Proposal: A new method of Subtier decision calculation.

[The Fox]

Proposal
Replace Average Party Level (APL) with Total Party Level (TPL) in the subtier decision calculation.

Why?
The reason is four-fold:
1. Streamline the calculation.
A sum is easier (even if only moderately so) to calculate than an average; it does not require division.
2. TPL is a better measure of the party's overall power than APL.
A party of 6, 6, 5, 4, 4 is not as strong as a party of 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5; even though they have the same APL, the second party has 5 additional total levels.
3. Remove the strange x.5 exception.
My proposal will remove the choice of which subtier to play in those cases where the APL is exactly x.5, where x is between subtiers. (For random table assignments, this will occur in about 8.2% of 4-player tables and about 1.1% of 6-player tables. It is, of course, impossible at 5- or 7-player tables.)
4. Eliminate strange artifacts of the subtier calculation, wherein adding or subtracting players may have the opposite of the expected effect on the APL.

Examples
Let's look at some examples regarding point #4.
Example 1.
Alice, Bob, and Claire all sit down at a Season 4 Tier 1-5 table. Their levels are 3, 2, 1, respectively. They have a GM (Zed), and are waiting for a fourth player.

Dave sits down at that table, but the only character he has in tier is level 5. A quick APL calculation yields 11/4 =2.75 which rounds to 3. They are playing DOWN.

Dave isn't really happy about playing down, so he calls over to Edith. She joins the table with her level-2 character. A new APL calculation yields 13/5=2.6 which also rounds to 3. Because they are playing in Season 4 with 5 players and APL between subtiers, they play UP4 (up with the four-player adjustment). Dave is happy.

But Alice, Bob, and Claire don't want to play up. So they ask Fred to join them. Fred sits down, but hasn't ever played before. He grabs a 1st-level pregen. The revised APL is now 14/6=2.33, rounding to 2. The group is playing DOWN.

Dave pouts a little, but decides to be a sport about it and play anyway. Then George walks in (and brought pizza for everyone) and asks to play. This is the only table available and everyone is hungry, so George is welcomed to the table. He grabs his character who is level 4. The APL now stands at 18/7=2.57, and is rounded to 3. They are back to playing UP.

Harry walks in and offers to GM another table. Alice, Bob, and Claire, unhappy with having to play up, decide they will move to the new table. Their APL is 2, and Harry will run a 1st-level pregen. They are happy.

Dave, Edith, Fred, and George have levels 5, 2, 1, 4. Their APL is 3. With just the four players, they must play down.

Example 2.
We are still in Season 4, Tier 1-5.
Levels
4, 4, 4, 4, 2
APL = 18/5 = 3.6, rounds to 4
Play UP.

Levels
4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2
APL = 20/6 = 3.33, rounds to 3
Play UP, but use the 4-player adjustment.
We added a player. We play the same subtier, AND with an adjustment to make it easier.

Levels
4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3
APL = 22/6 = 3.66, rounds to 4
Play UP
The two level-2 players changed to 3rd-level characters because they wanted the more challenging scenario.

Levels
4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2
APL = 24/7 = 3.43, rounds to 3
Play UP, but use the 4-player adjustment
Now, we have added TWO players AND one of the players went up a level from the original table. Yet the difficulty went DOWN!

Proposed New Rule
The new rule that I am proposing is

New Rule wrote:

Step 1. Determine the level that is between subtiers. Call this number N. For Tier 1-5, N=3; for Tier 3-7, N=5; etc. For Tier 1-7, set N=3.

Step 2. Determine the Total Party Level (TPL) for the party by adding all levels of all characters at the table.
Step 3a. In Seasons 0-3,

• If TPL is less than or equal to 4N, then the table plays down.
  
• Otherwise the table plays up.
  
• For Tier 1-7, subtier 4-5 is considered "up". If TPL is at least 8N, then the table plays in subtier 6-7 (exception: if none of the characters are level 6 or 7, the table may opt to play in subtier 4-5 instead).

Step 3b. In Seasons 4-5,

• If TPL is less than or equal to 3N, then the table plays down with the 4-player adjustment.
  
• If the TPL is greater than 3N, but less than or equal to 4N, then the table plays down without any other adjustment.
  
• If the TPL is greater than 4N but less than or equal to 5N, then the table plays up with the 4-player adjustment.
  
• If the TPL is greater than 5N, the table plays up without any other adjustments.

Examples Reworked

Let's take another look at the above examples using TPL instead of APL
Example 1.
Alice, Bob, and Claire all sit down at a Season 4 Tier 1-5 table. Their levels are 3, 2, 1, respectively. They have a GM (Zed), and are waiting for a fourth player. N=3.

Dave sits down at that table, but the only character he has in tier is level 5. A quick TPL calculation yields 11, which is between 3N and 4N. The table plays down with no adjustment.

Dave isn't really happy about playing down, so he calls over to Edith. She joins the table with her level-2 character. A new TPL calculation yields 13, which is between 4N and 5N. So they play up with the 4-player adjustment. Dave is happy.

