Beagle's page

Organized Play Member. 42 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Doppelschwert wrote:

What exactly do you expect to be turned into a product here? In case you are not aware, you can buy the PDFs containing the scenarios here on paizo, and the corresponding officially printed cards (for the older seasons) can be ordered at By my definition, that is 100% product coverage.

That said, drivethru has insane shipping rates to everywhere outside the US, which turns the officially printed cards into an unaffordable luxury item that you should rather print yourself. I can easily get Core and CotCT for the price it would cost me to get those cards over here...

Yup that right 100% product coverage from two separate companies and as you rightly point out for those of us abroad (such as the UK) a very expensive little journey. That is my point, you've just made it. You can't compare this product with the Core Boxset, AP Packs and Character Packs, all of which are self-contained, reasonably priced and sold as physical products, not downloads and print-on-demand cards. There is no comparison to make here, outside the US these products are not affordable. As for using proxies, no problem but don't call it a product comparable to the retail PACG products. That's also not a fair comparison.

Brother Tyler wrote:
They are discrete adventure paths that are played separately from the other adventure paths.

By my measure, your own words describe a side-quest.

We effectively already have side-quests with the 'Season of...' missions. But these have never been formally made into products of a similar ilk of the other big box and pack releases. I haven't heard anyone saying these don't work so why the fuss?!

Brother Tyler response: I agree errata cards should only appear after a good period of time so that any corrections are sound and good to go. So, how many years have we been waiting now? Be honest here, would you not say we are long overdue some errata correction cards? Perhaps we should wait for another couple of years...

I don't have a problem with Character decks, release as many as you like Paizo, but not to the exclusion of more adventures, quests, and stories. Outside the main adventure path, the only other adventures of any sort are the season of missions and even these are not released as physical products by Piazo. Instead, we have to separately buy the missions from Paizo and the cards from DriveThru. It's just weird man, I don't have to do this for any other game I buy. I don't believe I am saying anything bad or controversial here.

As for the rewards set for side-quests, just set a buy-in that is near equal to any potential reward and you can easily negate any power creep. It's not rocket science, it's been done in games before.

Edit: Also, a side-quest is the perfect place to try out a character/class you don't normally play. Maybe this would enhance and give all of us a reason to play the many characters we already have but don't feel the need to explore. You want to introduce 'Sparkles the Pirate Monkey'... well then here is a short set of missions for you try him out. Can you not see a potential here?

elcoderdude wrote:

1. I'm really excited about PACG 2.0.
2. Many flaws in the earlier (beloved) product have been identified and addressed.
3. I'm eager to experience it.
4. Speaking for myself, there will never be enough characters. (No, >100 is not enough :)

1. I'm trying to be excited but there is more talk of re-wording than other types of change herein. Coupled with Paizo reps stating 'this is not PACG 2.0' so I don't know what to think anymore. Couple this with the now-updated core RPG rule-set and this break is the perfect time to re-think and make changes in line with future RPGing.

2. Other than the errata card decks for the first core box, Paizo has not posted any other errata cards for the subsequent decks and they have had years to do this. I have waited patiently for these cards, which will cost me a considerable sum... but they have never appeared, and now we are moving on to a different product. I would be a liar if I did not say this tarnishes the 'beloved' experience over time.
3. I am happy to watch and make a decision post-release now.
4. As I said, we are divided into several fronts as to how this game could be changed for the better.

On a similar slant, although I have enjoyed Arkham Horror: The Card Game the storage solutions provided by Fantasy Flight are terrible. However, there are good third-party storage solutions which I would find more preferable. The talk herein about ditching the large box format in favor of multiple/many small boxes also does not thrill me as to where this game is heading. I will also consider this come release day. Any game destined to contain thousands of cards needs a PROPER storage solution by default, provided by the company making the game. Why, because they know the most about where the game is heading and how big it might become. This goes for the small packs as well, the character pack format of old is terrible and just leads to damaged cards very quickly, unless rehoused in an alternative box. The large box format has served this game well in the past and for me, this is a MASSIVE positive for this huge game. The thought of many small boxes just makes me think Paizo doesn't see the scale of the games they are creating here.

