Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide Is Now Available!

Yeees! So Excited! Going to be an awesome AP I think!

Also, really glad to see that disclaimer/content warning/reminder about consent on the index page.

Gonna download now. Thank you for the additional time and effort.

Reflecting with my team on the previous Agents of Edgewatch blog post, I'd like to preemptively note that we expect all commenters here to behave in a way that is respectable and kind to our gaming community.

If you are unable to post in a way that is respectful and kind, please exit this discussion thread. Posts we feel are not conducive to the welcoming and inclusive environment we want to cultivate on our forums may be removed from this thread without further moderation comment, and users unable to adhere to our guidelines may be suspended.

Thank you in advance for practicing grace and kindness on our forums.

Reflecting with my team on the previous Agents of Edgewatch blog post, I'd like to preemptively note that we expect all commenters here to behave in a way that is respectable and kind to our gaming community.

If you are unable to post in a way that is respectful and kind, please exit this discussion thread. Posts we feel are not conducive to the welcoming and inclusive environment we want to cultivate on our forums may be removed from this thread without further moderation comment, and users unable to adhere to our guidelines may be suspended.

Thank you in advance for practicing grace and kindness on our forums.

Might want to make the same note on the Product Discussion page.

*hisses, crawls back into the ventilation shaft*

I am looking forward to both playing and running this AP!

Oooh! New Absalom Map! <3

Overall, this is a good piece of work, in terms of stating very clearly what is expected from both the GM and the PCs in a campaign of this nature. The special rules for the campaign are exactly what we needed to see, as were the necessarily heavy-handed guidelines on alignment. The Content Warning is greatly appreciated in particular; it's probably overdue, honestly, and I've exceedingly pleased to see it show up here. Please make it a regular feature of Player's Guides going forward!

I have to admit that I wish there were some more specific notes about the various ways the concept of "peace officer and lawkeeper" can become problematic, though, and advice to the players on how to avoid those situations. I realize that it's an AP's Player's Guide and not a dissertation on either police tactics and training or police brutality, but I do feel like there is some ground left uncovered there.

Non-lethal fireball, boom!

Thanks for putting this together, team. Looking forward to running this :)

Interesting to see the new Backgrounds are stronger than the non-Campaign ones, hopefully this strong encouragement to take them means they'll be more impactful later on in the campaign than Extinction Curse ones were. Regardless, as is they do a great job of helping provide some cool character ideas, as well as helping establish the "personalities" of the various other guard units.

Non-lethal fireball, boom!

Yeah, not really fond of that. I'd prefer PCs to have to restrain themselves a bit to avoid killing, rather than just having it written in by fiat.

Certainly encourage it. Certainly make it easier to do, but the flat "you are never allowed to do lethal damage" is too much for me.

Also - is it really always? No fights against non-sentients or other things that can't reasonably be arrested and tried? Vermin, oozes, constructs, mindless undead?

Paizo,

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning?

That is definitely something that someone might want to be warned about before encountering an image of it. I know for my players an image like that would make them uncomfortable.

I can't even show some of my players this guide with an image like that in it. Especially right next to the content warning, and player consent notice.

Riobux wrote:

Non-lethal fireball, boom!

Yeah, not really fond of that. I'd prefer PCs to have to restrain themselves a bit to avoid killing, rather than just having it written in by fiat.

Certainly encourage it. Certainly make it easier to do, but the flat "you are never allowed to do lethal damage" is too much for me.

It is 100% better for Paizo to lay down a hard line against lethal attacks by cops and let the GM, if they think it's appropriate for their table and the game they are choosing to run, loosen those restrictions than the other way around.

Also - is it really always? No fights against non-sentients or other things that can't reasonably be arrested and tried? Vermin, oozes, constructs, mindless undead?

This part I do admit I am wondering about as well. In particular, it basically means there just can't be any construct foes in the whole thing, right?

"... and arresting criminals who flaunt Absalom’s laws."

Flaunt ≠ flout. Unless the criminals are actually showing off how great the laws are.

My quick thoughts,

1.) Agents of Edgewatch content warning feels like it's a M-rated game. And I welcome quick warnings like that to help give the player some warning to tell the GM to remove said content.