Fred sits down, but hasn't ever played before. He grabs a 1st-level pregen. The revised TPL is now 14. Since the TPL is still between 4N and 5N, they are still playing up with the 4-player adjustment.

Then George walks in (and brought pizza for everyone) and asks to play. This is the only table available and everyone is hungry, so George is welcomed to the table. He grabs his character who is level 4. The TPL now stands at 18. This is greater than 5N, so they play up but lose the adjustment.

Harry walks in and offers to GM another table. Alice, Bob, and Claire, unhappy with having to play up, decide they will move to the new table. Harry will run a 1st-level pregen, so their TPL is 7. They play down with the 4-player adjustment. They are happy.

Dave, Edith, Fred, and George have levels 5, 2, 1, 4. Their TPL is 12, exactly 4N. So they play down without any other adjustment.

Example 2.
We are still in Season 4, Tier 1-5. So N=3 again.
Levels
4, 4, 4, 4, 2
TPL = 18 > 5N.
Play UP.

Adding levels and/or players is not going to change the tier decision calculation, because the TPL can only increase with more levels.

[Majuba]

I haven't worked out any extra examples, but I'm liking the format and considerations in general.

It's very important to look at this at all level ranges though, as sums vs. averages work differently at 1-5 than at 7-11.

Edit: Right, as Jeff mentions, 1-7's should be treated as 3-7's, with an extra 1-2 tier.

[Jeff Merola]

Under your new method, a group of 6 level 8s would play up without adjustment in a tier 7-11, despite all of them being in the lower subtier.

Also, Tier 1-7 games have subtiers 1-2, 3-4, and 6-7. There is no 4-5 subtier in those games.

[The Fox]

Let me give another example supporting ditching APL:

Season 4, Tier 3-7.
Levels: 6, 6, 6, 5, 5
APL: 28/5 = 5.6. This rounds to 6. Play UP

Levels: 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5
APL: 38/7 = 5.43. This rounds to 5. Play UP still, but with 4-player adjustment.

It is absurd.

Proposed New Rule, Revisited
In response to Jeff's comments, I suggest the following changed rule:

New Rule wrote:

Step 1. Determine the level that is between subtiers. Call this number N. For Tier 1-5, N=3; for Tier 3-7, N=5; etc. For Tier 1-7, set N=5.
Step 2. Determine the Total Party Level (TPL) for the party by adding all levels of all characters at the table.
Step 3a. In Seasons 0-3,

• If TPL is less than or equal to 4N, then the table plays down.
  
• Otherwise the table plays up.
  
• For Tier 1-7, subtier 3-4 is considered "down". If TPL is at most 3N, then the table plays in subtier 1-2.

Step 3b. In Seasons 4-5,

• If TPL is less than or equal to 3N, then the table plays down with the 4-player adjustment.
  
• If the TPL is greater than 3N, but less than or equal to 5N, then the table plays down without any other adjustment.
  
• If the TPL is greater than 5N but less than or equal to 6N, then the table plays up with the 4-player adjustment.
  
• If the TPL is greater than 6N, the table plays up without any other adjustments.

Exception: if none of the characters fall within that subtier, the table may opt to play in the other subtier instead.

Even better would be to have a table which lists TPL ranges for each Subtier in each Season. I will come up with some proposed tables for you to look at.

Edit:

Here is the first set of proposed tables.
Seasons 0 to 3
Tier 1-5
TPL ≤ 16: Subtier 1-2
17 ≤ TPL: Subtier 4-5

Tier 1-7
TPL ≤ 16: Subtier 1-2
17 ≤ TPL ≤ 25: Subtier 3-4
26 ≤ TPL: Subtier 6-7

Tier 3-7
TPL ≤ 28: Subtier 3-4
29 ≤ TPL: Subtier 6-7

Tier 5-9
TPL ≤ 40: Subtier 5-6
41 ≤ TPL: Subtier 8-9

Tier 7-11
TPL ≤ 52: Subtier 7-8
53 ≤ TPL: Subtier 10-11

*Exception: If none of the characters fall within that subtier, the table may opt to play in the other subtier instead.
(Actually, I don't think this exception is needed. If you have a large table of characters who are between subtiers, you should be playing up, IMO.)

Here are the rest of the tables.
Seasons 4 to 5
Tier 1-5
TPL ≤ 9: Subtier 1-2 (4-player)
10 ≤ TPL ≤ 16: Subtier 1-2
17 ≤ TPL ≤ 20: Subtier 4-5 (4-player)
21 ≤ TPL: Subtier 4-5

Tier 3-7
TPL ≤ 17: Subtier 3-4 (4-player)
18 ≤ TPL ≤ 28: Subtier 3-4
29 ≤ TPL ≤ 32: Subtier 6-7 (4-player)
33 ≤ TPL: Subtier 6-7

Tier 5-9
TPL ≤ 25: Subtier 5-6 (4-player)
26 ≤ TPL ≤ 40: Subtier 5-6
41 ≤ TPL ≤ 46: Subtier 8-9 (4-player)
47 ≤ TPL: Subtier 8-9

Tier 7-11
TPL ≤ 33: Subtier 7-8 (4-player)
34 ≤ TPL ≤ 52: Subtier 7-8
53 ≤ TPL ≤ 56: Subtier 10-11 (4-player)
57 ≤ TPL: Subtier 10-11

This is a first draft at those tables. If you have suggestions for changes to the tables, I'm open to hearing them. I generated these to be as close to the APL calculations for 5 and 6 players in Season 4-5 as possible.

