New Character Options for Pathfinder and Starfinder Society Play

I appreciate the in-world justifications... but why does a tengu from Magnimar or the Shackles have a harder time making their way to Absalom than anyone else? Both of those regions and places of origin can be taken by any society member. In season 1 alone, the society travels to the Mwangi Expanse several times, Tian Xia, and numerous other places without incident (well, without incident involving the travel, anyway) and continues to have lodges in all of those locations. Anywhere there's a lodge, there should be new Pathfinder Agents, even if they are field commissioned and not going through studies in Absalom.

I appreciate the in-world justifications... but why does a tengu from Magnimar or the Shackles have a harder time making their way to Absalom than anyone else? Both of those regions and places of origin can be taken by any society member. In season 1 alone, the society travels to the Mwangi Expanse several times, Tian Xia, and numerous other places without incident (well, without incident involving the travel, anyway) and continues to have lodges in all of those locations. Anywhere there's a lodge, there should be new Pathfinder Agents, even if they are field commissioned and not going through studies in Absalom.

You mean the single canon expedition that accounted for both Port Peril Pub Crawl and Star-Crossed Voyages which required throwing one group of PCs overboard, making a deal with a pirate, and putting all of the Society's most experienced captains on a single trip to make sure they reached their destination (which they almost didn't and only arrived at half a year later?) Or the trip to Tian-Xia that happened specifically because of broken supply lines and no one knowing where things that should have been easy to track ended up? And field commissions are quite rare; out of hundreds of established NPCs, only a handful are field commissioned agents,

A Pathfinder can be from almost anywhere. The likelihood of a given Pathfinder being a member of a specific ancestry and coming from a particular area is a different kettle of fish. Which is why tengu and catfolk are uncommon and require a boon to unlock. It's not impossible for them to be members of the Society, it's just comparatively unlikely (or uncommon, one might say).

O.O

Catfolk??

I haven't played Star-Crossed Voyages, but the follow-up gave the impression that there were multiple trips to the location in-between the two, and 1-20 didn't (from a player's perspective) make any reference to there being issues getting there. Nor did 1-06 make any reference to there being issues getting to Goka (again, from a player's perspective), so I think it may be a difference of what's viewed as actually restricting travel in a meaningful way. There are plenty of Tengu (and Kitsunes, etc.) in the large cities. Maybe my GMs just haven't been playing up the issues enough.

I had forgotten about Port Peril Pub Crawl (or had forgotten that was the point behind Port Peril Pub Crawl), largely I'm guessing because it went by so quickly when I played it.

If field-commissioning is meant to be that rare, then there's a disconnect with it being an equal option to all of the schools. There's been a field commissioned agent at almost every table I've been at. Often more than one. I guess the point is that any issues preventing travel from a location should be issues preventing travel for everyone from that location, not a specific Ancestry.

Which goes back to my earlier point which I don't think you addressed about how out of game this does a lot to push PFS back to a Western Fantasy Centric experience. While there may be varied ethnicities, all of the Common Ancestries are drawn from Western/Tolkien/European Fantasy origins, including the new ones (Goblins as European/Tolkien, Kobolds as Germanic). It would have been nice to keep at least one Eastern inspired Ancestry Common, just from a representation standpoint. It's great the game is moving away from wholly "evil" Ancestries, but something is being lost here in the process.

I feel I must note that there is not a debate happening. There is me, conveying information to those who were curious, as decided by an extensive team of people before the APG was ever announced. However, I think an important thing needs to be said about representation.

Bird-people and foxfolk are not representative of Asian cultures. The PF1 versions weren't even particularly grounded in the lore that inspired them, beyond the most cursory "Yeah, I watched every season of Naruto" kind of way. Representation doesn't come from "Oh yeah, these ravenfolk are called tengu. No, they don't wear masks or geta. No, no particular association with mountains. No, they don't have the kami trait..." (Granted, this time around I think some of that will be less true as our author and developer pool is much more diverse than it was the first time around.)

