Search Posts
Thank you. That is indeed a key piece of context that was previously missing, and it dramatically improves the value proposition. We appreciate the dialogue and will continue to listen. We're not ready to make a decision one way or the other on the stat block issue mentioned here, but again, the conversation is very helpful. Whatever you decide, thank you for letting us know that you are listening.
Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO. Hi HMM: I apologize; it was not my intention to be hurtful. I hold both your opinion and your work in high regard. To be clear, I wasn't faulting the writing; rather the relative value. In fairness, I do think it's hard to argue that the trade dress, art, supporting materials, etc. are up to the standard set by the APs/modules. Which was totally understandable when scenarios were $3, or even $6. They're just a tough sell at the current $9, which I strongly suspect the revenue numbers will support.
Well I hope I get to run a PFS table for you sometime -- though it will apparently have to be something pre season 7 -- if for no other reason than to demonstrate that I'm less of an insufferable bastard in person than I am online. ;-) So do you guys run SF 1E, or 2E? I may at some point give 2E a try with a pregen, though SciFi isn't normally my jam.
Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting. This matches my experience. I'm currently running Seven Dooms for Sandpoint online on a fairly beefy gaming PC (NVME drive, 32GB of RAM, six core CPU, and most importantly, a big 1440P monitor). Having multiple PDFs open, along with AoN is not a problem. Plus I have plenty of time to prepare. Contrast that with an unknown amount of public space in a store with limited access to power and internet, and the prospect of running something with very little notice at a con, and the statblocks are just a huge GM QoL upgrade. Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO.
Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-) Details, details. :-P I hadn't actually run a game there since it was still Game Depot. I like the new layout, but the back room is the prime spot for sure. Even so, our table actually went fine as far as I could tell, Pokemon and all. I hope to have a chance to GM there again. Do you ever play PFS? Or are you all Starfinder? I ran one table of Starfinder Society first edition, but I really didn't dig the starship stuff.
I mean, can't cost-cutting be a valid enough reason on its own? As much as I hate the decision, I understand that several pairs of eyes poring over statblocks to look for mistakes isn't the most efficient way of spending one's time. It may not be a lot, but I bet it adds up over time. Just copy-pasting a Monster Core entry is much more efficient. Not to me; especially not when scenarios are still priced at $9. Not only does the $9 price point represent terrible value compared to Paizo's other products, I believe that it lends credence to my argument that someone at Paizo appears to be thinking about PFS scenarios strictly in terms of P&L...which I believe is fundamentally misguided. I get that saying that sort of thing is akin to heresy in these parts, and some folks just won't entertain the idea that Paizo is mismanaging something, but I'm calling it like I see it.
You're welcome, and thank you so much for this feedback, bugleyman! Thank you for listening. I'll admit I've not had much to do with customer service facing Paizo folks since Sara Marie got done dirty, but I do appreciate it when you are able to take the time to reply.
Which is a good indication that the 2-3 hour long scenarios can still be fun. They're also easier to prep, which has been my experience from either side of the table. Yeah, believe it or not that was actually part of why I mentioned it...the bigger part being that I don't remember the last time a early run of scenarios for PFS was that well reviewed. If shorter scenarios really translates to better scenarios over the long haul, then maybe it is worth it. At this point, assuming Paizo drops the price of Pathfinder Society Scenarios to $5.99 to match the Starfinder (which if they were planning to do, they really should have led with!), then my only big remaining complaint is the statblock situation. The narrower level bands aren't great, but can be worked around using pregens (which aren't ideal, but at least the table still goes off). Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.
There was an organized play survey at the end of last year. Scenario length was one of the questions on it. I don't have time to go through 10 months of blog posts and Paizo live videos, but somewhere it was said that shorter scenarios are something that scored high on the survey. So the idea for shorter scenarios didn't come from Paizo trying to cut costs; it was from customer feedback. Cutting stat blocks, that's a different story; that one is on Paizo, and I think it's a bad idea for scenarios and organized play, much more so than it is for APs. I don't need the receipts; I believe you. I was unaware of the survey, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think I met you briefly before I ran the Starfinder Scenario on Saturday. Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)
You guys brought back the preview images! Very much a customer-friendly choice. Thank you.
Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something? Understood, but to my knowledge there was no mention of the same thing happening for Pathfinder Society scenarios, which seems like a very odd thing to leave out. I guess time will tell. Edit: Wow, that is a really impressive run of good reviews for Starfinder 2e scenarios. I am jelly. :-P
Ah yes. The old "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" canard. I was wondering when someone would trot that one out, so at least in that sense you didn't disappoint (though I could have done without all the sarcasm, and especially without the age crack). Meanwhile, there is obviously a huge difference between Googling a simple question and juggling three or more stat blocks, often from multiple sources. Maybe your phone works great for that latter task, but mine certainly does not. Even if it did, my eyes wouldn't cooperate. As for a laptop, one powerful enough to do a good job of it isn't something I particularly want to risk in a public venue. And then there is the potential for Internet connection challenges, especially at conventions. I do agree with one thing you said, though: someone here is being disingenuous...
Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something? Not that I know of; it's just that neither announcement mentioned a price change, which would seem to me to be a pretty glaring oversight! Reducing the price would certainly go a long way toward addressing the value complaint.
Are you basing that on anything in particular? Because as far as I can see, that argument doesn't really hold water unless all of seasons 1-6 are discard, rendering at least ~80% of existing PFS content unusable, as it won't fit in a 3 hr slot. That just doesn't seem realistic for most groups. YMMV, I guess. BTW, I'm also in AZ. We may even know each other...
Ok, now I'm a little confused, because you started by making the argument that the forthcoming switch to shorter scenarios wasn't about cost...but then went on to talk specifically about factors that have increased Paizo's costs. And isn't "simplifying the creation process" really just another way of saying cost-cutting? It certainly seems like it to me. It could also be a combination of factors; the truth is we'll never know for sure unless Paizo decides to elaborate. To be honest, finding out that stat blocks have already been removed from Season 7 scenarios pretty much means the end of PFS for me, so I suppose the "why" doesn't really matter. :-/
This can already be seen in the scenarios of season 7 of PFS2, where the creature appendices for published creatures simply cite Monster Core. I was not aware of that; I thought dropping stat blocks was a forthcoming change. That it has already happened is very unfortunate. And will become more unfortunate once Monster Core 2 is out (not to mention whatever might come afterward). I suppose it also means I'm just spitting into the wind with this entire thread... :-(
Also, dropping the stat blocks may not neccessarily be shrinkflation. Have you considered that Society scenarios generally have an allocated number of pages to a scenario. What if you got more plot, encounters or fun skill challenges in exchange for those statblock pages? Given that scenarios are now going to run 2-3 hours, rather than 4, I don't see how that could really be the case -- especially since we're talking about PDF products, where page count itself has no marginal cost (and so they could have included those things without cutting the stat blocks). I'll be glad if I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The entirely trajectory of PFS over the several years has just felt too much like cost-cutting.
I appreciate that many folks are skeptical about my assertions regarding Paizo expecting PFS scenarios to turn a profit. Please understand that I do not claim to have any special insight or insider information. It’s just that, to me, the signs seem crystal clear (sequential price hikes, talk of “sustainability,” etc.). Overall it’s a pattern of behavior and messaging that I’ve seen many times, both in my career and in higher education (I have an undergrad business degree). But putting Paizo’s potential motivations aside for a moment, I want to talk about an experience I had yesterday. Before I do, I want to mention that while I only appear with one star as a 1E GM, if you click on my profile you’ll see that I’m actually a four star 1E GM, with a bit more than one hundred tables of credit. I’m also a 2 glyph 2E GM, with a table count in the low thirties. (No, I don’t know why my star count is busted. Yes, I’ve emailed customer service as well as posting on the boards s about it; no reply. I’ve given up on fixing it, and what's important to my point is how many tables I've actually run). I really, really enjoying GMing; far more than I do playing, in fact. I especially like GMing PFS, because: 1. As a retired person, it gets me out of the house.
