|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old rules I pick a character I want the chronicle to go to. Death means getting a rez or having to miss out on the chronicle I wanted on my character going to a dead number. I can't play this scenario again to be able to put it onto my desired character. This is the incentive to play safe.
New rule, I pick a dead number to start to not have to worry about potential death. The chronicle is already not going to my desired character. I have less incentive to play safe than before.
Abuse case this is supposed to solve
Old rule, I play a pregen and get the table killed and kill off a dead number.
new rule, I play a pregen and get the table killed and kill off a dead number, I just need to write that number down at the beginning instead of the end.
abuse case still there. Like, could someone explain how this new rule is supposed to stop the abuse case that this is supposed to stop?
EDIT: Oh, so it turns out we were misinformed. This change isn't to stop pregen abuse. This change is to have more dead PCs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
The latter should be handled robustly by the GM at the table. This will still occur if the player in question pre-assigns the pregen to a character number they don't care about. So press the point to GMs and players that asking the pregen player to leave the table should be the solution in this case, or treating it as PvP where the pregen players actions can have no negative effect on the other characters. If players are in this situation and the GM refuses to step in, they should walk away and talk to a VO.
The former, I don't consider as much of an issue as it doesn't impact others. If someone wants to take a character number all the way to retirement by playing pregens instead, it's not really prevented me from having fun.
I hear you. I am not stating my opinion or feelings about this rule. I am letting you guys know what I know based on discussions with the leadership team in regards to how to tell the Guide Revision Team to proceed.
I get this is not a popular change. But spending hours of our time arguing about how it is stupid and won't work is not helping. It might be that the leadership team sees this outcry and changes thier stance.
But for now, a helpful dialogue would include ways to improve the language based on how the rule is currently written.
|
|
To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
A better solution for players that are doing such things is this:
The GM is allowed (and expected) to kick that player from the table right away. The GM then takes over controlling the pre-gen the abusive player was running. If needed the GM disregards the pre-gen's action that just triggered him needing to kick the player from the table. This completely removes the negative consequences to the other players at the table.
The +1 XP, +0 GP, +0 PP, and all boons crossed off the chronicle sheet was my idea (with a change from +0 XP to + 1 XP being brock, no the other one...'s). As for risk of death, there is (though it is delayed, which in the case of non 1st-level pregens is the case as well). Below is how I mentioned it before.
That is more of a penalty as it means the character is further to leveling up without the normal resources that normally go along with leveling up. With that you could have a level 1 PFS character potentially reach higher levels with still having only a beginning PC's wealth (150 gold) with nothing else. I think people would agree that is definitely a penalty.
Player A: "What do you mean you are level 3 with no fame or additional wealth?"
Player B: "I have had some really bad luck playing pre-gens."
Since playing a pre-gen that is higher level than your associated PFS character is giving you the risk that your associated character might die, this solution does work without all the headaches people have been referring to. Below is another example of how it still retains the risk of death that the PFS leaders want.
Since the assigned PFS PC is gaining XP and nothing else it means each time such a pre-gen death is assigned to the same PFS character, that character is at an ever-increasing risk of NOT having the normal resources that a higher level character usually has. Since the two primary resources to remove conditions are a character's prestige points and gold, such a character definitely has less resources than others of a character with the same XP/level. The more times a player chooses to associate the same PFS character to a pre-gen, the higher the risk becomes. It is the player's choice if he wants to continue to increase the penalty to the same PFS character. The more times s/he does so, the higher the risk when he plays the actual character that s/he will not have the necessary minimum resources to remove character death statuses.
Joe shows up. He plays pre-gens. Oh, he does not have a character yet and it is not a level 1 scenario? You attach his -1 character. New player boon is not lost. He wants to play in other higher level scenarios he can. He dies each time playing pre-gens. Each time a pre-gen he plays dies, the associated character gains more experience with zero resources (except normal class features/feats/ability increases). He finally gets around to play that associated character ("yes, my character is finally high enough I no longer have to play a pre-gen!")
