Please reconsider ACP costs for new ancestries

[Mark Stratton]

I want to ask if you could reconsider the ACP costs for new ancestries and ask that you either eliminate them or drastically reduce them.

While some might see the reward of getting more ACPs for GMing scenarios (especially at convention), I don’t think removing the ACP costs will suddenly cause you to lose GMs.

You have these new books with great lore and background, and some fantastic ancestries that can be used to tell amazing stories (I’m looking at you, Mwangi Expanse!). But, because they are gated behind some ACP cost (some as high as 160), they can be near impossible to get for people. While there are people who play or GM every week or several times a week, there are, I am sure, casual players who don’t play that often. Why should they be denied the opportunity to play some of these ancestries?

As it is, the player must own the book to play an ancestry from that book. So, Paizo is getting its money there. But then, a player can’t use some of those things in organized play?

I was of the old school of thought that supported having certain races (1e) and ancestries (2e) being gated behind some costs. But, given the impact that pandemic has on local play, and in the hopes of trying to attract more people and to get them to buy more product, I think the time has come for Paizo to have a serious discussion about removing, or seriously reducing the ACP costs to something more reasonable.

And, of course, I can understand the super-rare ancestry that might be only available via boon obtained through charity auction. I still support that.

But, I am asking this requirement in general be eliminated, or the cost greatly reduced.

[zeonsghost]

I definitely think the ACP costs could use some tuning down for ancestries just given the playtime required to open them up once.

At 4 points/session and about 4 hours a session its 40 hours at a minimum for a player to unlock Lizardfolk, 80 hours for the bulk of them, and 160 at the high end. GMs get there in fewer sessions, but also put in more work. That is a lot of hobby hours to get one shot to play one thing and if I know potential players who either quit after 1E ended production or shortly into 2E because after years of the same core species, playing another one just didn't have any appeal.

On top of that ACP is the currency for things like treating conditions, faction rewards, and death recovery which used to be tied to a character resource. I've put my fair share of PCs in the ground as a GM in 2E and not one of them has gotten out their phone to see if they could buy a Raise Dead boon. Dead PCs just stay dead now. Which reminds me, I need to schedule repeatables for January again.

As to suggested fixes:

1. Your first Uncommon Ancestry/Heritage boon is free or you get a free one once a year (maybe to celebrate New Years or GenCon).

2. Ancestry boons unlock the ancestry to your account, not just a specific character. You really like Orcs, play Orcs. I think this encourages more interesting play as folks with ancestry boons aren't gonna be as precious with them.

3. A free raise boon when your character hits a certain faction reputation level. Reward players for hitting secondary objectives and playing faction scenarios.

[Z...D...]

Mark Stratton wrote:

I want to ask if you could reconsider the ACP costs for new ancestries and ask that you either eliminate them or drastically reduce them.

While some might see the reward of getting more ACPs for GMing scenarios (especially at convention), I don’t think removing the ACP costs will suddenly cause you to lose GMs.

Strongly disagree with you there. Speaking for myself, I enjoy organizing games to help the community. I enjoy running games for the chance to get access to the new ancestries day 1. Hello automoton

Personally, if I was just a GM and this occurred, I would instantly stop offering to run. No more benefit to GM vs Play.

[Z...D...]

zeonsghost wrote:

As to suggested fixes:

1. Your first Uncommon Ancestry/Heritage boon is free or you get a free one once a year (maybe to celebrate New Years or GenCon).

2. Ancestry boons unlock the ancestry to your account, not just a specific character. You really like Orcs, play Orcs. I think this encourages more interesting play as folks with ancestry boons aren't gonna be as precious with them.

3. A free raise boon when your character hits a certain faction reputation level. Reward players for hitting secondary objectives and playing faction scenarios.

1. Could get behind for uncommon ancestries. Might be hard to keep in check though.

2. Could see this for uncommon, but not rare.

3. Totally agree. Once you get to admired, free get out of Pharama's boneyard card.

[Blake's Tiger]

I've been primarily a PbP lodge since PFS(2) started. That's a pretty slow way to play, but I have plenty of AcP for what I need when I need it. Sure, I can't make one of everything, but that's an unfair expectation.

The costs equate to the run time required for the old Tier III, II, and I GenCon boons when accounting for Premium+ boost (160 is a little more time). The benefit is that you can earn these by just playing or running games not at conventions, albeit it takes longer.

[Mark Stratton]

Z...D... wrote:

Personally, if I was just a GM and this occurred, I would instantly stop offering to run. No more benefit to GM vs Play.

So, GMing for you is only about whatever benefit you (as the GM) receive, not about players at the table having a chance to play, or having a good time?

EDIT: That sounds confrontational and I didn’t mean it to be. I’m trying to clarify what is important to you as a GM.

