July 2022 Organized Play Update

One other bit of news that didn't quite make press time: after discussions internally, the Organized Play team has decided not to sanction the Blood Lords AP for Pathfinder Society play. The adventure has a number of horror elements that are not appropriate for public play, and the core elements of the adventure assume that the players are either evil or tolerant of evil actions, which is not in alignment with the Pathfinder Society's values.

We will aim to sanction the less-icky content for Pathfinder Society play via boons closer to the release of the final volume, but we will not be releasing chronicles. We hope you enjoy playing it with your home groups!

Congratulations to the news 5 Star and 5 Glyph GMs, without your dedication and hard work, org play would be a pale shadow of itself ^^

Congrats to Derek, Nathan, and Olivier!

Congratulations to Derek, Nathan, and Olivier, and thank you for all that you do for our community!

Plus, I'm excited to hear that the adventures in Dark Archive will be sanctioned for play! I'm really looking forward to seeing what that has in store for us.

Have a wonderful Convention Season, everyone!

Congratulations Olivier, Derek, and Nathan!!! Thank you for all your hard work and GMing for our community!

Grats to the new 5-stars and 5-glyph!

I have been living under a rock (or just piles of work) but I didn't realize there was adventures in Dark Archives! This is super exciting, as the adventure in Book of the Dead is very cool! love this new direction!

Congrats all!

Looking forward to picking up my Radiant Oath Pin at Gen Con!

Hooray and gratz to everyone.

Congrats Oliver, Derek, and Nathan! Thanks for all you've done for the campaign!

Congratulations to you new 5 rank GM's!!

Looking forward to all the new toys we will get to play with in the coming months!

Glad to hear on the sanctioning for Outlaws of Alkenstar and I am not really surprised on Blood Lord's!

Enjoy the upcoming convention season outings!!

One other bit of news that didn't quite make press time: after discussions internally, the Organized Play team has decided not to sanction the Blood Lords AP for Pathfinder Society play. The adventure has a number of horror elements that are not appropriate for public play, and the core elements of the adventure assume that the players are either evil or tolerant of evil actions, which is not in alignment with the Pathfinder Society's values.

We will aim to sanction the less-icky content for Pathfinder Society play via boons closer to the release of the final volume, but we will not be releasing chronicles. We hope you enjoy playing it with your home groups!

I want to acknowledge I understand the reasons for not sanctioning certain APs. I get that OP doesn't want to encourage or endorse certain content in a public setting.

Having said that, I want to say I disagree with that approach. I don't think sanctioning content shows an endorsement of the content of an AP anymore than Paizo making the AP in the first place. However, sanctioning the AP volumes is a way to support the most loyal Paizo GMs/players who will be playing in OP as well as going through the APs. Furthermore, the difference in demand from the players I run for when something is sanctioned or not is a lot. I wanted to run AoE for a second group and they decided on a different AP solely because of sanctioning. This is a home group so no issues with content or what the AP is about, just getting "credit."

And that is my issue. I want to run Blood Lords. I know the people I would run Blood Lords for. I know the style of game I would run it as, what content would be off limits, and it would still be a great Paizo AP. Why can me running that as a private game with willing adults not be sanctioned? What does giving 12 xp/12 rep/30 downtime as a reward for me and my players have to do with the content of the adventure? Fundamentally, that is what people look for in sanctioning. The items are nice and the archetypes, feats, and class options can be a draw but what most want is to just boost a character in OP.

All that to say, I really think OP should stand behind the Paizo APs regardless as content. Sanctioning is not an explicit endorsement of the content, just a recognition it is a Paizo AP. Reward your most loyal fans!

Awesome news all around. Congrats to the 5 Stars & Glyphs GMs!
*Waves at Tyranius*

As Lesrek above says, please do reconsider your sanctioning of the Blood Lords AP. Give it a warning like the Bonekeep scenarios, a PG13 rating, or something.

Thanks for the advanced notice, Alex. It is helpful to have expectations set before people start playing.

To all the newly recognized super GMs thank you for all your hard work bringing these games to others.