Representation comes from hearing voices and seeing people in games who actually sound and look like you. It comes from finding writers from all walks of life and including their stories in our work, as told by their voices. It comes from trans authors writing trans characters as they want them to be portrayed. It comes from creating opportunities for writers and creators from all corners of the globe and all walks of life. It comes from doing everything you can to make sure there's a seat at the table for people who are marginalized in the rest of the world.

Representation looks like Tian-Dan, Tian-Dtang, Tian-Hwan, Tian-La, Tian-Min, Tian-Shu, Tian-Sing, Iobarians, Jadwiga, Varki, Erutaki, Garundi, Keleshite, Kellid, Nidalese, Bekyar, Bonuwat, Mauxi, Zenj, Shoanti, Taldan, Ulfen, Varisian, and Vudrani. To a lesser degree, it looks like Kulenett, Mbe'ke, Pahmet, Paraheen, Vahird, Grondaksen, Taralu, Alijae, Ekujae, Kallijae, Spiresworn, and Vourinoi.

These faces and voices are genuinely important. They give people access to options that look like them, come from similar places as them, and maybe have some kind of shared experience with them. It shows them that there are opportunities for them they might not have realized in the creative fields, and it shows that people are listening and care.

Acting like goblins and kobolds, our versions of which don't even remotely resemble their original sources, provide some kind of representation that needs to be balanced is kind of a sick undermining of the very idea of representation. It makes a mockery of people who have fought and died, are fighting and dying, for real representation right now. Please do not conflate fantasy birdfolk with a Japanese inspired name for actual representation.

That's the last I'll say on the subject. Good night, folks.

I enjoy playing Tengu because my nails are just as long, neither of us have hair, and I'm always feeling peckish...

Ow! Ow ow owe! Where'd all these tomatoes come from??

It's so awesome that you've been able to do sanctioning pre-release! I'm really grateful.

I don't want to undercut these words of praise, but is there any update on when the AcP system will be live? I know a few of us have advocated a paper system until the digital system is in place. Hopefully something can be figured out by end of month.

Wow... Clearly I came across as a bit of a jerk, and for that, I apologize. I agree with everything you said in your message, Michael. You are absolutely correct. The choice of the word representation was a poor one on my part, and I didn't mean to equate what I was attempting to discuss with the issues that you rightly pointed out.

As someone with an Indian background, the addition of Rashmivati Malipdra as a Venture Captain was a welcome one.

Also as someone with an Indian background, and despite Nagaji being a Paizo creation (with ties to Naga), the inclusion of them as not just a playable race, but an always available race in 1E PFS was also welcome, and I'm sad that they are likely to be Uncommon when/if they ever make another appearance. I'll admit that after Distant Shores in 1E and the inclusion of many of the Vudran deities from that in Gods & Magic for 2E, I had hopes that Vudra might be expanded on and Vanara might even end up being Common as well at some point. Truth be told, I kind of thought Common vs. Uncommon might depend more on Home Region, meaning options like Tengu, Kitsune, Nagaji, and Wayang that might be considered Common in Tian-Xia or elsewhere would be if you select that as your Home Region. Or Vanara in Vudra.

But I can only speak for myself on those items, and others might disagree.

To me, Seasons 3 and 4 (and to some extent Season 8 with Ifrits, and I forget which year Kitsune/Wayang became always available) made PFS and Golarion feel bigger and helped Pathfinder feel less tied to traditional fantasy tropes.

Acting like goblins and kobolds, our versions of which don't even remotely resemble their original sources, provide some kind of representation that needs to be balanced is kind of a sick undermining of the very idea of representation. It makes a mockery of people who have fought and died, are fighting and dying, for real representation right now. Please do not conflate fantasy birdfolk with a Japanese inspired name for actual representation.

This, here, was most definitely not my intent, so for any who took it that way, I sincerely apologize for creating that impression with my poor choice of language.

I know a few of us have advocated a paper system until the digital system is in place.

What do you mean by this?

