Sanctioning Update: Adventure Paths

Gary Bush wrote:

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.

You missed the point. And thank you for the personal attack. I am not delusional and you, I don't believe, are qualified to make that determination.

Thank you for your answer. You don't believe my feeling matter.

I play and run APs, and I like the fact my Society characters can get levels. But I couldn't care less about AoE not being included, and I would still run it. Because I run APs for... fun?

I also think Paizo is one of the best companies out there dealing with the crazy polarized world we are living. So just voicing that too.

Rysky wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

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.

You missed the point. And thank you for the personal attack. I am not delusional and you, I don't believe, are qualified to make that determination.

Thank you for your answer. You don't believe my feeling matter.

” Paizo has stopped me from playing the AP.” is in fact a delusion.

You’re choosing not to play it on the absence of imaginary cookies.

Gary Bush wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

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.

You missed the point. And thank you for the personal attack. I am not delusional and you, I don't believe, are qualified to make that determination.

Thank you for your answer. You don't believe my feeling matter.

” Paizo has stopped me from playing the AP.” is in fact a delusion.

You’re choosing not to play it on the absence of imaginary cookies.

No. That is a statement of fact for me. That is the point that you and others is missing.

I am done with this thread. Enjoy the love you all.

Agree they are not forcing me to make the decision not to play the AP.

<snip>
But don't blow smoke up my backside like I have a choice.

The only reason you don't have a choice is because you are making up rules for yourself.

Denying yourself an option is not at all the same as not having that option.

The only reason you think you don't have a choice is that you've made up your own personal rule that says you can't accept some of the options available to everyone else.

The choice is still yours.

There's no conspiracy, it's all out in the open. But let's see if this policy applies consistently to future APs before we start talking like Alex Jones. If not needing to keep everything kosher let's them try more risky stuff in the future I can get behind it.

As for sanctioning of Agents of Edgewatch, while disappointing there are items from it I'd like to get without playing it, so I can't be too upset (at least, until I see whether or not I can get it).

My overall feeling is that there will be a reconsideration for this AP in the future, it just won't be sanctioned for the time being.

Chief, if I can call you by your naval parlance, I know that Paizo has been a bit off kilter with some things in the past couple of years, but the decision they made with this issue is more to do with the sensitivities of a hurting and sorrowful subject that has been on the forefront of the minds of a lot of people in this country (USA) rather than a more sinister reasoning one would have in mind.

The chance to understand the difficulty of policing through the play of this AP might be hampered by the choices and manner the players choose to play the adventure, such as one doing the "murder hobo" type of playstyle so prevalent in a lot of Pathfinder groups.

There is nothing preventing you from playing or running this adventure path outside of the organized structure of PFS. I think with the campaign mode of the sanctioning that PF2 has, the only thing missing would be a chronicle sheet to hand a player anyways. I am sure that this AP will get run in various game stores anyways outside of the PFS organized banner.

Sorry that you feel that this decision is something more than a simple omission. I am still disappointed the retired PF1 0 season scenarios never got updated to PF1 standard. (only one D&D OGL got updated to PF1) I had hoped that the PF1 scenarios would be adapted to the new edition to provide a growing back catalogue of content for the game. Alas, this to is not to be.

My advice is to enjoy the content we do have for PFS and be open to the idea that Paizo can change their minds in the future about this decision.

Why do these things always happen when I'm sleep deprived?

...From foreign perspective, a retired navy personnel pulling out their credits to complain about game company business practice is absolutely bizarre.

Secondly, I can't comment on the removed post since I don't remember much about it besides "poor decision, we are all adults here" that was quoted in later post, but at this point we(who don't have good memory) have no clue what happened there. Like maybe post did deserve to be removed, maybe not, either way its probably not because of some sort of company conspiracy and more likely because a mod got annoyed with the post :P

Thirdly, I think people should always remember context of what this is about: This is about organized play and the hobby, not about government :P What I do mean is that there is level where you are "Way too worked up and angry about board games"

Fourth, pulling out the "vocal minority complains" card is annoying unless you have statistics. Because people ALWAYS claim the "opposition" to be the vocal minority to make their claims seem less valid regardless of whether it is true or not. And even then, if the subject IS about rights of minority, then dismissing them as minority is problematic on its own. It really matters on context of thing being debated.

