|
I miss the monthly modules. I just wanna get a thread going for people to voice their opinions on either monthly modules or upping the line to 64 page "double feature" modules (each containing 2 32 page modules). I think it'd be easier to get off the shelves in stores as a double feature since people might not be interested in one of them, but interested enough in the other.
I'd pay for a module a month, but I'm me. I suspect Paizo has a pretty good feel for what the average customer will spend and their reasoning balances that and the workload involved. There are only so many dollars to be wrung out of us customers and only so many hours to be wrung out of their editors.
So while I'm with you, I don't think monthly modules are coming back any time soon. They're letting folks spend their alternate month's money on the Companion line.
That's one of the reasons I think the double-feature idea is a good idea, maybe move the 32 page companions to monthly and alternate the modules with the 64 page supplements.
I'll admit I'm confused. More content = more money and more work. 32 pages every month or 64 pages every other month is still double the product. Unless you're suggesting shipping is the problem?
I definitely miss (it did used to be that way, right?) getting a module each month.
I doubt the double-feature approach would be feasible. I suspect you'd lose just as many sales to the "I like one but not the other" as you'd pick up.
|
|
That's one of the reasons I think the double-feature idea is a good idea, maybe move the 32 page companions to monthly and alternate the modules with the 64 page supplements.I'll admit I'm confused. More content = more money and more work. 32 pages every month or 64 pages every other month is still double the product. Unless you're suggesting shipping is the problem?
I mean alternate the 64 page double feature module line with the Campaign Setting line (which is 64 page GM material each month) and have the player companions go to monthly. It'll be more player material each month and more module each month at the expense of the campaign setting line. Honestly the map folios should move to the AP line anyway.
And Dungeon Mag did pretty well with three adventures each month I doubt anyone was saying "I like this one adventure but I'm not gonna buy it cuz I don't like the other one or two". I think you're more likely to have people not pick up an individual module than a two-pack.
And to Erik or Lisa, if it's not a good idea I'd be curious to know why not, seems like total win to me =p
My guess is that it won't work for several reasons.
1) While the production of each line is limited by overall personnel, the work flow is different. And since subscribers are different, people who subscribe to one but not the other would be scratching their heads as to why line A was affecting line B.
2) Your proposal may have the same number of pages, but it has fewer books. Paizo makes more per book than it does for a longer book per page.
3) Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.
4) The campaign setting line has higher sales than the module line, so why would they produce fewer campaign setting books? [I do agree that the map folios should either be part of the AP sub, or part of the maps line.]
5) Sales of existing modules need to increase for them to justify creating more modules per year.
6) Modules have a single author by necessity. Campaign books can be parceled out per chapter so are easier to produce.
All that being said, I would still love to see more modules. I use them more than I use my AP volumes. So convince more people to subscribe to modules!
Which reminds me, I still need to pick up some back modules to complete my collection...
Chief Technical Officer
|
My guess is that it won't work for several reasons.
1) While the production of each line is limited by overall personnel, the work flow is different. And since subscribers are different, people who subscribe to one but not the other would be scratching their heads as to why line A was affecting line B.
2) Your proposal may have the same number of pages, but it has fewer books. Paizo makes more per book than it does for a longer book per page.
3) Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.
4) The campaign setting line has higher sales than the module line, so why would they produce fewer campaign setting books? [I do agree that the map folios should either be part of the AP sub, or part of the maps line.]
5) Sales of existing modules need to increase for them to justify creating more modules per year.
6) Modules have a single author by necessity. Campaign books can be parceled out per chapter so are easier to produce.
All that being said, I would still love to see more modules. I use them more than I use my AP volumes. So convince more people to subscribe to modules!
Which reminds me, I still need to pick up some back modules to complete my collection...
Many of these reasons are valid.
I'd also note that "a page" is not a standard work unit. Taking a page of fiction from turnover to publication takes far fewer resources than a page of a campaign setting book, and that takes fewer resources than a page of an adventure or a page of rules.
Adventures are relatively expensive and time consuming, and I frankly don't see us dramatically increasing the number of adventures we publish anytime soon.
Adventures are relatively expensive and time consuming, and I frankly don't see us dramatically increasing the number of adventures we publish anytime soon.
That's disheartening. Would there be any chance of experimenting with increasing the content in other, potentially more acheivable ways (like the occasional 48 page 'super module' or something?
|
|
My guess is that it won't work for several reasons.
