|
Since on release 2E likely won't have any races other than those in the core rulebook what kind of boons would you like to see for GM instead of a race boon?
Personally I think access to special magic items (like some of the ones on current chronicles that are a combination of 2 items) would be good.
|
Since on release 2E likely won't have any races other than those in the core rulebook what kind of boons would you like to see for GM instead of a race boon?
Personally I think access to special magic items (like some of the ones on current chronicles that are a combination of 2 items) would be good.
I'm not sure that's going to be 100% true. Erik Mona has indicated that the PF2 Bestiary will come out pretty close to, if not at the same time as the PF2 CRB. And nobody knows, but I'm going to guess that there will be at least a couple playable race information in there.
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how many non-core ancestries might be available and for what reasons in August 2019, it is valuable to discuss what sorts of things beyond ancestry access would be the right intersection of motivating and flavorful for GMs in Second Edition.
|
What might be cool are things like:
Free wayfinders, or the ability for free upgrades to your wayfinder (such as changing from light to detect magic, or something like that?)
Membership perks like access to the Grand Lodge's library restricted stacks (you know they have them), a special club at Skyreach, or the like?
If we are slotting boons, maybe an additional promotional boon slot, or something like that?
|
|
I like Jack's idea about Wayfinders. Perhaps the more expensive ones could become available at a significant markdown for more experienced GMs (thinking 3-5 star range here)
Bonuses to die rolls?
Flat money amounts for day job type checks?
Equipment 'loans'?
Pro-rated experience values for advancing characters? (though admittedly that could cause even more 'blob' issues)
Expanded 'Always Available' lists for experienced GMs, with singular exceptions for GMs as a convention boon?
|
Does that resolve your issue with the haves and have nots from the other thread? Seems like it would just create another avenue for complaints by people who don’t GM. Anytime you reference convention boons it becomes just another thing that non-convention attendees are denied access to or at least very limited access.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What seems idiosyncratic to me is that the offering with the least impact on a character is the most desired reward (a race) and those who feel the access of additional races awarded to convention volunteer GMs is unfair suggest rewards that actually make GM characters mechanically more powerful: bonuses to skill checks, extra money, extra XP beyond credit for the scenario, faster and easier access to better magical equipment.
All those things make it objectively unfair to the non-GM player, but they're OK with that.
A GM gaining the option to build a feathered elf re-skin (e.g. tengu), and it is somehow a travesty that prevents entire countries from playing PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am trying to find options and ideas beyond the restriction of an Ancestry Boon
Otherwise, if someone is heart-set on playing a race:
"Oh, hey, don't even BOTHER with PFS (or buying any of the material) because you won't be able to play 'x' race until you get a Boon for it" and "You can only get the Boon from GMing."
There are many valid reasons that a person could or should not GM. To force subpar GMs to do it 'just for the Boon' is not a service to the community in some cases. Sometimes it works out for the best, but:
Sure, the table may fire, but if it's a lousy play experience what do people remember?
Didn't have a lot of time to think about this at work today, but other things that just came to mind would be Boons like Expedition Manager/New Days, New Choices/Etc instead of just Ancestry Boons.
The concern/angle I'm coming from is this:
(prices in hard/softcover)
PFS1 Compact CORE: $24.99 (REQUIRED)
PFSRPGG PRINTOUT: $Variable (Cost of printing out -- REQUIRED)
Advanced Race Guide: $39.99 (Not REQUIRED to play, but REQUIRED to play a given Race)
Convention Attendance: $Variable (Cost of entry plus event cost if ticketed events)
Convention Travel Fees: $Variable (Cost of travel to and from convention, may also include Lodging)
For those who aren't equipped with the ability to have .pdfs, there's a minimum of $65 spent already (not counting variable costs, which would drive it up much higher) to attend a convention and play a character.
And then it's gated behind GMing.
If convention support doesn't come through, it's $5-$10 dollars for a .pdf for a scenario, plus the variable price of printing out and the cost of prep time.
Above numbers are spitballs, but that's just a rough look from PFS1.
How can we soften this for the growth of the campaign?
