bugleyman's page

This feature addresses a huge void in the PFS prep space come January. Here's hoping they're able to stick with it for future seasons.

That's a great feature.

Sad that it came to this, but still a great feature.

At this point, lack of a response is the response.

Precisely what I said in another thread. They know best, and simply aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. :-/

At this point all I can really hope for is that someone higher up the food chain recognizes the current death spiral for what it is and steps in before it is too late.

Disappointed in the lack of response to all the feedback from the August update with the changes to how PFS is going to work.

After this long, it's pretty hard to not take the lack of response as the response, if you know what I mean. :-/

On the plus side, last weekend I attended a great little local con, and I finally got to play both Vaesen and Mothership. Yay!

Not a single post here who isn't in support of a generic chronicle. Paizo, PLEASE consider this.

What you gain by not allowing a generic chronicle: ?

What you gain by allowing a generic chronicle:

* GMs have more material to run for credit, rewarding them for their efforts to run more of what you produce. Reward GMs. I can't emphasize this enough. It really is the core of any organize play program. Without rewarding volunteers in this way, to those who choose to spend their time preparing to run to your player community, it just feels like a huge snub, though I know it's not intended. The reward structure is just not there for SFS2E the way it is with PFS2E. The logical conclusion is that SFS2E will be played less, and APs even less. I don't think that is a sound business decision.

* I can't imagine that allowing a generic chronicle would generate less sales; in fact, reason would dictate it would result in quite the opposite for Chronicle-awarded Adventures and APs.
* Players receive credit for playing SFS2 AP products, and satisfaction. For some, it can make the difference about whether they play SFS2 or not.
* SFS2 becomes an equal choice with playing PFS2.
* I'm a very long time organized play player (Since 2001) and author of 2 organized play adventures (in Living Greyhawk). Much of my interest in Pathfinder came from having the chronicle award, when 4E D&D was not offering chronicles. I migrated from 4E to Pathfinder because I wanted an org play program that rewarded players and GMs.
* Honestly, I think this is the biggest mistake of SFS2E rollout. The GM achievement is also an issue, but you've hinted that there may be change in the future.
* You have a community of willing and very able volunteers to address a generic chronicle. Let the love flow. Please.

It's kinda crazy that there hasn't been any comment on this from Paizo.

[Oh and also, I don't know why 3 Novas aren't showing on my profile.]

I have the same problem with 3 of my 4 GM stars. I hope you have better luck getting an answer than I have.

That is definitely not what I meant but you read my words as you wish.

Alternatively, you might consider the possibility that I don't have an agenda, and you're just not sending the message you intended. Because I honestly don't know what else you meant with declarations like this:

The PFS team has all the info we use in our own analysis and more.

...
They have the full picture and we do not.
...
And we cannot give feedback without that. Only opinions.
...
Which is likely why they have not actually asked for feedback BTW.

Not only do you explicitly state that Paizo "have the full picture and we do not" -- which I have explained is not the case -- but you very much come across as "Paizo can do no wrong, so keep your feedback to yourself."

Also, point of order: Whether or not these changes will ultimately hurt PFS isn't actually a matter of opinion, but of fact. While it's true that we'll never know for sure either way, it remains useful to differentiate between a matter of fact (albeit one about which we lack perfect information) and a matter of opinion ("vanilla ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream"). For instance, it is possible to be wrong about the former, but not the latter.

As I said, it's only an opinion and we will likely have to wait a few months more to know the whole of it.

The truth is that nobody will ever truly "know the whole of it," because perfect information simply doesn't exist. How could it? Even if the reporting system and underlying database weren't poorly designed — and to be clear, for those who know what to look for, they absolutely are — how would one even collect data about tables that didn't happen...from every GM at every game day, everywhere? That is manifestly impossible.

Consequently, it seems to me that what you are in effect doing is summarily declaring invalid any analysis that is not based on a (non-existent) complete dataset. Which is not a hill I'd choose to die on, but you do you.

