|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please reconsider the method used to determine which subtler is played.
Count the number of characters who would be in tier in each subtier. Do not count characters who are between subtiers. Play the subtler that has the greatest number of characters in tier. In the case of a tie, play up in Seasons 0-3 and play down in Seasons 4-6.
APL is ok at measuring the power level of the party, but it isn’t perfect. There are funny situations that can arise quite easily. I have seen these happen over and over again.
Example 1. Consider a party of five, levels {4, 4, 4, 3, 2}, playing in a Season 3, tier 1-5 scenario. The APL is 3.2, so they must play down. That means that 4 players are playing out of subtier, while only one is playing in subtler. If the 2nd-level character weren’t there, the group would be playing up instead. Another way of looking at this: one character (the level 2) is determining the subtler for all four other characters, likely against their wishes.
Example 2. Consider a party of six, levels {5, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1}, playing in a Season 4, tier 1-5 scenario. Their APL is 2.67, so they must play up with the four-player adjustment. Only one of those characters is in tier. This group is set up to get creamed. Again, one character (the level 5) is determining the subtler for all of the other characters, because if he wasn’t there, the group would be playing down.
Using a plurality system as proposed has a few advantages.
First, we will always be playing in the subtler which is appropriate for the most characters at the table. Plurality prevents a single player from forcing all the other players to play at a subtier that they might not enjoy.
Second, this system has the huge advantage of simplicity! Just count how many characters would be in subtier, and choose the one with plurality. Yes, taking averages is not that hard, but in my experience, most GMs still resort to using calculator. And I have still seen mistakes made. Much easier to just say “Raise your hand if your character is level 1 or 2. Okay, 2 of you. Now raise your hand if your character is level 4 or 5. Only 1. We will be playing down today.”
Lastly, it still does a great job of measuring the power level of the group. If a plurality of characters is in the higher subtier, then that is a more powerful group than one where the plurality is in the lower subtier.
Please discuss.
|
Hmm... there are still some edge cases. If you're playing season 1 and you have six players of 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, this system would have you play down (1 in Tier 1-2, none in Tier 4-5, so Tier 1-2 wins), but I suspect most folks would agree that those six players would be better served by subtier 4-5 than subtier 1-2 as far as the fun of the game goes.
Why would it be different?
3 high, 1 low = High tier
3 low, 1 high = Low Tier
2 of each = Up to the players
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Plurality prevents a single player from forcing all the other players to play at a subtier that they might not enjoy.
This is just a reskinning of the old situation wherein a group of people at a table could try to bully into playing high tier that single player who wants to play low tier. The difference here is that, now, the proposed rule would just mandate they play high, but the end result is the same.
I'm not always a fan of plurality; simply having more of one thing than of another isn't always a good thing.
|
|
Plurality prevents a single player from forcing all the other players to play at a subtier that they might not enjoy.This is just a reskinning of the old situation wherein a group of people at a table could try to bully into playing high tier that single player who wants to play low tier. The difference here is that, now, the proposed rule would just mandate they play high, but the end result is the same.
I'm not always a fan of plurality; simply having more of one thing than of another isn't always a good thing.
I somewhat agree with you. But right now a single player can bully the rest of the table into playing a tier they don't want to. See the examples above. In Example 1, the level 2 character is preventing them from playing in the high tier. In Example 2, the level 5 character is probably going to get the rest of the characters killed.
Maybe plurality isn't better. I think it is, but I might be wrong. But I really am interested in hearing how you feel about the situations I presented.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
The current method takes the levels of all characters into account; your proposed solution does not. It only takes some of them into account (it excludes those who are mid-tier, which does beg the question as to how this will work for the older tier 1-7 scenarios). I don't think that's fair - every character's level should be taken into account.
I have yet to see a single player bully a larger group into playing down. Yes, under the old system, a single player could say, "no, I'm not plying up" and that was it. Under the current system, they could still play up, they could still play down, but the decision is more evenly spread across all the characters (not the players.)