[Ascalaphus]

It doesn't have to be black and white. Plenty of people can use just a little push to get over the first hump to start GMing.

Even decent people are affected by incentives :P

[Blake's Tiger]

Indeed. When determining how I'm going to spend my time, I perform a cost-benefit calculation subconsciously and sometimes consciously. If there was no incentive to GM conventions, I would definitely GM fewer tables at conventions.

That doesn't make me or anyone else who makes a decision about how to spend their free time bad in any way.

And this is a tangent, but GMing isn't just about putting in the prep time and running the scenario. It's also about--in PFS, especially at conventions--putting up with all sorts of random personalities and behaviors. I've been screamed at for being a "bad GM" because I didn't let a player retcon their character's actions from 2 rounds ago (and multiple times since for other petty and ridiculous things). I've had pencils thrown at me. I've had to correct adults on their behavior toward other players. If I didn't have a reason to GM for PFS, I would stick to GMing with private groups.

I realize that the thread isn't about taking things away from GMs but about giving things to everyone. However, when that happens, what, then, is the alternative to incentivize GMing?

Also, while this focused on ancestries, someone else will later come and request the AcP locked archetypes be made free, etc, ect.

[Mark Stratton]

Ascalaphus wrote:

It doesn't have to be black and white. Plenty of people can use just a little push to get over the first hump to start GMing.

Even decent people are affected by incentives :P

Considering the person is a VO and made it clear that if this changes to what I proposed, they would stop GMing since there is no more benefit to gm, I’d say it is black and white for them.

[Benjamin Debrick]

I will say that I started GM'ing during PF1 strictly for the chance to get a race boon. I think the ACP system has less incentive to get people to GM because over time you will get enough ACP for that shinny uncommon/rare ancestry. That being said, every character you make will not be able to have a uncommon ancestry without GMing.

[Mark Stratton]

Benjamin Debrick wrote:

I will say that I started GM'ing during PF1 strictly for the chance to get a race boon. I think the ACP system has less incentive to get people to GM because over time you will get enough ACP for that shinny uncommon/rare ancestry. That being said, every character you make will not be able to have a uncommon ancestry without GMing.

Well, you can never GM and still earn enough ACPs to buy those ancestry boons, it just takes longer.

And while I’d prefer eliminating ACP costs altogether, I’d be okay if they were greatly reduced.

ACP solved the problem of requiring people to GM at cons to get certain race/ancestry boons to be sure, but I think the actual costs are far too high.

[NielsenE]

I'm still a big fan of a "Welcome to Society ~40 ACP Grant" to all new players (and retroactively to existing players for fairness) idea that we proposed about a year ago, last time one of these discussions came up.

That serves as either the 'free resurrection" people talk about, or getting you 1/2 way to your first uncommon ancestry.

20 Sessions (player, no convention modifier baseline) feels about right to me for the cost of an uncommon. I could see lowering it to about 15 (getting a character to level 6). However rather than lower the cost, I'd rather see the supply raised in terms of either the convention and/or the gm multipliers. We're still seeing the ACP isn't as effective for motivating GMs to GM at conventions as the old race boons in many regions of the world. And its definitely not as effective for motivating a player to try GMing for the first time.

Various approaches that I think could help:
1) as a companion to the above mentioned "Welcome to the Society" ACP grant, have a "First Time GM" ~40 ACP grant as well.
2) Tweak the convention mulitpliers from 1.25->2 and 1.5 ->2.5. GMing at a con would now be worth playing 4 normal games.
3) Tweak the GM multiplier from 2->3. (combined with the above, one GM session is worth 6 base player sessions. GMing 3 slots at con + 1 played slot at the con = an uncommon ancestry.)

On the non-GM side, I've heard various yearly ACP grant ideas as well Something like "if you've recorded at least one session in the preceding year, grant 80 AcP at the start of the season. Sorta like the 'one free uncommon a year idea up above'.

[CrimsonKnight]

to make 1 rare ancestry character as a player you need to get 160 ACP
that is 40 games or 10 levels. Due to the rarity of level 5+ content. that would mean you would need to get 2 characters to level 6 and spend nearly a year (assuming weekly games) to start playing the character you actually want to play assuming not a single ACP is spent for any other reason,

The character you want to play you can only do it so long because the rarity of level 5+ content. (content retired)
if you don't spend any other ACP on anything else you would only make it to half way to making a character of a rare ancestry.
if you unlocked the ancestry then you could at least make multiple of that ancestry with out the burden of additional cost.

PS during the pandemic it is not a good idea to get around the table together and vtt is canceled more than in person.

it seems like a chore to make and play characters simply to get ACP.

conventions are outside the realm of possibility for most people.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

I would think if any costs were lowered, it would be some of the older, more established races, not the newer (and frankly rarer) races.

