|
So I've been playing in a home campaign and lately we've been running through Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale.
It's been mostly great fun. While I do have some issues with the presentation used in these pre-Pathfinder RPG 32 page stand-alone modules (three columns and the cartoony art style is very reminiscent of Dungeon Magazine and seems a little quaint now), the underlying adventures have been thoroughly enjoyable.
No surprise with that. After all, the authors of these modules are Paizo staffers and the Werecabbages: the same people who create Pathfinder Adventure Path every month.
I've also noticed a large stock of older 3.5 modules in my FLGS, too. I think they've been there quite a while and it's pretty obvious that these things just aren't selling.
Is PFS a way to make this older Golarion stock relevant and get these modules back into play? It seems to me that creating Chronicle Sheets for these older modules, perhaps with updated stat blocks online where absolutely necessary, would be a win-win-win.
Win #1: PFS would have a larger volume of multi-session modules to run. My experience with PFS indicates our players want more multi-session arcs. So that provides more -- and longer -- scenarios. That's a plus.
Win #2: The re-purposing of 3.5 modules for PFS creates a new demand for pre Pathfinder modules and serves to assist retailers in clearing that inventory -- perhaps with enough demand that they might even choose to re-order, too.
Win #3: And lastly, my guess is that if the retailers have some inventory they can't sell, Paizo does too. My guess is that Paizo would like to sell this 3.5 stock and get it out of their warehouse. No better way to get rid of that inventory than to sell it at full price, or nearly so. :)
Provided that there is not a cookie cutter approach employed to these modules and that not EVERY module is assumed to be playable in three sessions (some modules are longer than others -- some of them much longer), I don't see how this would be a bad thing. If there are stat blocks that need some work, that can't be that hard to accomplish. I know that sitting back with a full copy of Herolab, I could update one of these modules with PFRPG stat blocks in every single encounter in about 5 hours or less. Probably less.
So all of this seems entirely doable to me.
Again -- no cookie cutter approach please. I am NOT in favor of an arbitrary "this will take three sessions to play so you get 3 XP" in a Chronicle Sheet -- when the module plainly can't be done that fast and it will take five sessions to finish instead.
As long as we are fair and reasonable about the Chronicle Sheets, I am a big fan of this approach to expanding the current stable of modules approved for use with PFS.
What does everyone else think?
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
So I've been playing in a home campaign and lately we've been running through Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale.
It's been mostly great fun. While I do have some issues with the presentation used in these pre-Pathfinder RPG 32 page stand-alone modules (three columns and the cartoony art style is very reminiscent of Dungeon Magazine and seems a little quaint now), the underlying adventures have been thoroughly enjoyable.
No surprise with that. After all, the authors of these modules are Paizo staffers and the Werecabbages: the same people who create Pathfinder Adventure Path every month.
I've also noticed a large stock of older 3.5 modules in my FLGS, too. I think they've been there quite a while and it's pretty obvious that these things just aren't selling.
Is PFS a way to make this older Golarion stock relevant and get these modules back into play? It seems to me that creating Chronicle Sheets for these older modules, perhaps with updated stat blocks online where absolutely necessary, would be a win-win-win.
Win #1: PFS would have a larger volume of multi-session modules to run. My experience with PFS indicates our players want more multi-session arcs. So that provides more -- and longer -- scenarios. That's a plus.
Win #2: The re-purposing of 3.5 modules for PFS creates a new demand for pre Pathfinder modules and serves to assist retailers in clearing that inventory -- perhaps with enough demand that they might even choose to re-order, too.
Win #3: And lastly, my guess is that if the retailers have some inventory they can't sell, Paizo does too. My guess is that Paizo would like to sell this 3.5 stock and get it out of their warehouse. No better way to get rid of that inventory than to sell it at full price, or nearly so. :)
Provided that there is not a cookie cutter approach employed to these modules and that not EVERY module is assumed to be playable in three sessions (some modules are longer than others -- some of them much longer), I...
I believe Mike Brock is working on getting those pre Godsmouth Heresy PFRPG modules sanctioned for PFS, which is something I had been hoping for. I am guessing that the experience of this will inform them on how feasible your suggestion would be to put into practice. I surely hope that they can as it would be a great resource for all the reasons you list.
W
|
I am sure there is a desire to go back and look at those modules. However, it's not as high on the priority list as many other things (including the older PFRPG modules). I also doubt that it will be done for every one of those adventures, as some are not really suitable for PFS play.
But yeah, I'd especially like to see Bloodsworn Vale, the Kobold King adventures, and River of Darkness available for PFS some day.
EDIT: Curse you Heretical Ninjas! ;)
|
|
This is on my list and will get done eventually. As Neil said, there are other higher priority projects at the moment, such as getting the other Pathfinder modules out the door for sanctioned play first.
