Starfinder 2e Organized Play Questions

[Kerrel]

Hello everyone.
I have a couple of questions regarding organized play. Although both can be answered as one.

1. I've created a Mystic, everything is based on the core player except for the deity, Sarenrae, who isn't included. I based my information on the deity from Pathfinder player core. The question is, would the character be legal for organized play? Clarification: I added the Divine Bond feat with Sarenrae's Pathfinder stats.

2. I also created a Soldier, with the Knight of Golarion archetype, but I used the Versatile Nephilim Heritage from Pathfinder player core.

Is it completely prohibited to integrate something like this into Starfinder 2e organized play? Or, if it's not very important, would it be allowed? This is my first time playing officially, and I'm not sure if the rules regarding this aspect are very strict or not.

P.S.- My English is very bad and I use a translator, sorry if there is something that is not very clear.

[Squark]

Content from Pathfinder 2e is allowed only very selectly, at the moment. Neither Nephilim nor Sarenrae are currently available (Mechanically. Your character can still venerate Sarenrae, you just can't draw power from her). At this point, 7 of the 8 Player Core 1 ancestries (Orcs are left out, possibly because they're getting a rework of their lore and stuff for Galactic Ancestries) are available with an 8 AcP boon, and for 40 ACP you can unlock the ability to summon monsters from the Pathfinder 2e Monster Core.

[azjauthor]

I, too, created a Mystic priest of Sarenrae ... only to discover that if I did so, I wouldn't be able to actually use the Divine Bond feat for Sarenrae. I don't know if there's a lore reason that Sarenrae was excluded or not, but I decided to modify and rebuilt the character and save my Sarenrae concept for something later on when she is available.

I did, though, run into another issue about Pathfinder content ... I created a Xenodruid Mystic, who gained the Summon Plant and Fungus spell upon reaching level 2 at GenCon ... but without Starfinder Alien Core out, I have nothing to summon! I asked the GM of my last game if I could summon from the Pathfinder Monster Core if needed, and he agreed, saying, "I try to err on the side of letting characters use the abilities they have." I am hoping they took into account low-level summoning needs when filling out the roster of the Starfinder Alien Core, though.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

It's really odd not having Sarenrae represented in Starfinder 2e when she was such a huge part of SF1 lore. The whole Dawn of Flame adventure path felt like a love letter to Sarenrae.

Hmm

[Squark]

The reason I've heard for the shakeup in the Core 20 is because the dev team wants to put some other deities in the spotlight right now. While that's a laudable goal, I do hope deities who were major players in 1e get write-ups soon. I'm also really curious how the Prismatic Ray has changed.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

Oh I suspect that Sarenrae will return to Starfinder, and that we'll all bask in her glow. But I am missing her sunny presence at launch.

[Gamerskum]

If I was a betting man I would say one of the first 5 books will have a lot more deities in it or be a Divinities of the Galaxy type book.

[Squark]

If Anacites and/or Protocites get a write-up in Galactic Ancestries or Tech Core, I could see Sarenrae showing up as an ethnic deity for them.

[Sharkbite]

Since the GM Incentive Program was eliminated for SF2, would it be possible to either:

1. Give credit for SF2 tables towards the SF1 Novas, the way that SF2 Playtest tables counted, so we can continue working on our Novas while running the new content players want.

OR

2. Give credit for the SF2 tables towards the PF2 Glyphs, since the rules of the systems are the same and both reflect essentially an understanding and equal effort towards that same rule set.

It would be nice if running games for SFS2 actually counted towards something, instead of, you know, telling us that running the SFS2 content isn't worth anything.

[sanwah68]

There are still table counts showing for SFS2 on my account. So maybe they will count for something, sometime...

[Squark]

Sharkbite wrote:

Since the GM Incentive Program was eliminated for SF2, would it be possible to either:

1. Give credit for SF2 tables towards the SF1 Novas, the way that SF2 Playtest tables counted, so we can continue working on our Novas while running the new content players want.

OR

2. Give credit for the SF2 tables towards the PF2 Glyphs, since the rules of the systems are the same and both reflect essentially an understanding and equal effort towards that same rule set.

It would be nice if running games for SFS2 actually counted towards something, instead of, you know, telling us that running the SFS2 content isn't worth anything.