[Mark Stratton]

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

I would think if any costs were lowered, it would be some of the older, more established races, not the newer (and frankly rarer) races.

As a more philosophical question, why should newer races be “rarer”?

[Blake's Tiger]

Most of the newer races are rarer and never seen in PFS's campaign before: goloma, conrasu, poppets, automatons, sprites.

With few exceptions, every Uncommon race is fairly attainable.

[NightTrace]

Honestly with 2E math removing Ancestry as an avenue for breaking things (so far) why is the idea of forced scarcity still in play?

In character the Society is a world spanning organization with lodges everywhere.

Out of character we buy the books to play the things.

Heck, use the Rarity tags. Uncommon? Just make it available, why not?

Rare? Make it 60-80 if a cost is needed.

Unique? Its not available.

Do that, bring back vanities. :P

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

I would think if any costs were lowered, it would be some of the older, more established races, not the newer (and frankly rarer) races.

As a more philosophical question, why should newer races be “rarer”?

Because they are described in the books that they appeared in as extremely rare?

Because they are marked rare while other races are marked uncommon?

Because The society has never interacted with any of them before?

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

NightTrace wrote:

Honestly with 2E math removing Ancestry as an avenue for breaking things (so far) why is the idea of forced scarcity still in play?

To preserve the feel of the campaign world, which has these as significantly rare.

Yes, the society has lodges spanning the world. But many of the rare races are rare *even in their home regions*

[Blake's Tiger]

NightTrace wrote:

Honestly with 2E math removing Ancestry as an avenue for breaking things (so far) why is the idea of forced scarcity still in play?

Because artistic vision is a thing.

[NightTrace]

Then make a cost for the Rare ones, but make it accessible still.

One of the biggest things 2E has going for it compared to competitors is the Ancestries.

It feels like a self own at this point.

[zeonsghost]

NightTrace wrote:

Then make a cost for the Rare ones, but make it accessible still.

One of the biggest things 2E has going for it compared to competitors is the Ancestries.

It feels like a self own at this point.

Two Votes. Paizo has put out a collection of very cool and unique ancestry options. It's a shame that if one of them is what draws someone to Pathfinder, unless its exactly a Leshy you'll have to play something else for months to even start it once.

For rare things or out of genre things like Android, I get making that something you have to work for. For everything else, its number two thing I've seen turn new players off after learning a new system that isn't 3.X or 5e. If want to play a simple system and a Tiefling, I can go up the road on Sundays and play DDAL. I'd rather not, but I'd like something to work with to expand our turnout.

Heck, I've gotta sit down and explain ACP to new or returning players and how to get into the website to spend them half the time as it is. If there was a carrot at the end of that for them, all's the better. Here's an ACP grant to buy even a selection of ancestry or heritage options. Now that I think about it, while I've seen ancestry boons on the regular at this point, I've never seen a versatile heritage boon at my table.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

Maybe it is me, but it defeats the concept of an ancestry being uncommon or rare if they are easily accessible or even accessible (respectively). If an ancestry only really exists in the Mwangi, why would there be a plethora of that ancestry Pathfinders?

I guess I'm weird with wanting a thematic and immersive setting.

[Z...D...]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Z...D... wrote:

Personally, if I was just a GM and this occurred, I would instantly stop offering to run. No more benefit to GM vs Play.

So, GMing for you is only about whatever benefit you (as the GM) receive, not about players at the table having a chance to play, or having a good time?

It is not only about the benefit. However, after I take the time and effort to prepare a game and the possible cost associated to make it happen, I think I warrant a little benefit. ie reaching ACP cost associated to getting a new ancestries quicker and/or other ACP boons. Shadowcaster looks fun :)

Are saying that players only have a good time if they get to play the uncommon/rare ancestries? I like to believe the players in my area have a good time. Some of them are happy to just get to roll dice with friends/acquaintances.

Quote:

EDIT: That sounds confrontational and I didn’t mean it to be. I’m trying to clarify what is important to you as a GM.

Understood, I try avoid adding any emotion to text. Personally think it is the worst medium to have conversations in. As long as you see it the same way.

Mark Stratton wrote:

Considering the person is a VO and made it clear that if this changes to what I proposed, they would stop GMing since there is no more benefit to gm, I’d say it is black and white for them.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I said if I was "Just a GM" I would instantly stop running.

Since I am a VO, I would still offer to organize and run games in my area.

Would I try to push more games to other GM's? Yes.

Would I let the local scene die? Of course not.

[zeonsghost]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Maybe it is me, but it defeats the concept of an ancestry being uncommon or rare if they are easily accessible or even accessible (respectively). If an ancestry only really exists in the Mwangi, why would there be a plethora of that ancestry Pathfinders?