2.) I'm going to hope that oozes, constructs anything that has nonlethal immunity isn't here or that players attacks bypass the immunity.

3.) That map of Absalom is beautiful. Props to the map designer.

4.) Thank you for stating that evil and chaotic alignments aren't good for this campaign.

It's easy enough for a GM to say that when PCs are attacking oozes or whatever that are normally immune to nonlethal damage that...

...that immunity doesn't work in this campaign, or...

...the PCs do lethal damage as normal.

The point is to make the Adventure Path safe and fun for your players, not to catch them with rules exceptions that punish them because of pedantic rules readings.

GMS: Please be flexible and understanding and apply common sense as needed when running this campaign.

thejeff wrote:

Riobux wrote:

Non-lethal fireball, boom!

Yeah, not really fond of that. I'd prefer PCs to have to restrain themselves a bit to avoid killing, rather than just having it written in by fiat.

Certainly encourage it. Certainly make it easier to do, but the flat "you are never allowed to do lethal damage" is too much for me.

It is 100% better for Paizo to lay down a hard line against lethal attacks by cops and let the GM, if they think it's appropriate for their table and the game they are choosing to run, loosen those restrictions than the other way around.

It's not necessarily a "hard line" and "loosen the restrictions", it's the "you don't have to take any care not to kill people, go ahead and use all your usual killer tactics and we'll just say cops are incapable of killing anyone."

Other than that - which is pretty easily addressed by a GM, I like it a lot, which I should have said earlier. Both the basic content and the various additional warnings. The map is really good. The backgrounds tie characters to the city and the force nicely. Kind of hoped for a Precipice local background - would be a cool option to have someone tied to the area they're policing.

This guide really impressed me. It gives me a lot of hope for this campaign as something that has not been much attempted by many other companies. I love that there are so many backgrounds and that they are powered up enough to make players really want to think about them and how to make their characters be a part of the community that they are going to be serving.

Shisumo wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Riobux wrote:

Non-lethal fireball, boom!

Yeah, not really fond of that. I'd prefer PCs to have to restrain themselves a bit to avoid killing, rather than just having it written in by fiat.

Certainly encourage it. Certainly make it easier to do, but the flat "you are never allowed to do lethal damage" is too much for me.

It is 100% better for Paizo to lay down a hard line against lethal attacks by cops and let the GM, if they think it's appropriate for their table and the game they are choosing to run, loosen those restrictions than the other way around.

It's not necessarily a "hard line" and "loosen the restrictions", it's the "you don't have to take any care not to kill people, go ahead and use all your usual killer tactics and we'll just say cops are incapable of killing anyone."

If you prefer, there's always the option of giving all the PCs a free feat that looks something like this:

NONLETHAL TAKEDOWNS (Feat 1)
(General)
You are trained in nonlethal conflict resolution. This means that, during combat encounters, your character is always dealing nonlethal damage unless you specifically declare otherwise. You take no penalty to attack rolls for dealing nonlethal damage, and all types of damage you deal (whether from weapon attacks, spells, or even poisons) are nonlethal.

And then give it to all the PCs for free. Produces the same effect, but the PCs do make a choice.

4.) Thank you for stating that evil and chaotic alignments aren't good for this campaign.

Ehh, I kinda disagree with this last point. The entire point of the conversation around law enforcement is that systems of law often enable and empower those who would seek to abuse them. The law is the problem because it is only through laws and systems do you come to the problems facing policing today.

I understand the intent don't mistake me, but lawful characters pose just as much of a problem as chaotic characters in that regard.

My quick thoughts,

1.) Agents of Edgewatch content warning feels like it's a M-rated game. And I welcome quick warnings like that to help give the player some warning to tell the GM to remove said content.

Honestly I wish warnings like that would be standard on most media. Among writers that learned their craft in the fanfiction mines, there's periodic discussions that being able to tag their professional work as fully as they did their fics would be helpful for readers and writers alike.

The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

Play at the comfort level that allows everyone to have fun. Discuss it with your players, and adjust your solution if actual play becomes uncomfortable.

Other than that - which is pretty easily addressed by a GM, I like it a lot, which I should have said earlier. Both the basic content and the various additional warnings. The map is really good. The backgrounds tie characters to the city and the force nicely. Kind of hoped for a Precipice local background - would be a cool option to have someone tied to the area they're policing.