[The Fox]

Another example:

Season 4, Tier 7-11
Levels: 11, 10, 9, 9, 9, 8
APL = 56/6 = 9.33, rounds to 9, play down.

Levels: 11, 10, 9, 9
APL = 39/4 = 9.75, round to 10, play up with adjustment.

We lost two players, AND we need to play on a harder mode.

[BigNorseWolf]

The Fox wrote:

Another example:

Season 4, Tier 7-11
Levels: 11, 10, 9, 9, 9, 8
APL = 56/6 = 9.33, rounds to 9, play down.

Levels: 11, 10, 9, 9
APL = 39/4 = 9.75, round to 10, play up with adjustment.

We lost two players, AND we need to play on a harder mode.

This is a good thing. A group of players level 5 4 4 3 is going to have an easier time than a group of players in a 5 4 4 3 1 because no one has to babysit the 1.

[The Fox]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The Fox wrote:

Another example:

Season 4, Tier 7-11
Levels: 11, 10, 9, 9, 9, 8
APL = 56/6 = 9.33, rounds to 9, play down.

Levels: 11, 10, 9, 9
APL = 39/4 = 9.75, round to 10, play up with adjustment.

We lost two players, AND we need to play on a harder mode.

This is a good thing. A group of players level 5 4 4 3 is going to have an easier time than a group of players in a 5 4 4 3 1 because no one has to babysit the 1.

Here is a more concrete example. A scenario from Season 4, Tier 3-7.

the scenario:

In Wrath's Shadow. Encounter A2.

Party 1:
6, 6, 6, 5, 5
APL = 28/5 = 5.6, round to 6, play UP.
They face 4 creatures who are CR 5 each.

Party 2:
6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5
APL = 38/7 = 5.43, round to 5, play UP with 4-player adjustment.
They face only 3 of the exact same creatures.

What?

We have two MORE characters whose level is exactly equal to the CR of the creature, so we should face 1 fewer of those creatures? Absurd.

[Mattastrophic]

The assumption The Fox appears to be making is that extra party members only increase the party's power level and don't drag it down.

I wonder how the tier-selection math would work out if only the four highest-level characters at the table were considered when calculating APL.

-Matt

[nosig]

I like the new proposal better than the current system...

but then I don't really like the current system.

[R2D2TS]

I like this proposal. The only thing that sticks out to me is a table of all 1st level characters, even if it is 7, would always have the 4 player adjustment for tier 1-2 in seasons 4 and 5. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. It just stands out to me.

[The Fox]

My examples are not adding a character who is 3 levels below the APL of the rest of the party. They are within 1 level of the rest of the party. In my experience, those situations are not a drag on the power of the group. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[The Fox]

Yet another example.

Exploring adding a brand new, level 1.0 character to the mix (for BNW's sake).

Season 4, Tier 1-5
Party 1: 4, 3, 3, 3.
APL = 13/4 = 3.25, rounds to 3. Between subtiers, must play down without adjustment.

Party 2: 3, 3, 3, 3, 1.0 (newbie)
APL = 13/5 = 2.6, rounds to 3, must play up with adjustment.

Concrete example:

the scenario:

Rise of the Goblin Guild, Encounter A6, p. 19

Party 1 faces a CR 2 creature and a CR ½ creature.

Party 2, adding a level 1 newbie that someone must babysit, AND with the same total party level, faces the same CR 2 creature and TWO other CR 2 creatures.

So in this case, babysitting has made the encounter HARDER.

My point is that the APL system is totally schizophrenic and irrational.

EDIT: To summarize the results of some of my examples:

• Adding SEVERAL characters who are all within 1 level of the APL of the rest of the party can result in playing a LOWER subtier.
  
• Adding a single character who is 2 levels LOWER than the APL of everyone else can require playing a HIGHER subtier.
  

That's what I mean by irrational. What I mean by schizophrenic is that those results may switch as well, depending on the specifics of the party.

[Ferious Thune]

The Fox wrote:

Yet another example.

Exploring adding a brand new, level 1.0 character to the mix (for BNW's sake).

Season 4, Tier 1-5
Party 1: 4, 3, 3, 3.
APL = 13/4 = 3.25, rounds to 3. Between subtiers, must play down without adjustment.

Party 2: 3, 3, 3, 3, 1.0 (newbie)
APL = 13/5 = 2.6, rounds to 3, must play up with adjustment.

Concrete example:
** spoiler omitted **
Party 1 faces a CR 2 creature and a CR ½ creature.

Party 2, adding a level 1 newbie that someone must babysit, AND with the same total party level, faces the same CR 2 creature and TWO other CR 2 creatures.

