|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a continuation of the discussion from this thread.
I'll repeat my premise, just to be clear.
I think 80 AcP to get an Uncommon feature is viewed as a very high barrier by newer players.
Personally, as a pretty regular player (and pretty regular GM), I haven't had any problem buying everything I've wanted. I suspect most of us on the boards have no problem affording the things we want, because we're a self-selected group; if someone posted here that they had 1,000 AcP stored up, I wouldn't even question it. So, I'm not speaking about us.
Basically, high prices are fine, but are the prices too high for new players?
If yes, what to do about it without massive AcP inflation/deflation?
Perhaps a separate thread: if Paizo is publishing predominantly locked material, does it mean that new players are essentially restricted to the CRB/LOWG until they earn enough AcP?
---
For the first, I think I already started a discussion when the AcP first rolled out, so I'll just say simply that I think they're a bit high. Not an order of magnitude off, but I had expected things to be about 1/2 the price they are.
As to the second question, one mechanism I'll throw out there are discounts for playing certain scenarios. Kobold was discounted to 0 AcP because of the Society's long history with kobolds, yada yada yada. What if there were a discount on, say, orcs for players that had completed the scenarios that feature orcs, or leshies for players that had completed the Findahar Forest scenarios, iruxi for players that had completed the iruxi scenarios, etc? Or partial unlocks, say, leshies of a specific heritage are unlocked with the scenario that otherwise grants access to that specific heritage?
(Not sure what should be spoilered so going to keep everything vague.)
For the third, it seems that way to me - and that's fine if it's intentional (I'm playing through the Beginner's Box now and it's a blast even though things are even more limited), I just want to make sure that's intentional, and nobody's planning a marketing campaign that says (explicitly or implicitly) "you can make millions of different, unique characters, as long as you play a year with a limited set first".
I fully grant that people who really want the android beastkin gunslingers will find Campaign Mode games to satisfy that need. Bluntly, is it PFS's intention to not try and capture some of these folks into the PFS orbit?
|
if Paizo is publishing predominantly locked material
I think this is a bit of a distortion. Paizo produced content is available to anyone and everyone without restriction, unless you deem the cover price or the cost of a digital copy to be a restriction. There is really nothing (other than GM fiat) stopping players from selecting these options in a multitude of campaigns they can participate in. However, within the specific scope of the organized play campaign, some content is limited access, which is no different than a lot of campaigns. Most games that are set up with a public/community aspect that limited/prize items that can only be obtained through certain avenues. TCGs have special versions of cards or sometimes unique cards you can only get by winning a tournament or participating in certain events. Boons are similar to that platform.
The point of these programs is not to create a barrier to new players, though I could see how someone might view it that way. It is a way to provide rewards and incentives to the most dedicated folks giving of their time to conventions, local lodges, etc. In an ideal world, people would do these things strictly out of altruism, but that is not the world in which we live. Many people require a meaningful answer to the "what's in it for me" question and by providing boons as said reward and AcP as the avenue through which to obtain said rewards, we get the results intended (to some extent).
We can certainly argue as to the exact cost of these boons, but since that number is completely arbitrary, no matter what it is, some will complain its too expensive or too cheap.
"Locking" (not the right word, IMO) the boons behind a specific scenario isn't really much different that locking it behind AcP. Either way, some people are going to argue they have a barrier to obtaining them.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do miss the days of showing up to a Con and randomly getting a Race Boon right off the bat. Whether it was for GMing, someone not wanting theirs, or because of some random dice roll from turning in those wooden tokens.
I'd like to see Con boons that you can claim on your profile akin to gift certificates, but for AcP. Maybe have them worth something like 10 AcP. Or maybe increments of 5, 10, 20.
Then, if someone like me wins one by rolling a 1 or 20, I can pass it off to a new player, since I already have hundreds of AcP, just like I'd hand over older Con Boons that I had multiples of.
And if a new player wins one, then they're that closer to unlocking some cool Ancestry.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I think the basis behind this thread is a bit misleading.
"Are Uncommon / Rare options too far out of reach for new players?"
Uncommon? No. Aside from a few select features, primarily ancestries, most uncommon options are unlocked for just a few AcP or through character building (specific home region, feat, membership in a faction).
Rare? ... Yes, but Rare options should be rare.