It wasn't eliminated (You're still getting double ACP, after all). But as for Novas/Stars/Glyphs, they've been clear from the first anouncement they hope to bring a recognition system back in the future. But they're not happy with it's past implementations, so they haven't established it yet while options to change it are considered.

[Tick--Tick]

Sharkbite wrote:

It would be nice if running games for SFS2 actually counted towards something, instead of, you know, telling us that running the SFS2 content isn't worth anything.

It does. It counts for all of the players at your tables you have ran. It counts for the AcP you get. And it counts for the self recognition of what you have done and provided. That you have selflessly volunteered your time X times.

[Sharkbite]

Tick--Tick wrote:

Sharkbite wrote:

It would be nice if running games for SFS2 actually counted towards something, instead of, you know, telling us that running the SFS2 content isn't worth anything.

It does. It counts for all of the players at your tables you have ran. It counts for the AcP you get. And it counts for the self recognition of what you have done and provided. That you have selflessly volunteered your time X times.

Yes. The INCENTIVE program was eliminated.

It now counts for "You did it X times".

But it does NOT count for "You are earning something by doing it."

I personally suspect this is a strong contributor in why we have next to no games being offered for even the newest of SF2 content. There are mobs of players signing up for spots in a matter of minutes, but there are not GMs that are wanting to run it, at least not at the rate the players want to play it.

Because there's really nothing in it for the GMs.

The GM Incentive Program was a great customer service way that Paizo previously used to recognize their GMs and provide the GMs a zero-cost compensation for the time and effort they put in to providing these games for the community.

My polite request remains. Since these tables do not count for anything, could they either count towards SF1 (the way that the SF2 Playtest tables did), or could they count towards PF2 (because the rules are essentially the same and so they reflect a similar level of proficiency in running the game).

Or, I guess we could continue to tell the GMs that any effort running games right now serves no purpose, but SOMEDAY there will be some future program... and all the work we're doing right now doesn't count towards that.

And then we can just hope that people feel motivated by a desire to do no reward work, instead of running, for example, SF1 or PF2 content where their efforts will actually be rewarded.

[Driftbourne]

As someone who's only GM'd a few games so far, 2 in SF1e and 1 in SF2e, I'm not driven by how many of symbles I get next to my name, but at least being able to get that first one means a lot to at least show I'm a GM, and involved in organized play.

I'm not a big fan of character death. I get it happens and will happen, so the GM reward of getting more hero points to give the players is a HUGE incentive for me. Not just for avoiding character death, but also for having extra hero points when you have new players at the table.

[Sharkbite]

Driftbourne wrote:

As someone who's only GM'd a few games so far, 2 in SF1e and 1 in SF2e, I'm not driven by how many of symbles I get next to my name, but at least being able to get that first one means a lot to at least show I'm a GM, and involved in organized play.

I'm not a big fan of character death. I get it happens and will happen, so the GM reward of getting more hero points to give the players is a HUGE incentive for me. Not just for avoiding character death, but also for having extra hero points when you have new players at the table.

Precisely.

It's not about bragging or showing off.

But simple things like additional Hero Points for PF2, or the +Nova reroll in SF1, were able to be game-changers in a tight situation.

And since none of that is permitted in SF2, it would be nice if the work we put into GMing in SF2 counted SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, why wouldn't I just GM something else where I actually get credit for it?

[Tick--Tick]

*shrug*

When I joined a society community, it was accepted that you GM every so often because that way the GMing is spread out. It made sense to me, so I GMed. Sure there were rewards to GMing at that time, but it was hardly a motivation. I guess I can't relate to the mentality of needing to be rewarded. GMing is a part of playing, that is just how the system works.

[Driftbourne]

I spent 3 years playing play-by-post until I found people to play Starfinder in person with, so just playing is reward enough for me to GM Starfinder. In play-by-post, I rotate GMing, but for in-person games, I'm happy to GM all the time if that's what it takes to have a game. Even though GMing for PF2e has more rewards, I only play PF2e as a player.

But I do get that some people are more motivated by rewards, and not everyone wants to take a turn being the GM. I'm not motivated by rewards, but I do find they are a nice surprise when I get them. Although I am very motivated to earn extra hero points to make the game better for the players in games I GM.