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than looking for a way to change subtier determination, players and GMs at tables where corner cases such as those given as examples above happen should find a peaceful solution among the group.
If there is a group with a wide range of character levels, odds are there will be at least one player who is not happy with the subtier (either less gold than what the character could get or more danger of dying).
The best way to get around such situations is for the player who would "force" the subtier to change to either choose a different character or to play a pregen.
Lastly, there is still the "Don't be a jerk" rule. If one player would force the subtier to change, and other players are not happy about that, that player should be reminded that the purpose of the game is for everybody to have fun.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lastly, there is still the "Don't be a jerk" rule. If one player would force the subtier to change, and other players are not happy about that, that player should be reminded that the purpose of the game is for everybody to have fun.
No.
You don't get to call someone a jerk for wanting to play their character.
People don't like playing pregens: most of them are pretty bad but none of them are YOUR character.
People are matching their characters to the scenario.
People want to get characters out of the 1-4 rut.
and there isn't always another legal table available. (space, replay, etc)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Lastly, there is still the "Don't be a jerk" rule. If one player would force the subtier to change, and other players are not happy about that, that player should be reminded that the purpose of the game is for everybody to have fun.No.
You don't get to call someone a jerk for wanting to play their character.
And that, I think, is why the current system works - if a player really doesn't want to play at a given table because it will play at a tier he or she doesn't want to, that player can get up and walk away if he or she chooses.
I agree with BNW here - just because someone wants to play a different tier than the rest of the table doesn't make that person a jerk. A person could certainly be a jerk in how he or she handles that issue, sure, but sometimes people just don't want to play up, or play down or whatever - we shouldn't design a system that bullies them into it.
The current system at least allows some flexibility, as well as adjustments for party size.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which of the following "corner cases" are being handled well by the current system? For the sake of argument, consider all of the 1st-level characters to be fresh off the turnip cart with 0 XP.
4 players, Season 1.
(a) 5, 4, 3, 1 DOWN
(b) 4, 4, 4, 1 DOWN
(c) 4, 4, 3, 2 DOWN
5 players, Season 1.
(d) 5, 4, 4, 3, 1 DOWN
(e) 4, 4, 4, 4, 1 DOWN
5 players, Season 4
(f) 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, UP
(g) 1, 2, 2, 3, 5 UP
(h) 1, 2, 3, 3, 5 UP
(i) 2, 2, 2, 2, 5 UP
(j) 1, 1, 1, 5, 5 UP
(k) 1, 1, 2, 4, 5 UP
6 players, Season 4
(m) 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5 UP
(n) 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5 UP
(o) 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 5 UP
(p) 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5 UP
|
|
Lastly, there is still the "Don't be a jerk" rule. If one player would force the subtier to change, and other players are not happy about that, that player should be reminded that the purpose of the game is for everybody to have fun.No.
You don't get to call someone a jerk for wanting to play their character.
And that, I think, is why the current system works - if a player really doesn't want to play at a given table because it will play at a tier he or she doesn't want to, that player can get up and walk away if he or she chooses.
I agree with BNW here - just because someone wants to play a different tier than the rest of the table doesn't make that person a jerk. A person could certainly be a jerk in how he or she handles that issue, sure, but sometimes people just don't want to play up, or play down or whatever - we shouldn't design a system that bullies them into it.
The current system at least allows some flexibility, as well as adjustments for party size.
Mark, I think we are talking past each other a bit.
I also agree with BNW that it is okay for one person to be wanting to play their character. That doesn't make them a jerk.
I also agree that we don't want people bullying other players into playing a tier that they don't want to play or into playing a character they don't want to play (such as "you can always play a pregen instead.")
What I am trying to point out is that the current system takes power away from the majority and instead gives it, in some cases, exclusively to one person. If three of my friends and I brought our 4th-level characters to a table, we are probably hoping to play in the 4-5 subtier, and if Joe sits down with a brand new character, then we now have to play in the 1-2 subtier.