Congratulations to the new 5-ranks!!

-----------------

I'd also agree with much of what Lesrek has said. I don't think sanctioning is any more of an endorsement than content being made by Paizo in the first place. If a product is being actively sold on paizo then it would make sense (to me) for it to be sanctioned for table credit in some capacity. I think then the responsibility of organizers, VO's, and GM's is to ensure that games we are scheduling in public venues are appropriate for the public setting.

That's not to say that I am 100% okay with all content that has been published, but I do think that if someone has taken the time to iron out all of the many rough edges of Agents of Edgewatch, for example, then they absolutely deserve to get table credit IMO. Similarly, if a group of consenting individuals have a strong session 0 with Blood Lords and run the game in a private venue then that too should be rewarded. It is unfortunate that the chance of some organizer scheduling an AP in a public setting is one of the things preventing content from being sanctioned.

And on the evil note, even in good-campaigns there is the potential for things to go off-the-rails. Sure, an evil-campaign may be more prone to that, but I think in all cases we should be relying on organizers, VO's, and GM's to ensure that things are kept-in check when in a public venue. Encourage the use of session 0's, establish boundaries and expectations, use X-Cards, etc.

With Pathfinder2e we saw a shift to GM-discretion in the rules. Let's take that spirit and trust organizers, VO's, and GM's to be responsible with the content they are running in their region and how that content is being portrayed in a public setting. If something is truly deplorable to the point that paizo's customers can't use their discretion, then why is that content being sold in the first place?

I realize that there may be more criteria for what is sanctioned and what is not, but I would encourage considering how GM's and players can be rewarded for responsibly using paizo's content that is being actively sold. Making boons available is only part of the issue-- table credit is another, as is the general chronicle xp/gold/etc.

And that is my issue. I want to run Blood Lords. I know the people I would run Blood Lords for. I know the style of game I would run it as, what content would be off limits, and it would still be a great Paizo AP. Why can me running that as a private game with willing adults not be sanctioned? What does giving 12 xp/12 rep/30 downtime as a reward for me and my players have to do with the content of the adventure? Fundamentally, that is what people look for in sanctioning. The items are...

So run it! Literally no-one and nothing is stopping you and your players having an awesome time and running the AP in its entirety! it sounds like you'd have a great time, so why not?

However if content is sanctioned that by default means it can be played in a public format, be that a FLGS or a convention, that means people can be walking past, watching, etc and see the content and the results of players playing evil characters and the sort of things they can get up to. That should be pretty obviously something that could cause some serious issues, or create a poor view of Organised Play. What is cool for a home group who have consented to any problematic content, is very possibly not cool for a public setting.

So run it! Literally no-one and nothing is stopping you and your players having an awesome time and running the AP in its entirety! it sounds like you'd have a great time, so why not?

Because my players want to be rewarded with their time in OP as well since they dedicate time to both. Given the choice of two options of two APs, they will always default to an AP that will have carryover benefits to their OP characters.

However if content is sanctioned that by default means it can be played in a public format, be that a FLGS or a convention, that means people can be walking past, watching, etc and see the content and the results of players playing evil characters and the sort of things they can get up to. That should be pretty obviously something that could cause some serious issues, or create a poor view of Organised Play. What is cool for a home group who have consented to any problematic content, is very possibly not cool for a public setting.

That's also true if it isn't sanctioned. If there is problematic content, it's still being sold and advertised by Paizo. Is Paizo not going to sell their new AP at GenCon? Of course they are. Are groups going to have demo games of it at the hall? Probably. The idea that a few people might see objectionable content in a public game should get rid of all APs from sanctioning then. Paizo's most popular 2e AP is full of objectionable content and yet it is not only sanctioned but it just got a hardcover and a port to a competitor's game.

Point being, I understand the "why" but I just disagree that risk even exists in any meaningful form. And if they are so concerned about it being played in a public setting, why can't the sanctioning doc simply say that the game isn't to be played as an open game. Isn't that the whole point of the sanctioning doc in the first place? Provide limits on the "how" content is run?

