A plea to Scenario Authors

[BigNorseWolf]

John Bickel wrote:

Players and GMs need to watch and manage the level mix. Don't bring a level 1 into a party of lvl 4s. The bump to the level 1 will not always be enough. Don't bring a lvl 4 into a party of lvl 1s. The level 4 might not have any trouble with increased difficulty, but it could crush the level 1s.

That kind of goes against the reason for a level range, in that a player may not have a level 4, the level 4 may be a bad fit for the group/scenario, or they've got 5 level 3 characters from playing down all the time and really want to level their 4 to 5 .

The problem with the math being so tight gets exacerbated with a mixed level party like your typical pfs grab bag of mixed nuts. Perhaps there's a way to loosen the math? Not have it use the challenge point system but maybe either 1) go up or down 2) have the DC set by the person making the check rather than the APL ?

[medtec28]

John Bickel wrote:

Design only goes so far. The crit attack system, crit failures, and the more refined scenario scaling system puts more responsibility on the GM and players than e1 did.

When I see the DC 21 for a level 1-2, my assumptions are: the party was playing at a higher difficulty, and the GM made an error of some type.

GMs need to be better prepped. More than once, I have pulled e2 scenario because I wanted to review the stats for a very difficult encounter, hazard, or skill check. Then I discover that the GM used the wrong DCs or ran the encounter/hazard incorrectly. In PFS1, PCs were capable of powering their way through these type of errors. In PFS2, these type of errors turn lethal

Players and GMs need to watch and manage the level mix. Don't bring a level 1 into a party of lvl 4s. The bump to the level 1 will not always be enough. Don't bring a lvl 4 into a party of lvl 1s. The level 4 might not have any trouble with increased difficulty, but it could crush the level 1s.

I didn’t br8ng up the whole playing up debate initially because it is a separate issue. However, I do agree. Playing up never feels good to me. I have resolved to avoid it as much as possible. Twice I have played in a game where someone has dropped their level 4 character on the board at a last moment to pull us up. Both times we had a level range of 1,1,2,2,2. 13 Challenge points, no question you are playing low level, then someone within 10 minutes of the start time pulls out his level 4. all of a sudden we jump to 19 challenge points, high tier. if I know in advance, I walk away. did so multiple times at Gencon. I find this example truly frustrating because by the old APL system we would be playing down with an APL of 2, nice and easy math there.

The “Playing Up Problem” is exacerbated by the fact that you get nothing for the increased risk. Playing unused to reward more gold, but now it rewards less because you are more likely to miss treasure bundles, and it doesn’t feel good to get one-shot to dying 2 in every combat.

playing up just feels bad.

[TwilightKnight]

The APL/CP and up/down issue to me is generally okay. The problem lies in the way the encounters are built. If you have low level PCs, pushed up, they can handle an increase in the quantity of creatures already in the encounter. However, that same challenge would not be one for a true group of high tier characters. OTOH, if you adjust the encounter's quality up (ie make the monsters more powerful) it becomes a good challenge for the high tier PCs, but too much for low tier to deal with. I don't know the solution for that, but with all the complaints lately about TPK encounters and AC/DC being too high, its something that needs more consideration.

[Garulo]

James Kesilis wrote:

Assurance working out that well (Especially in a main skill) probably is an outlier. If you're a higher level character than the rest of the party, you may end up with it working out, but generally Assurance, by not including attribute bonuses, Item bonuses, and the like guarantees a result that matches up with DCs you would expect of tasks slightly below your level, so if you're a level 4 character in a scenario that decided a standard level 4 challenge DC was appropriate, it would only guarantee failure.

The only real use I have found with Assurance in practical terms is to guarantee a successful AID check or a Medicine check (since those are set to unchanging numbers).

The problem I run into more is that characters are boringly similar until much higher level (compared to PF1). I understand the desire to stretch out the life of a character to L20 but the problem is that while you CAN create conceptually different characters based upon the same chassis at lets say level 4 (2 1/2 months of PFS play on average), the practical differences in play between the two PCs is minimal (given the need to move most rounds/frighten becoming immune etc). This means that scenarios that are hard for any characters will aslso be hard for almost every other character. Perhaps adding the Free Archetype to PFS would be useful

[Sigfred]

John Bickel wrote:

Players and GMs need to watch and manage the level mix. Don't bring a level 1 into a party of lvl 4s. The bump to the level 1 will not always be enough. Don't bring a lvl 4 into a party of lvl 1s. The level 4 might not have any trouble with increased difficulty, but it could crush the level 1s.

The problem with this statement is that at all society tables that have legal player show up and drops a legal character down the table cannot turn them away unless the table is full. (Even then I have in the past split the table into two and asked a friend to be the second DM) Have a table of 1s and 2s and someone shows up with a 4. Sure I can encourage them to to make a new character but in the end the player makes the decision and if they decide to drop the level 4 the table is forced up and so now everyone at the table gets punished...

Lets go the other way... You are running a table of 4s and a new player shows up with their level one. I would say the level bump does not help at all tbh from my experience. They still drop as fast and still fail as often as if they didn't have it because of how the math swings. So now that new player gets smashed in the face, doesn't have a good time and we lose a new member of society play.

PF1 playing up was not nearly as detrimental as it is in PF2. How tight they tuned the math makes even the smallest level difference crazy. This compounds the CR system and why it needs to be reevaluated completely. For fun lets set off 2 parties of equal CR and see that happens.