1) While the production of each line is limited by overall personnel, the work flow is different. And since subscribers are different, people who subscribe to one but not the other would be scratching their heads as to why line A was affecting line B.
Wouldn't be the first time, the modules were originally monthly then switched to bimonthly when the Companion line was introduced.
2) Your proposal may have the same number of pages, but it has fewer books. Paizo makes more per book than it does for a longer book per page.
It has the same number of books. One 32 page book per month and one 64 page book per month. It's just switching the companion line to monthly and the campaign setting line to bimonthly
3) Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.
Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.
4) The campaign setting line has higher sales than the module line, so why would they produce fewer campaign setting books? [I do agree that the map folios should either be part of the AP sub, or part of the maps line.]
They don't reveal sales numbers so I can't really respond to that claim, other than by saying I bet the Companion line does better than either and would do well in a monthly format, whereas GM material in general sells less than player material (Campaign Setting and Modules are both GM material) so sales in general could probably improve.
5) Sales of existing modules need to increase for them to justify creating more modules per year.
I believe two modules per book would increase sales and subscriptions to the module line as you are twice as likely to have something you like in each book.
6) Modules have a single author by necessity. Campaign books can be parceled out per chapter so are easier to produce.
Each adventure in the double-feature book would have two separate authors, so this is moot.
I also use the modules a lot, and still delve back into my dungeon collection for stuff, but the well is starting to run dry and I'm getting tired of converting 3.0 stuff all the way up to PF.
|
Creative Director
|
This thread makes me think Paizo could use a special non-canon license for 3pp to make adventures on Golarion. That would be really cool, but I doubt it'll ever happen.
I'm too much of a control-freak when it comes to Golarion for this to happen. Which is, I guess, good news AND bad news for fans of Golarion adventures.
Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.
Was Dungeon $15 per issue? Paizo would have to charge at least as much for a double module.
They don't reveal sales numbers so I can't really respond to that claim, other than by saying I bet the Companion line does better than either and would do well in a monthly format, whereas GM material in general sells less than player material (Campaign Setting and Modules are both GM material) so sales in general could probably improve.
The companion line is already moving to monthly, so yes, it is doing well. I believe the campaign setting line does better though, as judged by the top 10 list whenever subscriptions go out.
Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.
I think the pricing of Dungeon had a lot to do with people's willingness to commit to something even if there was a good chance they'd be uninterested in some of it. Those who dont want to 'waste' money on part of a product they're not interested in run the risk of wasting more on a book than they do on a magazine.
|
Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.Was Dungeon $15 per issue? Paizo would have to charge at least as much for a double module.
They don't reveal sales numbers so I can't really respond to that claim, other than by saying I bet the Companion line does better than either and would do well in a monthly format, whereas GM material in general sells less than player material (Campaign Setting and Modules are both GM material) so sales in general could probably improve.The companion line is already moving to monthly, so yes, it is doing well. I believe the campaign setting line does better though, as judged by the top 10 list whenever subscriptions go out.
When was this announced?
|
This thread makes me think Paizo could use a special non-canon license for 3pp to make adventures on Golarion. That would be really cool, but I doubt it'll ever happen.I'm too much of a control-freak when it comes to Golarion for this to happen. Which is, I guess, good news AND bad news for fans of Golarion adventures.
So, no more Paladins of Asmodeus and tavern-dwelling freedom-fighter bronze dragons in Cheliax? :)
Asmodeus is public domain so a 3PP could make some way to make a paladin of Asmodeus. (I'm not, but it is possible someone else could.)
The pricing of Dungeon and Dragon had more to do with the fact that Paizo was getting paid to put ads in their mags. Unfortunately Paizo won't put an ad in the adventure paths for JBE books, no matter how many cosmos I buy Cosmo or pizzas I sent to Erik Mona.
The companion line is already moving to monthly, so yes, it is doing well. I believe the campaign setting line does better though, as judged by the top 10 list whenever subscriptions go out.When was this announced?
Good question. I remember reading it in one of the many "News from PaizoCon/GenCon" threads. But I'm having a hard time tracking it down now.
I'm too much of a control-freak when it comes to Golarion for this to happen. Which is, I guess, good news AND bad news for fans of Golarion adventures.