I think that one thing all this pro-tengu discussion has proved is that for those who played PFS 1E, tengu cultures and communities felt intertwined with human ones, and tengus felt like a core ancestry choice. The pent-up demand for them in PF2 is strong. They are beloved. As someone who has GMed an on-going PFS campaign for an all-tengu group for the better part of a year, I unabashedly love them. My hope for APG was that tengus would be secretly listed as the first commonly available race outside of the CRB. Alas, they are still uncommon.

Kobolds are cool, and I am ecstatic to see their inclusion in the fabric of always-available races. But there are many of us who truly miss seeing tengus as one of those options. Ah, well. As you have noted, APs will fill that gap. We can play tengus, and earn enough AcP to eventually play them in society. I am overjoyed that iconic oracle will be a tengu, giving the players another option for playing society scenarios with their favorite avian ancestry.

Thanks Michael as always for taking the time to talk with us, and allowing us insight from OP leadership's view of the matter.

Yours,
Hmm

PS I have very much appreciated the effort of Paizo to bring in more diverse voices. I first noticed that while working with my amazing colleagues on Lost Omen Legends, but I also loved seeing the diversity of human and other humanoid cultures when reading the Lost Omens Character Guide. The art was marvelous, allowing players to see elves, dwarves and halflings that are not just coded white. There is no one default 'tien' or 'mwangi' background, but a rich tapestry of different options. PF2 is a more culturally rich place than PF1, and the game is better for it.

PPS I am also keenly aware that opening the door for tengus would cause similar outcries for kitsune, nagaji and genie-kin ancestries, which is a precedent that the leadership team probably does not want to set.

elves, dwarves and halflings that are not just coded white.

I noticed this when I looked up avatars for my dark-skinned halfling. There aren't any. So I just picked a human avatar that could pass as a halfling... Which is a somewhat odd phrase to type =\

Yeah. I know that we're not allowed to request avatars on the website feedback forum. That said... We need more diverse humanoid avatars. I dearly hope that they eventually add PF2 art from the Lost Omens series to the avatar choices on Paizo's site.

The avatar that I use for Pip, a gnome with a grandmother from Bhopan, was originally art of the Green Mother. Sometimes an out-of-the box adaption can work very well for a character concept.

Hmm

+1 for more diverse avatars. Just more avatars in general would be welcome. There is so much new art that hasn't hit the avatar section yet.

I've seen so many Morlamaws as Slurks.

My Ekujae elf masked warrior has been a pain and a half to find any sort of art to represent her on this forum or anywhere else, really.

Getting back to the specific topic of APG rules elements being available at street date... we've had a spoiler pop up that the dragon disciple archetype has some ancestry and class-based access features, but Mark Seifter was explicit that those aren't requirements. If someone wanted to make a character whose ancestry and class didn't fit the access, would the Secondary Initiation boon be enough to allow them in, or is another boon - possibly one not yet released - required?

Getting back to the specific topic of APG rules elements being available at street date... we've had a spoiler pop up that the dragon disciple archetype has some ancestry and class-based access features, but Mark Seifter was explicit that those aren't requirements. If someone wanted to make a character whose ancestry and class didn't fit the access, would the Secondary Initiation boon be enough to allow them in, or is another boon - possibly one not yet released - required?

Secondary Initiation would not give access to the Dragon Disciple. At release date, access will be limited to the options specifically noted in the access requirement.

Now, that doesn't mean there won't be a new boon that opens up access to a broader pool of characters, but I expect such a thing will be tied to some kind of cool adventure, a scenario perhaps, where you go drink sanctified dragon's blood or become a literal disciple of a dragon and unlock an ACP boon that allows you to take the archetype on a broader array of characters. Just as like, an example.

Pretty specific example...

I like it.

To answer the AcP question - we will have a solution by months end.

To answer the AcP question - we will have a solution by months end.

Can't wait!

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

To answer the AcP question - we will have a solution by months end.

Can't wait!

Me either!

