Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not mind when one of my author tables of Fanciful March of Urwal was overrun with pixies riding on corgis at PaizoCon, though! It was hilarious, especially when all the pixie players started showing off pictures of their real corgi pets...
I like weird! One of the reasons I love Starfinder so much is the Cantina effect of all the awesome starfinder races showing up for a mission.
I just know that we also have to have rewards for GMing. Anyone who glances at the aeon stones floating by my avatar will know that I GM a LOT, but the ACP system means that other people volunteer to GM sometimes too, which means that I get a break to play once in awhile. We need casual GMs. ACP incentivizes those GMs to step up, which means that we get a richer ecosystem because other people are also sharing the storytelling and lore and adventure.
Maybe as Mark said, those numbers are too steep... 160 ACP for a rare race once seemed as unreachable to me as the moon. Now I can afford two of them, but I have hesitated to make the purchase because I want to make sure before I do that I have a character concept worthy of the expense.
And maybe that is why I am still making gnome characters. Because with a gnome, I am willing to start with a half-baked character concept and grow into the character and find the personality as I go.
So... Mark, let's go with the concept that the prices are too high. What would you set them at to make rare races more accessible, but to keep incentivizing the casual GMs? Let's theorize the numbers and come up with some proposals.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Organized Play has never, to my knowledge, said that creative prerogative/artistic vision as their reason for the current availability/AcP cost of Uncommon and Rare races. That's something at we players hypothesize as part of the reason. Paizo-the-Game-Company certainly has by definition by assigning rarity tags to the ancestries, and Organized Play tries to stick to the published rules as close as they can, but they haven't said that's their reason.
One part of the reason that Organized Play has said (it's in a Blog somewhere) is that ancestries as GM rewards are the most popular and effective incentivizing reward based on their research.
So forget anything any of us not-Organized-Play-administrators have said about why we, individually, think there should be a bell curve spread of Common, Uncommon, and Rare races. Arguing with any of us about aesthetic serves no purpose other than raising blood pressures. Just ignore posts bringing up that as a rationale. The key issue is incentivizing GMs. If you want them free, they're no longer an incentive, so you need to propose an alternative that does not add power to a character as an incentivizing reward to entice people to GM more.
If you don't, then what you're asking is both "Give me all the ancestries for free" and "Think up a new way to incentivize GMs."
I don't mind the current AcP costs because I think I understand their pricing system--not because I'm overflowing with AcP; I'm primarily PbP so accrual is slow--but if they adjusted, maybe spreading the races out over more layers (20, 40, 60, 80, 120, 160, 200).
I will note that people keep pointing at the 160 AcP ancestries as how big the problem is, but those are the equivalent of charity auction boons of old, the things only a few people had. Now everyone can.
|
Contributor
|
I don't mind the current AcP costs because I think I understand their pricing system--not because I'm overflowing with AcP; I'm primarily PbP so accrual is slow--but if they adjusted, maybe spreading the races out over more layers (20, 40, 60, 80, 120, 160, 200).
Okay, now that is an interesting concept, especially if Organized Play moved kitsunes, iruxi / nagaji and tengus to the 20 ACP area. As races that were freely available in PF1, I'd like to see them with a cheaper price tag in PF2. The only issue is that if we had that price structure, I'm betting that pixies and poppets would be at the 200 mark because they have so much player appeal. And we'd still be having this conversation every few months.
One of my issues is that no matter what price tag we set, the rarest and most expensive races will always be seen as desirable, because its human nature to hanker after what we cannot have. I expected to see a lot more goblins in Organized Play when they became common, and instead I see far more dwarves and elves. Even though the race has awesome and weird ancestry feats and is a ton of fun!
Hmm
|
Contributor
|
Vanities are fun, but they and the ACP-only spells and gear do not motivate GMs the way ancestry unlocks do. While I would likely GM even without rewards, I admit that ACP motivates me when it comes to GMing out of my comfort zone. GMing for many conventions has a lot more obstacles than upsides at times, and so even I need an incentive to GM for them sometimes.
So far, ACP is the fairest system I have seen for opening up boons to the player base and motivating new and casual GMs. I love that it progresses you towards your goals even when you're playing. I love that it rewards the people who GM every week in their gaming store, making sure that Organized Play stays alive. I also like that the system grows and develops, and that kobolds and leshies have been unlocked because of the choices that we have made in Organized Play.