I have read and digested all of these comments and those posted on other posts relating to where this game is going. I have also posted on several threads. I have also used the last year to look at other games like PACG i.e. card driven RPGish type games. One game stood out for me after an initial introduction; Arkham Horror: The Card Game. I won't bore you with my thoughts on that game here as that would be inappropriate. However, now that I have spent some time with that game I have re-appraised my opinion on what would/should be changed within PACG.

I am not sure how to take the revelation that what is coming is not a PACG 2.0. For some this is good news, for me it is not. There are other games out there doing some really interesting things. Also, the Paizo RPG core has recently been overhauled. This is the perfect time to revisit, refine, change and update this game and if necessary make significant changes.

Many good ideas have been put forward here over a fair amount of time and this has caused some division amongst fans/users/buyers of PACG. For me, I am definitely in the camp of more game and less/no more characters, please! Much as I like them (I have all of them), this game is bloated with characters and their associated weapons/items/armor. And throughout the first four box sets not a single side-quest pack or short mission set to go with the core boxes. For a company that specializes in RPG products, this is just wierd and a criminal wasted opportunity in my opinion. Sorry if that offends anyone herein but it's what I believe.

If this game is not significantly changed and updated to allow it to compete with other similar games in the current market then I do not believe I will be going forward with PACG in the future. Thus far I have bought every core set and character pack put forward by Paizo. I am glad to have had this break, my eyes have been opened. At this point, I will only continue my investment in PACG if I am suitably impressed by the direction in which it intends to head. If Paizo decided to be secretive or vague about the next product, then I will not invest until such time as the game is properly reviewed and I have a third-party look at the new/revised PACG. If it's just more of the same with some minor tweaks, I'm out. It's that simple!

I look forward to this pack with a keen interest!

I've read all of the info provided by Painlord/Hawkmoon269 (thank you very much by the way!) to-date and it's interesting to hear some of the new planned mechanism changes. Nothing I've read thus far feels like a significant change though. It's possible that reading about these tweaks doesn't translate to a 'good impress' of where this game is heading.

Is there any clue as to how the planned new base set will be populated. There are many questions I could ask here but as an example, I'll focus on just on LOCATION (since I don't want this to be an essay).

Will there be a range of small medium and large locations and how are these locations implemented (depending on the number of players or the scenarios)?

Are the locations type specific i.e. jungle/mountain/sea/coast/city etc? Or are they what we already see in curreent adventure paths i.e. 'The Bridge', 'Moutain Pass', 'House of Ill Repute' etc? Just what exactly has changed here.

In the next adventure path The Crimson Throne we know there will be an urban setting and wilds setting. Is this how the adventure paths will be split?

Will the location size affect combat in any way, by increasing or decreasing ability to pass barriers, banes or monsters? Will the size of location affect the number of characters that can be at the location?

Will the choice of barriers/allies/henchmen/boons etc. be location dependent or scenario dependent (or both).

Will we be seeing multiple base sets based around specific location themes i.e. Urban/Jungle/Desert/Marine from which we can draw for future adventure paths or will we just add new location packs to a single base set and similarly boons/barriers/monsters etc?

I need more here man, at the moment I'm just not seeing the vision of what is coming here... Perhaps I have missed the big reveal here. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aric/Red Raven is indeed an interesting and unique character, I am intrigued. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is anyone able to video portions of this playtesting? I understand why this would not be possible for a new product, as this is a new approach to an existing product could we see some action as a taster?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am hoping that the universal base set box takes a similar format to the current adventure path base sets. I am assuming that the universal base set will be added to over time as future development takes place. Since we already have storage solutions in place for this size of box we would not have to wait for storage solutions to appear.

I am interested to see what type of packaging we will get for the new adventure paths as well... many questions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Harrower deck is something I would enjoy without question! Also, no doubt quite a few other yet to be explored, classes. No doubt I'd buy them all... but there is no balance currently with product releases.

