|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proposal: I would like to see some APs, which would be difficult to sanction as playable modules, be sanctioned as "campaign mode only."
Explanation: This way the old OGL APs like Curse of the Crimson Throne can be sanctioned without having to worry about conversion for PFS. Additionally, APs like Wrath of the Righteous--and any subsequent APs that involve mythic tiers--can also be sanctioned without worrying about the problem of needing mythic tiers in PFS play.
Exigence: I have encountered rumors that WotR will not be sanctioned because it cannot be played as a module without mythic tiers. This will impact future APs as well. It is also my understanding that the push to sanction past APs was not going to include the ones released for the 3.5 ruleset; I consider this unfortunate because I am a big fan of CotCT.
Background: Presently, sanctioned APs can either be played as part of a home game (for chronicles that act like GM credit) or in part at a game day (for standard module-like chronicles). Since some APs simply don't lend themselves to being chopped into game-day module-like events, it becomes difficult to sanction them for both purposes.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
Note: Some of what is expressed here is theory. Please do not take this as what the actual thought process on APs currently in use for sanctioning.
Patrick,
While I do like this idea of seeing a majority of the AP lines sanctioned (including the 3.5 ones), the problem I see with this idea would be the construction of the chronicles for campaign mode since the each book using the 3.5 ruleset would be sanctioned. With the numerous items that can be found during each book, deciding on which items to place on the chronicle would probably be time consuming. I can see how the sanctioning of just a portion of each of the books works for setting those kind of limitations. Any theories as to the reasoning for not going back to the 3.5 ruleset APs is unknown. I do hope I am wrong and this idea does come to fruition.
|
A big part of the sanctioning process is actually going through and writing up the Chronicle sheets. The Chronicles have to list every item in the sanctioned portions of the AP that is not on the Always Available list, and the costs have to be checked and double-checked. When we did the first two, VOs were enlisted to help out with this process because of the tight development timelines involved. Sanctioning the APs in "campaign only" mode would not remove this development time and effort. Also, the boons you get for playing the APs have to be developed and reviewed before going out. At the same time, John is working on new scenarios, etc.
My point is that this won't significantly speed up the pace at which APs are sanctioned.
The problem with WotR is probably going to be Mythic teirs, but there's plenty of other APs that need work before we have to worry about WotR, anyway.
|
|
I guess my first thought is: why bother?
I mean, if you're running an AP, and the players' characters have no chance of playing *outside* of the AP... then how is that PFS (which is a shared, organized campaign). In fact, you're imposing PFS restrictions (presumably) on them needlessly (because there's no need to balance things in terms of a large, organized-play environment!)
The only thing it would achieve is allowing the GM to cash in home-game play for star credits!
(I mean, in my home game, we're running Legacy of Fire, with home game houserules, etc... it's just a home game! Why complicate it needlessly with chronicles and so on?)
|
|
My point is that this won't significantly speed up the pace at which APs are sanctioned.
Well, fortunately, that's not my goal, nor did I (from what I can see) give any indication that it was.
I don't expect the 3.5 APs to ever be sanctioned for module-style play, and I believe that the mythic tier involvement in WotR will have the same impact. My proposal is that we go ahead and sanction them for the other kind of play anyway.
The problem with WotR is probably going to be Mythic teirs, but there's plenty of other APs that need work before we have to worry about WotR, anyway.
WotR is coming out right now. I think it's better for everyone involved if APs get sanctioned as they come out, because that (I assume) is when they will be most popular.
Also, if making a list of loot that isn't on the always available list is that critical, crowdsource it. If the VLs did it in a month, I'll bet the forums in general can do it in a week, just based on manpower.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may make a recommendation - why should APs played in campaign mode even feature a list of purchasable items? Why not just feature a gold amount, a flavorful boon and an area for the GM to write a nice little note? I mean, it's not like we really buy items from chronicle sheets that often as it is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, you're imposing PFS restrictions (presumably) on them needlessly
Uh ... no. The whole point of "campaign mode" is that you don't have to use PFS rules.
The only thing it would achieve is allowing the GM to cash in home-game play for star credits!
This is already the case for Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, Jade Regent, Skull & Shackles, Shattered Star, and Reign of Winter. It is also the case for Dragon's Demand, and the new-format modules are reportedly going to be sanctioned in the same way.
The idea is to entice PFS players to play APs, because APs are big money for Paizo. "Half-sanctioning," as proposed here, accomplishes that goal, if not quite as thoroughly as full sanctioning--but in a case where full sanctioning is impossible, I contend that something is better than nothing.
|
|
If I may make a recommendation - why should APs played in campaign mode even feature a list of purchasable items? Why not just feature a gold amount, a flavorful boon and an area for the GM to write a nice little note? I mean, it's not like we really buy items from chronicle sheets that often as it is.
