|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, I was expecting to see another "Let's go back to counting XP in the thousands" request and find myself pleasantly surprised.
I am in favor of keeping the 3 XP == 1 new level progression inasmuch as one scenario always (okay, almost always) provides 1 xp, but your idea is strangely compelling.
May I propose a variant, if only for consideration by the larger group?
==================
9 XP == 1 new level
1 scenario provides 3 xp
1 module provides 9 xp
1 one-hour quest provides .5 xp
I'm not sure that's necessarily better, but it does lock in the 6 quests == 1 scenario conversion.
A potential weakness of the proposal is that going half-speed, if such a thing would be allowed, would potentially bring us into the realm of tracking quarters of an experience point. I don't have a problem with that, but I could see some people finding that concerning.
|
The way this accommodates Quests definitely has me interested! I also like it because it present the opportunity for folks to still earn some degree of XP for scenarios that see a serious mission failure vs. walking away with nothing at all. It would also allow for a non ".5" value to be given for slow track characters more often.
|
|
. . .this is going to cause someone to realize mid-game that they're at the wrong level.
Probably true.
I'm a fan of the 3 Scenarios to Level system because it accommodates my infrequent play style. As long as that system is maintained, I have no skin in the game on whether Quests should be worth less than 1 Scenario.
|
|
this is going to cause someone to realize mid-game that they're at the wrong level.
Hah! Yeah, I could see that happening. Heck, I already see that happen a little more frequently than it probably should.
I'm not even sold on the idea of scaling up the XP myself, but I thought it'd be something interesting to toss around. Are there any other ideas or variants that people think would have some merit?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, but whether it's worth it would hinge on whether you can use this to make partial questing work.
Current situation: I do part 1-3 of a quest but then the slot ends (spent some time explaining the rules to new players). Next up is a scenario I want to play with this character, but if I do that I can't finish the quest series.
With this proposal: I do quest 1-3 and get XP; play a scenario and get XP; and then finish the quest 4-6 and get more XP. At the end my total XP is the same as if I'd done the whole quest before doing the scenario. instead of interleaving.
So how should the XP increments be structured then? There seem to be three main options:
- A) Make a normal-speed scenario the norm, 1 XP.
Quests are worth fractional XP, as are slow-speed scenarios and (Cyth V'Sug forbid) slow-speed quest chapters. I'm not eager to see someone trying to add 1/12th XP for a slow-speed chapter of a 6-chapter quest to 1/2th XP for a slow-speed scenario and 1/5th XP for a normal-speed 5-chapter quest chapter.
- B) A slow-speed quest chapter is the smallest possible unit that you can get credit for so it becomes worth 1 XP. A full 6-chapter quest then is worth 12 XP at normal speed and is expected to take 6 hours to play.
A regular scenario is supposed to take 4 hours so it's worth 4XP on slow track and 8XP on regular track.
A small module is expected to be three times the size of a scenario so 24/12XP. And 24XP makes for a levelup.
Basically, 1 hour expected gameplay = 2 XP, and 12 hours of gameplay is a level.
Disadvantage: people have to know multiples of 24 to figure out when they level.
- C) Aim for easy to understand level targets. Each level is 30 XP, and a normal-speed scenario is worth 10 XP. A regular module is 3x as long as a scenario so it's 10XP. Basically, take the current system and scale it by 10; people now need to look for multiples of 30 instead of multiples of 3; this is only slightly harder.
Where it gets nice is with things smaller than a scenario. A slow-track scenario becomes 5 XP instead of 0.5XP. A slow-track module becomes 15XP instead of 1.5XP.
A set of 5 quests divides into 2XP per quest (1XP slow). Doesn't work nicely with 6-chapter packs but maybe the design trend is towards five chapters anyway?
Pro: only whole numbers, and multiples of 30 are fairly easy.