Frankly, this thread isn't about uncommon or rare materials in general, but rather ancestries specifically. Other material is mainly easily accessible.
"Is 80 ACP too much for the most uncommon ancestries?"
Eh, I don't think so. I agree with Nefreet about missing random con race boons, either through favorable trade ("Whee, I won a [insert non-race boon you won as a player], and I traded it for a [race boon]!") or by friendly veteran donations. I still think that the extra AcP rewards GM's get for cons aren't enticing enough.
But, let's speak about new players. We've all been new at RPG's at one point. We've probably all made our mistakes in character building, and regretted it later (or asked the GM nicely if we could fix the build). 80 AcP is 20 games. 18 games gets your first character to lvl 7. I think that's a reasonable "trial" time to try out an RPG, and by level 7, you probably know better how the system works and what's smart and what's not. Once you've reached level 7 with your first character - outleveled the low level (1-4 and 3-6) scenarios, you have enough ACP for an uncommon ancestry after just 2 more games or 1 GM'd game.
And, given that the uncommon ancestries are, well, uncommon, I think that's a fair estimate. It means that roughly every other PC should be of common ancestry, and at a rough estimate, maybe every second PC is uncommon (or rarer).
Does it mean that new players can't start with their first PC being an Aasimar Sprite? Yes. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think it's pretty neutral. Play something a little bit more common first, get used to the system, figure out what you really want to play. Work towards it, gather the points, and then roll your new shiny Special character out.
As to the "Don't we want the Beastkin Android Gunslinger players?"
Sure, we do. And hey, if they play through the adventure path, that's 72 ACP or 144 ACP for the GM if they report the game. The GM can make an uncommon character immediately, or a rare after just a couple more games. The players can play 2-3 games with a pregen and roll their new shiny uncommon ancestry off at level 2 when they rebuild.
Now, if they play every other week, yeah, that's going to take 40 weeks, a better part of a year, to get to the 80 AcP. Is that a long -time-? Yes. It's a long time. However, that's just 20 games. 20 games isn't all that much - it's just enough to level a character from 1 to 7 or so. If they were playing an AdventurePath, they might be at maybe the midpoint of the AP. We have some local players who only play once every year at the major con. They'll play 1-3 games or something. It then takes them a whole year or two to level character once or twice. Is that a long -time-? Sure. Is that reasonable compared to the amount of games they play? I think so, yes.
There's already one ancestry that you can partially unlock (or rather, get a 50% discount) by playing certain adventure.
I have to say that while I feel that the current prices are -fine-, I do agree that they could be -better-.
GMing in conventions could be more of a shortcut, and the uncommon/rare ancestries could be maybe 25% cheaper - 60, 90, and 120 acp. That way, you'd unlock your first uncommon ancestry after 15 games - when your first character levels up to level 6, which is -before- you've outleveled level 3-6 adventures. It would mean that once you hit level 5, you could still play 3 games with level 1 pregen to get your uncommon ancestry before you hit level 2. The current pricing means that if you exclusively play games and don't GM, you can hit a spot where your new character just hit level 2, your old character is level 5+, and there's a level 1-4 game but you can't play your old pc and you can't play your new pc because you need the ancestry boon before you play them at a level 2, kinda forcing you to roll a new level 1 character just to get the AcP from the game OR forcing you to play a level 3 pregen and 'save' the chronicle for when your new pc hits level 3 (which isn't ideal).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish that it was possible to give ACP away to other players. I think that alone would go a considerable way to solving the issue.
Many of us who really have too many ACP would be willing to sometimes donate some of them to new players who really, really, really wanted to play a <insert race here> character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing 1 character to 8th level, or 2 characters to 4 unlocks an 80 AcP boon.
That means 12 - 1/3 of your characters can be Uncommon. (And that is assuming you neither GM nor play at cons.) It is hard to see how you could make them any cheaper and have those races not be "common" in PFS.
|
|
I raised this concern about ACP and the fact that it is also the 'res fund as well as 'other cool stuff' that's not an uncommon Ancestry.
And the general comment at the time was 'well, just play/GM some and you'll have enough ACP to get what you want'.
I then raised the concern about 'grinding' the Repeatable scenarios to get the ACP using only pregens, and was told that wasn't 'really' in keeping with the spirit of the game, and that it wouldn't happen.
