some of those "7s" are people wanting to play pregens - leaving a 3rd and a 7th.
My understanding is that pregens do NOT count in the calculating of tier - and are determined by the Tier that is being played
but I might be wrong - I am a novice GM
They certainly do count toward what sub-tier is being played. Which is why you might choose the 4th level or the 7th level.
|
|
So...you think that if one person wants to play down and 5 play up and you then force a play down that the other 5 players will be happy?!? Are you serious?!? So they play down, they cakewalk the adventure. The low level guy feels completely marginalized. The optimized people are bored out of their skull for 3-4 hours. Humm...not seeing how everyone is happy in this scenario...or even if ANYONE is gonna be happy....So why aren't your high level optimizing players being good neighbors and playing their alternate characters? This argument is getting a little old with the assumption that these high level players only have one character that they can play. Do people really run this way? Most times I sit at a table we are discussing what people are bringing to the table and some players (me included) will have 2-5 characters in tier range that they can bring. If there is a newer/casual player that only has one character we can usually accommodate their needs whether to play up or down. See, less drama.
WHY do you assume that somebody will have more then one character in tier? Yes. many people do...not EVERYONE DOES. Or did I miss a memo that said that if your a player of this type, you MUST have multiple character for any given tier? Or I don't know, it's the faction ending mission maybe? Maybe they did the other two in the series and want to do them all on the same character? Or they just LIKE said character and want to play said character. Your attempt to vilify 5 other player because they don't choose something else instead of the one other player is quite silly. Why doesn't the lowbie play something else? There is always pre-gens after all.
|
|
Anyone who doesn't understand how this actually works out in practice needs to GM more. It's never a case of black and white and is best left to the judgement of a GM in which you trust. If you don't trust your GM to handle a situation like this, then you don't belong at that table.
Oddly enough, I have never had an issue with getting unanimous vote one way or the other whenever I ran or played and had the choice. Discussion when kept civil does wonders.
|
|
....They certainly do count toward what sub-tier is being played. Which is why you might choose the 4th level or the 7th level.
Thank you - it is good to know.
I have been told when I needed to play a pregen that the APL is calculated and that is what level of pregren you play appropriate to the tier. something I do a lot more since I can't find chronicle sheets for my 6th and 9th character.
|
|
Your assertion is simply not true. There is no changing of goal posts or ad hominem anything.In fact there is. At no point was the discussion about forcing new players to play up. It was about a GM forcing five players who are in agreement to play down because of one person being uncomfortable.
Now, you're trying to associate the low level player with being inexperienced or new to the game. This is an attempt to justify your philosophy in the name of retaining new players, a topic which evokes a strong emotional response because we all know how important new players are.
We aren't talking about retaining new players, we are talking about which is a bigger net negative, five people forced to accommodate one person, or one person feeling uncomfortable about their chances for survival and five players enjoying a challenging scenario.
Objectively, I don't see any logic that supports this trade-off. What I see is set of cascading rationalization that relies upon misrepresenting the underlying facts. Even if we could agree that there is some increased risk to that individual, we have no idea what that risk amounts to.
What has been proven beyond debate is that the majority of people value things more when they are harder to achieve. A person's character advancement is no different. We have tons of posts and threads about GMs trying to up the challenge for the players. About wizards not using save vs suck spells so the party can have a good fight. Given a choice between a cake walk and a legitimate (not contrived) challenge, I'm going with the challenge every time. I doubt I'm alone in that perspective. The very fact that Season 4 is harder is because PFS believes the game is better off presenting the players with more of a challenge. I wholeheartedly agree with them. Forcing an entire group of willing players to play down because of one person seems to fly in the face of the goals of playing PFS.
And just to reiterate for the umpteenth time,...
Dude, you just don't get it do you?
9 times out of 10, the time that you'd have a major issue about playing up or down where you might have 1 or 2 who want to play down, those 1 or 2 are newer or less experienced people.
And if you ignore that reality, then you are actually advocating turning new folks off from playing the game.
|
|
Six players
7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 7, 5, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 7, 7, 4, 4, 3 = APL 5.33
6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3 = APL 5.33
7, 6, 5, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.17
7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 3 = APL 5.17
6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3 = APL 5.17
etc.With six players, I wasn't even able to find a single combination that allowed for a single level 3 to "drag down" the other 5 level 6 or 7 players out of the high tier.
All possible combinations of 'between tier' tables with 6 players, where one is a level 3, also have mid or low level PCs as well.
The same holds true for 7 players.
It is also interesting to note that in both examples of a level 3 forcing higher level characters to play down, neither has a single level 7 present.
