Fall of Plaguestone and Sanctioning

I understand that which is why I am largely on your side when it comes to PFS-mode play. I adding another voice to your side, for what its worth. Maybe the louder the cry for multi-mode play, the more likely they will reconsider it. I dunno.

We just differ on the specifics of calling your hypothetical a public or private event. But, as I tried to express, that part of the discussion is not particularly relevant. What matters is the result and I agree we should have both campaign and PFS-mode even though, personally, I never play PFS-mode.

Where public vs private event becomes important is the same place it was important 7 years ago when Mike and Mark made those posts. With only campaign mode available and no distinction between what’s a public or a private game we once again find ourselves in a situation where games can be listed and characters turned away because a GM doesn’t like a particular option. In fact the whole discussion on whether or not animating dead (in PFS1) causes an alignment infraction came back up earlier today on the discord (though not in the heated way that it has in the past).

Mike and Mark made the distinction they did as a way to define when a group can be restricted and when it can’t. A public game using PFS rules can’t turn away a character based on the GM’s preferences or turn away a player based on some bias unrelated to the individual. In a private game, you can do those things, because it’s private. Campaign mode or whatever you want to call the sanctioning for FoP by design gives the GM the freedom to use the rules they want to use, which means that at least the first half of why there was a distinction made in the first place gets broken.

A public game using PFS rules can’t turn away a character based on the GM’s preferences or turn away a player based on some bias unrelated to the individual

While I agree this is the spirit of the rules, in practice its not because a GM is a volunteer participant too. They can simply walk away from a table if they don't like it. Hopefully, that kind of action would get them quickly blacklisted as a GM or at least people would stop registering for their tables and they would fade away. The distinction might be pedantic but I see the word "can't" as bi-definitional, meaning it means "capable" or "recommended" depending on how you interpret its usage.

Example...
"I can't walk out into oncoming traffic." actually, I can, its just not recommended for obvious reasons vs
"I can't walk off the surface of the Earth." Yes, that is a factual restriction

In any case, I don't think our disagreement over the term "public" has any influence on the issue at hand. Currently the rule is the only option is campaign mode which means the GM can follow whatever rules they wish. Since its not an episodic event like PFS-mode, the only registration that matters is the initial one. After that, its merely a continuation of the same event. That has always been perfectly legal. I agree it might not be optimal if it means other players are essentially locked out of play, but it is still a legal, public event. I believe the GM could, at their discretion, allow alternate players to pop in and out each session as long as their chronicle rewards were adjusted to reflect their involvement.

However, I do not think this is optimal and that is why I agree that we should reinstate PFS-mode to make it easier on organizers to schedule however is best for their lodge. Offing both should not create a meaningful burden on the OP team and it would satisfy the scheduling needs of both groups. My point is, it doesn't matter what logic we use to get here, we both want the same thing.

I have been to many Conventions that offered public signups for Module/AP play, and literally countless Gamedays that did the same. The vast majority of my experience with Modules was in PFS Mode (although for the vast majority of time you couldn't run them in Campaign Mode).

So I speak with experience when I agree with Ferious Thune that what Xathos is doing is not a public signup; it's a private game, and is not a viable model for public games everywhere. Here is how actual public games are offered:

A "typical"* Module/AP offering 3xp is broken up into 3 sessions. Those 3 sessions each need to be signed up for separately. This isn't normally an issue so long as the game is advertised that you need to register for each slot independently. Since it's PFS Mode, both players ***AND*** GMs have the freedom to sign up for however many slots they wish, and everyone is on the same page knowing how that game will be run.

Players know their PFS-legal characters will be accepted, and GMs know that players are bringing characters built under the same legal framework.

You want to call us "diehards" for advocating free, open, inclusive signups that benefit players and GMs? Cool with me. We know there is no drawback to this system, because this is how literally every other PFS game operates, and it's how PFS is framed as an activity.

*"Typical" was the default; for games known to consistently run shorter, organizers knew they could safely advertise the game as 1 or 2 slots instead. I've never known a Module or AP to take more than 3 slots.

In retrospect, my experience is also probably what drives my desire for a "Generic first, Vetted second" Chronicle approach:

• We know the game system works
• Players want stuff sanctioned faster
• Leadership wants time to create cool Chronicles and vet items
• Gold in PFS2 is standardized, making this GFVS system actually more viable in PFS2
• No GM is needed to sign off on the final Chronicle, and nothing else needs to be reported
• The final Chronicles can be made available for Download on the product page just as they are now

But a public event was not being run on the subsequent days. Again, the point is that the material can't be used as additional content for a normal public gameday/convention while it only grants 1 chronicle sheet for 16 hours of play. That is impractical for the majority of PFS game days. Public signup or no, it's being organized like a private game after the initial listing. I'll quote the part that I left out of Mark's post:

Yes. It was. It was a completion of the public event that began on the first day, the sign ups were public, the event is public, the fact it took multiple sessions to finish it doesn't change either of those things.

Every day after the first, there is no opportunity for anyone else to get into the game. You're not holding a public game day on those weeks if there are no signups and nothing anyone can show up and play if they aren't already part of the group in the module.

You are literally saying that if someone asks to sit at a table of a regular 4 hour scenario 3 hours into the game then suddenly that table is no longer public if they're refused a spot... so anyone can make any game private by simply asking to join after it has started. That's not how Society play works at all. A game is public if it is recruited as such, taking longer than one session to finish it doesn't suddenly make it change, it just means it takes longer, nothing else.

