|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So firstly, apologies to the forum mods. I saw that you've already locked a thread on this very discussion. But I feel the need to share my experience this weekend and illustrate why I think the new rule about being unable to reassign level 1 deaths isn't entirely well thought-out.
So pros of the new system: real risk, real play, no messing about. I get that, in theory you're less likely to suffer problematic players.
The problem is that problematic players now have an even greater ability to cause harm, as with what happened this weekend. Now I'm prefacing this by saying I'll be griping about 1 previously earned XP. Just 1, surely I should let that go, right? Well why should I? I earned that XP, I earned the gold, I earned the Prestige. I paid for that game in money, in time playing, in time building the character. That was 3-4 hours of my life playing, and several more building the character. That's time I can spend doing other things, but I didn't, I chose to play Pathfinder and I respectfully played the game and earned my chronicle sheet.
But this weekend I was playing a game at a convention with many first time Pathfinder players. Players not entirely aware of the gravity of society play. Players who did not want to listen to advice on the best way to approach combat. Who deliberately did not engage in combat as I an entire bar brawl turned on us. Because as a Rogue pregen, the first-time player wished to stealth away. As a Gunslinger pregen, could not decide whether to drop a pistol and fight in melee or to provoke attacks of opportunity by shooting in melee. Despite gentle prodding from both myself and the GM, these players refused to assist in combat. And because of this, we were TPK'ed.
I was so angry, because I was powerless to do anything but watch as we were outnumbered and swarmed by NPC who weren't even armed. I couldn't escape because we were surrounded, and I couldn't just play their characters for them. And so my character died.
These players had had Pathfinder Society explained to them before the game. They understood what was at risk, but they endangered my character in the process.
This is a petulant, and childish rant, I know, I should be a bigger man. But after a situation like this I'm not allowed to reassign the death to an unplayed character. That's frustrating. That was a meaningless death and a waste of 8+ hours of my life because of a poorly conceived change to the rules.
|
If pregen, than couldnt assign it to your first level character.
You can still assign 1st-level pregen credit to a 1st-level PC (Guide p6).
(I must admit I'd overlooked the reintroduction of the 'newly created' language for higher-level pregen credit applied to 1st-level PCs. I'm not sure of the thinking behind tightening this up, when giving credit to any 1st-level PC seemed to be working OK.)
|
A bar brawl turned into a TPK?
If I'm GMing a bunch of drunks angrily bashing each other with bottles and chairs, I'm going to stop after the last PC goes unconscious.
Killing a bunch of Level 1s, especially with several newbies in attendance, seems a little too hard core.
Maybe that's what the scenario called for, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
I probably would have softballed it a bit anyways.
|
If pregen, than couldnt assign it to your first level character.You can still assign 1st-level pregen credit to a 1st-level PC (Guide p6).
(I must admit I'd overlooked the reintroduction of the 'newly created' language for higher-level pregen credit applied to 1st-level PCs. I'm not sure of the thinking behind tightening this up, when giving credit to any 1st-level PC seemed to be working OK.)
correct, only higher level has to be lower. my bad
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bar brawl turned into a TPK?
If I'm GMing a bunch of drunks angrily bashing each other with bottles and chairs, I'm going to stop after the last PC goes unconscious.
Killing a bunch of Level 1s, especially with several newbies in attendance, seems a little too hard core.
Maybe that's what the scenario called for, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
I probably would have softballed it a bit anyways.
I can.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for the confusion Jeff, Matt, I was playing a Sylph Druid I'd built myself, not a pregen. The problem is that due to the new rules I have to elect which of my characters will get credit before sitting down to the game (i.e. XXXXX-10). So even if it had been a pregen I was playing, my -10 would still receive the chronicle sheet of death. Previously, if you had been playing a pregen you could elect another character number after a TPK, so none of your existing characters would suffer.
I suppose my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen. For instance my Sylph Druid could be a Half-Orc Paladin in the next game and would still have all its chronicle sheets. But theoretically, there's nothing differentiating my XXXXX-10 Druid from my (not even yet registerred) XXXXX-11 Druid in terms of what's on their character sheets. So why not assign the chronicle sheet of death to my XXXXX-11 Druid, and save the XP of my XXXXX-10 Druid?
