Sanctioning Update: Adventure Paths

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.

My biggest problem with Golemworks is that

Lot's of bad ideas make it through development, what's your point.

People were voicing complaints against it the moment it was announced so drop the "Socio-Political Current Events" and "socially mandated" catchphrases.

Lot's of bad ideas make it through development, what's your point.

People were voicing complaints against it the moment it was announced so drop the "Socio-Political Current Events" and "socially mandated" catchphrases.

So, you are saying that that has had nothing to do with the decisions and statements Paizo has made about the AP?

It was just coincidence that the timing coincided with just about every business making their "socially mandated" statements of solidarity because of the "Socio-Political Current Events"...

~

I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of the position that we(Paizo) will develop and publish objectionable content but we will also claim no ownership for it...

We will publish it, we will profit from it, but we will feel bad about it...

~

The AP could have been developed without the objectionable content, and still been a 'you are the (Good) Cops' theme...

Simple things would have needed to been changed...
> Don't base the economics of 'confiscating'(Stealing) things from the people...
> Set up conflict resolution as social interaction and compromise, not combat...
> Set up a system of checks and balances for the PCs actions...

My suggestion to the OP team and Paizo:

Just say "So and so AP is not being sanctioned for Organized Play."

Going to get gripping in any case so the less said, the better it is for the company.

My suggestion to the OP team and Paizo:

Just say "So and so AP is not being sanctioned for Organized Play."

Going to get gripping in any case so the less said, the better it is for the company.

I concur.

~

My issue isn't so much the not sanctioning the AP, it is the the same lack of ownership we have seen with the lack of OrgPlay Playtesting, by blaiming things that only Paizo controls, the 'because of choices we made, we can't allow it, so it's not our fault.'

This one has the added 'not for public play' so 'no home game sanctioning'...

How Modules and APs are sanctioned in PF2 make them not really suitable for public gameday play...

My suggestion to the OP team and Paizo:

Just say "So and so AP is not being sanctioned for Organized Play."

Going to get gripping in any case so the less said, the better it is for the company.

I'm going to post to opposite opinion, and encourage Paizo to explain, loudly and often, why they make decisions. Especially when those decisions align with their repeatedly stated ideals of inclusivity and racial justice.

the the same lack of ownership we have seen with the lack of OrgPlay Playtesting, by blaiming things that only Paizo controls, the 'because of choices we made, we can't allow it, so it's not our fault.'

Did you read what they wrote four months ago about this? It feels to me like you didn't read what they wrote four months ago about this.

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.

Unlike a lot of other media and forms of entertainment, Role playing games are incredibly dependent on the user to fill in the experience. A lot of the tone, themes, plot, and rating will depend on the people at the table. Gamers in a Role playing game aren't just the audience, they're partially the creators.

A group that wants to treat it as dungeon delving with a badge can do so. A group that wants to treat it as an in depth examination of the quandaries of law enforcement through the safety lens of a magical world can do so. One of the strengths of science fiction and fantasy is to apply a little distance and allegory to say things with enough allegory to provide a little distance but hitting close enough to make a point.

Either one of those works fine for the groups it works for.

What makes that break for Organized play is the players and DM. Home groups have a level of familiarity, working cooporation, and shared expectations that normally make a game better, but in this case are absolutely necessary to making the campaign work. A PFS table is a bag of mixed nuts, some may want to play the first way, and some who may want to play the second and... wow are those NOT going to mix.

Much like sacred geometry or options that rely on DMs interpretation and intervention what works in a home game is no guarantee to work with PFS. That doesn't mean those things shouldn't be made.

Gary Bush wrote:

My suggestion to the OP team and Paizo:

Just say "So and so AP is not being sanctioned for Organized Play."

Going to get gripping in any case so the less said, the better it is for the company.

I'm going to post to opposite opinion, and encourage Paizo to explain, loudly and often, why they make decisions. Especially when those decisions align with their repeatedly stated ideals of inclusivity and racial justice.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

the the same lack of ownership we have seen with the lack of OrgPlay Playtesting, by blaming things that only Paizo controls, the 'because of choices we made, we can't allow it, so it's not our fault.'