Con: still harder than multiples of 3, and doesn't work for quests with 6+ chapters.In this system you could also have a pure standalone quest, worth just 2XP. Or a shorter questpack that sums up to 8XP. Or megascenarios worth more XP than a typical one.
Venture-Captain, Australia—NSW—Greater West
|
Just thinking through this a bit more, if you are changing the calculations for exp, you may also need to look at the calculations for tables for GM Stars/marshmallows/whatever they call stars in PFS2 as there would be a bit of "I ran quarter of a table, how does that work?" Maybe a similar system, or even identical system, 4 points is a table:
PFS Scenario = 4 points
"Module" or AP Part = 12 points
Quests = 1 point
Assuming the Star breaks are the same:
One Star: 40 points
Two Stars: 120 points
etc etc etc
I would love to see exp and tables line up a little more, currently they are not the same and it bugs me.
Venture-Agent, Texas—Houston
|
Going to 1000 XP per level would put PFS in line with the Core Rulebook and might reduce confusion for first time players.
It might work...
A scenario could then give 360 XP. (180 slow track.)
A single quest 100 XP. (50 slow track.)
An all-day sanctioned module or AP section the full 1000 XP. (500 slow track.)
There would be a bit more tracking of stragglers, but you could always tell by the thousands digit(s) exactly what level your character should be.
|
|
It's a real shame that 1,000 doesn't divide nicely into 3. I could see other potential advantages to having a more flexible XP system than just being more inclusive of quests.
Out of subtier XP anyone? At least in PF1, it's possible to find yourself ahead or behind you wealth by level if you play up or down a little too often. But if XP is increased or reduced relative to the gold that is awarded, the problem goes away.
However, to ensure that all levels have 3 sessions, I think you'd need to award 335 XP per level, which is kind of a messy number.
I think 3 XP per level, 1 XP per scenario is going to be the cleanest way of tracking paperwork. Maybe quest chronicles don't have to be specific to a set of quests?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 3 XP per level, 1 XP per scenario is going to be the cleanest way of tracking paperwork. Maybe quest chronicles don't have to be specific to a set of quests?
I also favor 3 xp per level, 1 xp per normal scenario. It is easier to do the math for each level and easier to explain.
|
|
As I've been paying attention to Mark Seifert's excellent answers to various questions, one thing I've noticed is that its easy enough to make it 1,500 XP per level with the new system. This way you could make each Scenario worth 500 XP and each Quest worth 250 XP and it works out pretty good.
And if they design scenarios at the 1,000 xp level, then putting in 1,500 xp worth of monsters would also bump the difficulty level up. I'm not sure if this would be too much though, as I'm not sure how PF2 is balanced yet.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, no, don't go back to ordinary experience. I am shocked they are even including experience at all in the new edition, rather that exclusively story leveling. In organized play, we can't use story leveling, but we can at least keep the simple 3 (or switch it to 2 or 4 if a change is needed) scenarios per level, with long adventures counting multiple times.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
However, to ensure that all levels have 3 sessions, I think you'd need to award 335 XP per level, which is kind of a messy number.
I think in using a 1000 XP system, we would break from the 3 scenario a level absolute. Scenarios could be 300 or 400 XP each depending on the challenge level.
I was excited about better managing WBL for out-of-tier players.
|
Venture-Lieutenant
|
There was this old argument in the Living Greyhawk days in that should we move from the 1000s of experience system to a x number of mods system. Since it was assumed, and oh the complaining if it didn't happen, that a mod would offer "full" XP for the tier and it was easy to get assuming you finished the mod. In that situation the 1000s of XP was kind of pointless and could lead to math errors etc.
I like that PFS went to a system that we were discussing in LG, but I agree it should be a little more granular.
So with that I would suggest 15 or 30 per level.
15 Works out like this:
5 Per Scenario
1 Per Quest
15 Per Adventure Path
You are still .5 on quests/scenarios on slow if you simply double everything you get everything being a whole number even on the slow path.
Even better for the slow path just double the experience you need to get the next level vs changing the award for each module.
