OOP Org Play organization for 2E?

[TimD]

I wasn't sure where else this would fit, so have started a new thread.
With the introduction of 2E, there will be org play needs for 1E Core PFS, 1E Standard PFS, 2E PFS (and perhaps eventually CORE 2E), Adventure Card Game Society, and SFS.

A single V* might easily feel overwhelmed with trying to organize that much.

Will the OOP organization of VA->VL->VC->RVC->Paizo Org Play Leader be looked at or the plan to continue as-is?

Is there a chance that Paizo may split off their Org Play foundation or may otherwise support 1E PF beyond the end of 1E via 3rd party or would that be too much "competing against themselves" ala some of Vic's posts about the differing settings from old TRS/WotC days?

[Sebastian Hirsch]

We currently already have VOs who only offer some of the supported systems, some only offer ACG, others really only support Starfinder.

A change really is not that necessary, and individual VOs are of course free GM what they want to GM. If PFS1 is strong in a particular location and people want to GM and play it, all the VO has to do is scheduling.

[TwilightKnight]

I do not see the need for this and would campaign against having VO targeted at only a single system or part of the OP options.

[Wallbanger7110]

From a volunteer structure standpoint I think the current model can scale to support small and large lodges, and can also scale to handle multiple product lines, based on the needs of individual lodges.

In my opinion (and I state that up front, acknowledging I have a limited perspective) where resource is needed is on the corporate side. I seem to recall that Paizo was looking to hire another Org Play developer, which is a good thing, I hope that is still in the works. I'd also advocate that 1 or 2 Assistant OPC's reporting to Tonya to handle administration would be helpful. Of course that's overhead for Paizo so it's their call whether that's good business for them.

[Gary Bush]

Wallbanger7110 wrote:

I'd also advocate that 1 or 2 Assistant OPC's reporting to Tonya to handle administration would be helpful.

Agree 100%.The demands on Tonya's time are huge and getting additional help there will only improve organized play.

[TimD]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I do not see the need for this and would campaign against having VO targeted at only a single system or part of the OP options.

So you feel no VO's should EVER only have to organize a single system? - they should all be REQUIRED to organize multiple systems? Interesting. All 5 at every venue?

[Jeff Morse]

TimD wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I do not see the need for this and would campaign against having VO targeted at only a single system or part of the OP options.

So you feel no VO's should EVER only have to organize a single system? - they should all be REQUIRED to organize multiple systems? Interesting. All 5 at every venue?

i think what he is saying is we don't need 5 different agents at a store organizing 5 different games. One person can do this. They don't need to know all the rules for them. As a former VL, I would not like to have had another trying to fill the tables while I am trying to fill mine. That only leads to division.

[Tallow]

TimD wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I do not see the need for this and would campaign against having VO targeted at only a single system or part of the OP options.

So you feel no VO's should EVER only have to organize a single system? - they should all be REQUIRED to organize multiple systems? Interesting. All 5 at every venue?

Organizers should know what the demand is under their purview.

Smaller venues, that only get 1 or 2 tables tops and have an active regular crowd of 10 to 15 people are going to find it hard to run more than one campaign per game night. So you can alternate between campaigns.

Larger venues and/or regions that have hundreds of active regulars can probably get away with running multiple campaigns on the same night. But you don't need several different people doing that. That actually would muddy the situation.

The only way having campaign designated VO's would work, is if each campaign were being run either at a different venue or a different night.

[Tonya Woldridge]

We tried campaign-specific VOs. It led to segregation in the VO team and caused issues with planning and logistics.

The current model is schedule what your area wants and identify a subject matter specialist for the ones you aren't focused in seems to work well. Adding one more campaign to this model is feasible and doesn't place an undo burden on the organizers.

[Craig Bertuglia]

Here in Houston we have a VO dedicated to the CCG and then each venue has a VO who covers both PFS and SFS. We have an online VO for the area as well. This works pretty well for us.

[Gary Bush]

And Houston has the population to support dedicated VOs.

[TwilightKnight]

TimD wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I do not see the need for this and would campaign against having VO targeted at only a single system or part of the OP options.

So you feel no VO's should EVER only have to organize a single system? - they should all be REQUIRED to organize multiple systems? Interesting. All 5 at every venue?

Spoiler:

Personally, I believe that VO should SUPPORT all the systems. It is an essential part of our role. That is not to say anyone is forced to play or GM all the systems, but as VO we are stewards of the Organized Play brand, not just a single game system. If there are interested players in the area, a VO should facilitate the games they want to play. You don't have to be intimately familiar with the game mechanics to organize a few tables of a game system once a week or twice a month or whatever. For Venture-Agents, we're only talking about a single venue, one where presumably you have a relationship with the store owner/manager. That relationship and a knowledge of the community should make organizing events much less challenging. For VLs and VCs, one of the primary functions is growth. Anything we do, such as not supporting certain games under the OP umbrella limits that growth and does not support our mandate.

I don't know how other areas (such as Houston) are organized and I don't really need to. The "rules" say no more than one VA assigned to a venue. So having different VO over different system will not work. I cannot have a VA over PFS assigned to the same store with a VA over SFS. And I personally don't think it's necessary, even if it was permitted. It would be further complicated if there were three VA's reporting to a VL, two of which only supported one system and one another, while the VL only wanted to support a third. It simply becomes too complicated a network, IMO. YMMV

But, as this is off-topic, I'm happy to discuss it in another forum. Feel free to email or PM me if you have questions or comments.

[Tallow]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

TimD wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I do not see the need for this and would campaign against having VO targeted at only a single system or part of the OP options.

So you feel no VO's should EVER only have to organize a single system? - they should all be REQUIRED to organize multiple systems? Interesting. All 5 at every venue?

** spoiler omitted **

I agree with Bob here. However, I think one thing this thought process may be missing, is that, in many cases, if something is going to be organized at a store, the primary GM (or host for the ACG) is the VO present. And if a VO doesn't want to play, GM, or host something, then they have the choice to sit in the story and read a book, play some other game, or leave once everyone is seated. All three of which are bad optics.

[TimD]

Interesting feedback.
I was actually only inquiring if the plan was to continue as is or look examine the current model to see if changes would be implemented - not suggesting implementing a "one V* per campaign" model. Regarding the one V per venue, I know of at least one venue that has more than one organizer and is the best-organized and arguably most successful venue in our state, so obviously different regions have had different rates of success in organizing in differing manners. This is also part of the reason we continue to have store coordinators rather than VA's, however, as the VA model doesn't work equally well in all areas (some people are better GMs than organizers and vice versa).

Tonya responded indicating that no changes are anticipated in the model, so that answered the actual question if the model would be looked at for change.