Sanctioning Update: Adventure Paths

Huzzah!

Quick question about the Extinction Curse chronicles.

I'm... Surprised about the decision against sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch.
If you recall, you already removed the "play with society characters" option from 2e adventure paths, so by default, all adventure paths are already played as home games. There is no "public, bring your level 5 society character" option for them anymore anyway.

Huzzah!

Quick question about the Extinction Curse chronicles.

** spoiler omitted **

Many thanks for the hard work on sanctioning!

That Extinction Curse unlock....*slobbery, snuffling chef's kiss*

[W]e’ve decided against sanctioning the Agents of Edgewatch Adventure Path for Pathfinder Society play. We will, however, be adding a curated selection of player-facing rules from the adventure path to the list of rewards you can purchase with Achievement Points.

So, while I can get behind not sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch, in general, is it possible to have a way to reward those players and game masters that are playing through the campaign that rewards their play that is unique to them, even if would have a "blank" session or something recorded, rather than a blanket "everyone gets the participation" trophy?

I'm... Surprised about the decision against sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch.

If you recall, you already removed the "play with society characters" option from 2e adventure paths, so by default, all adventure paths are already played as home games. There is no "public, bring your level 5 society character" option for them anymore anyway.

+1

After careful consideration, we’ve decided against sanctioning the Agents of Edgewatch Adventure Path for Pathfinder Society play. Agents of Edgewatch contains themes and content that are best explored in a home group setting, among players who are comfortable engaging with them together.

I don't understand why the team isn't sanctioning AoE. The reason given, that it is best as a home game, isn't valid because APs are generally run as home games where the GM can hand out chronicle sheets. There are exceptions, but they're a small minority.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Tommi Ketonen wrote:

I'm... Surprised about the decision against sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch.

If you recall, you already removed the "play with society characters" option from 2e adventure paths, so by default, all adventure paths are already played as home games. There is no "public, bring your level 5 society character" option for them anymore anyway.

+1

Blog wrote:

After careful consideration, we’ve decided against sanctioning the Agents of Edgewatch Adventure Path for Pathfinder Society play. Agents of Edgewatch contains themes and content that are best explored in a home group setting, among players who are comfortable engaging with them together.

I don't understand why the team isn't sanctioning AoE. The reason given, that it is best as a home game, isn't valid because APs are generally run as home games where the GM can hand out chronicle sheets. There are exceptions, but they're a small minority.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Honestly, I think it's because of how the Agents of Edgewatch Player's Guide rules what the characters MUST do throughout the adventure (Such as inflicting non-lethal damage to everything). It doesn't quite seem to fit how the PFS normally plays, where you are allowed to kill things. It is a shame, but hopefully one day the decision can be overturned in such a way where the PFS states "If you are going to be guards, please don't tarnish our reputation by killing the citizens."

I'm honestly just thinking its over reaction to be like "Okay, of all APs the Agent of the Edgewatch is the one we can't sanction" :/ I mean, you might as well be saying "Well since we shouldn't have never released this AP in first place, you shouldn't be buying it and playing it at all!", I don't really see Agent of the Edgewatch being on same level as Hell's Vengeance when it comes to not being able to work with society play.

Like I'm fairly certain some of older aps have more offensive stuff in 1e and they got sanctioned. They weren't topically offensive, but still Hook Mountain Massacre IS sanctioned ap part.

I guess if the actual reason of the this is that since law enforcement in USA is in bad need of reform that incentivizing players to play this AP for rewards comes across as pro law enforcement move which developers don't want to do due to the current horrifying state of it? In that case I can understand why it isn't being sanctioned rather than "its best left for home play" when only way to earn campaign chronicles IS home play.

Ah well, on the plus side, it means that when I play the game I don't need to be bummed about how my gm isn't society gm so I wouldn't get chronicles for playing it xD Plus it is honestly nice to be able to get access to ap stuff without playing the ap

I'm saddened that AoE isn't going to be sanctioned. It's a great way for people to explore how they want police forces to act. Having played thru to level 4 in the AP it very much seems to be up to GMs and players to interpret how the laws are enforced. Ive gotten hints that we get to fight corruption in the Edgewatch as well if we so desire. Graddok the Warpriest of Angradd Bountyhunter will just have to gaze at the Grand Lodge wistfully it seems.

I get AoE's lack of sanctioning, though I wish it weren't so.