The thing is problematic players aren't really hurt by this new rule, dedicated players who have actually put their time into their characters are. A problematic player is going to be problematic with or without consequences. In fact the players who caused trouble at the previously mentioned game refused to take their chronicle sheets at the end. So I'm just not seeing the logic in why I can't reassign that chronicle sheet to an inconsequential character number that I haven't even built yet.
And Minna is right, it was indeed
|
|
I suppose my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen.
If you're playing your own character, you have access to resources and abilities that Pregens don't.
So, no, they are entirely different situations.
|
|
I suppose my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen.If you're playing your own character, you have access to resources and abilities that Pregens don't.
So, no, they are entirely different situations.
What different resources?
And Kenku, you've completely ignored my point that there is no difference between two identically built Druids aside from which character number each one belongs to.
As a point I don't spend gp or pp before level 2 for this very reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen.If you're playing your own character, you have access to resources and abilities that Pregens don't.
So, no, they are entirely different situations.
What different resources?
And Kenku, you've completely ignored my point that there is no difference between two identically built Druids aside from which character number each one belongs to.
As a point I don't spend gp or pp before level 2 for this very reason.
I am looking at playing a Tier 1-5 game this week, and looking thru my PC available to play in it. I could play a "fresh guy" with 150gp in stuff, or one of several others who have differing amounts of equipment. Most likely I will be playing my level 1.2 Druid. The reason I would play him? he has a lot more equipment. After his first game he picked up:
- a Wand of good berries for party healing (2 PP).
- three scrolls of 1st level spells (which means he has access to twice as many spells)
- a Healers kit, Masterwork Thieves tools (swapped my normal Tools on these, so it's sort of an upgrade) and 4 other Masterwork tools (boosting 6 of his skills by +2, or I could loan them to another player if they is better than my druid at using them).
After his 2nd game he picked up:
- Swapped his Hide armor to Dragon Hide Breastplate (2 PP) (pushing his AC above 20)
- Swapped his normal wooden shield to a Darkwood shield..
- and I'm looking at upping his Ax to a Masterwork Ax... maybe. Or I'll go into the next game with a little over 300 gp for use in the game.
What I'm trying to say is - why do you hamstring your PC by NOT using the resources you have available as a PC with more wealth? Why restrict yourself to starting equipment? Could you have avoided the TPK with more equipment (perhaps a potion of Invisibility - did you have access)? What was on your first Chronicle that you could have bought before this last game?
So... the "difference between two identically built Druids", one just starting and one with 2 chronicles? For me, that would be:
- a Wand of a 1st level spell (50 charges).
- twice as many spells available for use.
- 6 boosted skills (+2 on each) and the ability to loan the boosts out to other PCs.
- +2 on his AC.
- 5 points less on his Armor Check Penility.
- and maybe a +1 to hit, or else 300 gp available during the game (for buying stuff I need during the game).
|
|
Swapped his Hide armor to Dragon Hide Breastplate (2 PP) (pushing his AC above 20)
Sorry for the derail. Out of curiosity, can you do this at level 1.2? "Dragonhide armor costs twice as much as masterwork armor of that type" of armor. Breastplate is 200gp. Masterworks pushes that to 350gp. So double that is 700gp. Since dragonhide is not on the "always available" special material list, a player would need 9 fame. A 1.2 character would have, at almost, 4 fame.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swapped his Hide armor to Dragon Hide Breastplate (2 PP) (pushing his AC above 20)Sorry for the derail. Out of curiosity, can you do this at level 1.2? "Dragonhide armor costs twice as much as masterwork armor of that type" of armor. Breastplate is 200gp. Masterworks pushes that to 350gp. So double that is 700gp. Since dragonhide is not on the "always available" special material list, a player would need 9 fame. A 1.2 character would have, at almost, 4 fame.
The breastplate in question was purchased with Prestige Points, which bypass the fame requirement. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to purchase wands of 1st level spells until 9 fame either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swapped his Hide armor to Dragon Hide Breastplate (2 PP) (pushing his AC above 20)Sorry for the derail. Out of curiosity, can you do this at level 1.2? "Dragonhide armor costs twice as much as masterwork armor of that type" of armor. Breastplate is 200gp. Masterworks pushes that to 350gp. So double that is 700gp. Since dragonhide is not on the "always available" special material list, a player would need 9 fame. A 1.2 character would have, at almost, 4 fame.
yeah - what they said.