So yesterday I ran a table (Lost Maid of Anactoria from season 2) at a FLGS in a neighboring city about 90 minutes from my house. I had a blast, and I think my players did, too (perhaps one of them might even chime in here). I'd like to look at how PFS has changed over the last few years – and how it will be changing again – through the lens of this experience. First, we had a table made up of characters of levels 4, 5, and 6. The new scenario model simply wouldn’t have supported this table. The other table was folks in 1-2, meaning no matter what, someone would have been turned away under the the new, narrower level bands. Second consider the stat blocks. I was traveling, and other than the physical bits (GM screen, combat pad, dice, maps, etc.), I brought with me only my 2019 CRB. Had stat blocks not been included in the scenario, I would have to also brought Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2, tripling the amount of hardbacks I had to carry, not to mention find space for at the table (which in a crowded gaming store that was also hosting a Pokemon tournament would have been difficult to say the least). And even if there were space, there is the inconvenience of having to switch between books for the stat blocks in an encounter, or sometimes even having to reference two monsters in the same book at once, which means constantly flipping back and forth. To borrow a phrase from the forward to the AD&D 2e PHB, that would be “physically and intellectually unwieldy.” Third was the price of the scenario, which in this case was $6. Back in the 1E days, PFS scenarios were $3 (that is to say clearly priced as a loss-leader), so when the local VO wanted me to run something, I’d just buy it without a second thought and I was off and running. Later, after the price was hiked multiple times, ultimately to $9 (which as I have pointed out is terrible value compared to Paizo’s other products; but I digress), I transition to running only scenarios which I already owned, or that the VO was able to provide in hard copy (which I don’t do often, because it very frequently means a separate trip to go and pick up said hard copy if I want sufficient prep time). So in this case, if I hadn’t already owned an appropriate scenario? The table simply doesn't happen. Taken together, the PFS GMing experience has simply gotten progressively worse over the last few years, and is poised to get worse still. So much worse, in fact, that if I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to conclude that Paizo is actively trying to discourage PFS GMs...a situation which seems genuinely crazy considering that PFS GMs are volunteering to essentially demo Paizo's flagship product line. The foolish price point and narrowed level bands I can probably work around much of the time (although I don’t really feel I should *have* to), but not including stat blocks will actually be a complete deal killer for me – I will simply stop GMing FPS altogether. And since I prefer GMing to playing, that really means I’ll simply stop participating in PFS altogether. Finally, since I’d no longer be participating in PFS, I’d move on to other systems, which would very likely mean the Pathfinder 2E campaign I’m currently running (Seven Dooms for Sandpoint) would be my last. Kinda a network effect, if you will. Am I *that* atypical? I’m not sure, though several PFS GMs in other threads have said they will also leave PFS behind if the changes go through as planned, and many others have said they will give leaving serious though. To me, driving off any non-trivial number of volunteers means you that you done f*cked up. YMMV, of course. ;-) I am not trying to pick a fight with Paizo staff. I am not complaining for fun, or to make myself look clever. I am simply trying to preserve a thing that I enjoy because I believe it is at risk of being mismanaged into oblivion.
Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost). Fair enough, but I guess I don't see any difference between "saving money" and "reallocating resources"; those seem like different ways to say the same thing. But perhaps I've just sat in one too many corporate meetings... :-)
Wow; now that is not a reply I was expecting! Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost). These changes, coupled with the fact that they have NOT dropped the price of scenarios correspondingly, make it hard for me to see said changes as anything other than largely financial. Do I 100% know that? I do not, but I encourage you to read some of the older blog posts, especially this one about "pricing and sustainability," which is clearly about the bottom line. With respect, as someone all too familiar business-speak, that blog post alone makes it plainly evident that PFS, over the last few years at least, has been managed primarily by spreadsheet -- which is having the effect of drowning it in a bathtub. :-(
I’m writing this in response to both the recent changes in SFS and the recently announced changes coming to PFS. At the risk of being patronizing, organized play is marketing. Marketing is traditionally viewed as a cost center. Expecting OP scenarios to earn a profit is like expecting advertisements to turn a profit – not by driving sales – but in and of themselves. Imagine if Anheuser-Busch expected this year’s Superbowl ad to turn a profit; not by driving beer sales, but directly, as if they expected people to pay to watch the ad. That is, in effect, what you currently expect of organized play scenarios. To be fair, organized play scenarios looks very much like your other adventure products. They need writers, editors, play testers; art, layout, and trade dress. Because of this, you have fallen into the trap of expecting them to earn a profit like your other adventure products. This is mistaken. That is not what they are for. They exist to hook people you otherwise wouldn’t have reached. And in my experience, they work. Now, I do understand that the promotional value of OP is difficult to quantify (as is often the case with marketing, as opposed to say, sales), but the fact remains that trying to treat it like a profit center is misguided. And even if it weren’t, your current practice of charging $9 for a four (soon to be two to three) hour scenario is fundamentally flawed, because you have priced scenarios too high in comparison to both the larger market and your own non-OP adventures. They are so overpriced, in fact, that you have almost certainly decreased overall revenue (please take a moment to Google “price elasticity of demand” – seriously). The recently announced move to shrink scenarios is effectively the third price increase in a handful of years. Prices increases didn’t work the last two times...why do you think the third time will be the charm? In short, not only are you are pursuing a mistaken objective (make OP scenario profitable), you’re doing so in a fundamentally flawed manner, as you’ve priced yourself out of the market. What you're doing now to make PFS "sustainable" isn't working. Perhaps instead of tripling down on higher prices and less content, it's time to change course. Keep the current 4-hour scenario length. Keep the wider level bands. Keep the statblocks. Find a way to continue sanctioning Starfinder adventures (HMM make an excellent suggestion for how to accomplish this). Finally, drop the price of PFS scenarios back down to a level where they represent reasonable value (~$5). Trust that the promotional value justifies the associated costs, even if you struggle to directly measure it. Or don’t...but in that case, what exactly is the point of OP, anyway?