But I'm pretty psyched to be an adventuring doggo!

Oooooooh, Devastation Ark maybe getting sanctioned? Do go on!
(Also, aw, poor Obozaya...still hasn't figured out you're supposed to hit things with the pointy plasma edge of the doshko. Keep swinging, Big Girl! You'll...you'll get there someday.)

I'm... Surprised about the decision against sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch.

If you recall, you already removed the "play with society characters" option from 2e adventure paths, so by default, all adventure paths are already played as home games. There is no "public, bring your level 5 society character" option for them anymore anyway.

Count me as another person who is disappointed this won't be sanctioned for PFS play. The group I play with is currently working through Fall of Plaguestone and I was looking forward to Agents as something we could play. We can still play it but it's less likely we will because there won't be PFS credit for it, and we will look for other options.

If it were to be a sanctioned AP, players and GMs could simply make a choice to not play if they didn't like it, much like they can with other APs. I don't see the benefit of taking that decision away from participants and making the decision for them.

Regardless of the arguments over why/etc for skipping AoE sanctioning, I'm glad to see that they're planning to use the reclaimed time in their schedule to revisit sanctioning some of the missing 1e content.

While I also wish they'd sanctioned AoE I'd like to point out a couple of things

1) I very much applaud their telling us that they are NOT going to sanction it. Kudos to them for being open and honest and telling us this in a quite timely fashion

2) This IS a sensitive topic right now. I'm currently running this with 2 groups and in both cases I sat down with my players BEFORE even agreeing to run it and set some "ground rules" as to the limits on PC behaviour that I was comfortable with.

That kind of agreement is easy to come to with a pre set group sitting down to play an entire AP together.

But I know that in PF1 LOTS and LOTS of time I played a single book of an AP as, essentially, a module with a pick up group. And I WOULD be uncomfortable with running or playing this AP with a pick up group. And, from Paizo's point of view, I'd be uncomfortable with this AP being played in an open game store with an unknown group of GMs and players.

Yes, this can most definitely be played in a mature fashion. But it is also extremely open to abuse with the wrong players.

Poor decision. We are all adults here.

As a matter of fact, PFS players are NOT all adults. There are inarguably quite a few children who play. And arguably more than a few who have the emotional maturity of children regardless of chronological age.

I know that I've played with people who I would NOT trust to be sensitive with this.

Not to mention the possible friction when a group contains people with very different views on how policing should work.

Gary Bush wrote:

Poor decision. We are all adults here.

As a matter of fact, PFS players are NOT all adults. There are inarguably quite a few children who play. And arguably more than a few who have the emotional maturity of children regardless of chronological age.

I know that I've played with people who I would NOT trust to be sensitive with this.

Not to mention the possible friction when a group contains people with very different views on how policing should work.

My point is that as adults, we can discuss these points and come to an informed decision. Most APs are played as a closed group anyways. Given this, if a younger player is possibly going to take part it is very likely there is an older, a parent or a trusted friend maybe, player there as well.

In an case. What is done is done. I don't like the decision. Not the first time. Will not be the last.

I view things from my viewpoint, as we all do, and this AP would not be a problem for me or the group I was planning to run this AP for. But now, the incentive is gone. I play Pathfinder for Society. I am not interested in playing out of Organized Play.

I also believe people are free to make their own choices and should not be told how they should act by others who believe they should act in a different way. That is where abuse of power comes from. Playing a fantasy game, for me, allows me to get away from our real world for a few hours.

This smacks of the time in the 80's when the moral minority made a huge push against AD&D as being "satanic" and "demon worshiping". A lot of places banned playing the game for that reach. Heck, my sister still thinks I am going to go a bad place because I still play "those" types of games.

Any ways, enough of my ranting. I don't care if anyone else agrees with me. That is my view. If you don't like, I respect your right not to agree. Please respect my right as well.

So Gary I support you completely. As a relic from that 80's era who had a friend whose parents actually burned their books. Any position that even indirectly supports a belief that this isn't a fantasy game is deeply troubling. And remotely equating city guards with a modern police force is that.

However as not a Venture Critter of any stripe I can look at all the things Org Play has going on and see why they'd look at this one and punt. Despite my feelings above I would have probably made the same call.

Also, missed (or ignored) in the comments about AoE is that there will be player options despite the lack of full sanctioning.

That is no small thing.