That's kind of too bad (though understandable). It slightly defeats the purpose of running pre-written material if I've got to do a bunch of work translating pantheons and countries.
Given there's no "living" setting (ie. what happens in one module doesn't change the history/state of the world), it's too bad a "places and churches" license couldn't be arranged. If some 3pp writes a module wherein PCs redeem Asmodeus by discovering he's really an LG halfling paladin of Sarenrae who's having a bad day... fine. Doesn't touch the Paizo world.
I'm too much of a control-freak when it comes to Golarion for this to happen. Which is, I guess, good news AND bad news for fans of Golarion adventures.That's kind of too bad (though understandable). It slightly defeats the purpose of running pre-written material if I've got to do a bunch of work translating pantheons and countries.
Given there's no "living" setting (ie. what happens in one module doesn't change the history/state of the world), it's too bad a "places and churches" license couldn't be arranged. If some 3pp writes a module wherein PCs redeem Asmodeus by discovering he's really an LG halfling paladin of Sarenrae who's having a bad day... fine. Doesn't touch the Paizo world.
That's exactly the sort of thing that James doesn't want to see published.
Every campaign should be living. It's up to the GM to decide how your group's past deeds affects his world. Also, Paizo does support that kind of game. That's what the adventure path line is for. Modules are self-contained to be more easily adapted to anybody's campaign. The more you link them to other past modules, the harder that becomes.
|
Creative Director
|
I think the pricing of Dungeon had a lot to do with people's willingness to commit to something even if there was a good chance they'd be uninterested in some of it. Those who dont want to 'waste' money on part of a product they're not interested in run the risk of wasting more on a book than they do on a magazine.Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.
Actually... the pricing of Dungeon had a lot to do with it being a magazine, which also meant:
1) It was printed on MUCH shabbier paper stock...
...and much more importantly...
2) It was about 25% to 33% paid advertisements. Turns out, filling a third of your book with paid advertisements lets you charge a LOT less than you should for the product.
|
Creative Director
|
Good question. I remember reading it in one of the many "News from PaizoCon/GenCon" threads. But I'm having a hard time tracking it down now.The companion line is already moving to monthly, so yes, it is doing well. I believe the campaign setting line does better though, as judged by the top 10 list whenever subscriptions go out.When was this announced?
It was mentioned at a panel at Paizocon.
But it's not going to happen until we can get our schedule under control enough to add six more products to it—and we're not there yet. The timing of when the Player Companion line is going monthly is not yet decided as a result, other than at some point we want it to go monthly.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm too much of a control-freak when it comes to Golarion for this to happen. Which is, I guess, good news AND bad news for fans of Golarion adventures.That's kind of too bad (though understandable). It slightly defeats the purpose of running pre-written material if I've got to do a bunch of work translating pantheons and countries.
Given there's no "living" setting (ie. what happens in one module doesn't change the history/state of the world), it's too bad a "places and churches" license couldn't be arranged. If some 3pp writes a module wherein PCs redeem Asmodeus by discovering he's really an LG halfling paladin of Sarenrae who's having a bad day... fine. Doesn't touch the Paizo world.
If it uses names like Sarenrae, it DOES touch the Paizo world, though.
I think the pricing of Dungeon had a lot to do with people's willingness to commit to something even if there was a good chance they'd be uninterested in some of it. Those who dont want to 'waste' money on part of a product they're not interested in run the risk of wasting more on a book than they do on a magazine.Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.Actually... the pricing of Dungeon had a lot to do with it being a magazine, which also meant:
1) It was printed on MUCH shabbier paper stock...
...and much more importantly...
2) It was about 25% to 33% paid advertisements. Turns out, filling a third of your book with paid advertisements lets you charge a LOT less than you should for the product.
My point was obviously poorly expressed.
What I was saying was people wouldn't mind receiving occasional content they didn't want in a cheap product the way they would in an expensive product.
I don't accept Coridan's claim that, because people bought dungeon magazine with multiple, unrelated adventures they would therefore be willing to buy a "double feature" module.
I wasn't making any comment about why dungeon was cheaper.
If it uses names like Sarenrae, it DOES touch the Paizo world, though.
I'm sorry; I wasn't able to fully express myself during lunch. First - again - I completed understand and respect the unwillingness. I get it.
