Prime Evil's page

I'd hazard to say that a big chunk of Paizo's success comes from the fact that they're seen as "the company that uses OGL the way it was supposed to be used" (hint: WotC's policy on their open content and Paizo's policy on their open content, WotC's policy on 3PP open content and Paizo's policy on 3PP open content).

Observe how 3PP OGL market helps Paizo sell more stuff: if I buy APG I can be sure that 3PP's will have additional stuff for Alchemists and Witches, unlike WotC where I bought Book of 9 Swords and could count on virtually zero support for that.

So yeah, you can throw all your crunch content for free online and still make that other company look silly. It's all about how you handle things, and WotC's talent for setting themselves on fire and then trying to put that fire out by pouring gasoline over is legendary at this point.

One of my best friends used to run a table every summer for a group of young girls, about 8-11 of them, at her gaming store which she co-owned with her then husband. She called them her sandpipers and they encompassed a large spectrum of play styles including but not limited to, "Megan, SMASH!" to "Can I have a unicorn for a pet?" So lets not paint all women with a single brush please.

To the OP: as the developer of the Pathfinder Modules line, I wanted to address your concerns personally. Since you clearly took a lot of time to compose your thoughts and post them here, that seemed the least I could do.

I mean this as an honest criticism, so please forgive me if this sounds harsh (it is certainly not meant as a personal criticism of anyone) but the Modules line, as it stands today, seems like little more than a proving ground of sorts for adventure authors that Paizo is vetting or possibly grooming for bigger things.

That role is covered more these days by the Pathfinder Society Scenarios line, which, as a PDF-only product line involves less production cost for the risk, and the difficult nature of designing a tiered adventure for organized play allows us to really test people in a crucible of design difficulty.

Let me explain. First, it is a well known fact that the opportunity to write a module in the PF Modules line is the grand prize, if you will, of the RPG Superstar contest. So, one out of six of the adventures that we'll see in a year of the PF Modules line is written by a newcomer to the industry, and that's a good thing. Cultivating fresh talent is critical to the future health of the gaming industry that we all (presumably) love. However, it also means that Paizo is accepting a certain level of risk. This is, after all, the professional maiden voyage of someone who won a contest, which leads me to my second point.

That's true; it is a risk for us. That's why we only offer it to the winner. But that's a risk we're willing to take to give people the incentive to participate. You'll note that the runners-up were offered Pathfinder Society Scenarios, which have smaller word-counts (and thus less pay) and are less prominent as they're never printed and sold in stores. But one module a year by an untested author is an ok risk, as far as I'm concerned, in order to promote RPG Superstar and to truly reward the person who lasts to the end and comes out on top.

The Pathfinder Modules line is bi-monthly. I believe that a two month gap in the line is intentional because many of the developers in this line are not full time employees of Paizo and thus there is the risk that the initial drafts, reworks, etc might not arrive on time or at a level of quality that Paizo is comfortable with. I'm guessing that the two month gap between adventures is a safety net to allow Paizo time to recover from an adventure author who drops the ball for whatever reason.

I am the primary developer on the Pathfinder Modules line, and I am a full-time employee at Paizo, so that isn't the reason for the bi-monthly production schedule—not directly at least. While I work on this bi-monthly line and handle all the outlining, assigning, art ordering, revisions, and general freelancer back-and-forth as the adventures are written, I'm also doing the same same thing with the Pathfinder Society Scenarios line, which involves two scenarios a month. Thus, in a two month period, I'm personally overseeing, from start to finish, five adventures. To add another 32-page module on top of that would simply be more than I (or anyone, for that matter) could have time for and maintain both the high quality we strive for at Paizo and a semblance of sanity (not to mention a marriage and social life). Paizo is growing, and it may be that we take on more developers as time goes on who can help with some of the workload and enable this line to go monthly, but that's not something we have specific plans for at the moment.

Third, the PF modules line has been, at least up to now, a 32 page softcover. I believe that this, again, is by Paizo design as an intentional risk management firewall against a new or inexperienced adventure author getting in over their head with a project too large for them to handle. And, of course, poor sales on a 32 page adventure is a more easily absorbed loss than a 96 page super adventure that sells poorly.

This comes back to the same issue as above. Development of the adventures in our Pathfinder Adventure Path line (which usually come in around 55 pages, on average) are a full-time job for my fellow Developer, Rob McCreary. Doubling the size of the Pathfinder Modules line would necessitate the hiring of an additional person to take on development of it, as that amount of work is enough to occupy someone's plate all the time. As Vic pointed out above, it's also not something we can vary from month to month, and even changing the product length (and thus price) on people who have been subscribing for going on 5 years no would likely result in more cancelled subscriptions than it would net. That is the real risk with making changes to the format of the adventures, not a fear of a freelancer dropping the ball. We trust all of our freelancers to be professional and turn in the absolute best material in the industry, and we wouldn't assign someone to a project if we didn't think they could do it.