So in this case, babysitting has made the encounter HARDER.

My point is that the APL system is totally schizophrenic and irrational.

EDIT: To summarize the results of some of my examples:

• Adding SEVERAL characters who are all within 1 level of the APL of the rest of the party can result in playing a LOWER subtier.
  
• Adding a single character who is 2 levels LOWER than the APL of everyone else can require playing a HIGHER subtier.
  

That's what I mean by irrational. What I mean by schizophrenic is that those results may switch as well, depending on the specifics of the party.

I believe your Party 2 example would fall under the exception in the current rules. Since none of those characters is in the 4-5 tier, they would have the option to play down without adjustment, correct? I think the exception was put in to help with just such a situation.

[Jeff Merola]

Ferious Thune wrote:

The Fox wrote:

Yet another example.

Exploring adding a brand new, level 1.0 character to the mix (for BNW's sake).

Season 4, Tier 1-5
Party 1: 4, 3, 3, 3.
APL = 13/4 = 3.25, rounds to 3. Between subtiers, must play down without adjustment.

Party 2: 3, 3, 3, 3, 1.0 (newbie)
APL = 13/5 = 2.6, rounds to 3, must play up with adjustment.

Concrete example:
** spoiler omitted **
Party 1 faces a CR 2 creature and a CR ½ creature.

Party 2, adding a level 1 newbie that someone must babysit, AND with the same total party level, faces the same CR 2 creature and TWO other CR 2 creatures.

So in this case, babysitting has made the encounter HARDER.

My point is that the APL system is totally schizophrenic and irrational.

EDIT: To summarize the results of some of my examples:

• Adding SEVERAL characters who are all within 1 level of the APL of the rest of the party can result in playing a LOWER subtier.
  
• Adding a single character who is 2 levels LOWER than the APL of everyone else can require playing a HIGHER subtier.
  

That's what I mean by irrational. What I mean by schizophrenic is that those results may switch as well, depending on the specifics of the party.

I believe your Party 2 example would fall under the exception in the current rules. Since none of those characters is in the 4-5 tier, they would have the option to play down without adjustment, correct? I think the exception was put in to help with just such a situation.

That exception only exists for seasons 0-3. For seasons 4 and 5, the adjustment is used.

[Ferious Thune]

Jeff Merola wrote:

That exception only exists for seasons 0-3. For seasons 4 and 5, the adjustment is used.

So it does. Weird. I always remembered it as being both, but you are correct. It's only in the paragraph for 0-3. That seems... Dangerous. A lot of times the 4-player adjustment just removes a couple of smaller creatures and leaves the BBEG the same. A level 9 caster (CR8 or +3 against level 5 characters) against a group with no one over level 3 seems like it could turn bad quickly. Cloudkill could TPK a party with no save in that situation. I don't know that any tier 1-5 scenario that has a caster with Cloudkill at the 4-5 sub tier, but it's possible. I'd suggest at least rethinking that exception to apply to all seasons.

As for total party level, it makes some sense, though I imagine it would have quirks of its own. I think in the "4N" version suggested, 7 2nd level character is a Season 0-3 tier 1-5 would end up playing subtier 4-5? TPL 14 is greater than 12(N=3), play up.

In the table method suggested, 4 4th level characters, TPL 16, would play tier 1-2 in a season 0-3. So four characters that fall into the 4-5 tier, which is designed for 4 characters of those levels, would instead play in the 1-2 tier? It's worse in a 1-7 with 4 4th level characters. That's four characters at the top of the next tier (3-4) who would play down into the 1-2. The exception listed with the proposed table would come into play in both situations, but groups could still elect to play down and collect out-of tier gold.

[The Fox]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

The Fox wrote:

Yet another example.

Exploring adding a brand new, level 1.0 character to the mix (for BNW's sake).

Season 4, Tier 1-5
Party 1: 4, 3, 3, 3.
APL = 13/4 = 3.25, rounds to 3. Between subtiers, must play down without adjustment.

Party 2: 3, 3, 3, 3, 1.0 (newbie)
APL = 13/5 = 2.6, rounds to 3, must play up with adjustment.

Concrete example:
** spoiler omitted **
Party 1 faces a CR 2 creature and a CR ½ creature.

Party 2, adding a level 1 newbie that someone must babysit, AND with the same total party level, faces the same CR 2 creature and TWO other CR 2 creatures.

So in this case, babysitting has made the encounter HARDER.

My point is that the APL system is totally schizophrenic and irrational.

EDIT: To summarize the results of some of my examples:

• Adding SEVERAL characters who are all within 1 level of the APL of the rest of the party can result in playing a LOWER subtier.
  
• Adding a single character who is 2 levels LOWER than the APL of everyone else can require playing a HIGHER subtier.
  

That's what I mean by irrational. What I mean by schizophrenic is that those results may switch as well, depending on the specifics of the party.

I believe your Party 2 example would fall under the exception in the current rules. Since none of those characters is in the 4-5 tier, they would have the option to play down without adjustment, correct? I think the exception was put in to help with just such a situation.

