I have no idea why there is a reward for beating the RotRL Adventure Path since the AP immediately ends after doing so. Maybe someone could clarify.
I have no idea why there is a reward for beating the RotRL Adventure Path since the AP immediately ends after doing so. Maybe someone could clarify.
To leave open the possibility of a deck 7. No plans for an official one from Paizo but there is a cool fan made one in the homebrew section.
Like an epic 1-2 adventure continuation? Yup, that would be awesome and welcome!
Damn, now I'm looking forward to something that will probably never happen, arghhh. :)
I believe that someone (Mike? Vic?) suggested on here a few weeks back, playing S&S Adventure 6 with characters who have completed Runelords.
Yes, it's that much harder!
I believe that someone (Mike? Vic?) suggested on here a few weeks back, playing S&S Adventure 6 with characters who have completed Runelords.
Yes, it's that much harder!
You would need to do a little work to make it happen. For one, which basic/elite banes should be removed? And if you brought Runelords characters over with none of the specific boons for Shackles, it would maybe be a big challenge right there.
If you’re playing an Adventure Path and you successfully complete all of the adventures, you earn the reward on the Adventure Path card. At this point, you can build your own adventures using the cards you have, or you can create new characters and start over.
"Build your own adventures" is a possibility.
Or have someone else build them for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with all crasher said above. I know there is a better way to market these that will please both parties, and I hope they do improve it instead of keeping it as is. But for now, I am still content with how it is and still love the product and look forward to what else PACG has to offer.
I really do appreciate what Ron Lundeen creates and do look forward to a fan made adventure path that mixes RotR and S&S as well as WotR in the near future. Definitely worth trying out Mhar of Leng and Shield of Rannick if you just finished RotR.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would have preferred is a Base Set that was essentially the equivalent of the beginner box from the RPG. Then each adventure path could have been a setting box that consisted of some new characters and a new "Level 0" adventure plus all the cards shared across the adventure path, and 6 Adventure decks that were exactly what we have now.
Basically everyone buys the $40 "Base Set" which is a full game with lots of basic cards and a small adventure, then if they want to do a specific adventure they buy the Setting Box and then the 6 adventure decks to go with the AP itself.
A lot of people propose this, and of course, it's something we've considered, but the math just isn't there.
I while back, I did the math to figure out the minimum number of cards it takes to run a single full-size scenario of the Pathfinder ACG for 4 players
This provides:
• A character and token card for each player (no role cards, and no extra characters to choose from)
• 20 cards for each player to select a 15-card deck from
• 6 location cards, plus 10 cards to fill out each location deck (including 1 villain and 5 henchmen)
• 1 scenario card (no adventure or Adventure Path card)
• 40 blessings (allowing for a standard 30-card blessings deck plus 10 more to cover the villain fleeing after being defeated)
• 5 additional cards to allow for something to be summoned/added from the box/rewarded at the end
To support 4 players, that comes to exactly 200 cards. With a card organizer, rulebook, and dice, I might be able to sell you that for $30. And what you get for your 30 bones is a game with practically no replay value. You'll have seen nearly every card in the game your first time through, and you won't have had any real glimpse of the thing that makes this game special—character advancement through play. What you will have is a longer version of our convention demo scenario, and that's it.
So fine, add in another 3 scenarios to play. 3 new scenario cards (and now we can have an Adventure Path card!), a few new villains, new henchmen, new locations, maybe a loot card or two, and maybe 15–20 new banes and boons—60 more cards total—and now we've got a $40 game. There's still not a lot of variety—we've still given you no choice of characters, minimal choice of starting decks, and bare minimum number of cards to improve your deck as you explore... but now you can play it at least 4 times, maybe even 5 or 6, before you've seen it all. Or we could go the other way and add 2 scenarios and a new class, along with the banes to support that class. You'll still see it all in 3 or 4 plays, but at least somebody can have fun replaying it with a new character.