Remembering my gaming experiences back in the '90s and 00s, the goal of an educated and aware
AP would not happen with a random table whether it happened at a FLGS or a convention.

Sanctioning an AP for 'just' home play doesn't help build community and would be an inefficient use of limited resources, imo.

It's rough, but I don't see a fix for it.

Sanctioning an AP for 'just' home play doesn't help build community and would be an inefficient use of limited resources, imo.

But that's what all APs in PFS2 are sanctioned for now. They aren't supposed to be run like Scenarios.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Sanctioning an AP for 'just' home play doesn't help build community and would be an inefficient use of limited resources, imo.

But that's what all APs in PFS2 are sanctioned for now. They aren't supposed to be run like Scenarios.

What you are missing is that there will be no chronicle that can be applied to a PFS character. It sounds like the interesting items that is contained in the AP will be made available for purchase through the AcP. To me, that sounds like anyone can buy them. No need play the AP. No recording to that would "open" an item to be purchased through AcP.

Who wouldn't want to get a fire kitty without having to actually play Plaguestone? The a certain crossbow?

The APs are all 'Campaign mode'...

There is no Society option... so any argument that it isn't 'Society friendly' is an argument in bad faith.

~

PF1 APs had an option between Society and Campaign modes of play, so an AP not being 'Society friendly' was an issue...

Playing a fantasy game, for me, allows me to get away from our real world for a few hours.

I really wanted to highlight this passage someone posted since this is, I'm pretty sure, the heart of the issue at hand.

The reason AoE isn't being sanctioned is precisely because dealing with such a sensitive topic right now removes the ability for people to just "get away from our real world for a few hours." That is exactly why Paizo isn't sanctioning it.

It's well and good for us to say "they should just let us play it, and we'll do it tactfully and with all due considerations." But - if you're a part of a marginalised community at a convention, and you see a Paizo banner and a bunch of slots for an adventure where you play fantasy cops? You don't see the GMs prepping to run things in a safe, supportive, informed, manner. You just see, well, a Paizo banner and a bunch of slots for an adventure where you pretend to be fantasy police.

And that's not a good look right now.

By not sanctioning it for org play, they're disincentivising folks to play it, especially in the high-visibility, public access venues where it's most likely to have that negative effect. As others have pointed out, it's making the best of a bad situation, and minimising risk. (In a perfect world it'd, of course, be safest to just not publish AoE, but hey, they're a business, and they can't just flush 6 months of AP revenue down the toilet during the worst recession in decades soooooooo)

The reason AoE isn't being sanctioned is precisely because dealing with such a sensitive topic right now removes the ability for people to just "get away from our real world for a few hours." That is exactly why Paizo isn't sanctioning it.

Actually, nobody at Paizo has said exactly why it's being sanctioned, besides "theme and content". It could be because of subject matter like serial killers and whatnot.

The Skinsaw Murders hasn't been unsanctioned, so I'm sure it's not that.

It's not just a matter of "police bad"

Content and spoiler warning below. Reading this will spoil some bits of the AP and contains brief descriptions of some problematic elements.

The Skinsaw Murders hasn't been unsanctioned, so I'm sure it's not that.

But I don't know of any product that has been "unsanctioned" at all, do you?

I think Paizo going forward will handle certain content differently than they had in the past. While I disagree with their decision not to sanction AoE, I now expect them not to sanction the upcoming Malevolence adventure.

TOZ wrote:

The Skinsaw Murders hasn't been unsanctioned, so I'm sure it's not that.

But I don't know of any product that has been "unsanctioned" at all, do you?

Yes, actually. (The retired subsection appears to no longer exist on the site but there are more.)

Let me just say, regarding the Extinction Curse boons, ...

Milan Badzic wrote:

Huzzah!

Quick question about the Extinction Curse chronicles.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I agree on the interpretation of the syntax, but unless I misread something...

Eric Nielsen wrote:

Milan Badzic wrote:

Huzzah!

Quick question about the Extinction Curse chronicles.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I agree on the interpretation of the syntax, but unless I misread something...

** spoiler omitted **

The good thing is it means you're starting with a level 2 one, which should increase the survivability (compared to say, level 1) to make it so that you're less likely to lose a fancy character. And it can be any under 12 xp. Besides, dont all characters with race boons need them applied at level 1 anyway?

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

TOZ wrote:

The Skinsaw Murders hasn't been unsanctioned, so I'm sure it's not that.