3v1 equal challenge rating characters:

Party 1
Level 4 Barbarian(1)
To hit
18 Str(4)+LvL(4)+Prof(2)+Potency(1)=11
Damage
1d12+Striking(1d12)+Strength(4)+Rage(2)=2d12+6
Armor Class
Base AC with stat/item (5)+lvl(4)+Prof(2)-Rage(1)=20
Hit Points
Ancestries(8)+16 Con(3X4=12)+Level(12X4=48)=68 plus 7 Temp HP
Initiative
Wis(0)+Expert(4)+Level(4)=+8 to initiative

Party 2
Level 1 Barbarian (3)
To hit
18 Str(4)+LvL(1)+Prof(2)=7
Damage
1d12+Strength(4)+Rage(2)=1d12+6
Armor Class
Base AC with stat/item (5)+lvl(1)+Prof(2)-Rage(1)=17
Hit Points
Ancestries(8)+16 Con(3)+Level(12)=23 plus 4 Temp HP
Initiative
Wis(0)+Expert(4)+Level(1)=+5 to initiative

Now let's play the 10.5 game where all rolls are 10.5 since that's the average. So let's call it 11 because the dice are hot.
4th level Barbarian will always hit his first attack.
1st level Barbarian will never hit at all (even with a flank ignoring barbarian 4 can't be flanked)

You are right, it is unfair of me to not give those poor level 1 barbarians a level bump of +1 for being level 1 playing up.

So my level 4 barbarian is still at 10.5 and the level 1s are 11.5. So let's call is 11/12 respectively rounding up because luck is on their side.
4th level Barbarian will always hit his first attack.
1st level Barbarian will never hit at all (even with a flank ignoring barbarian 4 can't be flanked)

So the level 4 smears the floor of the 3 level 1s and walks away.

I bring up the above to show that in the 1,1,2,2,2,4 or even anytime 3,3,4,4,4,7 or 5,5,6,6,6,9 or 7,7,8,8,8,11 the system is asking the 5 lower level players to stand against a foe that will easily destroy them. And for no added benefit or gain.

As I said in my first post if I am at a table and someone drops their level 4 and forces a table up (and sadly this happens way way way too often) should the table GM start denying a player from joining? Or if a level 1 new player show up to a table of level 4s should we deny them from playing? I mean both of those are a slippery slope and why this discussion needed to be handled during the beta but seemed to be largely ignored that the CR increase is much much worse now in this system.

If the system made it just harder I feel the system would be okay but in a world where you are in constant fear of rolling a crit fail and that the higher the DC the greater the chance of a crit fail is why players playing up refuse to participate because I don't want to be any more of an additional burden. If the system had no crit failing then at least then people would not worry and just role the die incase of the lucky 20... but when you have only 5% chance of a miracle against the possible 20% or more chance of a critical fail causing lose of victory points/increase failure/etc... it leads to what I when I am forced to play up, and I assume a lot of people playing up do... sit at a table and do nothing... and that's not fun.

My only solution I can offer is if the module was written with a if/then statement. Basically if character is lower 2 levels use these numbers for the creature/encounter/event/etc for purpose of DC/AC/Damage/to hit and if character is upper 2 levels use these number for purpose of DC/AC/Damage/to hit. Unfortunately that would require a lot more juggling for gms so I am sure it would be shot down but that's all I have been able to come up with.

[TwilightKnight]

Steven Lawton wrote:

The problem with this statement is that at all society tables that have legal player show up and drops a legal character down the table cannot turn them away unless the table is full.

I disagree. An organizer/GM is certainly encouraged not to turn players away, especially if there is a legal seat for them to occupy, but they are not required to seat a player. I can recall situations where players were denied a seat for a variety of reasons, though I admit that most of them are due to past behavior issues, but not always.

There is also the option to walk away from the table, something I have done very infrequently, but greater than zero. If a table of say 1-1-2-2-2 got a last minute four show up that would push them into high tier, they could simply ask that player, for the sake of everyone's enjoyment to select a different character, select a pregen, or choose something else to do. Sure, its not ideal, but that one player's agency does not get to trump the other five. This is a community game and we should all strive to cooperate. If said player wants to be selfish, then the other players can just "walk" and then there is no game. In an extreme case, I've even seen a public table suddenly become a private one in order to deny a particular player a vacant seat. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but its as reasonable a response to the situation as the player insisting they play a character that forces people at the table to be uncomfortable and they just have to accept it.

And in the reverse, if a level 1 shows up to a high-tier table full of level 4s, then that player has the same options: select a different character, select a pregen, do something else. It is also possible that all the existing players might chose to switch to level 1/2 characters to accommodate the level 1 and I've seen that happen. We tend to cater to n00bs as opposed to regular players who just want to do their own thing. IMHO, this is not an issue of the GM allowing/refusing the player, it should be a matter of cooperation and the players coming to an agreement themselves. Unless the GM is the event organizer or a VO, its not their job to adjudicate player personality conflicts. If that is a requirement of org play GMs, then Paizo needs to pay us better.

IMO, the challenge point system is fine as it is. We just need (1) the authors/developers to be aware of how they ramp up/down encounters and how that effects the tables that are forced up/down and (2) the players to communicate and keep the tenets of the Society* at the heart of said conversations. We cannot rule away poor decisions made by players. We can only create a framework by which most situations are covered automatically and the players can reach an amicable solution for the extremes.

