|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Andrew White
"In the event of any discrepancy between a Foundry module and a print or PDF version of the same content, the Foundry module should be treated as the latest and most up-to-date resource unless explicitly stated otherwise."
This leads us to 1 of 2 problems.
1: Andrew is not listed in Guide to Organized Play. as Campaign Leadership, and thus we ignore anything he says. (I think this technically means that people using the Foundry Errata are not following the rules as written, obviously not a desirable outcome, or what anybody thinks.)
2: What Andrew says is valid for PFS. However those without access to the Foundry material still have no way to access it that isn't hearsay. This still remains a core problem.
---
To solve these problems two things need to happen"
1: Andrew/his position needs to be added to Campaign Leadership, or at the very least confirmation from somebody who is. (Alex Speidel (Organized Play Coordinator), Shay Snow (Pathfinder Society Developer), or Josh Foster (Pathfinder Society Developer)).
2: And most importantly, the errata/rulings need to actually be posted there. A promise that Foundry is the definitive version isn't good enough, even from an official source. We need an official source of that errata that's not behind an additional foundry paywall.
(Changes made to 6-01 are listed, but there's no assurance that future changes will be listed, or assurance that changes to previous products will be made public)
---
Thank you Paizo/Andrew for taking the first steps of creating a place for the errata/rulings to exist, we're just not quite there yet in terms of a fully workable solution.
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that it would be a great if Alex or someone else makes an official announcement of the errata location, but I don’t understand the hesitation to accept Andrew’s posts as legitimate. He has the official title of Digital Products Lead, and the information is posted in a read only forum.
And as to the errata itself, it is posted in the official, read only Updates and Patch Notes subforum that you linked to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that it would be a great if Alex or someone else makes an official announcement of the errata location, but I don’t understand the hesitation to accept Andrew’s posts as legitimate. He has the official title of Digital Products Lead, and the information is posted in a read only forum.
And as to the errata itself, it is posted in the official, read only Updates and Patch Notes subforum that you linked to.
It's nice that the errata for 6-01 is posted. But there's no promise that the errata list there will remain updated. There's also no listing of errata for season 5.
My reluctance about accepting Andrew White's statement for PFS is because the guide explicitly tells me to do so. I don't think he's lying or otherwise illegitimate. The problem is with the rules telling me not to listen to him, not his statements.
Campaign Leadership
The people with the authority to issue rulings for the Pathfinder Society campaign are:Alex Speidel (Organized Play Coordinator),
Shay Snow (Pathfinder Society Developer), and
Josh Foster (Pathfinder Society Developer).
Clarifications from other campaigns and their campaign managers do not apply to the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign unless confirmed by one of the above individuals.
While I would prefer a guide update that lists Andrew, any sort of confirmation from Alex/Shay/Josh gets the job done. (It's not hard to imagine why listing a source of official errata in the guide is better than having to search though say Alex Speidel's forum posts authorizing a source.)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rob, I appreciate that you just want things to be clear and avoid confusion. In this case, I don’t think any additional ruling or alteration of the guide is necessary. The items are being posted as errata to digital products by the digital products lead. They are as official of changes to those products as the errata that are posted by the design team for the rulebooks. We already have campaign guidance that we need to follow errata. Andrew is not Campaign Leadership, and we wouldn’t follow any posts he makes about the contents of the guide, so listing him there as such would be potentially confusing on its own.
A link from the guide to that forum would be entirely welcome, though, so that people who don’t pay attention to the forums or don’t realize a new one exists will find it and know about the changes.
I guess to put it another way, it’s not that Andrew needs to be called out by name, but that the forum becomes another place in the list of resources that people need to know to look. If the guide is saying look at that forum for errata, then whoever is posting the updates to that forum doesn’t matter. If they are present there, they are official.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess to put it another way, it’s not that Andrew needs to be called out by name, but that the forum becomes another place in the list of resources that people need to know to look. If the guide is saying look at that forum for errata, then whoever is posting the updates to that forum doesn’t matter. If they are present there, they are official.
The guide could totally link to said forum, instead of specifically empowering Andrew and that would work fine for the official sourcing as well. A solution I hadn't originally thought of, but discussion elsewhere lead me to. That's probably better than specifically adding Andrew to Campaign Staff. (I really appreciate when discussion can come up with even better solutions)
At the moment it says FAQ and errata is located at https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
And we don't require Campaign Staff to sign off on errata there for rulebooks etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I deeply resent the idea that errata to scenarios is posted in a forum *completely* divorced from PFS play, one I would never even known existed if not for this thread.
Valid or not, Errata to Scenarios needs to be mirrored in the PFS GM sub forum (Or better yet, posted there and mirrored to the foundry sub forum.)
people using the Foundry Errata are not following therulesrun as written.There is no such thing as "rules as written" in PFS.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth reposting this from the previous thread:
Here is my summary of what is happening:
1) A sharp-eyed Foundry Module Developer is spotting potential problems in scenarios (especially Season 5, where the editing has been a bit spotty.) - Yay!
2) Paizo has offered some guidance for those issues to Foundry. - Yay!
3) Foundry has helpfully posted those clarifications in its modules. - Yay!
4) Helpful Forum posters who have Foundry subscriptions have shared those clarifications in the GM threads. - Yay!
So far, all of that is GREAT. The real issue is in number 5.