All in all, I like ACP, and don't want to toss a system out that has been working. On the other hand, I do wonder if the prices are too steep for many options. Still, the system needs to have some things with steep prices, or the most hard-core GMs will complain that they have nowhere to spend their ACP. If that happens, it becomes harder to entice them to GM for conventions.
I'd like to find a way to incentivize players by putting more options in easy reach, while still incentivizing the hard core GMs who make the games happen. It's not an easy balancing act, but that doesn't mean that we could not come up with some workable answers in this discussion.
Hmm
PS The discount on adventure products would entice me, but it would also muddy things for me. There are times when I have been very much short on cash for Paizo Products, but I would hate if ACP turned into cash, because then it might mean that some GMs would feel obligated to choose between getting a cool ancestry boon and an adventure to run for their players each week. I'm really not sure I want ACP to ever become a cash substitute.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So forget anything any of us not-Organized-Play-administrators have said about why we, individually, think there should be a bell curve spread of Common, Uncommon, and Rare races. Arguing with any of us about aesthetic serves no purpose other than raising blood pressures. Just ignore posts bringing up that as a rationale. The key issue is incentivizing GMs. If you want them free, they're no longer an incentive, so you need to propose an alternative that does not add power to a character as an incentivizing reward to entice people to GM more.
If you don't, then what you're asking is both "Give me all the ancestries for free" and "Think up a new way to incentivize GMs."
1.there are many unlocks that are not ancestries heck we now have more equipment unlocks and archetype unlocks. this is without increasing the flow of ACP to GMs
2. things like vanities
3. have points that are GM only. (gm a game get ACP and GMP and put some nifty things there.
4. A special discord sever for 3+ star or planet
5. discount on adventure products
You haven't suggested anything new, enticing, or that doesn't add power to a GM's character--the idea that GMs got cool things (GM race boons) is one thing the AcP system was striving to address. I find it hard to think of an alternative as enticing as ancestries. A discount would be enticing to me, but that likely runs afoul of non-profit/volunteer/etc issues.
You want ancestries free and suggest archetypes as an alternative, but I bet you that there are people who would have their own argument for why all archetypes should be free and GMs can be incentivized by ancestries.
This system is better than the past, and coming up with an alternative that's just as motivating as ancestry boons is going to take more effort than that.
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind the current AcP costs because I think I understand their pricing system--not because I'm overflowing with AcP; I'm primarily PbP so accrual is slow--but if they adjusted, maybe spreading the races out over more layers (20, 40, 60, 80, 120, 160, 200).Okay, now that is an interesting concept, especially if Organized Play moved kitsunes, iruxi / nagaji and tengus to the 20 ACP area. As races that were freely available in PF1, I'd like to see them with a cheaper price tag in PF2. The only issue is that if we had that price structure, I'm betting that pixies and poppets would be at the 200 mark because they have so much player appeal. And we'd still be having this conversation every few months.
One of my issues is that no matter what price tag we set, the rarest and most expensive races will always be seen as desirable, because its human nature to hanker after what we cannot have. I expected to see a lot more goblins in Organized Play when they became common, and instead I see far more dwarves and elves. Even though the race has awesome and weird ancestry feats and is a ton of fun!
Hmm
I think in the case of the current 160 AcP options, many of them are mechanically unique in some ways. Pixies being tiny, the 4 constructs having unique rules, Beastkin kind of just changing how a character works, etc. I think 160 is probably a good number so that a certain amount of system mastery is earned, which benefits both players and GMs in the timeframe we have for scenarios.
In my opinion the idea of an 80 AcP grant works as the best of both worlds. If you are playing Pathfinder because you want to play an ancestry, in most cases its available to a new player. In the cases its not, they're much closer. For players who want to play Core options, they have access to the wide array of boons that essentially get ignored in pursuit of ancestry boons. For GMs, there's still plenty of rewards beyond the grant. If the increased rate past the grant isn't enough, maybe further rewards based on Glyphs earned or the ability to access boons based on Glyphs.
It means that for folks who want to see what Pathfinder has to offer, they can do that more easily. For folks who want to keep the more extreme ancestries limited, not every player is going to use the grant for an ancestry, it gives them more points spend on other boons. Also solves the "well, I could play XYZ in PFS v1" as if Kitsune is their jam, they get back to annoying me with Foxes.
