Fall of Plaguestone and Sanctioning

I'm unable to select this adventure when creating an organized play event. And I'm unable to select it as well when reporting for said event. My players are likely to finish this adventure tomorrow and I want to issue them chronicles for their characters but I'm not sure how to report it online.

For now, you might want to keep a paper record (or email the information to yourself) along with the completion date. Any time new material is sanctioned, it always takes at least a couple of days for the back-end on the website to catch up. Rest assured, it will be reportable soon enough, though!

Janice Piette wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

The simplest solution to me is to say you can play each part (assuming modules still have parts) in PFS mode. GMs can shorten it as they see fit, but cannot add things. As long as you play either all of the content or a full four hour session and complete 50% of the content, then you get credit. And then giving each section a chronicle sheet that advances the character enough to reach the next section. I don’t particularly care what items are on it, or if there is a boon, or any of that. I just want to be able to play the module with my PFS character and PFS rules (for me and the GM) and to get a chronicle sheet when the session is over.

I really like this idea. This is a good compromise that will work for those of us who want to run this under PFS rules.

It seems to me that the most cumbersome part of the old process was figuring out how to trim down the module to fit into a certain number of play hours and still make sense. This idea leaves the plot trimming up to the GM, and still allows us to work within the PFS play restrictions. (With a loose interpretation of Run As Written.)

I agree with most of this as well - if I recall correctly, the PFS 1 Guild guide states that to get a complete chronicle sheet, a player needs to complete 75% of a scenario (because life happens). If we're able to institute a similar option for running these in PFS mode - must complete X amount of story for your sheet, I think that would help. Also, while I understand some people having concern about having a module part that can be run in a 5-6 hour block giving you a level, some of the sanctioned PF1 modules do just that (see Emerald Spire). That being said, allowing one sheet/level per chapter of the module I think would be fair, possibly gating the keepsake items behind the third sheet - making them the "bonus" for completing the entirety. That way, people who aren't able to make all three pieces still get credit, but those who dedicate the time to...

50% is the threshold in PFS1 for modules and APs, which is why I picked that number.

If they have completed less than half of the

adventure, they receive half of the adventure’s gold and
prestige reward and access to the items that they found
during play. If they have completed more than half of the
adventure, they receive full credit for the adventure.

That 'partial credit' approach may work on some levels, but may drive completionists away or leave them in an uncomfortable spot if say, RL interferes -- and leaves them needing Part III of III to get the 'final sheet'.

Few people are going to want to play a 'Part III' knowing that it will lock them out of 'Part I', 'Part II', and the 'SuperDuperCompletionistCredit'...

I feel like the reason we needed the extra bonus sheet was to help equalize WBL after multiple module sheets that only gave 2/3rds rewards.

With Modules giving full rewards there's no need to do bonus sheets.

My feedback on this is that I would be fine with this method of sanctioning for APs. It doesnt differ too much from the rewards you already get from APs in PF1.

For modules, I would love the 'old' method. Three chronicles with appropriate items/boons. Modules with their 3 chapters were easier to break up in sessions, so they were easier to scedule. And getting the special rewards/boons just felt real good.

For me this would mean a compromise between fast content and special content.

Bartram wrote:

What is stopping people from playing their PFS characters in Campaign mode? Just make an identical copy of your PFS character, call it your campaign character, and play that? Then assign credit to your identical PFS character after the game is over?

Is that not identical to playing it in PFS mode?

That would work until your GM at the convention you are attending says it doesn't. They are bound by the campaign mode rules, not PFS rules, so may say something like, "I don't like goblins, they can't be played at my table". You, the player with the PFS legal character, may be out-of-luck, even though you signed up weeks ago for the event on warhorn (or other system).

Campaign mode has always had more leeway for the GM running content the way they want to run it, which is sometimes nice (Hey, roll up strange races or try these awesome pregens I made that fit right into the scenario!), but in this context could cause convention organizers mountains of trouble managing different GM expectations.

I think this problem can be solved fairly straightforwardly.

Campaign Mode allows you to almost completely mimic PFS mode, at least during the adventure. (Conumables and XP are a different story.) So if the GM chooses to set the "unique campaign mode rules" of the scenario to be exactly the PFS rules, for the GM themselves and the players, then there shouldn't be a problem.

So as a convention organizer you can ask the GM to commit to running the module in "can't believe it's not PFS mode".

Whether you would want to give the GM the slot if they don't agree to that commitment is no different than deciding whether you would want to offer a PFS1 campaign mode module at your convention.

As long as you clearly advertise to players at the Con what kind of slot they're signing up to, this could work.

Bartram wrote:

roysier wrote:

Bartram wrote:

Please forgive me if I am overlooking something, I've only ever done modules in campaign mode.

What is stopping people from playing their PFS characters in Campaign mode? Just make an identical copy of your PFS character, call it your campaign character, and play that? Then assign credit to your identical PFS character after the game is over?

Is that not identical to playing it in PFS mode?

No, there are diffeences. Pirate Rob's posts up toward the top of the thread spells them out.

I'm not seeing it. How is what I described not exactly the same as running it PFS mode? Just use all the rules you would normally use when running a module in PFS mode. Campaign mode gives you the freedom to do that.

