|
It's not paying the author for the word count, it's paying for the editors and layout time. As an author, I don't care either way. As a GM, it'd be nice to have all the stat blocks in the scenario and in an index, but I've been preaching that for years.
(FWIW, notice where a certain halfling's stat block is located)
Of course I can also bypass this a bit by choosing strange creatures from various softcover books. Oh man, these things are nasty...
Would it be more for layout time, the same, or even less if the stat blocks were on their own pages?
|
I'm in favor of moving the stat blocks into the back of the scenario. I am not in favor of retro-fitting every published scenario as it would take needless hours of reformatting and some of this is on the GM shared drive.
But with the introduction of Season 6 it would not be a bad idea.
On that, I would also have the subtiers split between sides of pages. This way, I can lay out all of the stat blocks for an encounter face up, with less page turning.
Example, if stat blocks start on page 21, all low-tier stat blocks are on odd numbered pages, all high tier on even pages. Preferably broken down by encounter. I have been doing this for a while when I do my personal stat blocks, and is think it helps a lot.
If it isn't obvious, add my name. It isn't that I think it is unprofessional or uncourteous, just personal preference. On the other hand, much like some others, I may still do my own layout... It actually helps me prep! It really helps me know what the critters do (especially if the have classes, or unusual feat selection).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am signing this as well. I like running PFS games, but running them can be a chore without proper prep going beyond just "reading though" the scenario. As GM you have to spend the time somewhere; either before the session clock starts or during it. I find players are happier when the game runs smoother due to the prep work being completed ahead of the session.
My usual prep involves lots of highlighting and notes in the margin. Sometimes description text for a room/person/object or important event trigger are buried in the middle of a paragraph. If I dont highlight them I often skip over them. This is especially true for some event triggers that the scenario notes as "If at any time a PC does X, then NPC Y automatically responds with action...". That really seems like the kind of text that should get highlighted or pulled out somehow.
I think players expect a certain format as they go from area to area (Description of the area w/ important details, a chance to roll automatically allowed rolls, automatic text from any present NPCs, automatic rolls in response to the NPC's tirade, etc.) Unfortunately each area of a scenario can have that information spread out in a random order over several pages requiring the GM that runs the scenario to manually stitch together the actual sequence of events in an area.
The same problem (and worse) can occur with encounters. With multiple tiers and templates a GM can use 4 Bestiaries or other resources during the encounters of a scenario (Destiny of the Sands I am looking at you). Even if you dont haul around physical books it can be a chore to switch between PDFs which is why I usually make a supplemental PDF/printout for each scenario with all the monsters/template info compiled so I only have to consult 1 other source when running. The prep work for monsters goes even further if they can cast spells; DCs are given (even though the dont list the TYPE of save) but you still have to calculate durations, ranges, etc. manually.
Scenarios that were more logically laid out and included more essential information would encourage new GMs to run more often, in my experience. I have had GMs only willing to run if I gave them a scenario I already prepped because it still took them at least a few hours to read through and understand it, even if they did not have to dig up and compile all the additional research themselves.
If getting "better" scenarios means moving to PDF only so be it.
|
I could definitely get behind this idea. I guess I've never really thought about how they aren't printed so why would they have a page count limit like they do. It would be more convenient but at the same time I don't really mind.
I'd just be worried about stuff like say the Confirmation would be impossible to do this with for reasons that I don't feel like spoilering.
But overall I agree it'd be nice, so I'll "sign" the "petition".
|
I think that I am going to have to dissent on the "petition".
But, maybe I'm missing something in this discussion ...
The more numbers and stuff that are reprinted in a scenario, the *less* room there is for anything else; like plot development, extra description, art, extras like sidetreks, more rooms, lists of rumors, or hell, descriptions of the areas outside the dungeon entrance.
...
Publishers don't pay by the hour, they pay by the word. So, they set a budget, and put a fairly standard amount of words into a book. Irrelevant of whether the "words" are awesome NPC descriptions that include tactics and backstory, or charts of numbers and stat blocks.
...
I'll take the fluff over the crunch (that's already printed) any day of the week.
I think that I am going to have to dissent on the "petition".
But, maybe I'm missing something in this discussion ...
I think that you are missing a point or two.
The discussion isn't about removing plot, background and fluff for more stat blocks, but adding in the full stat blocks for the all of the encounters, as Paizo is not paying to print the scenarios, as they are only electronic releases.
While the writers are paid by the word (or perhaps by the scenario - not 100% sure how PFS scenarios are done at Paizo), they could keep to their current practices, that is only listing the creature name and hp, with the layout folks doing a copy and paste job for the stat blocks.
If the copy and paste job for the stat blocks was placed at the end of the scenario, in a no frils manner, I don't believe that it would take very much time or effort on the part of the layout team (please note that I have no layout experience and am quite willing to learn that I am wrong)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that this topic has come up before, and someone from Paizo has addressed the issue.