I guess I'm weird with wanting a thematic and immersive setting.

I think "less restricted" doesn't mean "not uncommon". The society has lodges around the world and previously had PCs of 15 always available options at the end. Post reboot we have 8, and one of which is unique to Pathfinder (the Leshy). PFS is a marketing tool for the game. The ancestry system is a strong seller. Making more parts of that feature available for PFS is a good way to build interest.

Paizo dropped the best splat-book I've read in a decade and none of the ancestries are legal without 40 hours minimum of GMing. It's not like there's a lack of adventures set in and around the Mwangi. Not making one ancestry option out of there legal or easier to access is leaving money on the table for folks who just play PFS while keeping folks locked into a set of rote options.

It also contradicts the idea that the society is a global organization, which we saw with Kitsune, Nagaji, Tengu, and Wayang in 1e. I'm not sure how Ifrit or Kitsune is more immersion breaking in 2e than it was in 1e. Neither feel less thematically fitting than a party of illiterate pyromaniacs which we're all subject to dealing with.

[CrimsonKnight]

I understand using ACP for boons that actually give an advantage but locking away the basic elements of a character just reeks of gatekeeping. (ACP is a way of saying "you can't play that, you haven't been a fan/player in this system for X number of years.")

Granted it is better than before.

Paizo is trying to make a welcome and accepting environment. I know some potential players who have been barred by ACP. The latest one was because of the barrier of entry to play (she wanted to play a poppet) and the group not wanting to do non sactioned games and miss out on potential ACP. APs are a long commitment.

No part of character identity (ancestry, background, class) should be locked behind ACP especially because you can only get it through play with a character thus needing it.

They could try GMing. First time GMing is daunting, even more so if you never played.

As a GM and a player we need to do better than this. We need to stop pushing good people away.

[Tomppa]

zeonsghost wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Maybe it is me, but it defeats the concept of an ancestry being uncommon or rare if they are easily accessible or even accessible (respectively). If an ancestry only really exists in the Mwangi, why would there be a plethora of that ancestry Pathfinders?

I guess I'm weird with wanting a thematic and immersive setting.

I think "less restricted" doesn't mean "not uncommon". The society has lodges around the world and previously had PCs of 15 always available options at the end. Post reboot we have 8, and one of which is unique to Pathfinder (the Leshy). PFS is a marketing tool for the game. The ancestry system is a strong seller. Making more parts of that feature available for PFS is a good way to build interest.

Paizo dropped the best splat-book I've read in a decade and none of the ancestries are legal without 40 hours minimum of GMing. It's not like there's a lack of adventures set in and around the Mwangi. Not making one ancestry option out of there legal or easier to access is leaving money on the table for folks who just play PFS while keeping folks locked into a set of rote options.

It also contradicts the idea that the society is a global organization, which we saw with Kitsune, Nagaji, Tengu, and Wayang in 1e. I'm not sure how Ifrit or Kitsune is more immersion breaking in 2e than it was in 1e. Neither feel less thematically fitting than a party of illiterate pyromaniacs which we're all subject to dealing with.

Sure, 1e had more options as "always available", but 1e also had a 10 year campaign where various ancestries were opened up because of adventures the society did - Just like leshies got recently made available - and plenty of options that were -never- made available, at all.

I don't think this contradicts the idea that the society is a global organization, quite the opposite - All of the available ancestries are constantly available to each and every player. No ancestry so far has been made limited or restricted. None of them require you to attend a specific con to acquire the boon. In 1e, if you wanted to play a catfolk, you were pretty much out of luck. Wanted to play a goblin or a kobold? Even worse. (Until the very last year (or two?) when kobold became available through a con boon). 2e? You can literally play any of the published ancestries, and there's a clear path for how you can acquire them, and it's as simple as "play or GM".

Many people GM because they like GMing. Many people would GM even if they got no rewards - that's what regular, non-society GMs do. However, many people need that extra push, and if AcP got replaced, or the prices went -really low-, it would lessen the impact of that incentive to GM, and we would need some other new reward to give for our GMs.

For comparison, PFS1 had a Regional Support Program where if you GM'd 12 games, you could unlock one specific race, ONCE, for yourself, with a different race made available for each year. If that ancestry wasn't what you wanted, you needed to GM 24 games to gain the option to 'give' someone the ancestry you got, and then you got to try and trade it with someone for the ancestry you actually wanted. A lot more hassle and lot less certain. Now you can GM 10 games, and earn enough AcP to unlock -any- uncommon ancestry you want. If you GM 20 games, you can literally freely pick any ancestry, any at all, and you have it. Less games, no trading, not dependent on which ancestries have been released on boons and which are not and who wants to trade with you. Pick and choose.
Comparing these two systems, it's clear that the 2e version is vastly superior to the 1e version of timed and regional exclusivity.

