PFS Sugguestion: Move Away from the 3xp per level system


Pathfinder Society Playtest

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You just hit level 5. you want to be level 8 by the con. How many games do you need to play and what level will you be when you play them?

You have 0 experience. You want to get at least 3000 XP. Three games gets you 1200, two more gets you to 2000, and then three again for 3200!

Sovereign Court ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
So two more scenarios and they level again.

Yeah, that's the system I'm proposing. Five games per tier of play, basically.

***** ⦵⦵⦵

KingOfAnything wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You just hit level 5. you want to be level 8 by the con. How many games do you need to play and what level will you be when you play them?

You have 0 experience. You want to get at least 3000 XP. Three games gets you 1200, two more gets you to 2000, and then three again for 3200!

People don't track how much experience they have. They know their character is X level

So to get that answer, you have to say 5th level, which means 4 levels of games, which is 4,000 xp. (so there's that -1 you were worried about) .

So to get another 1,000 xp its 1,000/3 = 3 with a remainder of 200.

Which means you have 5,200 xp after 3 games

6,000-5,200= 800/400= 2 games.

No. Just no. There is absolutely no advantage to your system here, at all, in terms of simplifying anything for actual use unless you have an irrational fear of mixed numbers. Knowing your XP value or having a pile of dm credit is not a normal play concern.

Sovereign Court ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Try spending your XP to level up. You only ever have to count to 1200.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

KingOfAnything wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
So two more scenarios and they level again.
Yeah, that's the system I'm proposing. Five games per tier of play, basically.

I don't think anyone really wants to see a reduction in play per level.

***** ⦵⦵⦵

KingOfAnything wrote:
Try spending your XP to level up. You only ever have to count to 1200.

No, because for level 2 you only count to 800, 2 games, not three to get to level 3.

Sovereign Court ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Five scenarios per tier means we could get our first 3-6 scenario a month earlier. (Assuming three 1-2s at Gencon and two more in September).

I understand wanting to extend play. I slow track in higher levels, too. Over a full career at normal speed, you'd only lose five games total. At 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10.

Sovereign Court ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Try spending your XP to level up. You only ever have to count to 1200.

No, because for level 2 you only count to 800, 2 games, not three to get to level 3.

Is that harder?

You use fractions. Others use decimals. Getting from level 4.2 to 7.0 is not really harder than going from 4 5/6 to 7.

***** ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:


Is that harder?

Yes. And by showing the number of steps you had to consider to get the answer if you start from a players perspective I think i showed that. For starting at anything but an xp number You had to do every single step and more to get any meaningful information out of it. If you start with an xp number you still had to make the counter intuitive -1 step.

Quote:
You use fractions. Others use decimals. Getting from level 4.2 to 7.0 is not really harder than going from 4 5/6 to 7.

It is because you're adding 2/5 ths and it doesn't always line up with the level progression evenly, whereas 1/3 does. Some levels take 2 games, some take 3 to level through. 3xp per level means it's a steady constant 3.

There's no gain here or reason to do this. At all. I cannot for the life of me figure out what you think the advantage is supposed to be.

Liberty's Edge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Waschle wrote:

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

See, in my opinion, this highlights the issue. If the only way people will play them is in one sitting playing all parts at a single session, then it completely removes the necessity to have quests at all. Might as well write another scenario instead. Quests need to be more versatile than this, but under the current system, your experience is the optimal way to run them, because breaking them up leads to logistical problems.

Liberty's Edge ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
While I would like to adjust the XP track to avoid fractions, I fear adding another difference between PFS1 and PFS2 is not worth the gain.

I actually think differences are advantageous. Helps keep people from confusing PFS1 and PFS2 characters even more. I imagine a lot of players are going to blur things.

***** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

350 instead of 400 might help solve the 5/2 problem...

It doesn't short you an adventure until level 7...

It's still divisible by 2.

Make Quests 75xp (all 5 quests comes out to 350, same as scenario, although problematic for slow track.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
So two more scenarios and they level again.
Yeah, that's the system I'm proposing. Five games per tier of play, basically.
I don't think anyone really wants to see a reduction in play per level.

Speak for yourself, I'd love to see a reduction in play at lower levels ;-)

One thing I like about 5e is the fact that levels 1 and 2 fly by in a couple of games. Having to play 24 hours worth of games to accomplish the same thing in PFS is a significant issue for me. Totally agree that I wouldn't want to see the same speed up later in the game, but depending on how similar levels 1 and 2 feel in PF2 vs PF1 I'd love to speed up that particular part of the leveling up process.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

rooneg wrote:
Speak for yourself, I'd love to see a reduction in play at lower levels ;-)

Lower levels, yes. Higher levels, no. Hence why I said per level and not at lower/higher levels.