Regarding the sanctioning of Blood Lords, look at how much controversy Miss Feathers from PFS1e caused. Those scenarios are sanctioned.

Just my 2 cents.

Those scenarios from YEARS ago were sanctioned then.

Big difference.

All that to say, I really think OP should stand behind the Paizo APs regardless as content. Sanctioning is not an explicit endorsement of the content, just a recognition it is a Paizo AP. Reward your most loyal fans!

Because my players want to be rewarded with their time in OP as well since they dedicate time to both. Given the choice of two options of two APs, they will always default to an AP that will have carryover benefits to their OP characters.

How about playing the campaign y'all will actually like rather than one that'll only be played due to bribes?

Paizo is working better to curate their content for Organized Play, no difference than them not allowing Evil options while still publishing those things. There's nothing two faced and you're not "better" for demanding access to those in PFS.

PFS has an image and atmosphere they wish to maintain, one that's inviting and encouraging people to come back and play again. Naturally, certain options get the axe.

I'm saddened by the blood lords decision, even though I understand why that decision was made - I'm really, really looking forward to playing it, but given that much of my AP time is already being taken up by running AoE, I had hoped I could get some of that sweet PFS credit for playing this one. No such luck.

We'll probably still play it. I hope. The interest from the group is a lot lower though, since playing other APs are rewarded but this one isn't.

That being said, I realize that sanctioning an AP and a homegroup playing it for credit is a welcome side-effect and not the main goal of sanctioning - as I understand, the goal of sanctioning content is specifically so that the content can be run as part of public offering of PFS games, such as during a convention. It is then understandable that Organized Play doesn't want to encourage running content that involves playing evil-leaning PCs in public settings, because that's not what the PFSociety is about. However, I could pick up Extinction Curse and run it in a public setting for PFS credit and we could, if the group wanted, play murderclowns through it all, and it would be just as problematic.

This then creates a situation where Paizo has published questionable content (which is fine and welcome in itself), and effectively says that they don't trust their players & GMs to keep it classy and publicly acceptable, and that lack of trust is disappointing.

Eh, I don't care that much as long player content gets sanctioned(is Jalmeray Heavenseeker archetype from edgewatch available btw?)

Thing is, whenever I get to play AP, its usually by gm who has never touched society and never will, so I won't get player chronicles anyway :p

It probably shouldn't be that hard to convince a GM to press a few buttons to report the game. OR, ask them if it's okay if you report the game on their behalf - You could set up a society number for them, and report the game with them as the GM. If they decide to pick up society play at some point, they already have some credit and chronicles. Practically speaking no different than if you have a new player at a one-shot that isn't interested in getting credit.

No, Heavenseeker (unsurprisingly) didn't get sanctioned - I don't think any of the archetypes did. Off the top of my head, we got a boon for a new deity, a boon for common equipment, a boon for some uncommon equipment (Poisoner's staff and bunch of poisons at the least were on it), and a boon for uncommon spells (which, very nicely, gives admonishing ray AND your choice of another uncommon spell. So two spells with one boon, unlike the usual esoteric spellcasters).

They are all on the FAQ page I think? at least the spells and items.

Those scenarios from YEARS ago were sanctioned then.

Big difference.

Not exactly. In one case you can excise the problematic elements from the scenarios. Miss Feathers is a paragraph that could easily be replaced if you are aware of the issue.

Blood Lords on the other hand involves you interacting in a part setting that is so structurally dependent on questionable and horror situations that you wouldn't have an AP if you were to try and fix it.

EDIT:
Also yes you are right. It is completely unfair to compare what Paizo did a decade ago to now. The people involved were completely different and sensibilities change.

However, I could pick up Extinction Curse and run it in a public setting for PFS credit and we could, if the group wanted, play murderclowns through it all, and it would be just as problematic.

But that's technically covered by existing rules as something not to do?

Lesrek wrote:

All that to say, I really think OP should stand behind the Paizo APs regardless as content. Sanctioning is not an explicit endorsement of the content, just a recognition it is a Paizo AP. Reward your most loyal fans!