His associated character is now level 4. He still only has his starting wealth, no prestige points. The ONLY way he is going to be able to prevent character death is if the other players sitting at the table pool their resources to save his character. Otherwise his character becomes perma-dead. Risk of death still happens. AND it happens at the level his actual character becomes the level he played a pre-gen because he did not have a character in that level tier yet.
The example above used a brand-new player, but the same effects happens to veteran players as well.
Steve has his favorite PC. Whenever he plays a pre-gen he assigns the chronicle sheet to his favorite PC. Pre-season 8 he got to play the scenario first and then get to decide which character got the sheet. If the pre-gen died or he does not like the stuff on the sheet for his favorite PC then he assigns the sheet to a new/another PC. Now in season 8 he assigns the sheet to his favorite PC (because he does not want to risk it having boons/gear he wants for his favorite PC and not being able to give it to him). His favorite PC. The pre-gen dies. Current rules, Steve might flat-out quit PFS entirely because the new rule is something that has not been around since he started playing PFS. This is an example of how the new rule could not only make us lose new potential players (because their very first character died as a result of playing a pre-gen in their very first game) but also how it could cause us to lose veteran PFS players as well.
If the +1 XP, +0 PP, +0 gold suggestion is made the new rule, than veteran players will not be afraid (nearly as much) to play a pre-gen so a table becomes valid (instead of the veteran players not wanting to simply create a new -xx character to take the hit for a chronicle sheet they have not received credit for yet prior to playing the pre-gen).
Using the chronicle sheet for S&S 3 as an example. It grants between 7 and 8 thousand gold on the slow track. That gold is enough to pay for a Raise Dead. So if the character gains the increased XP but nothing else from the sheet it means the character has lost out on the resources to prevent his character dying once.
Still a bit tired, so the above might not be worded as good as it could be. Anyone who is good at wordsmithing feel free to rework the wording if you think it would help.
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.
Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)
I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.
They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.
Then give us pregens that actually follow the rules of the game. Its ridiculous that your expected to pony up for resurrection when at their worst they are missing 3/5 of their class abilities.
|
|
A helpful dialogue also includes the possibility that one's understanding is not universal.
I do understand that, which is why I spent an hour this morning elaborating on how I understand the process and telling you what I know based on conversations with the leadership team.
I can only tell you what I know. And I will only be making revision suggestions based on the parameters set by the leadership team. Unless they change thier mind on how they want things to work, my suggestions will be to clean up the language currently in the guide. Focusing on that will be much more productive.
|
|
Then give us pregens that actually follow the rules of the game. Its ridiculous that your expected to pony up for resurrection when at their worst they are missing 3/5 of their class abilities.To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.
Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)
I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.
They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.
Can you elaborate on that? I'm aware of some errors on the pregens, but those I'm aware of are fairly minor. Which ones are missing 3 of 5 class abilities?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the section is currently written, it is unusable, for multiple reasons:
• There is no explanation of how a player should spend money they do not yet have.
• Or definition of "character wealth".
• Or that the reporting of the scenario should be postponed.
• Or how to handle things if/when you never see the player again.
• Or what Chronicle # should be listed on the ITS.
• Or what detail any "notes" should contain.
• Or what to do in the case of other unapplied Chronicles (Pregens, APs, GM credit).
• Or what Boons, if any, the player has access to (to possibly clear any conditions).
• Or that this applies to Pregens of levels other than 1/4/7.
• Or the inclusion of any clarifications from GenCon.
• Or reference to any other "unwritten rules".
Until something more workable comes about, I'll just continue to use the suggestions as presented earlier in this thread (and as I've always understood them).
There is simply no way for me to utilize what's written in the Guide, currently.
This isn't me "cheating", or "ignoring rules". It's using my discretion as a GM to interpret poorly written procedures.
|
|
That's all I take from this entire conversation. "I don't feel that if I play a pregen that my character should have to pay a thing if they die."
Please refute how anyone's conversation doesn't boil down in the end to this very thing.