*Explore! Report! Cooperate!

[Sigfred]

TwilightKnight wrote:

If a table of say 1-1-2-2-2 got a last minute four show up that would push them into high tier, they could simply ask that player, for the sake of everyone's enjoyment to select a different character, select a pregen, or choose something else to do.

TwilightKnight wrote:

In an extreme case, I've even seen a public table suddenly become a private one in order to deny a particular player a vacant seat. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but its as reasonable a response to the situation as the player insisting they play a character that forces people at the table to be uncomfortable and they just have to accept it.

So you are agreeing that lower levels being forced to play up is not going to be enjoyable and make players feel uncomfortable?

When the system creates a force up that makes the game not "enjoyable" or cause players to feel "uncomfortable" you don't look at the player putting down the level 1 or the level 4 as the problem. We never look at players choosing to play a specific character in PF1 a problem but now in PF2 we are? That sounds more like a system problem not a player problem to me that needs to be addressed.

If the authors are following the rules given to them and players are pushed up in their modules thus leading to the game feeling not "enjoyable" or players becoming "uncomfortable" we didn't blame the authors for the issue as they followed the rules given to them. This once again sounds more like a system problem not an author problem that needs to be addressed.

This whole thread has been about how being pushed up, especially at the lower level, is not fun. That the current system is the issue and needs to be evaluated.

This could be a CR issue or it could be a total system issue as two examples. I offered looking at CR as this might be the easier of the possible fixes then attempting a whole system revamp.

As a side note... I do not know a single "new player" that wants to be referred to, called or even labeled as a nOOb. Maybe just call them what they are which is a new player. You too were a new player. I am sure since you are here your first table/gm/fellow players were kind to you, took you under their wing and helped gain and enjoy a love for this hobby. I ask to maybe not use a term for the next generation of players that the whole of the entire gaming community uses as a derogatory term for new players.

[Ferious Thune]

Steven Lawton wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

If a table of say 1-1-2-2-2 got a last minute four show up that would push them into high tier, they could simply ask that player, for the sake of everyone's enjoyment to select a different character, select a pregen, or choose something else to do.

TwilightKnight wrote:

In an extreme case, I've even seen a public table suddenly become a private one in order to deny a particular player a vacant seat. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but its as reasonable a response to the situation as the player insisting they play a character that forces people at the table to be uncomfortable and they just have to accept it.

So you are agreeing that lower levels being forced to play up is not going to be enjoyable and make players feel uncomfortable?

When the system creates a force up that makes the game not "enjoyable" or cause players to feel "uncomfortable" you don't look at the player putting down the level 1 or the level 4 as the problem. We never look at players choosing to play a specific character in PF1 a problem but now in PF2 we are? That sounds more like a system problem not a player problem to me that needs to be addressed.

If the authors are following the rules given to them and players are pushed up in their modules thus leading to the game feeling not "enjoyable" or players becoming "uncomfortable" we didn't blame the authors for the issue as they followed the rules given to them. This once again sounds more like a system problem not an author problem that needs to be addressed.

This whole thread has been about how being pushed up, especially at the lower level, is not fun. That the current system is the issue and needs to be evaluated.

This could be a CR issue or it could be a total system issue as two examples. I offered looking at CR as this might be the easier of the possible fixes then attempting a whole system revamp.

As a side note... I do not know a single "new player" that wants to be referred to, called or even labeled as a nOOb....

This same type of conversation took place many times over the course of PFS1, and the tier calculations were changed multiple times to try to find the right balance. It’s not new to PFS2, though PFS2 has its own issues with scaling for multiple tiers. PFS1 also had increase rewards for playing up, which understandably made it more agreeable, but also led to some balance issues as it was possible to greatly exceed wealth by level (even more than base PFS gold would). PFS2 had the issue of the base system being more tightly controlled, so increased wealth can have a bigger impact.

I agree that it’s generally not fun being the low level character playing up, though it depends a lot on the type of character you are playing.

I suspect part of the answer will be that a player with a low level character could choose to play a pregen in the higher tier (at least up to a point, until there are no pregens in the higher tier). I much prefer to play my own character, so that’s not an ideal option for me.

The in-tier scaling of difficulty is more concerning to me. It’s already hard enough to build a character that feels good at anything. When the DCs are set to a target that makes it as likely that you will crit fail as it is that you will succeed, that really feels bad. At least when I’m playing up, I understand that stuff might be too hard for me to succeed. But I’ve also been in situations playing up where I still had the highest bonus at a particular skill, because it used my key stat or I had made it expert (not generally at level 1 for that last part). Multiple DC21 checks in tier 1-2 as was mentioned above seems like a bit much, though.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

The problem currently with 'just play a pregen' is that the credit has to be applied to a character equal to or lower than the pregen.

That's absolutely no help for someone trying to level up a L4 character in 1-4.

EDIT: Despite some situations allowing for greater play opportunity a goodly portion of OrgPlay can't play 'whenever they want'. A choice of 'play this now' or never see it again still exists for some people.

[medtec28]

Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

[thistledown]

medtec28 wrote:

Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

Then you have people needing to level up their characters at game time, which can take a while to apply.