And with the minimal card selection in our 260 cards, we have two choices when it comes to flavor. We can make it all very generic (a cross section of fantasy roleplaying) or we can make it very themed. But either choice has a tremendous impact on how expansions are designed. Let's say we want to branch two stories from this box—Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles. The former needs us to have lots of goblins, and not a lot of pirates. The latter needs the reverse. If we theme that box one way or the other, it doesn't serve us for the other story. And if theme it neutrally, we probably don't have *any* pirates, but we have a goblin or two. Either way, we have to do pretty much all the thematic stuff for at least one of those APs in the Adventure Decks instead of the Base Set, and that means making *them* bigger. But, hey, let's take best case, and assume that all of the cards in the new 260-card box are completely useful in the Ap we're doing, so all we need to do is expand each of the Adventure Decks to replace all the cards that we've left out of the Base Set box. (In practice, that doesn't actually work, because we actually want to front-load most of those cards to provide diversity at the start of the game.) These bigger Adventure Decks are now much harder sells at $24.99. Also, remember that in this scenario you're not getting the first Adventure Deck in the main box, which means you have to buy 6 instead of 5, and the total cost of an AP (not counting the Character Add-On Deck) has now gone *up* from $159.94 to $189.93.
But the good news is that as our base expands, we can do more with fewer cards. For another $20, we can add a bunch more scenarios, more classes, and more overall diversity in generic banes and boons, creating exponentially higher replay value *and* providing enough of a foundation for our specific Adventure Path that we can tell it with 110-card Adventure Decks.
In case you're wondering, we did also look at going the other way, with an even bigger Base Set and 60-card Adventure Decks, but it made for a Base Set that was far too expensive (and even harder to ship than the one we have).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with Crasher. I absolutely see the point made by Vic, but I also believe it's more of a short/midterm view of the game. How many people will think like he thought, "I don't see myself buying a 4th Adventure Path". I kind of see the point, and to be honest, this is absolutely what has happened for me and Skull & Shackles: I don't like pirates, I don't like boats, and I don't like aquatic creatures. But the characters released in S&S were fantastic (the Oracle! The Warpriest!). I would have loved to try them on RotR. And you know what? I did. I simply printed out these characters using paizo's free character PDFs. If they had been in a more "generic" add on, with just characters and a few cards to make them work (kind of like a big mixed box of character decks), I would absolutely have bought that with eyes closed, even at $40 instead of the usual $20 for the adventures and other add ons.
I will happily buy Wrath of the Righteous, but what's next? If the next AP chosen is, say, Iron Gods, then I probably won't buy it either: I love robots and steampunk, but not mixed with my fantasy vibe. And if some cool new characters are released in the 4th "Base Set", unless the overall printing strategy changes I know the only chance I'll have to play them will be, once again, to just print the characters from the free PDFs.
I think a "base set" with the 6-7 most iconic roles (at least fighter, mage, cleric, rogue, you cannot get more iconic than that) and the most obvious boons & banes (a locked door. A goblin. A longsword. A fireball spell...) could be the go-to product for any new players. Heck, you might even offer a "bundle" of that base set with the first instalment of every new AP. AP would focus on AP-themed boons & banes and adventure cards, and new characters might be released in "neutral" packs, particularly suited to the currently released AP, but useable in any of them.
Anyway, food for thought. I completely understand Vic's post detailing the reasoning behind the current release plan, but I honestly believe something akin to crasher's suggestion would be healthier for the game in the long run. When someone wants to try the great Pathfinder role playing game everyone is talking about, you can direct him to the Pathfinder core rulebook. That has not changed since the RPG line exists. Ideally, 5 years down the line, when someone wants to try the great Pathfinder Adventure Card Game everyone is talking about, you will similarly be able to direct him to some kind of core box, leaving him free to buy it along with the AP that seems the best to him, whether he likes goblins, pirates, demons, robots, giants, dark elves, alien aberrations, or whatever.
A lot of people propose this, and of course, it's something we've considered, but the math just isn't there.Thanks for the detailed reply. First, I do see what you're saying but picture this:
$60 Base Set
$40 Adventure Path Set
$20 Adventure Deck (x5)Eliminate the character add on deck entirely.