So sure, count it as 1 public gameday. But it's not 4, and it's taking those other 3 days worth of play opportunities away. In its current form, this should not be seen as a substitute for a regular gameday. Run it in addition, but don't replace your PFS days with it.

Maybe let the people who are actually there at that shop decide what they do and don't need to run based on their needs not on some meta changes you want for the campaign? You seem to imagine there are somehow an extra dozen or more people who are turning up each gameday and standing around unable to do anything since the module is being run and the public game of it finished over multiple sessions, despite the fact that we literally have posts from the organiser there saying other games are run as well and everyone gets to play, both the players who joined the public run of the module and those who prefer to turn up for scenarios instead.

To start with, the only way to make it work is to level up each character between chapters. The result is one of the problems we had with PFS1 which was players using modules to speed up character leveling. If a scenario is designed for four hours of play for 4 XP, then how do you justify giving a player 12 XP for about 5 hours of play? The module becomes a shortcut to leveling.

Second of all, a module is a self-contained story. If it is broken apart like you want, then you no longer have a story. You have three pieces of a story where some can play the final chapter, and then go back and play the other chapters at some other point. Sure, it's convenient for the purpose of gaining XP, but it defeats the purpose of a module to begin with.

Again, nothing stops you from running it in PFS mode with the current sanctioning. The fact that a L1 character won't survive it may be problematic, but at the same time L3s and L4s can survive. Just play it at those levels.

We know campaign mode works at public game days. It is not a private game. It is a open game with public sign ups. Time to change definitions and broaden what is obviously a quite narrow view of what constitutes a public game day. Remember, not all places and groups have the same needs.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Every day after the first, there is no opportunity for anyone else to get into the game. You're not holding a public game day on those weeks if there are no signups and nothing anyone can show up and play if they aren't already part of the group in the module.

You are literally saying that if someone asks to sit at a table of a regular 4 hour scenario 3 hours into the game then suddenly that table is no longer public if they're refused a spot... so anyone can make any game private by simply asking to join after it has started. That's not how Society play works at all. A game is public if it is recruited as such, taking longer than one session to finish it doesn't suddenly make it change, it just means it takes longer, nothing else.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Maybe you're thinking too much in terms of online or that the game that's being reported is what determines public vs private. It's the event on the day. Is the event public or is it private?

You offer a 4 hour scenario on Day 1:
Were signups listed publicly somewhere?
Could anyone sign up for the game?
Could a walk-up show up right before the game and join if there is an open spot?
Campaign mode excluded, are you using PFS rules with no house rules?

Then you're playing a public game. If someone shows up late, you politely let them know you've already started, but to try back the next week (or month, or whatever the frequency is).

You offer a module over four sessions.

Day 1 those questions are true.

Day 2-4 those questions are likely no longer true except for the ruleset. These are not public events. A player shows up wanting to join, and you tell them to check back 4-6 events later. Those additional events are not public. They may be the continuation of a game that began publicly, but they themselves are not public events, because they are not open to the public anymore. You can't advertise "We're running PFS every Wednesday night" and then hold a game that no one else can sign up for and still consider that as holding a public event. Because on that day, there was no event open to the public.

There's no functional difference between advertising for a game of Fall of Plaguestone that is going to run every Wednesday in a shop until it's finished and advertising for a game of Fall of Plaguestone that is going to meet once at a shop and then move to someone's house for the rest of the sessions. Neither one is available to the public after that first session.

Maybe let the people who are actually there at that shop decide what they do and don't need to run based on their needs not on some meta changes you want for the campaign? You seem to imagine there are somehow an extra dozen or more people who are turning up each gameday and standing around unable to do anything since the module is being run and the public game of it finished over multiple sessions, despite the fact that we literally have posts from the organiser there saying other games are run as well and everyone gets to play, both the players who joined the public run of the module and those who prefer to turn up for scenarios instead.

Of course a group can decide what works best for them. That is why I'm asking for more flexibility in the chronicle sheets, because having a single sheet actively pushes a location towards one style of gameplay. It is exclusive by nature of the type of player and play experience that PFS was designed for. The thing that I'm pushing back against is the idea that because this worked at one or two locations, then it works for everyone at every location, and we should be happy that we have it and stop asking for something else. I'm not asking that anything be taken away from anyone, and I'm genuinely happy that Xathos and others have found a way for the module to work for them. I'm not happy that they are suggesting that it should work for me, because it worked for them.

Part of holding a public gameday is trying to get new players involved. It's not about there being a bunch of players lined up for a game. If there are 12 players, then you politely suggest that one or two of them GM something, or one of your players breaks off to GM, knowing that they could complete the part they missed later because it's tied to its own chronicle sheet. But when there are no seats for a couple of months or more that anyone new has an opportunity to sign up for, you're not attempting to bring in any new players. Which is very much against the spirit of holding a public event.

To bring it back to why this is all relevant... It's to add flexibility to scheduling a regular event. A single 16+ hour module has to be scheduled as a single 16+ hour thing. Whether that's taking place on one day, four days, or sixteen days. A 3 chronicle sheet module can be scheduled as 3 separate events, each of them with its own signups, each of them open to anyone who can bring a legal character. Whatever we call those two things, one of them is helpful to locations with a rotating/inconsistent player base, and one of them is not.