The only points I'd advocate adjusting for in a universe with the grant would be the non-rare versatile heritages. Pay just as much for half the options. If I were to suggest a price-frame I'd say 20 for the Genie-kin, 40 for Aligned-planar Scions, 120 for Beast-kin, and 60 for the rest. Genie-kin were established allies and members of the society and the plot of a whole season.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that Starfinder's ACP boons have more 40 ACP options -- just about every race found in the Pact Worlds, including the weird and delightful Bantrids, are 40 ACP. At the moment, the only 40 ACP option for PF2 that isn't a system traveller boon is Iruxi. Having a few more options that are appealing and easier to reach would be cool. I could agree to see geniekin in that category (along with kitsunes and tengus.) Having some things that can be earned faster would make the ACP system more appealing to new players.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Side note: I've read your posts on low-level play and simply don't share your experiences or understand your anxiety around playing or GMing low level tables.
My experience with GMing PF2 has been near total TPK in two tables of #1-01 at GenCon launch with characters that appeared to be reasonably 'solid' and players that were fun to role-play with -- until the dice went to 'SCREW YOU MODE' with nearly impossible to hit DC numbers for L1 starting characters.
I'm NOT a 'killer' GM.
I don't have a tally board where I gleefully put 'kill' stickers any time a character outright gets murdered at my tables then chortle maniacally.
I don't like the idea of having to try to 'nerf' every scenario and pray someone who HAS played it doesn't 'catch on' and Report Me for Cheating.
I don't find it fun to put the players at my table under the same level of stress I feel.
That is from the GM side.
From the player side, games really go downhill fast when it feels like there's nearly no chance of success and one is hoping to hit a fifteen percent narrow range band at the top of the die while ALSO avoiding the lowest five percent (plus whatever percentage would make a roll into a critical failure by missing a target number by 10 or more).
|
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crimson, there were some parts of your post that I could not parse, but for the most part, I think that I get what you're saying.
Why worry about the 1%?
This is a fair question, and here's my answer. We need to worry about them because they make games happen at conventions. There is a reason why GenCon offered the best boons to its PF1 GMs who would GM the entire convention. That was because otherwise, they would not get enough GMs, and they would have to turn players away.
If tables don't happen, then there are fewer places for players to play the character of their dreams. I not only want players to play the character that they want to play, I want them to be able to play, period.
As I said, this is all a balancing act.
Hmm
|
Contributor
|
Aside to Wei Ji:
I'm not a killer GM* either. So far, I have managed to avoid killing any PF2 PCs, though man... I have had some close calls. Why not start with bounties and one-shots, both of which are campaign-mode, so you're not breaking the rules if you help a party that needs help? You can get used to GMing PF2, and hopefully not have it be super intimidating.
I know you would be an awesome GM!
Hmm
____
* Even though I wrote 2-18, which has some very tough fights!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could definitely go for making some ancestries cheaper, stuff in the 20 point range for the 1e society's available races would be great, some more stuff at 40, and maybe some narrative developments to drop some of those 160s to 80 or even 40s would go a long way to making them more appealing.
Right now, I find most ancestries (especially the rare ones) are in a similar spot to a lot the consumables in 2e - too expensive to buy, too valuable to use on anything that's not perfect. Maybe the paizo gang just have a fundamentally different valuation of currencies than me, but I see two systems working like this and it bugs me.
I like PFS, it got me into the game and it's how I try to get people into it. Making the cool ancestries more affordable would only increase the enjoyments of myself and the majority of the people I play with.
|
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crimson, you said something that is very interesting: you don't want to punish those with obligations with more and more barriers. That's fair. But you have to realize that just about every GM also has other obligations that they are balancing against GM prep time. I work, am a parent, and freelance as a game writer. I usually prep somewhere between 5-8 hours for every new four-hour scenario I GM. If you don't incentivize GMing, most GMs will carve less time out of their busy schedules to GM.
It's not about not wanting players to get toys. It's about wanting tables to happen so that players can play. I want to make more ancestries affordable, and I want to still incentivize GMs. I am trying to look at Organized Play as the entire ecosystem. How do we get the balance right for the majority, and make sure that each part of the ecosystem gets its toys?
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wile I usually agree with you 160 ACP can easily be 180 to 200 hour. that is more than a semester's worth of contact hours for a full time student in the US. learning how to play a game is not like a full time course load. what about the Shisk Ancestry is so difficult?I think in the case of the current 160 AcP options, many of them are mechanically unique in some ways. Pixies being tiny, the 4 constructs having unique rules, Beastkin kind of just changing how a character works, etc. I think 160 is probably a good number so that a certain amount of system mastery is earned, which benefits both players and GMs in the timeframe we have for scenarios.