"Huge ball of whining negativity"? I see you've moved on to insults. Very cool. Ad hominem attacks aside, you remain incorrect: Paizo has not addressed the concerns that many have expressed in this thread...other than to say that they're discussing the matter, and to ask that we give them time to respond. Which I had been doing, until you apparently decided it was time to white knight for Paizo (which is just kinda weird, btw). Edit: I just noticed you're a venture captain. Holy crap; get it together, man.
I get that we are on Paizo's own forums, and there are some passionate fans of the company here. But trying to shut down criticism does not help Paizo - if anything, it hurts them.
If I weren't also a fan, I wouldn't bother. I comment because I don't want to see PFS continue to decline.
Here's the thing, though: James shared Paizo's thinking with respect to the AP changes. That's really all that is being asked for here: some insight into why they're making what appear to be unpopular and problematic changes to PFS. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. And for the record, I don't actually expect them to change course, either...though I obviously wish they would, because PFS has been struggling for years, and the announced course seems very much like more of the same (cut, cut, cut -- which clearly has yet to work).
I have, and I doubt that is the case. Yes, the people here are only a sample, but how do you suppose literally all polling works? Spoiler alert: they're samples. No one actually asks 300 million+ Americans who they're going to vote for. Nor do I see any reason to believe that the opinions expressed in this thread should be materially different from the player base as a whole. But even if I'm wrong and these changes are popular, why would that make a lack of response from Paizo better?
You claim there is a "pretty strong case to be made that OP is not really bringing in enough business to justify the costs for sustaining it," yet you haven't made such a case; more importantly, neither has Paizo. Quite frankly, the evidence I see (both from personal observation and reading Paizo's prior blogs on the subject) really makes it seem like they don't have a good way to quantify the impact of organized play, because they have apparently decided PFS scenarios should be profitable (which is just silly, and I've already covered why). I'm encouraged that James has said they are still discussing the matter, and I hope that, if they don't change course, they'll at least give an idea behind the thinking here (as they did for the AP changes). As to why you felt the need to scold people for "complaining" (read: expressing an opinion you do not share), I'm honestly not sure,but I'm certainly not going to be made to feel bad for providing negative feedback to a company I patronize. Honestly it's kinda wild that you apparently think I should.
I'd love to buy and play this, but no society support means I won't. Just need to make that explicit. @Paizo: It's almost like organized play has promotional value that can't be measured via direct revenue...
