Pulling Back the Curtain on Organized Play Outstanding Tasks

Thanks for the clarifications, insight and updates Tonya!

Seconded. Thanks Tonya!

Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

Omnomnom delicious content!

First and foremost: Thank you. It's a big stress relief as both a participant and venture-person being able to point to a post like this to show my lodge how things are coming along! We all appreciate the transparency!

I've been eagerly awaiting the Playtest Boons before I spent my points. Hopefully there will be a time period wherein I can spend my points and know what the boons do.

I love the new sanctioning for non-Scenarios.

We decided not to utilize the previous one size fits all model and its blanket statements that modules get X and adventure paths earn Y. Instead, we use a sliding scale of rewards, looking at the estimated play time/length of the adventure and comparing it to known quantities such as scenarios and quests.

Didn't the exact opposite of this happen with Plaguestone? Rather than giving rewards based on time/length etc, you instead just gave out a module = 1 level sheet?

Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

Linda moved up to Overleshy, no 3rd dev though.

Thanks for keeping us updated ^^ I know that many of us are keen to get our hands on all the cool rewards you have planned for us.

Special shoutout to the hard-working VOs in the Guide Taskforce for their efforts ^^

Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

Until they find someone to bring the team back up to full strength might I suggest a cardboard cutout of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in a valiant but futile effort to replay John?

Thank-you for the update Tonya (and OP Team), Ive held off spending my playtest points till the system was working as you intended it, so i look forward to this being updated and hearing of the progress.

Steven Lau wrote:

Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

Linda moved up to Overleshy, no 3rd dev though.

That was going to be my next question... Who replaced Linda?... I was leading to that... There is still a vacancy.

Didn't the exact opposite of this happen with Plaguestone? Rather than giving rewards based on time/length etc, you instead just gave out a module = 1 level sheet?

Equivalent to 3 scenarios... sounds about right.

Thank you for the update, Tonya!

Looking forward to the final version of the AcP stuff!

With convention season and then a vacancy on the organized play team, we fell behind on sanctioning content for Starfinder Society.

We were assured when Starfinder was released that the two Campaigns would operate independent of one another.

Did someone from the Starfinder side step down as well? Or is this quote evidence that our original fears were justified?

Thanks for the update, Linda! This was much needed. On the next one could you please update us on the status of the NDA so that we can have an idea of when they will eventually get sent to those of us who have been VOs for quite some time now? The current coordinator page is way out of date and highly erroneous.

I appreciate the update. The radio silence hurts lot.

Though, I always liked playing modules in PFS because:
1) I never have the opportunity to run or play them in home games.

2) They're super fun to play at a convention. It's great to have the same group of players for three slots playing the same adventure.

3) "Campaign mode" is awesome.

So I already got "overcharged" for my playtest points because I wasn't paying attention purchasing (granted, that's on me...). Is there any plan to refund those cases?

As it fits in on the theme, what's the status on delegating out approval of VO applications/promotions?

Anything on the outstanding first edition AP's?

The transparency is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you for this context and your efforts to get stuff sanctioned quickly!

I’ve been thinking: What if I we were to create a sort of Gamma testing badge where players with (n) achievement points can use not-yet-sanctioned character options, with the proviso that they will be open to replacing options that are declared off limits, and in the meantime will maturely discuss feedback about over-powered options with Society officers and voluntarily scale back OP choices.

Word salad, but you get my drift? If the point of sanctioning is that we haven’t fully tested some options in public play, then why not rely on experienced players to help with the process while also letting early adopters enjoy our new toys?

Saint Bernard, I have a hunch that could lead to a bit of bad feelings from the newer players. Everyone wants to play with the shiny new toys, and no one wants to be told “no, you aren’t grown up enough to have these toys”

Thank you for this context and your efforts to get stuff sanctioned quickly!

I’ve been thinking: What if I we were to create a sort of Gamma testing badge where players with (n) achievement points can use not-yet-sanctioned character options, with the proviso that they will be open to replacing options that are declared off limits, and in the meantime will maturely discuss feedback about over-powered options with Society officers and voluntarily scale back OP choices.

