|
| 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...
The main goal of repeatable content is to be grinded... Whatever your goal: XP, gold or AcP, you don't repeat the same adventure if you are not somehow grinding.
The only sad thing would be if this player didn't got any pleasure in doing so (or were affecting the other's pleasure).GMing for AcP is as bad as Playing for AcP
so phrasing like so "just GM a little" results in GMing for AcP.
GMing for AcP is bad. But being rewarded for GMing is great. Sometimes, getting a small reward is just what is needed to feel taken into consideration.
Now, GMs are players, I 100% agree with that. But they are also working way more for the game to happen, and I think it's nice when the work done is recognized positively.
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMing for AcP is as bad as Playing for AcPso phrasing like so "just GM a little" results in GMing for AcP.
Well, that's a bit like using the expression "Badwrongfun" - I mean, *I* don't like the idea of someone GM'ing just to get ACP and likely wouldn't play with a GM who was doing that, but people find different things fun in the game. And I don't want the system to punish them for that play style (I mean, it doesn't really hurt the game overall, but a player's individual experience with that GM might be negatively impacted.)
And what I've been trying to say is that one type is incentivized, and another type is not. If people want to just grind to earn ACPs, the system is completely set up to that do that, and to do it the first day someone plays or GMs. However, if a person wants to play a cool, rare ancestry, they have no choice but to grind ACP - they may just be playing characters as a means to earn ACPs until they have enough to play the character they want to play. The system, effectively, punishes or disincentivizes one play style while rewarding the other.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's how you see it, HMM, but you and I both know there are players who do not see it that way. They may have played over the years dozens of elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. There really may not be anything of interest to those players in what is currently available.
I'll give you one example. I am deathly afraid of spiders - I am a horrible arachnophobe, and I have to tell you that the Anadi is one of the few ancestries I have read that I think is just cool. Now, I mean, I'm not set on playing a spider, really, but I found the entry so fascinating that playing one would be tremendous for me in a number of ways, including confronting my own arachnophobia.
Now, I just spent 120 ACPs on a Catfolk (and I hate cats) because I have been wanting to play a Catfolk magus. And I GM more than I play, so getting back to 160 ACP won't take me forever, really.
But, we shouldn't presume because you or I might find interesting things in what is currently available that others will, or can.
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple facts are that without GMs no Society games get run, and lots more people prefer to play then to GM. Putting ancestries behind AcP and offering increased AcP to GMs is simply a lever, one that helps swing things towards increasing the number of people who GM without removing such options from the reach of players.
I suspect that many of the people asking for freer access to ancestries haven't tried to organise cons or regular game nights, and that's fine! But... it's hard, getting enough GMs to cover everyone who wants to play is tough, if something like AcP can be used to help (and it does) without stopping others from getting the same thing (such as the way old con race boons worked, where realistically only a tiny portion of the player base ever got them) then that's a win.
Could there be a better way? Very possibly! But removing levers that help organisers to ensure games get run is not it.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people 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...
I would love it if GMs only GM'd because they truly enjoyed it and wanted to. I would also love a few hundred more GMs. The facts are that far fewer people enjoy GMing, but we still need them to avoid people fighting for a small number of player spots.
If said GM was running games that were fun for the players, that followed the guidelines and rules as usual, then I would be happy that there were a bunch more games, a bunch of players having fun, and a player who'd get something they really wanted.
Would I be happier if the GM had a great time, of course, but if they find value in running enough to get a rare ancestry then everyone wins ultimately so I'm cool with it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also on the train that feels that GMing shouldn't need incentivization. But, due to overwhelming experience, it does need incentivization.
See, it ends up with a situation of supply and demand. The supply of players constantly floods the market. So much so that the small supply of GMs that don't need incentives cannot keep up. Thus we need something to get more GMs. Thus emerges the artificial scarcity ancestry boons.
The reality, for those who view it as 'player punishment', is that you are being 'punished' because people are selfish and self-centered. If that weren't the case, and we had plenty of GMs, I suspect the incentive system would look much different. So, instead of commenting to Paizo, you should really be shaming people for being selfish and self-centered. Good luck with that.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that many of the people asking for freer access to ancestries haven't tried to organise cons or regular game nights, and that's fine! But... it's hard, getting enough GMs to cover everyone who wants to play is tough, if something like AcP can be used to help (and it does) without stopping others from getting the same thing (such as the way old con race boons worked, where realistically only a tiny portion of the player base ever got them) then that's a win.
For the record (and I know you weren’t singling me out): I have organized more than my share of cons and con-related activities (including the Pre-Gen Con stuff at Scotty’s Brewhouse for years). Finding GMs for 120 slots during a con wasn’t always easy. Finding a couple of GM’s every Friday wasn’t that difficult in PF1.
One needn’t organize a con or the like to understand the challenge of getting GMs. A lot of places have that for regular FLGS games.