That exception only exists for seasons 0-3. For seasons 4 and 5, the adjustment is used.

Party 3

Levels 4, 3, 3, 3, 1
APL = 14/5 = 2.8, rounds up to 3, plays up with adjustment and does not qualify for the exception.

[David_Bross]

The APL system is designed to keep people playing the their appropriate tier.

I think we can all agree if the average level in the party is in tier for either tier of the scenario, they should play that.

The question is about when they fall between, how do we handle that.

The old system choose to play up/down. I actually think with the advent of OOT gold this would be the best solution, because I've seen tables forced to play up that should have probably gone down, and vice versa. That said they wanted to remove the choice because people gave accounts of bullying.

I don't like the proposed system at all. The entire idea of party strength coming from aggregate number of levels is very misleading. It states that these two parties are equal:
5 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 2 2

I think we all know that not to be the case, under current rules this would either play down without the adjust (case 2) or play up with the adjust (case 1).

[The Fox]

David_Bross wrote:

The APL system is designed to keep people playing the their appropriate tier.

I think we can all agree if the average level in the party is in tier for either tier of the scenario, they should play that.

The question is about when they fall between, how do we handle that.

The old system choose to play up/down. I actually think with the advent of OOT gold this would be the best solution, because I've seen tables forced to play up that should have probably gone down, and vice versa. That said they wanted to remove the choice because people gave accounts of bullying.

I don't like the proposed system at all. The entire idea of party strength coming from aggregate number of levels is very misleading. It states that these two parties are equal:
5 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 2 2

I think we all know that not to be the case, under current rules this would either play down without the adjust (case 2) or play up with the adjust (case 1).

The APL system says that

10 10 10 9 9
is STRONGER than
10 10 10 9 9 9 9.

The APL system says that
5 5 5 2 1
is EQUAL to
5 5 5 4 4 4 4

The APL system says that
10 10 10 10 11 11 11
is EQUAL to
8 8 10 10 10

If you prefer low levels, the APL says that
4 4 4 4 5 5 5
is EQUAL to
3 3 4 4 4

Do you all really not see any absurdity in that?

None of the above examples in this post depend at all on the vagaries of which season is being played, or whether or not there are any four-player adjustments. This is based straight off APL. Calculate the APLs for the examples I have provided if you don't believe me.

Regardless of your opinion concerning my proposed rule change, the APL system fails to accurately gage the power level of these parties. And all of these examples look like what we might expect to see at a typical table where everyone is trying to play characters of very close levels. They certainly are not what I would consider to be pathological.

[David_Bross]

Actually the most egregious examples you give are pathological, 7 man tables, which should very rarely occur. In any event people have outlined above some interesting things that your system would do, I mainly wanted to state what the explanation behind APL deciding subtier when between, when I think a lot of posters would prefer the choice to be theirs.

Personally I like choice, not small rounds of 9.4 or 9.6 with 4 players deciding up/down

[The Fox]

Ok. I will restrict myself to 5-man and 6-man tables. (I included 7-man tables to show how ridiculous it is that you can add TWO players of a HIGHER level and have the APL remain unchanged.)

APL says
5 5 4 3 1
Is EQUAL to
5 5 4 4 4
APL = 4

APL says
10 10 10 10 11 11
is EQUAL to
10 10 10 10 8
APL = 10

APL says
3 3 3 3 4 4
Is EQUAL to
3 3 3 3 1
APL = 3

APL says
7 7 7 7 9 9
Is EQUAL to
7 7 7 6 6
APL = 7

[The Fox]

David_Bross wrote:

I don't like the proposed system at all. The entire idea of party strength coming from aggregate number of levels is very misleading. It states that these two parties are equal:

5 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 2 2

I think we all know that not to be the case, under current rules this would either play down without the adjust (case 2) or play up with the adjust (case 1).

It is also worth noting that the APL system also considers those two tables to be equal. In both parties, the APL is 13/5 = 2.6.

[David_Bross]

The Fox wrote:

David_Bross wrote:

I don't like the proposed system at all. The entire idea of party strength coming from aggregate number of levels is very misleading. It states that these two parties are equal:

5 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 2 2

I think we all know that not to be the case, under current rules this would either play down without the adjust (case 2) or play up with the adjust (case 1).

It is also worth noting that the APL system also considers those two tables to be equal. In both parties, the APL is 13/5 = 2.6.

You're ignoring the fact the guide states that if no one is in the upper subtier, you play down under the current rules. This is what I was illustrating.

[David_Bross]

The Fox wrote:

5 and 6 man table stuff

I think we all agree both of your first two examples should play up. The other two actually fall under playing up in table 1, playing down table 2 under current rules.

analysis:

The Fox wrote:

APL says
5 5 4 3 1
Is EQUAL to
5 5 4 4 4
APL = 4

Playing Up, as expected with 5,5,4 I'd say.

The Fox wrote:

APL says
3 3 3 3 4 4
Is EQUAL to
3 3 3 3 1
APL = 3

Under current rules the first table has to play up, the second plays down, since no one is in tier for 4-5.

