Pulling Back the Curtain on Organized Play Outstanding Tasks

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Pathfinder (2nd edition) Sanctioning

Since sanctioning Fall of Plaguestone, the team received feedback from the community. Reading the commentary made us realize we hadn’t communicated the basis of our sanctioning process and that doing so would clarify some of the issues. So here goes!

Cover art from the 'Fall of Plaguestone' adventure: Ezren and Amiri, the Pathfinder iconic wizard and barbarian, face off against a pack of snarling wolves.

A key principle of sanctioning involves the relationship of Society to Paizo product lines. We wish to support all products, but at a level that makes sense to the ongoing Pathfinder Society campaign. Our goal is to get 95%+ of materials into the hands of players. This includes sanctioning the Lost Omens line (more on that in a minute) as well as other upcoming rules supplements. For modules and adventure paths, we wish to encourage players to try them out or play them as home games. Depending on the scope and content of the adventure, they may not fit well within the organized play environment. As a thank you for trying out other Paizo products, we’ve created chronicles that do fit within the campaign and may be applied to your Pathfinder Society character.

Just as certain adventures don’t necessarily fit well within the organized play environment, static rewards don’t work well for sanctioning non-Society content. 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. Using a flexible scale allows us to act on feedback received on current sanctioned adventures and explore what options a new edition of Pathfinder supports.

In summary, Fall of Plaguestone is the first module sanctioned. We continue to listen to feedback and will evolve the process over time to support both Paizo products and the Organized Play program.

For Lost Omens sanctioning, we have completed our pass on the World Guide and hope to post it to the Character Options section of the Guide to Play in the next few weeks. We are currently working on the Character Guide and estimate that it will follow shortly. We queued the Age of Ashes adventure path for the next available sanctioning timeslot.

Starfinder Sanctioning

With convention season and then a vacancy on the organized play team, we fell behind on sanctioning content for Starfinder Society. Catching up is on the team’s radar and is next in line behind getting scenarios ready, but we are hampered by being a developer short. Will update more as we have news.

Achievement Points

We built the Playtest Point (PtP) system, and then used it as the framework to build the Achievement Point (AcP) program. Building a new program came with many hurdles. Unfortunately, we fell down at the beginning of the track and that led to delays in the project. As many of you noted, the cost of PtP wasn’t behaving the way the boons listed, resulting in hurdle one. Attaching a customized pdf copy of the boon, instead of just an online list, resulted in hurdle two. PtP awarded automatically, based on the number of Pathfinder Playtest scenarios reported for a player/GM. With the tiered structure of AcP, we needed new tools for organizers/GMs. The implementation came with a bit of an issue, so there is hurdle three. Determining the reward chart, while down a developer and in the middle of edition transfer, was hurdle four. Getting the rewards built in our system was hurdle five. There have been others, but those are the key roadblocks encountered in our process.

The positive news is we’ve passed many of these hurdles. We reconfigured the calculation codes for PtP purchases and how to designate premier events. These need review by quality assurance before we can roll them out. We have the boons ready for hurdle two, and I’m in contact with our tech developer to get them attached to user accounts when purchased. Our awesome developers finished the reward chart and made the boons, which passes hurdle four. By the time you read this, we should have input the chart into the system, removing hurdle five.

It is our intention that we have resolutions for all hurdles in place in the next month. By releasing the chart early, players can plan what purchases they want to make when the project goes online. We wish that we wouldn’t have encountered so many issues and that AcP would have rolled at launch, but we would rather take a few extra weeks than rush this out the door and have issues in perpetuity.

Nova/Glyph implementation

We found some limitations in our current site display that keeps the stars/novas/glyphs from displaying correctly. We’ve filed a tech support request for this issue, but have it prioritized behind getting AcP out the gate. The update that fixes premier events also should fix evaluation game recording so Venture-Captains will have a means to enter results that is not sending emails to the organized play inbox.

Pathfinder Society/Starfinder Society Webpages

We know these haven’t seen an update in some time. The departure of Robot led to a vacancy and without someone to update those pages, we are left in a holding pattern. We hope to have more updates soon.

Pathfinder Society Guide to Play

The team working on this project have the wiki version made in a test environment so that they can put it through its paces and ensure its functionality before revealing it to the public. The organized play team currently has a list of questions we need to resolve and get the answers to them. As we are approaching full development strength, having filled the vacancy that came with John’s departure, we have capacity to do more than produce the monthly scenario/quest quota and hope to catch up on this very soon.

We appreciate our community’s appetite for all things organized play! Ensuring scenarios publish on time is our number one priority. The organized play team works to capacity with a goal of delivering the best program possible. We welcome your understanding as we work towards reducing the backlog of tasks.

I’ve pulled back the curtain a bit. I hope it helps our community and that we can continue the tradition of awesome Organized Play.

Tune in next week for the first of the month Spotlights, Cons, and Bits blog.

Until then, Explore-Report-Cooperate!

Tonya Woldridge
Organized Play Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Organized Play Pathfinder Society Starfinder Society
1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for the clarifications, insight and updates Tonya!

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Seconded. Thanks Tonya!

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

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.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
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?

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Lau wrote:
Wait who filled the spots left open with John leaving?

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

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

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 ^^

Steven Lau wrote:
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?

Grand Lodge 3/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Gold Coast aka DanielB

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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Robert Hetherington wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Robert Hetherington wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thank you for the update, Tonya!

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Looking forward to the final version of the AcP stuff!

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Blog wrote:
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?

Grand Lodge 4/5

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.

1/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

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?

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?

1/5

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”

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:

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.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

THank you for the update!

1/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht aka Quentin Coldwater

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

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Finland—Turku aka Tomppa

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Starfinder Society Developer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
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?


Mathota wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@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.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver aka roll4initiative

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


Robert Hetherington wrote:
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.

2/5

Thank you for the updates! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

@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.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

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.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
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.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.”

Grand Lodge 4/5

Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:


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?

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

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.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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).

Grand Lodge 4/5

Michael Sayre wrote:
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?

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Pulling Back the Curtain on Organized Play Outstanding Tasks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.