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple facts are that without GMs no Society games get run, and lots more people prefer to play then to GM. Putting ancestries behind AcP and offering increased AcP to GMs is simply a lever, one that helps swing things towards increasing the number of people who GM without removing such options from the reach of players.
I suspect that many of the people asking for freer access to ancestries haven't tried to organise cons or regular game nights, and that's fine! But... it's hard, getting enough GMs to cover everyone who wants to play is tough, if something like AcP can be used to help (and it does) without stopping others from getting the same thing (such as the way old con race boons worked, where realistically only a tiny portion of the player base ever got them) then that's a win.
Could there be a better way? Very possibly! But removing levers that help organisers to ensure games get run is not it.
I can't speak for others on here, but I currently help organize tables for our local group with a couple other GMs. In the bi-monthly event I play as a PC, I basically can buy whatever's my fancy by the time it comes up if I want to make something new. I'm advocating for greater access on behalf of current, potential, and former players based on their feedback.
For one example, in 1E we could run a whole table of Nagaji and Kitsune back in the day from just the number of furries who used to come around. When 2e came out and it was back to the basics, they tried it out and moved on to something else. To them, that was a big part of Pathfinder Society that was removed and then re-added with restrictions. I don't think treating them as people who weren't invested is fair.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one example, in 1E we could run a whole table of Nagaji and Kitsune back in the day from just the number of furries who used to come around. When 2e came out and it was back to the basics, they tried it out and moved on to something else. To them, that was a big part of Pathfinder Society that was removed and then re-added with restrictions. I don't think treating them as people who weren't invested is fair.
Fair point.
I'm hoping that having kobolds will help scratch that itch for some of those players, but I know that Alex Augunas had said something on Know Direction once about not playing as much society anymore due to lack of freely available kitsune. I miss kitsune and tengus as always available options in Society, too. That's part of the reason I would like to see them greatly reduced in cost if they can't be made freely available.
Hmm
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one example, in 1E we could run a whole table of Nagaji and Kitsune back in the day from just the number of furries who used to come around. When 2e came out and it was back to the basics, they tried it out and moved on to something else. To them, that was a big part of Pathfinder Society that was removed and then re-added with restrictions. I don't think treating them as people who weren't invested is fair.
Very true! But that was the result of 10 years of content, much of that open access to ancestries was the result of things that occurred in the Society scenarios, the Lantern Lodge storyline for example. We already are seeing reduced costs for races due to how scenarios turn out (leshies for example), is that not following the same path? Comparing what access was available after 10 years of opening things through story to where PF2 is now seems unfair to say the least.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but remember the feeling of "Oh, hey, I can play a tiefling, I have this great concept!" and then getting told "Sorry boss, not available because they got rid of them at the start of the new season".
Okay, no worries, I'll play a tengu, they're new for this season, right? "Who said?" "The Guide??" "SHOW ME!"
Fortunately when I was about to play I had the foresight of the tiefling disappointment, so I had the guide printed out so I could point it out to my GM.
"I... suppose that's right."
The previous organized play I was 'fresh' out of had nearly unlimited character race selection due to a quite literal 'cantina' feel that was being promoted.
Several times in PFS1 there were GMs that would give me dirty looks for gasp playing a tengu.
Even more jarring was when I showed people how many tengu characters I had and then they said with a straight face "They should really limit what races a player can have."
If I wanted to play a 'human', I'd go to work. There's enough freaking adventure there on a daily basis (and no, it's not the military) that'd scratch that itch.
If I wanted to play a halfling, I'd be such a disruptive snarky character that it wouldn't be conducive to play -- and eat every two seconds in-character.
If I wanted to play a dwarf, there's not enough booze on the planet for me to pull it off well.
If I wanted to play an elf, I'm not nearly thin enough to pull off the look in my mind, and that disconnect hurts.
If I wanted to play a gnome,they'd be dead due to the Bleaching (work sucks,yo).
That's the basic Core races in PF2. Going on this, there's nothing in Core that really interests me.
Thank goodness there's kobolds, or I wouldn't've ever been able to raise enough ACP for my tengu -- but because they cost so much, kobolds have taken over my character numbers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that was the result of 10 years of content, much of that open access to ancestries was the result of things that occurred in the Society scenarios, the Lantern Lodge storyline for example. We already are seeing reduced costs for races due to how scenarios turn out (leshies for example), is that not following the same path? Comparing what access was available after 10 years of opening things through story to where PF2 is now seems unfair to say the least.
How many of the people playing now played through those ten years? If you did 10 years to get the ancestries open and the get locked up again, is that fair?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that was the result of 10 years of content, much of that open access to ancestries was the result of things that occurred in the Society scenarios, the Lantern Lodge storyline for example. We already are seeing reduced costs for races due to how scenarios turn out (leshies for example), is that not following the same path? Comparing what access was available after 10 years of opening things through story to where PF2 is now seems unfair to say the least.How many of the people playing now played through those ten years? If you did 10 years to get the ancestries open and the get locked up again, is that fair?
I don’t think it’s unfair.