Where this system fails, though, is encouraging people to GM at -conventions-. It used to be that GMing in a convention got you a boon that included one or more races. You might then be able to trade that for the race you actually wanted. Now? You get 2 extra acp (and your players get 1 extra acp) and that's just pitiful. I think convention rewards should be greatly increased - probably doubled or more - to pull in GM's. Make it 20 acp instead of 10 for GMing a scenario (while keeping the players at 5 acp for playing) in a con and it's "just 4 games GM'd and you get an uncommon ancestry".

[Tomppa]

I get that some people may be driven away by the obstacle of needing acp to play something specific, but I don't think that's a good argument, or as big of a problem as it's made to be.

The player that was driven away because they couldn't play a poppet from the get-go? The poppet wasn't even society legal a week ago, and the book was published just a few weeks ago. If we hadn't gotten the sanctioning document for the Grand Bazaar yet and didn't know poppet would be locked behind 160acp, would the player had played something else while waiting for sanctioning, or declined to play? If we didn't get a poppet -at all- in the grand bazaar, would the player had declined to play because the only concept they wanted to do is a doll/toy and 2e had no such options available? If nobody told them about the existence of the poppet, had they not played 2e at all?
Now that they can't play a poppet immediately and declined to play 2e, what will they do? Play 5e? That doesn't have a poppet either.

My point is, that these players are upset for not having -immediate- access to something that might as well not exist at all, so the argument that that's the reason why they don't play, is just rubbish. We make do with what's available, and we get rewarded with new options for engaging with the program and other players.

The uncommon and rare ancestries are weird, unusual, and as the name implies, rare or uncommon in the setting. However, they are still available to everyone, not necessarily just from the get-go, and not necessarily as your every character. Some things are always denied from the players, such as a GM not wanting to run a game of Gestalt characters, or not wanting to use ancestry paragon or free archetype rules. Some GM's might tell you that no, you can't be a drow because this campaign is set in the Kyonin and the elves would have put you to the sword. Some GM's may restrict you from playing evil options. Some GMs may restrict you from certain abilities because they are plot breaking or mechanically too powerful. Some GMs may require that you're all from the same area, and whatever additional restrictions they may set.

I would love to play a centaur in PFS2. I would gladly do it with the 3rd party rules. I can't do that because our GM, the organized play, haven't given me permission for this, so I'll settle for the next best thing which is a kobold and a Kayal.

We've seen ancestries become more common as the society interacts with them, and I really like that direction. It makes sense in-world, too. As we strengthen our relationships with the iruxi, we see more of them join the society. I suspect that the new metaplot may, depending on player actions, result in [spoilers] becoming discounted too, given that [spoilers].

[Blake's Tiger]

CrimsonKnight wrote:

Paizo is trying to make a welcome and accepting environment.

I am bothered by this statement.

Are you really equating not having the newest toy right away to bullying, harassment, or discrimination?

[cavernshark]

I'd just love the ability to share AcP or gift a boon to another player. An active player 'sponsoring' a new player who wants to play an uncommon race out the gate is probably far more effective as a recruiting / retention tool for those newer players than just dropping a 40 AcP block grant, cutting prices, or whatever. The older player has skin in the game and will hopefully mentor the newer player. Games like this are built on personal connections.

There catch in this argument is that if you drop uncommon races down to say 40 or 60 AcP, you're still going to end up with some people saying that the price is still too high. And another set of folks will look at that price and realize it might as well not exist for them. AcP is basically a currency based on time (with a little effort baked in for GMing).

I understand why they don't offer AcP directly for sale (time/money tradeoff), and I'm not arguing that they should, but I'm also surprised that Paizo doesn't offer a small 1-time block purchase of AcP along with the purchase of something like the beginner box or the PDF of the Core Rulebook and/or the Lost Omens: Pathfinder Society Guide. Call it a PFS Starter Bundle. I think it'd be a reasonable thing to do.

[Donald]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

CrimsonKnight wrote:

Paizo is trying to make a welcome and accepting environment.

I am bothered by this statement.

Are you really equating not having the newest toy right away to bullying, harassment, or discrimination?

That's a lot of context removal to jump to a unsupported conclusion.

CrimsonKnight wrote:

Paizo is trying to make a welcome and accepting environment. I know some potential players who have been barred by ACP. The latest one was because of the barrier of entry to play (she wanted to play a poppet) and the group not wanting to do non sactioned games and miss out on potential ACP. APs are a long commitment.

No part of character identity (ancestry, background, class) should be locked behind ACP especially because you can only get it through play with a character thus needing it.