I was thinking of getting it with armor spikes (+50 gp) or something... maybe silver filigree inlay or something that costs 50 gp... even if it would just be "flavor text"... seems a loss to not spend the full 750 gp allowed for the 2PP, but oh, well...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What different resources?my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen.If you're playing your own character, you have access to resources and abilities that Pregens don't.
So, no, they are entirely different situations.
Anything beyond what's listed on the Pregen sheet.
And Kenku...
Now there's a name i haven't heard in a while.
you've completely ignored my point that there is no difference between two identically built Druids aside from which character number each one belongs to.
For good reason. It's an invalid point.
If you sat down with a gnome Druid wielding a sickle while riding a small cat, and your name rhymed with "Weenie", then you'd be on point.
But you sat down with different resources. You were not playing a Pregen. You were playing your own character. So you use the rules for playing your own character.
As a point I don't spend gp or pp before level 2 for this very reason.
Maybe you would have lived if you had. You could have used a wand of cure light wounds.
|
|
If, but for, etc...
Not *everyone* knows that the obligatory purchase of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds with the first 2 Prestige Points (or as soon as possible) is a thing.
But even WITH that addition, it is hard to see how that would have changed the OP's entry scenario, which sounds like two players griefing the table.
If this is is OP's first PFS character (or one of the first characters, based on the sounds of it), then isn't there a consideration of this in the Society Guide, particularly in and at a table such as this?
If the GM AND the other players at the table were having a hard time of this, could the offending parties be bounced from the table retroactively at the point of the infraction beginning and work from there?
I suspect that numbers and tactics would change given the scenario if two pieces of 'dead weight' weren't available, for example?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is is OP's first PFS character (or one of the first characters, based on the sounds of it), then isn't there a consideration of this in the Society Guide, particularly in and at a table such as this?
He's a 3-Star VA, so I doubt it was his first run.
GMs can certainly tone down a difficult encounter for newbies. Given that several were present at this table, I would have at least suggested that running away was an option.
But since it turned into a TPK, that may not have happened. Maybe the GM will post their thoughts here.
|
|
Ok, it seems I'm in a minority about level 1 characters. But some very valid points have been made. This was a thread mainly borne out of frustration than anything else. It was a frustration caused by careless and obtuse first-time players and I suppose I was directing my frustration at an abstract rule rather than at the problematic players.
Compared to losing, say, a level 4 character to several uncaring newbies, this was a minor setback. I suppose I was just hoping to hear of others who had had similar unjust experiences.
All that said, I would hope that my experience (and other players with similar ones) with difficult players help shape future rulings or policies.
|
|
One *could* theoretically GM enough for three stars and never play once.
Unlikely, but possible?
I'm thinking not only of the OP, but also the *other players* at the table (that weren't the problematic players) that ALSO suffered the character fate of the OP.
Getting this situation dialed in and worked out is better for the community, lest the reputation of said community go dramatically in one direction or the other.
Separate yet related note: At a local convention a few weeks ago, I sat down at a table and the immediate presumption was that we were 'a bunch of murderhobos' by the *GM*.
Suffice to say, our play style was anything *but* that, and we all learned during that scenario.
Or, like I've heard both in sports of late and in other locales...
...change the culture...
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, my advise to you Brendan... advice I recently took when I lost my first character to MotFF.
GM the scenario that the original character had played (or another one, doesn't really matter). GM the one he died on (or another one).
Make your new character as your -11, with the same name, and same build. Add to his back story a miraculous recovery or something (in my case, he was found lying on top of a pile of rubble, somehow unscathed by the fall. Zarta Dralneed now wants to study him... closely). In my case, I happened to be lucky enough to GM at the right time to get a Suli boon (this was a suli that I had traded for), so I could actually recreate him!
Use this as a learning experience, and look for ways you could guide the newbies to a more memorable, pleasurable experience!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use this as a learning experience, and look for ways you could guide the newbies to a more memorable, pleasurable experience!
Beyond the discussion of how it's improper to reassign level 1 credit, I really think the OP's original concern still stands.
This isn't a learning experience for him to "guide newbies into a more memorable, pleasurable experience," this is directly related to the fear many of us had (and still have) that this new ruling actually encourages poor play rather than "fixes" it as originally stated.