I am pleased to hear about future plans for this game (see Playtest New Version thread). Personally, I hope to see at least a few barrier, monster, scenarios, mini-path pack releases in the future.

It will be interesting to see the release schedule next year. I am not sure I will be able to spend on more than one pack release per month. Given that we will have a new adventure path and some form of universal set I am assuming that it will be difficult to fit in character set packs as well. Maybe the plan is just to add a character to every pack similarly to the Ultimate packs (who knows, I'm just guessing here).

In previous years when the adventure path schedule release has finished we have had the Character pack and Season of... releases. I am assuming that new products (to link with the universal set) will be released during this timeframe. Just how much character-based content we will see in the future remains to be seen.

Good luck with the Harrower Deck though, it's right up my street.

Happy Happy, Joy Joy!! (this is the grittiest kitty litter of all)

News, at last, I've spent this year sorting my character packs. I am looking forward to this new release. Can I take it that we will still have to wait until mid-to-late 2019 for this release? I have high hopes and need more news... so leak away, I'm listening.

Big thanks to Mike and all of the Paizo team for the behind-the-scenes work that has gone on in the last year.

EDIT: Some clarification please...

Are we looking at two separate releases here;
1. An adventure path (similar to previous ones)
2. A universal base set (for use with new products to be developed)

Frencois wrote:
Dulcee wrote:
...I would like to see more characters...

Hum on that I disagree.

We have ~150 characters already (that's ~300 different games in you consider role cards and much more if you consider all choices of feats).
And each of them can be played on 4 full adventures, not including "seasons of" and homegrown variants.

That's more than I will play in my whole life.

And we have tons of boons.

IMHO, I much more would like new banes/challenges to build different and innovative scenarios....

I agree characters and boons have been well represented in releases to-date. More banes, barriers, challenges, scenarios/mini-quests would be far more useful at this point.

I would be very interested in packs including this type of content. I have bought all of the Character packs up to this point but most of them do nothing for me really, and there are so many now. At this point, it seems strange that no other content has been developed outside of the 'Character Pack' format.

JohnF wrote:

To get back to my first point, how about the games my wife and I played? Let's take a concrete example:

We played through "Season of the Goblins" with the classic four-goblin party (Reta, Mogmurch, Chuffy & Poog). We played 100% to the OP rules, up until it came time to do the reporting. We could have reported the games as solo games for my wife (with Reta, say, as the 'real' character, and the other three as NPCs). Or we could have reported the games as solo games for me (playing Poog). Both of those would have been OP-legal reporting options, as would have been the case if we had been able to find two other players to run the other characters. The one thing we can't do is report a four-character table if we want the reporting to include two actual OP characters. So we just didn't report those games.

Being able to give both Reta and Poog credit for playing a scenario doesn't break anything - the characters are no more powerful that they would be in the one-player or four-player versions of the exact same table.

Allowing NPCs/pregens at more than just solo tables would solve our problem, and would at least allow other small groups to experience the challenges of a six-player table (which, if not necessarily harder, at least requires a different tactical approach).

I 100% agree, smaller groups playing multiple characters should be able to progress through OP with all of their party characters.

Wikwocket wrote:

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks.

I can see how unlocking a character can seem like a reward or a treasure hunt. But, as currently implemented, unlocking a character is a major time investment.

Why do I have to jump through a hoop to use them and make characters I love more viable?

I agree I hate grinding in games, it only serves to make you not want to play. I would rather spend that time playing as the new character I wanted to play.

Jim Landon wrote:

I recently tried lobbying for this and was told that sales would need to be ten times what they are to justify it.

I'm guessing that because PACG has been around for quite a while now there are not a lot of new people being attracted to this game. Also, it is most probable that many of the people who bought the first set have long since stopped buying the successive sets. So the core people still buying this game are most probably people already buying other Paizo products at this point.

Maybe the falloff in sales over the years has reached the point that the main game set releases are in jeopardy. So a re-design/packaging/fixing of the product may attract new people to the game at this point. This is not a bad thing, let's hope it works.

