Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JeffGroves Sep 06, 2010 22:50:45	So, the LFR games at the local convention this year were very painful. I was starting a new PC at 1st level and was looking forward to leveling her up; everyone else was 1st-2nd level as well. On my 3rd module, this came up: "Let's do high-level! We have enough players to smoke it." The resulting module took 5 hours and we didn't even finish it before the convention had to close up for the night. We had used up most of our dailies already and the GM was betting we wouldn't have survived the last battle. On the 4th module, they voted the same way. On the first fight, 3 PCs were constantly bloody & I ended up dying. It also took over an hour & a half to finish. My new opinion is that going High on 1st-4th modules is dangerous & grueling if the majority of your party is 1st-2nd level. Anyone else have similar experiences? How do I convince people who insist on high-risk/high-reward no matter what that we're biting off more than we can chew?
#2 gomeztoo Sep 07, 2010 0:45:06	My first argument for going high is simple: it takes too long. When I am at a convention, I don't want to overrun the game and have it called. On top of that, while the first year adventures are now relatively easy (mostly due to power creep in the rules, with the monsters taking to MM3 to catch up) there are also adventures (mostly newer) that are very hard. We had some comments on DALE1-7, for instance, which can be brutal on high. A DM may be able to judge if it is appropriate to trun high - he also may not. It stays up to teh players, but my advise is to play low if you are level 1, and posusble level 2, as you risk frustrations. Not being able to hit anything, or hugely overrunning is also no fun. Better to have the SDm tweek teh challenge a bit if he wants to challenge you more and time permits. I do think that some people are too eager to earn their xp to keep in mind that we are playing a role-playing game, not a race to the finish. Challenge is good, but it doesn't mean you always have to go all out. But time, I found, is a stronger persuasion than challenge. I.e. I managed to finish Specials because I insisted on low, which I am sure we would not have finished (and likely gotten TPKed as well) on high. Gomez
#3 imaginaryfriend.inv Sep 07, 2010 2:29:35	I totally agree with Gomez that time tends to be the most pressing problem with playing high. I think the whole situation is also a good illustration of how perceptions lag. The first few batches of adventures were fairly easy combat wise and DMs were still honing their 4th ed. skills. People are taking some time to adjust to the new reality that LFR adventures are not a guaranteed cakewalk anymore.  With some luck the LFR "reboot"(I still hate that word but it still fits best and still lookinh for a better fit) will create an opportunity to counter the "always play high" tendencies of the playerbase.
#4 aljergensen Sep 07, 2010 10:18:36	I think a lot of people got used to the encounters as designed by some of the early modules, which tended to be less challenging.   It's also been my experience that the ability to succeed at a module depends far more on having an effective party mix than anything else. Mods running long depends on a lot of factors.  The amount of RP, amount of time players take on their turn, the pacing set by the DM.  We regularly run mods at our game day on high with lower-level characters and heroic level mods usually complete on time.  A good mix of characters - a healer that can also deal damage and/or significantly buff, a good defender and a mix of strikers, people who know how to work effectively together can do it.  A group of random PCs with less experienced players are going to have a tough time. Allen.
#5 shuntsbe Sep 08, 2010 1:48:30	There are a large number of factors regarding playing high. Early scenarios were less difficult as the power gamer books were released quickly and everyone was taking Expertise etc. Then there was a "LFR is too easy" period and authors made their adventures tougher. Many were turned into daze fests. Recently, there seems to be a good level of difficulty reached. MM3 monsters do more damage, so authors can use damage as a deterrent rather than inflicting the massive status effects. Also, crossing the Paragon border is tough the first iteration. Many new abilities are available and you need to know them. I have seen more deaths at P1 than at any other tier recently. This is exacerbated by folks creating new level 11 characters. Players can make it tougher on the DM when they ask for the high tier but are not up to it. The DM has to decide to softball them as per DME, or run the high tier adventure as is written. When I run, I try to recommend low, if the party seems weak. If the DM always softballs, why bother playing in the low tier?