Personally, I'll rely on (admittedly incomplete) personal observation coupled with deduction. And yes, I could still be wrong...but not all arguments are created equal.

We don't need to wait and see how that will play out because we can look at what just happened and see how the new rule would have applied. The answer is badly.

Yup.

I'm a little slower to ascribe malice. I think its one of those gamer things where solution A is not perfect therefore solution B must be the right answer. This goes double when someone assigns a rule, and the rule starts to seem like an unchangeable fact when rules are very changeable. (IE, making the treasure in a scenario balance out to the payout was (is? I think they changed that?) Was an enormous fiddly nit picky PITA that provided only the pay out of.. a little bit of immersion and complying with the rule? I think the immersion could have been solved with a check and or a Bill for in game damages...

To be clear, I don't actually believe that someone at Paizo is trying to kill organized play.

I do, however, believe that removing stat blocks is such a comically bad idea that I can understand why someone might.

I think Paizo more often than not gets things right, but occasionally they get obstinate about sticking with really boneheaded decisions (like say, Pathfinder Online). I did a few years as a software engineer right out of college in the late nineties, and it was blindingly obvious that Paizo really had no clue what they were biting off with that one (though they at least had the sense to eventually spin Goblinworks off so it wouldn't take the whole company down with it).

The stat block decision seems similarly clueless...no matter how I come at it, it just makes no earthly sense.

Pirate Rob wrote:

Here's the thing. Somebody needs to gather the statblocks. It can be done once by Paizo, or it can be done hundreds if not thousands of times by GMs, and adds another point of failure.

Eyup.

I cannot for the life of me, after ...10+ years of asking at least (with a break in the middle largely because they started putting the monsters in), get a sensible answer on what kind of "development" an appendix of critters needs to be function.

Needs. to be functional.

NOT

What kind of development it gets.

If you can't swing the kind of development it gets just run it through an online templater and stick it on there the same way any other DM could. I can't see how any error could possibly be worse than it not being there. If you copy paste in a flux capacitor instead of capacitor flux someone will let you know.

WHY make someone replicate that work ad nauseum?

The bottleneck in running OP is new DMs. How much easier is it to say "here's a scenario, there's the monsters" than " oh right, heres the scenatio, there's the mechanics, go to this other website and download the monsters and switch back and forth between the two files...

On the other hand, if you wanted to hold a pillow over the face of organized play so it dies a slow, quiet death, then this would be a great way to do it.

As I've said before, I can live with the narrower level bands, and with the shorter scenarios (and hey, at least the price is coming down correspondingly). But no stat blocks is a deal killer, and will absolutely ravage the PFS GM pool. Putting aside the question of whether aggressively pursuing cost savings for PFS scenarios (i.e. marketing) is really even a good idea, cutting stat blocks is just an incredibly short-sighted way to go about it.

Just started reading and prepping this.

Love the wine call back to 1-11. I really love continuity details like that.

Can it be?

I've run that scenario two or three times, and every time played up the wine. That is a an awesome callback (and 1-11 was a great scenario, except for the maps -- which made no earthly sense).

I've very sorry for your loss.

I'm glad you got to say goodbye; that's no small thing. When I lost my mother several years ago, she went quite suddenly (pulmonary embolism).

I don't think its a big deal since APs already work this way, but it has been pretty convenient to have everything already included.

To me, APs and PFS scenarios are very different beasts.

For instance, I'm currently running Seven Dooms, for which I have a pretty beefy desktop PC, effectively limitless power, and very good (and redundant) Internet access. Not to mention I'm using a Foundry package for the adventure, so all of the stat blocks are right there.

Contrast that with my PFS experience, nearly all of which takes place in a game store, where I typically have much less space, rarely have access to AC power (so no beefy laptop, even if I were willing to bring such an expensive item to use in a public venue), and where Internet access that is often iffy (doubly so for conventions, which is where I play the rest of my PFS). Finally, I often have significantly less prep time for PFS.

YMMV, but to me personally that just isn't a very useful comparison.