Word salad, but you get my drift? If the point of sanctioning is that we haven’t fully tested some options in public play, then why not rely on experienced players to help with the process while also letting early adopters enjoy our new toys?

I don't think this is really going to solve the problem, and it would probably create more work and delays. It may help to have some idea of how the process works right now.

Paizo makes a new book. This is done by game designers. They're not the Organized Play crew, those are another department. The book gets proofed and sent to the printers and turned into PDFs.

The Organized Play leadership gets the PDFs, and does a review themselves but also sends copies off to the Additional Resources taskforce, which is a group of venture officers who volunteer to do review work on new books. In the AR taskforce we go through the new book and flag options that are in some way problematic (too powerful, evil, slows down the game a lot, unclear rules etc.) and that either need more work to become suitable or should never be allowed.

After both teams are done, the reviews are compared, and organized play leadership decides on what to do about the problematic bits.

Then it has to be put online. This used to be really hard, because Paizo IT has a lot on its plate. It's supposed to get easier now.

---

As you see, the problem isn't that there aren't enough people helping, it's that the process has many stages, from the point where people get the book to review until the final result is available to the public. And the bottleneck stage is really where the final decisions have to be taken by the organized play leadership: a small group of people that also has a hundred other duties.

So while appreciate your good intentions, I don't think it would solve the core problem, and perhaps just make it worse.

THank you for the update!

Any news on sanctioning the last of the 1st Edition content? I've been eagerly waiting 5-6 months for options released in the last player companion.

I was wondering why my fifth star wouldn't appear, this explains it.

Thank you so much.

The apparent lack of progress was frustrating, but the perceived radio silence from your direction made it worse. I hope and feel like this sort of transparency calms the community - knowing that progress is being made, even when you can't see that progress yet, helps a lot.

Thank you.

Did someone from the Starfinder side step down as well? Or is this quote evidence that our original fears were justified?

The issue here is that when we started Starfinder Society, the team was just me doing one scenario/month. That changed when we saw the demand and increased production to 2 scenarios/month, which involved having John as the OP Lead developer help with some of the scenarios. (Think of the OP Lead Dev as split between all the product lines to help get things moving.)

Linda has been taking over John's responsibilities and making sure that all the P2 stuff is in order, but has already been a _huge_ help on the Starfinder side of things. You'll be seeing the fruits of these advancements in the near-ish future.

I am still unable to report Fall of Plaguestone in the online tool. I handed out the chronicles a week ago...

As you see, the problem isn't that there aren't enough people helping, it's that the process has many stages, from the point where people get the book...

Thanks for your response, Lau! I appreciate the work that venture officers are putting in on this.

My suggestion is less about helping the process than it is making new material available quickly, in a constructive way.

TL;DR: I'm suggesting a compromise:

Allow experienced players sign up to test out options before formally sanctioned, with the agreement that they provide input to the sanctioning process and be good sports about rebuilding characters if an option is banned. Maybe even allow this as a benefit of GMing (n) number of scenarios. In essence, trust that our most committed members will do the right thing.

Some background:

From my standpoint, the whole notion of sanctioning comes down to this:

In a home game, if a new character option is problematic / overpowered, the home group can very easily create a house rule that corrects the imbalance. If players disagree, there's some social pressure to do so maturely.

In Society play, it's a harder to communicate 'house rules' for the campaign to all players — and the social pressure is less real, since people don't have one consistent, small group. And so there's the sense that we can't put the genie back in the bottle if we sanction everything from the start.

At first, we were more permissive about new materials. Eventually, we had to belatedly scale back some popular but quite overpowered options (like Summoners 1.0 and vivisectionist alchemists). This created a fair amount of uproar among players who had to give up their beloved character builds.