The Precipice Quarter was abandoned after a massive earthquake in 4698. Before that, it was called Beldrin's Bluff.

Nobody has lived there for over twenty years.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

Play at the comfort level that allows everyone to have fun. Discuss it with your players, and adjust your solution if actual play becomes uncomfortable.

Well yeah, but a little practical advice on mixing the two would be useful, since there are practical ways the adventures will need to change.

At first glance, I don't see a good way to do it - maybe making the non-cop characters consultants or something? A "party" of officers doing their jobs and concerned citizens trying to help out isn't going to work too well.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

Play at the comfort level that allows everyone to have fun. Discuss it with your players, and adjust your solution if actual play becomes uncomfortable.

Well yeah, but a little practical advice on mixing the two would be useful, since there are practical ways the adventures will need to change.

At first glance, I don't see a good way to do it - maybe making the non-cop characters consultants or something? A "party" of officers doing their jobs and concerned citizens trying to help out isn't going to work too well.

I think dudemeister's point is more that if it's inappropriate for one person in the party, it's probably best to steer the entire party away from it. If someone doesn't want to be exposed to a type of media, then them being the direct target probably isn't the problem. If someone has a problem with rape in games, I'm not going to just not rape their character. If someone has a problem with racism in games, I'm not going to include racial themes for everyone else. Ect.

From a campaign design point of view it might have been interesting. But it's a bit like asking if you don't want to play pirates in skull and shackle, or if you don't want to play circus members in EC. It's just a bit outside the scope of a players guide, and is missing the point of why the "what if not cop" section was added to begin with.

I think dudemeister's point is more that if it's inappropriate for one person in the party, it's probably best to steer the entire party away from it. If someone doesn't want to be exposed to a type of media, then them being the direct target probably isn't the problem. If someone has a problem with rape in games, I'm not going to just not rape their character. If someone has a problem with racism in games, I'm not going to include racial themes for everyone else. Ect.

From a campaign design point of view it might have been interesting. But it's a bit like asking if you don't want to play pirates in skull and shackle, or if you don't want to play circus members in EC. It's just a bit outside the scope of a players guide, and is missing the point of why the "what if not cop" section was added to begin with.

All of this.

If your PCs want a mixed party, then you're either going to have to put in the work yourself to make it work (consultants seems like the best option to me too) or perhaps have the players who want to be cops make ex-cops instead, something like that. But if the issue isn't "I have real issues with positive portrayals of law enforcement" but just "I don't want to play a cop because I have this opera-star-turned-ninja concept I want to play instead," then maybe this just isn't the AP for that group. shrug It happens.

A "party" of officers doing their jobs and concerned citizens trying to help out isn't going to work too well.

That's a pretty common trope in detective/mystery novels and it works well there.

Civilian investigator with ties to someone in law enforcement who encourages/provides info to them.

Most detective/mystery stories throughout history had as protagonists people who were not, themselves, police officers. Sherlock Holmes, Sam Spade, Miss Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot, Veronica Mars, Thomas Magnum, Shawn Spencer, Harry Dresden, both Hardy Boys, Phillip Marlowe, John Shaft, Nancy Drew, etc. were private investigators (a couple of them consultants to the police department) not cops.

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning

That's an excellent point. We'll be switching it out in the morning.

Most detective/mystery stories throughout history had as protagonists people who were not, themselves, police officers. Sherlock Holmes, Sam Spade, Miss Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot, Veronica Mars, Thomas Magnum, Shawn Spencer, Harry Dresden, both Hardy Boys, Phillip Marlowe, John Shaft, Nancy Drew, etc. were private investigators (a couple of them consultants to the police department) not cops.

Indeed. In most of those cases, the cops were there to arrest the guilty party or parties, or occasionally to prevent the guilty from attacking the protagonist after their guilt was revealed. In some cases, the cops were to one degree or another antagonistic to the protagonist.

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning?

Because...? I am unfamiliar with them so I had to look them up on AoN. I don’t really see much to be upset about unless it the idea of “drunkenness” and “child-like” or am I missing something?

am I missing something?