It's not about learning the system or experience with the system. I disagree with those who have suggested that this is a reason. Remember, the people posting here are just average players like you. Skill is not the gate. These things are participation rewards. You play the game, you gain AcP, you spend AcP, and repeat. You need things that people want to drive the cycle. Individual persons don't want everything on the menu, so if everything costs the same and is easy to obtain, then each individual person would have their "thing" and be done with it.
There's also something to the concept of artificial scarcity to drive interest. Hobgoblins: Uncommon but cost 200 AcP with a 1/player limit. I worked for one of those because they were limited (now they're 120 AcP and no limit, by the way).
There's also valuing something you put time and effort into achieving.
Here's why we average people think artistic vision has something to do with AcP costs:
Shisks rarely encounter other peoples, even in the Mwangi Expanse.
The popular iconic things--faeries, robots, werewolves, catfolk--are going to be expensive because they're popular. I guarantee you wyvaran--or any dragon-like race--would be expensive and would bet vanara would be expensive. I'd play 200 hours of game time for a charu-ka.
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... Mark, let's go with the concept that the prices are too high. What would you set them at to make rare races more accessible, but to keep incentivizing the casual GMs? Let's theorize the numbers and come up with some proposals.
Hmm
As a former Venture-Captain, I personally know all too well the importance and the challenge of recruiting a sufficient number of GMs, so I am on board with giving some sort of incentive for them. I am not arguing we take this incentive from them.
But, even if Paizo lowers the cost for some or all of these races, GMs will still get to them faster than a person who only plays and never GMs. I am okay with that. And lowering the costs means that a GM will get access to more ancestries faster than once every 20 games or so, and I am okay with that.
The ACP cost is nothing more than what Paizo has established to make sure the rarity of the ancestries stay as they are. As others have said, rare ancestries should still be rare (particularly in comparison to other ancestries.).
Now, 160 ACP is, in my view, too high, and I haven’t seen a rationale from Paizo as to why that specific number is the cost.
So, let’s say that 160 gets lowered to 100. That’s 25 games for a player (still a lot, but I could probably live with that - that’s 15 fewer games than is currently required.). And for a GM who gets 8 ACP/game, that’s 13 games instead of 20. They would still get access before a player will.
So, maybe something like:
Current 160 —-> 100
Current 120 —-> 75
Current 80 —-> 50
(Roughly, it comes out to about .625% of what the current requirement is.)
So, what that means is, a player could get a rare in 25 games, then the next one at 19 games, and the lowest at 13 games. And that presumes they play just regular scenarios where they get 4 ACP/game. Clearly if they play at premier or premier + they’ll get a bit more.
Now, there is nothing magic about my numbers. I didn’t want to just say “cut them in half” but I was trying to find a way to lower them to something that seems more reasonable (to me), still makes it so people can’t just play a few games and suddenly they have a rare ancestry, and still leave the increased earning of ACPs for GMs.
I can be flexible on the numbers. I mean, if people really want to say “just make them half of what they currently are” I could live with that, but I’m also a realist.
And yes, while I know the current costs are neatly divisible by 4 (the standard ACP amount earned by players) and mine are not, that’s not really an important factor to me. But, if it were to be a factor (to keep it easy, for example), then I might be okay with 100 / 80 / 60. (So, 25 games, 20 games, 15 games.).
At any rate, HMM asked me for my thoughts on this, and I feel a responsibility to try to respond.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crimson, there were some parts of your post that I could not parse, but for the most part, I think that I get what you're saying.
Why worry about the 1%?
This is a fair question, and here's my answer. We need to worry about them because they make games happen at conventions. There is a reason why GenCon offered the best boons to its PF1 GMs who would GM the entire convention. That was because otherwise, they would not get enough GMs, and they would have to turn players away.
If tables don't happen, then there are fewer places for players to play the character of their dreams. I not only want players to play the character that they want to play, I want them to be able to play, period.
As I said, this is all a balancing act.
Hmm
I'm afraid your argument regarding the 1% isn't making syntactical sense to me, so I don't see what you're trying to point out.
