|
I have a question regarding running adventures in Adventure mode, and how to handle chronicles for a player who doesn’t play the entire adventure.
At the game store I organize for, a GM is running the standalone adventure Malevolence. He is running it in Adventure Mode. It’s scheduled over multiple sessions. We have at least one player who is going to only play 1 part.
Now, do they still get a chronicle for it, even if they don’t complete it? The guide to organized play has language about how to handle a scenario where someone doesn’t finish, but I couldn’t find any language regarding an adventure.
Do they get a chronicle prorated like they would if it had been a scenario? Do they not get one at all since they didn’t finish?
Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
APPLYING CREDIT
Players who play through Malevolence, as well as GMs who run the adventure, can apply the adventure’s Chronicle Sheet
There's no official definition of what "play through" means and I wouldn't deny a player a sheet because they missed 1 session out of 10 because of reasons.
I don't think planning to play 1/3 or less would count but following the partial credit scenario rule wouldn't be entirely bad. Generally most times I see Adventures like that scheduled over multiple slots, they come with a note requiring potential players to sign up for all parts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an AP Chapter/Adventure is running more than three sessions and a given person only makes it to a single session (often just the first) and then misses/ghosts the rests, I think I wouldn't report them at all/give a chronicle and make it possible for them to choose to play the thing again. Of course making a note for lodge/group signups if it becomes a pattern. Unless it falls under the medical emergency exception.
If a person missed around 1/2 of the sessions, I'd use the normal partial credit rule, but scaled proportionally to the total number of hours run, rather than 1xp/hr. (Most of my AP Chapters/Adventures run 20-24 hours)
If a person missed fewer than ~25% of the sessions, I'd still award full credit.
My thresholds here aren't hard cut-offs and probably vary a little with the group -- if everyone in the group is missing a different 33% of the sessions(like my 7 player table of AoA that only had 5 any given session), it feels very different than if one player misses 33%, and the rest are always there. In the first case everyone contributed roughly equally and experienced the same story. In the latter case though, you have one player who got a very different experience.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the player even want to play 1/3 of a module? If you haven't done so, it may also be a good idea to check whether that is OK with the entire group; it seems disruptive, especially with a module like Malevolence which is complex and challenging.
Our stores require players to initially commit to ALL sessions of a scheduled module, or not sign up. As the weeks go by, all participants are expected to collaborate as needed; it's also OK to miss a session because like Rob said things happen.
Anyway, for unforeseen situations that make a player miss games, I would give credit. However, I would be hesitant to encourage pre-planned, partial play-throughs that miss over half the module.
|
|
Why does the player even want to play 1/3 of a module? If you haven't done so, it may also be a good idea to check whether that is OK with the entire group; it seems disruptive, especially with a module like Malevolence which is complex and challenging.
Our stores require players to initially commit to ALL sessions of a scheduled module, or not sign up. As the weeks go by, all participants are expected to collaborate as needed; it's also OK to miss a session because like Rob said things happen.
Anyway, for unforeseen situations that make a player miss games, I would give credit. However, I would be hesitant to encourage pre-planned, partial play-throughs that miss over half the module.
I have no intention of every requiring people to sign up for all sessions, particularly for something that's more than a few sessions long. Yes, we all understand that things come up, but I'd rather not set the expectation that you must be there for all sessions.
I have no idea why this player won't be at all the sessions - I am not GMing the game. But the store owner asked me, so I was trying to get him an answer.
I think NielsenE's suggestion works the best. I was just looking to see if there was actually something official, and it appears there isn't. But, I might suggest that language addressing adventures and APs be added in a future draft (or, in the current language where it talks about scenarios, just add ", adventures, and adventure paths" to it (or whatever the appropriate language might be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no intention of every requiring people to sign up for all sessions, particularly for something that's more than a few sessions long. Yes, we all understand that things come up, but I'd rather not set the expectation that you must be there for all sessions.
My thoughts probably came off as a bit dogmatic when you were just looking for a simple answer. I am right there with NielsenE on general cutoffs too.
3-chronicle modules definitely made getting these things off the ground a lot easier.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything run in adventure mode is the wild west. As it stands, you could give out a chronicle to a player for attending a table read of the book and it's legal.
Mark is asking about PFS2's Adventure Mode, not PFS1's Campaign Mode.