GMing is an obligation, it costs money and folks who do it should be *fairly* rewarded/compensated when reasonably possible.
Mad props to the folks who can do repeated runs of *insert fingernail on chalkboard scenario experience here*.
Overly weighting boons, though, leads to disreputable individuals doing horrible things, which is toxic to the community.
How can GM Boons be built to provide the incentive to get GMs to 'step up' without invalidating purchases made by loyal players?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not seeing the purchases being made invalid. The material is there to be used outside of PFS.
If I design a human-centric campaign where all the players can make are humans, did I just invalidate John Doe's purchase because I didn't let him make a catfolk in my campaign?
To me, PFS is the same. PFS is a campaign using a subset of the PF rules. It's the whole reason we have additional resources and campaign clarification documents.
That John Doe cannot play a catfolk in my camapign or PFS is simply a feature of that campaign. That PFS has a mechanism for introducing a limited amount of uncommon races into circulation is simply a feature of that campaign.
There are a lot of things in a lot of books that I've bought that weren't made legal. Do I have the right to complain that PFS made my Paizo purchase "invalid?" I don't think so.
|
|
PFS is the reason I've bought seventy-five percent of my books.
If you designed a *home* campaign with only humans, it'd be a campaign that might get *some* takers, but it wouldn't be PFS. You'd invalidate the purchase if you promoted the item as 'potentially being useful' (for the human parts, of course) and then the frustration would come in when someone brought in said catfolk character because of the misleading information about 'what' was useful.
I mentioned it in a different thread, as a bit of insight... what if Ancestry was limited to a certain number of characters per player *unless* they 'unlocked' additional ones via a GM Boon?
Example: PFS leadership says "You may have up to two tengu, one ratfolk, one geniekin, etc unless you have additional paperwork allowing more of said Ancestry."
It would prevent things like the infamous 'Assimar/Teethling' grindfest, as well, since it wouldn't be a 'front-gated' process, but a 'side-gated' process -- and it would motivate folks who prefer say, oread to GM more, since it would open up more chances to play one.
The other benefit of this would be the Ancestry Boons could be written in a more 'generic' fashion, which would save on developmental time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Wei Ji, I think you are missing the point. If you create a character for any campaign without first consulting the GM, it's you who are being rude. This line of thought is not a valid reason for opening up all races or doing away with boons. There are other valid arguments. This isn't one of them.
In my experience, players that don't read the guide (ask the GM in a home game) and then become so despondent the never play again, often present other problems at the table that don't make them a good fit for organized play.
But when I have seen a name I'm not familiar with sign up to play (especially high tier), I try to reach out and make sure they understand what organized play is. I got burnt once early on, and from then on made the effort to reach out. So organizers can help mitigate the problem too.
But no, someone who just shows up to any game (PFS or home) and doesn't inquire what the restrictions are (or doesn't read the guide) is doing themselves and everyone else a disservice. If they are so disappointed that they choose not to play again after literally being rude, then the campaign is likely better off without that person.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone who shows up at a major convention (such as I did) because they are spending some of the precious convention attendance time to play and may not be familiar with all the minutiae of a given campaign's rules may be turned off and never return, remembering it as 'that game that is supported by the company that makes the rulebook I bought to play' versus 'that awesome group of people that gave a fun play experience'.
Preparation and care is nothing for 'spur of the moment' decisions.
I researched PFS. And I *still* wasn't sure on 95% of what was going on when I sat down despite that.
This is not an option for anyone wandering around a poor-cellular reception convention. It is unlikely they will have that as an option, especially if they are lacking a 'SMART' phone.
It shouldn't require that for entry to the campaign for the first table or two.
If it were a 'home' game with 'home' rules, the social fabric and dynamic changes. As a guest going to someone's home, it's common courtesy to inquire as to the house rules and the like.
All I am asking for, and perhaps it is too high of a bar to consider, is that folks who are starting in the campaign have some sort of 'cushion' or 'protection' against "Welcome to your first table, no you can't play your character, you need to GM to get a Boon to play that would you like to GM? Oh, and here's this other character in the meantime."
Perhaps we need a condensed version of the Guide (more than the 'Cheat Sheets') for newer people, to have handy at the table for them to read over?