My solution (with Brock's modification) does not boil down to that. Your associated character still gets penalized, and the more times you associated the same character to pre-gens, the higher the penalty becomes for each pre-gen death that occurs.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Can you elaborate on that? I'm aware of some errors on the pregens, but those I'm aware of are fairly minor. Which ones are missing 3 of 5 class abilities?Then give us pregens that actually follow the rules of the game. Its ridiculous that your expected to pony up for resurrection when at their worst they are missing 3/5 of their class abilities.To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.
Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)
I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.
They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.
The Medium which I get for space reasons not writing out the abilities but once again the character is drastically less powerful compared to a normal Medium I can build.
|
|
Thank you. That gives me a tangible list of things you feel are unclear that the Guide revision Team can look at in regards to clarifying the language.
In the meantime, please don't create new rules to use.
As for spending cash "you don't have yet" I believe this comment is born out of trying to keep future application completely separate from the current character. Simply the risk of killing the current character based on the death of a future application indicates that the future application affects the now in this regard.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My solution (with Brock's modification) does not boil down to that. Your associated character still gets penalized, and the more times you associated the same character to pre-gens, the higher the penalty becomes for each pre-gen death that occurs.
I don't even like the 1XP/0PP/0GP chronicle reward solution, but at least I believe that it involves trying to find an actual middle ground solution that penalizes, but not unfairly.
|
|
The Medium which I get for space reasons not writing out the abilities but once again the character is drastically less powerful compared to a normal Medium I can build.Can you elaborate on that? I'm aware of some errors on the pregens, but those I'm aware of are fairly minor. Which ones are missing 3 of 5 class abilities?Then give us pregens that actually follow the rules of the game. Its ridiculous that your expected to pony up for resurrection when at their worst they are missing 3/5 of their class abilities.To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.
Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)
I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.
They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.
Drastically less powerful doesn't mean they can't use 3 out of 5 class abilities.
Some argue that most pregens are drastically less powerful. And for those who enjoy optimizing thier characters, that is likely true. But most pregens are quite capable.
Just don't use the ones you feel are so underpowered that the risk of death might be enhanced for you.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's tradition to release the new Guide close to the start of the new season but I can't help but feel it was an error in judgement to release a document with controversial rules changes at time that campaign management knew they would be unavailable to respond to criticisms online.
Andrew, I appreciate the effort you're putting towards being cooperative, however I can't find much motivation to provide useful feedback on this topic. Outside of the vague sections of this change of policy many here have gone to great efforts to outline why this change will degrade the quality of play for everyone involved and discourage newcomers from staying with the game. Any experienced player that I've spoken to locally who has seen this has expressed that this will result in them simply not playing pregens when that is their only option.
Something that perhaps has not been as highlighted as it should be in this thread is the fact that as a player, a GM and an organizer I'm highly appreciated when a player is willing to play a pregen. More than once it's been a concession that makes the difference between people playing and sending two players and a GM home.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HOWEVER...
If someone is continually suffering the 'bad luck' then they could theoretically show up to a L4 or L7 table with...
150gp in starting gear and being a detriment to an entire party BECAUSE...
...they've been forced to eat these recurring penalties.
Player A: "This a L7 scenario. What do you mean you don't have an *alchemist's fire*?"
Player B: "Couldn't afford it"
Player C: "They didn't have any antitoxins or antiplagues either, I say they should suffer whatever they get."
Player D: "Why should we bother healing a character that's going to be a constant drain on our resources?"
Player E: "How could this happen? Are you sure you don't have any cash stashed somewhere to get some basic resources?"
Player F: "He was on a series of pregens that had 'bad luck', guys. Go easy."
All but B, thought: "Why should we have to play with someone who doesn't even have the money to buy the right gear?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player F: "He was on a series of pregens that had 'bad luck', guys. Go easy."
All but B, thought: "Why should we have to play with someone who doesn't even have the money to buy the right gear?"
That is a good point. Easy fix to that situation: Have a standardized list of 'pre-gen' gear for each character level. The character receives the gear before the scenario starts. The character does not get to retain any of that gear after the scenario is over and is not allowed to sell of that gear for the benefit of his/her own character, but is allowed to sell it off towards helping out the other characters at the table.