To be fair, I'm much less frustrated now that Erik Mona has clarified that the new PFS scenarios will be $6 rather than $9 (i.e. this isn't a stealth price hike), which means I'd actually resume buying them...but pulling the stat blocks is overall too big a blow to my QoL as a PFS GM. My own situation aside, it strikes me as inherently inefficient, because work that could be done once and included with the scenario now has to be done many times (I know there are shared resources available, but I also know that not everyone will use -- or even know about -- those resources).

Overall it just kinda feels like buying a car without tires, only to then be told it's not a problem because tires are available separately.* :-P

* And yes, I do understand this is a flawed analogy. All analogies are, in fact, imperfect -- literally by definition. ;-)

One other small point of order is I believe PFS1 scenarios started and remained at $3.99 ($4) for the vast majority of PF1s lifetime. I don't think they ever cost $3.

I just went back and looked at my order history, and I stand corrected. I blame my old man memory. ;-)

Thank you, Bugleymann. I appreciate both the apology and the explanation.

Hmm

There's a reason I assigned myself a CHA of 7 in my profile! ;-)

But seriously, my bad. I'll be more careful in the future.

We're listening to feedback and will continue to make changes to keep the campaign vibrant and to respond to customer suggestions.

The new shorter scenarios will be $5.99. Probably should have mentioned that in the blog, but I'm mentioning that now just to be clear.

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.

bugleyman wrote:

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.

While I agree with you that the removal of statblocks is problematic for a number of reasons, may I please ask you to refrain from making hurtful statements like the one above? I have written for both APs and scenarios, and put the same love and care into both types of adventures, regardless of length.

Thanks,
Hmm

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.

bugleyman wrote:

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.

They're always looking for GMs.

I do play PFS2 once in a while, but Starfinder is my main game. I play a goblin merchant (sorcerer) with only spells related to selling things in PFS2 somehow it works well...

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.

bugleyman wrote:

Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.

A couple of reasons why I think cutting stat blocks from scenarios is bad, and worse than having stat blocks missing from APs.

A higher percentage of APs are likely to be run as home games, where you are more likely to have all your books or someone else nearby, or a computer.

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.

bugleyman wrote:

Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)

No, I'm the guy who planned ahead and asked to use the back area earlier in the week ;-) I needed the extra space to be able to run around the table with a fake microphone to do interviews for The Great Absalom Relay! I would have been tripping on Pokemon had I run in the main room.

I do like the shorter scenarios for when you do have to play in a loud room.

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.

bugleyman wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

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.

Starfinder 2e scenarion pricing.

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

This is just such a trivial complaint. ALL of those books are available on Archives of Nethys, and we can stop pretending that not everyone has a smartphone. It was a great argument 20 years ago, it was still somewhat valid 10 years ago, but it's 2025 now. Just look it up on AoN, at the table, and you probably don't even need WiFi because mobile data is so good at this point.

BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I be a one eyed pirate and I be unable to see thar tiny fonts on me phone." Okay, fine. Bring a laptop and set your phone as a hotspot, like all the skibidi rizzlers under 40 do.

BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I run a game at NORAD and we're hermetically sealed under 3 miles of concrete and I can't connect to WiFi because I need national security clearance and it's a 32-bit password that rotates every hour." Okay, fine. Just print out the monsters from AoN before you enter Cheyenne Mountain, then.

There is so much information at our literal fingertips that I've resolved rules disputes in real time by punching in questions like "pathfinder does frightened have the mental trait reddit" into Google. Boom, 10 seconds, mystery solved, and less than that if you're willing to blindly accept whatever the AI overview tells you.

10-15 years ago, when they put in the stat blocks, everyone was happy - because Archives of Nethys was different, because smartphones were less powerful, and because data caps existed. It's 2025, now. Just Google it. Or, perhaps since it's 2025, just DuckDuckGo it.

I get it, physical materials are nice sometimes. But pretending like this should be a driving reason to make a bunch of other people do a bunch of extra busywork is disingenuous.

P.S. Just so it's clear, I personally prefer the statblocks. I just don't see why anyone would complain this much about it. Spend the time arguing about the 2-level spreads, instead. That's an actual problem.