Please note: I am NOT against restricting over-powered races.
Some races have the effective power equivalent of half a table, and people who've played them in the past with no restrictions have been... not very nice in their playstyle, to put it nicely.
Hopefully that helps clarify my position a bit, and make at least a bit more sense?
|
|
If you are at a convention, and you don't have time (or can't find it on your phone) to look things up, why wouldn't you ask someone at HQ? Why would you make an assumption?
If you have time to buy a bunch of books and create a whole character from scratch, you have time to ask the PFS HQ or heck, just someone from the PFS area/room. Why is it the campaign's responsibility to make rules that obviate the need to actually read the rules?
That's on you, sorry.
EDIT: Your thoughts on a condensed (convention) version of the Guide is not a bad idea.
|
|
It may be trying to create solutions where the status quo is what has been tried and works the best, and that's okay.
We were told to come up with ideas and weigh in with our thoughts, and it looks like I've done a decent job of at least getting the idea presented (if not neatly or cleanly).
If the only thing I contribute to this is the idea of a 'Convention Guide for PFS 060', then it's a positive thing moving forward.
I'ma gonna back off a bit, 'less someone feels the need to address me specifically or somewhat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMing at a con should continue to get some kind of bonus. Most of the time you pay to get in and time behind the screen is time you aren't playing / at a party / etc. I like the extra boon slot idea (if 2e ends up with that system). It certainly doesn't need to be an ancestry boon. I never understood the fascination with catfolk anyway.
A reduced cost rebuild would be helpful. For example, when the GM credit character you cobbled together ends up 3rd level and you find the build is sub par after you play.
|
|
I wouldn't care personally if it wasn't for Prowler at World's End, which looks like fantastic fun. Sometimes fun mechanics are locked behind these boons.I never understood the fascination with catfolk anyway.
Two "catfolk" that I've always loved...
The Cat from Red Dwarf - He is in part the inspiration for a ninja/gigolo character in a PbP game.
There is a great catfolk-like character in Lin Carter's World's End series.
|
|
*steps back in briefly* I have a friend that steadfastly refuses to play PFS1 until they can play a Catfolk.
Given that the option to play them is... exceptionally limited, it's meant that an entire group has avoided Org-play as she is also one of the most mechanically-inclined folks I know.
This may also have factored into some of the passion -- I want to be able to run this for a group, but we can't do it officially and I just don't have time for putting together a home campaign.
Contributor
|
Given its extreme popularity, I'm really hoping that catfolk gets a much wider release before PFS1 comes to an end, the way vanara did before it. (And I say that as someone in the middle of trading for a catfolk boon - just because I was lucky enough to get one doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to have theirs.)
|
|
...so one would divide the player-base five ways rather than four, then?
PFS1, PFS1C, SF, PF2, PF2A?
How does that bring a community together? How does it prevent a breakdown via elitistism/entitlement?
Neat ideas, but how does one make them work without further fracturing the already tenuous playing conditions that are going to be in force for at least a couple of years?
|
|
...so one would divide the player-base five ways rather than four, then?PFS1, PFS1C, SF, PF2, PF2A?
How does that bring a community together? How does it prevent a breakdown via elitistism/entitlement?
Neat ideas, but how does one make them work without further fracturing the already tenuous playing conditions that are going to be in force for at least a couple of years?
I don't think you can realistically consider PFS1C a viable campaign in the organizing sense. There may be some lodges that have a dedicated PFS1C player base and/or game day/night. But from my experience organizing and from what other organizers have told me, the Core campaign is largely relegated to those organizing private home games of PFS and if an entire table shows up to a game day with that intention and let the GM know.
In other words, it really isn't another entire campaign to support. It gets organized more as a spot piece as players are interested in doing so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*steps back in briefly* I have a friend that steadfastly refuses to play PFS1 until they can play a Catfolk.
Is that really a demand we should take seriously? No offense to you’re friend but how is that different than someone saying “I refuse to play until they allow evil alignments” or “I refuse to play until they allow cyclops” or “I refuse to play until they allow 3PP?”
|
|
It was more along the lines of 'for every restriction, we lose people' AND 'if we make something really good and then make it mostly inaccessible, we lose people', and that has a ripple effect in gaming communities.