Change everything out to "level 4 pregens and my level 4 character" and I think the point stands.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP was playing their own character, so the death rule isn't applicable in this instance. Discussion of it doesn't add/subtract to the issue at hand.
The issue is new players not understanding the rules and not wanting to take the advice of the OP & GM. That isn't something that we can help. If you are loathe to take your character into that environment, play a 1st level pregen and add it to a new character. No risk if the table turns out negative.
And the bigger question -
Does a combat have to end in a TPK?
My interpretation is that, unless there are tactics that require a TPK, there is wiggle room under the "creative solutions" rule. Player death isn't conducive to play and just upsets people. Now, there are times "playing as written" means TPK. There are some instances you just get "those" rolls (the max damage crit) and there isn't anything that can be done. There are some occasions when a TPK is justified based on character actions (yelling freedom and charging the line of opponents).
In this situation, I would have considered the following:
*fight until all are unconscious. Nothing for NPCs to fight, so they stop brawling.
*captures PCs and puts them somewhere for holding. PCs proceed to escape when they come conscious.
*NPCs gang up on hard hitting NPCs and drop one or two, helping the PCs.
*take a moment to step "OOC" and bluntly tell the new players how their actions are contributing to the issue at the table. If they aren't willing to change gears, consider getting the con organizer involved. Or send me an email with the issues direct. While extremely rare, there are circumstances in which retconning a table is appropriate.
|
Those are all great ideas Tonya, to help solve a situation as it is happening or once it has happened.
These great solutions, however, do not solve the problem that the new rule presents. The OP was playing the "what if" game. What if it was a 7-11 or a 3-7 and all the newbies were playing a level 4 or 7 pregen and I was playing a level 4 or 7 pregen as well for any of a number of valid reasons. And I assign credit to my level 3 character who doesn't have any cash because I've spent it all on things, but not enough things that I can afford to sell it all for half and afford a raise dead.
The most commonly stated reason for this new rule, is to make death more meaningful, with a strong secondary reason being to alleviate people who like to grief other people by playing a pregen poorly, purposefully, just to get under other folks skins, because they know it ultimately will have no effect on them cause they can just reassign things if it goes badly. Of course they can still do that by assigning it to a brand new level 1 at the beginning of the adventure anyways.
In a series of brief discussions with various venture-officers around the world, when this became a rule, it became clear that this "griefing" problem was only a problem in a very few regions. That the vast majority of regions do not have this problem.
I'd like to posit, that the "griefing" problem is not a rule problem, but a player problem. And the best way to deal with players who do crap like that, is to boot them outta the club. I'd like to suggest, that the rule be rescinded, because I do not feel it is in the best interest of the campaign.
|
|
What if it was a 7-11 or a 3-7 and all the newbies were playing a level 4 or 7 pregen and I was playing a level 4 or 7 pregen as well for any of a number of valid reasons. And I assign credit to my level 3 character who doesn't have any cash because I've spent it all on things, but not enough things that I can afford to sell it all for half and afford a raise dead.
I hate to sound cold, but that's part of the game. Risk/benefit analysis is part of deciding where to assign credit when playing a pregen. You can take the safe route, assign the credit to a brand new -## character and run no risk at all should your pregen die. Of course, that sheet is now assigned to a blank slate when perhaps one of your existing PCs could have benefited much more from it. (And you may not be able to benefit from the sheet for awhile, if it was a higher-level pregen.)
Or, you can assign it to the PC of your choice, and essentially run the same risk as if you had actually played that PC in the first place, reaping the benefits and consequences accordingly. RPGs involve an element of risk. That risk should never be diminished simply because you're playing a pregen.
I, for one, am thrilled that credit for pregens cannot be re-assigned after the fact. It was a change for the better, despite the occasional (valid) corner case examples to the contrary.
In a series of brief discussions with various venture-officers around the world, when this became a rule, it became clear that this "griefing" problem was only a problem in a very few regions. That the vast majority of regions do not have this problem.
That's a difficult thing to judge. One person, or even several people not experiencing a problem doesn't mean that the problem isn't widespread. You not having experienced much griefing doesn't invalidate my having experienced it any more than my experience invalidates yours.