I think it would be better if both SF2e and PF2e had the same rewards. I can see why only PF2e having rewards causes some GMs to only want to play PF2e. I like that PF2e and SF2e are compatible. I hope organized play does the same.

[Sharkbite]

Pretty famously, when a certain other company leaked their newest edition plans and got utterly crucified on the public opinion, there was an important distinction that was identified.

The GMs for tabletop roleplaying games generally spends roughly 10x as much money as the players. GMs buy books, not just ones with character options, but also ones with world-building and lore. The GMs buy the maps. The GMs buy hundreds of miniatures, while the players buy just a handful to cover their own characters. The GMs buy these adventures and scenarios. The player just shows up with their character sheet and plays.

The GM is spending a ton of extra money, and also devoting a ton of extra time into preparing the game. More time, more effort, more energy, more money.

A company named Paizo said they wanted to do business in a different manner than that other company. Instead of trying to fleece their GMs, punishing and taking advantage of their biggest supporters, Paizo wanted to treat their GMs well. So they created a GM Incentive Program which was designed to reward the person who contributes so much more.

And by doing so, many players who would have normally been content to just be players, instead became motivated to GM, at least on occasion. Paizo had a brilliant system that rewarded people for GMing, so it didn't always have to be the "Forever GM". This allowed an ability to spread the responsability around, to avoid burn-out, and to be a little bit kinder to the people who make these games happen.

Except, with Starfinder 2E, those GMs no longer matter. The game is fine without them. They aren't important. Having somebody around to run the games is no longer important. Nobody else should bother to take a turn.

At Crittercon, my convention GM dropped out of our game 2 weeks before the convention. They put out the word and searched for anyone willing to run the SF2 scenario that had a full group of players ready.

NOBODY was willing. With two weeks to prepare, nobody would fill that spot. So the day of, a bunch of players showed up, hopping into a channel, and then one by one left feeling disappointed. Nobody was willing to do it.

And why should they? Why would anybody want to pay money, buy a scenario, and then invest time and effort into preparing to run it for strangers, when there's nothing they get in return?

Paizo has built a very strongly built community based on good decisions like the GM Incentive Program, the Retail Incentive Program, and a robust Organized Play system. The number one thing that I hear people say about GMing is that they enjoy that extra Hero Point, a Hero Point that they do not get for themselves, but that they instead get to share with other players.

Paizo's way is great.

So... wouldn't it be better if Paizo did things the Paizo way? You know, instead of trying to be more like ... the other company that views GMs only as a resource to be exploited.

[Tick--Tick]

Yeah, it seems I have a different view on what it means to be a part of a community.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

I think that no one loves her GM cookies more than I do. I have to believe that Paizo eventually will reward us with GM cookies for all the Starfinder tables that we do.

Why do we need to change everything?

We have gone out of our way to make Starfinder 2e compatible with Pathfinder 2e. Heck, we're even making all the scenarios the same length (and sadly, removing stat blocks, but that's another conversation in a different Organized Play thread.)

So why NOT make our Organized Play systems fully compatible as well? Every GM I talk to likes the Pathfinder 2e GM review system as a way of not only rewarding table progress, but also improving GMs via the review process towards 5-rank.

We have something that works, and it puzzles me beyond measure that it has not been implemented in Starfinder 2E.

Hmm

[Ascalaphus]

I feel like even if having a GM star system of some kind only moves the needle 10% on GMing, that could still be a really good return on investment.

Because making it happen for donuts 1-4 is mostly a one-time cost of having an engineer implement it in the website. You have the occasional five-donut review and some backend admin. But is that a net cost, or is it compensated by having some good news content to put in a blog post for marketing?

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

And it's not the first time we've had this conversation. A long time ago, I started a thread about What GM Stars Signify. It was a thread where the Organized Community reckoned with itself, and that discussion eventually birthed the GM review process that we have now in Pathfinder 2e.

I know that people talk about how we want GMs to be motivated by the love of GMing, or by giving back to the community. Those things motivate me too. But I have an unabashed love of my GM Cookies, and that has never made me any less of a GM.