Consumable use, death, risk/reward, continuity of story etc. Go read the link to the 2011 blog I linked for a more in depth explanation.

Things may have changed a bit since 2011. In 2011 they effectively abolished campaign mode as if there was something deeply wrong with it, but later it was revived.

So the specific points:

Consumable use: If a player uses one potion during a campaign mode module and then gets to not lose it for their PFS character afterwards, that's not really a big deal. But if a player wants to excessively spend consumables "because it's free campaign mode" I can see how that could be disruptive. A possible solution: the player and GM agree that after the scenario the player voluntarily marks as expended on their PFS character any things expended during the module. If you can't come to such a gentlefolks' agreement then alternatively the GM could just ban the use of nonrenewable consumables.

Death: actually I don't find any exceptions in the campaign mode rules that you need to clear conditions after the adventure. (Which is weird, because in campaign mode you could contract conditions which don't even exist in the CRB. I would restrict this to needing to clear conditions that are actually in the written adventure / commonplace stuff like death.)

Risk/Reward: I'm not sure how this would be a problem if the GM runs the adventure in PFS mode. What's actually different then?

Continuity of story: What do you mean by this? A significant number of people here are complaining that the current format doesn't allow them to chop up the adventure and play bits with entirely different characters.

2011 is a while ago. A lot of the context has changed. What are your objections now?

Those things are still issues. You as a GM cannot mark my character dead in a campaign mode game whether I agreed to it ahead of time or not. By the way this is described, I’m not even sure if I pick a character number to assign it to ahead of time anymore (though I suspect maybe?). There is no risk is the point, and people do weird things when there’s no risk for their character. Which is why we have to assign a character number before playing a pregen now.

If you’re banning expendables, then you’re not running PFS rules. See how quickly exceptions start to be made? It’s PFS except for this one thing. Are you also going to ban all limited use boons, spending of gold, spending of fame, etc.?

I as a player can’t force you as a GM to not change something in the scenario. I can stop playing at your tables, or the event organizer can stop scheduling you to run games, but you won’t have broken any rule if you alter the scenario (other than possibly whatever the don’t be a jerk rule is called now).

Pretending to use PFS rules and actually using PFS rules are two different things. If you’re just going to pretend to use them, then why not make actually using them an option?

I agree with a lot of points here. I really liked the more recent PFS1 sanctioning with the parts being split up and the appropriate level of experience for the module given (I personally would be fine with the current sheet if it gave 36 exp, but understand others play differently).

I would actually like this to go the other way, and see a similar method of sanctioning for the APs, especially if we get non-standard length APs like Starfinder has.

One of my main concerns about this method is that modules are not going to just stay as a standard number of pages. The next module after this is a hardcover as it is 128 pages. I really feel this deserves more than 1 level. After that...who knows, we could get a 32 page module...it seems weird that they all give the same exp.

I agree with a lot of points here. I really liked the more recent PFS1 sanctioning with the parts being split up and the appropriate level of experience for the module given (I personally would be fine with the current sheet if it gave 36 exp, but understand others play differently).

I would actually like this to go the other way, and see a similar method of sanctioning for the APs, especially if we get non-standard length APs like Starfinder has.

One of my main concerns about this method is that modules are not going to just stay as a standard number of pages. The next module after this is a hardcover as it is 128 pages. I really feel this deserves more than 1 level. After that...who knows, we could get a 32 page module...it seems weird that they all give the same exp.

The 1 level/module blanket rule is better for PFS purposes. If one starts to read in a case-by-case basis on length (one mod giving 3 levels instead for instance), this would cause a lot of headaches. It's on Paizo and contracted writers to not very that much about content length.

I only got 6 GM credits for the Dragon's Demand

I just checked mine, and I got 12. You should have, too.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Will the new chronicle allow for multiple levels of XP? I love campaign mode and can just mandate copying PFS characters for it. But I don't understand why a module this long only offers 1 level of rewards.

I believe someone mentioned upthread that the module only took about 4 or sessions to finish. I feel like giving 3 levels of XP for ~4 sessions of play is excessive.

It's the same as Campaign mode has always been, really. I only got 6 GM credits for the Dragon's Demand, despite running far more than 6 evening sessions. The same for APs: 2 GM tables per book far less than the time it takes to do an AP chapter.

I had not realized that it was only 4 sessions. I was looking at it as 6-9, which is often my experience with 3 part modules that are not Gallows of Madness. If the adventures are each the size of a scenario, the compressed chronicle might make sense.

First World Bard wrote:

I only got 6 GM credits for the Dragon's Demand

I just checked mine, and I got 12. You should have, too.

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing: I'm talking about GM table credits toward Stars. I've reported 3 tables (since the bonus Chronicle wasn't reported, it's just what you get for doing the whole thing in Campaign mode, as I recall).

I had not realized that it was only 4 sessions. I was looking at it as 6-9, which is often my experience with 3 part modules that are not Gallows of Madness. If the adventures are each the size of a scenario, the compressed chronicle might make sense.

My quick take is about 6 to 8 hours per part. But i can also see going longer with groups that want to explore and get in to the background. Also if I were going to use this as part of a campaign I may exploit some of the other hooks.