Also, this is an active online community, where one person's posted experience (positive or negative) can easily influence multiple people, and posts complaining about a griefing incident tend to become volatile and get a lot of attention. (I love that this thread has been very calm and civil, BTW.) So, even if griefing incidents are limited to certain areas (and I think the problem is more widespread than that), they still can have a significant impact on the overall health of the campaign. This very thread proves that people will (justifiably) complain about being griefed, and that other people will pay attention. While the new requirement of assigning credit before play and not being able to change it may not be perfect (indeed, it's all already been tweaked to accommodate scenarios REQUIRING pregens) I still think it's a vast improvement over the old 'get out of death free' method of pregen crediting.
I'd like to posit, that the "griefing" problem is not a rule problem, but a player problem. And the best way to deal with players who do crap like that, is to boot them outta the club. I'd like to suggest, that the rule be rescinded, because I do not feel it is in the best interest of the campaign.
On this point, I tend to agree with you. Most problems are player problems rather than rule problems. And I do wish there was a more effective way to deal with problem players on the 'front lines'. But we're all engaged in a delicate balancing act, with the health and enjoyment of the campaign as the overall goal. We must balance variations in 'table culture' area by area with a desire for uniform play experience. We must empower GMs and the local VO Corps to enforce reasonable standards of behavior at the table, while embracing different styles of play, and being mindful that behavior considered 'problem' in one place may be 'par for the course' in another place. Tonya and the VOs (especially the RVCs) have a tough job. They make hard choices and are rarely given the praise & respect they deserve.
Another game club taught me a useful lesson when offering criticism: When you point out a problem, be ready to offer a potential solution. I agree with you that problem players are, well, a problem. And there should be a more readily applicable way of dealing with them. But how to manage it? It's a question I tend to ask myself when standing in long lines. 'How could I improve this process?' Ideally, 'How could I improve this process fairly, without adding gratuitous bureaucracy to the campaign leadership?' If I ever come up with a good idea, I'll be sure and send it up the chain! I invite others to do the same- venting about a problem is fine. Complaining about something that you don't like is okay, too, as long as it's fairly polite and constructive. But let's try to go beyond that, into actively looking for a solution. We might surprise ourselves.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amanda, I don't think what you're saying here is entirely fair. You're claiming that the onus is on people to prove that griefing isn't a widespread problem. But I think the burden of proof should be the other way around: prove that this is a widespread problem, not one occurring in a few sick local metas.
It's a big leap to assume the problem is so widespread (unless you can show me more detailed arguments). And it's an impossible burden to prove that all PFS communities around the world (which you or I as a local forumite may not even be aware of the existence of) are problem-free. But just because you're not in communication with them and therefore can't report their trouble-free status, doesn't mean they're in trouble.
And while it's indeed good practice to offer solutions along with objections, the best way to consider "solving a problem" would be:
1. Establish for sure that the problem exists and is important. The spread of the griefing problem is quite disputed.
2. Show that your proposed solution really does work against the problem. Which hasn't been done to my satisfaction; since griefers can just decide from the beginning to assign the chronicle to a new #. If they're actually there to grief this policy isn't stopping them.
3. Show that your proposal doesn't have side effects that are worse than the likely benefits. On this point also the new rules don't do well. There's been a lot of testimony to the chilling effect on bona fide players coming from this ruling. Also, the rule language in the Guide is quite confusing (as evidenced by discussion threads were many 5-star GMs interpret it quite differently than the author), so it requires a great deal of shepherding to execute as planned. Which is very awkward because when people are staring character death in the face, any rules ambiguity and later realizations that "there was something you could have done" are bad.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I really wasn't expecting this thread to branch out into so many topics, but its great to see so many opinions and perspectives on it. And I definitely wasn't expecting Tonya to weigh in, but thank you for taking time to get involved!
With the benefit of distance from the event and additional clarity, there was little that could be done. At one stage I found myself moving a problematic player's pawn and realized I'd crossed a line. I realized that no matter how frustrating their actions were, I'd broken the social contract that we were each in control of our respective characters. And if my words couldn't get through to them then I was in no way entitled to play their characters for them.
To be completely honest, I don't think there was malicious intent behind these players' actions. It was more the case of suffering the consequences of the rule system, such as a gunslinger needing to reload their gun, thus provoking an attack of opportunity or a rogue's stealth-ing invariably splitting the party. My experience has shown that a party can sustain one player making poor choices like these, but when half the party begins taking disadvantageous actions there's not a lot to be done.
