Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society

My only question is, as a GM, can I gain credit for PFS play by running the adventure path (which I am for a home game) where none of the players are in PFS?

Sign them up. There's no reason to not give them a chronicle. It just means that if they do decide to ever play in PFS.

My only question is, as a GM, can I gain credit for PFS play by running the adventure path (which I am for a home game) where none of the players are in PFS?

We just finished Glass and Wrath, next week we start the trek to Thistletop. Being that I am the only PFS player in our group, and I would like to have some credit so that I could apply that to a character 'before' PaizoCon would be awesome.

Heck, if the answer to your question is no, why not just sign the players up? Download those ten temporary cards you can get when you register an event, offer to walk your players through the online part of it, keep their Chronicle sheets if they don't want to keep track of them.

Ideally, they'll actually get interested in Society play, too, and increase the pool of players, but if not, I'm sure your friends/players won't mind helping you out by becoming involved to the minimal level that would see you getting GM credit.

Two things about this, though. One, I suppose for some it might seem against the spirit of organized play and I can see good arguments from that point of view, maybe even some that would convince me my idea is a bad one.

The second, possibly more important thing, is that I personally still haven't wrapped my head around the multiple ways that this sanctioning works (I'll get there!) and I suppose it's possible that their newly-PFSized characters won't be at the appropriate levels at the appropriate points and so on for the Chronicle sheets depending on how you run the AP? Further, your players might not want to play PFS legal characters (using crafting and so on jumps immediately to mind)

Man, I'm just making myself even more confused. Hopefully you take my meaning.

The RotRL should be the new edition using PFRPG rules and not the older version using 3.5 rules.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd to say (paraphrased) that running the adventure path using massive house rules and with the GM rewriting every encounter would be just fine, but the slight difference between the 3.5 and the PFRPG version would not be fine.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

rayous brightblade wrote:

Please please please do kingmaker next. Im slowly running my group through it and would love to give them credit.

Kingmaker is a very open adventure. I think it would be very difficult to cobble together a module out of each book.

My guess, is if more APs are sanctioned they will be new APs rather than older ones.

I disagree Don.

Book 1 could easily include:

Book 2 could easily include:

Book 3 could easily be summed up in:

My only question is, as a GM, can I gain credit for PFS play by running the adventure path (which I am for a home game) where none of the players are in PFS?

When you create a PFS event, you can download PFS cards which are intended to be given to new players. You can just use those numbers to register your players instead.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd to say (paraphrased) that running the adventure path using massive house rules and with the GM rewriting every encounter would be just fine, but the slight difference between the 3.5 and the PFRPG version would not be fine.

According to the product description, "this new edition expands the original campaign with new options and refined encounters throughout, incorporating 5 years of community feedback." So it's not that you can't use 3.5 rules, it's that you can't use the original printing of the AP.

Of course, like so many other things in PFS, that's going to be enforced strictly on the honor system.

hogarth wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd to say (paraphrased) that running the adventure path using massive house rules and with the GM rewriting every encounter would be just fine, but the slight difference between the 3.5 and the PFRPG version would not be fine.

According to the product description, "this new edition expands the original campaign with new options and refined encounters throughout, incorporating 5 years of community feedback." So it's not that you can't use 3.5 rules, it's that you can't use the original printing of the AP.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but under the "home campaign" option the GM is free to completely ignore or change the "new options and refined encounters" (or anything else, for that matter) to his heart's content, right? It just seems odd to discriminate between "Product A" and "Product B changed so that it's exactly the same as Product A".

Useplanb wrote:

My only question is, as a GM, can I gain credit for PFS play by running the adventure path (which I am for a home game) where none of the players are in PFS?

We just finished Glass and Wrath, next week we start the trek to Thistletop. Being that I am the only PFS player in our group, and I would like to have some credit so that I could apply that to a character 'before' PaizoCon would be awesome.