Or, to put it another way, I understand that there is great reluctance (justifiably so btw) in making any significant changes to the very successful Pathfinder AP formula (6 adventures, monthly, starts 1st level, finishes at 13th-17th level), but why can't the PF Modules line be more dynamic in its content, format and even release schedule?

As I said above, our subscription model means we can't be dynamic with the format of books that belong to subscription-based lines. You'll notice, for example, that our forthcoming Rise of the Runelords hardcover is not part of a line, as it wouldn't fit within what our subscribers tend to expect from month to month. That said, I feel the content of recent modules has been very dynamic. Adventures such as The Harrowing and The Ruby Phoenix Tournament are stories and types of adventures that we haven't done anywhere else, and that, at least internally, really excite us in terms of non-standard adventures we'd like to run or play. Coming up, we have The Moonscar, in which high-level PCs travel to the moon to face demons in an outer space jungle. That's pretty non-standard if you ask me, and not something we could do with any of our other product lines. The Modules line, as a relatively low word count line of one-off adventures is actually the perfect place for us to do weird or experimental adventures that might not be everyone's cup of tea. After all, if something doesn't interest you, you aren't committed to running five other adventures around it, and can simply not use that single adventure.

Hollow's Last Hope, Crown of the Kobold King, Revenge of the Kobold King, Hungry are the Dead, Tower of the Last Baron and Treasure of Chimera Cove were loosely connected, but that trend seems to have stopped in the modules line for the past year.

With only six adventures a year, one of which we're committed to having as the annual RPG Superstar module, that leaves only five to work with for linked adventures. And if the level range or concept of even a two-part arc isn't to people's liking, that's a third of our annual production run that we risk having lower sales on, as opposed to the normal sixth that we risk with any product. At the moment, there are no plans for other linked modules, but I wouldn't rule it out as something we'll never do again.

What we have done this year, however, is link a module (this month's The Ruby Phoenix Tournament) to the metaplot of our Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign for the season, thus synergizing the two product lines and adding an additional level of continuity to the world as a whole. If folks like this, we may do other crossover modules down the line.

The most obvious, to me, is the mega dungeon crawl. Most of the ones that I've seen done well (ToEE, Ruins of Castle Greyhawk, Undermountain) are not going to fit into a 32 page module, but nor are they likely going to be your entire campaign. Rappan Athuk Reloaded and Slumbering Tsar from Frog God Games are two exceptions of mega dungeons that are, IMO, full campaigns but they include more than just dungeon delves in a specific site. The dungeons listed in the book 'Dungeons of Golarion' would make good candidates here.

I agree. These would make awesome adventures, and we've said for a long time that we'd love to do a megadungeon book. But as stated above, it can't be part of this line, as people didn't sign on to the subscription with that as a contingent. If we were to do one down the line, it would likely be handled like the Rise of the Runelords compilation coming out this summer. But until we have such an adventure that we're ready to publicly announce, we could always handle it differently.

'Sandbox with walls' areas, as I call them, are also good candidates. This is a valley, or a kingdom, or a forest, or some other geographic area that will have numerous encounters and sites for adventure in it, but it is designed specifically for a limited range of levels. 'The Valley of So-and-So' details 50 different encounters, for levels 7-9. It won't fit into a (single) 32 page module but it also isn't something that merges nicely into a themed Adventure Path. Nor is it necessarily an area large enough for an entire campaign. Falcon's Hollow is a good example; not coincidentally, the area around FH made for my favorite series of adventures in the Modules line to date.

That's actually an interesting idea. I think we might be able to do a series of adventures in the same region to do this sort of thing, similar to how the early adventures in the line were often set in Absalom or Falcon's Hollow, to provide a number of unlinked adventures for GMs to pick apart and use as they needed in a sandbox-style campaign in the same region. It's not really something that we've discussed since I took over the line, so the suggestion is certainly one I'll bring up in our next long-term Pathfinder Modules planning meeting.

Also, there is the 'event' type of adventure. Something significant is going to happen, or should happen, and the PCs either have to make sure that it doesn't or that it does. The event, whatever it is, is big enough that 32 pages isn't going to allow for enough detailed coverage of it, but an entire AP centered around the idea is going to end up stretching the PCs' patience (I felt like this by the end of the Age of Worms AP....cripes show up already, will you, Kyuss?).

Event-based adventures are really hard to pull off, even by experienced authors, and that's one reason we haven't done a ton of them. This month's The Ruby Phoenix Tournament is sort of an event-based adventure, but perhaps it's time to do another one in the future. It has been some time since we did one.