Note that in season 0-3, it is not even possible as the +1 APL for 6 players will cause that to be a moot point. There should be ZERO option to play down in that case. That said, I have seen GM ask for the play up or down BEFORE doing an APL check. I would always correct them of course...but I suspect that there maybe more instances of a all 7 party with a 3 being forced to play down then is LEGAL. But that isn't gonna get fixed with a change in WBL...that is gonna get changed by enforcing already existing rules (kinda like the don't be a jerk rule).
|
|
Dude, you just don't get it do you?
9 times out of 10, the time that you'd have a major issue about playing up or down where you might have 1 or 2 who want to play down, those 1 or 2 are newer or less experienced people.
And if you ignore that reality, then you are actually advocating turning new folks off from playing the game.
Where are you getting that stat from? Because making something up does not make it true. So if your going with anecdotal evidence, I will put up mine. Pretty much EVERY new player I have seen seems to be okay with playing up since they have NO FREAKING CLUE WHAT TO EXPECT and they see the big gold pay out at the end. They realize the greater chance of death...but they are NEW. They aren't incredibly attached to the character or even the GAME yet. It's like dying in a new game you started playing a day ago. You learn, go opps and continue along as long as you have fun (which is more about the others at the table then anything else). When asked to play up or down, they shrug and pick what the others at the table pick. The people who I see want to play down on a regular basis are people who have been at this a while...and they KNOW that they make characters on the weaker side of the spectrum. They already KNOW...so they aren't new. But NEITHER of this should really matter to the WBL system. What they are trying to fix with the WBL system isn't a WBL issue.
|
|
WHY do you assume that somebody will have more then one character in tier? Yes. many people do...not EVERYONE DOES. Or did I miss a memo that said that if your a player of this type, you MUST have multiple character for any given tier? Or I don't know, it's the faction ending mission maybe? Maybe they did the other two in the series and want to do them all on the same character? Or they just LIKE said character and want to play said character. Your attempt to vilify 5 other player because they don't choose something else instead of the one other player is quite silly. Why doesn't the lowbie play something else? There is always pre-gens after all.
So from the tone that I am reading you know lots of power gamers that don't regularly have characters in most sub-tiers? That's interesting. It hasn't been my experience. You mentioned special cases; the faction ending mission for one. Of course this is a special case. I have seen one player use a GM credit for this on his 11th level character because he wanted the boon. (at least that is the way I remember it). But still you are using specific cases to talk about the general. The one thing that I will guarantee you is that no matter what someone says with a large enough sample base you will find a counter example. The bigger point of my statement before is that when I play I rarely see the kind of drama that you seem to be implying in your posts. People are friendly and accommodating and there to have fun.
|
|
WHY do you assume that somebody will have more then one character in tier? Yes. many people do...not EVERYONE DOES. Or did I miss a memo that said that if your a player of this type, you MUST have multiple character for any given tier? Or I don't know, it's the faction ending mission maybe? Maybe they did the other two in the series and want to do them all on the same character? Or they just LIKE said character and want to play said character. Your attempt to vilify 5 other player because they don't choose something else instead of the one other player is quite silly. Why doesn't the lowbie play something else? There is always pre-gens after all.So from the tone that I am reading you know lots of power gamers that don't regularly have characters in most sub-tiers? That's interesting. It hasn't been my experience. You mentioned special cases; the faction ending mission for one. Of course this is a special case. I have seen one player use a GM credit for this on his 11th level character because he wanted the boon. (at least that is the way I remember it). But still you are using specific cases to talk about the general. The one thing that I will guarantee you is that no matter what someone says with a large enough sample base you will find a counter example. The bigger point of my statement before is that when I play I rarely see the kind of drama that you seem to be implying in your posts. People are friendly and accommodating and there to have fun.
For each sub tier...no. For each tier...yes. But even assuming that you have one for each sub tier, why are the 5 people who want to use their high sub-tier characters getting put out by the one lowbie? Lowbie does NOT MEAN NEW. In many cases, the lowbie does in fact have a character in range of the high tier. They just don't want to use that for the various reasons I mentioned (one of which is you just want to play THIS character). So one person wanting to play a lowbie makes the other 5 change? That sounds fair and equitable to you? Even if the lowbie does not have something in sub tier, they can pre-gen it...as oppose to 5 players having to swap out what they were planning to play. So yeah, the whole 1 lowbie gets to hold the whole table hostage makes NO sense. I have never had this issue as I promote that people talk like reasonable adults at my tables (playing OR GMing).
|
|
The easiest way to solve this problem is to codify that playing up must be unanimous. If its a rule, then there is no more argument about majority or not.No, that doesn't solve the problem, if the problem is players not enjoying PFS.