Agreed! We're locked into this notion of putting equipment on scenario chronicles, and okay, fine, I guess we're locked in. But why carry that over to new formats?
|
|
The only purpose in sanctioning APs at present is to take chunks of the AP out as standalone modules for PFS play. There is no way to make PFS play and Home AP play co-exist.
That's demonstrably untrue. Sanctioned home AP play already exists, and is in use. I, in fact, am using it--I am running Rise of the Runelords as a typical home game campaign, and will be handing out Chronicles after each book. I am doing so instead of running a home brew because the option of getting and handing out chronicles is available to me--which means I bought the RotRL AE and several supporting books (a total of about $100, because I went all-PDF) explicitly because of the availability of "campaign mode."
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine that some campaign-mode sanctioning will occur with the Wrath of the Righteous, since the players in it can "go Mythic." Such sanctioning might serve to also test the waters of these methods for other modules (speculative).
Regarding those that doubt WotR will be sanctioned: given it's tie-in with the Year of the Demon and his love for all things that kill players, I'd be surprised if Mr. Compton would allow this adventure path to slip through without some PFS usable content.
Also, given what John was saying at GenCon, he's a big fan of Mythic Adventures.
"NOW THAT'S MYTHIC!"
|
|
Patrick, sorry if I read more into your proposal than was there. I felt there was an implication of "we could get more sanctioned APs if we do them this way," which implied (to my mind) that you're wanting more APs sanctioned sooner rather than later :)
As to the Chronicles, I think it would cause confusion if there were two different sets (one for home campaign mode and one for PFS mode). I guess it wouldn't matter if we never do PFS mode sanctioning for things like WotR.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I admit, I'm leery of provisions that:
(a) weaken the relationship between PFS and the game-play that provides experience for PFS characters. I'm not a big fan of campaign mode to begin with, and even less so of a "campaign mode only" sanction for a product.
That was the situation that Pathfinder Society had, when Mike came on-board, with regard to all modules. (Play it, and get goodies. If your PC dies, then no harm, no foul. It's experience and gold without risk.) If I recall correctly, Mike wasn't much of a fan.
(b) create yet another category of adventures. Right now, we have scenarios, scenarios played with pre-gen characters, short modules ("Dawn of the Scarlet Sun"), modules ("Godsmouth Heresy"), long modules ("Dragon's Demand"), and chapters from Adventure Paths, each of which has different rules about how to assign GM and player credit.
I say to you now, as sure as orcs have ear-hair, if we sanction "campaign mode" for WotR, people will try to play portions of "Worldwound Incursion" in module mode.
|
|
Patrick, sorry if I read more into your proposal than was there. I felt there was an implication of "we could get more sanctioned APs if we do them this way," which implied (to my mind) that you're wanting more APs sanctioned sooner rather than later :)
Ah, I see. No, I just want more all around. ;)
That was the situation that Pathfinder Society had, when Mike came on-board, with regard to all modules. (Play it, and get goodies. If your PC dies, then no harm, no foul. It's experience and gold without risk.) If I recall correctly, Mike wasn't much of a fan.
That's not the same thing as running an entire AP as a campaign. You don't use your PFS characters--or if you do, you're basically making a copy of them, then running an alternate timeline for them. Which I can do whether or not the AP is going to result in chronicles.
It's not that death has no penalty, it's that success and failure aren't the same. You aren't being rewarded for mission completion, you're being rewarded for story completion.
Personally I'm good with that; I recognize that others might not be.
(b) create yet another category of adventures. Right now, we have scenarios, scenarios played with pre-gen characters, short modules ("Dawn of the Scarlet Sun"), modules ("Godsmouth Heresy"), long modules ("Dragon's Demand"), and chapters from Adventure Paths, each of which has different rules about how to assign GM and player credit.
I say to you now, as sure as orcs have ear-hair, if we sanction "campaign mode" for WotR, people will try to play portions of "Worldwound Incursion" in module mode.
Okay, this is a fair concern.
But change happens. Honestly, I'd rather see every AP sanctioned in campaign-only, rather than little chunks of the story being ripped out for the sake of hack-'n-slash module play so it can nominally be PFS-y. But I recognize that some people like that sort of thing. But I don't think we should be afraid of complexity.
Also, I think saying we should keep things simple, at this point, is like closing the barn door after the cows have all died of old age and the barn burned down and then aliens invaded and strip-mined the ground it was sitting on.
