|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this a PFS or nothing idea? If a person is interested in playing a poppet or whatever other in my opinion goofy ancestry that's out there, why not try to set up a home game with them? You can run the PFS Scenarios round robin style until someone feels comfortable either coming up with something on their own, starting one of the Pathfinder Adventures, or one of the APs. From the way the thread is sounding, you probably have a table or two ready to go. PFS is great, and it's what got me into Pathfinder in the first place, but it isn't the end all/be all. There are LOTS of ways to play Pathfinder.
|
I may be unique in saying this but I find poppets, automatons, and sprites more fitting companions or heroes than goblins. even if we somehow remove the ACP requirements it is not going to change anyone's desire to play something uncommon or rare, they will just be more free to do so. We are just trying to increase freedom of choice by reducing cost.
Yes. By reducing/removing costs for uncommon and rare options, it makes those options less uncommon or rare to the point of making them neither uncommon nor rare through their usage.
I'm personally find for allowing these options in my home games, but it does change the feel of the campaigns I run and I'm not comfortable saying that is how all of organized play or pressuring other GMs into feeling they can't restrict anything in their own games.
I would have to disagree if you spend 10 months investment go though 2 characters' active carriers and anticipation in playing a character the one you want: their/your hopes and dreams, backstory, outfit, drawing them, creating a custom 3d model/mini, what ever else is part of your character creation process you will have more invested into them and feel worse at character death.
Yes. If someone has sold their soul to play a particular character, I would expect them to be dismayed to lose that character regardless of ancestry rarity.
Now what I was referring to was the idea that "one free rare ancestry" being an issue with character death because a brand new player would be less familiar with the Pathfinder Society systems and likely unable to fix that character death. I would suggest that someone who has played through two character careers will be far more familiar with those systems and would be able to resolve a character death within Society (or would otherwise be far more familiar with the risks they are taking).
|
|
Some ancestries are rare for a reason.
Sprites, for example, are Tiny; the players and the GMs have to be familiar with very specific rules for the game to be enjoyable.
In a closed game / fixed player pool, it's not a huge deal to learn the sprite quirks once per AP.
In a game open to the public, it will likely be problematic if Rare (uppercase R) ancestries become so common (lowercase c) that GMs are having trouble keeping up. Some of the abilities are also open to GM discretion.
It also becomes increasingly difficult to write adequately challenging scenarios when some features (such as a goloma's all-around vision) can obviate common challenges (ambushes, for example). A party with 6 Rare ancestries is going to respond in some unexpected ways.
They're perfectly fine ancestries for play in general, just not for an open-style play format where anyone can show up and anyone can GM.
That's why they're locked behind AcP. It assures the GM that the player has played a certain amount.
|
I may be unique in saying this but I find poppets, automatons, and sprites more fitting companions or heroes than goblins. even if we somehow remove the ACP requirements it is not going to change anyone's desire to play something uncommon or rare, they will just be more free to do so. We are just trying to increase freedom of choice by reducing cost.
I don't mean this maliciously, if you want freedom of choice, play a home game. The reasoning for the restrictions are not some arbitrary whim. The restrictions are placed with deliberation and intention. If you disagree (*shrug*) sorry. It happens.
I have disagreed and do disagree with a number of things the Org play and Paizo chooses. But it is their game, not mine. I merely appreciate the opportunity to not have to create my own story and to have a wealth of opportunities to play with the same characters wherever I travel to. Such benefits will always come with drawbacks.
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean this maliciously, if you want freedom of choice, play a home game. The reasoning for the restrictions are not some arbitrary whim. The restrictions are placed with deliberation and intention. If you disagree (*shrug*) sorry. It happens.
Not everyone is in the situation to be in a home game, either because of their schedule, location, or life circumstance. The official Paizo campaign having a narrow slice of playable options available for ancestries and a whole caged off mechanic in Versatile Heritage is counterintuitive.