And let's face it... We need GM incentives. They help casual GMs - the life blood of our Organized Play Games - decide to GM. They help committed GMs like myself make it through the occasional grueling convention.

I am very much pro-GM Cookie.

Hmm

[Tick--Tick]

I've simply had too many poor experiences from 4-5 thing GMs, campaign coin recipients, and other positions and/or accolades to put any stock in such things being representative of virtues.

That said, I'd be very surprised if they didn't implement a system the same or similar in the near future. Too many folks like it for it to remain absent.

Tangent: If we are going to recognize good GMing, why not try to recognize being a good player? That is one if the main reasons I don't play Society as much anymore. So many folks are straight unpleasant to play with. You want to give people a reason to GM? Maybe improve the attitude/behavior of players so it is less daunting/unpleasant.

[azjauthor]

Sharkbite wrote:

I personally suspect this is a strong contributor in why we have next to no games being offered for even the newest of SF2 content. There are mobs of players signing up for spots in a matter of minutes, but there are not GMs that are wanting to run it, at least not at the rate the players want to play it.

Because there's really nothing in it for the GMs.

The GM Incentive Program was a great customer service way that Paizo previously used to recognize their GMs and provide the GMs a zero-cost compensation for the time and effort they put in to providing these games for the community.

In fairness, you do get more AcP for running the game ... but since all of the SF2 options are completely open to everyone, and virtually nothing is gated at this point, it's far less of an incentive to accumulate more AcP. It seems like once Galactic Ancestries comes out, we likely won't even need to buy the 8 AcP boons to play ancestries like dwarves, elves, and goblins, unless they explicitly prohibit them without the boon.

Hopefully they fairly soon introduce AcP boons granting access to PF2 classes and archetypes, which might provide some interesting flavor options for those who have taken the time to run SF2 games.

[Kishmo]

They very explicitly said:

The Blog-O-Blogs wrote:

Additionally, Starfinder Society will not have a GM ranking system akin to the previous system of stars, glyphs, or novas at launch. This will return at a future date in some form, though not necessarily the one you may be used to.

So we know it's coming. Just not yet. That whole blog post is worth reading, if you haven't seen it.

[Squark]

Thurston Hillman has been testing the first 2e iteration of The Perplexity Trials, so we'll need a version of the glyph system at some point to support them.

But as to how and when to implement them... I can understand why people on the administrative side would like to change the way the system is implemented, when I try to think of ways to alter the system myself most options that come to mind seem worse than the existing one. Staggering the evaluations and glyph scenario requirements across the tiers seems more likely to turn casual GMs off. Gamifying the process feels like it could increase the burn-out they're worried about!

On a personal note, I do feel like the lack of GM incentives is starting to feel noticeable, at least when I compare GMing PF2 to SF2. I do feel excited to work towards my 3rd glyph and to accumulate ACP toward an expensive character concept. With SF2... I see an accumulating pile of GM Babies and a pile of ACP I have nothing to spend it on. It's kind of disheartening, honestly. So I'd encourage the Starfinder OP team to move quickly.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

Squark.... Were you at Gamehole Con? I'm wondering if I met you and didn't know it.

[GM Hmm]

Squark wrote:

On a personal note, I do feel like the lack of GM incentives is starting to feel noticeable, at least when I compare GMing PF2 to SF2. I do feel excited to work towards my 3rd glyph and to accumulate ACP toward an expensive character concept. With SF2... I see an accumulating pile of GM Babies and a pile of ACP I have nothing to spend it on. It's kind of disheartening, honestly. So I'd encourage the Starfinder OP team to move quickly.

I completely agree.

I think that the current Glyph system as-is is what we should be using for SF2. It's a good system, it is clear, and more importantly, it would give us consistency across Organized Play. We made this huge step to make Starfinder and Pathfinder compatible. Let's make their organized play rule systems compatible as well.

Hmm

[Squark]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Squark.... Were you at Gamehole Con? I'm wondering if I met you and didn't know it.

We did! I played the Red Mantis Swashbuckler at your first table of Shipyard Sabotage, and I believe we played The Godsrain and the Dragon together later that day.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

Ah! Now I can add a face to the name! (Your mouse is cute, but it did not help me recognize you when we met.)

Hmm