... okay maybe it's not quite that bad, but still.
|
|
@Chris:
You missed at least one option in your list. ;)
PFS scenarios with PFS PCs of appropriate level.
PFS scenarios with a pregen of appropriate level, gold dropped to 500, credit given to a 1st level PFS PC.
PFS scenarios with a pregen of apprtopriuate level, PFS credit held for a PFS until she reaches the level of the pregen played.
PFS sanctioned Free RPG Day modules, which have the same options, and choices, as PFS scenarios.
PFS sanctioned "old" modules, which have the same three options as scenarios, except that, for option two, the gold becomes 1,398 instead of 500.
PFS sanctioned APs, which can be played in two modes, with subsets:
Module mode, which is similar to the "PFS sanctioned "old" modules" choices above, except that some of the AP sections, like some of the modules, won't be playable with pregens, as there are no pregens of an appropriate level.
Campaign mode, which allows for (requires?) playing the entire AP, and the chronicles are applied to the players' PFS PCs as though they were GM credit, rather than pregen credit.
PFS sanctioned "new" modules, which is currently an experiment, only for Dragon's Demand, where there are, like APs, two options for play:
Option 1, play the PFS sanctioned sections, as though they were old-style modules, with the same options. This currently grants three chronicles.
Option 2, play the entire module, simliar to campaign-mode AP, and get the potential to gain four chronicles, as long as all four are applied to the same PFS PC.
I feel that setting WotR and similar situations that would be hard to handle with regular PFS rules PCs as a campaign-mode only situation would not be a bad choice. Main thing would be notating on the chronicles that this AP was home-game-mode-only.
The rules to handle it already exist.
Letting people play the AP as it was meant to be played, for example WotR with the Mythic Adventure rules included, but able to pull in those PFS players who normally wouldn't be willing to concentrate all their play on a single PC, or to reward PFS players who also do home games, would be nice.
|
|
Patrick, I've been watching this conversation, but I'm honestly struggling to see why this is necessary. If you're going to play the whole AP as a campaign, then your character won't be playing in any of the scenarios. If that's the case, why are chronicles even necessary? You don't need to be an Organized Play character if you're not participating in any of the Organized Play scenarios.
Please don't read my tone as snark; I'm legimately bewildered about the need/justification for this request.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Patrick, I've been watching this conversation, but I'm honestly struggling to see why this is necessary. If you're going to play the whole AP as a campaign, then your character won't be playing in any of the scenarios. If that's the case, why are chronicles even necessary? You don't need to be an Organized Play character if you're not participating in any of the Organized Play scenarios.
Please don't read my tone as snark; I'm legimately bewildered about the need/justification for this request.
Campaign mode chronicles are good for a number of reasons:
1) It can help draw non-PFS players in the campaign into PFS. (What's this? A chronicle? What's it good for? Huh...)
2) It can help players who are temporarily sacrificing some PFS time to keep their characters up.
3) It provides more options for people who are running out of creditable scenarios.
4) It provides a way to help recover a character who is practically unplayable due to having to sell off a large portion of his gear for a raise dead.
5) It makes it easier to convince PFS players to try out an AP if they haven't done one already.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So am I right in thinking that the chronicles are not applied to the character who's playing the AP, but rather another character of an appropriate level?
That'd be why I didn't see it; I don't tend to do that personally, though I don't object to others who choose to.
Right. In campaign mode, the characters don't have to conform to Society standards.
One thing that I've heard some do, though, is that they will build a PFS version of their character and apply the credits to that character, even though they are not leveling up at the same rate.
|
|
Patrick, I've been watching this conversation, but I'm honestly struggling to see why this is necessary. If you're going to play the whole AP as a campaign, then your character won't be playing in any of the scenarios. If that's the case, why are chronicles even necessary? You don't need to be an Organized Play character if you're not participating in any of the Organized Play scenarios.
Please don't read my tone as snark; I'm legimately bewildered about the need/justification for this request.
For the same reason that "campaign mode" is good for the already-sanctioned APs. When I decided to put together a home game, I was able to soothe my PFS-junkie-ness by running an AP instead of running people through a bunch of PFS scenarios. This brings chronicle addicts like myself together with more traditional home-game types like some of my players. But now I'm going to give them PFS numbers and pregen credit and chronicles and invite them to come play at local cons with me. PFS wins.
|
|
Like Jeff I have kinda been following along, and finally decided to chime in with some thoughts. Please note, the following are opinions and assumptions.