Fifth, I'm really annoyed by all "All humans are bad" edgelord nihilism :p

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

Very much this. Moreover, I wrote a volume of Agents of Edgewatch. I also told the organized play team back when I was the Pathfinder Society Developer that themes like child endangerment, nonconsensual voyeurism, torture, and body horror were prevalent enough in the adventure and central enough to the storyline that I didn't believe the AP should be sanctioned as it violated too many of our standards for content produced for the program. You can check the content warnings at the start of each volume to see why it wasn't sanctioned without needing to dig for deeper political reasons, though the potential for fraught table interactions due to the sensitivity of the subject matter aren't a non-issue.

And yeah, there's some PF1 scenarios that wouldn't meet our current standards. The program has been around for a long time and the people planning it 10 years ago aren't the same people who were planning it 5 years ago, who aren't the same people planning it today. There are PF1 scenarios out there that wouldn't get made or approved today. We're moving forward, not changing the past.

The main point though, is that Paizo's publishing standards are not the same as their organized play standards. They can and will publish adventures with content warnings that might not be appropriate for all tables. Dark or disturbing themes have a place in storytelling, that place just doesn't need to be an environment where 12-year-olds can and regularly do join a table with little notice and where the program standards indicate they don't need to worry about things that are recurring themes in AoE. And yes, you could put an age limit or sign-up limit on the adventure, but then it's not serving the organized play goals of creating a safe, open, and welcoming environment.

I wrote a volume of Agents of Edgewatch. I've been excited to start sharing it with my home group. I also was the one who first said organized play shouldn't sanction AoE, pointed to the content warnings and related material as my reasons why, and suggested that we add appropriate game mechanics directly to AcP so people wouldn't miss out on those entirely. There's no hypocrisy there. It's possible to make a thing that has value for many people without that thing meeting the community standards for a family-friendly program.

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

** spoiler omitted **

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

Yeah, that should be a one-time cross off!

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

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

Very much this. Moreover, I wrote a volume of Agents of Edgewatch. I also told the organized play team back when I was the Pathfinder Society Developer that the themes of child endangerment, nonconsensual voyeurism, torture, and body horror were prevalent enough in the adventure and central enough to the storyline that I didn't believe the AP should be sanctioned as it violated too many of our standards for content produced for the program. You can check the content warnings at the start of each volume to see why it wasn't sanctioned without needing to dig for deeper political reasons, though the potential for fraught table interactions due to the sensitivity of the subject matter aren't a non-issue.

And yeah, there's some PF1 scenarios that wouldn't meet our current standards. The program has been around for a long time and the people planning it 10 years ago aren't the same people who were planning it 5 years ago, who aren't the same people planning it today. There are PF1 scenarios out there that wouldn't get made or approved today. We're moving forward, not changing the past.

The main point though, is that Paizo's publishing standards are not the same as their organized play standards. They can and will publish adventures with content warnings that might not be appropriate for all tables. Dark or disturbing themes have a place in storytelling, that place just doesn't need to be an environment where 12-year-olds can and regularly do join a table with little notice and where the program standards indicate they don't need to worry about things that are recurring themes in AoE. And yes, you could put an age limit or sign-up limit on the adventure, but then it's not serving the organized play goals of creating a safe, open, and welcoming environment.

I wrote a volume of Agents of Edgewatch. I've been excited to start sharing it with my home...

The 'hypocrisy' is from how the reason was put...

In PF2 APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode (re: Home games). Therefore the argument that 'this AP should only be played in a home game, so we aren't sanctioning it' is an argument in bad faith.

If the reason given was simply something along the lines of 'given current events' or 'given the dark/objectionable themes'... 'we will not be sanctioning the AP', but without the above bad faith argument, there would be less cries of 'hypocrisy'... IMO...

So, I guess this would be a question more for the Devs or the Mods, but since Extinction Curse has been sanctioned, but I don't see anything on Bestiary 2. Does this mean the Rhoka Sword has been sanctioned for use in Society Play since the Urdefhan are part of Extinction Curse?