Tonya, you suggested getting the event organizer involved, but unfortunately in this case, that would have been me. And I suppose I simply didn't have the necessary experience to better handle the situation. Moving forward, I may encourage GMs to go "softer" on tables with so many new players.
I suppose that then raises the question; how much should/can GMs deviate from scenarios as written, or more specifically battle tactics as written? But I'm sure that that topic has been discussed in other threads.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that then raises the question; how much should/can GMs deviate from scenarios as written, or more specifically battle tactics as written? But I'm sure that that topic has been discussed in other threads.
There's some advice on this in the Guide (page 13):
Dealing with Death
Given the dangers characters face once they become Pathfinders, character death is a very real possibility (and a necessary one to maintain a sense of risk and danger in the game). Consider, however, that for a player new to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, or to the Pathfinder RPG in general, having his character experience a violent death during his first game can sour him on the campaign and the game altogether. While we don’t advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when the player is new to the game. Most players whose first experience in a campaign results in a character death don’t return to the campaign.
There are other bits in the previous pages of the Guide (around 'table variation' and 'creative solutions') that may also be relevant.
|
|
The OP was playing their own character, so the death rule isn't applicable in this instance. Discussion of it doesn't add/subtract to the issue at hand.
True, but this is the first time you've actually addressed it other than to repeat it.
Any chance you would be willing to finally tell us WHY the rule was implemented - what problem was the change seeking to address?@ Amanda: the new rule actually promotes griefing play - a griefer now knows that everyone they play with will suffer for their actions as the other players can no longer assign out the death even if they too are playing pregens and the griefer knows that they've assigned a credit to a character # that they don't care about.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a balancing act: you don't want new players to lose PCs and sour their first experience. That said Wonky floors, crit'ing halfling barbarians & poor choices with regards to bullheaded challenges have all led to deaths in adventures for low level PCs. Was the GM influenced by the fact that though the encounter became deadly because of new players making poor decisions, it was one of our best & brightest GMs (Brendan) who was feeling the pain? Then having set the precedent felt stuck with carrying on?
I would echo Tonya's suggested creative solutions but a less experienced GM might not be so quick to think of them.
W
|
|
Amanda, I don't think what you're saying here is entirely fair. You're claiming that the onus is on people to prove that griefing isn't a widespread problem. But I think the burden of proof should be the other way around: prove that this is a widespread problem, not one occurring in a few sick local metas.
I have no intention of 'putting the onus' on anyone, and if I came across that way, it was unintentional. What I was trying to express is that some people experiencing a thing (in this case, griefing) does not mean that it is a widespread issue, but some people not experiencing the thing does not mean that it isn't a widespread issue. In other words, that the experience of one person does not invalidate the experience of another person.
And it's an impossible burden to prove that all PFS communities around the world (which you or I as a local forumite may not even be aware of the existence of) are problem-free. But just because you're not in communication with them and therefore can't report their trouble-free status, doesn't mean they're in trouble.
Exactly. You prove my point as well as Tallow's. In the same way that I cannot extrapolate my experience to be indicative of a widespread problem, he cannot extrapolate his experience to be indicative of a lack of a widespread problem. Both of us are limited to our own spheres of awareness, however large or small they may be. As a result of that limited awareness, we must both rely on the judgement of people whose sphere of awareness is larger than our own. In this case, that would be Tonya, the RVCs, and the campaign development staff. And they have decided that the issue is widespread enough to make this change. That doesn't mean the issue is widespread. It means that the issue is widespread enough to justify action. I'm glad that the issue isn't a problem everywhere. But it's a problem in enough places that a change was warranted.
@ Amanda: the new rule actually promotes griefing play - a griefer now knows that everyone they play with will suffer for their actions as the other players can no longer assign out the death even if they too are playing pregens and the griefer knows that they've assigned a credit to a character # that they don't care about.
Like Tallow pointed out previously, that situation is less of a rules problem than a player problem. Problem players will abuse whatever systems are in place because that's what brings them the most enjoyment. Problem players will find a way to cause grief regardless. Which is why we need a more robust way of dealing with problem players. But that's another thread. :-)
|
|
Hey, Tonya, thank you for posting.