I think the number one question we need to answer is "why would Campaign leadership devote the time and effort to make chronicle sheets for APs that can only be played in campaign mode?". I have come up with the two answers I believe are possible for it to be viable:
1. It would sell more AP books in the long run
In this scenario, sanctioning extra APs like WoR in campaign mode only would probably be in Paizo's benefit. A (I'm ASSUMING) only a small portion of players that were NOT going to play the AP anyway would change their minds just because they get some chronicle sheets for their PFS characters. My group of friends (all RAMPANT PFS players) and I just started Wrath of the Righteous, and we neither expected sheets or are devastated by the fact that it may not be sanctioned.
We play to have fun, and to be honest, none of us really need more sheets for more characters. I am at my -13 and another one of us is on -16 I think. I am personally probably NOT taking some sheets from my other Jade Regent game because I don't want to level characters out.
I'm not convinced sanctioning only in campaign mode would increase sales that much. But it would definitely be more than not doing it.
2. It would get more people to play PFS
If APs were sanctioned for campaign mode only, I believe that it actually would decrease the amount of people playing PFS. APs are a very very big chunk of time. The average Pathfinder player only has so many hours in a week/month to spend on gaming. I know that for many players locally who decided to participate in a homegame, their PFS participation decreased. From personal experience, I myself used to attend the Sunday game days in my area, but now Sundays are homegame time. In fact, so many of the people in my homegame groups are regular PFS players, that one of the Sunday locations almost had to shut down due to lack of players and GMs.
You raise the point of using homegames to attract people to play PFS. The problem with that argument is that you will have a potential "recruit pool" of 6 (generous) players every what? 6 months to a year? And of course, out of those 6 players how many are either already PFS players? How many will say "no thanks, PFS is not for me". On top of this, nothing prevents you from promoting PFS with your homegame people, sanctioned or not sanctioned. You could even be doing full homebrew setting with PF rules and promote it.
I honestly believe that sanctioning APs in campaign more does not serve almost any purpose in regards to recruiting more people into PFS.
End of the day, it would be nice to see sheets even if it is for campaign mode only, but I would only see them as 100% gravy. I don't think there is enough to gain for it to be worth the effort.
Besides, a year ago we had ZERO sanctioned APs, and now we have 5! That is 30 books worth of stuff!
(APs sanctioned in module mode are a different story, that I fully support)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That was the situation that Pathfinder Society had, when Mike came on-board, with regard to all modules. (Play it, and get goodies. If your PC dies, then no harm, no foul. It's experience and gold without risk.) If I recall correctly, Mike wasn't much of a fan.
That's not the same thing as running an entire AP as a campaign. You don't use your PFS characters--or if you do, you're basically making a copy of them, then running an alternate timeline for them. Which I can do whether or not the AP is going to result in chronicles.
It's not that death has no penalty, it's that success and failure aren't the same. You aren't being rewarded for mission completion, you're being rewarded for story completion.
Sorry, I was unclear. From the perspective of my PFS magus character, I take an unrelated, 6th-level drow psion, and play through an Adventure Path. If the psion dies, there's no penalty to my magus. (I probably roll up a new 6th-level ninja PC and join the party.) Once the psion (or ninja) successfully goes through the AP, then I get a Chronicle to apply to my magus. Campaign mode is reward (for my PFS magus) without risk.
|
The risk goes to your 6th level drow psion, who still has more books to live through in 'campaign mode.' You might be minimizing the campaign itself, Chris, which may be going on for a year or more. The PFS chronicles are your physical reward for playing an AP, which are minor in comparison to the story you have lived through.
|
|
A thought I had as I was falling asleep last night: Since Wrath of the Righteous is in the Worldwound right now--i.e. following the same overall metaplot as Season 5 of PFS--wouldn't this be an ideal time to sanction it? It seems distinctly illogical to wait until later, when it's so closely related to current events.
|
|
A thought I had as I was falling asleep last night: Since Wrath of the Righteous is in the Worldwound right now--i.e. following the same overall metaplot as Season 5 of PFS--wouldn't this be an ideal time to sanction it? It seems distinctly illogical to wait until later, when it's so closely related to current events.
I think this has been quite deliberate since season 3
Season 3 - Ruby Phoenix Tournament (centered around the module)
Season 4 - Varisia, centered around/similar to the Shattered Star AP (and RotRL anniv. edition)
Season 5 - Worldwound, centered around/similar to Wrath of the Righteous
|
|
A thought I had as I was falling asleep last night: Since Wrath of the Righteous is in the Worldwound right now--i.e. following the same overall metaplot as Season 5 of PFS--wouldn't this be an ideal time to sanction it? It seems distinctly illogical to wait until later, when it's so closely related to current events.I think this has been quite deliberate since season 3
Season 3 - Ruby Phoenix Tournament (centered around the module)
Season 4 - Varisia, centered around/similar to the Shattered Star AP (and RotRL anniv. edition)
Season 5 - Worldwound, centered around/similar to Wrath of the Righteous
Right! So why on earth wouldn't we want this sanctioned ASAP? If it can't be sanctioned for module play, wouldn't it be better to have it sanctioned for "just campaign mode" rather than not at all?