6-8 hours per part was my original guess too, however part one only took ~4.5 hours, even letting the RP run long, and the PCs chasing a lot of dead-ends. After two sessions we're about 1/3 of the way into part 2. I still feel its possible to stretch it out to ~2 sessions per part if your group wants, but I can also see how some people are trying to fit it into one session per part (part 1 could be run very quickly if the GM forces things and I can see that happening in a convention setting. Part two, I'd suspect the GMs who are fitting it into a single session are cutting the first two encounters, etc). I don't have personal experience or second-hand reports from part 3 yet.

As its only worth 1 level of credit and 1?/2? tables of GM glyph credit, I think we'll see people enticed to run fast rather than long, which I think is a shame for the module.

Those things are still issues. You as a GM cannot mark my character dead in a campaign mode game whether I agreed to it ahead of time or not. By the way this is described, I’m not even sure if I pick a character number to assign it to ahead of time anymore (though I suspect maybe?). There is no risk is the point, and people do weird things when there’s no risk for their character. Which is why we have to assign a character number before playing a pregen now.

If you’re banning expendables, then you’re not running PFS rules. See how quickly exceptions start to be made? It’s PFS except for this one thing. Are you also going to ban all limited use boons, spending of gold, spending of fame, etc.?

I as a player can’t force you as a GM to not change something in the scenario. I can stop playing at your tables, or the event organizer can stop scheduling you to run games, but you won’t have broken any rule if you alter the scenario (other than possibly whatever the don’t be a jerk rule is called now).

Pretending to use PFS rules and actually using PFS rules are two different things. If you’re just going to pretend to use them, then why not make actually using them an option?

Alright, you've convinced me this is too fragile to do at a larger convention where there's no guarantee people know each other and consider each other reasonable.

So basically the question is: could Paizo add a PFS mode to these chronicles that is both satisfactory for players and GMs, but also workable for Paizo?

- It should not be a lot of work to add, so carving out specific pieces of the adventure to sanction is not on the table.
- It would be very helpful if you could level up mid-module in PFS mode if the module was written assuming that people level up.
- PFS XP should match both playtime and the amount of leveling happening in the module.

If the module naturally decomposes into separate chapters that are all basically levelup milestones, then this isn't so hard. Gallows of Madness is a good example, although that one definitely violates the "playtime should match PFS XP" goal. House on Hook Street had overall good playtime, but chapter 1 was long and chapter 2 was about twenty minutes, and only chapter 3 was normal.

I always thought that a full level of XP was too much for many of the module parts. The problem, and I suspect part of the reasoning of moving away from a streamlined event mode sanctioning, is that while the length of the modules often suggests 1 level of credit is appropriate, the modules themselves expect you to gain 3 levels over the course of them. So sanctioning for PFS/Event mode meant that PFS characters had to earn 1 level per part in order to keep pace with the creatures.

As a possible alternative, if that's a hangup in creating an event mode, I might suggest that characters get a level bump each part of the module, similar to how they would for playing out of tier. That way it can stay 4 XP (edit. My brain is still of 1E) per 16 pages (a reasonable amount), but the characters won't be as at risk of dying.

I still think in that situation that it should be broken down into 3 chronicle sheets. But I have no problem with not getting anything beyond basic item access, XP, gold, Fame, and Downtime until you've collected all three sheets.

So the suggested system for an Event Mode would be:

a) All PFS rules must be followed, and only PFS-legal characters may play at the table (same as in 1st edition). You are playing it with your PFS character, expending their resources, clearing conditions, etc., just like you would any other scenario.

b) GMs may shorten content, but not less than some percentage of the full module part (50% is the current standard to receive full credit in PFS1. 75% might be fine). This will be slightly up to interpretation, but I think that's fine. EDIT: Almost forgot. GMs cannot add content or change the scenario other than in order to cut length. It's important to maintain that consistency for Event mode. No additional creatures, higher hit points, leveling up of enemies, etc.

c) A chronicle will be issued for each part of the module offering the equivalent rewards to a scenario based on the level of the character it is being assigned to has. The individual chronicles would not include any boons (in order to reduce development time).

d) A bonus chronicle would be issued if you earn all three chronicles on the same character, which would include a boon/possibly a keepsake.

e) Each subsequent part would provide a level bump to any characters below the "tier" of that part. So for something targeted to take characters from 1st to 4th level: Pat 1, no level bump. Part 2 1 level bump to 1st level characters, part 3 2 level bumps to 1st level characters, 1 level bump to 2nd level characters.

f) Everything else works like normal.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Re: House on Hook Street. I agree. Chapter 1 was the equivalent of 2 parts in some other modules. And Parts 2 and 3 combined felt like the length of about 1 part in another module. There may still be instances where it requires some judgement on the developers' part where to draw the line for assigning a chronicle. But hopefully not as much as before. That's especially going to be the case as Paizo experiments with different sized modules, which is something that seems like it is happening, and is out of the PFS team's control.

b) GMs may shorten content, but not less than some percentage of the full module part (50% is the current standard to receive full credit in PFS1. 75% might be fine).

