Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
I'm the same way, and I really believe the number of bad players has got to be 1 in 1000.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
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.I'm the same way, and I really believe the number of bad players has got to be 1 in 1000.
Lest I be taken out of context, let me be clear about something: I agree with this rule for purposes of policing overly wealthy PCs. I see that a great deal, and most of the players who have too much wealth are perfectly reasonable people who are pleasant to game with. There are entirely too many things like Boots of Speed in the Colorado area, at far too early a point in most PCs' careers.
The argument that is raging in this thread is what I am baffled by, and I do not believe this rule will help that in any way. But, more to the point with regards to my comment, I'm fascinated that anyone even has the kinds of problems being thrown around in those arguments. So, while I do not think this rule will help those (apparent) problems, I do not think it will make those problems worse, either.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I agree with this rule for purposes of policing overly wealthy PCs.
Well I don't see this rule as a good way to police the problem.
Until I found this thread I thought I was the problem, but I discovered I only played up 18 times and down or equal 15 times and I have 5% more than WBL expects.
The problem players are 40% more wealth than me, they must have engineered every game they played from level 1 to 12. There isn't any way to get that much money by played at a local game store or at a CON.
So I expect the new rules to hurt more players in the "expected" band of wealth like me than to do much for these people. Anyone willing to plan out 33 games together and execute that plan together, is also willing to devise the new plan. They will still be on the high end of the curve.
|
In the thread you quoted, I was not discussing the changes proposed by MB&MJ. I was only discussing the philosophy of forcing the entire table to play down because one person wants to. In no way was this meant as a commentary on the upcoming changes.stuff
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.
N N 959.
This entire thread IS about it though. Forcing is GOING to happen whether it is "Playing-Up" or "Playing-Down". The rule MM&J are going to bring in to PFS is meant to mitigate some of the pain for the person or persons that is forced regardless.
|
|
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.
I think that it was put in place for both of the reasons though. It not reward the behavior for playing up, but if chosen to do so by the group, they are completely doing so for the challenge of it. If they play down.. they are doing so for the player or players that chose not to play-up and the rule is meant to reward them for doing so because they should be. It will not be a substantial reward but it will be a little more at least then the gold given at tier.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It was put in place to fix the issue of people routinely playing up whenever possibleIt not reward the behavior for playing up, but if chosen to do so by the group, they are completely doing so for the challenge of it. If they play down.. they are doing so for the player or players that chose not to play-up and the rule is meant to reward them for doing so because they should be.
I played up whenever possible and barely had more than expected (9% more), but using the new rules I suspect I would have been below expected. When the rules are released, I'll recalculate my total to see what I would have with season 5 rules compared to expected.
|
|
Back to the original topic.
I would like to premise this with the statement that I am not asking for a change or criticizing the current system. I am just asking for clarification.
My question is...
Is the fact that you must purchase every item you have taken into account when determining the wealth charts Kyle and a few others referred too?
With typical charts of this type it is assumed that parties have the ability to sell off items procured from enemies as well as "need before greed" allowing party members to gain an item they could not normally afford without having to purchase it. The typical gold allotments at the end of the scenarios does not normally seem to equate to the total value of all of the items that are listed on the chronicle sheet(yes I realize the values would normally be halved). Couple this with the fact that there is no item creation (halving the cost for items) which would normally be taken into consideration when developing such a chart.
With these things in mind I am not saying it has not been taken into consideration...I am only asking if they have been. My point being...if you refer to the chart in the Core texts I cannot imagine the society restrictions were taken into consideration for the chart. Kyle eluded to the fact that the chart was not the same as the one from core text. As I have not seen it I assume it is considerably higher then the core assumption?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Note that the gold allotment would realistically not be the total value of all the items, or even half to reflect them being sold, but half divided by the number of characters. That might bring it closer to what you really get.Back to the original topic.
I would like to premise this with the statement that I am not asking for a change or criticizing the current system. I am just asking for clarification.
My question is...
Is the fact that you must purchase every item you have taken into account when determining the wealth charts Kyle and a few others referred too?With typical charts of this type it is assumed that parties have the ability to sell off items procured from enemies as well as "need before greed" allowing party members to gain an item they could not normally afford without having to purchase it. The typical gold allotments at the end of the scenarios does not normally seem to equate to the total value of all of the items that are listed on the chronicle sheet(yes I realize the values would normally be halved). Couple this with the fact that there is no item creation (halving the cost for items) which would normally be taken into consideration when developing such a chart.