To start with, the only way to make it work is to level up each character between chapters. The result is one of the problems we had with PFS1 which was players using modules to speed up character leveling. If a scenario is designed for four hours of play for 4 XP, then how do you justify giving a player 12 XP for about 5 hours of play? The module becomes a shortcut to leveling.

I think you will find a lot of disagreement about whether or not module parts granting 3XP is a problem in PFS1. They grant 3XP, because they include an equivalent amount and difficulty of encounters equal to gaining a level. That's why the modules are designed to cover multiple levels in the first place. Personally, the only thing that was ever an issue for me was with the repayable level 1 modules and people rushing through them. If you just take replayability away from modules, then you eliminate that issue (though they also become less flexible for scheduling purposes, which would have been its own issue).

Second of all, a module is a self-contained story. If it is broken apart like you want, then you no longer have a story. You have three pieces of a story where some can play the final chapter, and then go back and play the other chapters at some other point. Sure, it's convenient for the purpose of gaining XP, but it defeats the purpose of a module to begin with.

That really depends on the module. I don't feel like a whole lot is lost in Gallows of Madness by only playing an individual part of it. I didn't feel like I was lost or didn't enjoy the story in Ire of the Storm by jumping into part 3. And I certainly didn't feel like I needed to play every single level of Emerald Spire in order in order to enjoy those games.

What you are describing is no different than a 3 part series of PFS scenarios. The types of "issues" you describe are "features" to some of us. As my list of PFS1 content slowly dwindles to nothing, I'm extremely glad that I still have a couple of levels of Emerald Spire that I can go back and play and am not locked out of just because I couldn't make those sessions when they ran locally.

Again, nothing stops you from running it in PFS mode with the current sanctioning.

I'm not going to have this conversation again. I refer you back to my earlier posts in this thread for the counterargument.

The fact that a L1 character won't survive it may be problematic, but at the same time L3s and L4s can survive. Just play it at those levels.

Several different approaches for compensating for this have been suggested in this thread. Everything from making the chronicle sheet grant a full level again to using the level bumps that are built into PFS2 already. This is not a problem without a solution.

We know campaign mode works at public game days. It is not a private game. It is a open game with public sign ups. Time to change definitions and broaden what is obviously a quite narrow view of what constitutes a public game day. Remember, not all places and groups have the same needs.

We know campaign mode worked at your gameday. Please stop assuming that it will work for everyone. I actively avoid joining multi-session modules when they are publicly offered, because I know I might have to miss parts of them. When there are multiple chronicle sheets, I can join for the ones that I can make and still play the ones I missed later. That works for me and for a lot of other players. Every time you post that campaign mode should work for us it gets a little more insulting.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Maybe you're thinking too much in terms of online or that the game that's being reported is what determines public vs private. It's the event on the day. Is the event public or is it private?

As a counterexample: you're playing a PFS1 module at a con; lets say it's Crypt of the Everflame to give a specific example. The organizer believes it will take 12 hours to go through, so it's scheduled at the 8 AM, 1 PM, and 7 PM slots. The con signups note that you have to sign up for all 3 parts. Each slot is a separately ticketed event, because that's just how the con works. Do you believe that the 1PM and 7PM slots are no longer "public"?

Ferious Thune wrote:

That's not what I'm saying at all. Maybe you're thinking too much in terms of online or that the game that's being reported is what determines public vs private. It's the event on the day. Is the event public or is it private?

As a counterexample: you're playing a PFS1 module at a con; lets say it's Crypt of the Everflame to give a specific example.The organizer believes it will take 12 hours to go through, so it's scheduled at the 8 AM, 1 PM, and 7 PM slots. The con signups note that you have to sign up for all 3 parts, but each slot is a separately ticketed events, because that's just how the con works. Do you believe that the 1PM and 7PM slots are no longer "public"?

There's a line somewhere. Conventions blur that line, but conventions are already somewhat exclusive due to the cost of attending. You're offering the best public experience that you can within the restrictions of the venue. The same is true for locations that have to split a scenario (which, again, is not technically legal to do). You're doing your best. Also, conventions generally have other options available for players, so any damage done having to turn someone away is mitigated significantly.

Scheduling a 4 month long module as your only PFS event at a shop and then claiming that you've run 4 public events when for three of those days no one new had an opportunity to join is not the same thing at all and is not in the same spirit of what a public event should be.

So it’s fine as long as a second non-module table is scheduled at all those events?

Scheduling a 4 month long module as your only PFS event at a shop and then claiming that you've run 4 public events when for three of those days no one new had an opportunity to join is not the same thing at all and is not in the same spirit of what a public event should be.

Who is doing this? You keep coming back to it as the reason these don't count as public games despite meeting all the Guide requirements. Which shop and organiser thinks this is a good idea and has planned it?

I'm guessing the answer is, "Hypothetically..." since Xathos has specifically stated that in his shop regular scenarios are run alongside Plaguestone at the same time so people who weren't able to sign up all still have games to play. In which case the problem isn't with the layout of Plaguestone, it's with the organiser of this hypothetical shop who has failed to understand that they have new people turning up each week and the format they are running games in doesn't meet the needs of their playerbase.

So it’s fine as long as a second non-module table is scheduled at all those events?

Yes. Then you're offering a public game alongside the module. Which Xathos has indicated is happening at his venue, and that's great. He's not sacrificing the public gameday for the sake of the module.

Our location is lucky to get 3 players for PFS2, and they aren't always the same three players. If we scheduled a module for 4 sessions, that would be the only game, and we would effectively kill any momentum we have bringing in new players.