Heck, if the answer to your question is no, why not just sign the players up? Download those ten temporary cards you can get when you register an event, offer to walk your players through the online part of it, keep their Chronicle sheets if they don't want to keep track of them.

Ideally, they'll actually get interested in Society play, too, and increase the pool of players, but if not, I'm sure your friends/players won't mind helping you out by becoming involved to the minimal level that would see you getting GM credit.

Two things about this, though. One, I suppose for some it might seem against the spirit of organized play and I can see good arguments from that point of view, maybe even some that would convince me my idea is a bad one.

In my view, this approach is inadvisable.

I'll use my home group as an example: my home RPG group (which happens to be doing a Pathfinder AP at the moment), with the exception of myself, has never had any interest in organized play. In fact, they would take my "signing them up" so I could get GM credit in PFS as an affront - basically, using them to gain some kind of "stuff" exterior to our gaming group. It would do NOTHING for PFS, and would simply be me garnering myself hollow "GM points"; at worse, it could be considered as defrauding PFS.

But, let's say I did it anyway, "holding" chronicles for my players "just in case", and in fact at some point some of them DID happen to decide to play PFS (maybe at a local game day, or perhaps a con), and suddenly they're starting PFS with 7th level characters. They barely even know what PFS is - no clue about what "prestige" or "fame" are, no understanding of what various factions are about, and so on - but they're playing 5-9 or 7-11 scenarios. Again, how is this - foisting power-leveled neophytes on the scene - helping PFS? Well, it isn't.

When organized play incentivizes judges with accolades, free character advancement and so on (and it has taken differing forms in different organized play campaigns), it sometimes has the negative effect of causing people to focus on those meta-rewards (Living Greyhawk, for example, had a problem with people running "straw tables" for GM credits, so they would qualify for Wizards' GM reward card mailings). The degree of excitement over the prospect of judge rewards for the sanctioned APs worries me, especially given that these are likely to be run "out of view" in home settings; it's a perfect set-up for a certain species of fraud.

So, it's a slippery slope, and the best practice is to take a fairly strict approach to crediting sanctioned APs: for credit, both players and judge should be running them with the understanding that it's within the context of PFS play.

That all sounds pretty reasonable, if a little depressing, David. Look forward to hearing what others say.

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd to say (paraphrased) that running the adventure path using massive house rules and with the GM rewriting every encounter would be just fine, but the slight difference between the 3.5 and the PFRPG version would not be fine.

According to the product description, "this new edition expands the original campaign with new options and refined encounters throughout, incorporating 5 years of community feedback." So it's not that you can't use 3.5 rules, it's that you can't use the original printing of the AP.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but under the "home campaign" option the GM is free to completely ignore or change the "new options and refined encounters" (or anything else, for that matter) to his heart's content, right? It just seems odd to discriminate between "Product A" and "Product B changed so that it's exactly the same as Product A".

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Product A is not Product B. Product B is Sanctioned. Product A is not. Just because Paizo is being very generous in allowing folks playing through the Anniversary Edition in a Home Game style to get PFS credit, that doesn't mean they have to allow use of the older product just because it was the basis for the newer one.

You know, Dave, even with strict rules, people who want to will find ways to cheat the system. No RPG P&P meta system is completely cheat-proof...or even close!

And while I have no doubt some DO cheat, the vast majority of players and GMs take pride in the fact that they made it to a point without breaking the rules.

I've had first hand experience with my own group where we were tempted to bend and even break some rules for various reasons. After all, no one was looking over the GMs shoulder...if the chronicle sheets were signed, the fact that few things were overlooked to get there would matter little.

As far as your example, direct concern there, I have to agree with Chris. That's kinda sad. I have a group that's completely non-PFS (we do APs only). But, in telling this to them, if I asked them to sign up for PFS numbers and take the chronicle sheets in case they ARE interested in PFS one day, they pretty much are on board with it...again, just in case. They wouldn't view it as me just trying to get myself credit (though, they're not so naive enough to believe that isn't part of my motivation). Even if it was...we all play (and GM) both APs and PFS for various reasons...some for the meta rewards, some for the RP, some for the combat, etc. If a GM and/or player wants us to do a little extra work so he/she could get something additional out of the experience that he/she wants, I think we can accommodate that!