Liberty's Edge *** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
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. Hmm

After re-reading the Blog, I mis-read something. Sorry for the confusion.

Scarab Sages ****

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I love the 3 XP system, and don't mind that Quests always offer 1 XP (but different amounts of cash depending on how many you do). What is the issue with it?

I would hate to see us use the 1000XP per level. Story-based XP is infinitely better.

The issue with Quests is really a different topic, and it doesn’t really have to do with how much XP they grant.

Right now, if you play part 1 of Silverhex, for example, then you play part 1 of Phantom Phenomena on that character, you can’t go back and play anymore of Silverhex. Part of the original idea behind the Quests was that they provide content that can be fit into a shorter session. With the introduction of Quest Series, they have effectively become Scenario length content, because if you move on to something else before you finish the series, you can never finish the series (on that character). It’s actually removed some of the flexibility that having 1 hour Quests was supposed to create.

The suggestion in this thread is that a different XP system would make it easier to have one off Quests that aren’t part of a series without increasing the overall amount of XP that a single Quest provides, and without over complicating the math with decimal XP points.

I like the 3XP/level system, but I’d also like more shorter Quests that aren’t all tied together into a larger series, because that has been making scheduling them outside of conventions difficult. They essentially need to be scheduled in a scenario length slot, or you have to deal with issues around the entire group of players not being able to make it to the game on multiple days. And that defeats the purpose of having Quests. Changing the XP system isn’t the only way to address that problem, but it’s the one being discussed here. I’d just like some kind of change to facilitate the shorter content.

***** Venture-Captain, New Hampshire aka D_GENNEXT

Sooo....
Let's forget about the PFS 1.0 Quests as they will be non-applicable to PFS 2.0.
I would actually like to see quest packs for 2.0 to actually be shorter in format. They are typically used as introductory scenarios. Let's shorten them to 3 parts and a conclusion. This puts them falling solidly into a 4 hour slot (a plus for convention runs).
As for XP; I like the OP's idea. The 4 XP for a scenario also means that you can divide down the quest packs into 1 XP/part completed. We can also do away with the normal/slow progression by just increasing XP required per level. Let's say 16 XP for instance:
You play a complete quest pack for 4, a scenario for 4, and a module for 12. Time spent equates to the same as "5 sessions", you gained a level, and you have 4 XP logged towards your next.

**** Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please, do not change the Quest durations!

In two weeks, I’m going to be running quests at a local Anime convention. They do not have ‘slots’, each room schedules itself.

In that sort of environment, it is much easier to convince someone to try the game if I can say quests are running all weekend and each section takes about an hour. Getting someone to stay for three or four hours is extremely difficult at a non-gaming convention.

Quests make a great outreach, get more people to try the game.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bret, the idea was to reduce the number of quests per pack, not how long they run. That would allow them to be run in sets of four, which is also how many are required for GM credit. They will still only take one hour each.

Grand Lodge ***** ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

Also the upcoming Starfinder quest appears to be a four-pack.

Hmm

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests
(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.

**** Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

Reducing the number per pack is fine. I just want them to be broken up into small enough sections that I can get people to sit down and try it.

A lot of the people who do so end up staying for more than a single session.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:

I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests

(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.

I agree strongly with both points. So this is the scale I'd like to see:


  • Quests are worth 2 XP a piece, or 1 XP on slow track.
  • Scenarios are worth 8 XP a piece, or 4 XP on slow track.
  • Modules are worth 24 XP per chapter, or 12 XP on slow track.
  • It takes 24 XP to level up.

Advantages:


  • No fractions with anything
  • Quests can be designed out-of-order
  • A typical quest pack would contain 4 quests, and this seems to fit the 1:4 scenario vs. quest time. Fits better in a Con slot.

Disadvantages:


  • Encourages quest packs to be exactly 4 quests long; longer than that and the pack no longer generates the same XP as a scenario, or gives less XP per quest.

    I think a quest pack generating a different amount of XP from a scenario is tolerable, although it shouldn't be encouraged.

  • Calculating multiples of 24 is harder than multiples of 3. One solution for this is to put an XP/level table on the inevitable Chronicle Zero handout / in the Guide.

Actually, if we're including an XP/level table for convenience anyway, why not take a crazy step further? Ditch the fame/gold table and turn it into a level/gold table. The old fame/gold limit table was never a really comfortable fit; it was mostly irrelevant except for characters that played too many modules. If it's meant to simulate WBL, why not just do as Starfinder does and just openly link it to XP?