John Compton, John Compton, John Compton, I summon thee. Is this a reasonable request, or is there some problem with it that the petitioners need to see?
|
I think that this topic has come up before, and someone from Paizo has addressed the issue.
John Compton, John Compton, John Compton, I summon thee. Is this a reasonable request, or is there some problem with it that the petitioners need to see?
I'm not John Compton, but from memory, I think the complication is that layout and editing both come after the author and developer have worked on the scenario. If it's longer, with more statblocks (e.g. from standard bestiary creatures) then it increases the workload for both of those areas.
You could argue that a standard statblock shouldn't need editing, but I guess the counter arguments would be that the editor wouldn't necessarily know it was standard (and flagging which are standard and which weren't would add another task for the developer), and even if it is standard, there are still chances for errors to creep in.
|
|
This post doesn't directly address the topic, but it does mention the fact that just writing the words of the adventure into a text document is not the only part of the effort needed to produce a scenario.
As someone who GMed 'Siege of the Diamond City' from the playtest document, I know there's a big difference between that and the finished product.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, Paz.
But right now, if you were given the final version of "Siege of the Diamond City", how many non-Core resources would you need to run it? Three bestiaries, a "book of the damned", the NPC Codex, Ultimate Magic...
Let's say that you know that you'll be running "Siege" in either the 10-11 subtier or the 1-2 subtier. The stat blocks prepared in the shared drive are really what make it *possible* to run that adventure on less than twelve hours of prep time.
--
For my part, here's a suggestion. When I copy out my scenarios onto paper, I print them one-sided. I then print the stat blocks (bestiary papes, or else blocks from the shared drive, ont to back sides of the scenario pages. It ain't perfect, but it does a good job of keeping everything in one place.
I understand that editors would need to verify every stat block that the author submits. Which is why some of us are suggesting that the authors keep submitting them as they do now, with the creature name, book, page and hp - but that the editor put a copy of that stat block at the end of the PDF.
Preferably, the stat blocks would have the encounter reference (such as B2), and have a header with the subtier listed in it.
|
|
Signed as well. As someone who's done more than his fair share of GMing living campaigns (Living City 2nd ed, Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, Living Spycraft, and Living Forgotten Realms to list a few), I find it easier to prep mods that either: A) contain the entire statblock in the module or B) have the statblock as a separate doc. Additionally, with the ability to "snap" docs in windows 7, I can have the mod and the statblock up at the same time (I usually copy and paste statblocks into a word doc so I can do this: having it as a separate doc would save me a step, which can be a bit of a process depending on how many different stat blocks I have to prep).
I'd imagine that even GMs who routinely print their modules would find statblocks at the end to be helpful, as they could separate the mod and statblocks and set them to the side. It would also save on paper, cause you could only print out the statblocks you needed, so even mother earth would be behind it! Think of the Children!
I'd even support it for the printed products. Add more pages and bump the price up (on the printed products, that is) by a dollar or two. Cutting down on the cross-referencing is easily worth it.
As I understand it, print products come in set quantities of pages. There is no way to add just a couple pages, they have to add 16 or 30 pages. Which increases dev time a lot more.
Yeah, it's mostly decided by the binding process. Something that's simply stapled together can usually have a new 4-page spread added, while something bound in groups of, say, 16 pages ends up having to have another batch of 16.
I'd happily see 32-page books turned into 36-pagers, and even 64s into 96s if needed. Obviously not *everyone* would, though. However, for me personally that'd be better than having to cross-reference other books, even if it was a simple case of copying the relevant bestiary pages into an appendix. I'm not a big fan of pulling things from multiple books (or having to print pages off PDFs or the PRD) in order to run a scenario, ideally (for me) they'd contain copies of everything referenced that wasn't in the CRB.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Well, if the goal of this is to get them in the scenarios so you don't have to spend the time looking them up during the game, then why aren't we asking to have all spells detailed in the scenario, too, instead of merely listing them in the stat block?
At what point do we find the line that says, "okay, all this stuff goes in, the rest GMs can just look up as needed?"
I am honestly trying to figure out why some things are being asked for but not others, if we're trying to make it easier on the GMs.
|
|
Well, if the goal of this is to get them in the scenarios so you don't have to spend the time looking them up during the game, then why aren't we asking to have all spells detailed in the scenario, too, instead of merely listing them in the stat block?
At what point do we find the line that says, "okay, all this stuff goes in, the rest GMs can just look up as needed?"
I am honestly trying to figure out why some things are being asked for but not others, if we're trying to make it easier on the GMs.
A few differences:
I don't need to template spells.
I use spells often enough that I don't need to look them up
Spells are far far simpler than monsters
The spells currently aren't in the scenario, so I'm not doubling up my ink drain if I print them out.
I don't need to template the spells :)
Yes, I was specifically responding to the idea of adding a couple pages to an actual print product.
Which was my fault for mentioning print products and taking the thread temporarily off-topic :)