That solution fixes the problem you pointed out, AND it also means the player can help to remove statuses from other characters at the table. Still a penalty for the player's character, but not a penalty to the other players at the table.
My original suggestion of +0 XP, +0 PP, +0 gold and no boons prevents that situation as well. The player has gained credit for the chronicle (so cannot play it again in the same campaign mode). He wants a character (in the same campaign mode) to get that sheet. He will have to GM 10 games (if he was not a GM before) and use his first GM star replay so he can receive the chronicle (for another character). This solution does not penalize new players, and it also could encourage some players to become GMS because they want to get the benefits of a given chronicle sheet applied to one of their characters.
|
|
I don't believe it's possible to have a level 7 character with 0pp and 150gp.
1st level Pregen credit may only be assigned to 1st level characters, and 4th/7th level Pregen credit can only be assigned to lower level characters.
So, at the most, a character level 8+ could only be missing 18pp and [~500×3]+[~1200×3]+[~4000×3]=[~17100]gp.
Characters that were more module focused during their careers would be at a similar wealth/Prestige position anyways.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.
Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)
I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.
They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.
I appreciate that you are serving as an intermediary, and presenting the point of view of campaign leadership, which you may or may not agree with personally. I want to explicitly thank you for that; it's generally a thankless task.
For iconic pregens, I do not personally object to this change. I don't think that it will curb abuse (or even slow it down) so I would object to it for that reason, but if the main goal is simply to make playing a pregen more dangerous in general, then so be it. (Now, Given the opportunity, I might have a philosophical conversation with the leadership over a frosty beverage as to why they thought that was a good thing, but it is ultimately their prerogative.)
For pregen-only scenarios, this rule is both unclear, and IMO unwarranted. Unclear because the rule specifically refers to the iconics several times, and implicitly refers to situations where playing a pregen instead of a regular character was a choice.
Pregen-only scenarios are special events. They require either travel to a convention, or making special arrangements to bring in a 4-to-5 star GM to run them. They are a BIG DEAL. The amount of resources required to play them in the first place should make up for the reduced penalties for death, especially as death is more likely in these scenarios for many reasons. The goblin scenarios have reduced penalties for death; I would argue that these need to be extended to all pregen-only scenarios, preferably explicitly in the guide.
I also made an argument a page or two back where I said that these types of scenarios have the feel of safe spaces -- I'd link to it if I weren't on a tablet -- and I feel very strongly about that framing.
My apologies for continuing to beat this drum; it's a big one for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Andrew, assuming that the table doesn't help. If a person applies a lv7 pregen to a lv1 character and dies, then that means the character is auto-killed because the level 1 doesn't have enough gold to fund the minimum requirements to raise dead right?
What about the idea that the pregen's chronicle is just held until it comes time to apply it and then you pay for everything then? Say the lv7 died being applied to the lv1. That gives 6 levels that the character knows he has a death coming and can save the money to fix it. Die at lv4 pregen and again at lv7? Well now you need to save for the lv4 faster and then save up for 2 raise deads for when you hit lv7.
This way the character is still suffering the consequences of death, and is going to have his character die when the chronicle is applied, but this doesn't auto-kill people who play a pregen and don't have the money to raise right then.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Understood p-sto. This new rule caught everyone by surprise, and all we can do right now is try to clarify and figure out how to make it work.
When I get home from work and am at my keyboard instead of on my phone, I will compile a list of the rules from all the guides and Mike Brock posts and any relevant FAQs.
Hopefully this will help for context.
For the record, I do not actually like the change. But my position as Guide Revision Team Lead requires that I work with what I have and clarify the language based on the intent I know the leadership team has.
|
|
I don't believe it's possible to have a level 7 character with 0pp and 150gp.
With the suggested +1 XP/+0 PP/ + 0 gold it is entirely possible. Wei Ji pointed out the negative prospect of this approach (which I put a solution to above).
How it is possible:
Player players a level 4 pre-gen 9 times at normal track. He dies every time. He now has +9 XP, +0 PP, + 0 150 gold to his starting 150 gp, 0 PP, 0 XP. The associated character is now level 4.
