Hey James are all the set pieces finalized?
|
The last set piece will be the one that appears in Pathfinder #24, in the last Legacy of Fire installment. We are not continuing set pieces into Council of Thieves.
Huh.
Will the extra page space go back to the main adventure or to a new set or separate articles? If it can be answered at this point, of course.
|
The last set piece will be the one that appears in Pathfinder #24, in the last Legacy of Fire installment. We are not continuing set pieces into Council of Thieves.
Is the space going to be eaten up by the AP or are you looking at another support article?
Also, what drove the decision? Just curious; I haven't been a big fan of the set pieces.
-Skeld
Creative Director
|
The extra 8 pages we get back from removing the set pieces will go to the adventure usually, but now and then to other support articles as they need them.
Writing, developing, and editing adventures is Far and Above the most difficult element to write, develop, and edit. Frankly, for 8 pages, the amount of work we were having to put into them combined with the problems we were having getting them to mesh with the AP itself just made it not worth it.
Also, Pathfinder was one article too clogged. By cutting the set pieces, we focus more on the adventure and its direct support, which is good.
The set pieces were originally intended to be a way to find new authors and get folks who might not have as much experience a chance to write for Paizo... and now that we've got the Pathfinder Society scenarios, that need is not as pressing for us to provide in Pathfinder anymore.
The fact that the set pieces did not have a lot of fan/reader support on the boards certainly played into the decision, of course.
Aawww... shoot. I may be in the minority but I liked the set pieces. Although I understand that (apparently) many did not, and at least the pages that were used for Set Pieces are going back (either to the main adventure) or other support article material, I will miss them. Maybe they'll make a return someday? (I know, I know... probably not.)
Cheers!
~Dean; the Minstrel_Wyrm
Does this mean that the word count for the adventures is going back up? My understanding is that the initial word counts for AP1 & 2 were 40K, AP 3 went down to 30K, and AP4 is at 35K. Should we be expecting 40K word count adventures once again?
It's not going to be a simple formula deciding how many pages a month's adventure or back matter is - it never is with Pathfinder. Some months the adventure will be a little bigger, some months the articles, the bestiary will usually be getting another monster, and so on as needed. We definitely found that 40K word adventures are sustainable with our current staff, so this certainly doesn't mean 6 to 8 more pages of work have simply been rolled onto James's plate.
And sometimes that page allocation will be used for a new feature, the Anubis Piece.
See, I'm helping.
Since the PF books are a delightful blend of what we used to get in both Dungeon & Dragon magazines, I would dearly love to see 1-2 pages devoted to quality comics, like Zogonia & Downer.
I realize those are probably not coming back for a number of reasons, but the artists themselves would hopefully be available! There are also talented artists already here in the fanbase, too.
All that being said, this is likely a minority opinion and won't carry much weight. Sadly for me.
I certainly don't begrudge the 8 pp going back to the main adventure.
EDIT: Critical Threat NPC's works well too, to support Mikaze's previous post.
So.... does this mean the articles on the various deities will begin including prestige classes again? I missed those and kinda hated the set piece adventures for getting rid of them. I don't hate the set pieces any more (the LoF ones seem a little more playable to me than the ones from SD) but I still missed not getting a prestige class for Sarenrae.
|
|
Y'know, the idea of Critical Threat-style articles with extra NPCs for the AP appeals to me, but I imagine I'm in the minority there.
Whole heartedly second this idea. To me, the characters in the world (story) are what defines it. I don't necessarily mean just the movers and shakers, the rulers and the rich, but the people you come into contact with every day and play a major supporting role. The PCs don't do their thing in a vacuum. Shopkeeps, craftsmen, con artists, etc all help make the PCs into the stars of the story. Through their eyes, experiences and words is where the world really begins to gain life.
I admit I enjoyed the Set Pieces, but it never occurred to me to pop on here and sing their praises. However, I can live without them as well.
|
Personally, I never really liked the set-piece adventures. They always seemed to be too disjunctioned from the main story anyways. The "true" set piece adventure should be something like
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
So.... does this mean the articles on the various deities will begin including prestige classes again? I missed those and kinda hated the set piece adventures for getting rid of them. I don't hate the set pieces any more (the LoF ones seem a little more playable to me than the ones from SD) but I still missed not getting a prestige class for Sarenrae.
I believe PrCs weren't included in the last few APs because of the impending change in systems. They didn't want to develop new PrCs when they weren't sure how they would work in PRPG. That said, there are a few non-deity related PrCs in some of the companions and in the drow article for Second Darkness.
|
I am excited about this move. I have only used three of the set pieces so far and as a rule they have seemed a bit disruptive. Once I chose the wrong hook and it went poorly. The second one in Second Darkness was not really a challenge for the group and was almost a waste of time. The 3rd one in second darkness ended up being a TPK for various reasons (although mostly bad rolls and saves and a devastating Critical Fumble Card at exactly the wrong time).
I was not too happy when they first began and I am way excited that they are coming to an end.
My comment on bringing back comments is not for me...
Thanks...
Always a fan of MONSTERS!