--Chris
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, to ensure that all levels have 3 sessions, I think you'd need to award 335 XP per level, which is kind of a messy number.I think in using a 1000 XP system, we would break from the 3 scenario a level absolute. Scenarios could be 300 or 400 XP each depending on the challenge level.
I was excited about better managing WBL for out-of-tier players.
So what happens if i go to a convention and my character winds up with more or less xp than expected and either levels out or i dont get enough levels to play the scenario on sunday?
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
So what happens if i go to a convention and my character winds up with more or less xp than expected and either levels out or i dont get enough levels to play the scenario on sunday?However, to ensure that all levels have 3 sessions, I think you'd need to award 335 XP per level, which is kind of a messy number.I think in using a 1000 XP system, we would break from the 3 scenario a level absolute. Scenarios could be 300 or 400 XP each depending on the challenge level.
I was excited about better managing WBL for out-of-tier players.
Posting XP in the description could help, but probably wouldn't prevent all issues.
How about 400 XP a scenario? Change the assumption to 5 games per two levels.
|
|
I'd say make Quests worth 1 XP. Just parse out the rewards for gold/items/boons for completed elements. Players have invested time into playing the game and should be given something for their characters. Just close the quest sheet out if the player needs to move on, allow them to start over if in a replayable teir.
|
|
I’d like to see a system that makes Quests more modular as well, while not taking away their XP, gold, and prestige. The linked quest series are fun, but when I was running them regularly, we fell into a pattern where we’d run three one night, then the next week run the other three. The issue came in when, inevitably, we’d have a different set of players each week. So then I’d end up rerunning the first three parts so the people who missed them could catch up. Some players would then restart the series, because they could make every week. So it was very easy to fall into a trap of running the same Quests over and over until everyone was on the same page. And players were more likely to experience the end of the series before having played the beginning.
I think I would much prefer they be available in single hour blocks that don’t lock players into a specific set, preventing them from playing anything else or else lose access to finishing a series on that character. If they are still in tier for a quest, then let them play it, whether the series has been interrupted or not.
That would give much more flexibility in running either a regular, shorter session, or filling in during normal game days.
Also, more quests above 1st level. I’d be ok with them being limited to a single tier, instead of trying to cover multiples like a regular scenario. I love House of Harmonious Wisdom, but every time it’s offered, inevitably someone is replaying and can only run a level 1, and someone wants the credit on their level 4 or 5. So I would be for sacrificing some of that tier flexibility, but gaining flexibility in mixing and matching single Quests. I’d even, potentially, be ok going back to Quests being replayable at all levels, and not just first.
|
|
I really like the idea that 1000 XP will be in the core rulebook. 3 XP is a nice system, but it is one more thing to explain to new players and it got a little complex once slow advancement was introduced.
Making 400 XP per scenario standard with 1000 XP per level keeps a story-based advancement standard, allows for flexibility with slow advancement and quests (or even pseudo-fast advancement via out-of-tier rewards), and makes the transition between PFS campaign rules and standard cores rules slightly easier.
|
Keep it the same! I personally have never had a problem with Quest. I have always played all parts at one session. Everyone I have ran Quest for have played all the parts at one session. Admittedly I represent a small sample. YMMV
Please don't go to 1000XP or whatever per level for PFS! That is like Adventurers League and I hate it. I played AL exclusively at one three day Con just to give it a fair shot. My Character went from lvl 1 to lvl 7 or 8 in one weekend! That is one of the reasons I like PFS over AL hands down.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going to 1000xp per level wouldnt change the rate of progression just change how its measured.
I see advantages of lining up with regular and easy addition with multiples of 3.
1000 allows more granularity in how xp is given.
More granularity makes planning harder.
Will my character be in tier to play the next adventure?
Of course one could use the 1000xp without adding and weird granularity.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Well today's Blog pretty much answers this question.
