|
If a table of players is happy to play up "for the hard-mode challenge", even knowing they'd be getting (and are only allowed) the rewards for what they're allowed to get for their regular subtier, are they allowed to do so?
To be clear, let's say a table of six level 4 characters wants to play the 6-7 subtier in a 3-7 scenario, and all agree to take the 3-4 rewards by the end of it, assuming they survive and all the rest. The only extra reward they get are bragging rights.
|
The problem with this comes down to one thing: peer pressure. What happens when one player really doesn't want to play up and the other 3-5 are pressuring and even bullying that player? What happens when you have the GM that doesn't follow the "unanimous consent" is needed and instead imposes a "majority rules" methodology? These aren't hypotheticals, I've seen both happen and that's why I'm in full support of the season 5 system.
|
|
The problem with this comes down to one thing: peer pressure. What happens when one player really doesn't want to play up and the other 3-5 are pressuring and even bullying that player? What happens when you have the GM that doesn't follow the "unanimous consent" is needed and instead imposes a "majority rules" methodology? These aren't hypotheticals, I've seen both happen and that's why I'm in full support of the season 5 system.
Then it is up to that player who is being bullied to inform his local VL or VO about the incident.
|
|
If peer pressure or bullying is happening, it can happen in a variety of ways throughout the scenario, whether it's threatening not to heal, and being uncooperative about splitting off in different directions to accomplish a task that requires the party to make a combined decision.
I'm in favour of the season 5 system as well, that's not really what this is about.
If you're against this idea, are you also against the idea of Waking Rune's hard mode?
|
|
You laid out a specific example which is against campaign rules. A PFS GM is not authorized to run the game in that manner, regardless of the player's desire.
Waking Rune has a sidebar on how to poll the players to determine if hard mode will be played.
If you're trying to begin a discussion on how to handle disputes between players at a table, you should have been more concise in your original post and thread title.
|
If a table of players is happy to play up "for the hard-mode challenge", even knowing they'd be getting (and are only allowed) the rewards for what they're allowed to get for their regular subtier, are they allowed to do so?
To be clear, let's say a table of six level 4 characters wants to play the 6-7 subtier in a 3-7 scenario, and all agree to take the 3-4 rewards by the end of it, assuming they survive and all the rest. The only extra reward they get are bragging rights.
If the players want a specific tier, they have to have the right character level mix to do so. It's no longer a choice. And before anyone gripes about it, it was the choice of YOU the community at large.
|
If the players want a specific tier, they have to have the right character level mix to do so. It's no longer a choice. And before anyone gripes about it, it was the choice of YOU the community at large.If a table of players is happy to play up "for the hard-mode challenge", even knowing they'd be getting (and are only allowed) the rewards for what they're allowed to get for their regular subtier, are they allowed to do so?
To be clear, let's say a table of six level 4 characters wants to play the 6-7 subtier in a 3-7 scenario, and all agree to take the 3-4 rewards by the end of it, assuming they survive and all the rest. The only extra reward they get are bragging rights.
1) Eh? I don't remember that vote
2) tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
|
|
Sorry - I should have been more concise, I'm moreso after discussion about whether this should be allowed. The idea was that this was based more on table variance/allowance rather than the rules.
I'm not trying to begin a discussion on how to handle player disputes. Quite the opposite - this is about where everyone at the table is in agreement.
I'm aware of what the rules are about what subtier players must be play under and what rewards are associated with playing at that subtier. That's not the same thing. This is about where the upper tier is played, the regular rewards are still being received.
What does that Waking Rune sidebar say? I haven't seen the scenario to know that a sidebar about this existed. That's what might be key to this discussion.
|
|
There is nothing stopping you from gathering a group of your friends and playing through a PFS scenario on "hard mode" (whatever that means to you and yours). But, if it is not a legal table as described in the Guide to Organized Play (and that includes playing at the appropriate tier) you cannot award an official chronicle sheet of any tier.
Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Well by the rules, your not allowed to do this...quite clearly not allowed.
SHOULD you be allowed is a whole different can o worms. I personally see no issue with this as long as EVERYONE agrees to it. I mean serious hard mode side bar agreement. That said, I can easily see this causing problems. GMs not getting proper agreements. GMs doing it without even TELLING their players (see horrible waking rune thread for this). So while I personally don't see an issue and would not mind such an option, I would say no, this isn't good for the campaign's health to have such an option.
|
Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
I think each subtier should not only have the 4-player adjustment, but a "hard mode" with extra rewards. For situations just like this.