And Joe might be someone who is perfectly happy to play at the upper subtier, if he were given the choice, as long as he gets to play his character that he just created. It very well could be that there is no other table available for him, and he does not have another character in tier.
So now we are in a situation where all of us want to play in the upper subtier, four of us are actually in that upper subtier, and yet we have to play down. (This is Example (e) above.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but he has the choice to play in the upper subtier - all he has to do is play a 4th level Iconic.
Which really isn't a choice.
Most of them are terrible.
none of them are your character.
If you're the lowbie of the group and trying to get higher you can't use the pregen to fix the problem. If you have a level 1 with 2 xp in a 1-5 for example and you pregen a level 4 you either apply the pregen at a later date or you apply it to a different characer: you can't get yourself out of the level 1 rut with a pregen.
But I think the actual problem you are feeling is the lack of Player Input. And this is a direct result of removing it the last time we redid the "Determining Subtiers" rules. We removed the ability of the players to strongly influence the selection of Subtier because of the bad fealings and stories about bullying that resulted in giveing the players the power...
Eyup. It also dropped out of fixing the playing up for a TREASURE BATH problem twice. Once with making it harder to play up and once with the out of subtier gold reduction.
But then you get people like me, who sit down with several PCs of different levels that can play - and we can "adjust" what sub-tier we want to play at.
Some tables do, some tables don't.
In the OPs first Example, I would just pull out a 5th level, so we would then be 5,4,4,3,2 for an average of 3.6 and we play up. Or pull another 1st level and we have 1,4,4,3,2 and maybe one of the other 4s decides to start a new PC (after all, we have a Newbie who may be playing alot with us, and we'll need low levels to play with her in the next game right?). Then we would have 1,1,4,3,2 and we would be 2.2 and surely that should play Tier 1-2?
And they wonder why i call it geek soduku....
|
|
In most of the corner cases mentioned above, it is *good* that the solitary level 1 gets to determine that the group plays down, because otherwise he will either die, or be carried and not be able to participate anyway. He can't choose to play a higher-level PC of his own, but the others can choose to play lower-level PCs.
I don't understand why people are finding so many wide level splits at their tables, anyway. I assume that the games are not registered for in advance, so that no one sees the issue coming until it's game time. There's your first problem: fix that. Then, when you have a wide level spread, you can see it a few days out and call Bob the level 5 guy and tell him it would be a good time to make a new PC so that the new folks can play. Or call Bill the level 1 PC and see if he can rustle up a couple of other friends who want to try PFS, and make a second table.
Wide level splits should be avoided like the plague - sometimes you can't, but most of the time it's because you haven't tried hard enough.
|
|
I don't understand why people are finding so many wide level splits at their tables, anyway. I assume that the games are not registered for in advance, so that no one sees the issue coming until it's game time. There's your first problem: fix that. Then, when you have a wide level spread, you can see it a few days out and call Bob the level 5 guy and tell him it would be a good time to make a new PC so that the new folks can play. Or call Bill the level 1 PC and see if he can rustle up a couple of other friends who want to try PFS, and make a second table.
Usually we only have a vaugish idea of who/what is showing up, and whats planned on doesn't always pan out.
|
|
In most of the corner cases mentioned above, it is *good* that the solitary level 1 gets to determine that the group plays down, because otherwise he will either die, or be carried and not be able to participate anyway.
You are saying that a group of (4, 4, 4, 1) should play down, even in Season 1, because the level 1 is too squishy.
But the group of (5, 5, 1, 1, 1) in Season 4 has to play up. Those level 1s are just as squishy. I don't know why it is difficult to admit that this group should also be playing down.
Here is another thing that is weird. Consider the same 5-player group (5, 4, 3, 2, 1). APL is 3.