#6 Uthrac Sep 08, 2010 7:50:36	Time is the biggest factor at any tier. A table of six 4th-level characters who just met playing an H2 mod on high may have difficulty finishing on time. (Particularly true at H1 for 1st level characters and P1 for 11th level characters.) "Real-time" is also a resource that must be considered by players when choosing to play low or high. This bleeds into role-playing in character, jesting between players, taking breaks, and everything else that eats into the clock. If the players want more time for RP, playing low tier will provide that. High tier always results in longer combats. (Depending on the group make-up, the "longer" can range anywhere from an extra 5 minutes to over an hour!) Recognize that "playing-up" results in longer combats and, especially in a time-capped environment where players are not familiar with each other's characters, the potential for the adventure to run long. Then decide as a table how you want to spend your 4-hour slot: facing longer combats or playing a more leisurely game.
#7 anchovy_pizza Sep 08, 2010 10:03:11	The rule of thumb I've learned locally (not sure of the origins of this) is that if the average PC level of your party is equal to or greater than 2, you can play high. If it's lower than 2, you should play low. This seems to be a good rule of thumb for L1-4; not sure what the rule is for higher bands and tiers. For Heroic, we rarely play low in any group I've played with (2 stores, a con), and we've done well, with the rare exception (maybe 1 adventure in 10 goes badly, IOW multiple bloodies, all surges spent, multiple uncons). I think part of the logic here is that the risks (higher XP) are worth the rewards (I've seen 0 character deaths, AFAIR; many go unconscious, but survive somehow). I also think many players know this and gamble that the worst that can happen if they do die is they come out with lower XP -- probably about the same if they had played low anyway (they figure).
#8 Thanlis Sep 08, 2010 10:39:21	Tidbit du jour: by the rules, you cannot browbeat people into playing at an inappropriate tier. "The low level is meant for a group whose levels, on average, fall in the lower levels of the adventure's level spread... A group may decide to play the high level when their levels are more suited to the low level if everyone in the group agrees to do so..." Emphasis mine. If your group is low tier, on average, it takes unanimous consent for the adventure to be played on high tier. Same applies in reverse, I just didn't quote that bit.
#9 Undrhil Sep 15, 2010 22:27:03	Tidbit du jour: by the rules, you cannot browbeat people into playing at an inappropriate tier. "The low level is meant for a group whose levels, on average, fall in the lower levels of the adventure's level spread... A group may decide to play the high level when their levels are more suited to the low level if everyone in the group agrees to do so..." Emphasis mine. If your group is low tier, on average, it takes unanimous consent for the adventure to be played on high tier. Same applies in reverse, I just didn't quote that bit. This is true, but do you wanna be the Schmuck who says "No, guys ... I wanna play low today."  I doubt *anyone* wants to be that guy when they are playing in a random get-together game, like at a Con.  If everyone else is saying they want to play up, majority of the time, anyone at the table wanting to play down will get "out voted" regardless of what the module says about the normal state of affairs.
#10 mvincent Sep 17, 2010 19:32:18	do you wanna be the Schmuck who says "No, guys ... I wanna play low today."  As opposed to a very long session (and possible TPK)? Absolutely. The experienced players I've encountered know this rule and happily accept it (even at times when they probably shouldn't), while inexperienced players really should learn the rule. Itsa good rule. If everyone else is saying they want to play up, majority of the time, anyone at the table wanting to play down will get "out voted" Even though I'm unlikely to invoke the clause myself, I would (as either a DM or fellow player) stand up for anyone else that wanted to invoke the clause. I learned that behavior from other experienced players. Voting would not be an option. But of course the minority player (being the odd man out) should still definitely be nice about his objection.
#11 shuntsbe Sep 19, 2010 2:40:11	I have seen newer players be convinced that they should play high tier when they really wanted to play at low tier. Frequently this happens if they have a character starting above level 1 and they want to ease into their character. For example, playing P1 low with their level 11 character. However, if they are at a table with experienced players and high-level characters, those folks frequently prefer to play high and feel they are missing out playing low. Sometimes this is true in that the other five characters could handle the adventure, even if the sixth character decided to do nothing to contribute to the adventure. I feel sort of sad that such a new person is missing out on the fun of participation. I am not sure how to fix this.
#12 gomeztoo Sep 20, 2010 9:16:16	This is true, but do you wanna be the Schmuck who says "No, guys ... I wanna play low today." Yes.  And I do not consider anyone to be a Schmuck for wanting to play at an appropriate tier. Gomez
#13 Thanlis Sep 20, 2010 9:50:46	I definitely want to be the GM who makes a point of explaining and supporting that rule if it looks like anyone at the table is being pressured.