Base Set Contents:
6 Characters (with role cards)
2 Adventures (1 level 0, 1 level 1)All the boons and banes would have 1 of three set numbers 'S', 'B', '1'.
S is the generic stuff that you would be able to add to pretty much any adventure path, B is the stuff for Adventure 1, and 1 is the stuff for Adventure 2.
Adventure Path Contents:
4 NEW Characters
1 Adventure Path Card
2 Adventures (1 Level 0, 1 Level 1)When setting up the adventure path, in the new rule book you just state which cards from the base game to add. Don't want them to use the S cards, just say so. Want them to take out the Goblins before they start the adventure path? Just say so. I think too much emphasis has been placed on just shuffling up everything and going.
You'll have seen nearly every card in the game your first time through, and you won't have had any real glimpse of the thing that makes this game special—character advancement through play. What you will have is a longer version of our convention demo scenario, and that's it.I totally get that. I think you did the right thing with RoR. Showing off the system and the expandability sold the concept. That why I said I understood why you did RoR the way you did.
It's just that S&S and now WotR are essentially not expansions but new games. That's totally fine, but from experience I know that players prefer expansions to reimplementations because they feel like their initial purchase has more value. Once S&S came out, people who came in interested in the game always asked if they were compatible. Always. The answer was never very satisfying. S&S primarily sold to new customers who didn't buy...
The issue I see with this plan is that base cost. $60 to start with, and then ot get to what many are going to see as the 'real' game, another $40. That is a massive initial output compared to the $60 or so base set. When you think about it, you need to have 3 adventures just to break even on cost by having the base set (yes, you do have more cards total, but I'm not sure how much more you will actually have). I think it's just too high of a barrier to entry at that point.
I also agree with crasher, I think you made the right choice with RotR and S&S as the game was still in its infancy at that point, but like crasher I'm not sure how long I can continue with the card game simply because I don't particularly need or want umpteen variations of a complete standalone game that all happen to be named Pathfinder. My closets are simply not large enough. A more modular system where you have a base/starter set and then release Adventure Paths or standalone Adventures as expansions would be more space-saving and in the long run would keep me actually interested in keeping up as I don't feel like I'm starting over with my investment every year (even if the new structuring would be slightly more expensive, which may not necessarily be the case).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with crasher as well. I have just finished receiving AP6 for Skulls and Shackles and I'm at a crossroads about Wrath of the righteous.
On the one hand I have thoroughly enjoyed our experiences, Pathfinder ACG is on the short list of funnest memories for our group, right up there with Risk Legacy and Battlestar Galactica.
On the other hand however every new release is a close to $200 Canadian commitment to get the full experience, which is really the only reason to play Pathfinder. Lets face it, theres not much game there if you're only buying the base as you miss out on the one true hook of PACG, the character development and boon acquisition.
Having a solid foundation of a base that has everything you need to get started supplemented by adventure expansion packs for each new path would be much more preferable than starting all over again. Even for a retailer perspective, once Iron Gods or whatever the 4th path is shows up, how much space are they going to devote to all these big game base boxes + adventure packs + class decks + unique character add on decks? Especially if there is a continued commitment to two paths a year?
I'm going to start with the assumption that Vic has a lot more idea of the maths than any of the rest of us, and assume that if he says it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but because it's fun to speculate, lets do that.
How many cards were in RotR and S&S? lots of Blessings of the gods, a few of the more specialised ones. Some basic boons - daggers, longswords, force missiles etc, but not really all that many. Far fewer when you come to the banes.
Without getting the cards out and counting (I'm not at home, even if I had the time), I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's a hundred, tops. For the 200-card set Vic described that means a lot more of the cards getting a lot more generic (or a suspicious number of Pirates showing up in Sandpoint).
I also think it's worth considering what you actually get for your starter box. If I buy one of the base sets under the current model, I know that I've got the full play experience for adventures zero and 1 that the designers had in mind - obviously they want me to buy expansions, and I probably will, to get the remaining adventures and the extra value that adds to the base set - but even if I never buy a product again, I can play this as intended.
These generic base sets seem to offer a much poorer experience for that initial outlay, making you (if anything) spend MORE to getthe replayability.