You noticed that Erik Mona thought it was something that needed to be dealt with first thing in the morning, right?

I was not interested in this AP based on previous info, but after reading the PG, I think I would play in it, in either form (cops/not cops).

I wonder if Paizo’s insistence on the non-lethal damage (cannot do it) is a meta restriction that simply denies players the ability to do it, or if the intention that cannot=should not is an ingame restriction such that if you do it, it is likely you’ll be arrested and jailed? Given that players and GMs can do whatever they want with their campaigns, I would assume the latter since that would make sense and align with attitudes presented in previous adventure paths regarding appropriate behavior. The former feels very heavy handed and not really applicable given their lack of any real control over the campaign. I just found the way it was expressed to be a bit odd.

You noticed that Erik Mona thought it was something that needed to be dealt with first thing in the morning, right?

Yes, but that doesn’t exactly answer my question, now does it?

I'll answer.

Because it's kind of gross to have a fetus monster next to the content warning. The picture can be literally anything, so there's no harm in changing it out to something that looks less repulsive.

CrystalSeas wrote:

You noticed that Erik Mona thought it was something that needed to be dealt with first thing in the morning, right?

Yes, but that doesn’t exactly answer my question, now does it?

It looked kinda body-horror-ish when I looked. Did seem weird to be next to the content warning.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning?

Because...? I am unfamiliar with them so I had to look them up on AoN. I don’t really see much to be upset about unless it the idea of “drunkenness” and “child-like” or am I missing something?

They are fetuses that have been pickled with formaldehyde and historically used as sideshow attractions. Believe it or not, some people don't like to see depictions of dead babies. Particularly animated dead babies. Putting horror elements right next to your sensitivity warning to notify them that the am will contain horror elements isn't exactly ideal placement.

...it's the "you don't have to take any care not to kill people, go ahead and use all your usual killer tactics and we'll just say cops are incapable of killing anyone."

Option A (leave the rules as-is, but expect the players to go the nonlethal route) skews encounter balance and that is assuming that you can get players to actually buy-in to playing on this 'hard mode' setting.

There's a good chance the players would actually end up frustrated because of the "arbitrary" difficulty increase or because they tried to strategize lethal attacks to wear down enemies and then nonlethal attacks to finish the fight, but poorly timed dice rolls result in someone they weren't supposed to kill dying and now their characters are in trouble.

Option B (default all attacks to nonlethal without penalty applied to or extra effort expected of players) maintains encounter balance and doesn't leave the potential for campaign-derailing accidents like killing a character the adventure assumes gets arrested and interrogated.

I should preface this by saying I don't have any personal investment in the issue (since I don't play second edition), and also that I know Paizo is doing its best.

The main thing that jumps out at me when I read the Player's Guide is that the main mechanics fix (making nonlethal damage automatic and without penalty) sort of reifies the idea that "nonlethal = nonviolent." In the real world (and in the context of policing specifically), there are plenty of "nonlethal" techniques that officers may try to employ that can have very lethal consequences--anything from chokeholds to baton beatings to tasers (when used against people with heart or other conditions). In Pathfinder, "nonlethal" violence is 100% guaranteed to be just that, which is, of course, unrealistic (especially if folks are using swords and crossbows and fireballs to deal that "nonlethal" damage).

And in the real world (and in the context of policing specifically), even "nonlethal" attacks may still result in broken teeth, ruptured spleens, months of pain and suffering, or PTSD. Because Pathfinder has an abstract system of "hit points," none of these lingering effects ever show--a certain number of days pass, and everyone (even those violently apprehended by the police) are perfectly healthy again. It's a sort of "violence without consequences" approach. Again, I don't blame Paizo for this--these are game elements almost hard-coded into the D&D model since its inception.

I guess my suggestion would be to emphasize that genuinely non-violent conflict resolution should be the first priority for police (conversation, mediation, referral to treatment, or--in a fantasy setting, perhaps spells that magically calm situations--etc.) with "nonlethal" violence only employed in emergency situations (and with "lethal" force a measure of last resort).

Admittedly, all of that can make for very difficult encounter design and perhaps a play experience that many groups aren't interested in. A lot of folks just want to get together over a beer, roll some dice, and fight monsters! And there should be a place for that too, without judgment.

