Rysky wrote:
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"
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 greatly appreciate the work that was done on Agents of Edgewatch and run it as my first and third AP. But because it is not sanctioned (due to similar reasons of not being fit for public play) I suddenly feel like I could have spent my time better had I picked another AP. I was not in OP and definitely had strong sessions Zero with both groups when I started, and now I am locked in a very long campaign that I can't get anything out of for my characters due to bad luck and despite putting extra effort to make it palateable to my players (who have refused to play cops since that hits too close for some of my players)
Rysky wrote:
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.
Lesrek wrote:
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.)