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.

The shorter run time is not about cutting costs; it's about a lot of game stores not staying open as late as they used to on week nights. There's nothing fun about the GM having to hand handwave all the exploration to have enough time for combat. In Arizona, there is nothing fun about having to finish the game and filling out chronicles in a parking lot when it's 110 degrees outside.

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...

Paizo has had to deal with the pandemic, tariffs, and now the Diamond bankruptcy. Paizo also unionised, which I think is a good thing, but that had a cost too. All of that adds up in the cost of making the game.

I'm not a fan of the idea of removing stat blocks, but I don't think it's to save space in a PDF. I think (a wild guess) it's more about simplifying the creation and editing process. The chance of making a mistake when referencing a stat block in a Bestary is very low compared to copying it into an adventure or scenario.

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.
2. It gives me a chance to meet new people with whom I share a common interest.
3. I get a kick out of showing people a good time. If I walk away from a table I ran and I know everyone had fun, I feel genuinely happy.

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.

bugleyman wrote:

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).

This is exactly what I mean about questioning your assumptions, though. To my knowledge, the change to 2-3 hours was because people have been having trouble fitting scenarios in as venues have been closing earlier and earlier—and might I add, has been one of the most welcomed changes. Like I said, for me, don't love it, but it is what it is... And to be fair makes them easier to run because I don't have to block out 5-6 hours of my day.

And removing stat blocks... Is it about saving money, or about reallocating resources? Because in exchange for people not having to format and proofread stat block appendices, we get two scenarios per month. Again, I don't necessarily love the change, because it's going to make things a bit more annoying to prepare and run. But on balance, I can see why the team saw stat block appendices as lower value.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are some big issues (narrower level bands being the main one), but I think you're fundamentally barking up the wrong tree here and it doesn't come
across like you know something Paizo doesn't—quite the opposite, in fact.

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... :-)

For what it's worth, in my opinion you might want to question your assumptions—I don't think the changes are meant to make Org Play scenarios "profitable."

Honestly, assuming they lose money (I don't know that for a fact but I agree with your logic), I don't even think the changes are to make the scenarios lose less money.

Which undercuts the core of your argument.

It doesn't really sound patronizing, it honestly kinda just sounds clueless.

(To be clear, I don't necessarily even like the changes, which is something I have made known. But I think your basic assumptions here are very misplaced.)

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?

It's very simple. James Jacobs has replied quite a few times in this thread. You seem to think no one from Paizo is speaking. They are. They're just not telling you what you want to hear. Since you want to be a huge ball of whining negativity, I said what I said.

Deal with it.

"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.

To be fair, I was one of those seeing problems with the AP changes. I was not quite convinced by JJ's arguments, but the civil way in which he posted and the enormous respect I have for him, garnered over more than a decade, made me stop arguing my point.

Doubly so because I do not expect Paizo to undo such a wide change on my behalf.

So, I let it go, even though I am unconvinced by Paizo's stance.

Maybe people here could similarly let it go too.

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).

Did you ever stop to think that others are happy with the changes? The forums are often overloaded with people that complain and gripe about things. I like most of the changes to Org Play. I do not like getting rid of the stat blocks which seems to be the biggest complaint.

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?

They could just get rid of Society or just offload it onto the community like WotC did with AL. There's a pretty strong case to be made that OP is not really bringing in enough business to justify the costs for sustaining it. On the other hand, we saw during the pandemic where OP saved Paizo's butt and that totally justified every expense ever put into OP.

Pick your poison.

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). ;-)

Dawn of the Frogs unboxing.

bugleyman wrote:

Madhippy3 wrote:

Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.

Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.

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?).

Which is why I called it "if the madness takes you"

Sounds like we're on the same page, then. :D

Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.

Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.

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?).

Look at the big brain on Hilary. :P

But seriously, what a cogent, cost effective, and just eminently practical solution.

They have not.

Personally I'm a fan of Hilary Moon Murphy's alternative proposal.

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.