[medtec28]

As I understand the level bump concept, you don't actually get extra levels, you just get an effective bonus on all of your rolls

Guide to Organized Play wrote:

Mentorship and PC Level Bumps

To provide low level players a more fun and fair experience, PCs whose level equals the adventure’s base level (such as a 3rd-level PC playing in a Level 3–6 scenario) gain a temporary boost when playing in the higher level range called a level bump to represent the higher-level PCs’ mentorship and support.

Increase every DC the PC has by 1.
Increase the attack modifiers, attack damage, spell damage, saving throw modifiers, skill modifiers, Perception modifiers, and AC of the PC by 1.
Increase the Hit Point totals of the PC by 10 or by 10%, whichever is higher.
These adjustments are less beneficial than gaining a level, yet they provide the PC more survivability and opportunity to contribute to the adventure experience, reducing the degree to which higher-level PCs might overshadow these less experienced Pathfinders.

[medtec28]

TwilightKnight wrote:

In an extreme case, I've even seen a public table suddenly become a private one in order to deny a particular player a vacant seat.

If I ever saw tis happen at a shop, I would walk away and never go back. I don't understand how anyone can consider this to be acceptable.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

medtec28 wrote:

Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

You would almost *certainly* overshoot the scaling in the other direction.

I could see an argument for allowing mentor boons to apply to all low tier characters. But honestly anything beyond that would definitely break the math in favor of the players.

The alternative, (which I proposed at the time and which was shot down as too complicated) was to extend the low tier scaling all the way up to 22 for parties of 6. Such that a party of 6, with a cp of 21, for example, would play low tier.

(Low tier would then be:

8-15
16-18 (5-6 players)
19-22 (6 players))

[medtec28]

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

medtec28 wrote:

Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

You would almost *certainly* overshoot the scaling in the other direction.

I could see an argument for allowing mentor boons to apply to all low tier characters. But honestly anything beyond that would definitely break the math in favor of the players.

I think you are going to have to clarify how this is true. if the DC's are set with the expectation that all players are level 3-4. raising the effective character level for all those playing up would make them slightly less effective than level 3 characters?

Also, how is applying mentor boons to all low tier different than my suggestion?

[Sigfred]

medtec28 wrote:

As I understand the level bump concept, you don't actually get extra levels, you just get an effective bonus on all of your rolls

Guide to Organized Play wrote:

Mentorship and PC Level Bumps

To provide low level players a more fun and fair experience, PCs whose level equals the adventure’s base level (such as a 3rd-level PC playing in a Level 3–6 scenario) gain a temporary boost when playing in the higher level range called a level bump to represent the higher-level PCs’ mentorship and support.

Increase every DC the PC has by 1.
Increase the attack modifiers, attack damage, spell damage, saving throw modifiers, skill modifiers, Perception modifiers, and AC of the PC by 1.
Increase the Hit Point totals of the PC by 10 or by 10%, whichever is higher.
These adjustments are less beneficial than gaining a level, yet they provide the PC more survivability and opportunity to contribute to the adventure experience, reducing the degree to which higher-level PCs might overshadow these less experienced Pathfinders.

Maybe that is a step that can help smooth out the situation of having to play up. Just have the guide book changed to add that the lowest level for the scenario during a play up situation gets the elite adjustment placed on them. This would give a bit more strength and resilience then the current level bump system gives (still not as strong as a real character +2 levels) but less held behind then just the bump. Then leave the current level bump system for those one level out of tier. That way both the lowest level and 2nd lowest level of a module get a helping hand to deal with playing up.

Though I still think on top of that they should still count as level+1 for treasure bundles when playing up to signify increased pay for increased difficulty. That way the player now has the elite adjustment or level bump plus a lil extra money to smooth out a possible hard game.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

medtec28 wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

medtec28 wrote:

Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

You would almost *certainly* overshoot the scaling in the other direction.

I could see an argument for allowing mentor boons to apply to all low tier characters. But honestly anything beyond that would definitely break the math in favor of the players.

I think you are going to have to clarify how this is true. if the DC's are set with the expectation that all players are level 3-4. raising the effective character level for all those playing up would make them slightly less effective than level 3 characters?

Also, how is applying mentor boons to all low tier different than my suggestion?

Because you are comparing the DCs for 4 lvl 3 characters with 6 "level 3" characters.

And because the mentor boons only give bonus to a single subset of rolls, not all rolls.

And because your suggestion involves level 1 characters getting 2 level bumps + mentor boons.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

Steven Lawton wrote:

Though I still think on top of that they should still count as level+1 for treasure bundles when playing up to signify increased pay for increased difficulty. That way the player now has the elite adjustment or level bump plus a lil extra money to smooth out a possible hard game.

"Play up for more rewards" was super toxic in PF1 and resulted in people being pressured into playing tables they were not comfortable at and then getting their characters killed.

I would really rather we not go back to that.

[medtec28]

okay, fair enough on the level bump discussion.

with regards to the toxicity of playing up for more rewards, do you truly think the playing up for more pain is the better solution? perhaps 3ven something simple like “if you play up you receive no fewer than 8 treasure bundles” or a small increase in ACP when playing up. Although with the difficulties already present in the reporting software, that second one is unlikely.

[Sigfred]

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Steven Lawton wrote:

Though I still think on top of that they should still count as level+1 for treasure bundles when playing up to signify increased pay for increased difficulty. That way the player now has the elite adjustment or level bump plus a lil extra money to smooth out a possible hard game.