Yet, here we are almost two years into the campaign, and only by the sheerest of luck have I managed to find cool groups to play with (call-outs to Nefreet, Silicon Valley, Boston, Ohio, Emerald and Great Lakes Lodges, as well as a couple of conventions).
Paradoxically, the pandemic 'helped' despite my 'essential worker' status.
I got lucky, perhaps blessed.
My 'gut' feeling is that a significant portion of the crowd that wants to play PFS2 *hasn't* gotten that lucky.
If it was *just* ACP for 'keeping a character alive or blinging them out' (non-Ancestry) it'd be one thing. When the price is not only ACP but ALSO the material to be able to *play* said character in the first place, that is a very high bar for folks just getting started.
I can't remember who but someone also brought up the idea of sharing ACP before, but the response was 'We don't want to start that precedent'.
The idea of ACP 'coupons' sounds pretty cool, but at that point does that turn ACP into a form of cryptocurrency, and if so, does it have legal ramifications?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the ACP cost for ancestries is fine, mostly because it motivates players to GM and to attend conventions, more importantly, everyone can earn everything through participation in org play. Nobody is locked out by their proximity to certain big physical conventions, their own mobility, or their preferred type of play (live, online, pbp, pbd etc.).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will sound weird coming from someone who is adamant that not every option should be PFS-legal, but I think the OP is correct: the prices are too high.
Imagine the experience of a new player that sits down at a PFS2 table (virtually, or hopefully in person again one day).
They sit down with their core-only character that they have lovingly crafted, selected from the same basic options that have been available to RPGers for decades. At the table are players with new character options, special powers, and game mechanics that aren't open to them.
"Just get that first character to level 8, which will take a minimum of 24 game sessions *if* you can play exactly the right tier of scenario every time, and you too can have a single* new option!" the GM says.
I think it is important to look at a broader representation of players, and not to assume that the experience of VOs and longtime PFS advocates to dominate the opinions.
* Yes, you can get things for less than that. But those are neat things, not new character options like ancestries.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corollary: I'm a fairly experienced gamer and a rabid Paizo supporter. Due to a variety of issues, I don't play PFS2 as often as I played PFS1. I can't afford the new hotness, and so I'm restricted to the same options I've had since Season 0 of PFS1. Do you think that encourages me to play more PFS2, or discourages me from bothering to play?
(Of course, this is a bad example - I'm gonna play everything because the stories in PFS2 are amazing. But I'm a story person, and so the different mechanics of PFS2 versus PFS1 don't really make much difference for me. That's not necessarily true for every experienced gamer, of course.)
EDIT: cleaned up grammar a bit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if there's a widespread thing of people only wanting uncommon ones, that seems like it could be a problem. Are those ancestries mechanically better? Just more popular?
I don't think people think they're mechanically better. I think they're popular because they comprise a large fraction of the recent material that Paizo has published so that's what's advertised.
It's not just ancestries, but ancestries are the most obvious example. In 2019, we had 6 zero-AcP ancestries available and 0 AcP-gated ancestries. In 2020, we had 7 zero-AcP ancestries available and 7 (?) AcP-gated ancestries available. In 2021, we have 7 zero-AcP ancestries available and 15 (?) AcP-gated ancestries available.
Humans - which are supposed to be the most common ancestry overall - have not had new feats in quite some time.
I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong - from a cold-hearted / bean-counting perspective, I think there's a legitimate strategy in squeezing more out of the small fraction of heavily-committed players over trying to get a larger base of low-commitment players. But I'm just not sure whether this is part of a strategy or whether it's accidentally fed by survivorship bias / response bias in the feedback process.
|
|
I think this is a bit of a distortion.
I agree.
I wouldn't mind the AcP prices being a bit lower to make the very few AcP purchases I'd like to make a bit more accessible to my play pattern, but in the end, it's an arbitrary number. It took me a year and a half to afford a hobgoblin, but it wasn't impossible, and I'm OK with that.
I would have more of an issue if they were time gated and price gated so you had to earn a certain number of AcP within a certain window to be able to get the ancestry you'd like, but, thankfully, they've walked that idea back (or at least not implemented for now it due to other considerations).