The player plays level 7 pre-gen nine times before playing the associated character. Same thing. The associated character is now level 7 with a net total of 18 XP, 150 gold in gear/gold, 0 PP.
Once the character has become level 7 he it would appear he can no longer play pre-gens for scenarios. That is not entirely true as there is still the case of sanctioned adventure paths and certain modules which allow home-brewed 'pre-gens', which could give the pre-gen credit to an existing character that is level 7 or higher.
|
|
So Andrew, assuming that the table doesn't help. If a person applies a lv7 pregen to a lv1 character and dies, then that means the character is auto-killed because the level 1 doesn't have enough gold to fund the minimum requirements to raise dead right?
What about the idea that the pregen's chronicle is just held until it comes time to apply it and then you pay for everything then? Say the lv7 died being applied to the lv1. That gives 6 levels that the character knows he has a death coming and can save the money to fix it. Die at lv4 pregen and again at lv7? Well now you need to save for the lv4 faster and then save up for 2 raise deads for when you hit lv7.
This way the character is still suffering the consequences of death, and is going to have his character die when the chronicle is applied, but this doesn't auto-kill people who play a pregen and don't have the money to raise right then.
Mechanically the problem with that is that the character needs to be reported as dead in the scenario the pregen died in. So you will be unable to report additional sessions on that character, because it is marked as dead in the system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My apologies for continuing to beat this drum; it's a big one for me.
To paraphrase someone mostly said unto me...
"Don't apologize for continuing to bring things to people's attention. There's a lot of text to go through on the discussion, and a reminder of position is helpful."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I will only be making revision suggestions based on the parameters set by the leadership team. Unless they change thier mind on how they want things to work, my suggestions will be to clean up the language currently in the guide. Focusing on that will be much more productive.
I would ask you to make suggestions based on what you think best for PFS and what you have read here, rather than pre-cull them down to what you think the team want to hear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically the problem with that is that the character needs to be reported as dead in the scenario the pregen died in. So you will be unable to report additional sessions on that character, because it is marked as dead in the system.
I've heard of players that had characters that lived get accidentally reported as dead and were unable to get that corrected. So they just continue to play the PC and accumulate chronicles even though reporting the PC doesn't work in the system.
|
|
Mechanically the problem with that is that the character needs to be reported as dead in the scenario the pregen died in. So you will be unable to report additional sessions on that character, because it is marked as dead in the system.
You don't report the character as dead until it becomes so. The GM that is shown the result of applying the fatal chronicle sends a message with event code and PFS number, and a VO can alter the report to show the character died.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the iconic pregen issues - well, for me it's mostly new players that need them, so I'm just going to start carrying a bunch of decent first-level builds, and give them one of these instead. It's their own PC, NOT a pregen, and so none of this applies. They can use a level-one rebuild to "fix" it later - that's at least easier to explain.
I am not going to spend time explaining this complex issue to them as their first PFS experience. I've already got to spend the time dealing with the weird loot rules, and Chronicles, and prestige, and factions, and why they can't be an evil half-ogre synthesist summoner.
The abusive players I can already handle through the alignment infraction rules and community standards, so that only leaves people playing pregens to help a table go off or when they forgot their PCs. Still some room for abuse there, but IMHO it's a small group compared to the other two.
So I think I have what I need to run games - it just means that I won't be handing out pregens for new players anymore. If that's not a desired outcome, I'm sorry.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I will only be making revision suggestions based on the parameters set by the leadership team. Unless they change thier mind on how they want things to work, my suggestions will be to clean up the language currently in the guide. Focusing on that will be much more productive.I would ask you to make suggestions based on what you think best for PFS and what you have read here, rather than pre-cull them down to what you think the team want to hear.
Those conversations are best left outside guide revision suggestions. I currently do have a query out there addressing my concerns (which reflect many here). But when I set to the task of wordsmithing the rules, I'd rather focus on one thing instead of two or more. So that I can really try to make the language tight.
Splitting my focus will likely result in poor choices.