"Play up for more rewards" was super toxic in PF1 and resulted in people being pressured into playing tables they were not comfortable at and then getting their characters killed.

I would really rather we not go back to that.

I am guessing the tables you and I have seen have been very different and this is very possible. Had I seen what you described I might have a different outlook at the situation. For me though in PF1 I never seen anyone forced or pressured into playing up they always made the choice themselves. I can honestly say that the players I saw chose to play up and were grateful for the extra pay that came with the extra risk. If that was truly happening then that is awful and should not happen.

What I don't want to see is what is currently happening, that I have been seeing, which is villainizing a player for choosing (and in some cases not having a choice) bringing a high/low level character to the table. I have in PF2 seen people go, "Well there is the level 4. What as a$$" and on the reverse I have seen level 1s be shamed for not helping and making passing the victory point system (as one example) harder on the team due to the seat being full adding more points needed to succeed.

That is why when I hear people saying things like, well people will just private their table so the person can't play or people will just leave and close the table it is villainizing a player. The system should not be villainizing a player on a decision oh who they want to play and I for one never saw in PF1 a high/low level player sitting at the table ever be treated like they personally ruined a table because of their character choice. But what I can say is I have seen it happen at PF2 tables and that is what I want to help come up with a way to stop.

[Belafon]

I have seen a variety of negative environments created because of differing rewards for playing up/playing down. Mostly - as others have said - low-level characters being pressured to play up because the others want more gold. Occasionally it would clearly be classifiable as "bullying" but far more often low-level players would confide afterwards (after their character died) that they didn't want to play up but didn't object because they didn't want to cost other players gold.

Deathtrap example:

Due to the way APL worked at one point in PF1, you could have a party of nothing but level 1 and 2 PCs playing in Tier 4-5. Really:

3 level 1s and 3 level 2s. Average is 1.5. Round to 2. Then add 1 since it is 6 players. APL 3. "If the APL of a table is between two sub-Tiers, the players may choose to play up or play down."

Usually it was the players with a brand-new level 1 who would push to play up in that situation. Because they weren't risking an established character.

Really Silly Example:

Back in the PF1 days where you got the gold of the tier you played in (before out-of-tier gold): One player really and truly REFUSED to play unless his character was playing up. The stupidest situation this created was when we were playing a 4-player 5-9 scenario. The average including his 5th-level fighter was in the low tier. After he argued with the GM for a while that we should be allowed to play up (even though it was against the rules) and without getting any support from the other level 5 player, he left in annoyance because he "didn't want to miss out on the high-tier gold and would come back another week"

What made it silly/stupid? Once he left we needed a pregen to make a table of 4. Replacing his 5th level fighter with a 7th level pregen meant the average rounded to 7 and we could have chosen to play up.

Those particular examples were mitigated by the end of PF1. Partly because of rules changes and largely because out-of-tier gold reduced the monetary incentive that could possibly encourage pressuring/bullying. Level-based rewards in PF2 got rid of it completely.

[Rakle]

Difficulty varies based upon the number and level of players. This type of process will never be perfect for all situations. Everyone has supplied numerous examples of when it doesn't work.

This process is works better when there is less variance between the character levels. GM and players need to realize this. Extreme level differences cannot always be avoid, but many times they can be avoided by awareness and proactive effort.

[Ascalaphus]

I do get annoyed when the sixth player to sign up to a game is a level 4 that pushes an otherwise low tier table juuuust into high tier with 19CP.

But this happens, especially with games offered online to people wherever. Communication isn't as good as it is in a local lodge where you know people. It's harder to say to a stranger "hey, do you maybe have a different character that's in the same tier as the others?" as like, the very first thing you say to them.

I think this calls more for an "engineering" solution. The one solution that's actually within immediate reach, works within existing rules, is to set (online) tables to a maximum of 5 signups. It's far less likely to get the bad math that causes a skewed tier with 5 than with 6 players.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I do get annoyed when the sixth player to sign up to a game is a level 4 that pushes an otherwise low tier table juuuust into high tier with 19CP.

Same. I usually ask them to play a pregen, and so far most people have been pretty cool about it.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Alternatively, since gold credit is gold credit for a character of a given tier (provided the proper amount of treasure bundle points/etc are acquired), could the rule about pregen levels needing to be equal to or lower than the character be discarded for other wordage of "scenario being equal to or lower than the character that is getting the credit applied"?

That would enable someone who has a L4 character who *wants* to be helpful but also *wants* to level up their character the flexibility of playing a L1 or L3 pregen without having to create another character to 'dump' the lower-level pregen credit into, and it'd also free up folks to play with higher level pregens (if desired) if the point value drove the game into the higher numbers of challenge points?

EDIT: Example 1: Table of L1, L2 characters gets a last minute L4 addition. L4 player could play a L1 pregen (currently prohibited by rules) and get L4 credit for their character since they are Actively helping out making sure the game is enjoyable for everyone.

Example 2: Table of L3-4 has a L2 character show up at last minute. Level bump won't help, but being able to play a L3 pregen might. That player would then get L2 credit/gold after the scenario.

Just spitballing, the firming up of how one is *not* playing for 'higher tier gold' makes this possible, since gold would be applied to the character being credited, not the character being played.

[TwilightKnight]

medtec28 wrote:

If I ever saw tis happen at a shop, I would walk away and never go back. I don't understand how anyone can consider this to be acceptable.