That's not to say everything should be available, but it'd be nice to play something less Gygaxian in the year 2021 without having to put in as much time as it takes to beat a longer video game. People talk about Paizo's vision, but in the ancestry column, we're still playing out of the AD&D books. I get that for some folks, they don't want new things but letting a few more toys in at a rate shorter than a decent Mass Effect run seems like a good idea.
|
|
Not everyone is in the situation to be in a home game, either because of their schedule, location, or life circumstance.
I hear this often and it makes me wonder. How are you able to play society and not a home game?
Are people aware that they can play society scenarios home-game style? The downside is that they don't get society credit. The upside is that there can be no restrictions (ancestry, class, archetype, access, rarity).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone is in the situation to be in a home game, either because of their schedule, location, or life circumstance.I hear this often and it makes me wonder. How are you able to play society and not a home game?
Are people aware that they can play society scenarios home-game style? The downside is that they don't get society credit. The upside is that there can be no restrictions (ancestry, class, archetype, access, rarity).
Not everyone has the luxury (and it is a luxury) to have a home group where they can do this. Their only option might be organized play (or I guess online play, but that’s not for everyone.)
So, please, let’s not act like everyone has a group they can regularly or frequently play with. it just isn’t the case.
If you have that luxury, then enjoy it, but don’t act like everyone has it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You would be able to play in society games but not home games if you have a local game store where they offer society games every weekend but you don't know anyone there or elsewhere who is willing to form a regular home gaming group with you, either there or elsewhere.
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone is in the situation to be in a home game, either because of their schedule, location, or life circumstance.I hear this often and it makes me wonder. How are you able to play society and not a home game?
Are people aware that they can play society scenarios home-game style? The downside is that they don't get society credit. The upside is that there can be no restrictions (ancestry, class, archetype, access, rarity).
Just some examples from our local society group:
1. Irregular work schedule, such as IT or manufacturing work. It makes home games very difficult to participate in. Society is plug and play with no penalty for missing sessions. It was perfect for me working 6-7 days a week.
2. New to town. Just got someone who moved to the area and saw our events on the local store's calendar. Doesn't know anyone in town outside their spouse. Big Pathfinder fan, doesn't have the social structure to just "join a home game".
3. Parent and kids. We've got someone who runs and plays PFS with their kids. He does it for his kids. He can play with them when they've got time in their school schedules. Some family time with minimal schedule and time commitment. (as an aside, one of the kids is a very good society GM).
4. Geographically isolated. We've got folks who drive in 30+ minutes to our games from suburbs or rural areas. We've had a couple drive longer than hour because that's where gaming was. With that distance, its hard to commit to a home game.
5. Don't want a regular group. A home group comes with some social dynamics some folks don't want to deal with.
6. Not comfortable in the homes of strangers. We've had some women in our group over the years who love Pathfinder but aren't comfortable being invited into homes by random folks.
No reason to hold that against those folks or lock them into 80 hours of Lord of the Rings knock-offs to play something original.
|
I think the main disconnect here is, the claim that people don’t know each other/don’t have time/schedule for a campaign. While knowing people and having time/schedule for a campaign.
A “home” campaign doesn’t have to be played at a home, you can play it in the FLGS or wherever. PFS is a specialized campaign that you’re [general] choosing to play over other types of campaigns. If everyone in your group want to play the locked options without unlocking them just play a “home” campaign. If you’re [singular] the only one wanting to do that then that’s something to take into account, that the group prefers the rules and restrictions of this particular campaign. Conrasu and Poppets have a cost to play in PFS. They might be completely banned in a home campaign.
|
|
I guess I just can't seem to relate overly much.
I swore off my geographically local situation for a while. In order to play, I played online. I prefer playing in person, but it was either play or don't play. While playing online, I found a few peeps who I enjoyed playing with. I coordinated with them and now have a crew that I play high level society content with online. We don't have a set schedule of when we play. We just coordinate when we are all free next and then set up a game for then.
If you can't play online, I can understand that limitation.