How is this going to be measured/controlled, given that the GM may be the only one at the table who is familiar with the module? If we assume that PFS mode exists to provide unified experience, what if one GM cuts part 1 of the module and another one cuts part 3? Not mentioning the worse variants that could be done by someone in bad faith, all of which will reflect on the player's impression of the Paizo products.

Ferious Thune wrote:

b) GMs may shorten content, but not less than some percentage of the full module part (50% is the current standard to receive full credit in PFS1. 75% might be fine).

How is this going to be measured/controlled, given that the GM may be the only one at the table who is familiar with the module? If we assume that PFS mode exists to provide unified experience, what if one GM cuts part 1 of the module and another one cuts part 3? Not mentioning the worse variants that could be done by someone in bad faith, all of which will reflect on the player's impression of the Paizo products.

How is it measured or controlled in campaign mode? It happens now anyway, whether it’s skipping a meaningless fight or calling a fight early when it’s clear the PCs are going to win. We’re already trusting GMs to make those decisions, whether that was intentional or not. We’re trusting them even more with campaign mode.

You couldn’t cut an entire part of a module, because each part would have its own chronicle. But if the players complete half (or three quarters) of one part of the module, they get the chronicle for that part. That’s already how it works in the guide for PFS1. If a party wipes, or someone leaves early, the GM is already empowered to decide if they completed enough for full credit.

It seems odd to me that we’d be worried about a GM making a decision about removing small bits of content to fit a game into a standard length game session, but we’re ok with them changing any rules they want about the game, adding creatures, and essentially doing anything they want as long as the module is still recognizable.

Setting campaign mode aside, we still have scenarios like Tome of Righteous Repose and Halflight Path, where the GM has far more control in shaping the difficulty than they would in the proposed system.

If Paizo wants to release guidelines about tactics to trim a module that aren’t module specific (which sounds like the plan already), that’s great. Any guidance is appreciated. Something like don’t cut the boss fight is probably good to mention, and more details would be welcome.

What we’ve been told is that they don’t have the time to go through every module and decide on specific cuts, but they trust the GMs to run them in a non-PFS setting. If we trust them with that, then trust them with cutting a few encounters.

It seems odd to me that we’d be worried about a GM making a decision about removing small bits of content to fit a game into a standard length game session, but we’re ok with them changing any rules they want about the game, adding creatures, and essentially doing anything they want as long as the module is still recognizable.

Indeed! We are trusting them more with Campaign mode. Of course, if death is irrelevant to a PFS character and consumables aren't used up in campaign mode, trust isn't really required. It is a one-off experience that you get to apply basically a boon to your PFS character for doing.

I've spoken to multiple people locally about this, and I think the real problem is that Many People play this game to Play Their Character, not a pregen or a temporary character. We have people who don't sign up for games if we don't have anything for their tier for their character. They've built a backstory, and invested. They play to continue the story of their hero. If we can't sanction modules for the hero they care about, they will not play.

If we let GMs cut content, the GM forums for those scenarios will be very important to crowd-source what the best things to chop are.

I've personally always appreciated the amount of creativity and ingenuity of PF1 GMs introducing PF1 modules to society play. What Venture Captain they choose to give the PCs the mission and how they "reskin" the intro to make it make sense for PFS mode with Society agents.

How much time it takes to play a Module has always been an issue with me and getting PFS credit. Something like Gallows of Madness could be done in about 6 hours per part. And yet that is worth 2 table credits and a level of XP each. I have not seen how "Sanctioned only" Content for AP plays out.

Under the old system certain modules were great for quickly leveling and/or getting table credits (Master of the Fallen Fortress -- GO Harsk!) They maybe take a full 8 hours (but most less) So table credit was about right, but you get accelerated XP.

The issue is that Modules are not designed with the pacing of PFS in mind. So playing one under PFS rules can very widely.

Ferious Thune wrote:

It seems odd to me that we’d be worried about a GM making a decision about removing small bits of content to fit a game into a standard length game session, but we’re ok with them changing any rules they want about the game, adding creatures, and essentially doing anything they want as long as the module is still recognizable.

Indeed! We are trusting them more with Campaign mode. Of course, if death is irrelevant to a PFS character and consumables aren't used up in campaign mode, trust isn't really required. It is a one-off experience that you get to apply basically a boon to your PFS character for doing.

Part of the concern Cybermephit expressed was players having a bad experience with Paizo content due to the way the story is altered. That's a possibility in campaign mode regardless of any of the mechanical benefits or consequences.

I've spoken to multiple people locally about this, and I think the real problem is that Many People play this game to Play Their Character, not a pregen or a temporary character. We have people who don't sign up for games if we don't have anything for their tier for their character. They've built a backstory, and invested. They play to continue the story of their hero. If we can't sanction modules for the hero they care about, they will not play.

Yes, exactly this. Which is why I'd like to figure out a system that lets that option continue. The "run it campaign mode, but call it PFS/Event mode" that others have suggested just doesn't work for me for all of the reasons I've given throughout this thread. So I'm looking for something that fits best inside the current system, while requiring as little additional effort from the developers as possible. That's why I've tried to base things off of existing rules (50% played=full credit, level bumps, and breaking modules up similar to how they are now).