They could try GMing. First time GMing is daunting, even more so if you never played.

As a GM and a player we need to do better than this. We need to stop pushing good people away.

[Blake's Tiger]

Donald wrote:

Blake's Tiger wrote:

CrimsonKnight wrote:

Paizo is trying to make a welcome and accepting environment.

I am bothered by this statement.

Are you really equating not having the newest toy right away to bullying, harassment, or discrimination?

That's a lot of context removal to jump to a unsupported conclusion.

I disagree.

None of the rest of that post makes it any better.

Here is the definition of a welcoming environment referenced in the PFS Guide:

A Welcoming Environment, CRP pg. 485:

A Welcoming Environment, CRB pg. 485 wrote:

The role of Game Master comes with the responsibility of ensuring you and the rest of the players have a rewarding, fun time during the game. Games can deal with difficult subjects and have stressful moments, but fundamentally Pathfinder is a leisure activity. It can remain so only if the players follow the social contract and respect one another.

One can argue that a local community is missing out on adding some new players because PFS isn't the game they want to play, but having limits on the rules is not being unwelcoming or exclusive.

Players with physical or mental disabilities might find themselves more challenged than abled players. Work with your players to ensure they have the resources and support they need. Additionally, be on the lookout for behavior that’s inappropriate, whether intentional or inadvertent, and pay careful attention to players’ body language during the game. If you notice a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered to pause the game, take it in a new direction, privately check in with your players during or after the session, or take any other action you think is appropriate.

If a player tells you they’re uncomfortable with something in the game, whether it’s content you’ve presented as the GM or another player’s or PC’s actions, listen carefully to that player and take steps to ensure they can once again have fun during your game. If you’re preparing prewritten material and you find a character or a situation inappropriate, you are fully empowered to change any details as you see fit. You also have the authority (and responsibility) to ask players to change their behavior—or even leave the table—if what they’re doing is unacceptable or makes others feel uncomfortable. It’s never appropriate to make the person who is uncomfortable responsible for resolving a problem. It’s okay if mistakes happen. What’s important is how you respond and move forward.

Gaming is for everyone. Never let those acting in bad faith undermine your game or exclude other players. Your efforts are part of the long-term process of making games and game culture welcoming to all. Working together, we can build a community where players of all identities and experiences feel safe.

I find leveraging that responsibility to argue that we are failing the community ("we need to do better than this") by PFS not immediately granting every game option immediately (or maybe it's we who don't argue for removing the AcP costs who are failing) upsetting because it minimizes very real issues.

One could argue that a given community is losing potential players because PFS isn't the game those players want to play, but that PFS has limits on game options is not being unwelcoming or exclusive.

[Watery Soup]

There are a lot of things going on in this thread.

1. There should absolutely be a higher reward for GMing than playing. The balance of GMs and players is way off otherwise. (See non-PFS recruitment for examples, I just started an Adventure and I think I got 20 applicants for 6 spaces.)

2. There should absolutely be a barrier to Uncommon and Rare ancestries. How tall that barrier should be can be debated, but not the presence/absence of it.

3. Mathematically, reducing the AcP costs makes everything more accessible to everyone; increasing the rewards selectively increases the accessibility to some people. It's unclear whether there's a consensus on which one is preferable, but "make things cheaper" and "give us more rewards" are absolutely not the same thing.

---

Personally, I think rarity should be controlled by scaling prices: the first orc you make could cost 40 AcP (1/2 of current price), the second 60 AcP, and the third 80 AcP (+20 AcP scaling); the first goloma could cost 80 AcP, the second 160 AcP, and the third 320 AcP (x2 AcP scaling). As unpopular as it would be, I'd even suggest reversing some of the previous freebies - kobolds and leshies are 0 AcP for the first, 20 AcP for the second, etc. The rarity could be controlled in two ways: (1) the initial price of the first boon, and (2) the rate at which it scales up.

Mechanically, this is straightforwardly implemented by making more "1 per player" boons. You'd have a "first orc" boon that costs 40 AcP (1 per player), a "second orc" boon that costs 80 AcP (1 per player), and an unlimited "three or more orcs" boon that costs 160 AcP.

---

I think giving a bolus of AcP on new account creation will incentivize people creating multiple accounts. If something were to be given away to new players, I think it should be something inflexible, like a free resurrection boon, not something flexible, like AcP.

[CrimsonKnight]

Tomppa wrote:

The player that was driven away because they couldn't play a poppet from the get-go? The poppet wasn't even society legal a week ago, and the book was published just a few weeks ago. If we hadn't gotten the sanctioning document for the Grand Bazaar yet and didn't know poppet would be locked behind 160acp, would the player had played something else while waiting for sanctioning, or declined to play?

declined to play

Tomppa wrote:

If we didn't get a poppet -at all- in the grand bazaar, would the player had declined to play because the only concept they wanted to do is a doll/toy and 2e had no such options available?

the sprite was an option but it runs into an identical problem

Tomppa wrote:

If nobody told them about the existence of the poppet, had they not played 2e at all?