However, I am fully confident that the OPF is making campaign decisions based on the 100% not any 1%.
|
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
I started an automata today to celebrate my first time getting to play a PC in a while. There was definitely some rules questions I and the GM went over before we started just so we were all on the same page. I don't think its unreasonable to gate stuff like that, even if the more streamlined ancestries are made more accessible. I think this benefits newer players and GMs. I have definitely played with longtime society members who would bring the stereotypical power gamer, with a rare ancestry and using options from multiple sources and a bad attitude. I'd rather not overwhelm a new GM with everyone having access to things like the constructs, Skinwalker, or Stryx that fundamentally bend the rules of the game. Our local group has a small pool of GMs that rotate through and I can't see getting someone to try it if they had to deal with some of the corner case options.
That isn't to say that all rare ancestries fall into that category, but for those that are outside the normal bounds of play, I get having a solid gate.
I mean, otherwise I think we need to lower the bar to ancestry options. Its one of the best features of the system and they've added a ton of cool stuff.
|
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... I've earned almost all my ACP from PF2 just being a weekly FLGS GM. That's the great thing about ACP. You don't need to be an elite. It comes from just showing up and putting in time.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
Thanks to Mark for making suggestions on numbers, and to everyone for thoughtful suggestions so far. I'm sure we'll be giving Alex a lot to think about when he reads this after the holiday.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my conceptual cost suggestion:
20 AcP - regularly interact with humans on Avistan, prolific versatile heritages (e.g., geniekin)
40 AcP - regularly interact with humans on other continents
60 AcP - small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on Avistan, less prolific versatile heritages (e.g., tieflings)
80 AcP - reclusive or homebody ancestry on Avistan, small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on other continents
120 AcP - reclusive ancestry or homebody on other continents, rare versatile heritages
160 AcP - universally rare ancestries, normally xenophobic ancestries
200 AcP - mythical ancestry (being a human and encountering one is a story to tell your grandchildren)
Then, of course, cool-factor tax as needed.
I'm not going to venture my thoughts as to where I think existing ancestries might go beyond the couple of versatile heritage examples above because we'd all probably disagree about at least one and it's not up to me. However, if your hope and dream is to make a character with an ancestry that normally avoids humans and/or doesn't like danger (goloma), it's not going to be easy to get your hands on it.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my conceptual cost suggestion:
20 AcP - regularly interact with humans on Avistan, prolific versatile heritages (e.g., geniekin)
40 AcP - regularly interact with humans on other continents
60 AcP - small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on Avistan, less prolific versatile heritages (e.g., tieflings)
80 AcP - reclusive or homebody ancestry on Avistan, small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on other continents
120 AcP - reclusive ancestry or homebody on other continents, rare versatile heritages
160 AcP - universally rare ancestries, normally xenophobic ancestries
200 AcP - mythical ancestry (being a human and encountering one is a story to tell your grandchildren)Then, of course, cool-factor tax as needed.
I'm not going to venture my thoughts as to where I think existing ancestries might go beyond the couple of versatile heritage examples above because we'd all probably disagree about at least one and it's not up to me. However, if your hope and dream is to make a character with an ancestry that normally avoids humans and/or doesn't like danger (goloma), it's not going to be easy to get your hands on it.
You know what I might be amenable to is a boon that doesn’t necessarily unlock an ancestry directly, but lowers its cost by a category or two or three based on the scenario.
So, for example - Anadi are from Garund and generally reclusive. So, under your list, that would strike me as 120 ACP. But, let’s say you play a scenario that takes part in Garund and/or involves Anadi. Successfully completing the mission might allow you to unlock it at 80 ACP instead. in some ways, that’s like the discount you get for a Shoony if you played at least 1 book of Extinction Curse.
I mean, for me, that’s still not ideal, but it gets a step closer and does so without totally unbalancing the rarities.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, if your hope and dream is to make a character with an ancestry that normally avoids humans and/or doesn't like danger (goloma), it's not going to be easy to get your hands on it.
And now I want to filk about Golomas.
♫ Oh Goloma, so many eyes come peepin' out your face!
With your watchful ways and careful gaze
There'll be no holes in your carapace!
Oh Goloma, ev'ry night I'm counting ACP
In the Mwangi Expanse we'll soon dance
Just as soon as I can wrest you free! ♫
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now I want to filk about Golomas.
♫ Oh Goloma, so many eyes come peepin' out your face!
With your watchful ways and careful gaze
There'll be no holes in your carapace!