There are a few changes in this guide based on my teams suggestions, but none of them were sprung on the team with the revision document. They were discussed beforehand so I knew thier intent and whether they wanted that change at all.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I will only be making revision suggestions based on the parameters set by the leadership team. Unless they change thier mind on how they want things to work, my suggestions will be to clean up the language currently in the guide. Focusing on that will be much more productive.I would ask you to make suggestions based on what you think best for PFS and what you have read here, rather than pre-cull them down to what you think the team want to hear.
There's little concern of that from Andrew, I can assure you of that. He is adept at conveying his thoughts without sugar-coating, nor fearing its reception from the audience.
This is a positive and a negative at times. But it's part of who he is, and why he's trusted the way he is.
|
|
I don't believe it's possible to have a level 7 character with 0pp and 150gp.With the suggested +1 XP/+0 PP/ + 0 gold it is entirely possible. Wei Ji pointed out the negative prospect of this approach (which I put a solution to above).
How it is possible:
Player players a level 4 pre-gen 9 times at normal track. He dies every time. He now has +9 XP, +0 PP, + 0 150 gold to his starting 150 gp, 0 PP, 0 XP. The associated character is now level 4.
The player plays level 7 pre-gen nine times before playing the associated character. Same thing. The associated character is now level 7 with a net total of 18 XP, 150 gold in gear/gold, 0 PP.
Pregen credit doesn't work that way, though.
The method I outlined is the maximum amount of Pregen credit possible.
You can't assign 1st level credit to a character over 1st level.
You can't apply 4th level credit until your character is 4th level.
You can't assign 4th level credit to a character over 4th level.
You can't apply 7th level credit until your character is 7th level.
You can't assign 7th level credit to a character over 7th level.
So you would need to receive credit for levels 2-3, and 5-6, in some other fashion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically the problem with that is that the character needs to be reported as dead in the scenario the pregen died in. So you will be unable to report additional sessions on that character, because it is marked as dead in the system.... What about the idea that the pregen's chronicle is just held until it comes time to apply it and then you pay for everything then? Say the lv7 died being applied to the lv1. That gives 6 levels that the character knows he has a death coming and can save the money to fix it. Die at lv4 pregen and again at lv7? Well now you need to save for the lv4 faster and then save up for 2 raise deads for when you hit lv7.
This way the character is still suffering the consequences of death, and is going to have his character die when the chronicle is applied, but this doesn't auto-kill people who play a pregen and don't have the money to raise right then.
Good point, you'd either need to say they died in the one that leveled them up to the pregen death, or edit the report to say they died.
I think that reporting them as dead on the chronicle that leveled them up should work. That's the point that their character is dead, when they are getting the dead condition and can't remove it. And they'd need to have the chronicles with them to have played the character at the table anyways.
Heck, if you went this way you could remove the ability to sell off pregen gear, just make it so all acquired conditions are applied upon reaching the chronicle. That way you don't even get the subsidized raise dead, it's just as if your character went through the scenario at the appropriate time and died. The only difference was that you'd know it was coming rather than dying on the spot. This makes the death real and meaningful, but not game ending to the lower leveled character it's being applied to. The penalty of pregen death is just a tad lower than real death but still quite meaningful.
|
|
Those conversations are best left outside guide revision suggestions. I currently do have a query out there addressing my concerns (which reflect many here). But when I set to the task of wordsmithing the rules, I'd rather focus on one thing instead of two or more. So that I can really try to make the language tight.Splitting my focus will likely result in poor choices.
There are a few changes in this guide based on my teams suggestions, but none of them were sprung on the team with the revision document. They were discussed beforehand so I knew thier intent and whether they wanted that change at all.
Andrew,
We've played together, so it's pretty certain that the above is poor phrasing rather than actual intent, but based on the wording, it appears as if one is assuming all burdens for a *design TEAM*.
I'm sure that the team is doing hard work parsing this out, but the wordage could use a bit of work even here.
Or, in other words... '...it's not all about you...'
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to miss playing Seoni. :/
If there was a 'sad' (negative sign instead of positive sign) to click, this post would have received one from me.