The Fox wrote:

APL says
7 7 7 7 9 9
Is EQUAL to
7 7 7 6 6
APL = 7

Again in 5-9, the current rules have the first table playing up and the second table playing down.

The main faults I have with the system is where the breakpoints are FOR playing up/down, since 10,10,8,9 would play down without the 4 player adjust, with 2 players in tier, 1 OOT, and 1 below. I'd argue this table should have the choice to play up (and certainly if the 8 chose to play down, I'd respect that).

It gets sillier when forced to use a pregen to make a table, 11, 10,9 with the pregen, have to play down, despite the fact you have two in tier, and 1 OOT ,and a GM NPC.

The main reason for the above distinctions (a separate issue really) was to avoid bullying of tables (people forced to play up), and this argument still holds validity. I'd like to see an option of the 8 saying "I'd be happy with the table playing up)" since he is the only character in the lower tier.

I'd like to see a slight tweak to the current system such that in a 1-5
APL 1-2.7 plays down
APL 2.7-3.2 Uses the current rules to decide playing up/down
APL 3.2+ plays up

[nosig]

ok... let's look at a real world example:

Here's the brakedown:
Season 5 scenario - Tier 3-7.
5 players levels 5,5,5,5,3 for a total of 23/5 = 4.6
now it looks like we should round up to a 5, which put us between sub-tiers... But our 3rd level player had been pushed into playing up in several other games (with different PCs) and had been killed each time. He was concerned that this PC was "special" (Boon Character), and he didn't want to loose it - so he got up and drove home. His choice, and he was happy with it. The rest of us felt kind of down on that... and this is where it gets weird.

We didn't want to play up and we remembered something about "...no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level...", so we figured we were fine playing the lower sub-tier. But in checking it we found that it only applies in seasons 0-3, we were in season 5...

Looking it over after our friend went home we tried to see what we could have done to keep our friend in the game. We figured we should have done one (or more) of the following...

1) have one of the other players could go away (any of the 5th levels). This would have dropped us to 4 players and we would have had to play down.

2) had one of the level 5 players switch off to a 4th level PC (dropping us to 4.4 APL, which rounds to 4). But no one had a PC in the range... several others higher and some lower... Perhaps play an Iconic?

3) added in another player with a PC of 4th level or lower, so with 6 players our APL would been 4.5 or lower... maybe we could get someones little sister to sit in and run an Iconic... (yeah, now we get to hear comments about adding in an Iconic to drop the party strength...)...

(a side note to #3 was that we could then have "little sister" skip out after the VC briefing and as the APL was fixed at that point, we wouldn't have to play the higher level...)

The thing that just really made this a great example? Without the 3rd level guy there, we had to play down. So by removing the only guy in the sub-tier, we were forced to play that sub-tier...

[The Fox]

David_Bross wrote:

The Fox wrote:

David_Bross wrote:

I don't like the proposed system at all. The entire idea of party strength coming from aggregate number of levels is very misleading. It states that these two parties are equal:

5 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 2 2

I think we all know that not to be the case, under current rules this would either play down without the adjust (case 2) or play up with the adjust (case 1).

It is also worth noting that the APL system also considers those two tables to be equal. In both parties, the APL is 13/5 = 2.6.

You're ignoring the fact the guide states that if no one is in the upper subtier, you may play down under the current rules. This is what I was illustrating.

I fixed that for you. Also, that only applies in Seasons 0-3.

[The Fox]

nosig wrote:

The thing that just really made this a great example? Without the 3rd level guy there, we had to play down. So by removing the only guy in the sub-tier, we were forced to play that sub-tier...

This is a good example. But it best serves as an illustration that the exception in Seasons 0-3 should be extended to Seasons 4-5.

We are getting off track, though. We have started drifting into where the cutoff points are, etc.

This is what I hope people will think about: when you calculate the APL of the party, is that really a good measure of party strength?

I claim that it is not. Regardless of how you then use the APL to determine Subtier, the fact that you started by calculating APL at all will result in some weird outcomes.

My favorite example from above, so far, again is that in a Season 5 Tier 3-7 scenario,
6 6 6 5 5
Must face harder encounters than
6 6 6 5 5 5 5
I contend that all else being equal, the second party is actually stronger, not weaker, than the first party.

[David Bowles]

Yeah, there's definitely some group engineering possible in the current system.

[Mark Stratton]

David Bowles wrote:

Yeah, there's definitely some group engineering possible in the current system.

How does the proposed system eliminate that? It doesn't, does it?

[David Bowles]

No, it doesn't. I think it does mitigate it like in the case of 6 6 6 5 5 vs 6 6 6 5 5 5 5, but at the cost of increased complexity.

[nosig]

David Bowles wrote:

No, it doesn't. I think it does mitigate it like in the case of 6 6 6 5 5 vs 6 6 6 5 5 5 5, but at the cost of increased complexity.

"increased complexity"?

Doesn't removing the division step from the calculation make it LESS complex?

[Mark Stratton]

nosig wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

No, it doesn't. I think it does mitigate it like in the case of 6 6 6 5 5 vs 6 6 6 5 5 5 5, but at the cost of increased complexity.