Oh Goloma, ev'ry night I'm counting ACP
In the Expanse we'll soon dance
Just as soon as I can wrest you free! ♫
And..I’m dead.
|
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my conceptual cost suggestion:
20 AcP - regularly interact with humans on Avistan, prolific versatile heritages (e.g., geniekin)
40 AcP - regularly interact with humans on other continents
60 AcP - small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on Avistan, less prolific versatile heritages (e.g., tieflings)
80 AcP - reclusive or homebody ancestry on Avistan, small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on other continents
120 AcP - reclusive ancestry or homebody on other continents, rare versatile heritages
160 AcP - universally rare ancestries, normally xenophobic ancestries
200 AcP - mythical ancestry (being a human and encountering one is a story to tell your grandchildren)Then, of course, cool-factor tax as needed.
I'm not going to venture my thoughts as to where I think existing ancestries might go beyond the couple of versatile heritage examples above because we'd all probably disagree about at least one and it's not up to me. However, if your hope and dream is to make a character with an ancestry that normally avoids humans and/or doesn't like danger (goloma), it's not going to be easy to get your hands on it.
You know what I might be amenable to is a boon that doesn’t necessarily unlock an ancestry directly, but lowers its cost by a category or two or three based on the scenario.
So, for example - Anadi are from Garund and generally reclusive. So, under your list, that would strike me as 120 ACP. But, let’s say you play a scenario that takes part in Garund and/or involves Anadi. Successfully completing the mission might allow you to unlock it at 80 ACP instead. in some ways, that’s like the discount you get for a Shoony if you played at least 1 book of Extinction Curse.
I mean, for me, that’s still not ideal, but it gets a step closer and does so without totally unbalancing the rarities.
I think having boons like that is a good idea. Both as a way to introduce new people to the particular ancestry. I know what little starfinder I've played had the PF core species as boons that let you play them in addition to the SF core options and I thought it was a neat way to handle it.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my conceptual cost suggestion:
20 AcP - regularly interact with humans on Avistan, prolific versatile heritages (e.g., geniekin)
40 AcP - regularly interact with humans on other continents
60 AcP - small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on Avistan, less prolific versatile heritages (e.g., tieflings)
80 AcP - reclusive or homebody ancestry on Avistan, small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on other continents
120 AcP - reclusive ancestry or homebody on other continents, rare versatile heritages
160 AcP - universally rare ancestries, normally xenophobic ancestries
200 AcP - mythical ancestry (being a human and encountering one is a story to tell your grandchildren)Then, of course, cool-factor tax as needed.
I'm not going to venture my thoughts as to where I think existing ancestries might go beyond the couple of versatile heritage examples above because we'd all probably disagree about at least one and it's not up to me. However, if your hope and dream is to make a character with an ancestry that normally avoids humans and/or doesn't like danger (goloma), it's not going to be easy to get your hands on it.
What I like about this is it is a more expansive sliding scale, and ties to number of points to some specific characteristic beyond just the rarity of the ancestry. I mean, maybe it adds too much complexity, but while I might quibble with the specific numbers here and there, the general idea that something beyond rarity also factors in is a good thing, I think. I’m not sure why Avistan is the “center” point at which things are driven - characters come from other continents now, so I don’t think it should somehow be more expensive for other continents.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my conceptual cost suggestion:
20 AcP - regularly interact with the Pathfinder Society, prolific versatile heritages (e.g., geniekin, tengu, kitsune, iruxi, wayang(?))
40 AcP - regularly interacted with the Pathfinder Society in the past (tiefling, assimar)
60 AcP - small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry in the Society, less prolific versatile heritages (ganzi, samsaran)
80 AcP - reclusive or homebody ancestry to the Pathfinder Society, small pockets of sociable/curious ancestry on other continents (Oprak hobgoblins)
120 AcP - reclusive ancestry or homebody on other continents, rare versatile heritages, (other than Oprak hobgoblins, strix either here or in 160)
160 AcP - universally rare ancestries, normally xenophobic ancestries
200 AcP - mythical ancestry (being a human and encountering one is a story to tell your grandchildren)
I looked at your thought, Blake's, and tried to put it into a context that fit Organized Play a bit better -- tengu, geniekin, kitsune, and wayang were all considered 'available' at the end of PFS1 -- and for them to just mysteriously vanish has always sat badly with me.
Tiefling and Assimar being slightly pricier could relate to the waning impact of planar imbalances in the Worldwound region having become a Scar.