Maybe this is an area that Paizo has consciously decided to leave to third party companies. Certainly Frog God Games has scratched this itch for me up to now. But, when Paizo has enough confidence to branch out into online games and comic books, I have to believe that it can take a calculated risk on the Pathfinder Modules line in order to get it to that next level.

I'll note that both our online and comics products (as well as our various minis lines) are licensed to other companies, meaning they take far less resources than something produced internally. I too want to see the Pathfinder Modules line rise up your excitement ranking and this sort of feedback is exactly what we need to do that. Thanks for taking the time to post such extensive commentary.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Paizo for their open content, especially the PRD. Given the situation with piracy, it's incredibly wise and helpful of them to make it possible to play the game legally without any purchase at all, and I hope that decision pays dividends for them.

The Adventure Path product is one of our flagship lines. What does that mean? Among other things... it means that it makes us a HECK of a lot of money. Furthermore, it's the reason why Paizo exists today as a game company at all and not just, say, a game-focused web store. When we lost the license for Dragon and Dungeon, it was pretty much the success (and subscription and sales income) of Pathfinder that kept things afloat long enough for us to not only get Golarion off the ground... but to get the Pathfinder RPG off the ground. Furhtermore... back when we started Shackled City, Dungeon magazine was in dire condition—it was hemorrhaging subscribers and we were trying all sorts of things to get folks to keep subscribing and to even BUILD the subscriptions. Folks will doubtless remember numerous "stunts" we pulled with Dungeon back around issues 92–100—some of the bigger ones included bundling Polyhedron with the magazine, putting "subscriber only" content into the magazine, and going monthly with the magazine. Starting a series of linked adventures was one of those "stunts."

I've probably worked on Adventure Paths longer than anyone else in the industry today—I was brought on by Chris early on to write the second installment of Shackled City, and by the time the third installment was being published I'd been hired as an assistant editor for Dungeon. I've been working on Adventure Paths ever since, and during that time I've seen them work magic. They're the reason Dungeon not only kept going, but saw a dramatic INCREASE in subscription numbers. They win awards. And as mentioned above, they're the reason Paizo exists today.

During the last 10 years or so of Adventure Paths, we have indeed listened to feedback and tried new things with them. With each AP, I like to think we get a little closer to perfection... but I also believe that the "perfect" AP is a moving target you can never quite reach. So we DO keep making changes to the format... but those changes are, nowadays, relatively small. Things like adding an NPC index and magic item appendix like we did with Jade Regent.

And the idea that we don't take risks or try out strange adventures in an AP is, frankly, ridiculous. We've published adventures where the heroes have to star in a play, where they have to take part in a trial, where they wash ashore on a hostile island with very few resources, where they have to disguise themselves as drow and invade an evil society, where they get to use wishes over and over and over, where they lead armies, where the villains were deep into the "vile darkness territory," and where they need to build and run their own kingdoms. And we'll keep testing boundaries and limits with the APs. Coming up we've got things like naval battles, adventures that start the PCs out with NO equipment, true sequals to previous APs, and plenty more "risks and innovations" planned for the future for APs that I'm not yet at liberty to speak about.

Honestly, if I had to pick one thing that WON'T be going away from Paizo's book lines, that would be the Adventure Path line. As long as Paizo's around, our Adventure Paths will be around.

And to speak directly to the recent announcement from WotC... I personally think it would be the HEIGHT of foolishness for us to abandon the product line that's kept us afloat, helped define the company, and remains the flagship line at any time... but especially as a knee-jerk reaction to ANY announcement from ANY company.

I'm always eager to hear suggestions on how to change or add to or enhance the AP (with the caveat that I've seen a LOT of things tried with them over the past decade, and many suggestions aren't as viable as some folks think they might be)... but ending the line? Not gonna happen.

IF the native peoples had the north American continent for as long as they did. Which from my remembrance was estimated at around 10,000 years. They didn't do a whole lot with the place. We as a nation with only 400 years under our belts have touched outer space and have advanced in ways they could never have dreamed.

This is the most hateful, racist thing I have seen all day

I could care less about the rule set that an MMO follows. They are not the same and you should not aim for it. Pathfinder is a turn-based tabletop RPG. As a rules set for a TTOP RPG, it works quite well. However, a MMO is not a tabletop RPG. The people who think it should work like that do not get the design issues and probably never will.

I already know that the devs know this – but many of the fans here just don’t get it . Persuade your fans as to why – and with patience, the persuadable will be persuaded. However, some of these fans are NOT persuadable under any circumstances. That’s life. Keep selling them books and they will still be your customers, just not your online players. That’s okay. Let ‘em rant, because that isn’t Pathfinder.