No...just no. The hard mode on waking rune caused enough of a problem WITHOUT the extra reward. ALL hard mode adjustments in the future should NEVER have any extra rewards.
|
Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, just yes. Extra risk should always have extra rewards. If this lets some people get extra gold, so be it. They earned it. Due to the geometric nature of item costs, the gold is not that super overpowering.
Hard mode is an OPTION. You do it because you WANT to...not for rewards. If waking runes hard mode had an extra boon or extra gold or extra ANYTHING, can you imagine how many more tables would have been tempted into doing that? And how many more TPK and perma deaths we would have? I'm not even talking about bulling or peer pressure to play hard mode, I'm just talking about pure greed temptation. I'm sorry, but that is bad for the campaign as a whole. If you WANT the extra challenge...great, awesome, I'll join ya. Extra reward...yeah, I'm gonna say no to that for sake of the health of the game.
|
Yes, that's the whole point of the reward. Risk vs reward. Maybe PFS would have more interesting encounters that way. Or at least encounters that can't be soloed by heavens oracles.
I GM straight up. I'm not out to get anyone, ever. But players hanging themselves is as old as the RPG genre is.
In some ways, I think more legitimate deaths, not deaths by GM fiat, would be a good thing for the campaign. Certainly keep people paying more attention :)
|
David, the whole point behind giving Waking Rune a specific hard mode was to accommodate people who wanted a challenge and/or bragging rights. From the start, this was shown to have no extra reward other than having a good time and hopefully surviving to tell about it. Personally, I played hard mode of Waking Rune for the experience. I lived, as did the whole party. What was my extra reward? Playing with a kickass group of people till 3 am the morning before Gen Con! Who would ask for more? It's all about the experience, not the experience point.
I do wonder how many more scenarios will include a Hard Mode now that they've tried it out and tallied opinions thereof.
|
|
If peer pressure or bullying is happening, it can happen in a variety of ways throughout the scenario, whether it's threatening not to heal, and being uncooperative about splitting off in different directions to accomplish a task that requires the party to make a combined decision.
I'm in favour of the season 5 system as well, that's not really what this is about.
If you're against this idea, are you also against the idea of Waking Rune's hard mode?
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't want to have to have that discussion at the table. It took me a very long time to find a table of Waking Rune because it wasn't being run locally (had to wait for a con) and the vast majority of the ones online were requiring hard mode. Requiring, not even giving the choice. Am I ok with the idea of a hard mode? Sure, if it helps make the regular mode more playable for the casual players who aren't out looking for maximum challenge every time out. But it HAS to be unanimous and GMs must be willing to enforce that requirement.
|
|
If allowed, I imagine this would be far less common than Hard Mode on Waking Rune, and not much of an issue. I also imagine that it will result in a lot of dead characters whose players will be unhappy about it. It is not worth formally allowing.
The rules don't mention it because it's never been talked about. Not being able to play up anymore is a new thing.
To be clear, the example you gave (6 L.4's in a 3-7) would not have been able to play up in Season 4 scenarios before the new rules either.
|
The rules don't mention it because it's never been talked about. Not being able to play up anymore is a new thing.
This is quite specific - every player at a table voluntarily accepting high tier play, low tier rewards.
You a perfectly able to run a table of players through the scenario in this way if you wish, but you can't report the session.
Just play the scenarios in home-game mode and adjust as you wish. You can even keep track of PP and XP in the same way as PFS - just don't mix the characters in with legal PFS characters.
|
|
If a table of players is happy to play up "for the hard-mode challenge", even knowing they'd be getting (and are only allowed) the rewards for what they're allowed to get for their regular subtier, are they allowed to do so?
To be clear, let's say a table of six level 4 characters wants to play the 6-7 subtier in a 3-7 scenario, and all agree to take the 3-4 rewards by the end of it, assuming they survive and all the rest. The only extra reward they get are bragging rights.
It's uniformly not allowed at all for PFS play. GMs are required to make the level calculation, factor in table size and run the table at the result that comes out. This has come about from all the tables that pressed people to play up and the player angst about the table deaths and TPK's that resulted. Added to this were players who were abusing the system by having their level 1 characters carried in Tier 4-5 tables and getting the resulting chronicles out of their tier.
Thanks to the collective outcry from PFS communities, choice has simply been removed from the GM. If the players want a specific tier, they have to provide characters to generate that tier.