Define "loyal" , what makes you better and more special than others?

looks like the implication here is "buys, or probably has subscriptions to several product lines"

Lesrek wrote:

Because my players want to be rewarded with their time in OP as well since they dedicate time to both. Given the choice of two options of two APs, they will always default to an AP that will have carryover benefits to their OP characters.

How about playing the campaign y'all will actually like rather than one that'll only be played due to bribes?

Paizo is working better to curate their content for Organized Play, no difference than them not allowing Evil options while still publishing those things. There's nothing two faced and you're not "better" for demanding access to those in PFS.

PFS has an image and atmosphere they wish to maintain, one that's inviting and encouraging people to come back and play again. Naturally, certain options get the axe.

I'll agree on certain options getting the axe. Intestine Rope is not fit for any table ever in my opinion to name one thing off the streams (it was fit for the stream though... made me queasy) But you are not automatically opening all the options from an AP to the public play venues by offering the 12/12/30 for it. And I might be naive - but how many AP tables are actually played in public for PFS Credit? Don't these usually move to a players house, a separate Discord, a certain Forum thread that others are not expected to casually read or similar?

I want to say conflating Sanctioning and play in public is either an unconscious bias that stems from the reasoning for not sanctioning the AP, or a strawman, since it's explicitly not what Lesrek (and I) ask for.

And if they are so concerned about it being played in a public setting, why can't the sanctioning doc simply say that the game isn't to be played as an open game. Isn't that the whole point of the sanctioning doc in the first place? Provide limits on the "how" content is run?

(I'll also second that AV is sometimes going a step beyond what I find palateable and I certainly wouldn't like a GM reveling in some descriptions in public.)

but there is no asking for special treatment,

just that there shouldn't be products that are treated as worth less despite all the efforts that have gone into developing those contents.

I want to say conflating Sanctioning and play in public is either an unconscious bias that stems from the reasoning for not sanctioning the AP, or a strawman, since it's explicitly not what Lesrek (and I) ask for.

To an onlooker, what’s the difference?

You’re playing them for PFS credit.

I went through the latter half of PF1 upset that they wouldn’t sanction Wrath of the Righteous for PFS, even in what was then called Campaign Mode. That *finally* happened, which makes me happy (though my group moved on to PF2 and isn’t going back to PF1.)

People should accept that there is, from time to time, content which either isn’t appropriate for Organized Play, or is mechanically too difficult to incorporate into Organized Play.

This AP sounds like the former. So, that’s two APs (Edgewatch is the other, I think?) that aren’t sanctioned for Organized Play. There is a ton of sanctioned content available, and there will be others. Can’t people play this one AP (or 2, counting Edgewatch) for no credit? Is that really such a huge sacrifice?

They literally are.

How is asking for Blood Lords to be sanctioned like other APs asking for special treatment? It is literally asking the opposite, that it not be treated differently and simply barriers be put in the sanctioning doc if there is content they don't want played publically.

How are they treated as “worth less”? Should Paizo never publish Evil options again since that has never been allowed in PFS (barring Charity boons and special scenarios).

The argument is that normal org play characters can be restricted from being evil and no one is arguing that should change. Having an AP sanctioned isn't changing the rules for the campaign itself. Using the logic presented here, shouldn't AV be restricted as well then? I doubt you'd argue that would be a good change despite that AP having some very troublesome content for public play. Extinction Curse as well.

To an onlooker, what’s the difference?

You’re playing them for PFS credit.

Why does this matter. If someone walks into a store and sees Blood Lords being played and it goes against their sensibilities, that same argument can be made about every single AP or adventure paizo has ever released. Unless sanctioning is going to start dictating what alignments characters can be, what actions they can take, and how the game must be run, adventure mode by default allows for objectionable content. I simply do not buy the "think of the children" argument as a good one in any context.

How is asking for Blood Lords to be sanctioned like other APs asking for special treatment?

Using the logic presented here, shouldn't AV be restricted as well then?

Why does this matter. If someone walks into a store and sees Blood Lords being played and it goes against their sensibilities, that same argument can be made about every single AP or adventure paizo has ever released.