My question is with Ancestries is if there is going to be any other Common ones with future projects. I was hoping that Tengu was going to be opened up by being a Common Ancestry, though that hope is now dashed.

My thought is that an influx of one ancestry or another would flood the world with their presence.

My question is with Ancestries is if there is going to be any other Common ones with future projects. I was hoping that Tengu was going to be opened up by being a Common Ancestry, though that hope is now dashed.

My thought is that an influx of one ancestry or another would flood the world with their presence.

So, there is a difference between Common and Uncommon but freely accessible. Kobolds are still Uncommon, but can be freely played in Pathfinder Society upon release of the APG. I don’t expect to see more Common ancestries, since that would have lore implications for the setting.

My question is with Ancestries is if there is going to be any other Common ones with future projects. I was hoping that Tengu was going to be opened up by being a Common Ancestry, though that hope is now dashed.

My thought is that an influx of one ancestry or another would flood the world with their presence.

My personal goal is for any ancestry that is uncommon or rare by default to only become always available through the ongoing storyline as experienced by our players. While it's impossible to say what the future holds, it's unlikely that we'd ever do just a big block of ancestries all at once again. We're more likely to say "this is the 4th consecutive season where we've included adventures related to this ongoing iruxi storyline, and the reporting data has consistently shown that PCs are working really hard towards achieving a strong relationship with these folks, so let's bring them in to the central storyline."

It is unlikely, though not impossible, that there might be new common ancestries in the future. If these ever come into being, we would likely, though not certainly, make them available in the campaign at the same level of accessibility as that assumed by the campaign setting. It is also unlikely that we'll reopen an uncommon ancestry for universal accessibility to the entire campaign without preceding it with a significant amount of storyline that advertises what's coming.

So, in general, I don't need to worry about my 120 AcP hobgoblin being devalued by becoming open access anytime soon? But rather the 1 per player restriction might be lifted in the future if the story went that way?

So, in general, I don't need to worry about my 120 AcP hobgoblin being devalued by becoming open access anytime soon? But rather the 1 per player restriction might be lifted in the future if the story went that way?

That is more or less the plan, yeah. And I don't say "more or less" to be cagey, but rather because I've been super hesitant to lock in such plans until I'd actually seen AcP up and running, which only just happened today.

And I don't say "more or less" to be cagey, but rather because I've been super hesitant to lock in such plans . . .

Completely understood!

NightTrace wrote:

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

To answer the AcP question - we will have a solution by months end.

Can't wait!

Me either!

And we don't have to wait! The solution is here :)

Blake's Tiger wrote:

So, in general, I don't need to worry about my 120 AcP hobgoblin being devalued by becoming open access anytime soon? But rather the 1 per player restriction might be lifted in the future if the story went that way?

That is more or less the plan, yeah. And I don't say "more or less" to be cagey, but rather because I've been super hesitant to lock in such plans until I'd actually seen AcP up and running, which only just happened today.

I can envision a world where we may reduce the costs to the 80 baseline ancestry cost or even 60 (half price) due to storylines, but not a world where we get rid of the costs entirely.

It is unlikely, though not impossible, that there might be new common ancestries in the future. If these ever come into being, we would likely, though not certainly, make them available in the campaign at the same level of accessibility as that assumed by the campaign setting. It is also unlikely that we'll reopen an uncommon ancestry for universal accessibility to the entire campaign without preceding it with a significant amount of storyline that advertises what's coming.

This is past my ability to understand. There are nine unrestricted ancestries/heritages and thirteen that are locked. And this will not change with new material and, what, four years of play to make it fit the story line? I honestly do not understand limiting choice for the story.

Yes, the AcP system is better than the old GM only boons, but too much of what is new is being locked behind it. You get the purple star GMs with more than they know what to do with, but is that the rule or the exception? Is the lack of choice going to turn new players off PFS? Is is selling AcP going to be the next? Micro transactions to unlock content?

I've tried to make sense of it in past discussions here, but I'm still totally adrift. What am I missing?