With these things in mind I am not saying it has not been taken into consideration...I am only asking if they have been. My point being...if you refer to the chart in the Core texts I cannot imagine the society restrictions were taken into consideration for the chart. Kyle eluded to the fact that the chart was not the same as the one from core text. As I have not seen it I assume it is considerably higher then the core assumption?
With the assumption being six players per table, now, you divide the total cost by 6 to arrive at the chronicle sheet number.
|
I think two good things will come of this change:
1. Do a better job of regulating WBL
2. Ease the pressure of playing up or annoyance of having to play down by giving a little more gold than would normally gotten.
I don't think this change was intended to fix social behavior, just do the best it can to regulate WBL and ease up a bit on players outside of sub-tier.
|
I think two good things will come of this change:
1. Do a better job of regulating WBL
2. Ease the pressure of playing up or annoyance of having to play down by giving a little more gold than would normally gotten.I don't think this change was intended to fix social behavior, just do the best it can to regulate WBL and ease up a bit on players outside of sub-tier.
Yup.
You'd think being adults, we'd be able to regulate our own behavior, but there will always be some folks who cannot... human condition and all.
|
I think too many are treating this like it was a job instead of a hobby. I'm not sure why there is so much focus on being properly compensated for playing up. Maybe I come from a completely different school of tabletop gaming, but I always enjoyed the challenge of the game and the camaraderie of the follow players far more than I was worried about making sure I got all the gold that was due to me. I feel like when the focus becomes about the tangible rewards on a chronicle we are losing sight of why we play. It's not an MMORPG where loot is king, its tabletop roleplaying, where imagination is king.
If Mr. Gygax heard this debate he would roll in his grave.
|
|
2. Ease the pressure of playing up or annoyance of having to play down by giving a little more gold than would normally gotten.The problem with that idea is that they've also increased the pressure to play up and the annoyance of playing down by making it harder to make up the last gold you suffer when you have to play down.
They've actually improved that with this. If you played down previously to this rule, you really were stuck with crap gold. With the new rule, it's not as much as if you'd play in your own subtier, but it's more than you used to get.
|
|
SCPRedMage:
The easy answer is that your game day coordinators create a culture of "Must RSVP to ensure a seat"
Then about 2 weeks in advance, you post up on whatever program or website or social media you use to announce game days what scenario you are running. We use meetup Here.
You can have one or two tables (depending on the average size of your game day) dedicated for walk-ups if you want.
But generally, to guarantee a spot at a level appropriate scenario or sub-tier, you RSVP.
On meetup, it allows you to ask questions when someone hits the RSVP button, like "what level character are you bringing".
This allows the coordinator to pre-muster days in advance to make sure the best tables are available. People show up, get directed to their table, and it usually works out. Sure, sometimes there still might be a mix of RSVP's that bring the question to play up or down to the table.
But largely, we don't have tables fail or fall apart simply because of inappropriate levels or an unwillingness to play up or down.
The problem of mustering tables can be solved without ever having to deal with this rule.
But the onus is on the regional and game day coordinators to actually, you know, be organized in their coordination, and not just fly by the seat of their pants on game day.
|
You mean training like GM 101 that can be run pretty much anywhere? Its not a video, because its very interactive, though I think there have been some podcast recordings of it.Yea, but also things like:
Weekly policy scenarios like "a player tries to attack another player's character, what do you do" in a forum discussion format.
Video with all the rules on Animal Companions as a primar.
Call it ongoing GM training
Hmmmm, sounds like one of my Ignored threads...
|
|
I'm concerned about this change hamstringing normal players who AREN'T trying to outpace the assumed wealth-by-level, because when they have to play down, it'll be harder to make up that lost income. I'm concerned about this change making people even more reluctant to play out-of-tier, making it more difficult to muster tables."Being properly compensated for playing up" or "(getting) all the gold that was due" is pretty low on my list of priorities.
Number one, I'm not shaming anyone. I'm stating what I believe just like everyone else. My reason for playing might not be your own, which is exactly the point. There's no shame in any style of play. We all have our own reasons for sitting at the table.
And second, you just stated that it will be harder to replace lost income in once sentence, then said being compensated or getting the gold that was due was low on your list in another. Now unless you are speaking for a pre-determined group, I can only assume you are speaking for yourself. Yet your statements completely contradict each other.