What we have discussed is offering the module on alternating weeks. So every other week we hold the public game and the weeks when that isn't running, the module meets. But I would not call those weeks the module is meeting a public game, and we wouldn't advertise for new players to show up those weeks.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Scheduling a 4 month long module as your only PFS event at a shop and then claiming that you've run 4 public events when for three of those days no one new had an opportunity to join is not the same thing at all and is not in the same spirit of what a public event should be.

Who is doing this? You keep coming back to it as the reason these don't count as public games despite meeting all the Guide requirements. Which shop and organiser thinks this is a good idea and has planned it?

I'm guessing the answer is, "Hypothetically..." since Xathos has specifically stated that in his shop regular scenarios are run alongside Plaguestone at the same time so people who weren't able to sign up all still have games to play. In which case the problem isn't with the layout of Plaguestone, it's with the organiser of this hypothetical shop who has failed to understand that they have new people turning up each week and the format they are running games in doesn't meet the needs of their playerbase.

Xathos is telling us that we can run the module as currently sanctioned just like we run a regular PFS event.

Again, nothing stops you from running it in PFS mode with the current sanctioning.

Something is stopping us. We can't give out a chronicle sheet at the end of the session, and we can't have a new player join on a new week and them not have to miss out on credit.

Scheduling a 4 month long module as your only PFS event at a shop and then claiming that you've run 4 public events when for three of those days no one new had an opportunity to join is not the same thing at all and is not in the same spirit of what a public event should be.

I agree that the situation you describe might not be in the spirit of running public games at a venue in terms of a VO's obligation (though that's not my place to judge that one way or another.) But if a VO did that *plus* running a standard scenarios or two a month, totally fine by me. I'd say they are all public* games. The GM could say "yeah, this is an ongoing game, but come back next week when we have our one-off night, signups are on Warhorn".

*For me, as long as the signups are open to anyone**, it's a public game, even if it takes multiple sessions to complete. Even though someone can't walk in and sit down, you are still creating visibility for your lodge and helping out your public play spaces by bringing them business.

**anyone excludes people that have been PNG'ed from a particular venue or lodge due to past unacceptable behavior, of course.

Edit: Background info for me: I play in a larger lodge, with several venues. The venue that I play/run most at is regularly on the cusp of a second table, which is great from an interest standpoint but really annoying logistics-wise, since our VA needs to see if we can get a 2nd gm or if the table will just naturally decay to 6-7 players by day of.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Scheduling a 4 month long module as your only PFS event at a shop and then claiming that you've run 4 public events when for three of those days no one new had an opportunity to join is not the same thing at all and is not in the same spirit of what a public event should be.

I agree that the situation you describe might not be in the spirit of running public games at a venue in terms of a VO's obligation (though that's not my place to judge that one way or another.) But if a VO did that *plus* running a standard scenarios or two a month, totally fine by me. I'd say they are all public* games. The GM could say "yeah, this is an ongoing game, but come back next week when we have our one-off night, signups are on Warhorn".

*For me, as long as the signups are open to anyone**, it's a public game, even if it takes multiple sessions to complete. Even though someone can't walk in and sit down, you are still creating visibility for your lodge and helping out your public play spaces by bringing them business.

**anyone excludes people that have been PNG'ed from a particular venue or lodge due to past unacceptable behavior, of course.

What no one has explained is how that is effectively different from someone publicly advertising for players for a home game (edit: of FoP) that is going to meet in the shop. Both publicly advertised. Both are meeting in a public space and displaying pathfinder accessories. Both are using whatever rules the GM wants to use and characters that are not directly part of PFS. Both can hand out chronicle sheets at the end. What is the difference between them?

I wouldn't call that a home game, because you're playing with public signups at a public venue. And that's likely an "agree to disagree" point for us, which is fine.
Edit: to try and provide an answer to your question, I would expect Pathfinder Society conduct standards to be upheld in public games, and if they weren't I can talk to the VO about it.

I wouldn't call that a home game, because you're playing with public signups at a public venue. And that's likely an "agree to disagree" point for us, which is fine.

So then other than what you call it, there is effectively no difference?

If that's where we are, then we agree. My argument has been that Xathos was able to make it work at his gameday, because Xathos has a player base that can support running what would traditionally have been a "home game." People objected to that terminology, so I used the one defined by the campaign (private game). Now people object to that terminology.

Whatever you want to call it, it's still a situation where you have to have enough players who can commit to a multi-week session with no flexibility for anyone to add or drop without giving up the chance to play that part of the module in the future. And while they are playing the module, they are not available to help other tables make. You can't split off a player from the module to GM or to be a third player so that the table next to you can make without that person having to give up part of the module experience.

Do you see where the need for more flexibility comes in?

EDIT: Saw your edit... Standards of conduct maybe, but the sanctioning explicitly eliminates the rules standards, which takes a lot of the ability for a VO to mediate disputes away.

EDIT: Saw your edit... Standards of conduct maybe, but the sanctioning explicitly eliminates the rules standards, which takes a lot of the ability for a VO to mediate disputes away.

Well, in campaign mode, the risks and rewards aren't as directly intertwined with your PFS character, so hopefully there's less need for VO to intervene in rules disputes of the "My GM got the rule wrong and my character died as a result". But yeah, I believe that conduct standards are rather important for a number of people in my Lodge that have deal with harassment and other -isms at various points in their gaming lives.