I do see, however, a number of things that CAN work and DO feel like "Pathfinder,” to wit:

1 - Class Abilities: Pathfinder has improved upon and developed a number of class abilities that serve to distinguish the class from others. Those abilities should form a tangible aspect of a class design.

For example, we know what Paladins are. A Pathfinder: Online Paladin should have auras; smite evil, and have the ability to confer those benefits to others. Similarly, we know that a Witch has a familiar, can fly, and can cast hexes like misfortune and deep slumber. Alchemists in Pathfinder throw bombs and can use mutagens to increase their stats and body size. While something like a Vancian based arcane bond is not likely to matter in PF: O, Wizards should be able to throw a weapon and have it return to their hands. They should get some sort of metamagic and should be able to craft magic items. They should get a scorching ray and get multiple numbers of them as they advance (never mind what damage they actually do or how often it can be used) Barbarians are all about rage and DR. Gunslingers are all about guns, deeds, and grit, Ninjas can vanish, etc..

Keep the recognizable iconic abilities of classes and make them do similar sorts of things which are somewhat intuitive and recognizable to a player. The underlying math, lethality and so forth is irrelevant. Let the computer game designers of the MMO be computer game designers of an MMO. Nevertheless, some of the iconic powers of a class need to be represented and unique because that’s what fans expect and that’s what keeps up the verisimilitude of the Pathfinder brand.

2 - Look and Feel: Pathfinder has a distinctive art direction to its characters and many of its monsters. Some of that is going to work well in a computer game -- and some of it is not. Cut the stuff that will not work for polycount and animation reasons and do it without remorse.

But when you get right down to it, Pathfinder is Wayne Reynolds' art style. Make that come to life? You are golden in terms of art direction. Fail to deliver it and you dropped the ball and will alienate customers. Sorry – but in many respects it really IS that simple.

Above all, keep the cartoony look to your characters. There are strong benefits to this. On a technical design basis, it reduces polycount. As we move forward in the next five years, PC Gaming threatens to go off a cliff and the desktop will not be the primary platform for this game. Accordingly, anything that reduces graphical overhead and makes it more laptop friendly is good. Any CTO who tells you what the GPU capabilities are of the expected users of this game 4 years from now is making it up. He doesn’t know. That’s an ENORMOUS tech risk, so the engine and art direction has to be HIGHLY scaleable.

If you went for something like the CANVAS engine for your art style? You would not go wrong in terms of artistic impact (tech/economic feasibility is another matter). Apply the CANVAS engine's style and Wayne Reynolds art and color palettes and tell me you wouldn’t drool to play that game.

On a less technical basis, cartoony designs also serve to make the game look unique. The problem with realistic 3d models , shaders and middleware environmental options all designed to operate within the tech limits of the hardware platform of the day is that it all ends up looking the same, from game to game. Seeing as you are likely to have to use middleware for much of your environmental organic effects, anything that serves to distinguish the look of the game from that produced by others enhances the value. In this case, it also delivers on the expectations of fans – so double down on Wayne Reynolds' iconics and cartoony goblins.

Blizzard made the right call with WoW. Some people hated it and it turned them off -- but you cannot argue with that level of success. I can confirm that there was a significant debate within BioWare as to whether to go cartoony with SW:ToR. BioWare decided to go a little cartoony with their art direction in TOR too -- and it was the right call. Some people complained sure, but some people always complain.

3 - Golarion: At Paizo's current publication rate, it is likely that there will at that time of PF:O's release be more game material written about the world of Golarion than any other fantasy world in the history of RPGs. Even the FR (and that's saying something, damn it).

That is a VAST treasure trove of IP. It's the one thing Paizo brings to the table which it does BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE, in or outside of the computer development field. Do not sacrifice this on anybody's sandbox altar. Dance with the girl that brung ya.

That's what a Pathfinder: Online is to me. It's not rolling a 20, it's not Vancian Magic, longswords which do 1d8 or even magic missiles.

Gimme a Witch that hexes with a fox familiar, a chance to interact with the iconic characters which LOOK like Wayne Reynold's art come to life -- all set in a believable slice of Golarion.

That's a Pathfinder MMO to me.

Removed a post and its replies. We really, really, really are tired of the edition war nonsense. Play the games you want to play, and don't denigrate others because of their preferred game system.

I think they have largely done or are doing those things. Short of Mike and Monte pulling off a revision somewhere just short of miraculous, I don't see how they would lure my gaming dollars away from those that stuck with me.

Houserule documents can be viewed/downloaded at my Google Site.

Previous discussions can be found here.

Design work by Kirth Gersen.
Playtesting by myself, houstonderek, Andostre, Jess Door, and silverhair2008.
Proofreading and editing by Christopher Hauschild and too many others to list.
Thank you all for your feedback.

Kirth, I'm sorry for the horrible title. Not sorry enough to change it however. ;)