My confession of bias: I really enjoy playing humans. I already feel like I've played with way too many dhampirs and tieflings while adventuring outside of Ustalav, Nidal, and Cheliax. I do play other ancestries, but my interest in something Uncommon (or the old convention GM race boon system) is usually tied to a specific concept within published material about that ancestry that I find interesting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some of us don't have the luxury of a steady group of players, or even a steady game night
I think this idea is lost on most of the campaign leaders, both at Paizo and volunteers. With the frequency and volume of games available online, the only way you cannot find games is if you chose not to. Yes, some people prefer live gaming, etc. but those are choices we make. There is a big difference between not having access and having access, but choosing not to participate.
I also think some people are mischaracterizing the situation when they say things like “new player doesn’t have access” because they happen to play with others who have these boons. The new player has the exact same access as the rest of us. They have to play/GM until they earn their points. As someone who has played since the launch, I don’t have any special access over anyone else. I’ve put in my time to earn myself the right to have those booms. I can easily describe that experience to show to those new players how they, also, can earn the same boons. They aren’t gated behind anything. They are fully and equally accessible to everyone.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this idea is lost on most of the campaign leaders, both at Paizo and volunteers. With the frequency and volume of games available online, the only way you cannot find games is if you chose not to. Yes, some people prefer live gaming, etc. but those are choices we make. There is a big difference between not having access and having access, but choosing not to participate.
You and Paizo are assuming desire to play is the only problem. Time to play, having a group and getting them together, sudden plan changes, the list goes on. "I can play when I want so everyone else can" isn't very true to life.
The new player has the exact same access as the rest of us. They have to play/GM until they earn their points.
It being a restrictive system from launch doesn't mean it's a good system now. The question is if it will turn away new players if they can't play the characters Paizo plasters on the book covers and websites. I think the answer is yes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two (somewhat intertwined) thoughts:
1) As a veteran player, I've never thought less of anyone because they were playing a "standard" race instead of a "cool" race. I have thought less of someone because they were playing a character (of any race) that was all mechanics and no personality.
2) Lack of access to alternative ancestries isn't going to stop me from making a character, playing the game, and having fun.
I'm not saying that people who want to play an unusual race are "wrong" in any way. I can completely understand having this brilliant character concept based around an Azarketi Ancestry, and not wanting to use the idea with a human. I could have built several of my characters nearly mechanically identical without a race boon, but they are way, way more fun for me because of the personality quirks race and background plays into.
What I don't understand is the idea of "if I can't make my first character with an Azarketi Ancestry, this game isn't going to be any fun." If you start with an elf, enjoy the scenarios as an elf for a while. You're going to get to the level where you will need to make another character to play the low-level scenarios. At which point, buy that Azarketi ancestry!
|
|
The cost is not unreasonable as others have shown.This hasn't been shown and is a matter of opinion. An opinion mostly shared by people with 3 or more purple stars by their names. The 1% usually thinks everything is fine I suppose.
There is an inevitable tension between the desire to reward people for dedicating effort, and the desire to give everyone cool things.
I should note that the people with 4 stars next to their name have no more (implicit) access to AcP than the people with 0 stars, as stars *only* represent time spent GMing PF1. Likewise VOs gain no more AcP than non VOs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should note that the people with 4 stars next to their name have no more (implicit) access to AcP than the people with 0 stars, as stars *only* represent time spent GMing PF1. Likewise VOs gain no more AcP than non VOs.
But it does indicate more time spent playing (indicating more time to play) and a large player base making this possible.
When this came up previously, the usual response was 'just GM a few conventions' and my reply was there is only one convention near me that doesn't require overnight stays and associated cost. If you're in a sweet spot in life where you can do multiple cons, great for you. Just don't assume everyone else is in a similar spot and you're the rule and not the exception.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the costs are fine the way they are. What I do think we should have in the Society is a few more Common ancestries. I am really not thrilled that Lost Omens Ancestry Guide had no Common ancestry for immediate use by players. I will be disappointed if the upcoming Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse does not have a Common ancestry. We are just gating too many behind AcP.
That said, I definitely like the AcP concept as a whole. People have the option to play plenty of Pathfinder 2e sessions. If they refuse to play online, well, that's their choice. I think the AcP are a great incentive for GMing too.