Selling ACP/microtransacations is a slippery slope fallacy if there ever was one.

The thing you're missing is simple, you define a campaign and setting by as much as you disallow as you allow, and not a lot is actually disallowed, you just have to earn it for the current storylines.

Hobgoblins/Oprak are just newly trying to integrate with other society and form relations, thus the higher costs, not because they're a stronger Ancestry. Thus it wouldn't make sense to have a bunch of people playing them.

This way they can also observe more accurately who all gets a hobgoblin and plays them in scenarios, for determining future storylines.

My opinion is that what you're missing is cooperative storytelling. I think the GM function of Organized Play gets lost too often as they are remote and invisible (especially in today's pandemic world). They're seen as merely administrative bookkeepers. However, the story is as much theirs to tell as it is ours. If they want to limit the number of hobgoblins because it makes sense to their story, then they should. Honestly, we should feel lucky they're even allowing them or iruxi or that they made kobolds "Always Available." As I started PFS late in the game, I'm not sure how long it was before anyone had access to a GM race boon. Two years? More?

They are trying to tell a shared story. We, the players, don't call all the shots.

Put me down on the "Basically like the ACP system" side. Even as a GM who regularly got Race boons I now have more choice and that is a good thing.

Even if you're just playing in your local games you can earn a race boon in less than a season. Which, while not great, isn't that bad.

GM a bit and you'll rapidly get to the point where you've probably got more points than you really need (after a little more than 6 months of GMing PF2 I've got more points than I'll likely be spending this year. Admittedly, 3 premium online cons have helped that total a fair bit :-)).. And encouraging people to GM is a GOOD thing.

If I were in charge, I think that I'd give a brand new PFS player 40 or 50 ACP for free. That way they could learn the basics of society with a "common" character and then be able to play their favourite race a few months later.

I do definitely think that its arbitrary that goblins are common while tengu are uncommon when lore wise they are about as common in human towns. Like if goblins were uncommon was well, I could grudgingly accept tengu being uncommon as well, but as it stands I kinda see it as "goblins get pass for being in core book despite devs insisting that goblins aren't suddenly more common than they were in 1e"

Like I don't actually care about tengu being available in PFS as much as I'm like "but they really do show up EVERYWHERE so why shouldn't have I access to them in river kingdoms?" in home game. I think appeal of rarity system is that GM who hasn't read all lore in setting knows fast how common an option is and players don't need to convince them about it, but lore wise tengu are pretty much "besides Shackles and Tian Xia, they appear everywhere with ports or big cities", they are uncommon mostly in villages or smaller towns.

That said, the thing I'm looking forward to is unlockable iruxi background, we got one for hobgoblins, kobolds and leshies but not iruxi yet.

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

NightTrace wrote:

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

To answer the AcP question - we will have a solution by months end.

Can't wait!

Me either!

And we don't have to wait! The solution is here :)

I noticed! Excitement!

I understand the cooperative storytelling aspect, I don’t understand why it has to limit what you can play. Aside from special con group events, the makeup of a group of adventures in a game has no effect on another group that they will never interact with.

I understand the cooperative storytelling aspect, I don’t understand why it has to limit what you can play. Aside from special con group events, the makeup of a group of adventures in a game has no effect on another group that they will never interact with.

Hardly. People tell stories all the time of what happened in their previous games. If the GMs are telling a tale where Tengu are a rarity around here, then hearing about a party made of all tengu should be a rare thing, not something you run into regularly. It sets the tone of a tengu warrior being a rare site, not something you encounter every day, making them more impactful.

Let's say it wasnt tengu. Let's say Androids were made common. Suddenly, half the pathfinder society is made of robotic humans in a fantasy setting where they're supposed to be extremely rare. It changes the tone, the feel, and the expectations of the game.

And while you say it wont have an effect on other tables, it will if they ever meet at a con or something similar. Organized play is great because you can play anywhere. Tables change. And if everywherr.you go, go run until a flock of tengu, they really arent so rare then.