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Product A is not Product B. Product B is Sanctioned. Product A is not. Just because Paizo is being very generous in allowing folks playing through the Anniversary Edition in a Home Game style to get PFS credit, that doesn't mean they have to allow use of the older product just because it was the basis for the newer one.

I think I'm just unclear on the rationale for the "home campaign" option in the first place. If it's to encourage more people to play PFS, it shouldn't matter which version of RotRL their campaign is based on, should it? Or is the idea to encourage PFS players to play games that don't use the PFS rules?

The chronicle Sheet for "Spires of Xin-Shalast" talks about the character's Fame score. Are there any rules for characters with Fame scores over 99? Does it also affect a character's current prestige? (It doesn't say so, but there's no other condition during which a character gains Fame without gaining prestige.)

Your Fame maxes out but you do not regain any previously spent Prestige Points. It could be better worded to also indicate that you gain a number of Prestige Points equal to however many points of Fame short of maximum you are. I'll see if we can get that updated in the near future.

lets be honest, PFS doesn't even require you to write down consumables as used on chronicles.

I'm not even a 100% sure my charges are correct on all my wands. I try but it's pretty easy to forget occasionally. Granted none of them are even remotely close to expiring but they could easily be off by 1 or 2.

@Dave - that sucks, your players would really be that upset with you for wanting to get some PFS credit?

Honestly I'd tell my players off. something like "Look I run for you guys every week, I draw maps, look up rules, prep scenarios just sign up for this thing worst case you never use it, best case you try and play at a con sometime and it benefits you. All you have to do is NOTHING."

heck I basically did that to my home group :-p. We reached the end of my home written PF game, and I was like "well I'll run some pre-written stuff, but I'd really like it to be PFS will you guys give it a shot?" they caved, one of them is interested at playing at cons with his guy, but the other ones don't really care, they just want to play :D

Chris Mortika wrote:

The chronicle Sheet for "Spires of Xin-Shalast" talks about the character's Fame score. Are there any rules for characters with Fame scores over 99? Does it also affect a character's current prestige? (It doesn't say so, but there's no other condition during which a character gains Fame without gaining prestige.)

Your Fame maxes out but you do not regain any previously spent Prestige Points. It could be better worded to also indicate that you gain a number of Prestige Points equal to however many points of Fame short of maximum you are. I'll see if we can get that updated in the near future.

Whoa, that's awesome. I didn't read that at all. epic :D.

so it functionally works like this? "Your Fame becomes equal to your character levelx6 in addition your total prestige earned increases to your character levelx6, you do no regain any spent prestige points."

I guess that should be assumed with the fame part, but for clarity's sake :D

I just want to point out I am not trying to "game" the system for personal freebies or credit more than what is being offered by Paizo.

I am interested in PFS, only 1 other player in this group has done PFS. The other gaming group that he and I are in tried PFS, most of those players hated it because they hate 20 point builds. So we scrapped it and went on to just home gaming (currently doing Second Darkness, after having done Council of Thieves and most of Legacy of Fire).

Because I am going to attend PaizoCon this year and the closest PFS games I can find are a 2+ hour drive away means that any PFS credit I can get I am going to grab.

That all sounds pretty reasonable, if a little depressing, David. Look forward to hearing what others say.

Gotta say, David is approaching it totally anti-socially.

First, you ASK your players if they would be interested, secodn, if not interested, ask them if they would be willing if you handled the paperwork. NEVER do anything unilaterally like that, it runs into not just ethical issues, but potential legal issues.