But I don't know of any product that has been "unsanctioned" at all, do you?

Yes, actually. (The retired subsection appears to no longer exist on the site but there are more.)

Skeleton Moon was retired due to one combat causing a lot of TPKs, though, not because of objectionable themes.

Retired, unsanctioned, I don’t consider it much difference.

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

Thus not proving the point of retiring/un-sanctioning because of things that have become* objectionable themes.

~

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

It wasn’t my point.

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

Thus not proving the point of retiring/un-sanctioning because of things that have become* objectionable themes.

~

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

Your implication that Paizo development is incapable of making mistakes is laughable.

Also material that may be appropriate for private play is different than material that's appropriate for public support from organized play.

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

Thus not proving the point of retiring/un-sanctioning because of things that have become* objectionable themes.

Yes, that was my point, thank you. :)

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>

The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) "Socio-Political Current Events" are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

The problem with this argument is that the Organized Play team are completely different employees than the ones who worked on the AP, and what works for one may not work for the other. The Organized Play Team decided what worked for an AP doesn't work for public-facing games, and I doubt AoE was developed for PFS in mind either.

I personally don't understand the decision not to sanction AoE, but it could be the problems Pirate Rob pointed out rather than "Socio-Political Current Events"

I'm curious to see if Malevolence gets sanctioned, since I reckon I'll have loads of the same edgier themes that AoE had.

I assume that the Chronicle for AP #153 Life's Long Shadows should say Golem Grafter not Golem Crafter, correct?

Why does the discounted ancestry boon show up in all the chronicle sheets? An incentive to spread out the chronicles to multiple characters?

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

No actually if you go back and read the original post not everyone at Paizo was happy and one person pushed the idea.

Also for the record civil forfeiture falls under the category of cops bad. I'm not even sure why that's separate.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Eric Nielsen wrote:

Milan Badzic wrote:

Huzzah!

Quick question about the Extinction Curse chronicles.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I agree on the interpretation of the syntax, but unless I misread something...

** spoiler omitted **

The good thing is it means you're starting with a level 2 one, which should increase the survivability (compared to say, level 1) to make it so that you're less likely to lose a fancy character. And it can be any under 12 xp. Besides, dont all characters with race boons need them applied at level 1 anyway?

Ah, sorry, my unwritten point was:

Question for whoever at Paizo about the chronicle for SFS Threefold Conspiracy - Puppets Without Strings (Book 6):

Hoping this doesn't get buried in the PF2 discussion...

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

No actually if you go back and read the original post not everyone at Paizo was happy and one person pushed the idea.

And in fact Eric Mona expressed regret that he had let the idea go through and didn't listen to the people expressing their reservations, and all but stated that if it wasn't essentially financial ruin for Paizo at that point, he would have pulled the product.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

Thus not proving the point of retiring/un-sanctioning because of things that have become* objectionable themes.

Yes, that was my point, thank you. :)

The Golemworks Incident and City of Strangers 1 & 2 have been given a soft ban, but not unsanctioned.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

Thus not proving the point of retiring/un-sanctioning because of things that have become* objectionable themes.

Yes, that was my point, thank you. :)

The Golemworks Incident and City of Strangers 1 & 2 have been given a soft ban, but not unsanctioned.

Can confirm

Why Golemworks? Just curious.

Problematic representation that Paizo feels is not appropriate in a public event setting. It is best handled in a private setting between players who know each other and can handle it with care and attention.

Adam Yakaboski wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

No actually if you go back and read the original post not everyone at Paizo was happy and one person pushed the idea.

And in fact Eric Mona expressed regret that he had let the idea go through and didn't listen to the people expressing their reservations, and all but stated that if it wasn't essentially financial ruin for Paizo at that point, he would have pulled the product.

... Did it make it through Development to go on to be published?

.. it wasn't 'objectionable' enough to be deemed a no-go until Socio-Political Current Events mandated it be objected to...

Since then, it has been given the 'can't touch it with a 10-foot pole' treatment... as socially mandated for anyone who doesn't want to be labeled as pro-(Bad)Cop and/or racist.

~

You can argue semantics, but that is the simple truth...

I'm not trying to callout anyone or accuse anyone of anything, but pointing out that if it was 'objectionable' enough to warrant the 'untouchable' treatment it is currently receiving, it was 'objectionable' enough to warrant it not making it out of development.