Yea there is drawbacks but it doesn't mean you can't want it to get better.
I get that. I merely disagree in what you view as 'better'.
|
Comparing completely fantasy ancestries (like poppets) unlock requirements to racism issues is not a good look for your argument.
I was not responding to you I was responding to Donald who explicitly did make the comparison, neither they nor you have a moral high ground here.
“Not being able to play race X which is based on a real life regional myth/folklore makes a person from that region wonder why they're not good enough to be included.”
Your exact words words. You brought bigotry in in order to shame those disagreeing with you and give your a moral edge, but all it did is make those asking for the loosing/removal of the locks look bad.
I was thinking Kitsune, Tengu, and Anadi, all tied to specific real world cultures.
And earlier in the post you quoted I spoke against comparing Paizo's "being unwelcomed" to not wanting to play due to arbitrary restrictions.
|
|
try doing a "home" campaign not online and your "home" is a different state every few weeks.I think the main disconnect here is, the claim that people don’t know each other/don’t have time/schedule for a campaign. While knowing people and having time/schedule for a campaign.
A “home” campaign doesn’t have to be played at a home, you can play it in the FLGS or wherever. PFS is a specialized campaign that you’re [general] choosing to play over other types of campaigns. If everyone in your group want to play the locked options without unlocking them just play a “home” campaign. If you’re [singular] the only one wanting to do that then that’s something to take into account, that the group prefers the rules and restrictions of this particular campaign. Conrasu and Poppets have a cost to play in PFS. They might be completely banned in a home campaign.
I wouldn’t have much better luck with PFS if that was the case.
|
|
I’m not dismissing your complaints, I’m disagreeing with your push to have the whole campaign system completely changed to suit you, when that would affect everyone as well, so that has to be taken into consideration.
And you do have that “luxury” actually, you can play online. You not wanting to play online though is your choice.
Also the attempt at moralizing other posters have done on your side of the argument hasn’t done it any favors.
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not dismissing your complaints, I’m disagreeing with your push to have the whole campaign system completely changed to suit you, when that would affect everyone as well, so that has to be taken into consideration.
This is pretty hyperbolic. Outside of some narrow examples, ancestries are pretty standardized in terms of power level or mechanical complexity. Within the narrative, very few scenarios are altered by the presence of particular ancestries. At tables I GM (and that's 90% of what I do) the most ancestry related topic that comes up is if the party needs a light source in a given situation. Outside of power gamers (who in my experience play humans or dwarves in 2E), ancestry is largely a personal flavor choice.
Making Orcs, Catfolk, or Gnolls more accessible doesn't "have the whole campaign system changed completely". It lets someone who really likes something that's pretty well integrated jam out with their friends in a casual tabletop game. It's no skin off my back either way, I prefer GMing anyways. I want my players to have fun playing Pathfinder. This try-hard, serious business attitude is a big buzz kill. Sure, we can buy whatever participation trophies we want and flex on newbies and folks with lives. Or we could just do something to give them a taste of what Pathfinder has that isn't ripped off from times when AC counted down.
Society isn't the old HackMaster Association, with competitive module tournaments and prizes for the winners. It's advertised as a low commitment, easy to pick up way to play Pathfinder. Then again, you could play a cannibal elf out of the core book in that with no questions asked, so maybe it was less hardcore than what's supposed to be the casual, come as you are, public game system.
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
All of my previous points being said, I'm full in favor of an AcP/Boon gifting system.
While I do agree 100% that's a good idea, some kind of starting ACP grant is probably more fair and be something nice to show off to new players after guiding them through navigated this not remotely intuitive website. While that system might be abuse-able to just making new accounts, nothing stops someone from just making 4 accounts and giving themselves enough GM credit to get whatever they want as it is.
My stance has been "make access easier and show off what makes Pathfinder unique" not "Monte Hall's All Sprite and Stryx Christmas Special".
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
“This is pretty hyperbolic.”
I wasn’t talking about power.