Did you read what they wrote four months ago about this? It feels to me like you didn't read what they wrote four months ago about this.

I did read it... as well as the great multitude of "socially mandated" statements of solidarity from around that time...

... Especially when those decisions align with their repeatedly stated ideals of inclusivity and racial justice.

The objectional content in this AP go against the 'repeatedly stated ideals' you are defending...

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

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.

Unlike a lot of other media and forms of entertainment, Role playing games are incredibly dependent on the user to fill in the experience. A lot of the tone, themes, plot, and rating will depend on the people at the table. Gamers in a Role playing game aren't just the audience, they're partially the creators.

A group that wants to treat it as dungeon delving with a badge can do so. A group that wants to treat it as an in depth examination of the quandaries of law enforcement through the safety lens of a magical world can do so. One of the strengths of science fiction and fantasy is to apply a little distance and allegory to say things with enough allegory to provide a little distance but hitting close enough to make a point.

Either one of those works fine for the groups it works for.

What makes that break for Organized play is the players and DM. Home groups have a level of familiarity, working cooporation, and shared expectations that normally make a game better, but in this case are absolutely necessary to making the campaign work. A PFS table is a bag of mixed nuts, some may want to play the first way, and some who may want to play the second and... wow are those NOT going to mix.

Much like sacred geometry or options that rely on DMs interpretation and intervention what works in a home game is no guarantee to work with PFS. That doesn't mean those things shouldn't be made.

Again, in PF2, APs have no Society mode play, they ARE Home Games... that argument is disingenuous...

Rysky wrote:

Lot's of bad ideas make it through development, what's your point.

People were voicing complaints against it the moment it was announced so drop the "Socio-Political Current Events" and "socially mandated" catchphrases.

So, you are saying that that has had nothing to do with the decisions and statements Paizo has made about the AP?

It was just coincidence that the timing coincided with just about every business making their "socially mandated" statements of solidarity because of the "Socio-Political Current Events"...

~

I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of the position that we(Paizo) will develop and publish objectionable content but we will also claim no ownership for it...

We will publish it, we will profit from it, but we will feel bad about it...

~

The AP could have been developed without the objectionable content, and still been a 'you are the (Good) Cops' theme...

Simple things would have needed to been changed...
> Don't base the economics of 'confiscating'(Stealing) things from the people...
> Set up conflict resolution as social interaction and compromise, not combat...
> Set up a system of checks and balances for the PCs actions...

If you’re going to say something say it and stop hiding behind buzz words.

I honestly can’t tell what part of your’s to take seriously since you bounce around with so many air quotes then talk about removing objectionable content.

They’ve made it clear in their posts and from people’s reactions that they regret making the AP. It’s not a stunt or performance as you seem to want it to be.

“Play cops and it’s acceptable to take bribes and kill protestors” is a bad adventure m’kay, but even that aside for the non-sanctioning you have to take into account the over arching villain in this adventure, a serial killer. This is probably one of the darkest adventures Paizo has put out.

I did read it... as well as the great multitude of "socially mandated" statements of solidarity from around that time...

And you expect people to take you seriously?

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

I did read it... as well as the great multitude of "socially mandated" statements of solidarity from around that time...

And you expect people to take you seriously?

So, people who you assume disagree with you are not to be taken seriously?

Pointing out what basically every company was also doing at the same time for 'fear'* of social backlash is not to be take seriously?

*Fear might not be the best word... but I'm drawing a blank on a better one right now...

Your slippery language and prevaricating does not lend good faith to your arguing.

Paizo is not stopping any of you from playing the AP. They have not made any descision for you. Your reaction to their lack of sanctioning is (and always will be) your choice. If you want to play it, then play it. If you won't play it because it is not PFS sanctioned, that is a decision you are making. Do not pawn off your decisions as other's responsibility. You emphasize that "we are adults". Pawning responsibility is a childish move. Act like your claims.