Still radio silence from the powers that be on the (overwhelmingly negative) feedback on the (overwhelmingly unpopular) Society changes. I wish I could say I’m surprised. :-/
I agree with the video...it is weird that Paizo didn't market this as a starter set. I wonder if that has to do with marketing and/or merchandising? So let's get this out of the way, because there is no way around it: there is plenty of cost-cutting in evidence here. Paper mats instead of flip mats; cardboard "bases" for the pawns (rather than plastic); thinner paper. We probably just need to accept that his is the new normal in a post-tariff world. Now that said, I believe this product still represents good value. Pawns, maps, dice, three adventures, etc. It is very self-contained for $35, even if seems a bit odd that they went with tokens for Starfinder, but kept pawns for this. I think I get it -- Pathfinder 2E uses pawns, and swapping in tokens mid-edition might cause strife -- but an overall move toward tokens might become inevitable for cost reasons. In any event, the included cardboard "bases" seem like clever compromise while that mess shakes out. I will say this probably isn't worth it for the adventure alone, but well worth it if you'll use the extra stuff. It seems particularly ideal for introducing new people to the game with a lower buy-in that the Beginner Box (as well as maybe sneaking into places the BB won't reach?). And the thematic green dice are a neat touch (though I can't help but wonder if Paizo was able to source a bunch of sets of green polyhedral dice on the cheap and then wrote the adventure around 'em). ;-)
Which is why I called it "if the madness takes you" Sounds like we're on the same page, then. :D
I mean, we're in what...year 7, and if I'm not mistaken I think there is one scenario for above level 12? I'm fairly certain level 20 just isn't in the cards (but I'd love to be wrong; maybe a 2E seeker arc?).
Thank you for the link; she makes an insightful, well-written argument.
Paizo isn't doing Society Sanctioning for SF2 adventures. That just seems really weird (granted, I don't follow Starfinder closely). Have they said why?
So in light of the recently announced AP changes, Stand-alone adventure paths, maybe with some light suggestions toward how they might be linked (think Rusthenge --> Seven Dooms) when possible seems like the way to go. Facilitate GMs stringing paths together, but don't link paths closely in either theme or plot.
Page count would be easier, too. Currently, all three modules in an adventure path have the same length. But with all three in a single book, the length could vary. If the middle 2nd-module section needs to run long to tell its story well, cuts could come out of the 1st module or 3rd module rather than the 2nd module to fit the page count. The is a very good point, and one that had not occurred to me. The more I sit with the AP changes, the more I think they are very much a net positive.
As someone who was involved deeply in planning a transition between venues in the last few months, a 3-hour scenario makes working with our venues infinitely easier, as more sites are going to be happy with watching a group of people eat up table real estate for 3 hours as opposed to 4-6 hours (especially places like taprooms, which actually seriously depend on table turnover to make money). And even game stores are closing at 8-9 PM on weekday nights now instead of 10 PM or later. A 3-hour scenario might seem shorter in terms of word count and page count, but in practice we've already had to cut down longer scenarios to fit that kind of time constraint in the real state of play over the last 2-3 years. Putting the economic arguments aside, to my mind this simply isn't the sort of change than can reasonably be made in the middle of an edition. For instance, in order to make three hours slots work, are you just only ever going to schedule the newer, shorter scenarios? If so, you lose access to almost all of the campaign's six-plus years of existing content, which seems like a non-starter, at least for most folks. If not, your schedule still has to accommodate the longer scenarios...in which case I can't see how this is going to help. What am I missing?
I’m very interested to hear how well this would suit experienced groups but where the GM was new to the hot seat, especially in comparison to say Rusthenge. Interesting question! I really, really like Rusthenge, but it does have a few weird bits that resulted from it straddling the remaster as it did that I could see tripping up a new GM. The subsequent Death of Gorum may also throw a wrench in the works, and in my opinion the final battle needs to be completely replaced. Overall a great adventure, but probably not the best choice for a new GM.
Will this ever get reprinted? This is product is needed for PFS organized play scenarios, even newer ones, but no one in our area has a set of these that we can use. Many of us would happily buy these, if they were available, but they aren't; not even on the secondary market. They are pretty much impossible to find. I don't think Paizo does flip-tiles at all any more, which I suspect (unfortunately) makes reprinting very problematic. On the plus side, these are super easy to just draw out on a blank flip mat. In any case, I liked your post in the off chance that it helps you get an official answer.
The SFS one went from $9 to $6 when they changed the length and level range for SFS2, hopefully the same will happen here. That's great! I wasn't aware of that, and I completely agree: hopefully the same will happen here. Though if that *is* the plan, leaving such critical information out of the announcement would be an...interesting choice (though not one that inspires confidence).