I was wondering if you could answer a quick question. The Forums are split when it comes to removing conditions (mainly death) from Pregens. Reading the Season 8 Guide, it could be interpreted that the resources (Gold, Prestige and Boons) belonging to the real, actual character are meant to be available to clear these conditions, but there has never before been a system in place for doing that.
The quick part of my question is, "Is that the intention?"
Assuming it is, the longer part of my question is, "How do we do it?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to bear in mind when talking about the need for this rule: Every public PFS game already entails risk, and it makes no difference whether you are playing a pregen or your own character.
There's the risk of wasting your time with a bunch of people you don't get along with; risk that another PC will destroy your character's cool and complex negotiation with an NPC with "fireball-quickened fireball"; risk of being stuck at a PFS table with a smelly, abusive person when you could have been playing Call of Cthulhu with James Jacobs; risk of having a GM that hasn't prepared the scenario and ruins your one chance to experience the story for the first time; the list goes on. It's a 4-5 hour investment of a player's time, and these risks should not be ignored in the social contract that is the Organized Campaign. Not every player has enough PCs to avoid using pregens sometime, especially in smaller Lodges where pregens are often the only way to get your slowly-growing group out of subtier 1-2.
Requiring the additional risk of a real character when playing pregens penalizes anyone who plays a pregen for altruistic reasons (to help a table go off, say, or to play with a bunch of new players when they don't have an appropriate character, to ensure the new group has a healer, to play something in an appropriate subtier, etc.) It does not prevent griefers from destroying games, it does not help introduce new players to the campaign, and it should not be used as a substitute for dealing with problem players at the VO level.
|
|
Requiring the additional risk of a real character when playing pregens penalizes anyone who plays a pregen for altruistic reasons (to help a table go off, say, or to play with a bunch of new players when they don't have an appropriate character, to ensure the new group has a healer, to play something in an appropriate subtier, etc.)
But players can already mitigate that risk entirely, especially if they're playing for altruism rather than from personal desire. They can choose, from the outset, to apply that credit to a new, 'blank' PC. That completely eliminates the risk. And it's already a built-in option. If players regularly play pregens for altruism (or any other reason, for that matter), they can apply multiple pregen credits to the same 'blank' PC. Then it becomes nearly identical to a GM credit baby. They can use that 'blank' PC at any time to make a higher-than-first-level PC (and begin a new 'blank' PC to house further pregen credits). And if, during pregen play, that pregen dies, taking the 'blank' PC with it, it isn't as big a deal, since you haven't put in the time and effort to actually make a character that you care about. Sure, you've lost those chronicle sheets, but it's less disappointing than losing a beloved PC.
...and it should not be used as a substitute for dealing with problem players at the VO level.
I agree completely on that point.
|
|
But players can already mitigate that risk entirely, especially if they're playing for altruism rather than from personal desire. They can choose, from the outset, to apply that credit to a new, 'blank' PC. That completely eliminates the risk. And it's already a built-in option. If players regularly play pregens for altruism (or any other reason, for that matter), they can apply multiple pregen credits to the same 'blank' PC. Then it becomes nearly identical to a GM credit baby. They can use that 'blank' PC at any time to make a higher-than-first-level PC (and begin a new 'blank' PC to house further pregen credits). And if, during pregen play, that pregen dies, taking the 'blank' PC with it, it isn't as big a deal, since you haven't put in the time and effort to actually make a character that you care about. Sure, you've lost those chronicle sheets, but it's less disappointing than losing a beloved PC.
Here is where the problem comes in.
"Play what you want" should not fly in the face of common sense.
If the party has four martial and the 'odd person out' doesn't have either ranged, arcane casting, or healing and opts to bring in a pregenerated character to cover either one of these (usually) glaring holes, and they want that credit on a given character, what should they do?
Bring in the fifth martial they want the credit on and risk the TPK?
The other side of it, the meta-side of it is... does the Society run around in the event of a 'held' chronicle and when that one comes due executes the Society character if they don't resolve the condition then?
Is it required to resolve it on completion of the scenario regardless of 'held' or 'applied' status?
What happens if the cost of resolution is too high to resolve on a chronicle's wealth alone, or the character's wealth alone, but combined they can *just* make it?
If this issue has been addressed, please accept my apologies, I may have missed it in the wash.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you've lost those chronicle sheets...
That can be important for people, especially if they've already given up the ability to play that PC that they care about, to help the rest of the group. For most people, playing a pregen instead of their own character is already penalty enough.