Again, just a thought, and something to move things forwards.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see an argument that ancestries and versatile heritages that have been available for ACP could become slightly cheaper as time passes on, particularly since we now have more non-ancestry options players can purchase.
The rarities are already set by the designers writing the books I would not want to deviate from that too much, though kobolds were a good opportunity reason to do so.
Leshy have already become available and they have been one of the first ACP options, I feel that discounting older material could work, as it kees the incentive of GMing and being able to access a cool new ancestry sooner.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen in my local group, the people who are able to buy things with AcP are the GM's, In 1e, these were the same people who got race boons. I don't see a difference in the 2 systems myself. I think that getting access to the ancestries, classes, and whatever is approved from a new book should be available when it is sanctioned. New players would be motivated to buy additional books to get the newest options available in that book. I don't have any skin in the game right now as my AcP progression is stalled as our FLGS closed this weekend. I don't know when we'll be able to play PFS games again. Before it's mentioned, there is no interest in remote play in this area, so that's not an option.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Is 80/160 good AcP amount and how did the campaign arrive at those?
The answer is probably in the Regional Support Program that existed in 1e: You got a boon for a race for running 12 games, and if you ran more, you got the option to give someone another copy (or, trade it for someone else who had a different race boon that you wanted).
That 12 games GM'd is roughly equivalent to the new 10 games GM'd for an uncommon boon. At the moment, GM's earn new ancestries roughly at the same rate as they used to in 1e (somewhat better, in fact). What's new is that now players can also enjoy new ancestries and things, but at a slower rate. If you want to get them faster, help your local lodge by running some of the games.
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?
Getting AcP takes time, but it's rare that you 'grind AcP by spending time'. Rather, AcP is something that accumulates "naturally" as you engage in the stories and play with other people. You don't sign up for a game with the thought that "Oh, I gotta sit through another 4 hours RPG just to get another 4 points" - you sign up for the game because you want to play the game and enjoy the story. OR, if you don't like playing the game and if you don't enjoy the story, if you feel like the games are 'work' that you need to 'slog through' for some payment in the form of AcP, then the game probably isn't for you.
Well, why can't we start at whatever level we want with whatever equipment we want, why do we need to start at level 1 with just 15 gold? Why do I need to dedicate roughly 12 hours to playing my character before I can pick level 2 options for them? Why do we have limitations that only characters from Broken Lands have access to aldori dueling swords? Why are some archetypes locked behind AcP instead of being available for everyone? Why do you need to play a specific adventure to unlock a specific feat?
This question has been asked multiple times in this thread, and the answers are mostly within the lore of the world, and the need to reward GM's with -something-. I personally feel that the prices should be somewhat lower, especially for -gm's- (I don't think double the acp, especially for con games, is enough incentive).
(Unpopular opinion: I think it would be fine to cut player ACP in half - giving them 2 points for playing and GM 8 points for running, and dropping AcP costs to 60 and 120. That would make GMing more enticing. Do your part in keeping the society alive, and you get rewarded with shiny uncommon and rare options.)
|
|
It sounds like--and I emphasize, sounds like--you have a small local group that plays at one FLGS and the people who always GM are the people racking up AcP. And, yes, it is a real bummer that current events have limited physically gathering to play together (unless you actually meant your FLGS was closed just this past holiday weekend).
But every time you play, you're gaining AcP toward an ancestry boon. In PFS1, that wasn't happening. You would never get an ancestry boon unless one of your convention-going GMs gave one to you or completed all the boxes on an RSP boon to gift one to someone. So I still assert that it's better.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I still assert that it's better.
I agree with you, BT, that is is better. Vastly better, I'd say. But, I think it can be improved. I mean, the core part that makes it better is that everyone can earn something to unlock an ancestry for a single character, so it's not just a "Convention GM" reward. That alone is its great improvement.
But, I think it needs further refinement (and really, programs should continue to be evaluated from time to time.)
I appreciated your earlier suggestions.
|
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we see making a character from the available races as a chore? Why do we brand them as 'grinding' characters? I recognize that some of the newer ancestries allow different kinds of stories, but there is an amazing diversity in the kinds of stories you can tell with the older ones.
My favorite character in PF2 is my gnomish lawyer, Pip. I love that she is intrepid and cares about making the world a better place and that she is constantly working on representing the downtrodden. She has offered more than once to represent the cases of captured villains so that they can get a fair trial.