You say that you understand cooperative storytelling and the immediately follow by saying you shouldn’t need to compromise. The cooperative storytelling aspect is not just between you and the other players, it’s with the GM, OP, too.

Let’s say I design a campaign where hobgoblin have recently broken through the surface and were previously unknown in the realm. My story is designed to have the PCs discover and interact with this new culture and influence them toward good or ill. If one of my players said, “Hey. Can I be a hobgoblin?” I would say, “No. That would undercut the campaign.”

And if they said, “I should be able to play what I want! I bought the book!” I would still say, “No.”

Aside from special con group events, the makeup of a group of adventures in a game has no effect on another group that they will never interact with.

You mentioned this before, in another thread about Iruxi, and you were told then that you were incorrect.

Games are tracked online. The successes and failures of each group contribute to the development of new stories. And the racial/faction makeup of each group is part of that process.

It's how Leadership is determining the future of Hobgoblins, as well as interest between different ancestries.

So why keep bringing up the same questions when they've been answered before?

This is all part of a universal campaign, therefore there are limits on what is going to be allowed. Certain things will be restricted access so as to limit how many are in the campaign. This is no different than many home campaigns.

In addition, the AcP program serves as an incentive program to promote gameplay as well as encouraging people to GM. As already pointed out, if one had played 20 scenarios with none of repeatables being played more than once, no quests, no cons, no GMing, etc., they would have 80 AcP in 10 months. At that point they could purchase the Iruxi or Leshy ancestries. Since the APG is not out until July 30th, that would give them more opportunities to earn more AcP or they could just wait until then to buy the desired ancestry assuming all are 80 AcP.

I know that some do not want to play online in this age of Covid, but that is a viable option for playing more games. Conventions have moved online as well and are providing more access to players. The opportunity to earn AcP continues on despite the live gaming restrictions far too many are facing right now.

To me, this is a simple issue that stems from the role PFS plays in Paizo’s revenue stream. There seems to be two schools of thought. First, make everything sanctioned content in the hopes that will encourage the community to buy every book, every release to have more options. The other is, gate some content behind increased participation. The more you play, the more access you’ll earn. That access will generate more sales as people “unlock” content. Also, more play means more GMs which encourages more purchases of products that players generally don’t buy like maps, modules/scenarios, APs, more minis/pawns, etc. Also, the more time you spend in a FLGS (outside of the pandemic) the more likely you are to impulse buy which has a greater impact on ancillary sales. Not to mention that Paizo has an image of what their campaign looks like and by gating some content, they can have some control over the proliferation of less-common options.

Also, it’s important to remember that AFAI/WK, OP represents a smaller portion of their market than non-OP. So most of their sales are not impacted by OP’s sanctioning. The number of people who don’t buy a product, or at least delay their purchase until they can use everything in the book is either very small, or it’s small enough in comparison to the total pool of buyers that they are comfortable with the immediate effect it has on sales. Example, the number of people who are going to chose not to buy the APG only because a particular ancestry is not always-available, but buy it later because they gained access is incredibly small relatively speaking. Most of the content is available immediately and most players will buy it, even if they don’t immediately use any content from it.

Paizo has always had this approach. Sure, not everyone agrees with it, some don’t seem to understand it, but it all ties back in to a marketing program that has, and continues to work for them. It is ingrained so much into their business plan, I would doubt that’s gonna change until/unless there is a significant change in the board of directors. Given that Lisa is retiring and Jeff is taking that role, it’s possible this could change, but given he has been the operations officer, for years and likely had a strong influence on the system as it currently exists, I doubt much will change. Why tinker with what works and risk it failing? I would much rather he/they focus on improvements to the IT and customer service departments where they struggle to meet demand and need more resources, maybe some structural changes.

They took two huge risks right in a row and pulled them off. The first was creating a roleplaying game set in space. The second was creating a new edition of Pathfinder that went beyond simply adjusting the 1e rules. I'm not sure they want to risk a third risk by severely changing their marketing system around.