If we let GMs cut content, the GM forums for those scenarios will be very important to crowd-source what the best things to chop are.

I've personally always appreciated the amount of creativity and ingenuity of PF1 GMs introducing PF1 modules to society play. What Venture Captain they choose to give the PCs the mission and how they "reskin" the intro to make it make sense for PFS mode with Society agents.

I completely agree. There was a time when I was wary of GMs altering a scenario at all, but playing a few more modules and many tables of Tome (with a couple of Halflights) has convinced me that the large majority of GMs who undertake running a module can handle the responsibility.

The GM forums and PFS Prep are fantastic places to collect recommendations on how to trim a module/AP part down. And to a certain extent, that's already happening for PFS1E.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I had not realized that it was only 4 sessions. I was looking at it as 6-9, which is often my experience with 3 part modules that are not Gallows of Madness. If the adventures are each the size of a scenario, the compressed chronicle might make sense.

My quick take is about 6 to 8 hours per part. But i can also see going longer with groups that want to explore and get in to the background. Also if I were going to use this as part of a campaign I may exploit some of the other hooks.

Six to 8 hours per part winds up being 4 4-hour sessions on the low end of the estimate and 6 4-hour sessions on the high end. That seems too little for the compressed chronicle.

I was never into modules in order to level characters quickly. I was into them for depth of story and a chance to loosen my GM shackles a bit. Still, compressed rewards seems to offer to little compensation for my GM time right now.

One compressed chronicle does not seem worth 6 sessions of playtime for me. But yes, I love campaign mode, and really don't have an issue with campaign mode for copies of PFS characters.

We can already do most of this with the new sanctioning structure for PFS2. There's no reason to get too convoluted and bog it down even more.

You want to run it in campaign mode? You can!

You want to run it in PFS mode? You can!

It's flexible so let's use it.

@Hmm

Under the old system Modules were the most time efficient way to table credits as a GM. I used them quite a bit in my final sprint to 150. So I am mixed on allowing that to be the case in PF2 as well.

This current is correction to that loop hole. Weather or not it is an over correction is now a matter of "How much real time is acceptable for 1 table credit" I can run Master of the Fallen Fortress in under 4 hours and get two table credits. Gallows of Madness is about 6 per part. I Ran Ruby Phoenix in just under 8.

Now that I think about it. I really think part of the problem is when Modules went from 32 pages to 64 pages. Then it when from 1 to 3 chronicles per module. Each being 1 level of XP and 2 Table credits. We got spoiled.

Starfinder then went to 1 chronicle for a 64 page AP, (Though an 64 page AP has more paged dedicated to support material) But, outside the early Dead Suns), those took about 10 to 16 hours per book.

You want to run it in PFS mode? You can!

As far as I can tell, this is not true, but I may be mistaken. If you mean that a GM can act like it's PFS mode and "clone" characters, expendables and danger still don't matter. It's just "Campaign Mode" with the exterior trappings of "PFS Mode".

As I've stated above, Many People play this game to Play Their Character, not a pregen or a temporary character. If the threat of death isn't on the line, it's not heroic, and they really aren't playing their character.

Another big problem is that mimicking "PFS mode" voluntarily is a table-wide decision by a GM. It isn't a convention-wide decision, as all content is "Campaign Mode". It leaves much fear, uncertainty and doubt for people signing up for games as they don't know if it's home-brew'd "PFS Mimic Mode" or "GM's Choice" campaign mode. Trying to put a convention together with any AP and Module content will lead to an incredible amount of Table Sudoku for the organizers as GMs will all have their own house rules (see "I don't run for Goblins!" above), as well as confused and angry players.

I would really like to see some kind of PFS mode, or at least some kind of hybrid mode in the guide and sanctioning docs that the convention/gameday organizers can use to express that PFS characters (not clones) can join a table.

Part of the concern Cybermephit expressed was players having a bad experience with Paizo content due to the way the story is altered. That's a possibility in campaign mode regardless of any of the mechanical benefits or consequences.

Well, yes, but the campaign mode tells upfront that it is a 'home game' mode and PFS rules are not in effect. I've always considered PFS mode to be "the way it's meant to be played (tm)" and campaign mode more of "anything goes". Especially since in 1e PFS mode was the default one.

Actually it never occurred to me that the 50% rule could be applied to the GM as well. The PFS1 guide says "Players may receive partial credit", it never mentions that the GM can choose to skip a part of the sanctioned content? I guess it's implicitly legal since everyone seems to be doing that but it's counterintuitive to me. I always thought this rule is only meant to help individual players who skip a session.

Well, yes, but the campaign mode tells upfront that it is a 'home game' mode and PFS rules are not in effect. I've always considered PFS mode to be "the way it's meant to be played (tm)" and campaign mode more of "anything goes". Especially since in 1e PFS mode was the default one.

Interesting, I basically have the opposite view. I've always felt that "Campaign Mode" is the way APs and longer modules were meant to be played, and that the PFS conversions into sanctioned content were done to take a slice of the adventure (typically a dungeon) and present that as a suitable chunk of content for one level's worth of XP. That forces the GM to fill in the story, or ignore it altogether and just treat the module as a string of encounters.