There is no way in heck that she is a grind character. There are a lot of wonderful concepts out there that you can create with the currently available ancestries. I have rediscovered dwarves when I looked at the mwangi books and read about the M'beke culture, and they're a core race. You can take what is available and turn it into something awesome and new.
When Bret and I played a Core PF1 game, we were playing elf twins. Although core didn't open up a lot of mechanical options, there were still plenty of story options available for these twins. So, we decided that they were from the true elven homeland - Castrovel - and they had wandered into Golarian via an elf-gate, and that they were as green as any two off-worlders could be. They became awesome because of their back story, and they transcended their mechanics.
Even that human fighter that you are looking at... where did they come from? Why are they a fighter? What did they learn along the way in their character journey? There are so many ways to spin a story. Maybe they are a baker, and are saving up to buy a bakery of their own by working for the Pathfinder Society. Maybe everywhere they go, they are looking for new recipes, and fighting is just something that pays the bills for now.
Yes, I want to see it become easier to make the ancestries that were freely available in PF1, but there is so much story awesomeness around in what is currently available in the world that no character has to become a 'grind' character. They can all be awesome and have weird little hooks that make them shine.
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is value in a new player learning the quirks of Organized Play while starting with common character options. Not every character concept is a great fit for the Pathfinder Society and it takes some playing to learn what works well and what doesn't.
As for time commitment, less than a year of semi-regular play should be enough to unlock something, in my opinion. So, I agree we could use some more options at the 40 ACP level. That's conveniently how much you would earn playing a full weekend at a convention as well.
Ideally, we add a few more ancestries to the 40 ACP level, and figure out a way to gift 40 ACP to players as a "Welcome to PFS." Alas, the website software is probably not up to that.
|
|
I didn't know Ancestries were used as incentive for GMing. I must admit, as a 50/50 player/Gm, I'm quite fond of bringing my Fleshwarp to a game just because it feels a bit exclusive. So, it looks like it works.
Anyway, if it's the case, then there's no way Paizo will change the values to access Ancestries, especially the most desirable ones, unless there are so much more GMs that there's no more need for incentive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what sort of response would be generated if someone announced they were grinding ACP for a Rare Ancestry and running the first twelve bounties non-stop to reach that goal.
Not because they wanted to have fun doing it, but because they're trying to build-up the NFT that is ACP.
I suspect there would be a huge outcry of how that's 'not in the spirit of promoting fun play'.
Yet, that appears to be a viable route given current costs...
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
any method of grinding AcP is suboptimal.
step one of character creation create a CHARACTER CONCEPT
the character concepts I have come in a few categories
1. not theme appropriate (stored for other RPGs)
2. no sign on it being pathfinder compatible (centaur ranger, dragon or half dragon, etc)
3. waiting for book publishing (skeleton knight paladin, construct psychic)
4. concepts that require ACP
5. concepts that don't or low AcP
6. just another X (disposable human fighter #3 or grind characters)
some problems are there are a lot more in #4 than in #51. for someone brand new they have zero ACP
2. the rate of AcP acquired for taking #4 or #5 through their career levels 1-5 or 7 is not enough for another #4 (even with prefect play, no character death, no other AcP spent) any deficit in points must be gained with a #5 or #6
3. #6 concepts are not fun and to play one is a chore
4. another way to grind AcP is to GMthe system above requires grinding AcP. Grinding is not a bug in the system it is what the system was intended for.
I love RPGs they where a part of my life since I was young. I can only do it casually right now. When PF1 society was around I didn't even bother because with their time all the barriers it wasn't worth the investment in time to play.
Except that's not how many people create characters... they come up with a cool theme that want to play, then match mechanics to that from what's available.
Let's say I want to play a reformed bad guy, using their time at the Society to pay for their errors. What sort of person would they have been? Maybe a rogue, cool we'll go with that, they were in a gang maybe. What sort of person would that appeal to, maybe someone already outcast and looked down on? Let's go with half orc! Feels like it leans into a strength build, maybe ruffian. We immediately have a bruiser, ashamed of the things they did to survive before, seeking redemption with the Society and who maybe has trouble remembering not to cross lines and relies on their companions to keep them in check.
Sure, that could be summed up as 'just' "half orc rogue." But that's not "just another disposable character" at all. It didn't require starting with some rare ancestry or anything to make someone fun to play with a ton of roleplay potential... just a story and some thought.