Yeah. It may not be practical, but I really wish the monster line-up could be brought back.
Critical Threat NPC's works well too...
A neat idea, but we probably won't do this, half because the way Pathfinder is built forces articles to be built on spreads - preferably at least 2 spreads (4 pages), though there are some rare exceptions - and this concept is kind of covered by the Pathfinder Companions' Persona section. That section gets an overhaul in the volume on Cheliax, so it's going to be interesting to hear what people think.
So.... does this mean the articles on the various deities will begin including prestige classes again? I missed those and kinda hated the set piece adventures for getting rid of them...
Interesting. The Set Pieces actually had nothing to do with the prestige classes leaving those articles - in fact, by design, the Set Pieces had little effect on the content of the back half of Pathfinder. The Gods articles have no real set format when it comes to the "additional rules" part of the article, and gets left largely up to Sean. (That's also the most modular section, meaning anything there is most likely to get cut if there's last minute layout snafus.) With the impending Pathfinder RPG rules, though, we kind of shied away from those. That, and a PrCs take up a huge footprint in an article with a lot to cover in limited space, making them one of the least economical rules elements we could add. So they tend to be avoided.
All that being said, expect one for Iomedae in Council of Thieves.
I believe PrCs weren't included in the last few APs because of...
What he said.
I enjoyed the set pieces. I didn't realize they were on the chopping block but the reasons make sense.
Kind of one of the sad angles of the human condition is that folks are much more likely to speak out about things they don't like than to praise things they do like. Especially when the internet is involved. So, when 3/4ths of a discussion on a topic is damning, editorial murder tends to happen. Now, this isn't me saying "YOU CALLOUS JACK! YOUR COLD HEART IS THE REASON SET PIECES DIED." But it is an object lesson about the politics of these boards and how they affect our decisions here. Obviously, if you hate something: tell us, if outcry is loud and persistent enough we'll eventually change it. On the opposite side of things, though, if you love something, please tell us just as fervently to assure we keep doing right by you.
Yeah. It may not be practical, but I really wish the monster line-up could be brought back.
Yeah, we could never really do this in a way that didn't just feel like it was a cheap gimmicky way of reusing. Privateer Press does this really effectively in their Monsternomicon books, but invest more time and money into those size comparisons, and the way our creatures are built, it's just not worth the extra expenditure.
Now! That being said. Expect something entirely new and artsy for monsters debuting in Council of Thieves and the Pathfinder Bestiary!
Oooo...NEW and ARTSY monster development?!
|
While I generally enjoyed the set pieces, I don't think I like them as much as the content it was replacing.
As for the new space, I've expressed this concern before, but I hope it doesn't all go back to the main adventure. One thing I've noticed about the Second Darkness and LoF APs is that the adventures seemed just about the perfect length; the early Pathfinder adventures seemed to be a bit too long for my tastes.
|
|
Now, this isn't me saying "YOU CALLOUS JACK! YOUR COLD HEART IS THE REASON SET PIECES DIED."
I thought was EXACTLY what you told us at the con... You said "Callous Jack is a black-hearted b@stard-man who single-handedly killed Set Pieces and the goodness and light they brought into the lives of players and GMs everywhere", and that we should scorn him and spit on him and kick his dog. At least that what MY memory is recalling.
|
|
I enjoyed the set pieces. I didn't realize they were on the chopping block but the reasons make sense.Kind of one of the sad angles of the human condition is that folks are much more likely to speak out about things they don't like than to praise things they do like. Especially when the internet is involved. So, when 3/4ths of a discussion on a topic is damning, editorial murder tends to happen. Now, this isn't me saying "YOU CALLOUS JACK! YOUR COLD HEART IS THE REASON SET PIECES DIED." But it is an object lesson about the politics of these boards and how they affect our decisions here. Obviously, if you hate something: tell us, if outcry is loud and persistent enough we'll eventually change it. On the opposite side of things, though, if you love something, please tell us just as fervently to assure we keep doing right by you.
I agree with what you're saying as all too often it does happen. However in this case, if there ever was a thread on set pieces, I never saw it. Either it was when I went on hiatus when my son was born or just got lost in the shuffle, I'm not sure.
On the other hand, there have been times when I let something go because quite frankly I didn't feel like getting into an internet shouting match because a certain poster thought the wizard pwned the fighter and was going to use whatever means necessary to constantly point that out and "win" the argument. I gave up on participating in the Beta stuff because in the end, it wasn't fun or worth the aggravation.
|
|
Now, this isn't me saying "YOU CALLOUS JACK! YOUR COLD HEART IS THE REASON SET PIECES DIED."I thought was EXACTLY what you told us at the con... You said "Callous Jack is a black-hearted b@stard-man who single-handedly killed Set Pieces and the goodness and light they brought into the lives of players and GMs everywhere", and that we should scorn him and spit on him and kick his dog. At least that what MY memory is recalling.
*weep*
No... that quote was from Jacobs.
*Shakes angry fist at Jacobs*
I agree with what you're saying as all too often it does happen. However in this case, if there ever was a thread on set pieces, I never saw it. Either it was when I went on hiatus when my son was born or just got lost in the shuffle, I'm not sure.