That may/not have been the intention. As I indicated this was an "extreme case" so you should not expect to see much, if ever. However, as I also said, this is a cooperative game. The frequency of a player being problematic is not common, not even uncommon, but its greater than zero and if one of six players is being unreasonably selfish, the other five should not feel compelled to do all the compromising. "Seat every player" and "never turn a player away" are not absolutely. YMMV

[Blake's Tiger]

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I do get annoyed when the sixth player to sign up to a game is a level 4 that pushes an otherwise low tier table juuuust into high tier with 19CP.

Same. I usually ask them to play a pregen, and so far most people have been pretty cool about it.

I play RPGs to play my own characters; I usually don't even play the pregen only adventures. If the system makes it so that I'm hurting the other players by playing my own within-tier character, then there's something wrong with the system.

I would think that the complexity introduced by Jared's old suggestion of expanding the low tier challenge points is better than making people feel bad for playing the characters they want to play in the scenario they want to play at the time they're able to play.

[Watery Soup]

Very fundamentally, if Level 4 characters and Level 1 characters can't co-exist easily, then the scenario level ranges should be narrowed. And if it causes enough problems, maybe now is a good time to discuss that.

I'm relatively neutral to 1-3 vs 1-4 vs 1-5. Whatever. We made 1-5s work in PFS1, it seemed a bit much, and I see why PFS2 squashed it to 1-4. The 1-2s seem to work out really well.

I'm way more annoyed by the way some people choose to play their high tier characters than that they play them - the level 4 archer who refuses to be up front despite having more hit points and higher AC than the level 2 melee combatant, etc.

---

Personally, I will consider, but not automatically agree to, bringing a different character if I'm out of tier. I definitely don't think it should be a rule, formal or informal. And, honestly, if I'm the first to sign up with a high-tier character and it fills in with low-tier, I'm way less empathetic towards complaints about my tier than when I come in late with a high-tier.

[pauljathome]

Watery Soup wrote:

And, honestly, if I'm the first to sign up with a high-tier character and it fills in with low-tier, I'm way less empathetic towards complaints about my tier than when I come in late with a high-tier.

Agreed. The ones that really get me irked are the times when somebody doesn't bother to give their character level when they sign up or comes to the table at the last second with an inappropriate leveled character (I'm talking online play here. Still no in person PFS where I live).

If I know in advance I can take whatever steps I think appropriate. Drop the game, change character, whatever. But when I find out right at game time my options are severely reduced.

I wish more GMs (again, I'm talking online here) would enforce a reasonable limit before game when people must decide what they're playing. Both level and class.

[BretI]

Although I agree that the mixing of levels can cause toxic results, I don’t think that is really something the scenario authors can fix in many cases,

This is a problem that I think is mostly seen in Org Play. The system recommends that characters in a group be the same level, but that isn’t really compatible with Org Play. I believe you need to allow tables of mixed levels in order to get tables to make and have a fun game. I have tried the tables of two players, two pregens and do not find them nearly as enjoyable as a GM or player.

One thing the scenario authors might be able to do is on skill challenges make the scaling be by total challenge points rather than number of characters. When that low subtier character is playing in the high tier, they really aren’t likely to generate additional successes. Requiring a certain number of successes by number of characters doesn’t work well there, but there might be a way to make it work by challenge points.

Has anyone done any analysis of number of successes expected for various challenge point totals and mixes of character levels?

[pauljathome]

One thing to keep in mind. The extent of the problem varies hugely between scenarios.

The worst cases are the ones where only 1 or 2 opponents make up the encounter budget. They're already tough for characters of the right level, they just become ridiculously frustrating when you're playing up.

So one partial solution would be to minimize solo fights and also, wherever at all possible, do NOT apply the elite template because of challenge points. Add NPCs or hitpoints but don't level up the opponents

[Ascalaphus]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Alternatively, since gold credit is gold credit for a character of a given tier (provided the proper amount of treasure bundle points/etc are acquired), could the rule about pregen levels needing to be equal to or lower than the character be discarded for other wordage of "scenario being equal to or lower than the character that is getting the credit applied"?

That would enable someone who has a L4 character who *wants* to be helpful but also *wants* to level up their character the flexibility of playing a L1 or L3 pregen without having to create another character to 'dump' the lower-level pregen credit into, and it'd also free up folks to play with higher level pregens (if desired) if the point value drove the game into the higher numbers of challenge points?

EDIT: Example 1: Table of L1, L2 characters gets a last minute L4 addition. L4 player could play a L1 pregen (currently prohibited by rules) and get L4 credit for their character since they are Actively helping out making sure the game is enjoyable for everyone.

Example 2: Table of L3-4 has a L2 character show up at last minute. Level bump won't help, but being able to play a L3 pregen might. That player would then get L2 credit/gold after the scenario.

Just spitballing, the firming up of how one is *not* playing for 'higher tier gold' makes this possible, since gold would be applied to the character being credited, not the character being played.

I think this is something that we could do, because the reasons to be as restricted as in PF1 have mostly gone away. It's not going to solve problems everywhere, but it's a point of friction that we could get rid of.

[Ferious Thune]

Not really sure how I feel about this, and I'm sure it would get a strong initial reaction against, but has the possibility of a level reduction ever been discussed? We have level bumps to help low-level characters playing up. Why not a level reduction for high level characters playing down? Thus allowing a higher CP total to be considered low-tier.