The obvious that you are failing to grasp as a proponent of organized play.

Someone one seeing someone play a game vs someone seeing someone play a game and then declaring they’re getting official credit for doing so are two very different things.

I understand the disappointment and frustration around the Blood Lords sanctioning decision. Speaking for myself, it was not an easy decision to make. Of course I want people to have more sanctioned content for Pathfinder. Of course I trust our community to handle content responsibly. And I wrote Zombie Feast (the first volume of the Blood Lords AP) myself! And it was my first AP volume! Imagine how difficult it was to balance my excitement about my first full adventure path, my responsibilities as the Pathfinder Society developer to provide excellent content for organized play… and the harsh reality that Blood Lords is, ultimately, not suitable for organized play sanctioning.

At the end of the day, no matter how responsible you are about how you portray the content in Blood Lords, no matter how much you sanitize the grimmer aspects of the adventures, the Blood Lords AP assumes your characters are abhorrent people, that you work for and support an abhorrent totalitarian government, and that you can and will routinely have opportunities to do abhorrent things, either for self-gain or in the name of Geb. In that way, it is unlike the vast majority of our content. Even when there is uncomfortable content in our other adventures, the assumption is usually that your characters are *not* willing to do abhorrent things. Even if they aren’t exactly heroes, the assumption is that they’re definitely not villains. The exact opposite is true in Blood Lords.

Again, speaking personally, it was a difficult decision. That might not make it any easier of a pill to swallow, but I hope you understand that our reasoning is far from “ew, this is kind of gross, we can’t trust our community to portray this well.” I’m not so worried about the content that goes against individual sensibilities—that’s something we absolutely trust our players and GMs to handle well. But the very premise of this adventure path, and the foundational assumptions of who your characters are and how they will behave, go far beyond “sensibility” concerns.

Transparently, when we reached our final decision, despite my disappointment that my very own debut adventure path volume would not be sanctioned for my very own organized play program, my primary emotion was relief. I don’t expect this to make anybody feel better about our decision, but I hope it provides some insight into my personal thoughts on the matter.

Having seen numerous children at org play tables (my own included) I appreciate the tenor of the org play campaign (roughly middle of the road PG-13 content), that is a spot that is pretty easy to accommodate down when needed without epic contortions, and still provides some chances for going the other direction a bit. The amount of sanctioned org play content is really vast. Over 500 Scenarios, 7 seasons of Card game content, Over 200 AP volumes, and over 100 Adventures. Even those who play a lot more than me haven't come close to exhausting all Org play options.

Lesrek wrote:

How is asking for Blood Lords to be sanctioned like other APs asking for special treatment?

Demanding they “reward your most loyal fans!” Puts yourself on an altar for no reason out of a sense of entitlement, you’re not more special than anyone else (most loyal???) and don’t have any room to ask for such special treatment.

Lesrek wrote:

Using the logic presented here, shouldn't AV be restricted as well then?

AV doesn’t require Evil alignments, so no.

Lesrek wrote:

Why does this matter. If someone walks into a store and sees Blood Lords being played and it goes against their sensibilities, that same argument can be made about every single AP or adventure paizo has ever released.

The obvious that you are failing to grasp as a proponent of organized play.

Someone one seeing someone play a game vs someone seeing someone play a game and then declaring they’re getting official credit for doing so are two very different things.

You are putting words and actions onto me that I never said and building a strawman around it. I do not appreciate it. Loyal is colloquial for most invested customers. That is not an objectionable statement. I didn't demand anything, I offered my disagreement. Also, using your arguments here, I assume you have come out strongly against the sanctioning Mark of the Mantis?

I understand the disappointment and frustration around the Blood Lords sanctioning decision. Speaking for myself, it was not an easy decision to make. Of course I want people to have more sanctioned content for Pathfinder. Of course I trust our community to handle content responsibly. And I wrote Zombie Feast (the first volume of the Blood Lords AP) myself! And it was my first AP volume! Imagine how difficult it was to balance my excitement about my first full adventure path, my responsibilities as the Pathfinder Society developer to provide excellent content for organized play… and the harsh reality that Blood Lords is, ultimately, not suitable for organized play sanctioning.