5) Foundry is a paid resource, and we should not have to rely on posts from helpful online GMs to get these clarifications as well. It would be nice if when Paizo makes these clarifications they also copy them over to a public resource, whether it is GM threads or an official Season 5 scenario clarification thread.
Don't get me wrong. I am over the moon that we are getting these clarifications. That's wonderful. I'm just hoping that we can get them in a more straightforward manner. I am GMing almost exclusively in person or PBP, but have been considering budgeting for Foundry purchases just so that I can get these clarifications... and I should not have to do so.
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Foundry and OP products part deux
I just want to clear something up, quoting TMun from a discord sever:
[...]the volunteer developers who make the system for Foundry aren’t making these changes, nor is anyone from Foundry Gaming LLC. The product is made by Metamorphic under contract from Paizo and Andrew White is the point of contact between those two entities.
If we’re going to be pedantic that Paizo staff posting is a problem because it isn’t a specific member of Paizo staff, can we be equally clear what is meant by the “Foundry Team”. Because the last thing I want is complaints about the volunteers or issues on the system development board because everyone is upset at the wrong people. This literally has nothing to do with either PF2e on Foundry nor the Foundry software.
This is a Paizo first party product receiving errata from Paizo staff. That it happens to be usable on Foundry software shouldn’t matter as to the argument. This isn’t a VTT versus other VTT/PDF war issue and I don’t want it to turn into that. This is 100% a Paizo internal problem.
I'm not accusing anyone here, but I have seen a lot of mentions of "Foundry" and "Foundry Team" in various discussions and I think it's important for us to be clear about what is being discussed.
--------
I understand that people are upset that:
A. Andrew White isn't listed as campaign leadership. Given that just last week Shay mentioned working on the "Foundry/PDF" updates then I would hope that we can agree that this seems likely that whatever update to guide, or post from Campaign Leadership, that is needed will come to support Andrew.
B. That the location of a VTT subforum isn't ideal. Paizo produces more than just PFS scenarios for FoundryVTT, and Metamorphic is raising issues with more than just PFS scenarios, thus this was put in a more generic location. If it makes sense to link it from the guide then that seems like a good idea.
Also, wasn't there a VO project of reading through the forums and collecting all campaign leadership clarifications and putting them in one easily accessible spot? You could even add that as a page to the guide, sorted by scenario, optionally state the clarification, and at least link the clarification link. Now everything is in one, nice, centralized location.
I'm not suggesting that none of this isn't a problem. I just think that feelings have been escalated in various areas/communities and this is being made a bigger deal than it needs to be. Honestly given post from earlier this month about clarifications... I think campaign leadership needs more praise when they work out solutions even if they are temporarily not to everyone's perfect expectations. Otherwise we're just going to get demoralized leadership who don't want to provide any clarifications and this hostility will continue which isn't healthy IMHO.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alex has resolved things here.
With a note that it's official and a promise that the errata will be publicly available.
Thanks for resolving things relatively quickly, and thanks to posters in both threads for remaining mostly civil. Well done everybody.
I hate to nitpick/complain but there's still one important thing that's missing: The existing season 5 errata. There's a season 5 errata note in those forums but it doesn't seem to contain the previously existing errata/rulings as noted in the Gm threads for:
5-14
5-15
5-16
5-17
Or any other scenarios that have changes that nobody noticed or bothered to post to the Paizo OP forums about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do still think it would be a good idea to link the forum from the guide, OR link a compiled list of clarifications sorted by campaign/scenario that then link to the appropriate place. I think it's a valid point that people won't necessarily know to check the Digital Product Forum. Or if they do know, it could still be made easier to find the relevant info based on what they're running.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do still think it would be a good idea to link the forum from the guide, OR link a compiled list of clarifications sorted by campaign/scenario that then link to the appropriate place. I think it's a valid point that people won't necessarily know to check the Digital Product Forum. Or if they do know, it could still be made easier to find the relevant info based on what they're running.
A link from the guide would be even better, but it's hard to complain when we basically got everything I originally asked for. Ya some better sorting/organizing of the errata would be preferable too but I'll take this.
Happy to see this getting resolved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Former staff are correctly omitted from campaign leadership. Currently, forum rulings from prior Org Play staff expire when they are no longer staff. If the rulings are good enough to keep, they should be written into the Guides or another official document like the Character Options page.
This is, I think, news to a large portion of the community. It certainly is to me. I know in the past we’ve been cautioned against using rulings from 1E PFS, but this is the first I’m hearing that we shouldn’t abide by rulings from 2E PFS. I don’t know what that impacts off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure there’s something important that it would affect.
|
|
That's new to me. I always figured it was silently left out of the guide but not intentionally, and that we were still supposed to recognize former campaign leadership.
It doesn't quite make sense though, there isn't going to be an update to the guide to say "please run (monster name) with 72 hit points" or "(monster name) perception should be +8 instead of +18". And given Paizo's reluctance to send out PDF updates, I don't see that happening either.
This also means that when Alex is no longer Campaign leadership, the VTT errata forum is no longer authorized and any changes made under it for PFS stuff would need to be reverted.
Instead, I think it would be better for that combined clarification document that was being worked on to be combed through, include things that can be included in the guide, and then link the rest from the guide as authorized changes. And by that logic you also need to authorize the VTT forum from the guide instead of relying on a current campaign leadership member.
Or, back to my initial point, recognizing prior campaign leadership.
In the end, I think all of this really needs a careful look from the perspective of "How do GMs get and use information?" and "How can they reasonably be expected to keep up with any clarifications/changes ?"