In PF2 APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode (re: Home games). Therefore the argument that 'this AP should only be played in a home game, so we aren't sanctioning it' is an argument in bad faith.

This does not follow at all.

In order to accuse people of arguing in bad faith you need an argument so good and so obvious that dishonesty is the only reason not to accept it.

This is NOT that argument. You simply cannot equate campaign mode with home games.

For PF 1, to be played in organized play an paizo staffer would look at an adventure path, Pick out parts that could be run in 8 hours, hit the highlights of the plot and would provide enough XP to level a character.
Then sanction those parts, write up a chronicle and say have fun.

For PF2 that first part gets skipped.

So if its sanctioned for organized play, at conventions you will have individual DMs go through the adventure, Pick out parts that could be run in 8 hours, hit the highlights of the plot and would provide enough XP to level a character, and then run it and hand out a chronicle sheet.

Nothing in that change of process eliminates any of the problems with the adventure. In fact, its one LESS opportunity to avoid or steer around problematic scenes. If its sanctioned you'll have DMs running it as part of organized play.

So, I guess this would be a question more for the Devs or the Mods, but since Extinction Curse has been sanctioned, but I don't see anything on Bestiary 2. Does this mean the Rhoka Sword has been sanctioned for use in Society Play since the Urdefhan are part of Extinction Curse?

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

In PF2 APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode (re: Home games). Therefore the argument that 'this AP should only be played in a home game, so we aren't sanctioning it' is an argument in bad faith.

...

In order to accuse people of arguing in bad faith you need an argument so good and so obvious that dishonesty is the only reason not to accept it.

...

There is no requirement to have a counter-argument for any argument to be an argument in bad faith.

Since we have had Campaign and Society modes, we have a distinction between sanctioning of play for 'inside' Society and 'outside' Society... Since PF2 does not get sanctioning for play 'inside' Society, it therefore, is for play 'outside' Society. Exactly where Paizo is stating this AP should be played...

Since ALL PF2 APs are ONLY sanctioning for play 'outside' Society, that is not an argument to not sanction, ergo, the argument is in bad faith.

This isn't a discussion of whether or not the AP should be sanctioned. At least on my part.

This is pointing out that the reason given has not been given in 'good faith', I'm perfectly alright with this AP not getting sanctioned, but much prefer honesty and openness, not hiding behind a bad faith argument.

So, I guess this would be a question more for the Devs or the Mods, but since Extinction Curse has been sanctioned, but I don't see anything on Bestiary 2. Does this mean the Rhoka Sword has been sanctioned for use in Society Play since the Urdefhan are part of Extinction Curse?

If it is not on a chronicle sheet, then no...

That does not prevent it from potentially showing up in the AcP or on a chronicle later...

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

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

Very much this. Moreover, I wrote a volume of Agents of Edgewatch. I also told the organized play team back when I was the Pathfinder Society Developer that themes like child endangerment, nonconsensual voyeurism, torture, and body horror were prevalent enough in the adventure and central enough to the storyline that I didn't believe the AP should be sanctioned as it violated too many of our standards for content produced for the program. You can check the content warnings at the start of each volume to see why it wasn't sanctioned without needing to dig for deeper political reasons, though the potential for fraught table interactions due to the sensitivity of the subject matter aren't a non-issue.

And yeah, there's some PF1 scenarios that wouldn't meet our current standards. The program has been around for a long time and the people planning it 10 years ago aren't the same people who were planning it 5 years ago, who aren't the same people planning it today. There are PF1 scenarios out there that wouldn't get made or approved today. We're moving forward, not changing the past.

The main point though, is that Paizo's publishing standards are not the same as their organized play standards. They can and will publish adventures with content warnings that might not be appropriate for all tables. Dark or disturbing themes have a place in storytelling, that place just doesn't need to be an environment where 12-year-olds can and regularly do join a table with little notice and where the program standards indicate they don't need to worry about things that are recurring themes in AoE. And yes, you could put an age limit or sign-up limit on the adventure, but then it's not serving the organized play goals of creating a safe, open, and welcoming environment.