“Sure, we can buy whatever participation trophies we want and flex on newbies and folks with lives.”
Insults aren’t swaying.
My intention wasn't to insult. Sorry if it came off that way. It was meant as an expression of a pattern of "I got mine" I see from hardcore society members.
Doesn't change the point that huge swaths of the ancestry and heritage system are effectively inaccessible, locking players to a collection of options that are largely an artifact of a different game.
|
|
Really online. Text pbp sure most of the time. Even that can be difficult when you work/live in a shielded dead zone where your internet activity is monitored. Not everyone has reliable internet access all the time. So when someone says online is not a possibility it isn't. Before you ask I can't tell you why. There are a lot of places in America and around the world with limited to no internet.
That online is not really an option, and the rest of your situation, is unfortunate. Truly. But I am not swayed. Exceptional situations should not dictate rules, but be foundations for exceptions to the rules.
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
We did not, I did. I was expressing my view on how to handle exceptional situations.Exceptional situations should not dictate rules, but be foundations for exceptions to the rules.I missed the part where we decided what are exceptional situations and what is normal and/or average for everyone.
What are the odds that you're probably gonna play and run regardless? That lot of bits next to that name of yours tell me you're not going anywhere if they increased the access. So you're pushing for nothing to the benefit of no one, in a way that doesn't effect if you will or won't play in the event any of the suggested changes were made.
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those who are pushing for more legal ancestries and fewer restrictions note:
1) Having greater access to new ancestries sells Paizo books and shows off Golarian's diversity;
2) Wider access helps newcomers get to play an ancestry that interest them faster;
3) The time investment to earn a new ancestry as a player is huge;
4) They feel the current system is a bit elitist, where only long time players and GMs get the 'cool stuff;'
5) Not everyone can GM, nor has the ability to find a home game outside of OPF.
Those more supportive of the current ACP distribution system note:
1) OPF needs to reward and incentivize GMing, especially casual GMing;
2) Rare and Uncommon ancestries are supposed to be rare and uncommon, and the ACP system helps ensure that the distribution of unusual ancestries reflects the world of the campaign. It maintains immersion in the world by not having the entire society overrun by Poppets (or whatever the cool new rare ancestry is);
3) Everyone can eventually get what they want, they just have to invest time in the world. During that time, players can learn the lore, and be more appreciative of the special races that they get;
4) Campaign mode games like APs are always available for campaign credit if you want to offer your group a campaign full of rare ancestries;
5) Even if more rare ancestries are available, they will lose their shine for players the moment they become commonly available in the campaign, and the push will be for the next rare thing.
Other Points mentioned:
1) A lot of GMs want the ability to gift either ACP or boon races to other players;
2) Offering a player one free rare race at the start might make character deaths even more traumatic if the character loses its one rare race.
There were other conversations, but I think those are the main points.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
I try hard not to show new players all of Archives of Nethys when they are talking about building new characters. I bring up the core races, leshies and kobolds. Most brand new players will find something they want to play if shown the universe of available options, and not think about the weird stuff.
To Crimson Knight: I know that you have a new player that is turned on by cute. Gnomes are fey-blooded with rainbow hair, just like Sprites. Leshies are adorable plant spirits. Kobolds are the descendants of dragons, and they have the winglets and dragon breath to prove it. Heck, goblins are nifty too. In PF1, everyone was dying to play goblins, but they were the rarest species ever. There were only 30 goblin boons in existence in all of society. In PF2, they are now a common race -- but they are just as weird and delightful. If your player wants cute, show her the picture of the furry pirate goblin with the monkey tail that appears in the Lost Omens Character Guide. SUPER CUTE.
All that said, my boy scout PF2 group eventually ditched Organized Play for a home game because they wanted to play weird stuff without worrying about how much ACP they had. So clearly, the ACP requirements can be a barrier sometimes for retaining new players.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
Clearly this is one of those conversations that Org Play cycles through from time to time.