If they play in a Season 1 scenario, designed for FOUR characters, they must play DOWN.
If they play in a Season 4 scenario, designed for SIX characters, they must play UP.
Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't the same group have to play in the upper subtier for the easier scenario and in the lower subtier for the harder scenario?
I really dislike playing up when there is no one in tier. Almost always results in at least one death, at least year 4 or later.
|
I really dislike playing up when there is no one in tier. Almost always results in at least one death, at least year 4 or later.
If no one is in subtier, you do have the option to play in the other subtier.* But your greater point is well-taken.
* Of course, the group needs to agree to do that. Not everyone may agree.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Here is another thing that is weird. Consider the same 5-player group (5, 4, 3, 2, 1). APL is 3.If they play in a Season 1 scenario, designed for FOUR characters, they must play DOWN.
If they play in a Season 4 scenario, designed for SIX characters, they must play UP.
Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't the same group have to play in the upper subtier for the easier scenario and in the lower subtier for the harder scenario?
Well, you left out an important part in your Season 4 comment: A group of 5 players would indeed play up, but they would play with the 4 person adjustment.
There isn't much to do for early scenarios in terms of scaling, but from Season 4 on, the issue you raise would be addressed by the adjustment.
|
|
I really dislike playing up when there is no one in tier. Almost always results in at least one death, at least year 4 or later.If no one is in subtier, you do have the option to play in the other subtier.* But your greater point is well-taken.
* Of course, the group needs to agree to do that. Not everyone may agree.
That option is only for season 3 and before. Season 4 and beyond uses the 4 player adjustment if you're move into the higher tier.
|
but he has the choice to play in the upper subtier - all he has to do is play a 4th level Iconic.Which really isn't a choice.
Most of them are terrible.
none of them are your character.
Highly disagree. We had this exact situation last weekend. (5,4,4,3,1,1 in a Season 6) 4th level Lem ended up being the co-MVP of the session, and 4th level Seelah was *solid*. The two first level characters they replaced would likely have died in the first encounter, even with the 4-player adjustment.
The players were very appreciative that they had the option of playing pregens.
|
|
Here is another thing that is weird. Consider the same 5-player group (5, 4, 3, 2, 1). APL is 3.If they play in a Season 1 scenario, designed for FOUR characters, they must play DOWN.
If they play in a Season 4 scenario, designed for SIX characters, they must play UP.
Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't the same group have to play in the upper subtier for the easier scenario and in the lower subtier for the harder scenario?
Well, you left out an important part in your Season 4 comment: A group of 5 players would indeed play up, but they would play with the 4 person adjustment.
There isn't much to do for early scenarios in terms of scaling, but from Season 4 on, the issue you raise would be addressed by the adjustment.
Yes, there is the four-player adjustment.
So in Season 1, the group plays an encounter designed for four level 2 characters. In Season 4, the same group plays an encounter designed for four level 6 characters.
A group of five at APL 3 is going to find most Season 1-3 scenarios to be a breeze. They are going to find most Season 4-6 scenarios to be very difficult.
|
|
The situation that sparked my thoughts on this was playing in a Season 3 last week. There were four of us, we were taking a break from our home AP game because my wife was out of town and one of the other players (J) was working. Our levels were 5, 4, 3, 3 (APL 3.75). At the last minute, our friend J called to ask if we had started yet; he had gotten off work early. We hadn't started, so we waited for him to join us.
J brought a level 2 character (his only character in tier). Now we were 5, 4, 3, 3, 2. APL = 3.4. Four of us without J could have handled the tougher encounters in the upper subtier. Adding J's character added to the strength of our party. But now we had to play in the lower subtier, even though none of us wanted to, including J.
The encounters we faced were CR 2, CR 1, CR 2, CR 2, CR 2, CR 3. Each encounter was on a different day, so we had full resources for all of them.