Secondly, I get it because, people cannot be trusted in general. Yes, a majority of players are adults. But you are not some magical gift to humanity, you are a person and therefore, with sensative subjects, you cannot be trusted. This mess is what it is because people are people. None of you are special, nor am I. Thus, we are treated as people should be.

Thirdly, honestly, it is just one AP. Why does it matter so much!? There are at least two other APs that are sanctioned! Play those! I got over it as soon as I read it. Is it really worth throwing a textual tantrum over?

Rysky wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

I did read it... as well as the great multitude of "socially mandated" statements of solidarity from around that time...

And you expect people to take you seriously?

So, people who you assume disagree with you are not to be taken seriously?

Pointing out what basically every company was also doing at the same time for 'fear'* of social backlash is not to be take seriously?

*Fear might not be the best word... but I'm drawing a blank on a better one right now...

Because quite honestly trying to imply this is a publicity stunt is quite frankly rather insulting. Seriously, their behavior outside of this one instance points to a level of sincerity that few other RPG company can point to. They've made changes to the setting to make it less racist. They've had actual people of color write about it which is something no one does. They adapt and make changes to things based on feedback in the area of inclusivity.

I don't get it. Do you not pay attention to the setting and Paizo's actions? Are you completely ignorant and think that stuff like Vidrian was done for fun?

Just a general comment on the line between inappropriate/offensive and appropriate.

I think the torture porn box text descriptions in scenarios such as King of Storval Stairs and the Moonscare are much upsetting that the

I'm not saying to this to argue with one or attempt to convince folks to my point of view, just noting some of my thoughts on this.

Again, in PF2, APs have no Society mode play, they ARE Home Games... that argument is disingenuous...

I might be mistaken about something or derping out on the logic but anyone here will tell you I don't have the social skills required to be less than genuine.

Society mode or not, if its sanctioned for organized play people will be playing it at conventions with random PFS players. That wouldn't be a problem for a group of Dudley Dorights, but even one "that guy" at the table and the scenario has the potential to go problematic really quick.
I'm not the most familiar with PF2, but I don't see how setting up -players do this part this part and this part but not this part- would change any of my points.

Walking through the argument of why what you're saying changes anything is going to get you further than insulting my honesty.

The overall political climate right now has several subjects getting sensitive. Overall, the discussion of things have gotten divisive with a very vocal minority broking no acceptance of any counter to their own limited understanding of the matters at hand.

Cooler heads shall prevail eventually, and things should get back to normal from this pent up cloister we have been forced into. Hopefully, entertainment in general, from RPG games to Movies, can get back to good storytelling and delve into the things without the worry of having someone out there take offense to a particular niche within.

I am disappointed that the AP is, for now, not being sanctioned at this time. With how PF2 is doing sanctioned content with "campaign mode only" for things outside of Scenarios, Quests and Bounties, I can't really say it makes much difference at this point anyways.

How is PF2 doing sanctioned content? I may have missed something from Stephen Meadows argument.

I believe that's referring to APs being sanctioned only for Campaign Mode.

*sigh*

Jared Thaler wrote:

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.

It's hardly being treated as untouchable by Paizo. As well as giving it additional support to help ensure some of the issues with the material are addressed they have also approved its use by one of the major RPG podcasts who are dedicated to playing through the Adventure Path.

Paizo is not stopping any of you from playing the AP. They have not made any descision for you. Your reaction to their lack of sanctioning is (and always will be) your choice. If you want to play it, then play it. If you won't play it because it is not PFS sanctioned, that is a decision you are making.

Since there is no choice for me to play the AP as sanctioned I don't really have a choice. I am given one option. Period.

And yes, for me, Paizo has stopped me from playing the AP.

It's not just about the level of evil. Demonic sacrifices and zombie apocalypses are seriously evil, but so far out of most peoples experiences that its not really related to anything in real life. Its not going to cause an issue for most people. For different topics the allegory hits a lot closer to home, especially when handled by 10,000 amateur storytellers with little to no oversight. (Especially when outsiders forget or just don't know that there's very little to no oversight on individual games)

And yes, for me, Paizo has stopped me from playing the AP.