Second, just because you give them chronicles for participating in part X of AP Y, does NOT mean that they will be able to run a 7th level PFS character "out of the box". Maybe a 2nd level PC, with 3 XP and 4 PP, if they use one of the chronicles as a sacrificial chronicle, per module rules with a pregen.

But the actual chronicles would need to be applied to PCs at certain levels. It may let them skip a level, here and there, just like playing a module with a pregen might, but nothing out of the standard.

Actual ways to run the eligible PCs:

Option 1: Run the whole AP normally, using your standard house rules, giving your players (and taking for yourself) the one chronicle per book for use with one of their/your normal PFS PCs, as your group completes the sanctioned section of each book.

Option 2: Run just the sanctioned section of each book, pretty much as a stand-alone module, but with additional background available. You would run these sections for actual PFS PCs, who would earn the chronicle as normal, acting, in just about every way, as though it were just a sanctioned module.

And, of course, option 3: Run the AP as normal, ignoring the sanctioning of portions for PFS, if neither you nor your players care about it.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but under the "home campaign" option the GM is free to completely ignore or change the "new options and refined encounters" (or anything else, for that matter) to his heart's content, right? It just seems odd to discriminate between "Product A" and "Product B changed so that it's exactly the same as Product A".

I really think you're overthinking this. They have sanctioned the product that was just released with great fanfare, which is in print and available to players. They have not sanctioned the older version which is out of print anyway. And they've done so in a way that makes it pretty irrelevant anyway. So who cares?

I'll use my home group as an example: my home RPG group (which happens to be doing a Pathfinder AP at the moment), with the exception of myself, has never had any interest in organized play. In fact, they would take my "signing them up" so I could get GM credit in PFS as an affront - basically, using them to gain some kind of "stuff" exterior to our gaming group. It would do NOTHING for PFS, and would simply be me garnering myself hollow "GM points"; at worse, it could be considered as defrauding PFS.

Then your players need to relax.

Look, you run RotRL for six people. You file the report as yourself and six new PFS numbers. If your players, later, decide they're interested in PFS, hey look! You have a number, you have some chronicles. They can use them, or not, as they prefer. If not, no harm whatsoever was done.

All you have to do is say, "Guys, because all the hard work I'm doing to run this game for you allows me a fringe benefit in another system that has nothing to do with you, I'm going to go ahead and assign you numbers that mean nothing unless you want them to."

If you're honestly going to tell me they're going to be upset about that, it is my opinion that you need a new group of players.

Your Fame maxes out but you do not regain any previously spent Prestige Points. It could be better worded to also indicate that you gain a number of Prestige Points equal to however many points of Fame short of maximum you are. I'll see if we can get that updated in the near future.

"You gain a number of PP equal to ((Your Level * 6) - (Your Current Fame Score))."

(Too mathy?)

If your players have no interest in PFS whatsoever and would be offended if you "signed them up" ... no worries.

You don't have to hand them the PFS ID cards with the PFS numbers on them. Just assign Chronicle sheets using the numbers on the cards. Report the session online and then toss the sheets and cards into the trash.

But why even go to that much trouble? Just report the session online with no players. I'm pretty sure the system will accept it. Then you will have a listing for your GM credit and the players won't have to have anything to do with PFS even only in spirit.

David Haller wrote:

I'll use my home group as an example: my home RPG group (which happens to be doing a Pathfinder AP at the moment), with the exception of myself, has never had any interest in organized play. In fact, they would take my "signing them up" so I could get GM credit in PFS as an affront - basically, using them to gain some kind of "stuff" exterior to our gaming group. It would do NOTHING for PFS, and would simply be me garnering myself hollow "GM points"; at worse, it could be considered as defrauding PFS.

Then your players need to relax.

Look, you run RotRL for six people. You file the report as yourself and six new PFS numbers. If your players, later, decide they're interested in PFS, hey look! You have a number, you have some chronicles. They can use them, or not, as they prefer. If not, no harm whatsoever was done.