Anyway, that's what jumped out at me.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning

That's an excellent point. We'll be switching it out in the morning.

Thank you for addressing this so quickly. I know there's a lot of moving pieces in these products, so it really means a lot when you and Paizo take feedback like this constructively.

Reflecting with my team on the previous Agents of Edgewatch blog post, I'd like to preemptively note that we expect all commenters here to behave in a way that is respectable and kind to our gaming community.

If you are unable to post in a way that is respectful and kind, please exit this discussion thread. Posts we feel are not conducive to the welcoming and inclusive environment we want to cultivate on our forums may be removed from this thread without further moderation comment, and users unable to adhere to our guidelines may be suspended.

Thank you in advance for practicing grace and kindness on our forums.

Wanna make a shout out to the customer service team here and thank them for continually raising my standards for what constitutes a welcoming and inclusive environment. It’s hard for me to spend half an hour on Facebook because of the angry people and arguments and accusations — and nobody’s making me read those things. So reading through and moderating these kinds of discussions being part of the daily job description and putting on a happy face all throughout — is not something I envy. Thanks for what you do, Sara and friends, and I’ll try to do my part not to make your job any more difficult than it already is for future. Ya’ll have made this place a true oasis in the modern internet, and I can’t respect you enough for your uncompromising positivity and optimism.

So woo for player's guide :3 I'm kinda curious of what it would have been like if it was released year ago.

I mean, I'd imagine it might still contain content warning and such, but its kinda hard to imagine how different player's guide might have been with implication that ap was already written without current events having been taken in account. So kinda curious of how notable it is in ap itself

Sara Marie wrote:

Reflecting with my team on the previous Agents of Edgewatch blog post, I'd like to preemptively note that we expect all commenters here to behave in a way that is respectable and kind to our gaming community.

If you are unable to post in a way that is respectful and kind, please exit this discussion thread. Posts we feel are not conducive to the welcoming and inclusive environment we want to cultivate on our forums may be removed from this thread without further moderation comment, and users unable to adhere to our guidelines may be suspended.

Thank you in advance for practicing grace and kindness on our forums.

Wanna make a shout out to the customer service team here and thank them for continually raising my standards for what constitutes a welcoming and inclusive environment. It’s hard for me to spend half an hour on Facebook because of the angry people and arguments and accusations — and nobody’s making me read those things. So reading through and moderating these kinds of discussions being part of the daily job description and putting on a happy face all throughout — is not something I envy. Thanks for what you do, Sara and friends, and I’ll try to do my part not to make your job any more difficult than it already is for future. Ya’ll have made this place a true oasis in the modern internet, and I can’t respect you enough for your uncompromising positivity and optimism.

Well said. :)

I’m curious why, right after people praise the moderators’ call for respectful, civil discussion, you waltz in trying to further antagonize people? You spend all day here, but I wonder if you think your behavior is helpful or hurtful to the community?

A gadfly knows only to needle.

I’m curious why, right after people praise the moderators’ call for respectful, civil discussion, you waltz in trying to further antagonize people? You spend all day here, but I wonder if you think your behavior is helpful or hurtful to the community?

If you'd spend all day here ... wait, you do, you're Paizo's publisher ... you'd know that I've been more than willing to fight to the death to defend your decisions to remove something or NOT remove something from your products that I've agreed with, which has been insofar, on every occasion, I think.

Which inevitably means I can't ignore a situation where I disagree with your decision to alter your products based on ... well, I have a hard time calling one post "backlash".

But if I'm reading your post as a "hey, Erik here, please don't go there", I'll delete that one. *hisses back into the ventilation shaft*

The map is gorgeous. Well done.

I haven't read the adventures yet, but I would recommend a Pulp, comic-booky, Terry Pratchett style of campaign to lighten the horror elements and focus more on the fun elements of being city guardsmen.

After having run guardsmen type of campaigns before, you're going to run into silly police stereotypes:

the Robocops, the guy who is gonna be the Sarge of the team, Police Academy, the detective from the Pink Panther, the rebel cop who always gets the captain to throw a tantrum, protagonist from most 80-90 era cop movies, Steven Seagal.

And Axe Cop.