It boils down to the mentality that if you play up you should earn whatever someone in that tier would normally get. But because of the need to balance WBL that should not be the case. PFS is about balance. It's about everyone being on the same rough level with each other. If you have four players at a table who have always stayed within tier, and one player at a table who has always played out of tier, by today's rules there will be a huge difference between their WBL. I have yet to see a valid argument to prove otherwise.
Let's give an example. Player A is an in tier guy, he only ever plays if he fits into a tier for his level. Player B always plays up one tier if he is no more than 2 levels behind that tier, let's say he's with a group of players who watch his back, or he's super optimized. Using a single scenario for each tier, here is what they would look like. We will also assume Player B cannot play up at level 1.
Level: Player A GP Player B GP
1-2: 1506gp 1506gp
2-3: 1506gp 5502gp
3-4: 3945gp 5502gp
4-5: 5502gp 10146gp
5-6: 5502gp 10146gp
6-7: 10146gp 16338gp
7-8: 10146gp 16338gp
8-9: 16338gp 16338gp
Total Earned: 54591gp 81816gp
Now at level 9, you cannot possibly tell me that those two characters have even a resemblance of the same WBL. Not even close.
That is the problem.
|
|
SCPRedMage:
The easy answer is that your game day coordinators create a culture of "Must RSVP to ensure a seat"
Then about 2 weeks in advance, you post up on whatever program or website or social media you use to announce game days what scenario you are running. We use meetup Here.
You can have one or two tables (depending on the average size of your game day) dedicated for walk-ups if you want.
But generally, to guarantee a spot at a level appropriate scenario or sub-tier, you RSVP.
On meetup, it allows you to ask questions when someone hits the RSVP button, like "what level character are you bringing".
This allows the coordinator to pre-muster days in advance to make sure the best tables are available. People show up, get directed to their table, and it usually works out. Sure, sometimes there still might be a mix of RSVP's that bring the question to play up or down to the table.
But largely, we don't have tables fail or fall apart simply because of inappropriate levels or an unwillingness to play up or down.
The problem of mustering tables can be solved without ever having to deal with this rule.
But the onus is on the regional and game day coordinators to actually, you know, be organized in their coordination, and not just fly by the seat of their pants on game day.
*sigh* I only wish it were that easy.
I organize our game days through warhorn with addition information shared through a yahoo group and the PFS Florida forums. Less than half the people that show up on game days sign up ahead of time. I have made announcements at the store on gamedays and on the forums, I have even started writing the warhorn address down on the bottom of Chronical Sheets and still I have this problem. While I have so far not had to turn anyone away (we average about 2 & a half tables per slot) I am worried this will not always be the case, especially if all of the casual gamers who show up irregularly decide to all show up on the same day. We have had this happen in the past and were fortunate enough to have someone offer to run an additional table cold (a situation I hate as I think running a mod cold does a disservice to all involved). But how much of that can I expect from my DMs before they get fed up with it. It's one thing to turn one or two players away because they didn't sign up ahead of time, it's another thing to turn whole tables worth of players away.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first few times you turn away players because they aren't following reasonable protocol to help their volunteers organize a game day appropriately, one of two things will happen:
They will stop showing up or they will start RSVP'ing.
If they really love PFS and they want to play, they will RSVP. It really is a small thing to expect, and I feel it is the responsibility of the players.
New folk who just show up and see something happening and want to join in are of course an exception. Allowances can be made to accommodate those people.
But you won't get compliance from your regular player base, until they start seeing consequences for their lack of respect for the volunteers who make their fun happen.
|
|
I feel it important to note, I have never had to turn someone away because they did not RSVP (I had someone turn themselves away so that a 7 player table wouldn't have to happen--but that happened to one player, once, and he knew it was a likely option because he didn't RSVP.)
Ryan Bolduan, our previous and first V-C in the Twin Cities region, started up our PFS lodge from scratch using RSVP requirements. Because our player base started out with those requirements, they know what they need to do to play.
I understand that a player base who has a history of not having to follow these requirements may be more difficult to bring around. And they may resist and get angry about being turned away based on your prior tradition.
However, give them a month notice of when strict RSVP's must be adhered to. And then actually follow through on it.
|
|
As much as I would ever hate to turn someone away from a table, Andrew is right. If you have put a method in place for people to register for a game, and they know about it without a doubt in advance and have access, then the onus is on them to follow the structure you put in place. If the tables are full and there is no way to accommodate them, then they will learn that next time they should sign up.