I suppose one could assign each pregen credit to a new number and accumulate dozens of 1-XP credit babies, but that doesn't seem a reasonable solution, either.
My point was just that there was already risk to playing a pregen, which didn't seem to have been taken into account. Adding this rule increases the penalty of playing a pregen beyond what is already there, does not prevent bad behavior, and preferentially targets the people who we depend on most to help build local lodges.
|
|
The other side of it, the meta-side of it is... does the Society run around in the event of a 'held' chronicle and when that one comes due executes the Society character if they don't resolve the condition then?
Is it required to resolve it on completion of the scenario regardless of 'held' or 'applied' status?
That's part of why we require that conditions (with a few specific exceptions) be resolved at the table, rather than later. Because Society doesn't want to have to 'check up' on such things weeks, months, or years after the fact. That's why these things must be resolved at the table, with the rare exceptions (like permanent level drain) being noted on the chronicle sheet.
If a session ends with a PC being 'dead' (whether by the actual PC dying or the death of a pregen with the credit assigned to the PC), the PC is dead as of the end of the session, regardless of when that sheet would be applied (in the case of a higher-level sheet being held for a lower-level PC). It's dead because the session ended with a condition that required resolution not being resolved.
What happens if the cost of resolution is too high to resolve...
The same thing that happens if the cost of resolution is too high to resolve for a PC. What happens when your actual 1st level PC acquires a condition (like death) that it can't afford to resolve? It gets marked as 'dead'. Playing a pregen should never be 'safer' than playing your actual PC.
If you want the benefits of the chronicle sheet to be applied to a specific PC, then the risks incurred in earning that chronicle sheet must also be applied to that PC. If you are adamant about advancing your PC without risk, the best way to achieve that is to GM the desired scenario and apply the GM credit to the desired character.
But, I find myself repeating the same points over and over. So, on that note, I shall withdraw.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not asking for it to be 'safer'.
Asking for it to be *fair* when someone is trying to help build the community.
Any 'real' character would have all of their resources available to spend gathered over a bunch of chronicles.
A pregen doesn't have that.
A real character in an actual scenario doesn't have the option to have a stand-in die in its stead.
With re-assignment, I can simply sit back, play Kyra, and if things go south, shrug. Without, I have to choose to have the same risk as everyone else, or apply it to a level 1 and not advance my actual character. No stand-ins.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Amanda: the new rule actually promotes griefing play - a griefer now knows that everyone they play with will suffer for their actions as the other players can no longer assign out the death even if they too are playing pregens and the griefer knows that they've assigned a credit to a character # that they don't care about.Like Tallow pointed out previously, that situation is less of a rules problem than a player problem. Problem players will abuse whatever systems are in place because that's what brings them the most enjoyment. Problem players will find a way to cause grief regardless. Which is why we need a more robust way of dealing with problem players. But that's another thread. :-)
It is a rules problem if a rule is changed to address griefing and instead actually encourages griefing behavior as well as creating a chilling effect on casual and convention play. I know I've personally skipped at least 5 tables since the rule was changed, so this is now more than speculation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not asking for it to be 'safer'.
Asking for it to be *fair* when someone is trying to help build the community.
Any 'real' character would have all of their resources available to spend gathered over a bunch of chronicles.
A pregen doesn't have that.
A real character in an actual scenario doesn't have the option to have a stand-in die in its stead.
With re-assignment, I can simply sit back, play Kyra, and if things go south, shrug. Without, I have to choose to have the same risk as everyone else, or apply it to a level 1 and not advance my actual character. No stand-ins.
I would argue that the act of playing a pregen is in and of itself a sacrifice, and increases the risk of your personal chance of death, due to unfamiliarity and the lower power level of the pregens. My impression was that that was the reason reassignment were allowed -- to somewhat ameliorate the weaker position you are in due to playing a pregen.
I also think that assigning a chronicle to a new level 1 character is *worse* than dying. I've got 8 level 1 characters -- I don't want anymore. I would *prefer* the option to forgo a chronicle when playing with a pregen (decision made before play), but I know that will never happen.
But then, I have never seen anyone play a pregen because they wanted to. Only because they had to. I've also never seen anyone shrug off a pregen death -- at least not any more than they shrug off their own characters.