I wrote a volume of Agents of Edgewatch. I've been excited to start sharing it with my home...

Thanks. This fits exactly with what I've been saying since the beginning in other places. This AP has LOTS more sensitive content (and really worse ones too) than just the "police theme".

In PF2 APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode (re: Home games). Therefore the argument that 'this AP should only be played in a home game, so we aren't sanctioning it' is an argument in bad faith.

Nope. Campaign Mode is still part of the organized play umbrella and sanctioned content is content the OP team has approved for play wherever people want to play it. When we sanction something, we're saying it falls reasonably well within our standards, and AoE doesn't. If you're only playing APs in closed home games, that's not a reason they should all be sanctioned, that's an argument that sanctioning APs isn't serving the org play goals of creating open communities that grow the player base and they should stop doing it entirely.

And to be clear- I'm only addressing you so other people can see the answer. I found it ridiculous that a bunch of adults were turning an apolitical thing political and lobbing around accusations, and I'm better positioned than anyone to address what actually happened as someone who initiated the decision, worked on the AP, and served as line lead when the decision was made.

Accusing me or anyone else of arguing in bad faith because you don't agree with the decision is just being a jerk. Stuff like that is why it's so hard for the community to get firm answers on things; most employees of Paizo feel like it's never worth the time or effort to engage with the forums unless they have to because there's always going to be someone who thinks they can read minds and knows what's really going on who's going to attack employees with unfounded accusations because they feel like they're not getting their way.

So to sum up and then I'm out-

Sanctioned play is still part of the organized play umbrella and regardless of whether some people limit campaign mode events to home groups, sanctioned events are still welcome at cons and other places the organized play program hosts tables. The event being sanctioned in campaign mode or otherwise is irrelevant to sanctioning being equivalent to a stamp of approval from the org play team that the adventure is suitable for the program.

AoE failed those standards on multiple points, and one of the things that is an easy indicator of that is just checking the content warnings at the start of each volume. Those were in place long before the events surrounding the police in the United States surged to the forefront of our national politics.

Seeing people disgracing themselves, and in some cases the organizations they represent, with false accusations and assumptions is the reason I decided to say something in this thread; despite no longer being part of the org play team, I was there when the decision was made and was the one who suggested the path we took of making the options available through AcP without sanctioning the adventure.

No one but you is stopping you from playing Agents of Edgewatch. I, personally, think it has the potential to be anything from an intense adventure in an urban environment to an opportunity for groups to explore how they would like to see community policing handled in an environment unlike anything in the real world. But I also recognize that the adventure requires consideration and group cohesion to avoid problematic material on a level that is unreasonable to expect from the organized play environment, and that the amount of excisions necessary to bring it up to those standards would fundamentally undermine the adventure.

This is pointing out that the reason given has not been given in 'good faith',

”This adventure path contains elements where we are not comfortable sanctioning it for organized play”

The faith is there and fine and plain as day. You don’t like it are trying to demonize and stir things up with your posts and claims of bad faith.

It’s not suitable for organized play society and thus was not sanctioned. Whatever mode you want to run it in is irrelevant. It’s not sanctioned for home games. It’s not sanctioned to be run at your local gaming shop. It’s not sanctioned for conventions.

If you want to play it then play it, you’re just not going to get additional imaginary cookies for doing so.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

In PF2 APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode (re: Home games). Therefore the argument that 'this AP should only be played in a home game, so we aren't sanctioning it' is an argument in bad faith.

This does not follow at all.

In order to accuse people of arguing in bad faith you need an argument so good and so obvious that dishonesty is the only reason not to accept it.

This is NOT that argument. You simply cannot equate campaign mode with home games.

For PF 1, to be played in organized play an paizo staffer would look at an adventure path, Pick out parts that could be run in 8 hours, hit the highlights of the plot and would provide enough XP to level a character.
Then sanction those parts, write up a chronicle and say have fun.

For PF2 that first part gets skipped.

So if its sanctioned for organized play, at conventions you will have individual DMs go through the adventure, Pick out parts that could be run in 8 hours, hit the highlights of the plot and would provide enough XP to level a character, and then run it and hand out a chronicle sheet.