I think the OP has come up with some great ideas which could be included in the main game and if this is going to happen then it makes sense to make OP a fully fledged part of this game going forward. One thing is for sure the OP model will always just be an enthusiasts product so long as Paizo/Lone Shark see no real value in it, other than a little bit of fun for long-term heavily committed players/buyers.

elcoderdude wrote:

1. I play PACG by the rules*, and my groups play to win.

2. I don't think I should have to nerf myself to make the game challenging.

3. As the first respondent in this thread to the stash idea, I hadn't considered a "Variants" rules section which specifies the use of a stash as a way to make the game easier, if desired. That's a different idea than just adding a Stash mechanism to the regular game.

4. I'd have less of an issue with that, although I still think it is pretty pointless to make an frequently easy game much easier.
*My groups probably would not use permadeath, past a certain point in the AP, but it's never been an issue, because no character has ever died.

A response;

1. Once in the groove, I am sure all of us can whizz through locations and APs without issue. Have you considered that a stash mechanism may force you to spend longer at locations digging deeper to win bounty cards to pay rent to maintain a stash. This would make the game harder 'in-game'.

2. Then don't use this rules set. This type of mechanism could easily be either employed or not. As a player, you neither gain or lose anything if a set of rules is provided for this mechanism and others (e.g. the OP loot rewards).

3. I have read this entire thread several times and there are some great ideas for fixes and changes. I am not sure why many of you are so anti a variant such as this. It's just a suggestion for a ruleset that could be attractive to others (not anyone who objects to it).

4. Think laterally here, we are discussing changes that should be considered for a new model going forward. The digital and OP variants of this game have explored new territory since this game model was first set. Also, everyone it seems is focusing on this mechanism making the game easier. Well hopefully if Paizo and Lone Shark have been reading all of our suggestions then PACG 2.0 is set to be more challenging and more diverse.

So why not let a proportion of the new PACG 2.0 population enjoy a thematically legitimate new mechanism that may add enjoyment and flavour to the game, for those that choose to employ some form of stash mechanism.

Parody wrote:

Things like stashes, difficulty changes, and non-permanent death are easy enough to implement as optional variants. If they were to get any official attention I'd prefer they were suggestions on the website or in the back of the rulebook.

In the digital game, I wish the stash and the option to use Treasure cards were choices tied to the party, not global options. :(

I agree, a stash mechanism if available should be able to be included or excluded. If it's optional then just don't include it for an added layer of difficulty. There is nothing lost by designing a stash mechanism for those that may like to incorporate it.

Any players or groups who don't subscribe to the mechanism need only omit this part of the game. No extra cards or components would be necessary for this change. It is merely a suggestion for another featured set of rules that could be added to the game at this point since there is a re-design in progress.

It may well be that Paizo would like to attract some digital players to the board game and these players may find some form of stash interesting. It may well be a divisive mechanism digitally (I have no experience) but limiting it and careful rules settings in the this version of the game may make it workable and even attractive to some players.

skizzerz wrote:
I'd rather see something more akin to the organized play loot rewards. At least with that setup you CAN balance assuming the party has access to X card.

I like this idea too! The OP model has added to this game for sure and I would like to see it become a proper product, with tighter intergration to PACG set releases!

elcoderdude wrote:
I'll vote emphatically against this one. Managing your deck is an essential challenge of the game. The game is easy enough as it is -- I don't see any point in sparing players from difficult decisions about what to keep in your deck.

To some extent, I agree, however adventuring and opening every box/cupboard/chest and selling/trading/stashing items is also a part of RPGing so it's inclusion in this game would add flavour. When the first base set was released I can remember asking for a stash mechanism on the BGG forum.

I do accept that this should be a limited/controlled mechanism if it were to be introduced. I think I originally suggested that a player would have to buy a chest with bounty cards and this would only hold 2/3 cards. Characters could store specific weapons that might be useful against giants, or have fire resistance for example. Access to the stash could be restricted to after the successful completion of an AP for example. This would fit thematically as adventurers would be resetting their card pools between games. This also fits thematically with the story being told, after all, if you are about to go and hunt a dragon down then it would make sense to pack your fire protection gear (if you have any in your stash). You would still have to make difficult decisions as to what to keep in the stash because it would be limited.