What's fascinating about this topic to me is the attitude that we should disenfranchise five players rather than one player. Taken to the extreme, the philosophy suggests that it's a better trade-off for PFS if five players quit the table rather than the one player quits the table. That makes no sense. So really what this attitude relies on is that the five players will capitulate if the GM forces the issue because if those five players consistently agreed to walk, then nobody gets to play......
No one is saying that the five should be disenfranchised at all. Not one person. The rule that MM&J are trying to implement is that the 5 will get more for playing down for being nice. Everyone in this thread has said nothing but wanting EVERYONE at the table to have fun. Not JUST the 5 nor JUST the single player that does not want to play up.
The idea that M&J want to implement is to try and put a stop to the behavior that is starting to happen more often in PFS as we grow that it is ok to disenfranchise any single player for any reason. We all want to have fun, but it should not be at the expense of anyone else nor at our own.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.
they left my corpse there, finished the scenario, and then refused to help me with my raise dead because I "Hadn't contributed meaningfully to the scenario, nor had I pulled my weight at any point."This is the kind of reprehensible behavior I wish campaign leadership would tackle instead.
Begin vetting your coordinators (not just your Venture staff).
Kyle Baird likes to say that the GM is the number one factor in determining whether a table has fun and/or is challenged.
Well, I would like to extrapolate on that and say that coordinators are the single most important influence on the larger group of "local player base."
More rules that are impossible to enforce will not help. More people who are willing to step in and actually take steps to correct all of these situations will.
I have never seen bullying take place. I have never seen a table not pay for a dead companion's raise if he was unable to himself. I do not have players who are active jerks toward other players. I do not have GMs who are incapable of doing their jobs.
I am baffled by nearly everything said in this thread, and baffled that there is a need to police this kind of behavior with these "wealth by level" kinds of rules. And my player base is not small.
|
|
The easiest way to solve this problem is to codify that playing up must be unanimous. If its a rule, then there is no more argument about majority or not.No, that doesn't solve the problem, if the problem is players not enjoying PFS.
What's fascinating about this topic to me is the attitude that we should disenfranchise five players rather than one player. Taken to the extreme, the philosophy suggests that it's a better trade-off for PFS if five players quit the table rather than the one player quits the table. That makes no sense. So really what this attitude relies on is that the five players will capitulate if the GM forces the issue because if those five players consistently agreed to walk, then nobody gets to play......
No one is saying that the five should be disenfranchised at all. Not one person. The rule that MM&J are trying to implement is that the 5 will get more for playing down for being nice. Everyone in this thread has said nothing but wanting EVERYONE at the table to have fun. Not JUST the 5 nor JUST the single player that does not want to play up.
The idea that M&J want to implement is to try and put a stop to the behavior that is starting to happen more often in PFS as we grow that it is ok to disenfranchise any single player for any reason. We all want to have fun, but it should not be at the expense of anyone else nor at our own.
Okay, lets look at how the proposed changes will impact social behavior. I find social behavior studies to be a fascinating subjects. So we want to reduce the jerk behavior of forcing people to play up right? Lets just assume this is actually an issue because nothing I have seen to date actually backs up that assumption as I have been quite capable of getting reasonable discourse going so far. So we place a system where if you play down, your not penalized as much but still penalized in terms of wealth gotten. Play up and you get less gold then now but at the same risk. So will the person who is a jerk who plays up to gain lots of gold want to play up any less? No you say? So the rate of bully to play up will stay the same you say? Now the poor guy getting bullied...before there was a good pay out at the end...is there one now? Is he less or more likely to play up now? Less you say? Is this going to increase or decrease conflict you think? The WBL system change is not a fix for social issues (because it seriously can not do that). It maybe a fix for fringe cases of people playing up excessively to game the system of wealth...but I seriously don't see that as disruptive a quite a few of the options your already allowed to get from the get go in PFS. I think the change causes more issues then it fixes as now there will be more conflict, more issues with table mustering and just plain old hurt feeling for no good reason other then people who game the system can now game the system about 1% less (because there is oh so many ways to game the system in a system as large as PFS).
|
|
I don't think this rule change was put in place to fix the bullying issue that's taken over this thread.
It was put in place to fix the issue of people routinely playing up whenever possible so that they get more gold than is expected for characters of their level.
The ultimate goal isn't really to reward behavior. It's to keep character wealth closer to the nominal value as characters reach higher levels.