I still like the idea that we came up with, back in April as a compromise: everyone gets 40 free ACP as a one-time gift, and that each new player gets some when they sign up ever after as a "Welcome to Organized Play" boon. This means that they have a shorter time waiting to play something weird.
It's not happened yet, but hey... I'm still hoping that it will. We finally got retroactive Starfinder ACP (thank you, Alex!) and that was proposed months before it happened. I would love for us to adopt that as a policy to help new players make the adjustment to Organized Play.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the point is that “hey, these ancestries are rare and they should remain so, so not everyone can start with them” then the conversation should move to “Is the current ACP cost appropriate?”
What makes 160 ACP the right number for rare ancestries?
For a player who plays normal PFS, that’s 40 games. So, somewhere between 120 and 200 hours to earn enough to unlock a single rare ancestry character. The fact that you can only unlock one with X number of ACPs helps protect the rarity some here are saying is necessary.
So, how was 160 the number that was decided upon? Could it be less? I mean, even if I were to agree that a player has to have some investment in the game before they can unlock a certain ancestry, I doubt you will ever convince me that 160 points is the right number. I think that is just too excessive.
Would there be a lower number we could potentially agree on?
EDIT: As I understand, if they play these scenarios at Premier + events, then they earn 6 ACPs per scenario. So, in theory, we could be talking about (under the current structure) somewhere around 27 games, but that’s not really likely since there aren’t that many Premier + events. And if they play them at Premier events, they get 5. So, that’s 32 games. That means a player needs to play somewhere between 27 and 40 games to unlock ONE ancestry for ONE character. And it will be more towards the 32-40 games since there aren’t as many Premier + events.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone up-thread suggested retroactively charging an increased rate for kobolds.
If that was adopted I'd be so far into debt it'd require literal years of playing to get out of it, and that is with a modest pile of ACP banked for emergencies that would evaporate instantly.
Since tengu were not available for a while, and then buried behind an excessively large cost (imo), 16 of my 18 PFS2 characters are kobolds. I have one tengu, and one half-elf.
To get those characters to a 'safe spot' has required the effective 'grinding' of Repeatable content. I DO NOT like doing this, but there is little choice with things as they currently stand.
And no, right now the answer is not 'well, just GM some'.
Given mechanical flaws that have been highlighted in low level pay, I do NOT feel I could in good conscience run tables without massive fudging or rules ignorance.
If I'm feeling a bit of despair here, I cannot begin to imagine what newer players might be feeling -- if they weren't already scared off by the 'good ol' players' mentality.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main proponents of reduced cost in this thread keep talking about 'hours until unlock' but I think that's a misleading way to measure the commitment. This isn't a mobile game where we're tracking retention by hours played. We play sessions and stories. I like to take those hours and think about it in terms of levels / characters which is a better gauge of a player's experience in the hobbby.
So you concede getting ACP takes time? Then why is it not a valid way to measure commitment? Why does a player need to be committed to Pathfinder to play a Ixuri in the first place?
I've been playing RPGs on and off for close to forty years and Patherfinder for ten years. How's my experience in the hobby? Can I be trusted to know what I want to play character wise?
|
|
... but I've made two posts in this thread and both have said that AcP is a measure of time.
Yes and I asked why is it not a valid way to measure commitment.
My objection to using total hours is that we don't play this game as a function of hours, nor does AcP accrue directly in that fashion even if it approximates it sometimes.
Agreed. Saying you only have to get to level four to get X can mean a month for some players and a couple years for others. It's not 'sensational' to say time play is limited and the "play more/just GM at conventions" crowd fails to take into account everyone doesn't have the same time and opportunities to play as they do. That can be a large commitment of time to play a character that you'd rather not be playing.
I feel pretty strongly that someone should at least have to get a single character to 4 before getting an uncommon so I can't imagine uncommon ancestries costing less than 40 AcP.
Again, why? In absence of a reason, I can only think you don't trust them to make the character 'right'. What's the difference between a new player making a human fighter vs a Hobgoblin fighter?