On the other hand, there have been times when I let something go because quite frankly I didn't feel like getting into an internet shouting match because a certain poster thought the wizard pwned the fighter and was going to use whatever means necessary to constantly point that out and "win" the argument. I gave up on participating in the Beta stuff because in the end, it wasn't fun or worth the aggravation.
I'm guilty of this too. There are many threads that I ignore simply because I don't feel like justifying to someone why I like PFRPG, set pieces, a given AP, or whatever the current rant maybe. I prefer to ignore the effort and just bask in my warm paizo-fueled geekism.
Honestly, if it were my cold heart what killed the Set Pieces, I'd be a little pleased. Although I wasn't exceptionally vocal on the issue, I was rarely a fan of the set-pieces, and am hoping that their exclusion means more of what I love from Pathfinder!
That is, world building and strong NPC personalities in the main adventure. Second Darkness especially didn't feel quite as well-rounded as the first two paths, although Legacy of Fire is much better about that. Usually.
(This might not be the best place for it, but I felt that the latest installment, The Impossible Eye, suffered from "here's a bunch of competing factions; now, let's not tell you why they're interesting")
The best of the set pieces were the ones with interesting characters in them. Tragic lycanthropes, deluded demon-cults, proud lammasu and a guy named Jinglefingers. Man, I loved Jinglefingers. But too often, they boiled down to "go here, kill this monster, get this treasure". Serviceable, sure, but not up to the high standards set in the rest of Pathfinder.
I'm glad the Set Pieces are gone. It's much easier to remove a well-fitting piece from an adventure than to shoehorn an ill-fitting piece into an adventure.
|
I agree with what you're saying as all too often it does happen. However in this case, if there ever was a thread on set pieces, I never saw it. Either it was when I went on hiatus when my son was born or just got lost in the shuffle, I'm not sure.
There was a thread, I believe it started about the same time that you left, and was most likely over before you got back...
|
|
There was a thread, I believe it started about the same time that you left, and was most likely over before you got back...
I agree with what you're saying as all too often it does happen. However in this case, if there ever was a thread on set pieces, I never saw it. Either it was when I went on hiatus when my son was born or just got lost in the shuffle, I'm not sure.
Oh well, I guess my next course of action is to harass Wes until he puts them back! ;-)
Oh well, I guess my next course of action is to harass Wes until he puts them back! ;-)
Well, at the end of the day, we don't really need them anymore. Set Pieces started for a few reasons we've discussed, to offer something for GMs who aren't playing the AP, to have a training ground to cultivate new authors, and to alleviate some of James's workload. Fortunately, we the creation of the Pathfinder Society and it's endless need for adventures and new authors, so those first two itches are scratched. And as for James... well... screw that guy. No, the 6 to 8 Set Piece pages are largely getting rolled into the back matter and to create some flexibility's in each volume's layout - we can say an article or adventure is X,XXX words, and while that might usually work out to YY pages, such isn't always the case depending on a variety of artsy and other inscrutable factors. So there's going to be some fluidity there, and that's a big relief and makes all of our jobs here easier. Also, it's just simply easier for me to develop two major articles, the bestiary, and all the other little necessities every month, than THREE major articles, the bestiary, and all the other little necessities every month - regardless of it being the same general word count.
So yeah, it was an experiment, and doubtlessly not the last we'll try in Pathfinder's pages before we drive this jalopy right into the sun.
No, the 6 to 8 Set Piece pages are largely getting rolled into the back matter and to create some flexibility's in each volume's layout
So...does this mean we're looking at more adds ("are largely") over more content ("some flexibility")?
So...does this mean we're looking at more adds ("are largely") over more content ("some flexibility")?
Don't worry, there is no current push to add more ads to Pathfinder. All of the pages are going to be more content, but there's no hard fast formula determining Pathfinder's page break down. So some months you might see a 48 page adventure and a bestiary with 8 monsters, and sometimes you might see a 54 page adventure and a bestiary still with 8 monsters. It's all flexible.
So...what is this "backmatter" of which you speak, my draco-editorial pal? Obsess- I mean, interested readers want to know!
So, uh, Wes... when is employee review time?
Employee?! Please. James is kind of like Davros (yes, I just made my first ever Dr. Who reference, thanks Erik). He can get rid of me, but if I go, my ten supple fingers, two strong legs, and still mostly working brain go with me!
So...what is this "backmatter" of which you speak, my draco-editorial pal? Obsess- I mean, interested readers want to know!
"Back Matter" is a term for everything in Pathfinder that isn't the adventure. The stuff in the back, which defies classification as just articles. That's largely my realm.
|
Creative Director
|
The only time we had more than 4 pages of ads in the back was in Pathfinder #21, because we were unable to secure the rights to print the couerl in time (it shifted to #22), and by the point where we realized we didn't have the rights secured, it was about 3 hours to go until we had to ship the book to the printer. Faced with the option of having 2 blank pages or 2 more ads, we went with 2 more ads.