Now, maybe, if by the end of AP5 I own 7 ever-so-slightly-different versions of Merisiel, 43 daggers, 600 Blessings of the gods etc, I might start to feel differently, but I'd imagine that we will continue to see the designers adapt the game, and not feel tied down to having to make sure that adventure zero always starts in Sandpoint, before we contrive a reason to move off to the new setting, taking half the monsters with us...
Some numbers to help inform the discussion, based off comparing this and this.
For the entirety of the two adventure paths, there are 156 cards in Skull and Shackles that also appeared in Rise of the Runelords, not counting characters. There are 783 non-loot, non-villain, non-henchman boons & banes in RotR and 761 in S&S. (Boons and Banes being the cards that "could" repeat.)
Acolyte 2
Aid 2
Ambush 3
Amulet of Fortitude 1
Amulet of Life 1
Arcane Armor 4
Blast Stone 1
Blessing of Abadar 5
Blessing of Erastil 5
Blessing of Gorum 5
Blessing of Norgorber 5
Blessing of Pharasma 5
Blessing of the Gods 37
Bracers of Protection 1
Bunyip 1
Caltrops 1
Chain Mail 3
Cure 5
Dagger 3
Detect Magic 2
Find Traps 2
Force Missile 2
Ghost 1
Heavy Crossbow 1
Inflict 2
Large Chest 2
Leather Armor 4
Light Crossbow 1
Longbow 1
Longsword 3
Mace 2
Magic Leather Armor 3
Magic Spyglass 1
Masterwork Tools 1
Mercenary 2
Monkey 2
Potion of Fortitude 3
Potion of Glibness 2
Potion of Healing 4
Quarterstaff 2
Raise Dead 2
Rat Swarm 2
Short Sword 1
Shortbow 2
Skeleton 3
Speed 1
Spyglass 2
Strength 2
Throwing Axe 1
Token of Remembrance 1
Trapped Locker 1
Treasure Map 2
Wooden Shield 1
Zombie 2
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you quite grok crasher's idea; the starter set would contain 100% generic cards that can fit in most (but probably not all) Adventure Paths. The AP supplement for $40 would contain the first adventure deck in that AP (plus a standalone intro adventure that's level B so you don't need to start every character in generic places that don't fit with the theme) as well as another 110 cards devoted to theming the starter set for that AP, so that's where your pirates and sharks would be for S&S.
Not all of the generic cards would fit in every AP, in that case a rules insert in the AP expansion can direct us which cards to remove from the starter set before we begin play.
With this model, the initial outlay would likely be pricier, but in the long run you are eventually saving $20ish per additional AP if it follows crasher's pricing, and designers can release standalone expansions to the starter set that aren't tied to an AP if they feel the need to freshen things up more. For those put off by a higher starting price, they can buy one of the standalone games (RotR, S&S, WotR, or whatever is coming after that) and see how they like that before buying into the modular system.
One thing I don't see any mention of is the Afghanistan Rule which Mike has mentioned before. One of the design goals is to have each adventure deck be playable with only the base set and the adventure deck. So Adventure Deck 6 will only require cards that are numbered either B or 6 (or C if you use more than 4 players). If you have one starter set for all adventures, that makes this rule unworkable, unless you want to see the exact same locations over and over in every path. Now to play any specific adventure deck you would need the adventure deck, the starter set and likely some number of preceding decks to have the appropriate henchmen and locations. This makes things like sending games in care packages much trickier.
The Afghanistan rule can still be realized, although it's be an extra box to send -- the starter set, the base AP expansion, and then the adventure deck itself (if any, since the base AP expansion also includes the first adventure deck similar to how the current base games include AD1). The bulk of locations and other theming for an AP would be in the base AP expansion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Afghanistan rule is making a rod for their own back. (to use an old expression)
I find it highly unlikely that someone will buy S&S Base set and then crack open adventure deck 4 directly
The adventures are intimately connected. Limiting your design space on the off chance someone is playing them out of sequence seems to affect the game more than is warranted.
^opinion font