Also, I've used Hero Lab since it was first available. And, yes, it could make for conversion of each module in 4-5 hours. However, that info then has to be taken and entered into our programs here since we use Macs. So, each full conversion of a module could take upwards of 10 hours.
One point i want to address is the xp value of sanctioned modules though. I believe three xps was initially chosen because it was a good spot. You essentially gain one full level from playing a module. I don't know if this will change because I haven't looked at any of the 3.5 modules in awhile. It isn't out of the question but there are no guarantees. It is just to arbitrary because what could take one group 10 hours to finish could take another group 20 hours. I am certainly open to listening to any suggestions of which modules should receive more than three xps. And as Neil said, some of them are probably just not a good fit for PFS.
|
|
Also, I've used Hero Lab since it was first available. And, yes, it could make for conversion of each module in 4-5 hours. However, that info then has to be taken and entered into our programs here since we use Macs. So, each full conversion of a module could take upwards of 10 hours.
*shakes head*
For all the stat blocks generated by Herolab, the obvious fix to this is for Paizo to create an XML importer, importing the Herolab XML into a form usable by the Macs at Paizo in delimited data format. Should take under a day to do it. The XML export format for Herolab is well documented.
Seems to me that if you want to be able to capitalize on the army of VCs out there to do these things relatively quickly, you need to change the tools within Paizo so that they are interoperable.
Alternatively, you can just paste the text into the word pro document. I've caught LOTS of errors in Paizo's stat blocks through Herolab. While I know that Paizo prefers to trust its own tools (I would too by default), when Herolab is doing it better, the logical inference is that it makes more sense to doubt the in-house one, not the licensed one.
CEO
|
Also, I've used Hero Lab since it was first available. And, yes, it could make for conversion of each module in 4-5 hours. However, that info then has to be taken and entered into our programs here since we use Macs. So, each full conversion of a module could take upwards of 10 hours.
*shakes head*
For all the stat blocks generated by Herolab, the obvious fix to this is for Paizo to create an XML importer, importing the Herolab XML into a form usable by the Macs at Paizo in delimited data format. Should take under a day to do it. The XML export format for Herolab is well documented.
Seems to me that if you want to be able to capitalize on the army of VCs out there to do these things relatively quickly, you need to change the tools within Paizo so that they are interoperable.
Alternatively, you can just paste the text into the word pro document. I've caught LOTS of errors in Paizo's stat blocks through Herolab. While I know that Paizo prefers to trust its own tools (I would too by default), when Herolab is doing it better, the logical inference is that it makes more sense to doubt the in-house one, not the licensed one.
When HeroLab is ready and available for Mac, we have plans to work with them to do what you mention here. But it has to wait until HeroLab is available in native Mac format.
-Lisa
|
Also, I've used Hero Lab since it was first available. And, yes, it could make for conversion of each module in 4-5 hours. However, that info then has to be taken and entered into our programs here since we use Macs. So, each full conversion of a module could take upwards of 10 hours.
*shakes head*
For all the stat blocks generated by Herolab, the obvious fix to this is for Paizo to create an XML importer, importing the Herolab XML into a form usable by the Macs at Paizo in delimited data format. Should take under a day to do it. The XML export format for Herolab is well documented.
Seems to me that if you want to be able to capitalize on the army of VCs out there to do these things relatively quickly, you need to change the tools within Paizo so that they are interoperable.
Alternatively, you can just paste the text into the word pro document. I've caught LOTS of errors in Paizo's stat blocks through Herolab. While I know that Paizo prefers to trust its own tools (I would too by default), when Herolab is doing it better, the logical inference is that it makes more sense to doubt the in-house one, not the licensed one.
When HeroLab is ready and available for Mac, we have plans to work with them to do what you mention here. But it has to wait until HeroLab is available in native Mac format.
-Lisa
Fusion doesn't resolve the problem?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Fusion doesn't resolve the problem?
We don't have Fusion on our system, as purchasing dozens of Windows licenses to run a single program isn't really cost effective.
Seems to me that if you want to be able to capitalize on the army of VCs out there to do these things relatively quickly, you need to change the tools within Paizo so that they are interoperable.
I just wanted to take a second to address this point, specifically. While we have "and army of VCs" at our disposal, their primary responsibility is the coordination of regional Pathfinder Society games and events. I'm not saying we don't or won't lean on our volunteers to assist with these sorts of projects, but we have to balance our development needs with their primary purpose (which is already time consuming enough, and a volunteer job they do on top of their real life responsibilities, to boot).
So much of the issue with the time constraints of updating older material as not lack of access to HeroLab from our Mac-based system here in the office, but rather the amount or work required to do so and the lack of manpower to get it done without shirking other, higher priorities.