All you have to do is say, "Guys, because all the hard work I'm doing to run this game for you allows me a fringe benefit in another system that has nothing to do with you, I'm going to go ahead and assign you numbers that mean nothing unless you want them to."

If you're honestly going to tell me they're going to be upset about that, it is my opinion that you need a new group of players.

I dunno, I'd be kind of annoyed if someone signed me up for PFS without checking with me. I'd be fine if my GM asked though.

Still all this is discussing the hack around the original question: Do the players have to be in PFS for the GM to get credit?

As far as I can tell that's covered by this paragraph

Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

There seems to be no requirement for everyone to get credit. I assume the GM would have to be PFS, since he'd have to pass out the Chronicle sheets. Other than that, I don't see why a GM couldn't claim credit even without players taking it.

I would always want to take the credit.

I would simply tell them that it's being reported for credit and if they want the credit they can get it, otherwise not to worry about it. If they ever get interested in PFS they can get the actual chronicles from you, etc.

It has absolutely no effect on the game itself, so it really shouldn't matter to them anyway. It's just important to let them know, and plus you might find out they're interested!

Edit: I guess not signing them up is an option, too, and probably a better one at that. You can always add them to it later if they want.

In fact, they would take my "signing them up" so I could get GM credit in PFS as an affront - basically, using them to gain some kind of "stuff" exterior to our gaming group.

Those lazy GMs, freeloading off their hard-working players!

Just report the session online with no players. I'm pretty sure the system will accept it.

It will. That's the same way you report for a Gencon Special scenario so the OverGM gets their credit as well.

Then your players need to relax.

If you're honestly going to tell me they're going to be upset about that, it is my opinion that you need a new group of players.

This. Tell them to suck it up. :P

I really think you're overthinking this. They have sanctioned the product that was just released with great fanfare, which is in print and available to players. They have not sanctioned the older version which is out of print anyway. And they've done so in a way that makes it pretty irrelevant anyway. So who cares?

I'm currently playing in a Rise of the Runelords game, so there's some relevance to me.

When I first read the announcement, I thought: "I can get credit for doing what I'm already doing even though our game has nothing to do with PFS? I'm not sure what the purpose is, but: yay!"

Then when I read the clarification that the 3.5 version doesn't count, I thought: "I have no idea whether I'm playing the 3.5 version converted to Pathfinder or the straight Pathfinder version. I'm still not sure what the purpose of this whole exercise is, but: boo and/or yay (depending on which version it turns out I'm playing)!"

:-)

Mark Moreland wrote:

Your Fame maxes out but you do not regain any previously spent Prestige Points. It could be better worded to also indicate that you gain a number of Prestige Points equal to however many points of Fame short of maximum you are. I'll see if we can get that updated in the near future.

"You gain a number of PP equal to ((Your Level * 6) - (Your Current Fame Score))."

(Too mathy?)

Except level * 6 is higher then you could ever earn even if you could do scenarios forever. The actual number should be Your XP * 2, because you don't start with 6 Fame as a brand new level 1 0 XP character.

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

I really think you're overthinking this. They have sanctioned the product that was just released with great fanfare, which is in print and available to players. They have not sanctioned the older version which is out of print anyway. And they've done so in a way that makes it pretty irrelevant anyway. So who cares?

I'm currently playing in a Rise of the Runelords game, so there's some relevance to me.

When I first read the announcement, I thought: "I can get credit for doing what I'm already doing even though our game has nothing to do with PFS? I'm not sure what the purpose is, but: yay!"

Then when I read the clarification that the 3.5 version doesn't count, I thought: "I have no idea whether I'm playing the 3.5 version converted to Pathfinder or the straight Pathfinder version. I'm still not sure what the purpose of this whole exercise is, but: boo and/or yay (depending on which version it turns out I'm playing)!"