Actually it never occurred to me that the 50% rule could be applied to the GM as well. The PFS1 guide says "Players may receive partial credit", it never mentions that the GM can choose to skip a part of the sanctioned content? I guess it's implicitly legal since everyone seems to be doing that but it's counterintuitive to me. I always thought this rule is only meant to help individual players who skip a session.

That's also an interesting point, and probably worth some discussion, though this is likely the wrong thread for that.

Yeah this whole skipping content bit is kinda new to me.

I mean, we've occasionally skipped some dud encounters that would have been walkovers and weren't important to the story. But not as a constant practice.

On another note, I was surprised to see so many people posting typical running times for modules that are far below what they're nominally pegged at and what they receive XP for.

To the people clamoring for "full credit" XP for playing modules: are you actually planning to play 1 hour per 1 XP?

It’s mostly meaningless encounters that are skipped currently. You’re not supposed to skip anything, but once you’re past the point where everyone is going to receive full credit and you have a choice between running the boss fight or an encounter that isn’t connected to anything, which are you going to choose?

I think people are missing the point in the blog where Michael says they are already working on a way for GMs to cut down the runtime so that the modules can fit into a convention slot. Presumably without Paizo doing all of the specific work on each module, since that’s what they’ve said they don’t have time to do. All I’m asking is that when they do, a PFS mode bound by PFS rule be added. And I’m presenting a way that credit for that could work.

50% came from the PFS1 guide as the point at which the table has full credit. So that was a starting point. Others have said 75%. Whatever gets it into either a double convention slot or around 6 hours is fine by me. But that relies on there being additional chronicle sheets, because cutting 24 hours to 6-8 isn’t going to work.

Xathos of Varisia wrote:

You want to run it in PFS mode? You can!

As far as I can tell, this is not true, but I may be mistaken. If you mean that a GM can act like it's PFS mode and "clone" characters, expendables and danger still don't matter. It's just "Campaign Mode" with the exterior trappings of "PFS Mode".

As I've stated above, Many People play this game to Play Their Character, not a pregen or a temporary character. If the threat of death isn't on the line, it's not heroic, and they really aren't playing their character.

Another big problem is that mimicking "PFS mode" voluntarily is a table-wide decision by a GM. It isn't a convention-wide decision, as all content is "Campaign Mode". It leaves much fear, uncertainty and doubt for people signing up for games as they don't know if it's home-brew'd "PFS Mimic Mode" or "GM's Choice" campaign mode. Trying to put a convention together with any AP and Module content will lead to an incredible amount of Table Sudoku for the organizers as GMs will all have their own house rules (see "I don't run for Goblins!" above), as well as confused and angry players.

I would really like to see some kind of PFS mode, or at least some kind of hybrid mode in the guide and sanctioning docs that the convention/gameday organizers can use to express that PFS characters (not clones) can join a table.

I obviously disagree. The choice is present. Whether you choose to do PFS mode or campaign mode is up to you. The argument that this isn't PFS mode is hollow and ignores the reality of choice.

This new system is the better method.

Do I understand correctly here:

As a GM running Fall of Plaguestone for PFS credit, I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."

So that the players' characters would be identical to characters they could play otherwise.

The only difference is that, instead of Paizo staff making necessary editorial cuts for time/length, it would be my decision.

And I could collaborate with other people in my area to reach a nonbinding consensus as to what to leave out and what to keep in.

And if someone wanted to "play their PFS character", they could create an identical clone, play the clone through the adventure, and then apply all the gains to the "real" PFS character?

It’s really not PFS mode, and the blog states as much.

This Chronicle is set up so that you can play Fall of Plaguestone as it was intended to be played, with a non-PFS character of the appropriate level, level up with that character when the module expects you to, and then when the adventure is complete, take that Chronicle sheet and apply it to any of your Pathfinder (second edition) organized play characters, giving them a level up, a hefty bag of loot, and access to all kinds of uncommon goodies.

Do I understand correctly here:

You do.

Do I understand correctly here:

As a GM running Fall of Plaguestone for PFS redit, I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."

So that the players' characters would be identical to characters they could play otherwise.

The only difference is that, instead of Paizo staff making necessary editorial cuts for time/length, it would be my decision.

And I could collaborate with other people in my area to reach a nonbinding consensus as to what to leave out and what to keep in.

And if someone wanted to "play their PFS character", they could create an identical clone, play the clone through the adventure, and then apply all the gains to the "real" PFS character?

Sort of, but not exactly. There are more differences. A campaign mode GM cannot mark a character dead. So there is no risk involved to the character. There is also no tracking of expendables used, gold spent, fame spent, or any of the other things that are part of running something for normal PFS. There are also no guarantees that a GM has to stick to only running the material as written, as they are explicitly allowed to change anything they want in campaign mode.

And, since now only the entire module is sanctioned in a single sheet, you have to (until they release guidelines otherwise) play the entire module. So you either unofficially level your character up, meaning you’ve deviated from PFS rules in doing so, or you play the entire thing at the level you started at.

It also requires every player and the GM to all be on the same page. That will happen sometimes, but not always.