I agree that in your situation, Campaign Mode is a poor fit. I also agree that there are a lot of people that would like to play more content than the 9 hours a month we've had released (2 scenarios, one quest).

I have not read Plaguestone; I hope to play it early next year. So i feel like I can't really comment on how well it could be sliced up, both in the traditional PFS mode of 1E where you selectively choose encounters, and in the sense of just splitting it into 3 chronicles, one per chapter of the module.

I fall into the camp of "APs / Modules play best when you get the full story and don't cherry-pick encounters for scheduling purposes". Perhaps the current Org Play group feels the same way? I've noticed you keep citing Mark and Mike; it's certainly good to base things on precedent but right now, it's Linda, Tonya, and New Mike deciding how best to administer the campaign. They may have decided they don't like advancement faster than 1XP per hour, and as a result only chose to give Plaguestone 12 XP. As an aside, that seems to track pretty closely in hours to choosing slow track in PFS1 based on how long Plaguestone tends to run, so it's not way out of line or anything.

If I were trying to make both of us happy, I'd give 3 chronicles for Plaguestone in PFS mode, one per chapter, with the expectation that each chronicle would take ~8 hours. The chronicles would each give 4XP, so it's effectively slow track.

Now the level bands would be hard. Would you require level 1 for chapter 1, level 2 for chapter 2, and level 3 for chapter 3? If you do, then you can't play all 3 in a row; you need to play other content to maintain levels. If you have a wider level range, you need guidance on how to scale players/encounters. Maybe a level bump for the adventure / level bump for low level PCs is enough. But that would take some developer time to come up with a good experience.

And that's the crux of the issue. The Org Play devs are swamped. They've been trying to dig out for the last few months. While I agree this would be a good thing to have for people in your position, it's not at the top of the priority list for me. I'd like LoWG/LoCG sanctioning and ACP rewards before that. So, that's where I'm at. I know we have different opinions on this. I hope you can get what you need for your lodge, in whatever form that ends up taking.

And that's the crux of the issue. The Org Play devs are swamped. They've been trying to dig out for the last few months. While I agree this would be a good thing to have for people in your position, it's not at the top of the priority list for me. I'd like LoWG/LoCG sanctioning and ACP rewards before that. So, that's where I'm at. I know we have different opinions on this. I hope you can get what you need for your lodge, in whatever form that ends up taking.

Ditto! The Lost Omens sanctioning and AcP are a far, far higher priority right now.

I'm citing Mark and Mike because the current leadership has not publicly commented on the things that they did, and because they issued a ruling which, per PFS rules, continues to be binding without another organized play manager stepping in to change it. If there were something more recent out there, I would cite it and abide by it.

I would very much like it if one of the current org play staff engaged in the conversation and stated why they think this will work now when it didn't work in the past. Bob indicated that maybe they did so in the past privately with some of the higher up volunteers. I don't expect that to happen right now. I'm just pushing back against people dropping into the thread to effectively say, "Look, it works!" when nothing has changed for those of us for which is does not work.

And that's the crux of the issue. The Org Play devs are swamped. They've been trying to dig out for the last few months. While I agree this would be a good thing to have for people in your position, it's not at the top of the priority list for me. I'd like LoWG/LoCG sanctioning and ACP rewards before that. So, that's where I'm at. I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand.

I agree about the priorities. From my second post in this recent round of activity:

Michael mentioned that they’re looking into a PFS mode and how that might happen without taking too long. I’m guessing that’s somewhere behind sorting out the additional resources, so it’s probably best to wait until after the new year before pressing for an update.

I'm fine to wait a while to get more flexible sanctioning, and I'm fine with not holding up campaign mode sanctioning of other things in the meantime. What I'm not fine with is the fact that campaign mode sanctioning works for some people being used to argue that more flexible sanctioning isn't needed. Just because some time has passed, that doesn't mean that any of the arguments presented in the first 8 pages of this thread aren't just as valid now as they were the first time.

I think you will find a lot of disagreement about whether or not module parts granting 3XP is a problem in PFS1. They grant 3XP, because they include an equivalent amount and difficulty of encounters equal to gaining a level. That's why the modules are designed to cover multiple levels in the first place. Personally, the only thing that was ever an issue for me was with the repayable level 1 modules and people rushing through them. If you just take replayability away from modules, then you eliminate that issue (though they also become less flexible for scheduling purposes, which would have been its own issue).

I disagree here. Keep in mind I am speaking about modules and not APs. They are different in scaling.

Most sanctioned modules are broken down into multiple parts which are just a tad bit more lengthy than a regular PFS scenario in time and difficulty. They are not the equivalent of an entire level of XP.

Furthermore, it is my belief that modules are not designed with PFS in mind. They target the wider audience. Org Play takes them and sanctions them for PFS play afterwards.

Sorry you are having trouble getting PFS2 players. We've doubled our numbers with the release of PF2 in one lodge and slightly increased the second lodge. I'm hoping the third lodge takes off, but it's still in embryonic status right now.

Alright, sounds to me that we've come to an understanding. I'm in the "works for me" camp, but acknowledge that what works for me doesn't necessarily work for others.
With a bit of holiday mirth and levity, I will share with you two reasons why I am looking forward to public play of Plaguestone in Campaign Mode:
1) I get to support my local venue, a gaming pub. And when I say local I mean I live a block away. It's a very convenient place to me and I hope they succeed as a business; they are just celebrating their 1 year anniversary.
2) The GM has told us we get to use LOWG/LOCG content!!!