Running Adventure Mode requires the game to be "Recognizably Pathfinder":
Part of the reason for changing from Campaign Mode to Adventure mode was to streamline the rules and make some major changes. But part of the reason for it was also to eliminate a lot of baggage campaign mode had acquired over the years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running Adventure Mode requires the game to be "Recognizably Pathfinder
Correct.In order to earn credit for PFS it must be:
Recognizably Pathfinder.
Recognizably the same story.
Recognizably the same setting.(Obviously, if you will have more fun changing any of those you *should*. It just means it won't qualify for chronicle sheets.)
This is confusing. I can find nothing about "Recognizably Pathfinder" in the Guide itself, nor do I see it in any sanctioning docs. Further, there is nothing in the guide or sanctioning docs defining what would disqualify a game for earning chronicle sheets. (What does "recognizably Pathfinder" or "recognizably the same story" even mean? The guide says you need to run it in Pathfinder; nothing more, nothing less.)
Vague requirements for earning chronicles seem to have been created in an ad-hoc forum post from the guide lead. If this is the official intent of the team and of Paizo, then this language needs to be clarified and added to the Guide itself.
For reference, here is the actual link to the guide: Modes of Play.
----
One nice thing about our current iteration of Adventure mode is that sanctioning happens faster. I love getting sanctioning in adventures same day of publication. Simple is good in that regard.
|
|
Yes I think the "recognizably Pathfinder is commonly used shorthand for "Adventure Mode is used for adventures not specifically designed for society play, and allows the GM more freedom to adapt those adventures, including running the adventure in Pathfinder using GM house rules and the ability to alter encounters and statistics found in the adventure."
Its saying you're allowed to house rules, but its still Pathfinder. There never was an allowance for non-Pathfinder under 2e; that's an 1e-aspect that people remember but has never been true under 2e sanctioning, and the guide doesn't mention it.
|
|
Yes I think the "recognizably Pathfinder is commonly used shorthand for "Adventure Mode is used for adventures not specifically designed for society play, and allows the GM more freedom to adapt those adventures, including running the adventure in Pathfinder using GM house rules and the ability to alter encounters and statistics found in the adventure."
Its saying you're allowed to house rules, but its still Pathfinder. There never was an allowance for non-Pathfinder under 2e; that's an 1e-aspect that people remember but has never been true under 2e sanctioning, and the guide doesn't mention it.
The description of Adventure mode already says it must be Pathfinder and that you can use house rules. What need is there for a shorthand?
Added requirements such as "recognizably the same story" and "recognizably the same setting" are vague and do not appear in any documents as far as I can see.
According to that post, there is a use-case for disqualifying adventure mode games from earning chronicles ("Obviously, if you will have more fun changing any of those you *should*. It just means it won't qualify for chronicle sheets"), but I see no way to adjudicate "qualifying" for a chronicle in the Guide beyond the game system being Pathfinder.
Finally, I wonder why the Guide Team is dictating sanctioning rules in the first place. Is that even their area of expertise?
To be perfectly frank these ad-hoc forum posts from semi-official sources only serve to muddy the waters, and shouldn't be linked as official rulings. We should be linking the Guide which exists as the official source, and possibly supplementing that info with unofficial clarifications from guide team members — not the other way around.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was always told that when Jared is posting under the "Online Guide Team Lead - JTT" alias its because its an answer that was blessed by one of authorized Paizo/OP decision makers. Now I don't understand why they don't post it themselves if its been through the vetting process.
|
|
I was always told that when Jared is posting under the "Online Guide Team Lead - JTT" alias its because its an answer that was blessed by one of authorized Paizo/OP decision makers. Now I don't understand why they don't post it themselves if its been through the vetting process.
As far as I know, even if they are informally “blessed” by Paizo staff they are still not official rulings that underwent approval and change control/ vetting. Instead, they seem intended to help clarify existing rules (a laudable goal); they are not meant to create brand new rules (like the cited post does).
As I said, we should link the guide and treat posts as unofficial supplements. That’s how I understand the intent of Jared’s Guide Team alias here, and I sure hope thats true because I really don’t have time to studiously follow Jared Team Lead forum posts for RAW in addition to the Guide, FaQ, Errata, Discord, etc.
As an aside…. Letting one person be the “unofficial official” voice of OPF developers, and then hiding that process behind some opaque system of “blessings” that are given in private, is no way to run things. It adds confusion, complexity, and blurs the lines between approved change and personal interpretation.
Paizo OPF should be the ones doing any official clarifying, not a single volunteer VO. (If this is not feasible, at the very least it should be a committee of VOs operating as a change control board.)