It might be fair because in the old system there where “haves” and “have nots” but with the new campaign everyone starts at the same start line and have the opportunity to earn the rewards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be fair because in the old system there where “haves” and “have nots” but with the new campaign everyone starts at the same start line and have the opportunity to earn the rewards.
Unfair in regard to the openly available ancestries the came about in those 10 years, Tengu, wayang, and so forth.
|
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very true! But that was the result of 10 years of content, much of that open access to ancestries was the result of things that occurred in the Society scenarios, the Lantern Lodge storyline for example. We already are seeing reduced costs for races due to how scenarios turn out (leshies for example), is that not following the same path? Comparing what access was available after 10 years of opening things through story to where PF2 is now seems unfair to say the least.
For one example, in 1E we could run a whole table of Nagaji and Kitsune back in the day from just the number of furries who used to come around. When 2e came out and it was back to the basics, they tried it out and moved on to something else. To them, that was a big part of Pathfinder Society that was removed and then re-added with restrictions. I don't think treating them as people who weren't invested is fair.
Stories and content that have already played out and introduced them to the Society and were available to all players for 5 years. If that was the thing that brought you to Society (and lordy it was a lot of folks in our area) it being locked behind a large time commitment remains a hard sell. Those options are in the game again, have been for a year, and I'd love to tell players who check in "hey, can I play a Tengu again" something other than "play twenty games first".
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is ACP not an NFT?
It has no 'cash' value, it has no physical presence, and it's used to buy a 'receipt' of ownership of given options in Organized Play.
In addition, it's a quantifiable measurement of work-process (x per hour).
Isn't that what NFT are?
I mean the major difference is that NFTs pretend to have an intrinsic value to them where as the boons are impossible to sell. NFTs are basically late stage capitalism's attempt to prescribe monetary value to anything and everything possible.
How many of the people playing now played through those ten years? If you did 10 years to get the ancestries open and the get locked up again, is that fair?
Yes because I didn't expect the rules to remain the same from ten years and wasn't expecting society to stagnate like that. And if anything they ended up making the system more accessible because I really can't attend conventions to get boons.
|
|
New system, new rules.
Revision of an existing system continuing the story line of the previous system. It's not unreasonable to think somethings would be continued forward and not have a hard reboot jimmied in.
And if anything they ended up making the system more accessible because I really can't attend conventions to get boons.
No one has said the Boon system is worse than the previous 'have to GM at a con' system. The question here is the cost of the Boons and the larger question of 70% of the published races being boon only (plus equipment and spells).
|
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
P2 is a lot more than a “revision”, way more than P1 was simply 3.75, it’s not DND 3.9. It’s a whole new rule system.
The Game "Pathfinder Second Edition" is basically a new game.
The "Pathfinder Society Organized Play Campaign" is a narrative continuation which builds on stories and characters that were present in the original. It wasn't a reboot with new characters and a reset timeline.Often one that expects someone to explain to you who or what something or someone is. While its understandable that you can't play an previous incarnation of an option before a new one releases, once that update is out it becomes glaring when what was once openly available becomes restricted. Imagine if they locked an updated class in the same way they locked a previously available to all ancestry.
For example, lets say your favorite class was Oracle (which I believe was among the most popular 1E classes). You played one in 1E into Seeker content, maybe played a few more to try out other mysteries, and you bought a brand new copy of the APG to play the new Oracle in the new system. You go to your local PFS group to make one and the GM has to tell you "no, you have to play weekly for half a year or GM for 3 months before you can play one."
How is locking out a previously always available ancestry option any different than that? I mean, anyone can be a cursed divine conduit imbued with cosmic power (a common class) but you can't be a bird person from a nation full of bird people that you previously could be (because its tagged Uncommon).
|
Venture-Agent, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
Yeah, that was my first post. Whole thing about a grant so folks (like my furry players) could play the sort of characters that got them into society in the first place.
Which was treated with the same dismissive "just earn it" as everything else I've said after. Which is why I described those posts as "deaf chearleading" because to me, that's what it read like. No explanation, nuance, or examples were met with anything other than "well, they can just unlock it".
To be lumped in with someone else was icing on the cake and the final straw.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which was treated with the same dismissive "just earn it" as everything else I've said after. Which is why I described those posts as "deaf chearleading" because to me, that's what it read like. No explanation, nuance, or examples were met with anything other than "well, they can just unlock it".
Wait... what? There have been multiple posts, repeatedly explaining that a strong part of the AcP/boon ancestry issue is to help provide organisers with a tool to encourage GMs to attend their events and conventions and that it's a change from before when many races could only be gained by attending events in person to win a boon, now anyone can have access to every race that has been sanctioned.
I'd strongly recommend taking a break from the forums, they can be easy to be misunderstood by others on, and equally to misunderstand others on. Whilst ultimately it is of course always your choice, depriving yourself and your players of the PF2 Society you've been running over a forum discussion that didn't go well seems like it might not be in anyones best interest.