Ferious Thune wrote:

I think you will find a lot of disagreement about whether or not module parts granting 3XP is a problem in PFS1. They grant 3XP, because they include an equivalent amount and difficulty of encounters equal to gaining a level. That's why the modules are designed to cover multiple levels in the first place. Personally, the only thing that was ever an issue for me was with the repayable level 1 modules and people rushing through them. If you just take replayability away from modules, then you eliminate that issue (though they also become less flexible for scheduling purposes, which would have been its own issue).

I disagree here. Keep in mind I am speaking about modules and not APs. They are different in scaling.

Most sanctioned modules are broken down into multiple parts which are just a tad bit more lengthy than a regular PFS scenario in time and difficulty. They are not the equivalent of an entire level of XP.

Furthermore, it is my belief that modules are not designed with PFS in mind. They target the wider audience. Org Play takes them and sanctions them for PFS play afterwards.

Sorry you are having trouble getting PFS2 players. We've doubled our numbers with the release of PF2 in one lodge and slightly increased the second lodge. I'm hoping the third lodge takes off, but it's still in embryonic status right now.

Like I said, there's going to be some disagreement about how much a module should be worth or whether or not they were a problem in PFS1.

We're finally, finally seeing some forward momentum for PFS2. Our core of PFS1 players just haven't been interested, but we now have two GMs running at two different venues locally and a 1 day a month game about an hour or so away. I've tried to show up when I can, but as one of the two remaining PFS1 GMs, it's tough for me to do both. Combined with my unpredictable schedule, I've only been able to help out a little with PFS2.

And, most importantly, I think we finally after about 2 1/2 years have someone willing to be a Venture Officer again, if just a VA for PFS2.

Even with me trying to mostly stick to replayables, between the convention in October, Roll20Con, and showing up to game days, I'm already running into issues of having to replay for no credit if I'm needed for the table to make.

I can't schedule a table of PFS1 that will make anymore unless it would be online. We've tried to schedule them, but they don't make. I finally got a bit irritated with the PFS1 Only types about it too. They don't want to participate in scheduling the table so I don't know what scenario to schedule. They don't want to communicate at all. Then they don't show up. So I just have no choice but to stop scheduling PFS1.

The demand is for PFS2. I really need more GMs there. Fortunately, I have two more GMs coming online in January and February so we can hopefully move to eight or nine total tables each monthly event.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do for scheduling sessions at Quin Con this July. I know SFS will be there as there is a demand for it, but I also have a large demand for PFS2. I just don't see PFS1 going on the schedule unless someone wants to run the scenarios. I'll find out before too long when I start the GM Call.

We've essentially gone to a private game model for PFS1. The shop an hour away can still post a public game and get a table to make, but for us we have to know that we have three players who are going to show up first. Otherwise we don't list the game. I'm generally the one prompting discussion about a particular game day, and I'm the one who sends out calls for additional players and that type of thing. But I never wanted to be in that position and don't really have the time to do it for PFS2. Starfinder, similarly, has pretty much been a no go for us.

The PFS1 games happen inconsistently. Some months nothing, and some two or three. It's just all really comes down to can we get 4 or the 6 or so people still playing PFS1 in the same place at the same time, and will someone run something they haven't played. Since we're organizing them like private games now anyway, we're focusing on higher level content, seeker scenarios, and things that people request to finish out their characters. I think for the first time since I started playing online in 2012, my online PFS far outpaces what I play in-person.

What's been nice lately with PFS2 is that there are finally a few players actually excited about the system and playing games in it. Eventually some of the PFS1 players will start attending games. None of them wanted to have to be the person championing a new system. I'm fine attending to play and help how I can, but I don't have the time or energy to be that person right now, either.

It does seem that getting a lodge up and running requires someone dedicated to making it happen regardless of the system. I went full throttle in PFS2 to make it a success at Columbia and it really fired up the players. We started pulling 5e players in and I expect that to pick up once we finally get the AcP working and sanctioning for LOWG and LOCG.

The Absalom Lodge is moving forward but we're being hampered by something beyond our ability to control. I am working on getting that fixed.

The new lodge is yet to be determined.

I'm citing Mark and Mike because the current leadership has not publicly commented on the things that they did, and because they issued a ruling which, per PFS rules, continues to be binding without another organized play manager stepping in to change it. If there were something more recent out there, I would cite it and abide by it.

To be very clear on this subject: This is a new campaign. Mark Moreland and Mike Brock's posts were great for their time but they are not official rulings on the current campaign. Campaigns and the needs of administrating them change over time, and what was true nearly a decade ago when we only did one scenario a month with a single person running the department is not applicable to today's environment.

Those come from Linda, Tonya, and occasionally Thursty or I for our respective product lines. We'd like to be at the point where all clarifications and rulings can be added to the guide as they're decided on, because I don't expect anyone to go forum diving for decade-old posts to adjudicate their games. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer each week.

If it's in the guide or something that's been disseminated by a current member of the team as something that we are working on getting into the guide, it is relevant. If it is something that someone 4 program managers ago said in a forum post, it is not relevant to today's program administration and rulings.

If you feel that this leaves you without guidance on a subject, let us know so we can work on providing that guidance.