At the end of the day, no matter how responsible you are about how you portray the content in Blood Lords, no matter how much you sanitize the grimmer aspects of the adventures, the Blood Lords AP assumes your characters are abhorrent people, that you work for and support an abhorrent totalitarian government, and that you can and will routinely have opportunities to do abhorrent things, either for self-gain or in the name of Geb. In that way, it is unlike the vast majority of our content. Even when there is uncomfortable content in our other adventures, the assumption is usually that your characters are *not* willing to do abhorrent things. Even if they aren’t exactly heroes, the assumption is that they’re definitely not villains. The exact opposite is true in Blood Lords.

Again, speaking personally, it was a difficult decision. That might not make it any easier of a pill to swallow, but I hope you understand that our reasoning is far from “ew, this is kind of gross, we can’t trust our community to portray this well.” I’m not so worried about the content that goes against individual sensibilities—that’s something we absolutely trust our players and GMs to handle well. But the very premise of this adventure path, and the foundational assumptions of who your characters are and how they will behave, go far beyond “sensibility”
...

I appreciate this insight Mike and I understand it was a difficult decision. I think part of the issue is that I haven't read the adventure yet but it was portrayed to be more ambiguous than you are suggesting here. Thank you for taking the time to write this.

People who want to play Blood Lords with their regular group for PFS credit: please also keep in mind, most PFS games are not played that ways. A huge amount of PFS happens in places where the group changes and sign-ups can literally be anyone with a PFS number. If content is sanctioned, then it gets played in those circumstances much more than in your private home-game-at-a-public-location.

The issue of refusing to play if you won't get PFS credit is another matter. I know that people weigh "reward" differently, but for me, the reward happens at the table and not after. I accept that others may disagree, but try and think about the fun at the table before deciding to not play the AP.

Congrats to all the new 5-stars, and a particular shout out to Olivier. I've had the pleasure of being at his virtual table for many an adventure and his games are always a joy to participate in.

Congratulations Derek, Olivier, and Nathan!

I didn't demand anything

”Reward your most loyal fans!”, your exact words, is literally a demand.

Also, using your arguments here, I assume you have come out strongly against the sanctioning Mark of the Mantis?

You haven’t read what I’ve posted then, since I don’t condemn evil content, I’ve pointed out why it and others aren’t normally sanctioned for Society play.

Lesrek wrote:

I didn't demand anything

”Reward your most loyal fans!”, your exact words, is literally a demand.

In context, it was a call to action. Yes isolated it is a demand but everything around it was couched in a completely different tone that was for the most part respectful. I don't know why you seem to be objecting so hard to it.

Rysky wrote:

Lesrek wrote:

I didn't demand anything

”Reward your most loyal fans!”, your exact words, is literally a demand.

In context, it was a call to action. Yes isolated it is a demand but everything around it was couched in a completely different tone that was for the most part respectful. I don't know why you seem to be objecting so hard to it.

Because it's an egotistical and crappy thing to demand?

Why are they declaring themselves more special than others? What metric are we going by?

This is the last thing I'm going to post on this because A) it is not the intent of this thread and B) you probably have some baggage/issues about people claiming status over others and have clearly made up your mind on this and I doubt there's little I can say to change it.

You seem to be focused exclusively on that one phrase and ascribing emotions and motivations to it that are not present in the rest of the post. It was a call to action (e.g. Buy now!) and expression of the merits of sanctioning. These are a common way to motivate people to do something. It might be couched in the terms of a demand but so are most forms of advertising.

I doubt this was intended to set up a frame work nor, given context, was it likely intended to be a demand on the organized play people on the sole merit of being a 'most loyal customer.'

Finally, I would counter that digging into someone this much over a single line is crappy, especially when that one line is not even the main point of their argument. They've been polite and contentious.

Congrats Oliver, Derek, and Nathan!

“They’re polite so let them get away with murder” is a bad take.