:-)

Umm...well, the books are actually notated with whether they are using the 3.5/OGL or the PFRPG system. :) If you purchased the PDFs separately back in the day and have access to them, it may be updated in your account to PFRPG automatically (not sure)

hogarth wrote:

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

I really think you're overthinking this. They have sanctioned the product that was just released with great fanfare, which is in print and available to players. They have not sanctioned the older version which is out of print anyway. And they've done so in a way that makes it pretty irrelevant anyway. So who cares?

I'm currently playing in a Rise of the Runelords game, so there's some relevance to me.

When I first read the announcement, I thought: "I can get credit for doing what I'm already doing even though our game has nothing to do with PFS? I'm not sure what the purpose is, but: yay!"

Then when I read the clarification that the 3.5 version doesn't count, I thought: "I have no idea whether I'm playing the 3.5 version converted to Pathfinder or the straight Pathfinder version. I'm still not sure what the purpose of this whole exercise is, but: boo and/or yay (depending on which version it turns out I'm playing)!"

:-)

Umm...well, the books are actually notated with whether they are using the 3.5/OGL or the PFRPG system. :) If you purchased the PDFs separately back in the day and have access to them, it may be updated in your account to PFRPG automatically (not sure)

Well, I assume he's playing, not GMing. Probably doesn't have the books. The GM most likely knows.

Then he shouldn't be asking us on the forums :) Well, Hogarth, hopefully y'all are playing the PF version. I know it's easier to GM if one is using the PF game system (for obvious reasons). Looking in my Downloads, it would appear my original RotRL PDFs are OGL/3.5 . However, I bought the anniversary PDF which is PFRPG. It's not only easier to use with the PFRPG, but the layout and artwork have been totally updated...as well as some of the info...so it's well worth the investment IMHO.

I think this is wonderful idea. AP's have been left out of PFS for too long. This is a great way to introduce the two groups, Non-PFS AP players and PFS players who want to play a campaign. Nothing says you have to force this on Non-PFS players but it gives them another option. And its gives PFS players a chance to play AP's and get PFS credit.

You know, even with strict rules, people who want to will find ways to cheat the system. No RPG P&P meta system is completely cheat-proof...or even close!

This is more or less my response to people worried about others "getting PFS credit with non PFS characters" and things like that.

I think Mark/Mike have refrained from nitpicking through specific requirements for home games -- and give the general "its a home game, run it how you'd like" response instead -- because they assume, quite simply, that cheaters gonna cheat.

If people want to play with 100 point buy characters and blaze through the game, and get sheets -- just like they could lie and say they played/gm'd them all. But we all know its against the spirit of the game. And so do they. And those kinds of people don't last long in honor-based systems, like PFS.

At least that's my opinion of their opinion, whatever that's worth.

I think Mark/Mike have refrained from nitpicking through specific requirements for home games -- and give the general "its a home game, run it how you'd like" response instead -- because they assume, quite simply, that cheaters gonna cheat.

In an effort to be more optimistic in all aspects of my life, I will henceforth say "honorable people will be honorable." I think it sounds better, and assumes the best of our player base rather than the worst. That's the sort of community spirit I hope we can foster.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I think Mark/Mike have refrained from nitpicking through specific requirements for home games -- and give the general "its a home game, run it how you'd like" response instead -- because they assume, quite simply, that cheaters gonna cheat.

In an effort to be more optimistic in all aspects of my life, I will henceforth say "honorable people will be honorable." I think it sounds better, and assumes the best of our player base rather than the worst. That's the sort of community spirit I hope we can foster.

Nice wordplay. I approve ;)

This is just a confirmation of understanding post more than anything else. If you are running a sanctioned AP (in this case Shattered Star) with non-PFS characters that started after they were sanctioned, I am allowed to give PFS credit to those players (and myself). If not, I would have to restart the AP with PFS legal characters.

Just trying to insure I have a full understanding of the process. Thanks.

This is just a confirmation of understanding post more than anything else. If you are running a sanctioned AP (in this case Shattered Star) with non-PFS characters that started after they were sanctioned, I am allowed to give PFS credit to those players (and myself). If not, I would have to restart the AP with PFS legal characters.