So you do know Paizo severely undercharges for certain PDFs and quite honestly all you have done is point out that they really should charge more for the $20.00 one. ...which, even if true, changes nothing. The market is the market; PFS scenarios have to exist in it. In a perfect world, that wouldn't be the case: PFS would be viewed by Paizo as a promotional tool, with the understanding that the value of PFS scenarios is difficult to quantify by looking at direct revenue alone. But, since Paizo seems determined to viewing PFS scenarios in purely economic terms, I believe it makes sense to point out that they are already not viable at $9. What better way to do that than by comparing them to Paizo's other products? And now the size (3 hrs instead of 4), scope (no stat blocks), and utility (level ranges) of scenarios are all decreasing? Madness.
(╥﹏╥)
But seriously, with respect to PFS course-correcting, let's look at the $9 PFS scenario. I recently bought Claws of the Tyrant for $20. 128 pages of AAA RPG adventures. Tons of great art, great custom trade dress, great editing. Custom maps. Very often a cool backstory, custom plot hooks, adventure tool box full of supporting material. Meanwhile, look at your typical PFS scenario. $9 for ~20 pages. Consistently bad editing. Recycled mediocre trade dress. Probably a flip mat, lots of recycled art. Often a threadbare story. No supporting material. But wait, one might say: the adventure sells many more copies. Economies of scale and all that. Of course they do! In fact, the whole point is that PFS scenarios are priced right out of the market that Paizo itself has had a very large hand in creating. And so, as PFS continues to struggle to be "sustainable" in the wake of a comically ill-conceived price hike, what happens? Prices are increased *again*, of course! (Wait, sorry: the price is the same, just for less content; same difference.) Because surely this time it will fix things! And so I do not have much optimism with respect to PFS decision making. The hubris is too strong. In fact, it brings to mind an old saying: There are two ways to learn: The easy way, and the not-so-easy way. At least as far as PFS is concerned, Paizo seems absolutely wedded to the not-so-easy way. And yes, I know: more flies with honey than with vinegar. But at some point exasperation is the only appropriate response.
And if this change ends up being a wrong move, as so many predict, I am sure PFS will quickly see the light and adapt. That makes one of us. ;-)
Finally noticed this was out, and so I bought the PDF. I like adventure anthologies, and hope to see more of them. :-)
My guess is $59.99, which I believe is fair, but I can see them going as low as $49.99. I think it depends on the extent to which they want PDF sales to help defray the ever-increasing cost of printing color hardcovers. They also need to be careful about going so low as to undermine the value proposition of subscribing.
Is there perhaps an unboxing or preview anywhere? I love boxed sets, and I'd very much like to get a closer look at the contents.
The PFS part...ick. I sometimes wonder about getting back into PFS, but every time I do Paizo manages to dissuade me almost immediately. You and me both. I come and go -- mostly go the last few years -- but I so want it to be good. It certainly used to be! Unfortunately nowadays Paizo just can't seem to get out of their own way with respect to PFS.
Also, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't a problem for people before because truth be told I never scheduled high level content for the same exact reason. So...if a problem already exists, there is no reason not to make it worse? Respectfully, that doesn't follow. That said, this entire conversation is moot. If Paizo had been interested in our input, they would have asked for it before announcing the PFS changes.
Which means less people will buy it. Not more.It would be very interesting to know what’s changed here. Paizo has been doing monthly Adventure Path episodes for the best part of twenty years; I can think of plenty of potential advantages of the shift, but none that wouldn’t also have been advantages 5, 10, 15 years ago. I believe there are several reasons for the first issue of APs selling the best: 1. As James has already pointed out, there is no concern about "starting in the middle"; you can't have missed anything, because the AP is self-contained. 2. The first issue of an AP was almost uniformly of higher quality than subsequent volumes. Perhaps because it got the longest lead time, and suffered from the least time crunch? I'm not entirely sure why this was the case, but it clearly was. 3. The first issue (very often; and always in the early days) started at first level, by far the most popular level of play in basically every level-based TTRPG ever. I personally feel like the new format completely solves #1, and may help with #2. Overall the changes to the AP line seem well thought out, and I think they will prove to be a net positive.
You do know the game doesn't work correctly with the level band system right? I know people are clamoring for it but very often it either results in a wonky cases where either one player is completely dominating the encounters on his own or players are struggling to do anything. Whereas now those tables -- not to mention many others -- won't be legal, and thus simply won't happen at all. This does not feel like an improvement.
|