Nothing in that change of process eliminates any of the problems with the adventure. In fact, its one LESS opportunity to avoid or steer around problematic scenes. If its sanctioned you'll have DMs running it as part of organized play.

That's not how you run an AP in 2e for PFS credit, you have to do the whole thing. It is not suitable for a convention at all.

As for the rest of the conversation, I don't think there's real bad faith arguments, but boy would Michael's post have been handy to include in the original blog.

I have no problem with whoever wants to run the game as a home game doing so in the privacy of their own home. And I have no problem with Paizo publishing the Adventure Path (especially considering the content warnings that come along with the content).

But as a PFS convention organizer I wouldn't want to have this content being offered at a PFS table where anybody could sign up to play; there is subject matter that would definitely not be considered appropriate by the parents of some of our minor children players. Nor would I consider the only tool that might have been made available to me - limiting the GMs allowed to run it by the number of stars/novas/glyphs they have - adequate.

I don't want to be put in the situation of having to ask parents for signed permission for their minor children to play at a PFS game. And even that isn't really sufficient - what goes on at the table is easily heard by people at the next table, or by non-players who happen to be in the room. PFS/SFS organized play has a good reputation for providing a family-friendly, open environment, and IMO that's how it should stay.

If we're going to have to run the game in a private room, with a pre-vetted list of players, than this doesn't meet the criterion of a 'public game' which Paizo (and the convention owners) expect me to provide.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Michael.

There is no requirement to have a counter-argument for any argument to be an argument in bad faith.

Holy cow.. YES. That is the number one indicator that someone is arguing in good faith: that when you challenge their idea it turns out that there is a rational, fact based, and reasonable response to your objection. If someone can rationally take facts and reasonably use them to conclude their position there is no grounds for calling bad faith outside of a mind reading machine.

Since we have had Campaign and Society modes, we have a distinction between sanctioning of play for 'inside' Society and 'outside' Society...

This would, at best. Be a distinction on paper only. This difference would pale in comparison to the similarities: Same organization, same characters, and quite possibly the same DM running the scenario. The biggest difference anyone would notice is one slot VS. 2.

Try to imagine your explanation when the rubber hits the road. Dad and his kids showed up to hack some orcs, they sit down to play and inside 15 minutes the adventure veers off into an Episode of "The Wire" meets "24".

Well yes, this is a PFS event being run by PFS DMs using your PFS characters and collecting your PFS numbers for credit to put on those chronicles those PFS characters are getting, but its not REALLY inside PFS because its not sanctioned PFS material its for a home game.

Is ANYONE not already beard deep in organized plays arcane procedures going to see any difference there?

Oooh, I just realized that the sanctioning have a chronicle that lets you add an ooze to the list of creatures you can summon if you have an appropriate spell, but there are no spells letting you summon an ooze! :o
I wonder if we'll get one soon?

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

In PF2 APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode (re: Home games). Therefore the argument that 'this AP should only be played in a home game, so we aren't sanctioning it' is an argument in bad faith.

Nope. Campaign Mode is still part of the organized play umbrella and sanctioned content is content the OP team has approved for play wherever people want to play it. When we sanction something, we're saying it falls reasonably well within our standards, and AoE doesn't. If you're only playing APs in closed home games, that's not a reason they should all be sanctioned, that's an argument that sanctioning APs isn't serving the org play goals of creating open communities that grow the player base and they should stop doing it entirely.

And to be clear- I'm only addressing you so other people can see the answer. I found it ridiculous that a bunch of adults were turning an apolitical thing political and lobbing around accusations, and I'm better positioned than anyone to address what actually happened as someone who initiated the decision, worked on the AP, and served as line lead when the decision was made.

Accusing me or anyone else of arguing in bad faith because you don't agree with the decision is just being a jerk. Stuff like that is why it's so hard for the community to get firm answers on things; most employees of Paizo feel like it's never worth the time or effort to engage with the forums unless they have to because there's always going to be someone who thinks they can read minds and knows what's really going on who's going to attack employees with unfounded accusations because they feel like they're not getting their way.