New players are a different animal entirely, and should always be accommodated if it is at all possible. Personally I would not hesitate to give up my spot for a new player if they wanted to sit in on a game if I was a player. New blood is always a good thing.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm listening in, but at this point there's little for me to add beyond encouraging people to wait for the actual Guide 5.0 to come out.
The first few times you turn away players because they aren't following reasonable protocol to help their volunteers organize a game day appropriately, one of two things will happen:
They will stop showing up or they will start RSVP'ing.
If they really love PFS and they want to play, they will RSVP. It really is a small thing to expect, and I feel it is the responsibility of the players.
New folk who just show up and see something happening and want to join in are of course an exception. Allowances can be made to accommodate those people.
But you won't get compliance from your regular player base, until they start seeing consequences for their lack of respect for the volunteers who make their fun happen.
This is true. Whether it is 90% true or 100% true will vary a bit by region and circumstances, but the underlying ideas are sound. In retrospect, one of the healthier things I did for PFS in Georgia—and this was more an act of frustrated desperation at the time than inspired foresight—was turn away a handful of walk-in (but not new) players at a game day, saying, "sorry, but we don't have enough room to accommodate you. If I have at least three days' notice on our forum, I can often recruit an additional GM in time to make another table." I didn't have somebody run something cold; that would just reward one behavior (walk-ins) while encouraging another sub-optimal behavior (running cold).
The decision has done some great things for the PFS culture in the region, though it is but a small piece of the "positive PFS culture" puzzle.
If you're concerned about losing people for trying this, just practice your delivery and frame your response ahead of time. As with anything in a fun activity, you'll likely get a better reaction if you stay optimistic about that player's involvement and even offer a minor, one-time concession. (e.g. "Hey, I'm sorry that we can't fit you in this week. Again, if you can give me a bit of warning next time, I'm almost certain to be able to get you rolling dice next week. In fact, if you send me a message on that forum with the name of a scenario you would really like to play, I'll see about adding that to the schedule and sign you up for it; you'll be first in line.")
I have digressed from the main topic(s) of this thread, and so let me step back and let you return to your prior discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Chad,
I note how you didn't address SCP's issue at all, so I'll assume it needs to be restated.
This isn't about 'always in tier Alex' vs 'Play up Paul'. My concern is about "Goes along Gene' who plays (for example) his entire 3rd-4th (and maybe 5th) level career in the 1-2 tiers.
Using Rise of the Goblin Guild as a standard.
Goes along Gene
Level 1 = 1,560
Level 2 = 3,120
Level 3 = 4,680
Level 4 = 6,240
Always in Alex.
Level 1 = 1,560
Level 2 = 3,120
Level 3 = 6,064 (Assuming two tier 1-2, one tier 4-5)
Level 4 = 11,776
With the assumption that my math is right, Goes along Gene is already almost a level behind in gold from Alex at 4th level, it can only get worse.
Right now, if Goes Along Gene goes through "In Wraths Shadow" being the low man at a table that plays up, he will (assuming survival) get 3260 GP. That alone won't catch him up to Always In Alex (who will get 1309) but it will help. Gene has the option to catch up currently. Depending on how the playing down works, he may never have even the option.
|
|
Trollbill,
Losing any players, whether it is 1 or 20, is really a hard pill to swallow. But for the long term health of your game day, you may have to lose some players, even a half-dozen, if they are unwilling to comply.
You are a volunteer (by the way, thank you so much for that) who takes precious time out of your day to organize these game days. Even if it is only 1 per month with just 1 table, you still deserve an appreciation and respect for the fact it isn’t your job to do what you do to make these fun game days happen. You probably spend your own cash out of pocket to help make these things happen as well.
The culture of entitlement and disrespect for your hard volunteer work will only lead to burn-out, and ultimately, potentially retention loss of more than half-a dozen as folks get tired of half-arsed (running cold) scenarios and not knowing on any given day who’s going to show up and whether they will have a reasonable party to play through whatever sub-tier and/or scenario they want that you’ve scheduled.
I truly feel that long-term feasibility of a game day requires a strict protocol and vigorous organization up front to make sure that everyone has fun, but not at your expense. If you burn out, then who coordinates the game day?
|
|
@Chad,
I note how you didn't address SCP's issue at all, so I'll assume it needs to be restated.