As I have said, it's more the passionate side than the logical side speaking, and I can divide the two (and not by zero). ...most of the time...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was more along the lines of 'for every restriction, we lose people' AND 'if we make something really good and then make it mostly inaccessible, we lose people', and that has a ripple effect in gaming communities.As I have said, it's more the passionate side than the logical side speaking, and I can divide the two (and not by zero). ...most of the time...
Certainly there is a happy medium that can accommodate the most number of people most of the time. Make race options too liberal, and you will lose people as well. I've heard people say (back when Tieflings and Aasimars were allowed) that they refused to play PFS as long as they were allowed.
Look, we can postulate and consider every fringe situation that might alienate someone from this game. But ultimately, if they aren't going to play because they can't be a catfolk, or because kitsune are allowed, or because whatever... they are likely going to find another reason to resist playing (or quit after a short time). They will find some other entitlement issue that makes them believe their presence to the campaign is so important to the campaign, that their absence will get them what they want.
We don't need to cater to narcissism. We don't need to cater to the most extreme examples of entitlement. We don't need to cater to the extremes of anything.
If some extreme dislike or request (requirement) means someone stops playing or chooses not to play the game, then the campaign is likely better off without that person.
|
|
The danger with that is that it leads to a tier of elitism that drives away potentially valuable members of the community as well as those who are not as perceptably valuable.
And whether we like it or not, PFS and PFS2 ARE in a fight for 'market share'.
How we can reconcile that WHILE growing the campaign by getting more GMs(and players) in AND not losing the 'feel' of said campaign is the hard question.
We don't need to cater to extremism, but we also need to be human and understanding and see that there is another side to this, that often gets overlooked in these equations.
Just saying 'no' a lot turns the campaign negative.
Just saying 'yes' a lot dilutes the value of the campaign.
There needs to be a balance that can hit the greatest number of players and GMs so the campaign does not lose it's edge over subsequent years and competitive opposition.
|
|
The danger with that is that it leads to a tier of elitism that drives away potentially valuable members of the community as well as those who are not as perceptably valuable.And whether we like it or not, PFS and PFS2 ARE in a fight for 'market share'.
How we can reconcile that WHILE growing the campaign by getting more GMs(and players) in AND not losing the 'feel' of said campaign is the hard question.
We don't need to cater to extremism, but we also need to be human and understanding and see that there is another side to this, that often gets overlooked in these equations.
Just saying 'no' a lot turns the campaign negative.
Just saying 'yes' a lot dilutes the value of the campaign.
There needs to be a balance that can hit the greatest number of players and GMs so the campaign does not lose it's edge over subsequent years and competitive opposition.
I fail to see how your point you just made is demonstrably different than the one I made. They are pretty much the same, just with different wording and tone. The tones, I believe, are different based on what we feel is extreme.
Back when catfolk and vanara first became options as a playable race in Bestiary 4 I believe, the campaign leaders actively chose not to include them in the boon rotation. They indicated at the time, that there was no Golarion lore as to where those two races would be located on Golarion, so they wanted to wait until there was. Which is completely valid reason why to restrict something even if you otherwise choose an incredibly liberal restriction policy.
The big point here, is every person has to determine for themselves if the campaign is for them or not. And they get to make completely personally subjective decisions. And it would lead to madness to try and create a paradigm by which 100% of the personally subjective requirements are adhered. Its impossible to do so.
So you just have to accept, that some people aren't going to want to play the campaign, for whatever reasons, and that's simply ok.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that PFS is not for everyone. People have to know that this is a race-restricted campaign. If the restrictions of races make PFS unplayable for someone, then some of our other restrictions are likely to trip them up too. They may turn out to be someone for whom the PFS campaign was not a good fit.
The thing is though that most new players can find some race that they want to play in the fourteen that we currently have. (Usually players get excited when they discover that the elemental and tian races are legal. ‘Oh, I can play that?!’) I do feel for people that want a catfolk, goblin or skittermander. Oh man, I do. But often catfolk fans will also find kitsune an attractive option. Maybe we need to do a better job of selling the awesomeness of the races that are available to all?