If the rules of PFS didn’t matter for PFS play, then we wouldn’t have them. Campaign mode is explicitly for people who want to play without those rules. If that was fine for normal society play that would be the standard for everything. But it’s not, because we need the society rules to guarantee a relatively consistent experience. Removing them and saying it’s the same thing just isn’t true.

You do.

Thank you

There are more differences.

Yes, I understand that there are other differences. Those are not relevant to the issues I asked about.

And, since now only the entire module is sanctioned in a single sheet, you have to (until they release guidelines otherwise) play the entire module. So you either unofficially level your character up, meaning you’ve deviated from PFS rules in doing so, or you play the entire thing at the level you started at.

I think you may be missing that you don't assign the chronicle until after it is over. You are playing the AP with a new level 1 character. The chronicle is then assigned to a PFS character. There is not unoffical leveling of a character.

Ferious Thune wrote:

And, since now only the entire module is sanctioned in a single sheet, you have to (until they release guidelines otherwise) play the entire module. So you either unofficially level your character up, meaning you’ve deviated from PFS rules in doing so, or you play the entire thing at the level you started at.

I think you may be missing that you don't assign the chronicle until after it is over. You are playing the AP with a new level 1 character. The chronicle is then assigned to a PFS character. There is not unoffical leveling of a character.

The post is talking about trying to simulate playing your PFS character using campaign mode to set the rules to be as identical to PFS as possible. But the module also assumes that you level twice over the course of it. So if you start with a character identical to your PFS character, you either unofficially level them to keep pace with where the module is, or you play them at the same level throughout to better mirror the actual PFS experience. Meaning they will be under level for the 2nd and 3rd parts.

I don't know if Fall of Plaguestone has "milestone" information in it, like APs do? Those could be used to facilitate PFS mode as well, as a clear moment when people playing in PFS mode should level up.

I think a good PFS mode should include some kind of a mid-module leveling up mechanism, because otherwise you're not really playing the adventure the way it was intended. Mostly, you're having unbalanced boss fights.

It could be done in a couple of ways:
- One chronicle per milestone and that chronicle will probably level you up. (This would work well for folks who want to play parts of a module at a time, or with different characters.)
- When you hit a milestone, apply a level bump to the party and maybe give them the benefit of a full night's rest. This is a bit faster than processing chronicles and level ups mid-game.

You could do it all one way or the other, or leave the choice to the scheduler/GM.

It’s mostly meaningless encounters that are skipped currently. You’re not supposed to skip anything, but once you’re past the point where everyone is going to receive full credit and you have a choice between running the boss fight or an encounter that isn’t connected to anything, which are you going to choose?

I think people are missing the point in the blog where Michael says they are already working on a way for GMs to cut down the runtime so that the modules can fit into a convention slot. Presumably without Paizo doing all of the specific work on each module, since that’s what they’ve said they don’t have time to do. All I’m asking is that when they do, a PFS mode bound by PFS rule be added. And I’m presenting a way that credit for that could work.

50% came from the PFS1 guide as the point at which the table has full credit. So that was a starting point. Others have said 75%. Whatever gets it into either a double convention slot or around 6 hours is fine by me. But that relies on there being additional chronicle sheets, because cutting 24 hours to 6-8 isn’t going to work.

Some pragmatism is in order, but since "real danger" was brought up as a reason for wanting a real PFS mode, I have to ask;

If you're skipping "meaningless encounters", aren't you making later fights easier, because you save resources?

A shorthand I've heard before was "everyone cross off X wand charges", but that doesn't quite seem okay to me. In an actual encounter where you don't know in advance these monsters are no threat, you'd spend a few spells and such to establish dominance.

So I guess if you want a proper way to shorten the adventure, I think that should also include some pointers on appropriate resource expenditure for skipped encounters.

This is coming down to people being opposed to change vs. people in favor of progress.

More of a concern that the bad change that's unproven and unpredictable is worse than a good change that helps build the community.

Not an opposition to change, but to change that will require a lot more work and trust when history argues against such things.

@Xathos not really
There is two main points :
- First, there is no more PFS play of the module
- Second, you gain only one level for playing/gming the entire module

It's a real change from a PFS1 perspective, what you call progress other can call it regress.
It's a change, yes, is it blankly better? I'm not sure.

This thread could be the start of a compromise to have something different that what's proposed and what's was before in PFS1.

As I've proposed before, there could be "generic chronicle for module" that complete the one already done or other form like some people have proposed.

Lau - What I described us a situation where you only have enough time left in a slot to complete one more encounter. If you’re locked into running it in a convention slot or a limited time at a shop, and you’re down to half an hour left with two encounters to go, you’re only going to get to run one of those encounters. Many modules have a lot of repetitive minion fights. Here’s a group of 3 orcs exactly like the 20 orcs you’ve already fought. Yes, those are designed to wear down resources. But in the situation of limited time, they also can prevent you from getting the full story. If the GM sticks to the text and runs the fight, the slot ends without ever finishing the module. You still get full credit, because you’re more than halfway through, but you don’t finish the story. Or the GM can look at the fight, decide it’s not meaningful, and skip to the part of the module that lets the group finish and get closer to the full experience.