So to sum up and then I'm out-

Sanctioned play is still part of the organized play umbrella and regardless of whether some people limit campaign mode events to home groups, sanctioned events are still welcome at cons and other places the organized play program hosts tables. The event being sanctioned in campaign mode or otherwise is...

Again, my issue is with the Bad faith justification, not the choice to not sanction.

The fact that Sanctioning things is an Organized Play decision does not change the fact that APs are sanctioned for Campaign mode play... and the fact that Campaign mode play has always, according to Paizo, been seen as Home Games, means any argument that it can't be sanctioned BECAUSE it should only be played as a Home Game is the definition of a Bad Faith Argument.

~

If the reasoning hadn't attached the Bad Faith Argument, and simply stated, as you did, both clearly and concisely, the the content is not in line with the 'org play goals of creating open communities that grow the player base'. Full Stop. There would be no issue.

Again, I support the decision.

I am opposed to the hiding behind a Bad Faith Argument.

Oooh, I just realized that the sanctioning have a chronicle that lets you add an ooze to the list of creatures you can summon if you have an appropriate spell, but there are no spells letting you summon an ooze! :o

I wonder if we'll get one soon?

Yeah... I think this is the 3rd or 4th Ooze...

Hopefully "Soon" instead of "Soon(TM)"... ^_^

I was looking through the Age of Ashes sanctioning, when I saw that first... Off the top of my head, I think there was 2 or 3 in the AoA chronicles...

Campaign mode has never been seen as home games by Paizo.

That is how Paizo used to describe it in 1st Ed... as I recall, that made it into the old Guide... (I want to say, somewhere in the Season 3-4 range... not sure...

If/When they changed it, I don't know.

Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder

Adventure Path with an ongoing group undertaking the
entire, six-book campaign, you may receive credit for
playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you
had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs
running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules
of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign (such
as 20 point buy, unavailability of hero points, etc...) when
running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the
adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters
from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play
in the same adventure.

Alternatively, you may play the entirety of The

Dragon’s Demand, afterward receiving credit for playing
the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had
played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs
running the module are not bound to the rules of the
Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign (such as
20-point buy, unavailability of hero points, etc.) when
running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the
adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters
playing through this alternative format may not play in
the same adventure.

I don't see it.

Campaign Mode: For sanctioned modules and

Adventure Paths, GMs are allowed to use their own
rules for character creation and running the presented
content (the entire book or series). Credit is applied to
an appropriate Roleplaying Guild character as if the
character created was a pregenerated character.

I'm happy to go through the rest of the guides I have if needed.

Edit: Season 4's guide, version 4.2 from August 16th, 2012, does not include campaign mode text.

... If only for my edification, could you... I only have a copy of the Season 10 Guide...

Though you don't need to post all of them... I trust you...

DM me with what you find please.

~

I'm sure I saw it in 'Official Paizo Voice'(TM)... I'll dig around, see what I find...

~
{EDIT}

Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

I knew I had seen it 'officially' somewhere... So, from its inception, 'Campaign' mode was SPECIFICALLY intended for Home Games.

Note... this is not intended to restart the debate...

If the reasoning hadn't attached the Bad Faith Argument

Since there hasn't been so much as an attempt to demonstrate any bad faith, at all, this complaint may as well be that the responses aren't smurfy enough.

oh no... its spreading...

It's been so smurfing long...

[lots of stuff]

Thank you for taking the time explain the Organized Play Team's decision not to sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch. I know it isn't always easy to wade into the comments, but I'm glad you did.

Michael Sayre wrote:

[lots of stuff]

Thank you for taking the time explain the Organized Play Team's decision not to sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch. I know it isn't always easy to wade into the comments, but I'm glad you did.

... I too thank you for your time and effort... and I do apologize, as I seem to have a tendency to come off as more confrontational than intended...

... any way we could get some reinforcements to help hold off the Smurf invasion?!

Not again!?!

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

If the reasoning hadn't attached the Bad Faith Argument

Since there hasn't been so much as an attempt to demonstrate any bad faith, at all, this complaint may as well be that the responses aren't s$&%y enough.

Repeatedly shown

You have done no such thing.