"increased complexity"?

Doesn't removing the division step from the calculation make it LESS complex?

How is dividing those numbers any more complex or difficult than multiplying 4N, as is proposed? Neither of those is complex.

[David_Bross]

Well, I did my best to defend the current system, while posting some small tweaks I think should occur. How about instead we just go wild and say
1-2.99 plays down
3.00-5.00 plays up?

Now you automatically play whatever you're closer to?
3 3 3 4 plays up
3 3 3 4 2 2 plays down.

This system will guarantee that the "odd man" in the slot has the lowest possible presence in determining which subtier you play and would actually minimize engineering in that you'd be forced to play whatever you're closest to, but, I'd agree that 3 3 3 4 2 2 should play up with the four play adjust, just as 3 3 3 4 does. In any balanced system engineering is going to exist.

I still contend the breakpoints should change:
S4-S5 material should be
1-2.7 plays down
2.7-3.3 uses current rules
3.3-5.0 plays up

So that:

3 3 3 4 plays up 4 player adjust
3 3 3 4 2 2 plays up 4 player adjust.
2 3 3 3 plays down no 4 player
2 3 3 3 3 plays down no 4 player adjust
2 3 3 3 3 3 plays up 4 player adjust

Side note based on designing encounters section:

Using tier 1-5, looking at a bunch of S5 scenarios this formula stays the same for all that I had access to, with at most the CR being one higher than posted, and that was in a 7-11. Also as you move up more fights go towards the higher bound of CR, rather than lower, to offset the parties increased resources.

tier 1-2 (2.5, since assuming 6 players) faces encounters CR2-4 (most CR3, usually 1 CR 2 1 CR 4)
tier 4-5 (5.5, since assuming 6 players) faces encounters CR 5-7 (most CR 6, usually 1 CR 5 1 CR 7)
four player adjusts usually at most lower the CR by 1 (typically on the hardest encounter at least)

Assuming players should face at least one hard encounter per scenario, and a challenging encounter is preferable to an epic fight.
It is easy to see how they came up with:
4 players in between should face lower tier (3 facing a 4 (challenging), rather than 3 facing a 6 (epic))
5+ players in between should face upper adjusted (4 facing a 6) (hard) This actually explains how the current system works very well, the one that everyone in the thread seems to disagree with.

[David Bowles]

Complexity in the form of the tables. And as far as division or multiplication goes, I've had GMs adverse to any kind of math at all. The proposed system seems fine to me, except I'm sure there will be push back on the tables. Just watch.

[Kyle Baird]

My opinion has shifted quite a bit over the years and with some of the more recent changes, I'm to this point:

Let the table decide what tier they want to play regardless of character levels.

[David Bowles]

But aren't we back to bullying for the extra gp, then?

[Sabre]

Overly-simplistic, not-wholly thought through...

For seasons 0-3, sum the player levels and divide by 4 (the party size for which they were designed).
For seasons 4, sum the player levels and divide by 6 (the party size for which they were designed).

David Bross's most recent examples would hold true for season 4+:
3 3 3 4 plays up 4 player adjust 
3 3 3 4 2 2 plays up 4 player adjust. 
2 3 3 3 plays down no 4 player 
2 3 3 3 3 plays down no 4 player adjust 
2 3 3 3 3 3 plays up 4 player adjust

edit: clarified which examples

[Lormyr]

Kyle Baird wrote:

My opinion has shifted quite a bit over the years and with some of the more recent changes, I'm to this point:

Let the table decide what tier they want to play regardless of character levels.

I really love that idea with one hiccup: the vast discrepancy in WBL that would occur between some players.

[TriOmegaZero]

Neither system declares any party equal to another.

All they do is determine what subtier the party must face.

This says nothing about how strong or weak the party is compared to anything else.

[rknop]

The Fox's system is demonstrably better than the current system. He's demonstrated that adequately. The objections to it with examples only show that it's not perfect.

I have to admit that I really don't like the "let the table decide in all cases", because of all the complaining that existed during season 4 of people getting forced to play up or play down when they really didn't want to. Yes, you still get forced, but you get forced by impersonal rules, not by the other people at the table that you're going to play a game with for the next 4-5 hours. Starting the game sour at the other people you're playing with because you've been forced into either a low-payoff cakewalk, or a too-dangerous challenge for your character, is not a good way to start out a game with people you're supposed to be having a good time with.

The only simpler system that the Fox's system I might propose has the very major drawback that it will make it harder to make tables. That system would be: every party must be composed entirely of characters within a single subtier, or characters between adjacent subtiers. So, in a 1-5 scenario, if you play subtier 4-5, every character must be in the level range 3-5. If you play subtier 1-2, every character must be in the level range 1-3.

This rule has the advantage of maximal simplicity.

It has the disadvantage that it will be harder to seat tables because there will be people who can't bring a character. Pregens can solve this (although I fully understand that it's not as much fun to play a pregen as your own character). However, it does mean that you will no longer have individual characters who are so extremely overpowered, or characters who are in constant hazard from every small thing and in need of babysitting.