This isn't about 'always in tier Alex' vs 'Play up Paul'. My concern is about "Goes along Gene' who plays (for example) his entire 3rd-4th (and maybe 5th) level career in the 1-2 tiers.
Using Rise of the Goblin Guild as a standard.
Goes along Gene
Level 1 = 1,560
Level 2 = 3,120
Level 3 = 4,680
Level 4 = 6,240Always in Alex.
Level 1 = 1,560
Level 2 = 3,120
Level 3 = 6,064 (Assuming two tier 1-2, one tier 4-5)
Level 4 = 11,776With the assumption that my math is right, Goes along Gene is already almost a level behind in gold from Alex at 4th level, it can only get worse.
Right now, if Goes Along Gene goes through "In Wraths Shadow" being the low man at a table that plays up, he will (assuming survival) get 3260 GP. That alone won't catch him up to Always In Alex (who will get 1309) but it will help. Gene has the option to catch up currently. Depending on how the playing down works, he may never have even the option.
I am in 100% agreement with you. Which is exactly why the new system, which I am led to believe, will give Go Along Gene and Always In Alex and well as Plays Up Paul (I love the names btw) a much similar WBL total. Today the system is unfair for everyone except Play Up Paul. The idea of the new system is to make it fair to all of them. Play Up Paul just doesn't like the fact that now he won't be able to make as much money as he used to.
|
Build >>>> cash, anyway. No matter what you are scaling with magical enhancement, the first half of the money you spend on your PC is way more efficacious than the second half of the money. A well build character with 75K of items will crush a sloppy build with 150K of items.
But if it makes people feel better to monkey around with WBL while there are still Tetori monks and heavens oracles, knock yourself out on WBL.
|
|
Trollbill,
Losing any players, whether it is 1 or 20, is really a hard pill to swallow. But for the long term health of your game day, you may have to lose some players, even a half-dozen, if they are unwilling to comply.
You are a volunteer (by the way, thank you so much for that) who takes precious time out of your day to organize these game days. Even if it is only 1 per month with just 1 table, you still deserve an appreciation and respect for the fact it isn’t your job to do what you do to make these fun game days happen. You probably spend your own cash out of pocket to help make these things happen as well.
The culture of entitlement and disrespect for your hard volunteer work will only lead to burn-out, and ultimately, potentially retention loss of more than half-a dozen as folks get tired of half-arsed (running cold) scenarios and not knowing on any given day who’s going to show up and whether they will have a reasonable party to play through whatever sub-tier and/or scenario they want that you’ve scheduled.
I truly feel that long-term feasibility of a game day requires a strict protocol and vigorous organization up front to make sure that everyone has fun, but not at your expense. If you burn out, then who coordinates the game day?
Andrew, you definitely have a point, especially considering that part of my fear stems from having seen two other once successful groups in a nearby area implode because of a culture of entitlement. We will just have see the next time this happens.
|
|
I might also add that this is why I have a menagerie of PCs. So I'm less likely to bring in a PC that drags a lower sub-tier group into the grey zone.
In a system where you can have unlimited characters this would be the best road all players to take. Always have someone available to play in tier. But many players get attached to the progress of a specific character and want to play that character only whenever possible.
I think a willingness to play a different character when needed would go a LONG way to making a majority of this discussion a moot point. But everyone has a different reason and goal for playing.
|
|
Admittedly, I've had way more close calls with my level 7 magus than my level 9 cleric. In some ways, this is more fun, but for some people, the risks are unacceptable. A cleric can just help a party brute force (heal) through so many tough fights. The magus.... a lot more if-come-maybe.
My PC progress is very spotty. I'll get on streaks where tables are conducive to one PC and then they'll go back on mothballs for 6 months. I guess I enjoy about all classes just about equally well, so I'm not picky.
|
|
Build >>>> cash, anyway. No matter what you are scaling with magical enhancement, the first half of the money you spend on your PC is way more efficacious than the second half of the money. A well build character with 75K of items will crush a sloppy build with 150K of items.
But if it makes people feel better to monkey around with WBL while there are still Tetori monks and heavens oracles, knock yourself out on WBL.
On the same point though, an awesome build WITH 150k in items will cakewalk through almost anything PFS can throw at it, while a poor build with 75k of items will repeatedly eat death in the tougher scenarios.