That is another issue that was not really addressed specifically before. Some people have favorite iconics and play them for that reason. This new rule change means some (many?) will either stop playing their favorite iconics or assign a new -xx character to the iconic. Some of the players will weigh the ability to earn the chronicle sheet for a character they like to play is more importantly than playing an iconic they love to play. That means those players are probably going to stop playing pre-gens.
In addition to the player that normally plays a favorite iconic chooses to not risk doing so - others who game with that player that enjoy how she/he plays that iconic no longer have that 'fun factor' as part of their PFS experience.
|
|
I don't know what "future application" means.
And I'm not creating any new rules. Quite the opposite. I'll be applying the same rules I have been for the last 4 years.
Future application refers to applying a pregen chronicle to a character at a later date once the character reaches the level of the pregen.
|
|
I don't believe it's possible to have a level 7 character with 0pp and 150gp.With the suggested +1 XP/+0 PP/ + 0 gold it is entirely possible. Wei Ji pointed out the negative prospect of this approach (which I put a solution to above).
How it is possible:
Player players a level 4 pre-gen 9 times at normal track. He dies every time. He now has +9 XP, +0 PP, + 0 150 gold to his starting 150 gp, 0 PP, 0 XP. The associated character is now level 4.
The player plays level 7 pre-gen nine times before playing the associated character. Same thing. The associated character is now level 7 with a net total of 18 XP, 150 gold in gear/gold, 0 PP.
Pregen credit doesn't work that way, though.
The method I outlined is the maximum amount of Pregen credit possible.
You can't assign 1st level credit to a character over 1st level.
You can't apply 4th level credit until your character is 4th level.
You can't assign 4th level credit to a character over 4th level.
You can't apply 7th level credit until your character is 7th level.
You can't assign 7th level credit to a character over 7th level.
So you would need to receive credit for levels 2-3, and 5-6, in some other fashion.
Nefreet, you were misinterpreting the proposed change. The associated character gains the 1 XP right away (this is how we would penalize the the associated character if the pre-gen dies without the associated character flat-out dying. It uses the same principle that many (most?) on here seem to think - the death of the pre-gen affects the lower-level character right away.
Having the death status effect 'in stasis' until the associated character reaches the level of the pre-gen and then has the option of paying to remove the death status effect would alleviate some (but not all) of the issues the community has with the current new official rules change.
|
|
I don't know what "future application" means.Future application refers to applying a pregen chronicle to a character at a later date once the character reaches the level of the pregen.
So is this a "death is around the corner and I need to save for it" type of application?
Although the idea is dreadful, at least it addresses any continuity issues.
But would that also mean that any scenario where a Pregen died wouldn't be reported until that character levelled up?
Because there's obviously problems with that, too.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But for now, a helpful dialogue would include ways to improve the language based on how the rule is currently written.
It is hard to have that dialogue when we don't know what the new rule is intended to accomplish.
I'm NOT picking on you here as I know that you're just passing on what you've heard (and I suspect you don't actually like what you've heard) but you've now given us two different reasons
1) To stop abuse - We've addressed that many times
2) To add a risk.
To address the second I'd like to know WHY they think that there should be a risk .
Let us now assume the far more normal circumstance of a player playing a pre-gen fairly well. Probably they're a newish player. But things go bad and the character dies.
They already have lost the chance of improving their character, they've lost the chance of ever playing that scenario again. Why should they take a higher risk?
I know that many people (rightfully or wrongly) consider it virtually a failure to just come away with less than 2 prestige and/or with less than 100% gold. Now they're paying MORE than that
Up here it is fairly common (and even mildly encouraged) for a new player to play pregens several times before making their own character. Get a feel for the rules, get a feel for what characters they like, etc. That new player now gets to lose ALL their chronicles if one of their attempts fails?
Up here while I try and steer new players to the mechanically better pregens I'll LET them play Harsk or the ninja if they want. With the new change, I think that I'll probably omit them from my pregen binder.
In the case of a scenario where you must play pregens I'd be very, very, very seriously peeved if I played one of the provided pregens in Dawn of the Scarlet Sun or Risen from the Sands only to find that my reward for playing an incredibly badly built pregen was to have my own character die.