For credit. You’re perfectly capable of playing it for no credit. If you don’t want to do that, it’s your choice. Paizo isn’t forcing you to choose that.

Firstly, Haus, they are not forcing anything.

Secondly, they are a company so they can do with their products whatever they wish to. As they are products, your 'freedom' is not impacted at all.

If you disagree with where they express their support, you are more than welcome to your opinions. You are also quite 'free' to not give Paizo your business anymore.

You are wrong however in declaring 'fascism', because it is factually incorrect. As an individual with more credentials relating to literary careers than I, I am surprised that you would double down on something that is simply untrue. Such an act seriously discredits you regardless of how much respect you think you should be given.

There’s also the fact that the people who approve the publishing and those who sanction material for PFS are not the same.

Paizo as a company and Organized Play as the caretakers of a living campaign can reach different decisions on the same content, without it being a violation of policies and without it being hypocritical.

Gary Bush wrote:

And yes, for me, Paizo has stopped me from playing the AP.

For credit. You’re perfectly capable of playing it for no credit. If you don’t want to do that, it’s your choice. Paizo isn’t forcing you to choose that.

Agree they are not forcing me to make the decision not to play the AP. But I don't want to give my time playing something that is not going to advance my Society characters. So for me there is no choice.

What I am having some challenge with right now is the people are trying to say it is ok and I should just accept it. Well, no it is not ok. But I do have to accept it because I have no choice.

Doesn't my feelings matter??? Come on folks. I am allowed not to like the decision and I am allowed to not accept a choice that is being forced on me. Paizo has that right. They are the publisher.

But don't blow smoke up my backside like I have a choice. As I have stated many time, there is no choice, for me, because I only want to play adventures that advance my characters.

I have a accepted that I will not play the AP, please accept that I feel like I am given no choice.

Boy did I pick the right time to go on vacation.

TOZ is right on this. ( not something I say frequently. ;) )

Ablerzen, declaring a company has no right to exist because you disagree with what you see as their politics, and putting the weight of your uniform behind it is a disgrace to your service and probably violates your services code of conduct, which forbids engaging in politics while "in uniform."

Gary, I know plenty of people in PFS running home games of AoE.

(Note, as usual when I post from this account, these are just my observations. I don't much care whether or not you agree with them, and have zero interest in convincing you. All responding to this post will do is lower my personal respect for you. Take that how you will. Also, did I mention I am on vacation?)

... there is no supression.

On this your are wrong. My initial critical post was removed. So my opposition was suppressed.

Don't try and make Paizo into a good guy here At best, they are a company trying to navigate a world where practice of shutting people, and company's, down who don't agree with a vocal minority viewpoint is real.

Gary, I know plenty of people in PFS running home games of AoE.

From the prep I had done before the decision was made, the AP was looking to be a really fun one. I am sure those home games are going to really enjoy it.

I couldn't care less whether you accept it or your feelings about it, neither affects me at all. I felt it important clarify the misrepresentation that anyone is not getting a choice. If you have constructed a situation for yourself that makes this an automatic choice, that is still on you. You have essentially preemptively made your choice.

I did not see the wording of your original post, so honestly I'll give Paizo the benefit of the doubt because your later posts (actions) misrepresented the situation. If you discredit yourself by making false statements you likely won't get the benefit of the doubt.

Agree or disagree all you want. You are welcome to. Again, I couldn't care less either way. You do you. Making false statements about Paizo forcing people to do (or not do) things is wherein lies the line of my decision to step in.

TOZ is right on this. ( not something I say frequently. ;) )

We all know it's not good to praise me too often, so I understand.

Not including Agents of Edgewatch in Organized Play is where I get off the bus. Thanks for the good times over the years, but this is it for me.

LOL

Doesn't my feelings matter???

When said feelings in question are an outright delusion, then no.

Paizo isn’t forcing you to do or not do anything. They’re just not gonna give you imaginary cookies if you play this, which you are more than capable of doing. You just don’t want to.