Related, I won't have an answer for how we're managing modules and APs going forward until after the new year, but this topic is slated for a follow-up blog in mid-January where I'll be talking about the feedback we've received from all of you, our leadership, and other invested departments and what that means for how we're going to be handling things going forward.

Yay! Hopefully there will be solution that works for both sides!(not sure how realistic the "first campaign mode chronicle, then event mode chronicle later on" is from paizo's workload perspective)

Who was proposing that idea?

Who was proposing that idea?

Umm, unless my English is really bad in mornings, multiple posters in this page and previous one?

Nobody on this page. I think you may have something confused.

People have been advocating for more Chronicles for Fall of Plaguestone, akin to what was offered in PFS1. As it stands right now, you only receive a single Chronicle.

I was suggesting a compromise between sanctioning content now and allowing time to create boons and vet item access. Unrelated to the issue of how many Chronicles should be awarded.

Umm, isn't that what I said there too?

But a public event was not being run on the subsequent days. Again, the point is that the material can't be used as additional content for a normal public gameday/convention while it only grants 1 chronicle sheet for 16 hours of play. That is impractical for the majority of PFS game days. Public signup or no, it's being organized like a private game after the initial listing.

No. I asked the new RVC about this for reasons I don't entirely remember and he basically said as long as you don't push players away it's fine.

To be fair, there are also a fair number of people that are perfectly fine with the current version, they just don't have a huge incentive to keep posting here.

Myself, I want to give the player something after a session, not waiting until the whole module is complete, and for a stand in character for the real one that is getting a third of the Exp.

However, I do think a faster Sanction of the Module (or AP) is something we all can get behind. The overall issue is how to enable PFS play while still sanctioning the product in a timely manner.

A single chronicle with added awards for sections played?

Ability to play appropriately Tiered PFS characters for each section and apply the chronicle to a single character, still as per Campaign Mode?

Pregens for PFS play?

Thoughts?

Ferious Thune wrote:

But a public event was not being run on the subsequent days. Again, the point is that the material can't be used as additional content for a normal public gameday/convention while it only grants 1 chronicle sheet for 16 hours of play. That is impractical for the majority of PFS game days. Public signup or no, it's being organized like a private game after the initial listing.

No. I asked the new RVC about this for reasons I don't entirely remember and he basically said as long as you don't push players away it's fine.

I am (was, I guess) going to let Michael have the last word on public vs. private. If they want a fresh start with PFS2, that's their decision to make. At least we now have something from them stating that is the case, which in itself helps eliminate confusion and is a good thing.

On the "push players away" note, that is part of the point that I have been trying to make. Having a single chronicle sheet for 16+ hours of content creates a situation for a smaller lodge wherin if that content is used at a gameday the incentive is to exclude players. That requires more explanation, which I have tried to give, but will try again.

Part of the argument for campaign mode only has been that it is important that if you play a module, you experience the full story. That has been a piece of the argument against splitting it into multiple chronicles, because if you only play one part of the module you are missing out on story elements. So once you have started the module, you're expected to finish the whole thing, which in this case is being reported at around 16 hours, or 3-4 normal length PFS sessions.

For a small lodge, such as mine, that makes this content difficult to use at our game days. In the past, when we could actually expect that we might get players to walk-in to a gameday, we would typically have a backup GM ready. Someone who had prepped an evergreen or a low level scenario in case we got new players to show up. That person could register as a player for whatever game was on the schedule, but if enough new players showed up, they could leave the table and GM a second one. Sometimes they might need to take an additional player with them, in the event of only 2 new players showing up, for example.

If everyone is already 1 session into a module, then leaving that table to help form a second one means that they are going to miss out on the entire second session of the module. Which is exactly the thing that we're being told is a problem with allowing multiple chronicle sheets. They also have no ability to ever "make up" that session, because they will already be receiving a chronicle sheet for the whole module. They would have to use whatever resource is provided for a replay if they ever want to get that part of the story, or they would have to play the module again outside of a PFS context. The incentive is for them to not leave the table.

One alternative would be to let the new players join the module midway through, provided that doesn't push the table over 7 players. But that has the same issues with them missing out on part of the module and not being able to play that part later to fill in what they have missed. Plus, they may not be committed to attending future game days yet, or might want to, but can't make the next session of the module. Thus missing out on even more of it.

If, however, there were three chronicle sheets, and a player had completed part 1, they would only have a chronicle sheet for part 1. They could then complete part 2 at a later date. It's a lot easier to make the decision to step away from a game if you are still able to play it again in the future.

That is the kind of flexibility that made the more recent PFS1 modules a better fit for game days than even the 32 page ones ever were. You can schedule a module knowing that you have the flexibility to split people off so that you do not have to turn unexpected players away. Under a single chronicle, 16+ hour model, we lose that flexibility.

For some locations, that will not matter. They have enough players that they can form a 2nd or 3rd table without having to ask anyone to leave the module. We are nowhere near being able to do that right now, and even when PFS was popular in our area, we still needed that flexibility. If we tried to run FoP as sanctioned at our game days we would be excluding any new players. If it had multiple chronicle sheets, that would not have to be the case.

It's not about pointing at anyone and saying they are a bad event organizer because they are using content that is available to them. If you're able to make it work at your location, that is absolutely a good thing. Some sanctioning is better than no sanctioning. But something is lost in the current model for sanctioning modules, and it is important that be addressed.