I knew I had seen it 'officially' somewhere... So, from its inception, 'Campaign' mode was SPECIFICALLY intended for Home Games.

Note... this is not intended to restart the debate...

Thanks for finding that, I know how hard it is to pull up the historical documents after the site upgrade. I sadly do not have a copy of ver4.3 to verify that 'home' made it into any guide. From season 5 onward, it appears to have been omitted, as shown in the PM I sent as requested. I will agree to disagree, based on my experience of watching sanctioned modules play out in campaign mode at my stores.

(Also, the invasion can be stopped very easily, we just have to not invoke the blue bastards name. :)

if your response includes that word (including in quoted replies) you profile gets changed. Just don't quote the response and it should stop.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

I knew I had seen it 'officially' somewhere... So, from its inception, 'Campaign' mode was SPECIFICALLY intended for Home Games.

Note... this is not intended to restart the debate...

Thanks for finding that, I know how hard it is to pull up the historical documents after the site upgrade. I sadly do not have a copy of ver4.3 to verify that 'home' made it into any guide. From season 5 onward, it appears to have been omitted, as shown in the PM I sent as requested. I will agree to disagree, based on my experience of watching sanctioned modules play out in campaign mode at my stores.

Here you go:

Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing group undertaking the entire, six-book campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign (such as 20 point buy, unavailability of hero points, etc...) when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

Repeatedly shown and ignored...

Its even harder to take you seriously when you blatantly lie.

No. I am not going to believe you over my own eyes.

No, repeatedly saying something is not showing it.

No, Ad Homs are not evidence.

No. It isn't a "Semantic" argument when you insult people using words with a meaning completely different than what they mean in english.

Campaign mode has never been seen as home games by Paizo.

On reflection, like a lot of off the cuff comments, this isn't exactly true.

The PFS team is not Paizo.

The current PFS team is not the team that enacted campaign mode.

The current team is not beholden to past team decisions.

The current team is not arguing in bad faith by not holding to the letter or spirit of past team decisions.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

Repeatedly shown and ignored...

...

No. I am not going to believe you over my own eyes.

No, repeatedly saying something is not showing it.

...

...

I'll not touch your Ad Hominem attacks...

Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

Simply put, from inception, 'Campaign mode' has been 'home game'...

Now, you too have seen it...

~

TOZ...

The 'core' of the Organized Play team are Paizo Employees... this has generally lead to OrgPlay and Paizo to generally be seen as interchangeable...

We have all done it... So, its not ground to make/break an argument on...

In Organized Play, yes, the current team IS beholden to past team decisions. The current team is also allowed to reverse past team decisions.

Given the FACT that 'Campaign mode' = 'home game' was built right in, it IS a 'Bad Faith Argument' to argue the it does not.

~

I had hoped we all would be willing to drop it, but it looks people don't want that...

You don’t don’t stir the pot and lob insults and then demand everything drop on your say so.

Whether it’s a home game or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s just you playing both the GM and the PCs by yourself is irrelevant.

You don’t don’t stir the pot and lob insults and then demand everything drop on your say so.

Whether it’s a home game or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s just you playing both the GM and the PCs by yourself is irrelevant.

I haven't lobbed any insults.

I have been insulted and accused of insulting people.

And as the 'given reason' for not sanctioning was that it should only be played in a 'Home Game' does indeed make "whether it’s a home game or not" relevant.

~

I notice the 'never said it' has stopped... and since I quoted the Official statement, the new position is 'too old, doesn't count' and/or 'it's irrelevant'... or just personal attacks...

~

Nothing beneficial will come from continuing this, so, people, everyone all right with dropping it?

if your response includes that word (including in quoted replies) you profile gets changed. Just don't quote the response and it should stop.

... I know... I was just having some fun with it... ^_^

so, people, everyone all right with dropping it?

You don't have to get agreement from other people in order to stop posting.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

so, people, everyone all right with dropping it?

You don't have to get agreement from other people in order to stop posting.

... we do need agreement if this thread is going to go back to useful discussions...

I'm happy to drop it, but will not ignore attacks...

And, as I have stated repeatedly, I have no issue with the decision to not sanction AoE.