I do see names as being a one-way street. Paizo writes the canon. It's "true". Anyone who misunderstands and publishes an adventure that misinterprets a deity's schtick or a country's style doesn't flow back and pollute Paizo's work. At least to me. I guess all I'm saying is that I as a consumer of stuff am comfortable differing expectations.
On deepest reflection over the last hours I've come to the realization that what I want 3pp adventure writers to do is not invent their own world. Just make stuff setting vanilla. "This castle in this village was once ruled by a family, and the elder is now a lich and you need to go kill them." Don't name places, don't try to build a complicated history... that's all stuff I have to remove in order to inject into Golarion.
If it uses names like Sarenrae, it DOES touch the Paizo world, though.I'm sorry; I wasn't able to fully express myself during lunch. First - again - I completed understand and respect the unwillingness. I get it.
I do see names as being a one-way street. Paizo writes the canon. It's "true". Anyone who misunderstands and publishes an adventure that misinterprets a deity's schtick or a country's style doesn't flow back and pollute Paizo's work. At least to me. I guess all I'm saying is that I as a consumer of stuff am comfortable differing expectations.
On deepest reflection over the last hours I've come to the realization that what I want 3pp adventure writers to do is not invent their own world. Just make stuff setting vanilla. "This castle in this village was once ruled by a family, and the elder is now a lich and you need to go kill them." Don't name places, don't try to build a complicated history... that's all stuff I have to remove in order to inject into Golarion.
It can even be more specific than that. After all, "creepy kingdom full of undead" and "northern barbarian lands" and "deep in the jungle kingdom" are generic and yet would be pretty darn easy to place in Golarion. Or in my home campaign, for that matter.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think the pricing of Dungeon had a lot to do with people's willingness to commit to something even if there was a good chance they'd be uninterested in some of it. Those who dont want to 'waste' money on part of a product they're not interested in run the risk of wasting more on a book than they do on a magazine.Are you talking about a double feature module having two 32 page adventures in one book? That seems like a bad idea. Unless they are heavily linked, it will probably have awkward effects on sales.Yes I am, and I doubt it will. Dungeon Magazine did quite well under Paizo with three different adventures every month.
Steve has a good point with regard to price and perceived risk... but I'll also point out that Dungeon actually provided us with evidence that if people *didn't* like one adventure in a magazine, they'd avoid the entire issue. Specifically, every time just one of the adventures was of a specific type (and I can't be more specific on that type), we'd sell fewer than the average number of copies of that issue.
So if some measurable number of people were willing to say "I won't spend $8 because I don't want 1/3 of the content," I'm pretty confident that even *more* people would say "I won't spend $19.99 because I don't want 1/2 of the content."
Specifically, every time just one of the adventures was of a specific type (and I can't be more specific on that type), we'd sell fewer than the average number of copies of that issue.
How tantalising. If I start spouting conspiracy theories will you make posts along the lines of "warmer...colder..."?
Steve has a good point with regard to price and perceived risk... but I'll also point out that Dungeon actually provided us with evidence that if people *didn't* like one adventure in a magazine, they'd avoid the entire issue. Specifically, every time just one of the adventures was of a specific type (and I can't be more specific on that type), we'd sell fewer than the average number of copies of that issue.
Why not? That would seem to be pretty darn useful information. Perhaps that's it ... trade secret?
Specifically, every time just one of the adventures was of a specific type (and I can't be more specific on that type), we'd sell fewer than the average number of copies of that issue.Why not? That would seem to be pretty darn useful information. Perhaps that's it ... trade secret?
Clearly it is level 2 adventures. There is a distinct lack of level 2 adventures in the module line. Or maybe it is even level adventures, I don't seem to have any level 4 modules either.
;)
Edit: I was looking at my PDF collection, which has all of the Pathfinder modules, but not all of the 3.5 ones. It appears they did, in fact, do one level 2 module (D1) and two level 4 modules (W2 & W3) in the 3.5 days. Still, we could use a few more for Pathfinder.
On deepest reflection over the last hours I've come to the realization that what I want 3pp adventure writers to do is not invent their own world. Just make stuff setting vanilla. "This castle in this village was once ruled by a family, and the elder is now a lich and you need to go kill them." Don't name places, don't try to build a complicated history... that's all stuff I have to remove in order to inject into Golarion.
I tend to agree with this, unless it is some place really unique and there is a really good chance that it will not be detailed by Paizo, such as the Plane of Shadow, etc.