All CP totals don't have to be considered equal in that situation. CP of 19-20 with a majority of characters in low-tier? Play down, highest level gets a -1 to everything and -10hps. CP of 20 and majority in high tier, play up, lowest level gets a bump.

Something like that. It's definitely more complicated, but it would prevent 1,1,2,2,2,4 or something similar playing up, while still letting 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1 play up.

I think it's also important to point out again that the OPs issue wasn't a situation where the characters were having to play up. None of this really solves having multiple severe skill checks required for a 1-2 level range.

[Z...D...]

I remember a lot of first level scenarios, when they would try to increase the encounter difficulty by adding mooks, they would just get plowed through. I am talking one hit a piece and it did nothing but just waste a few more resources.

Back to the point of the OP though. His problem was with skill levels. Why do we just use the the DC's by level and adjust them per player and difficulty. A little more work for the GM, but not too much. We could still modify the number of successes by number of players.

[BretI]

Zachary Davis wrote:

Why do we just use the the DC's by level and adjust them per player and difficulty. A little more work for the GM, but not too much. We could still modify the number of successes by number of players.

I don’t know about others, but different DCs per character breaks suspension of belief for me.

It is bad enough that the exact same task has different difficulties depending on what tier it is. Now the same group of players sees different difficulties based on what level each member is? It just feels wrong and gamey in a bad way.

I would much rather lower the number of successes required and if the low level person gets a success that is something unexpected to celebrate.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Bret Indrelee wrote:

Zachary Davis wrote:

Why do we just use the the DC's by level and adjust them per player and difficulty. A little more work for the GM, but not too much. We could still modify the number of successes by number of players.

I don’t know about others, but different DCs per character breaks suspension of belief for me.

It is bad enough that the exact same task has different difficulties depending on what tier it is. Now the same group of players sees different difficulties based on what level each member is? It just feels wrong and gamey in a bad way.

I would much rather lower the number of successes required and if the low level person gets a success that is something unexpected to celebrate.

The problem that was pointed out in the math above is that it is *exceptionally* unlikely that a lower level character is going to get a success, which then becomes incredibly demoralizing. Doubly so if the 'effort to help' actually hurts the party's chances for success (more likely to roll a Critical Failure).

I had that experience when I first started playing PFS2 (not the GMing part, but actually playing a character) and it took a goodly number of scenarios before I felt like I could *do* something as a character.

I only 'stuck with it' because I had a couple of GMs that encouraged me to keep at it because of a combination of dice performance issues and because I knew and respected the GMs in question.

If I had been a new player, faced with the same situation, I probably would have gone to look for AL or something else to spend my time on.

Another thing that might merit looking at would be the removal of Critical Failure effects for some rolls both to make it easier on the GM (in the event of a biffed Identify check) as well as the player (knowing that they aren't going to completely screw over the table just trying to HELP and COOPERATE like a good Pathfinder should be doing.

[Z...D...]

Bret Indrelee wrote:

Zachary Davis wrote:

Why do we just use the the DC's by level and adjust them per player and difficulty. A little more work for the GM, but not too much. We could still modify the number of successes by number of players.

I would much rather lower the number of successes required and if the low level person gets a success that is something unexpected to celebrate.

Different number of successes by CP then?

Understand the want for it, but, looking at the easiest way to implement instead of overhauling the current CP system/skill check system.

[BigNorseWolf]

Bret Indrelee wrote:

I don’t know about others, but different DCs per character breaks suspension of belief for me.

I mean, how would you know the difference between there was a different DC and someone just rolled 2 higher on the dice?

[Z...D...]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Bret Indrelee wrote:

I don’t know about others, but different DCs per character breaks suspension of belief for me.

I mean, how would you know the difference between there was a different DC and someone just rolled 2 higher on the dice?

Can only say what has occurred at the tables I have been at.

Players talking numbers, trying work out what their best options are.

With that said, other methods of finding true DCs I have found in the past is bracketing. Finding what hit vs misses and narrowing it down until you find the target.

[BigNorseWolf]

Zachary Davis wrote:

Can only say what has occurred at the tables I have been at.

Players talking numbers, trying work out what their best options are.

I meant in terms of immersion. If the players Bob and Sam are talking numbers you've already left anything Leafytree and Grognack are going to recognize.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

Ferious Thune wrote:

Not really sure how I feel about this, and I'm sure it would get a strong initial reaction against, but has the possibility of a level reduction ever been discussed? We have level bumps to help low-level characters playing up. Why not a level reduction for high level characters playing down? Thus allowing a higher CP total to be considered low-tier.

All CP totals don't have to be considered equal in that situation. CP of 19-20 with a majority of characters in low-tier? Play down, highest level gets a -1 to everything and -10hps. CP of 20 and majority in high tier, play up, lowest level gets a bump.

Something like that. It's definitely more complicated, but it would prevent 1,1,2,2,2,4 or something similar playing up, while still letting 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1 play up.

I think it's also important to point out again that the OPs issue wasn't a situation where the characters were having to play up. None of this really solves having multiple severe skill checks required for a 1-2 level range.

While that is (in my opinion) a neat solution, I expect some players would riot at the table if told they need to nerf their character to play.

[Ferious Thune]

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

Not really sure how I feel about this, and I'm sure it would get a strong initial reaction against, but has the possibility of a level reduction ever been discussed? We have level bumps to help low-level characters playing up. Why not a level reduction for high level characters playing down? Thus allowing a higher CP total to be considered low-tier.