Truthfully, I wouldn't mind seeing some rare ancestries costing even more AcP, but I also don't want to put them out of reach for most players either. It would be pretty rewarding to have some ultra rare ancestries costing 1000 AcP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you cannot understand how someone's situation is different from yours, doesn't mean their reasons are invalid. I maintain that anyone suggesting a "Home game" in the "Organized Play" Forums is being unhelpful.
As someone whose work and family responsibilities have largely removed my ability to play live*, I don't see how that translates into the GM should allow every published option.
Personally, and I suspect I'm not alone but have no way of knowing what proportion of the player base feels the same, would be turned off if more tables thsn not had the cantina feel of Starfinder. So as an opposing voice, I appreciate that Organized Play throttles the rate at which we can get Uncommon races (and personally think Rares are too easy).
* edit: by live I mean synchronous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate that Organized Play throttles the rate at which we can get Uncommon races (and personally think Rares are too easy).
I agree that Rare is too easy relative to Uncommon. Didn't some of the options have 1 per player limits? Those were a good way of making sure Rare was rare. Or there could be escalating costs on Rare stuff, much like the rebuilds.
How about we pick an uncommon ancestry with a long pfs history and offer that for free?
Say Kobolds?
I think that was a very generous move. Perhaps too generous - I would have preferred a longer term solution and released less up front, with a plan for drip-drip-dripping out a few more freebies as they knew books like the LOCG, LOAG, and G&G were going to be restriction-heavy.
I would feel differently about the system if we had exactly as many options, but only one specific ancestry-heritage combination was unlocked with the APG, and then the rest were discounted with the LOCG, and then the whole ancestry unlocked with the LOAG. Despite being in the exact same position, it feels like someone is saying "hey we recognize we're putting out a lot of locked options, here are some depreciated freebies from the previous book."
"You start at the bottom and work your way up like everyone else" may be the truth, but it's a pretty bad marketing strategy.
|
|
I appreciate that Organized Play throttles the rate at which we can get Uncommon races (and personally think Rares are too easy).I agree that Rare is too easy relative to Uncommon. Didn't some of the options have 1 per player limits? Those were a good way of making sure Rare was rare. Or there could be escalating costs on Rare stuff, much like the rebuilds.
Ironically, to me, the two quantity limited races are Uncommon with no quantity limit on the Rare ancestries/Versatile Heritages. EDIT: Correction. Shoony is Rare and limited to 2 per player.
|
|
Except the reason the common races are in the core rule book is *because* they *are* the common races.
It would be really odd to add a *new* common race *now*.
"Yeah, these guys have been here all along, you can run into them on any street corner in Absalom. Why has no one ever heard of them before? Uh... Because they are so common they aren't worth mentioning. Yeah! That's it."
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tengu are pretty common in the Inner Sea. They are very common in Tian Xia. The argument against having more common ancestries is hollow. It has more to do with not wanting to change things and that's a huge mistake. It is time to think outside the box some as we move into live gaming over the next few months.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
sAs someone who has played since the launch, I don’t have any special access over anyone else. I’ve put in my time to earn myself the right to have those booms.
Those of us who have played since launch actually got a major advantage over those starting now.
For the first year or so we were accumulating ACP with nowhere to spend those points. By the time we could actually use those ACP
1) we had a bunch saved up
2) we probably already had a stable of characters of varying levels and so had relatively little desire to create new characters.
To take myself as an example, I have something like 6 active PFS characters (and another 4 or so basically retired characters). I've only created 2 ACP race characters largely because I only had "room" for 2 more characters. I'm about to create another new low level character that may or may not be an ACP race character.
In the steady state the ACP costs are fine. I'm spending and accumulating at about the same rate and that is going to be more or less true for people regardless of how much they play since those who only play occasionally won't have as many characters.
It's the start up time that is an issue.
|
|
More like “these guys are uncommon, but many of them have joined this one particular organization because reasons.”Except the reason the common races are in the core rule book is *because* they *are* the common races.
It would be really odd to add a *new* common race *now*.
"Yeah, these guys have been here all along, you can run into them on any street corner in Absalom. Why has no one ever heard of them before? Uh... Because they are so common they aren't worth mentioning. Yeah! That's it."
Agreed. It would make a lot of in world sense to me if Iruxi and/or Hobgoblins became free in season 3 due to events happening in seasons 1 and 2.