|
|
It adds tons of confusion because the AP's have a vastly different wealth structure than PFS play. It also adds more opportunity for people to confuse AP play with normal PFS play. AP play is it's own reward, there's no need to complicate a Network Play structure that already has tons of rules to keep track of. It's also confusion as well. APs frequently are world changing campaigns, whereas PFS Golarion is relatively static.
The AP market will take care of itself quite nicely it doesn't need PFS incentives that can wind up being more harm than good to both realms.
It's already done, dude. It is a thing that exists. Chapter 6 of the Guide 5.0 is called "Sanctioned Modules and Adventure Paths." I'm trying to come up with ways to expand it to places I don't think it was originally going to expand.
|
LazarX You really need to read the guide again, it seems that you are not updated on the the rules for Adventure Path in PFS play, they keep correcting you on that in this thread but you seem to miss that correction..
Quick overview of the rules for Adventure Path play in PFS.
There are 2 ways to run Adventure Paths and gain PFS credit for your PFS characters these 2 methods awhile back I dubbed "Module Mode" and "Campaign Mode" which many people now use to describe the 2 ways to play (That said with the new format of modules it fits less).
In module mode you only run 1 section of the Adventure Path Chapter using all Pathfinder Society Rules using your PFS character or Pregens of the appropriate level sanctioned for that section. Basically just like running a Scenario that gets you 3 xp and 4 prestige. Very similar to the rules for running modules in PFS except you don't run the entire Chatoer just a small sanctioned section that gets you a chronicle.
In Campaign Mode you run it as you would run any Home game, using any rules the GM and players deem. You do not use Pathfinder Society characters but the characters you made you run in the AP. You are not beholden to PFS rules in any way. Once you completed the sanctioned section of that chapter you assign the chronicle to any character that legally can get it based on level that gets you 3 xp and 4 prestige.
All this is described on page 28-29 of the PFS Guide.
So now that brings us to the current AP Wrath of the Righteous. The problem with the current AP is that it would be very difficult to run it in "Module Mode" due to the heavy reliance on Mythic Powers which is not sanctioned for PFS so you could not run the AP as written.
There are 2 ways to deal with this to get this AP sanctioned which is something I would like to see.
The first way is to allow the GM to adjust the AP to work without Mythic so you can play your PFS character in it. IMO this won't really work because most of the recommended adjustments are actually making the characters more powerful. They do recommend reduction in Power in the encounters but it is very vague, in fact the entire section on adjusting the AP to play non mythic is very vague which makes it very difficult for strict PFS play.
The other option and I think the better option is to do as Patrick Harris suggests, Just sanction the AP for "Campaign Mode" and not allow it for "Module Mode".
The biggest complaints I have seen against this suggestion in this thread that comes up over and over is irrelevant, because almost every complaint is based on people actually not knowing the rules as they currently are from running APs.
Also if your biggest complaint against this is that you don't like campaign mode this thread is not the place to bring that up. Campaign mode is already allowed if you do not like it bring that up in another thread asking to remove it based on your reasons.
One good complaint though one I reject for reason I will describe in a moment is that it will be confusing to players if you have 2 different rules for APs, one in the guide and the one for Wrath of the Righteous. There are a few reasons I reject this complaint:
- Lets stop thinking our players are stupid, I am really sick and tired of people saying players won't understand the rules as a reason not to implement good rules.
- It is not the confusing of a rule change from the Guide, you are not adding any extra rules just removing one format of play.
- And the last and I think strongest reason I reject this argument is they are already doing rules differently then in the Guide with the new Module The Dragon's Demand. The rules changes for running this module are different then described in the Guide, they are more like rules for running APs and they added other rules on top of that. That change is a lot more confusing then what is suggested here.
I personally am of the opinion that finding a way to sanction Wrath of the Righteous is a lot better for PFS then not sanctioning it at all, especially since it has close links to this seasons plot. I think Patrick Harris's suggestion is a good one, the easiest and least confusing way of doing it.
|
|
Caderyn That sounds like a Local issue problem and not a PFS worldwide Campaign problem so not really a relevant reason not to implement this campaign wide though it may be relevant to you just locally.
As an example of the exact opposite, locally we have a ton of Home Campaigns running APs, and they all purposely schedule them not to be run on PFS days so they do not conflict.