This would move Fame/PP entirely into the Faction side of the game, instead of the current hybrid system.

The Exchange *****

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests

(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.

I like this.

I could add a lot of comments, but they would all boil down to that statement. I also like the idea that one hour of play = 1 XP. Seems elegant even. (realizing that I "grew up in PFS" on 4 hour game slots...)

*** Venture-Agent, Canada—Alberta—Grand Prairie aka DM Livgin

I'm prepping for paizocon right now am going through the exercise of checking each characters experience versus their level, this task would be more demanding and more prone to error with larger numbers.

Also I have the conversation at least twice with every new player about how much experience is what level. "I haven't played this guy in a while, is 9 xp level 3"

Simplicity is very important to me here, I think some of conceptually elegant solutions (1 xp per hour, 12 xp per level) will cause more little head aches.

Can anyone elaborate on why the dislike for fractions?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Whole numbers are easier?

The Exchange ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Whole numbers are easier?

They are 11/16ths easier than fractions and 42% easier than percentages.

Liberty's Edge ** Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Paducah aka axian

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests

(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.

I completely agree with point 1. But I don't mind fractions THAT much...I would suggest if they stay they be simple, say a numeric scale of 1, so .5 (1/2) or .2 (1/5) but not .25 (1/4) or .125 (1/8) and certainly not something repeating like 1/3 or 1/6.

If it is a 5 quest pack each quest could be .2 XP and the whole series be 1 XP. The math stays pretty simple, and the numbers small (which seems to be a concern).

But, I would prefer whole numbers, just don't really want to see 6XP/scenarios or 31XP/module or whatever just to have 1XP/quest on slow track.

*** Venture-Agent, Canada—Alberta—Grand Prairie aka DM Livgin

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dealing with fractions is the cost you pay to slow track? Just so everyone else can enjoy the simplicity of 1 xp per scenario?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

After I accidentally treated a characters gold as 7005 instead of 700.5, I don't track decimals. Fractions would be more visible, but whole numbers are still easier to process.

⦵⦵⦵

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Slow track should be easy. Just double the experience needed to level and do not worry about it on the adventure record. A slow track PC needs 6 exp to level vs a normal needs 3. That makes it up to the player to make sure everything is correct and leave the GM to deal with all the other things a GM has to deal with.

--Chris

*** Venture-Agent, Canada—Alberta—Grand Prairie aka DM Livgin

Chris Johnson 52 wrote:

Slow track should be easy. Just double the experience needed to level and do not worry about it on the adventure record. A slow track PC needs 6 exp to level vs a normal needs 3. That makes it up to the player to make sure everything is correct and leave the GM to deal with all the other things a GM has to deal with.

--Chris

Because characters can switch back and forth between slow and normal tracks, that becomes a big challenge (can't divide by three and add one to figure out their level, don't level up at every interval of three). For example, I slow track the GM credit I assign to characters but normal track when I play them.

The Exchange *****

Ward Davis wrote:
Chris Johnson 52 wrote:

Slow track should be easy. Just double the experience needed to level and do not worry about it on the adventure record. A slow track PC needs 6 exp to level vs a normal needs 3. That makes it up to the player to make sure everything is correct and leave the GM to deal with all the other things a GM has to deal with.

--Chris

Because characters can switch back and forth between slow and normal tracks, that becomes a big challenge (can't divide by three and add one to figure out their level, don't level up at every interval of three). For example, I slow track the GM credit I assign to characters but normal track when I play them.

yeah, and I often slow track Mods (such as the Gallows of Madness ones) because the rewards are too "rich". that way they give 1.5XP and 2 PP.

Silver Crusade ***** ⦵⦵⦵ RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 aka GreySector

1/2 (or 0.5) is IMO the easiest fraction. I don't understand why people have a problem with it.

I see no reason to use a different xp system for PFS2 than we use in PFS1.

The Exchange *****

Oh, I can understand the reasoning here.

The original "3xp/level" system was created when the smallest (indeed the only) increment of play was the scenario. Each game played gave 1XP and 3 games (about one day at a CON) gained a level. Then we got things with larger increments (3xp) and later smaller (Slow Track, and Quests)... and things went a little weird...

So yeah, I can see the desire to modify the system to go back to something where the "smallest" increment of play gains 1 XP and we expand from there.

What will "the smallest increment of play" in PFS2e be? a Quest run in Slow Track? Then I'm all for making that 1XP and figuring everything else out from there.

But... then what about PPs? should they still be... what? 2/scenario, 4/mod, some fraction per quest? If we are re-vamping the XP rules, what about Prestige/Fame?

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / PFS Sugguestion: Move Away from the 3xp per level system All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society Playtest