If they don’t want to get called out for saying something crappy and entitled, they shouldn’t say something crappy and entitled, simple.

The point of this post is to discuss the OP update for July. If it continues to derail, this thread will be locked for moderation. Please keep on topic.

As always, I appreciate everything you do Paizo. (all of you)

As someone who is a very enthusiastic OP player, I am grateful in your sanctioning decision of BL. While you all may hold an opinion that people can be trusted, I do not hold that opinion. I have played in my local area, online with many different people, and in-person at many conventions. I have also existed in the world for several years. While many people can be trusted, certainly, not everyone can. This is why rules/laws exist. It seems delusional to believe otherwise.

Does anyone know if 7th level or Higher pregens are going to be sanctioned and released? With fewer players at actual tables in my location (and probably some others I imagine). These will become necessary very very soon.

Higher Level Pregens.

Hi all! As I'm sure you're aware, we've had some issues with AcP and GM credit not being awarded properly lately. I am delighted to announce that these issues are 95% fixed at this time! Any future sessions reported should grant AcP and GM credit correctly, and any new OP IDs generated should include the 80 AcP starting grant for both Pathfinder and Starfinder Society.

As for the 5%, well. There are some people who didn't get the 80 AcP for mysterious reasons and will need to be kicked manually, which I now have the power to do! If you fall into this category, first try refreshing your points once more using the button on the GM/event coordinator tab. Assuming that doesn't work, please email orgplayreportingerrors[at]paizo[dot]com with the affected OP ID and I will manually kick them into behaving. Some people have also had issues with sessions awarding erroneous PFS1 GM credit; this can be solved in the same manner.

I encourage anybody with issues to email in; the fix is literally two button clicks and I would hate for people to neglect emailing me just to avoid being a bother. I want to fix these problems, please let me!

Thanks for your patience on this issue. I'll be working with tech going forward to ensure that issues like this don't go unresolved for weeks at a time. If you have any questions or other issues, don't hesitate to reach out at the above email!

Thank you, Alex, for keeping us informed. Thanks as well to any tech team members who worked behind the scenes to give us a 95% fix.

I encourage anybody with issues to email in; the fix is literally two button clicks and I would hate for people to neglect emailing me just to avoid being a bother. I want to fix these problems, please let me!

So, let me ask: what if we can't tell? I mean, as far as I can see, I didn't get it, but I don't track those numbers that carefully since I only look at/use them when I find a character concept that appeals to me. Is there an entry on the Sessions list that we can look for, for example? Or, for that matter, if it HAS been added and you click those two buttons... what happens?

Alex Speidel wrote:

I encourage anybody with issues to email in; the fix is literally two button clicks and I would hate for people to neglect emailing me just to avoid being a bother. I want to fix these problems, please let me!

So, let me ask: what if we can't tell? I mean, as far as I can see, I didn't get it, but I don't track those numbers that carefully since I only look at/use them when I find a character concept that appeals to me. Is there an entry on the Sessions list that we can look for, for example? Or, for that matter, if it HAS been added and you click those two buttons... what happens?

Nope, there doesn't seem to be a session entry you could look for, but:

80 Acp is -a lot-, that's 20 extra scenarios played. If you don't play both systems -a lot-, you could just check your SFS acp to see if you've gotten that extra 80. (for example, I have just 1 SFS character and they are at level 3. That's 8 games, or 32 acp at most. I have 109acp. I've clearly gotten the 80 acp since there's no way otherwise for me to gain that much acp with so few games.)

Alternatively, total the fame of your characters. That should be equal to your acquired AcP, since players get 4 reputation and 4 acp for each scenario. The numbers may be slightly off because of some extra faction goals or missed success conditions, as well as for GMed games which give extra acp for GMs, but it should give you a rough estimate.

If it doesn't help (You've GMed a lot of games and/or played mostly in covnentions that benefit from extra acp or have purchased lots of boons etc), go through your sessions, tally together how much acp you've gained, deduct boons you've purchased, and that's how much acp you should have before the 80 acp was added.