Just trying to insure I have a full understanding of the process. Thanks.

Only some parts of any AP is actually "what is sanctioned." For example, one BBEG's evil lair is playable for PFS credit in Shattered Star pt. 1.

So if you haven't come across that lair in pt. 1 yet, then you're good, and your people can get credit. If you are partway through that lair, I'd argue that you're good, as you'll be finishing it when it is legal.

If you had already completed it before APs became legal, then you're not good, and cannot get credit for it as there is no retroactive credit for APs.

Thanks Walter. That is what I thought as well and I appreciate yet another sanity check.

This is just a confirmation of understanding post more than anything else. If you are running a sanctioned AP (in this case Shattered Star) with non-PFS characters that started after they were sanctioned, I am allowed to give PFS credit to those players (and myself). If not, I would have to restart the AP with PFS legal characters.

It sounds like you've been playing in 'campaign mode'. Playing with PFS-illegal characters isn't a problem, but if you've already completed a sanctioned section (as detailed on the AP PFS rules download) then you can't get retrospective credit.

However, you can carry on playing the AP with the same characters, and when you finish the next PFS sanctioned section of the AP, each player (and the GM) can give the chronicle for that adventure to one of their PFS characters.

Thanks Paz. Yes, we are playing in campaign mode and we have not made it to The Crow as of yet. Mainly I wanted to make sure I was interpreting this process correctly as I was told recently by another GM that since we had started with Non-PFS characters we could not get PFS credit for hitting those key points in the AP since we started after PFS credit became available. Both you and Walter have now confirmed that I was correct all along and wanted to make sure I passed this information on to the person who gave me the confusing information.

Hi Mark and Mike, Thank you guys for opening up the AP's for PFS.
I personaly don't like the idea of choping up your fine prducts into little bits.

Would you consider allowing one chronicle sheet per AP book. THe Players and GM must agree to run the their PFS Character through the whole book and and then gain all the expericence and Fame from completing a whole AP section.

Lou, there's no reason a PC couldn't do that already. If you want to play more than we've sanctioned, then play more. You're only required to play the sanctioned portion to earn the Chronicle sheet, however.

A couple of questions to Mike and Mark. This contains some spoilers for Shattered Star.

The way the Chronicle sheets explain the Shards of Sin is different from the way the AP discusses them.

How much gold should a character receive, if she wants to sell off a major artifact?

Another note, for convention coordinators.

I've seen people allot two four- or five-hour slots for PFS-sanctioned modules, or levels of the Thornkeep mega-dungeon. That all works. But don't allot the same amount of time for APs!!

Mark notes that "you're only required to play the sanctioned portion to earn the Chronicle sheet," and that's correct, but the non-sanctioned part of Shards of Sin is only the introduction, Part A. Getting through the sanctioned part (Sections B, C, and D) is 85 encounter spaces (versus 5 for a typical PFS scenario, and about 18 - 24 for a typical module.) Not all of these are combats, of course, but sanctioned APs are going to take considerably longer than 8-to-10 hours to complete. I would expect a single AP segment to take something like 18-20 hours, about the same amount of time as the entire Eyes of the Ten arc.

Lou, there's no reason a PC couldn't do that already. If you want to play more than we've sanctioned, then play more. You're only required to play the sanctioned portion to earn the Chronicle sheet, however.

I'm pretty sure that Lou was asking for permission to award more gold and xp than what is listed on the Chronicle sheets, because the PFS character played through the whole AP book instead. I'm 100% sure the answer to that question is no.

Mark Moreland wrote:

Lou, there's no reason a PC couldn't do that already. If you want to play more than we've sanctioned, then play more. You're only required to play the sanctioned portion to earn the Chronicle sheet, however.