It also led to a lot more work for Paizo and the society overall, and therefore some delay (within Society) between product release and product adoption. The staff and venture officers are working hard to shrink this delay, and I've been grateful to the team for being open to new pathways for sanctioning. Huzzah!

But I think there are less Lawful approaches to address the core issue — how do we create 'house rules' for the Society, and/or curtail abuse of rules loopholes when they're making it hard for other people to have fun at the table?

Saint Bernard, I have a hunch that could lead to a bit of bad feelings from the newer players. Everyone wants to play with the shiny new toys, and no one wants to be told “no, you aren’t grown up enough to have these toys”

I don't think it has to take a really LONG time to get access. Maybe the equivalent of one GM star. This is a volunteer society, after all, and it makes sense to expect some contribution before ungating more options (if you will).

I think that's the intention behind the forthcoming Achievement Point program, but perhaps there's a bit more expansive approach that can also encourage folks to step up as GMs.

Also, most new players I have at my tables actually prefer to start simple.

Tonya, the updates are always greatly appreciated! Hang in there: Tonya, Linda, Thurston, and Michael!

@Saint Bernard de Clairveaux:

The problem with your "open beta" proposal is that it just adds yet another stage to the process. Data has to be collected about field experiences, analyzed, then changes have to be thought up and communicated. This is more work than the current system, not less. It'll add another couple of months to the time needed to get stuff sanctioned for everyone.

Thank you for keeping us in the loop and...
Happy Halloween, to all!

Steven Lau wrote:

Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

Linda moved up to Overleshy, no 3rd dev though.

Third dev was technically assigned to ACG though (even if in reality people were more flexible than that), so it shouldn't impact PFS much.

Thank you for the updates! :)

@Saint Bernard de Clairveaux:

The problem with your "open beta" proposal is that it just adds yet another stage to the process. Data has to be collected about field experiences, analyzed, then changes have to be thought up and communicated. This is more work than the current system, not less. It'll add another couple of months to the time needed to get stuff sanctioned for everyone.

It needn't be a dependency in the process: If the folks reviewing for sanctioning want, they will have some data to look at with live play feedback. But there's no reason it HAS to be completed before our wise venture agents make their determination. The main thing is to provide a quicker route to adoption for folks who've given back to the community.

I wouldn't mind letting players beta test some classes. Maybe VA's or GMs with X credits can play for no credit on such characters. It's more data from people committed to the system; a carrot on the stick.

I'm also wondering what problem the AcP system solves.

The idea of tracking rewards online seems nice, but the reality is that these systems are rarely 100% accurate or timely. Historically, volunteers/agents/convention reporters are prone to human error or delays. What is AcP adding that couldn't be achieved with standard boons?

I'm also wondering what problem the AcP system solves.

The idea of tracking rewards online seems nice, but the reality is that these systems are rarely 100% accurate or timely. Historically, volunteers/agents/convention reporters are prone to human error or delays. What is AcP adding that couldn't be achieved with standard boons?

Availability for different styles of play. Because boons need a human to meet the conditions and hand out, they're only feisable at higher game densities like conventions, and often larger ones at that. But ACP can be granted for conventions big and small, game days, and private play at different rates, but still available.

Thanks for the update, Linda! This was much needed. On the next one could you please update us on the status of the NDA so that we can have an idea of when they will eventually get sent to those of us who have been VOs for quite some time now? The current coordinator page is way out of date and highly erroneous.

Good luck with that as the backlog on that is utterly ridiculous made even more so that given the circumstances they last hastily updated the list.

Thank you for the updates and all the work you're putting in. While I know that not everyone loved the way Fall of Plaguestone was sanctioned, I will say that I really appreciate the way your team got something out. I'm using it currently to introduce some new players to the game and it's great to be able to get some credit (and a few unique character options) even if it the length isn't exactly 1 level. Being flexible is key and I appreciate that your team is taking that approach and making the most out of the smaller team resources.

Doug Hahn wrote:

I'm also wondering what problem the AcP system solves.