Sometimes in campaign mode, I’ve seen GMs do something like have the party expend resources instead of running a fight as you suggest. So, like, casters spend a spell slot, martials take some damage, etc. But I don’t suggest that for an official system, because it’s much harder to codify for every module, and part of the goal is to keep things simple enough for Paizo to do the sanctioning quickly.

Edit: Lol. For some levity, just realized autocorrect changed orcs to orca. Three orca would be a pretty terrifying fight. Also, I kinda want to see the module where you fight 20 of them now.

More of a concern that the bad change that's unproven and unpredictable is worse than a good change that helps build the community.

Not an opposition to change, but to change that will require a lot more work and trust when history argues against such things.

A bad change that has been proven eight years ago to not work. This change and the people telling everyone to get over it are ignoring that this used to be how things worked and there were real problems that resulted, which is why the event mode sanctioning happened in the first place. They are also ignoring that campaign mode has existed for several years at this point, but people still wanted and ran things in PFS mode. We haven’t been given a new way to run things. We’ve been given a new way for Paizo to administer things, and had one of our ways to run things taken away in an effort to make that administration easier. We’re asking Paizo to reconsider and see if there’s a different solution.

I don’t think anyone here is unwilling to accept change. I would much rather have the sanctioning happening faster, and obviously Paizo can’t do that without some kind of change. I just don’t think throwing out PFS mode and all of the restrictions and protections that come with it is a good thing.

I also don’t think that essentially removing 2 play opportunities is a good thing. A 3 part module broken into 3 chronicles is the equivalent of having 3 more scenarios to play. A single module with one chronicle is the equivalent of having 1 more scenario to play that takes 3-4 times as long. A lot of flexibility is lost when you can’t divide a module or an AP up.

Should a module that fits into a scenario slot grant 3 times the XP? Probably not. PFS1 didn’t have level bumps, so that was the solution to allow people to play through the whole module if they wanted.

Do I understand correctly here:

As a GM running Fall of Plaguestone for PFS credit, I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."

So that the players' characters would be identical to characters they could play otherwise.

The only difference is that, instead of Paizo staff making necessary editorial cuts for time/length, it would be my decision.

And I could collaborate with other people in my area to reach a nonbinding consensus as to what to leave out and what to keep in.

And if someone wanted to "play their PFS character", they could create an identical clone, play the clone through the adventure, and then apply all the gains to the "real" PFS character?

Here is the difference I don't know you I don't trust GM's i don't know. I've run into to many GM's who like to play a GM vs player style battle. They are out to get players. I like to play stuff as it is written because even gm's with good intent when they change things they usually screw stuff up. PFS mode protects against all of these concerns. That's why I only play modules in organized play in PFS mode. This decision is literally the last nail in the coffin for my interest in organized play for PF2. I'm only interested in modules and playing a scenario here and there. (I've burned out on the PF scenario model a long time ago).

@Xathos not really

There is two main points :
- First, there is no more PFS play of the module
- Second, you gain only one level for playing/gming the entire module

It's a real change from a PFS1 perspective, what you call progress other can call it regress.
It's a change, yes, is it blankly better? I'm not sure.

This thread could be the start of a compromise to have something different that what's proposed and what's was before in PFS1.

As I've proposed before, there could be "generic chronicle for module" that complete the one already done or other form like some people have proposed.

There is still PFS mode play available.

CrystalSeas wrote:

Do I understand correctly here:

As a GM running Fall of Plaguestone for PFS credit, I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."

So that the players' characters would be identical to characters they could play otherwise.

The only difference is that, instead of Paizo staff making necessary editorial cuts for time/length, it would be my decision.

And I could collaborate with other people in my area to reach a nonbinding consensus as to what to leave out and what to keep in.

And if someone wanted to "play their PFS character", they could create an identical clone, play the clone through the adventure, and then apply all the gains to the "real" PFS character?

Here is the difference I don't know you I don't trust GM's i don't know. I've run into to many GM's who like to play a GM vs player style battle. They are out to get players. I like to play stuff as it is written because even gm's with good intent when they change things they usually screw stuff up. PFS mode protects against all of these concerns. That's why I only play modules in organized play in PFS mode. This decision is literally the last nail in the coffin for my interest in organized play for PF2. I'm only interested in modules and playing a scenario here and there. (I've burned out on the PF scenario model a long time ago).

Congratulations! You can still play Fall of Plaguestone in PFS mode. Enjoy!

Ilmakis wrote:

@Xathos not really

There is two main points :
- First, there is no more PFS play of the module
- Second, you gain only one level for playing/gming the entire module

It's a real change from a PFS1 perspective, what you call progress other can call it regress.
It's a change, yes, is it blankly better? I'm not sure.

This thread could be the start of a compromise to have something different that what's proposed and what's was before in PFS1.

As I've proposed before, there could be "generic chronicle for module" that complete the one already done or other form like some people have proposed.

There is still PFS mode play available.

This Chronicle is set up so that you can play Fall of Plaguestone as it was intended to be played, with a non-PFS character of the appropriate level, level up with that character when the module expects you to, and then when the adventure is complete, take that Chronicle sheet and apply it to any of your Pathfinder (second edition) organized play characters, giving them a level up, a hefty bag of loot, and access to all kinds of uncommon goodies.