Now that they can't play a poppet immediately and declined to play 2e, what will they do? Play 5e? That doesn't have a poppet either.

No. She plays cute, 5e has nothing cute. pathfinder has some cute options so she was going to give it a try. I've gotten her to play Anime-based and superhero games because both are not allergic to cute. (low demand to do not in-person)

A Welcoming Environment

Core Rulebook page 485 wrote:

Gaming is for everyone. Never let those acting in bad faith undermine your game or exclude other players. Your efforts are part of the long-term process of making games and game culture welcoming to all.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

...it minimizes very real issues.

I had no idea, what very real issues is artificially limiting choice though a restrictive social credit system expectably things that are fundamental to play? hunger? poverty? No unless I'm mistaken it is a lack of GMs. fine incentivize them. give them bonuses don't take away from others. P.S. GMing is fun, I love hamming up the description of the the environment and creatures.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

The role of Game Master comes with the responsibility of ensuring you and the rest of the players have a rewarding, fun time during the game.

is exactly what I'm advocating for. it is not content that ACP is guarding from. some people don't find human, elf, dwarf fun. some of us have been playing RPGs for years and we are used to these options. New options exist and we shouldn't exclude others from partaking in them or be forced to play the old way to get to play what they want. I too would like to play a centaur but that is not an option. We restrict play in ways that is not conductive to the overall enjoyment of the game and exclude stories from the table especially having to be forced to play a character you don't want to play for almost a year.

[Mark Stratton]

As the one who started this thread, can I just say that we shouldn’t be comparing racism (or any type of discrimination, really) to Paizo having a paywall of sorts that locks ancestries behind it?

There is NO comparison between the two, and honestly, making such an absurd comparison diminishes the experiences of those who have faced, or do face, racism (and other forms of discrimination). It also weakens any argument attempting to convince Paizo to open these ancestries up.

So, can we please knock of this absurd comparison? It’s an insult.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

I support the ACP system in its current form and with the ACP costs. I also do not consider people choosing not to play because of this system a problem. This is because they are not being turned away, they are choosing to turn away. There is a big difference between the two.

[SuperBidi]

Personally, I'm among those who like when the party is not looking like a circus. At the end of PF1, in my gaming group, we were having this joke: How do you recognize a PFS party? There's no core races in there.

So I like the AcP system. When someone brings an Uncommon race, it's the only one in the party. So it feels like actually Uncommon, and not like "another tiefling". And when you bring a Rare race, you're kind of the only one in your gaming group to play such a character. I like that, it makes the character more important and it keeps the verisimilitude of the world.

So, I'd be sad if we get back to "everyone plays a weird race" like at the end of PF1.
Also, I think it's important to keep the incentive to GM. It's too hard to find GMs. And "new" players who are bored to play humans, dwarves and elves are not "new" players. They have experience and as such they can GM. The real new players are certainly happy to play in a world where the races around the table are famous enough so they can recognize them. At least, they are not bored with the races available.

Anyway, I think the current choice is appealing to some people and not to others, so changing it will make other people leave.

[CrimsonKnight]

let's look at something simple
premise 1 the reason one would want to play a non-standard race is because they believe they would have more fun that way
premise 2 this being a cooperative game is not a net 0
premise 3 this being a cooperative game fun is a desired outcome
premise 4 there are new people that have not played
premise 5 people tend to want to maximize their fun
premise 6 there is no hidden finite number of any ancestry thus no scarcity.

what is the cost of the status quo
for paizo: nothing
for new players: less options , less variety of characters. potentially less fun, and potentially feeling rejected
for veteran players: having to save up longer for a fun new character idea to no cost because they get plenty to be happy. difficulty bringing friends who are casuals or new players, less variety of characters.
for GMs: having to save up longer for a fun new character idea to no cost because they get plenty to be happy difficulty bringing friends who are casuals or new players, less variety of characters.

what is gained from the status quo
for paizo: nothing
for new players: nothing
for veteran players: more tolkienesque+ environment if that is what they want(elf, human, dwarf, halflings)
for GMs: more tolkienesque+ environment if that is what they want(elf, human, dwarf, halflings) more incentive to GM

what is the cost of no ACP for ancestry
for paizo: none
for new players: none
for veteran players: you might be fighting along side something different/interesting
for GMs: your monsters might have fighting something different/interesting, more diverse characters

what is gained from no ACP for ancestry
for paizo: if new players more money
for new players: more fun and free to choose the ancestry they want
for veteran players: more fun and free to choose the ancestry they want, might get to fighting along side something different/interesting more often
for GMs: more diverse characters potentially more groups to GM for

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

I'm not seeing much in the 'cost from status quo' department.