I'm pretty sure that Lou was asking for permission to award more gold and xp than what is listed on the Chronicle sheets, because the PFS character played through the whole AP book instead. I'm 100% sure the answer to that question is no.

You are correct. The answer to that question is no, you may not give more GP or XP than what is currently on the Chronicle sheet.

I would expect a single AP segment to take something like 18-20 hours, about the same amount of time as the entire Eyes of the Ten arc.

I would agree, with an exception being made for Rise of the Runelords: Sins of the Saviors. The book is pretty much a dungeon crawl from start to finish, and the sanctioned part of the book is the entire dungeon. Out of the 50 or so pages that adventure takes up in the original book (out of the 90ish pages an AP book contains) about 40 of it is the dungeon. That is gonna take much longer than 8 to 10 hours, I think. :P

Another note, for convention coordinators.

I've seen people allot two four- or five-hour slots for PFS-sanctioned modules, or levels of the Thornkeep mega-dungeon. That all works. But don't allot the same amount of time for APs!!

Mark notes that "you're only required to play the sanctioned portion to earn the Chronicle sheet," and that's correct, but the non-sanctioned part of Shards of Sin is only the introduction, Part A. Getting through the sanctioned part (Sections B, C, and D) is 85 encounter spaces (versus 5 for a typical PFS scenario, and about 18 - 24 for a typical module.) Not all of these are combats, of course, but sanctioned APs are going to take considerably longer than 8-to-10 hours to complete. I would expect a single AP segment to take something like 18-20 hours, about the same amount of time as the entire Eyes of the Ten arc.

They're also spread over more levels. You should be 2nd level when you enter Section B and reach 5th in Section D. I know it's Tier 3-5, but somethings going to be horribly out of whack whether you try it at Level 3 or 5.

By the way--I may have missed it, but I didn't see this posted anywhere yet: I redownloaded the chronicle sheets and found that the spoilers are gone from the Burnt Offering chronicle. Whenever that happened, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to help with that, Mike and Mark. Rock on and happy holidays!

Chris Mortika wrote:

Another note, for convention coordinators.

I've seen people allot two four- or five-hour slots for PFS-sanctioned modules, or levels of the Thornkeep mega-dungeon. That all works. But don't allot the same amount of time for APs!!

Mark notes that "you're only required to play the sanctioned portion to earn the Chronicle sheet," and that's correct, but the non-sanctioned part of Shards of Sin is only the introduction, Part A. Getting through the sanctioned part (Sections B, C, and D) is 85 encounter spaces (versus 5 for a typical PFS scenario, and about 18 - 24 for a typical module.) Not all of these are combats, of course, but sanctioned APs are going to take considerably longer than 8-to-10 hours to complete. I would expect a single AP segment to take something like 18-20 hours, about the same amount of time as the entire Eyes of the Ten arc.

They're also spread over more levels. You should be 2nd level when you enter Section B and reach 5th in Section D. I know it's Tier 3-5, but somethings going to be horribly out of whack whether you try it at Level 3 or 5.

Which is why I am going to be running Shattered Star as a home game, and just award the players the appropriate Chronicle for them to give to one of their regular PFS PCs when we finish the appropriate sections.

As a home game, the levels should work out; and, as a home game, I can also make adaptations as needed for 5 PCs instead of 4.

went through the thread and I'm not sure if it has not been asked or if I just missed it.

I've already run the full RotR AP once and have a second group in Book 5. I know there is no retroactive credit for the group that completed it and that the group in Book 5 would be able to get credit from book 5 and 6 only.

Recently though, another group I play with decided to mix up the games a bit so I volunteered to run a game, starting with Books 1 and 2 from RotR (as these are my 2 favorite installments in that AP and they work well as a stand alone "intro sequence") and then moving into 100% homebrew.

the question is, for this group, would they still qualify for the chronicle sheets from books 1 and 2? All but 2 folks in that group are PFS players and I know they would get a kick out the boons, but I really can't see myself running the full AP for a third time back to back.