All CP totals don't have to be considered equal in that situation. CP of 19-20 with a majority of characters in low-tier? Play down, highest level gets a -1 to everything and -10hps. CP of 20 and majority in high tier, play up, lowest level gets a bump.

Something like that. It's definitely more complicated, but it would prevent 1,1,2,2,2,4 or something similar playing up, while still letting 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1 play up.

I think it's also important to point out again that the OPs issue wasn't a situation where the characters were having to play up. None of this really solves having multiple severe skill checks required for a 1-2 level range.

While that is (in my opinion) a neat solution, I expect some players would riot at the table if told they need to nerf their character to play.

Maybe. That was my initial concern. I’ve been pleasantly surprised that nobody jumped on that immediately after my post. Ultimately, it’s just adjusting numbers, not taking away any abilities. Are they better off with a -1 and a lower DC from being in low tier, or their full bonus but a DC that could be 2-3 higher in high tier?

[HammerJack]

As either a player or a GM, I would like to be able to do that sort of level drop to make parties work together more easily... but I also see the idea being unpopular, yeah.

[Ascalaphus]

Rationally it's a good option, but yeah I'm not sure it'd go down well emotionally.

Still, viewed from a distance, you have a choice between:
* 4-5 people are playing against higher DCs than normal for their level, which is comparable to taking a -2 or so on everything
* 1 person is taking a -1 to everything

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Alternate adjustments are certainly something to consider, though GMs could also consider just listing the scenario as "Scenario Name Tier 1-2", after all a lot of online conventions also do this for their specials.

Of course, that works better online than offline.

[Ferious Thune]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Rationally it's a good option, but yeah I'm not sure it'd go down well emotionally.

The Automatons will be here in a little over a week. Resistance is... trademarked...

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Just got done playing Intro 1.

We were rolling 'average' (but not abysmally) and most of the fights were difficult, with the opponents hitting pretty much all the time in the latter encounters where we were swinging and hoping for the best.

Much like I said above, if this had been my 'first' experience with PFS(2), it would have been very demoralizing at the very least.

[GM Wageslave]

Just had a thought due to a different discussion about Bounties...

Would it be possible to designate L1-2 (1-4) scenarios as 'Adventure Mode' capable to help mitigate this without changing the incredibly difficult math retroactively and structurally?

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Another thing to consider is persistent damage.

With higher level characters, there tends to be better ways of addressing it and/or having enough HP to 'absorb' it until it can be cleared.

At L1-2? Not so much, and Intro 1 had a bunch of it going in one fight. We were darn lucky that we had someone that could reasonably mitigate it, but a different party configuration would have been a tpk or reasonably close to one.

[cavernshark]

medtec28 wrote:

Finally, I feel like there is an over-reliance on the “Elite” template in scenario design. Particularly when this is combined with the above points. I understand the excitement and drama of a singular enemy to face, where the entire party must tactically coordinate in order to strike, damage and survive the encounter. But wouldn’t these moments be better served as that climactic encounter. I remember many “boss” fights in first edition, but when every encounter’s response to an elevated challenge point total is to “throw the elite template on it”, do you not think that cheapens the tension of these set-piece encounters? I feel like this just turns everything into an unending slog and makes things overall less fun. Perhaps we can find another way to make the encounter more challenging without making it difficult? “Challenging” is different that “difficult”.

I'm going to post this on the specific GM scenario thread as well, but I'd like to call out here that the new 3-02 scenario also exhibits the problem called out above.

3-02 East Hill Haunting (1-4):

Overall, this scenario was fine and good but the final fight felt very off in difficulty again because of an overemphasis on an over-leveled single enemy with the elite template. I had a party of 6 (Summoner 2, Play Test Thaumaturge 3, Ranger 3, Magus 3, Wizard 4, Battle Oracle 4). That's 27 CP, which meant my final enemy was an elite Ogre spider, a CR 6.

The creatures size, AC, physical stats, and poison absolutely can wreck lower level opponents. Many players needed 16 or higher on the die to hit at all. It could crit with around a 30% chance per hit on any given full MAP strike. Add to the fact that a huge creature on this roof makes maneuvering to flank difficult it was a really bad time.

Accepting that four level 4 players would have been 24 CP, the same difficulty tier, this still would have been an APL+2 encounter and I am pretty sure would have gone equally badly if I went fully aggressive. Full focus on any one target could easily drop them. As it stood I almost wiped the party and the *only* reason they lived at all was because I recognized how ludicrous this threat was and had it act a little less optimally than it could (e.g. using it's first strike to throw a web instead of just crushing everyone outright).

Out of curiosity, I looked at the encounter budget math for a 'moderate' encounter and this creature technically fits in that profile, but so does 6 of the low-tier threats (hunting spiders) or 4 of those same hunting spiders with the elite template. It just doesn't make sense to me why this creature was chosen and then slapped with an elite template on top. The next bump up would have been a second ogre spider with the weak template which may have been equally damning but at least they'd have been able to hit it... if they could maneuver around the two huge creatures on the roof.

Overall, I'd ask that scenario developers remember that even if the APL is 3 or 4, you can still end up with situations where single enemies with the elite template are 3-4 levels above some PCs. It plays a lot worst in person than it does on paper.