Not all players come into a game super optimized. But, an optimized character will almost always be played by an optimized player who in turn optimizes the gold gain. It is just in the nature of the person behind the PC, they go hand in hand. On the same note, someone who is just your casual player will tend to have a less "awesome" build and will not be driven by playing up for gold gain. So the disparity between the two types of player in terms of mechanics becomes staggering.
|
|
On an optimization scale of 1 to 10, I'd say I aim for a 6-8 for builds, but for gold I'm a solid 5. If playing up looks *solidly* feasible, sure, I'll take the cash. This is partly why my cleric is my highest PC. Everyone is like, "bring the cleric, we can play up!" I'm game, and so it happens. No big deal. But if its scenario where my cleric can't play, I'm a lot more careful. My magus is not known for healing ability :)
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should also be far kinder to the GMs requiring them to audit one loot page (2 for wizards and spellbooks) versus all those chronicle sheets to make sure all that math was done right.Just my 2 cents...
A character inventory tracking sheet is being included with Guide 5.0.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d like to kinda say something about the whole RSVP thing and turning folks away who consistently are unwilling to be helpful to our game day coordinators.
Mostly I think if you are a coordinator of game days for Pathfinder Society, you also play Pathfinder Society (you know the whole, “not only am I the president of Hair Club for Men, I’m also a client.”) And we know how much we’d hate to show up to a game day and not get to play, for whatever reasons (our fault or not.) And many of our friends (sometimes good or even best) are also fellow gamers and/or GMs. As such, our human instinct says, “I gotta find a way for these guys to play and have fun!”
And we feel guilty if we can’t. Afterall, there is a reason we are coordinating. Most likely it is because we love helping the most fun happen that we can. And if we turn folks away, we know we are contributing (even if it is fairly) to them not having fun.
But as I said before, we can’t feel guilty over something as simple as someone not RSVP’ing for a game day. If they can’t take the responsibility to spend 30 seconds a few days before a scheduled game day, to RSVP for a spot at a table… we shouldn’t feel guilty if we don’t have a spot for them.
Please note: This is not for new players. Those who just show up because they don’t know about your RSVP thing (that’s another topic entirely regarding effective advertising of your RSVP software, website and/or social media) can be accommodated as possible, and at that point you can give them all the info they need to effectively RSVP.
|
|
No, but that's what it's supposed to be. You know there's going to be someone who asks "What if there are only three players at a table? Do I get more money?" Just trying to head that off at the pass.
I understand what your saying here, but in the example I gave of comparing the 2 charts...it does make a difference. The gold earned is less then the challenge dictated. In addition, it still doesn't address the fact that the text charts take into consideration that you will have item creation which does halve the cost.
For those that think that asking for appropriate compensation is just an excuse for more power gaming understand that when monster CR is calculated it is assumed that players of that level have not only the abilities, but the wealth to have better equipment to deal with the increased threat. It also assumes you will have a reasonably balanced party which rarely happens in a convention based system. This becomes even more important when dealing with "advanced" creatures like some included in some of the more deadly modules out there right now. Advancing creatures is broken in its current iteration. For those that have not faced these challenges yet be prepared. As this new season based around dealing with demons and devils kicks in full swing many eyes will be open. Many of this type of enemy requires weapons of +3 or better as well as spell like abilities that will require you to have extremely high saves and a lot of AC/hp to survive. This is not an inexpensive undertaking. Throw in a couple of PC deaths and you are too broke to be properly prepared. Not to mention by the time you are level 12 wouldn't you expect to have some money saved and some to spend? A day job at 25-100 gold a session doesn't keep me in the level of comfort I would expect after having been out risking my life on 33-40 quests.Keep in mind this is a "Fantasy" game...anybody here fantasize about being broke all of the time in order to maintain survive ability?
|
Developer
|
Cool beans. It'll track PP and such as well, I'm assuming? Will it also include a WBL chart for a quick glance at how your character is stacking up? I know people in other threads have mentioned that they've done character audits that help people catch things they miss that would benefit their characters.A character inventory tracking sheet is being included with Guide 5.0.
It should also be far kinder to the GMs requiring them to audit one loot page (2 for wizards and spellbooks) versus all those chronicle sheets to make sure all that math was done right.Just my 2 cents...
The Character Inventory Tracker allows one to note Prestige Point expenditures, but one must still subtract those points from the relevant scenario Chronicle sheet; however, there is not sufficient space on the sheet to include a Wealth-by-Level list.