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that race boons continue to be a reward for GMing, how hard would it be to institute a programme saying that "for every XX tables you run you can play one character from this list of races"? That way refs who can't get to conventions can still get the character they want, and it isn't locked into a "I really want a dhampir but the system says I have to have a fish elf" issue of seasonal boons.
I'm not suggesting this replace the con boon approach, but instead it runs alongside it.
|
|
I have been giving this a lot of thought lately, because it's been bugging me.
There may be a solution that might work as a reasonable consideration that even empowers GM Ancestry Boons a bit more while still not diminishing the purchase(s) by loyal players who may not have GM options available.
What if the GM Ancestry Boons counted *as* the Additional Resources for a given Ancestry, with the necessary information for said Ancestry printed on the sheet?
1. Benefit: It makes the Ancestry Boon 'stand-alone'.
2. Benefit: It REALLY makes it worth a GM's time.
3. Benefit: It allows the campaign to see the Ancestries 'in play' before they are added to the AR/CC
4. Benefit: It also shows other players that there is a really solid reward for GMing
Now, there's probably folks thinking 'But what's the catch?"
The catch would be that the Boon would only be valid for one character, that the Boon would be added to at character creation (or during L1 rebuild).
This would NOT replace the standard AR/CC vetting that normal Ancestry access would require.
When the Ancestry has been approved on AR/CC, it's simply approved.
Powerful/super-rare Ancestries can still be offered only via Boon if this were to be implemented, rather than trying to make an 'eye of the needle' for exceptions on AR/CC.
No 'Boon Permission Slips' to use player-purchased material after a given set of time for 'campaign approved ancestries'.
Are there holes in this I'm not seeing?
|
|
I don't agree that you want to just generally make standard ancestries available to all players just because a book may have been bought.
I like your idea for the GM boon. But here's a little nugget: I got my Tengu boon at Con of the North 2012. Now back then, race boons were not restricted to GMs, just to convention goers (although we gave all GMs the boons as a reward anyways, but players had to "draw" them as their reward normally). And then Gen Con 2012, Tengu were made available to everyone. Made me feel like my 6 months as a Tengu wasn't all that special. This is a complaint I've heard about many of these races that were GM Boons and then a month later they were made available to everyone (happened with the Dragon Empire Races and the Elemental Races).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is in the business of selling material.
Pathfinder Society is the Organized Play of Pathfinder, a Paizo product.
By making items accessible to people who purchase Pathfinder products (but not all -- there are some Ancestries that should be HEAVILY restricted if they model on PF1).
I will fully agree with you on the "Flash in the Pan/Early Adoption Window" doesn't seem to be nearly large enough.
However, with the above proposal, it'd allow PFS2 to build 'hype' for future products that may not see play for six months to a year, and then also allow those who get such Boons to *use* them without having to wait six months to a year for the printed material to come out, and then possibly another six months to a year for the race to be 'vetted'.
It allows a 'forward-thinking' approach on a greater scale than PF1, imo?
Definitely not discounting your thoughts there, I am looking for holes to shoot in things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is in the business of selling material.Pathfinder Society is the Organized Play of Pathfinder, a Paizo product.
By making items accessible to people who purchase Pathfinder products (but not all -- there are some Ancestries that should be HEAVILY restricted if they model on PF1).
I will fully agree with you on the "Flash in the Pan/Early Adoption Window" doesn't seem to be nearly large enough.
However, with the above proposal, it'd allow PFS2 to build 'hype' for future products that may not see play for six months to a year, and then also allow those who get such Boons to *use* them without having to wait six months to a year for the printed material to come out, and then possibly another six months to a year for the race to be 'vetted'.
It allows a 'forward-thinking' approach on a greater scale than PF1, imo?
Definitely not discounting your thoughts there, I am looking for holes to shoot in things.
The window for a GM boon access item to be made widely available to all should be a minimum of 1 year after the last one was granted (not from Gen Con or whenever the first one was granted), potentially 2 years.