Which question, Gary? I looked and found no mention of the XP system. Did you catch something that I missed? You often do.
Why complicate the system for your entire PFS career just to simplify quests?
+1.
Let’s just keep the 3XP system, please.
Hmm
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Why complicate the system for your entire PFS career just to simplify quests?
How about 400 XP a scenario? Change the assumption to 5 games per two levels.
I don't particularly care how quests are handled. That's not my motivation. I think that 1000 XP is an easy, intuitive system.
Ever have a GM blob with 19 XP and had to figure how many levels you need to build them to? At 6200 XP, you know you need to add six levels to that first level character sheet you have stashed away. Once you spend the XP and level, you are at 200 XP, and only need two scenarios to level up again.
|
|
Someone with enough system mastery to have a level 7 dm blob lying around isn t really who you need to worry about when you re designing a system for simplicity.
Also divide by three then add one and note the remainder is way less math than adding up everything from 19 chronicle sheets, you left that part out and started with that info. You could just as easily add fractions on your chronicle sheet. (not that i couldn't mess either system up...)(
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We manage to track the gold, somehow. How long did it take to drill "divide by three add 1" into your head?
I agree that differences between PFS1 and PFS2 are not ideal. Maintaining 3 XP as tradition makes transitioning much easier for those of us that play now. That's why I'm only advocating 1000 XP and not other crazy numbers. Moving to 1000 XP trades a difference between editions for a consistency with the rulebook. And I think that consistency is more valuable moving forward, bringing new folks into the Society.
|
|
We manage to track the gold, somehow. How long did it take to drill "divide by three add 1" into your head?
look for the trepanation marks, the doc usually signs and dates them...
I've just avoided it mostly. I put the actual level next to if not in the XP points , 2, 2 1/3, 2 2/3, 3 DING! 3 1/3 ... or lately, 5 1/6, 5 2/6 , 5 3/6 .... it doesn't matter unless i'm running eyes of the ten.
Maintaining 3 XP as tradition makes transitioning much easier for those of us that play now. That's why I'm only advocating 1000 XP and not other crazy numbers. Moving to 1000 XP trades a difference between editions for a consistency with the rulebook. And I think that consistency is more valuable moving forward, bringing new folks into the Society.
It doesn't matter if 1k xp is a round number or not, you're either taking predictability out of the leveling up process or just adding decimal points where every scenario is 333.4 xp
|
|
It doesn't matter if 1k xp is a round number or not, you're either taking predictability out of the leveling up process or just adding decimal points where every scenario is 333.4 xp400 XP is both predictable and round.
Which levels do you play 2 games to level and which levels do you have to play 3 games to level? Thats way more complicated to remember and its functionally what you're getting.
400 xp doesn't work well with a 1,000 xp system, you need to balance the loot around leveling up 2 and 7/8ths? time on an logarithmic scale.
Yes, 400 xp is predictable to find your level when you're sitting with a pile of chronicle sheets with no idea what level you are, but sitting with a pile of chronicle sheets with no idea what level you are is not a normal state of play.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Which levels do you play 2 games to level and which levels do you have to play 3 games to level? Thats way more complicated to remember and its functionally what you're getting.
I don't know! That changes if you take slow track. What is important is how far you are from 1000 XP.
400 xp doesn't work well with a 1,000 xp system, you need to balance the loot around leveling up 2 and 7/8ths? time on an logarithmic scale.
Our play tiers are already in two-level chunks. Tier 1-2s give some amount of loot for 5 scenarios. Tier 3-4s give another amount of gold. Going with 400 XP wouldn't change anything much for you, the player. You'd just get a little more gold for each scenario.
Yes, 400 xp is predictable to find your level when you're sitting with a pile of chronicle sheets with no idea what level you are, but sitting with a pile of chronicle sheets with no idea what level you are is not a normal state of play.
You only ever need to count to 1000. You know each scenario gives you 400 XP. It's addition and subtraction. No multiplying or dividing by threes required.