My constructive suggestion is to just NOT do this. It isn't a language issue its just fundamentally a bad idea.
If you REALLY want to punish people then give the player a choice of :
1) A chronicle with all the gear sold off for 1/2 price minus enough earned cash to pay for the resurrection, together with whatever PP and XP was earned OR
2) A chronicle with 0 XP, 0 Gold, 0 Prestige
If you want to be more actively punitive make that a chronicle with 1XP, 0 Gold and 0 Prestige.
I can only speak for myself but now I'll be strongly tempted to put my Serpent's Ire etc chronicle on a new character. Hopefully the fact that I now have ZERO incentive to succeed will not make me play more carelessly but, of course, it likely will a little.
And I'll most definitely NEVER play a Free RPG Day Module while assigning the credit to my actual character. Ok, to be honest, I've only ever run these on actual Free RPG Day but I'm betting the experienced players who have made up part of every Free RPG Day table I've ever run will be less likely to show up now and will play more cautiously. Maybe not MUCH more likely but clearly the new rule encourages them staying away or playing worse.
|
|
To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.
Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.
Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.
Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)
I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.
They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.
I appreciate that you are serving as an intermediary, and presenting the point of view of campaign leadership, which you may or may not agree with personally. I want to explicitly thank you for that; it's generally a thankless task.
For iconic pregens, I do not personally object to this change. I don't think that it will curb abuse (or even slow it down) so I would object to it for that reason, but if the main goal is simply to make playing a pregen more dangerous in general, then so be it. (Now, Given the opportunity, I might have a philosophical conversation with the leadership over a frosty beverage as to why they thought that was a good thing, but it is ultimately their prerogative.)
For pregen-only scenarios, this rule is both unclear, and IMO unwarranted. Unclear because the rule specifically refers to the iconics several times, and implicitly refers to situations where playing a pregen instead of a regular character was a choice.
Pregen-only scenarios are...
Understood. The pregens scenarios will be clarified. The rest will be clarified.
My suggestions to change this rule will be clarified before I get into revisions.
|
|
Simplification by reduction:
Whenever you play a pregenerated character, it can only be applied at level 1, scaled down appropriately.
I personally do not like that option. I will take an educated guess I am not the only one.
I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. My players are applying their pre-gen credit to the same PFS characters. Once S&S is over, I will be running Plunder & Peril for them, again using home-brew rules PCS with the same PFS characters getting the chronicle sheets. Then I will be running a PFS character campaign for them using the PFS characters they applied the sheets to. This will allow us to have a quicker PFS campaign (9 low-level scenarios, a level 10 sanctioned module and a seeker arc module.
As our group has limited play time (we only meet and play twice a month - work, family, other obligations, etc.) this means our 'condensed' PFS campaign will be 9 sessions (4 and half months) a month or two(level 10 module) plus at least another two months for the seeker arc module) for a minimum of two thirds of a year of real time. That is not including the over a year of real time to play the actual AP and P&P module.
If players were forced to always assign pre-gen credit to only a 1st level character then the added bonus of such plans means some of my players (and others' ?) would prefer to simply stick to non-organized play. How is that helpful to PFS?
What about bonus chronicle sheets that can only be gained if all the previous three chronicle sheets were applied to the same character? That would make that impossible.
|
|
I don't know what "future application" means.Future application refers to applying a pregen chronicle to a character at a later date once the character reaches the level of the pregen.So is this a "death is around the corner and I need to save for it" type of application?
Although the idea is dreadful, at least it addresses any continuity issues.
But would that also mean that any scenario where a Pregen died wouldn't be reported until that character leveled up?
Because there's obviously problems with that, too.
I kinda posted about this. you could easily just say the pregen didn't die, but write the conditions on the chronicle. Then the scenario where the character would acquire the pregen credit is the one that you'd write them as dead if they couldn't remove all the conditions they needed from the acquired sheets.
And since they are playing their own character they'd need to have these held chronicles with them to legally play that character to level up.