I'll note that we have not been able to use AP parts in the same way that we've been able to use the more recent modules, and we haven't really been able to use the 32 page modules in quite the same way. For our game days, those are harder for us to schedule. But at conventions, they tend to work a lot better. So I think there is room for sanctioning of modules and sanctioning of APs to work differently from each other. But if one solution can be found for both, that would be ideal.

I'm always thankful when one of the campaign staff joins a conversation, and I appreciate Michael's post. I am eagerly awaiting the upcoming blog.

(not sure how realistic the "first campaign mode chronicle, then event mode chronicle later on" is from paizo's workload perspective)

This is the comment of yours I was referring to.

Nobody I've seen has been advocating for two different types of Chronicles depending on the mode you played.

(although I do admit that it's certainly possible I missed a post somewhere)

CorvusMask wrote:

(not sure how realistic the "first campaign mode chronicle, then event mode chronicle later on" is from paizo's workload perspective)

This is the comment of yours I was referring to.

Nobody I've seen has been advocating for two different types of Chronicles depending on the mode you played.

(although I do admit that it's certainly possible I missed a post somewhere)

We've said we don't want the current sanctioning taken away while we wait for the solution for event mode. I can see how that could be interpreted as wanting two separate sets of chronicle sheets.

The idea would be that once there is an event mode solution in place, that all of the chronicles move to that model, to be used whether it's campaign mode or event mode.

All we've been saying is that we don't want to hold up people who can use campaign mode while we wait for event mode to be sorted out.

I do think a faster Sanction of the Module (or AP) is something we all can get behind. The overall issue is how to enable PFS play while still sanctioning the product in a timely manner.

This is what I've been advocating, and it doesn't add any extra workload to the Paizo staff.

(I realize people claim this all the time; my proposal *actually* doesn't add any extra work over what they'd be doing eventually already)

We all know the blank Chronicle template. I'm advocating the release of that on Day 1 with the product. This is something Paizo has already created. There is no editing required. It was going to be used for the final version eventually anyways.

All you need is the adventure name up top and Gold values at the top right. Consider it the "rough draft, barebones" version. Players use that as a placeholder until Paizo creates and vets the "final draft".

...actually, you wouldn't even need the name printed. It could be filled in by the GM. And instead of having GP printed, the Guide could list the Gold amounts per Tier and the GM could fill that in as well.

Nefreet wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

(not sure how realistic the "first campaign mode chronicle, then event mode chronicle later on" is from paizo's workload perspective)

This is the comment of yours I was referring to.

Nobody I've seen has been advocating for two different types of Chronicles depending on the mode you played.

(although I do admit that it's certainly possible I missed a post somewhere)

We've said we don't want the current sanctioning taken away while we wait for the solution for event mode. I can see how that could be interpreted as wanting two separate sets of chronicle sheets.

The idea would be that once there is an event mode solution in place, that all of the chronicles move to that model, to be used whether it's campaign mode or event mode.

All we've been saying is that we don't want to hold up people who can use campaign mode while we wait for event mode to be sorted out.

What. I don't want to be forced to "update" to event friendly chronicles D:

I don’t think anyone would have to update their existing chronicle if they’ve played it and receive one. Just going forward both modes would hand out the same ones. Honestly the paperwork part of this should be the easiest problem to overcome.

The alternative is saying that issuing this chronicle already means that the decision has been made, with no prior discussion or feedback from the community. Fear of that is exactly what led to the level of the response this blog got when it was issued and why it was important to catch it early.

I think CorvusMask is objecting to updating a blank Chronicle template to the finalized Chronicle, which seems to be the system that Nefreet is advocating. I agree that in the future, any module that is offered both in Campaign mode and PFS mode should have the same chronicle sheet. I'm okay with Plaguestone being an exception; I don't see a need to update chronicles for those that have already played campaign mode if an updates or 3 part chronicle comes out for it in the future.

Now you have me confused.

Plaguestone is done. Leadership stated they're leaving it as is.

I'm talking about future Modules/APs.

Now you have me confused.

Plaguestone is done. Leadership stated they're leaving it as is.

I'm talking about future Modules/APs.

They’ve stated no such thing. They asked for discussion and they’ve stated they’re going to release a blog about how they see things working in event mode going forward. Nothing prevents issuing a new set of chronicles for Plaguestone to replace the one that exists now, and that wouldn’t affect anyone who has already played it. It’s possible they decide they want to keep Plaguestone as is, but they haven’t made a definitive statement to that effect. At this point we should just wait for the blog. I’m sure they looked at the feedback and suggested methods back when this blog was first posted. It sounds like they’ve already discussed it and know what they want to do, and they are just waiting until they have time to type it up.

EDIT: It would, in my opinion, be a bad idea to have Plaguestone function differently than other modules once a system is decided on. Part of what plagued PFS1 (pun not intended) was having all these special cases, like Master of the Fallen Fortress being a level 1 module but functioning differently than every other level 1 module, because level 2 characters couldn’t play it. Let’s not start off PFS2 creating a bunch of special cases we’ll be arguing over for the next 10 years.

Now you have me confused.

Plaguestone is done. Leadership stated they're leaving it as is.

I'm talking about future Modules/APs.

Really, OK, time for me to move on and not look back.

It would, in my opinion, be a bad idea to have Plaguestone function differently than other modules once a system is decided on.

Respectfully disagree. I don't think it will matter much one way or the other. As much as we like to pretend we're all lawyers bound by precedent for all time, the next and subsequent modules can be the same or different and it won't much matter in the grand scheme.