[Ferious Thune]

Sabre wrote:

Overly-simplistic, not-wholly thought through...

For seasons 0-3, sum the player levels and divide by 4 (the party size for which they were designed).
For seasons 4, sum the player levels and divide by 6 (the party size for which they were designed).

David Bross's most recent examples would hold true for season 4+:
3 3 3 4 plays up 4 player adjust 
3 3 3 4 2 2 plays up 4 player adjust. 
2 3 3 3 plays down no 4 player 
2 3 3 3 3 plays down no 4 player adjust 
2 3 3 3 3 3 plays up 4 player adjust

edit: clarified which examples

Simplistic, but interesting.

I gave some extreme examples that are an issue with the TPL table presented earlier, but here they are in a more straightforward form:

4 4 4 4 in a Tier 1-5 Season 0-3 would play Sub Tier 1-2 (TPL <= 16)
as would 5 4 4 3, 5 5 3 3, 5 5 5 1 and a few others.

Now, maybe 16 was the wrong number to pick. Maybe it should have been 12 (4 3rd level character would be right at the middle of the tiers. This is the 4N number)

4 4 4 4 plays 4-5. So do all of the earlier examples.

2 2 2 2 2 2 plays 1-2.

3 2 2 2 2 2 plays 4-5

I think the only difference between this and what Sabre proposed above is rounding. In TPL, there's no rounding. In Sabre's method, there presumably is to stay more consistent with the current system.

So, in TPL/4N 2 2 2 2 2 1 = TPL 11 plays 1-2
In Sabre's system 2 2 2 2 2 1 = 11/4 = 2.75, round to 3 and with 6 players play up, but with the option to play down because no one is in tier.
Current: 2 2 2 2 2 1 = 11/6 = 1.83 play 1-2

Another example: 5 2 1 1 1 1 = TPL 11 plays 1-2
Sabre's: 5 2 1 1 1 1 = 11/4 = 2.75, round to 3 and with 6 plays play up. There's no option to play down because there's a character in-tier. One would hope in this situation the level 5 would switch characters or run a level 1 pregen, but that's not always a realistic option.
Current: 5 2 1 1 1 1 = 11/6 = 1.83 play 1-2

[The Fox]

Ideally, I think we should be consulting tables that have TPL and the total number of players.

[JohnF]

rknop wrote:

I have to admit that I really don't like the "let the table decide in all cases", because of all the complaining that existed during season 4 of people getting forced to play up or play down when they really didn't want to. Yes, you still get forced, but you get forced by impersonal rules, not by the other people at the table that you're going to play a game with for the next 4-5 hours.

You haven't got rid of the problem - you've just made it (slightly) harder. I've seen people try and muster what was pretty clearly one low-subtier and one high-subtier table into two mixed tables so that both tables would play the higher subtier.

[TriOmegaZero]

We've only moved the problem from 'hey come on lets go high tier' to 'hey come on play this other character so we average to high tier'.

[John Compton]

(Reading along)

[David Bowles]

I must come out against any system that makes it harder to seat tables. It can already be a challenge in the venues I frequent. I do, agree, though, that it would be good to get rid of the "addition by subtraction" phenomenon.

[rknop]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

We've only moved the problem from 'hey come on lets go high tier' to 'hey come on play this other character so we average to high tier'.

Hmm, yes, true, I have seen this in action.

[rknop]

David Bowles wrote:

I must come out against any system that makes it harder to seat tables. It can already be a challenge in the venues I frequent. I do, agree, though, that it would be good to get rid of the "addition by subtraction" phenomenon.

Do you think that pregens is not enough of a solution to the "harder to seat" problem in a "only characters of appropriate level to the subtier" system? Or are people not interested enough in playing pregens?

[David Bowles]

Frankly, pregens are dumpster fires to be avoided at all costs in most cases. (I guess not Seelah) I'd say around 50% of the PC deaths I have witnessed involved a pregen not being able to carry their share of the load in a season 3 or later scenario. This is particularly true with the level 7 pregens in tier 7-11 games.

Also, players dislike having to keep sheets around they can't use until level X, in my experience.

[JohnF]

I like the idea of not necessarily using all the character levels, though I'm not sure that simply "take the four highest values" is the right approach; perhaps "take the four lowest", or "drop the highest and lowest" would work better.

One overriding rule I'd like to see, though, would be "If more than half the party falls in a particular subtier, that's the subtier you play in"

[Codanous]

I'm mostly in agreement that hue current way of determining what tier a party plays in, is somewhat ineffective. That being the APL system.

Really though I don't see how a new system can be determined better or more effective unless the campaign staff asks a region to try a new proposed system as a beta test group.

Otherwise we might end up with a "concept character" that looks great on paper but when put into action ends up under performing.

I am all for voting for the Fox's proposed TPL system being beta tested, but I've also seen some other pretty good ideas, such as what John Francis and others propose, using the four lowest or four highest or just dropping the highest and lowest.

Either way, I'd like to see it play tested with the official sanctioning of the campaign staff. That seems like he only way anything will be accomplished.