The idea of tracking rewards online seems nice, but the reality is that these systems are rarely 100% accurate or timely. Historically, volunteers/agents/convention reporters are prone to human error or delays. What is AcP adding that couldn't be achieved with standard boons?

Availability for different styles of play. Because boons need a human to meet the conditions and hand out, they're only feisable at higher game densities like conventions, and often larger ones at that. But ACP can be granted for conventions big and small, game days, and private play at different rates, but still available.

That’s all well and good. It’s frustrating for some of us long time society volunteers, though, that with a new system we have to start from the same very constrained number of options.

It’s hard to avoid with a radically new system, and I don’t mean to seem petulant. But while 2E is ramping up its be great if an ACP system opened up a wide range of options, as opposed to the 1E approach of making race boons very rare and often limited to convention play.

TL;DR Save special event boons for stuff we’ve never seen before, not options like leshies, kitsune, and grippli that many of us already love.

Why not make it like, “Spend five ACP to play one of ANY of these uncommon ancestries.”

That’s all well and good. It’s frustrating for some of us long time society volunteers, though, that with a new system we have to start from the same very constrained number of options.

It’s hard to avoid with a radically new system, and I don’t mean to seem petulant. But while 2E is ramping up its be great if an ACP system opened up a wide range of options, as opposed to the 1E approach of making race boons very rare and often limited to convention play.

TL;DR Save special event boons for stuff we’ve never seen before, not options like leshies, kitsune, and grippli that many of us already love.

Why not make it like, “Spend five ACP to play one of ANY of these uncommon ancestries.”

I wonder if sanctioning might be closely related to the release of the AcP system. I have no idea if this is what will take place or not, so take this as just some idle thought. What if when the various expansions are released and then sanctioned, everything such as ancestries, archetypes, uncommon equipment, etc. was connected to the AcP? The cost would have to be low, but it would promote PFS2 play.

We already know AcP is coming, but we don't know exactly what is in it. Could something akin to this be what we will see?

I agree — letting us choose from a set of uncommon races, like Kitsune or Leshy, would be optimal; save the convention boons for the truly rare or unique.

On further thought I would prefer ACP only as long as it doesn't create more problems. Given the choice, almost everyone prefers paperless options — but only if they're reliable. I just want my points to be updated in a timely fashion, with a usable system that allows VAs to report events efficiently. I want GMs to get their rewards quickly, so they stay motivated to volunteer.

Paper boons had issues too (getting lost/stolen, difficulty for con organizers), but at least they gave the player or GM instant rewards, and were reliable records for your character.

What if when the various expansions are released and then sanctioned, everything such as ancestries, archetypes, uncommon equipment, etc. was connected to the AcP?

That's essentially the plan, though there may be some things that don't go up on AcP immediately (or at all) for a variety of reasons. But a big part of trying to get AcP implemented is specifically so that if you can't afford to go to a convention, lack the mobility to do so for medical reasons, etc., you're not forever locked out of playing uncommon ancestries and the like just because you couldn't make it to where the boons were. If you can make it to a convention, you may have opportunities for bonus AcP, especially if you're GMing, but if we decide that e.g. dhampir are going to be available, we're going to do them through AcP so that anyone has a chance to use them.

There will also be some options that are rare or uncommon which we don't gate with AcP and which will be widely available to anyone who ones the source book, though those are more likely to be e.g. feats than ancestries.

This will probably be different for uncommon or rare mechanics featured in modules and APs; those items will likely continue to use something akin to the structure of the Fall of Plaguestone sanctioning where we granted access to the uncommon and rare options through the Chronicle sheet (though even there we might still do something like a "Fall of Plaguestone Additional Keepsake" AcP boon that lets you pick a different keepsake ring than the one you chose when you first received the Chronicle).

Xathos of Varisia wrote:

What if when the various expansions are released and then sanctioned, everything such as ancestries, archetypes, uncommon equipment, etc. was connected to the AcP?