Our options were:
1. Play it as we did, which was unexciting;
2. Ask J to play a 4th-level pregen (which we did, but he declined);
3. Take out 1st-level pregens for the rest of us (we wanted to play our characters as much as J wanted to play his); or
4. Tell J that he can't play with us after all.
Is there an option that I'm missing?
|
|
A group of five at APL 3 is going to find most Season 1-3 scenarios to be a breeze. They are going to find most Season 4-6 scenarios to be very difficult.Not for nothing, but lots of people find Season 4 scenarios to be difficult, regardless.
But this is what I don't understand. Why the APL 3 group has to play up in the toughest season and down in the easiest season (1)?
I could see always playing up, or always playing down; I could even see the reverse: play up in Season 1, and play down in Season 4.
I know I am being stubborn, but it is because I really want to understand this. Sometimes it takes me a while to understand things. I am listening to you, though.
|
|
That option is only for season 3 and before. Season 4 and beyond uses the 4 player adjustment if you're move into the higher tier.I really dislike playing up when there is no one in tier. Almost always results in at least one death, at least year 4 or later.If no one is in subtier, you do have the option to play in the other subtier.* But your greater point is well-taken.
* Of course, the group needs to agree to do that. Not everyone may agree.
That's weird. I thought it was for all seasons, but I think you are right. That rule is located in the paragraph dedicated to Seasons 0-3.
But that makes the situation even stranger. Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) playing in Season 4 must play UP. Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) playing in Season 1 gets to play down if they want.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
But that makes the situation even stranger. Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) playing in Season 4 must play UP. Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) playing in Season 1 gets to play down if they want.
Group A (APL 2.9, which rounds to 3) would play UP, with the four person adjustment. It isn't just that they play up, they get the adjustment as well. That's an important consideration in this disucssion.
I don't know why you find that situation to be strange. It isn't as if that group is going to play up with the encounters designed for 6 players. They won't.
|
|
But that makes the situation even stranger. Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) playing in Season 4 must play UP. Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) playing in Season 1 gets to play down if they want.Group A (APL 2.9, which rounds to 3) would play UP, with the four person adjustment. It isn't just that they play up, they get the adjustment as well. That's an important consideration in this disucssion.
I don't know why you find that situation to be strange. It isn't as if that group is going to play up with the encounters designed for 6 players. They won't.
The boss-fight UP encounter from #4-01, with the four-player adjustment, is CR 6.
The five-player Group A (3, 3, 3, 3, 2) must face that encounter.
The boss-fight UP encounter from #3-01 is also CR 6.
The six-player Group B (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) with a higher total party level and higher average party level has the choice to play at the lower subtier where the hardest encounter is CR 3.
I'm asking what is the rationale for that? The four-player adjustment has already been taken into account, which is why I'm not bringing it up. Both encounters are designed for four players. Group A (with 5 players) must play the harder encounter. Group B (with 6 players) has the choice of which to play.
|
If you're the lowbie of the group and trying to get higher you can't use the pregen to fix the problem. If you have a level 1 with 2 xp in a 1-5 for example and you pregen a level 4 you either apply the pregen at a later date or you apply it to a different characer: you can't get yourself out of the level 1 rut with a pregen.
Please check the Guide again. The player could apply that chronicle immediately to a first level PC, whether it is a new PC or one with 1 or 2 XP, with the gold reduced to 500.
|
|
If you're the lowbie of the group and trying to get higher you can't use the pregen to fix the problem. If you have a level 1 with 2 xp in a 1-5 for example and you pregen a level 4 you either apply the pregen at a later date or you apply it to a different characer: you can't get yourself out of the level 1 rut with a pregen.Please check the Guide again. The player could apply that chronicle immediately to a first level PC, whether it is a new PC or one with 1 or 2 XP, with the gold reduced to 500.
Yes, it works with a level 1 (now. Didn't used to)
It doesn't work with any other level though. If you're on the low end of a 3-7 or 5-9 you can't snag the level 7 pregen and apply it.