'fun' is a choice the player makes for themselves. As for the 'feeling rejected', that is a perception of the player, not an actual thing that is happening. Therefore not worthy to be considered as important.

I can say with full honesty, if there is a player whose decision to play is based solely on whether or not they can play a specific ancestry, I am very unlikely to desire to play with that player. This is because the assumption is that said player doesn't seem to have any interest in the game itself, just the ancestry. And if that is the case, and having played with players who have not been interested in the game itself, they are likely to make the session a less enjoyable experience. So, I would rather a player that does not actually want to play the game not bring down the experience for the whole table.

Organized play is not for everybody, and that is okay. Everybody cannot be appeased, that is life.

[CrimsonKnight]

SuperBidi wrote:

Personally, I'm among those who like when the party is not looking like a circus. At the end of PF1, in my gaming group, we were having this joke: How do you recognize a PFS party? There's no core races in there.

easy PFS parties come in all shapes, sizes, and ancestries

SuperBidi wrote:

So I like the AcP system. When someone brings an Uncommon race, it's the only one in the party. So it feels like actually Uncommon, and not like "another tiefling". And when you bring a Rare race, you're kind of the only one in your gaming group to play such a character. I like that, it makes the character more important and it keeps the verisimilitude of the world.

the AcP system does not prevent an all tiefling party, an all kitsune party, an all pixie party it just makes a hurtle to making your tiefling, kitsune, or pixie.

SuperBidi wrote:

And "new" players who are bored to play humans, dwarves and elves are not "new" players. They have experience and as such they can GM. The real new players are certainly happy to play in a world where the races around the table are famous enough so they can recognize them. At least, they are not bored with the races available.

Like you are the arbitrator of what a new player is and what they want. 1. I never said bored. 2. Being in both Anime and role playing do you know how many want their first character to be a kitsune(or other Japanese folk lore creature)? 3. yea like kitsune, animated puppets, FAIRIES, golems, animal people, etc. aren't famous.

[Mark Stratton]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

I'm not seeing much in the 'cost from status quo' department.

'fun' is a choice the player makes for themselves. As for the 'feeling rejected', that is a perception of the player, not an actual thing that is happening. Therefore not worthy to be considered as important.

I can say with full honesty, if there is a player whose decision to play is based solely on whether or not they can play a specific ancestry, I am very unlikely to desire to play with that player. This is because the assumption is that said player doesn't seem to have any interest in the game itself, just the ancestry. And if that is the case, and having played with players who have not been interested in the game itself, they are likely to make the session a less enjoyable experience. So, I would rather a player that does not actually want to play the game not bring down the experience for the whole table.

Organized play is not for everybody, and that is okay. Everybody cannot be appeased, that is life.

And I hope you’d refuse to play with a GM who might say they wouldn’t GM If other people get the same toys they do.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

I'm not seeing much in the 'cost from status quo' department.

'fun' is a choice the player makes for themselves. As for the 'feeling rejected', that is a perception of the player, not an actual thing that is happening. Therefore not worthy to be considered as important.

I can say with full honesty, if there is a player whose decision to play is based solely on whether or not they can play a specific ancestry, I am very unlikely to desire to play with that player. This is because the assumption is that said player doesn't seem to have any interest in the game itself, just the ancestry. And if that is the case, and having played with players who have not been interested in the game itself, they are likely to make the session a less enjoyable experience. So, I would rather a player that does not actually want to play the game not bring down the experience for the whole table.

Organized play is not for everybody, and that is okay. Everybody cannot be appeased, that is life.

And I hope you’d refuse to play with a GM who might say they wouldn’t GM If other people get the same toys they do.

I probably would.

[Blazej]

I do feel empathetic toward anyone who walks away because Pathfinder Society's rules are so restrictive to remove any character they want to play. However the composition of the party is going to do a lot to set the tone for a game. I would be very content to run for a group of players playing poppets, automatons, and sprites, but seeing less common ancestries at the forefront of each game will change how the game feels than if it were a number of ancestries from the Core Rulebook.

Different doesn't mean this is bad, but I think it is fair for Pathfinder Society to have a goal for setting a tone for the campaign. For both PFS and any GM, I do think that they can reasonably set rules that prohibit or just restrict the options people have access in order to attempt to maintain a feeling for the game.

That said, I would be curious to exploring if there if a better option exists for causing this scarcity than what exists now. I don't think removing all restrictions is a great option and I worry that having one free ancestry on sign up would cause character death to feel worse (even more than if you had to spend points on it).