That's essentially the plan, though there may be some things that don't go up on AcP immediately (or at all) for a variety of reasons. But a big part of trying to get AcP implemented is specifically so that if you can't afford to go to a convention, lack the mobility to do so for medical reasons, etc., you're not forever locked out of playing uncommon ancestries and the like just because you couldn't make it to where the boons were. If you can make it to a convention, you may have opportunities for bonus AcP, especially if you're GMing, but if we decide that e.g. dhampir are going to be available, we're going to do them through AcP so that anyone has a chance to use them.

There will also be some options that are rare or uncommon which we don't gate with AcP and which will be widely available to anyone who ones the source book, though those are more likely to be e.g. feats than ancestries.

This will probably be different for uncommon or rare mechanics featured in modules and APs; those items will likely continue to use something akin to the structure of the Fall of Plaguestone sanctioning where we granted access to the uncommon and rare options through the Chronicle sheet (though even there we might still do something like a "Fall of Plaguestone Additional Keepsake" AcP boon that lets you pick a different keepsake ring than the one you chose when you first received the Chronicle).

Now that I think about this some, my memory has been jogged. I recall a conversation about how the AcP would be used and it followed this same vein. What I do not recall is what was decided about convention enticements/rewards. In the past (my experiences at least) GMing at cons resulted in the conferral of boons, race boons in many cases. These boons were also prizes at the cons. What can be offered in lieu of these or could something be devised that is similar, yet significantly different that does not result in game imbalance?

I personally like the idea of the AcP for the reasons Michael stated. I got the feeling that some in the community of players felt alienated a bit because they had no opportunity to earn those boons. I understand that and empathize with them. The AcP should (hopefully) work well to alleviate those concerns.

So what can be done to reward GMs at cons as well as players earning prizes at cons in lieu of the boons? Can we develop different boons? Should bonus AcP be awarded? The system is already designed to give con GMs two more AcP per session ran (4 XP scenario). Will that be sufficient or should something more be done? What does the community think? Rather than wait for Org Play to come up with ideas, how about the community offer suggestions?

I would like to not make things more complex, so see if we can use AcP as the main convention incentive.

Basically, playing but especially GMing at a convention gives more AcP. How much more will depend a bit on what it takes to bribe entice people.

There will also be some options that are rare or uncommon which we don't gate with AcP and which will be widely available to anyone who ones the source book, though those are more likely to be e.g. feats than ancestries.

Thanks Michael! Is it reasonable to ask that some of the popular races that emerged in 1E — like grippli, leshi, kitsune, tengu — will be made available for play through general sanctioning or broad AcP purchase as soon as publication and sanctioning allow? I am probably not the only one who hungers for fantasy that goes beyond the core Tolkien races ancestries. :-)

#baslagforever

Michael Sayre wrote:

There will also be some options that are rare or uncommon which we don't gate with AcP and which will be widely available to anyone who ones the source book, though those are more likely to be e.g. feats than ancestries.

Thanks Michael! Is it reasonable to ask that some of the popular races that emerged in 1E — like grippli, leshi, kitsune, tengu — will be made available for play through general sanctioning or broad AcP purchase as soon as publication and sanctioning allow? I am probably not the only one who hungers for fantasy that goes beyond the core Tolkien races ancestries. :-)

#baslagforever

My character in Luis's Return of the Runelords office game is a leshy luchador, so I can certainly appreciate the sentiment.

As to the specifics, in a perfect world we'd be uploading the AcP boons to the system as soon as the additional resources volunteer team finished their pass and we've had a chance to reconcile their recommendations with our own notes, but I'm hesitant to speak to any specifics of things like AcP costs and turnaround times until the system goes live, given the delays we've had so far.

I will say, my ideal version of the program would have the AcP boons for a book going live on the site the same day the book becomes available, but I think we're a ways off from being able to make that happen as there's a lot of moving parts that have to align before that can be a possibility.

Thanks, Michael. That sounds as though for the most part delays would be due to technical difficulties, not intentional fencing off of new options?