I would like to see some form of stash going forward.

EDIT: Another mechanism that could be used to limit the stash is a form of rent for your chest. After the completion of an AP, you would have to pay a bounty card to maintain your stash. If you don't pay then a random card is removed from your stash. If there are no cards in your stash then you lose your stash and have to buy it back again. A mechanism like this would add flavour to the game.

1. I'd like to see the organised play 'season of ...' made into a proper product. Paying two companies for a complete product is less than ideal. I don't think this is unreasonable, the OP model is established and we already have 20 class decks, with more on the way. I am well aware of the arguement that these products need to be tested to lessen/eliminate any errors/ommissions etc. It would be beneficial for OP to link in with the main game in a more official manner (rather than as an enthusiast, as it is at present).

2. I'd like to see more variety with scenario objectives. The villain and henchman model is core (accepted) but there are many other avenues that could be employed along the journey. More of these would add variety and potentially add difficulty to the game as specific character builds could be found to be vulnerable when pitted against objectives other than the villain and henchman model.

3. Quite a few of us would like more flavour including me. I don't believe larger cards are the way to go though. I would like to see/have a printed page so that there is plenty of room for flavour, and any complex/specific rules can be laid out clearly in large type. I am tired of straining to read microscopic text on cards.
Interestingly the OP model has some good ideas in this regard.

4. I'd like to see at least 1 shorter adventure paths per new base set, but I am not sure at what level this AP should be set. This shorter path would not necessarily be connected to the main quest path, instead it could become a side-quest that need not be completed to proceed to the next level of the main AP.

Parody wrote:
This seems contradictory: if the box did a great job, we wouldn't be buying wooden inserts.

You are correct, it is contradictory so I will explain. I also hate the AP packs and early on looked for an in-box solution so that I could get rid of the AP pack boxes. Basically, I bought the box insert to incorporate the AP cards into the box more efficiently. The main problem with the game thus far in terms of storage has been the AP packs, many of us have made negative comments about them over time. The AP packs ceased being a problem for me when I chose to buy the in box wooden storage solution, so in essence, this fixed the only thing I didn't like about the storage of the components for each themed base set.

Parody wrote:
While I used the PACG one as an example you don't have to choose it; there are plenty of alternatives available. For larger card games I tend to use the generic white trading card storage boxes. Poking around the Internet, various sizes of those seem to be readily available from UK game stores for less than £6.

You are absolutely right, there are cheaper storage solutions available, but at the moment I don't have to consider or seek them out. Moving to a new format where I do have to consider this is not helpful to me IMHO since it means extra expense and any solution I might find may not be as useful or suitable as the current big box. This is what I was trying to say, I was not trying to poke at you or your suggestion.

I have quite a few old CCGs sprawling in white boxes and they look awful. There is an aspect of PACG that I had not considered being important until this conversation namely; the themed big boxes really do a great job and there is still room in them for further expansion of cards relevant to each box. I have only had to buy a wooden insert to make my big box a great storage solution. I had not appreciated this fully until getting involved in this thread.

I am currently using a couple of these ( F8&psc=1&smid=A3EZBVT3NL080Z) for storing my class decks and they are a good fit for the class decks but they still add to the cost of the game and that is not good for the game. In a couple of years, I suppose this will be the biggest game of any type I have ever got involved in terms of, the number of components. I'm guessing the re-design of the game is to attract new blood and re-introduce the game to a new audience as well as implement new game ideas. I understand this but I will sorely miss the big box as a storage solution if/when it goes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Parody wrote:
Moving to something similar for multiple smaller boxes or combining them into a larger storage solution (Paizo+UltraPRO already sell a themed one) wouldn't be that difficult for those who have to take their game places.

These storage systems are difficult to get hold of in the UK and once shipping and customs are added they become prohibitively expensive, so this is not a realistic solution going forward for those of us somewhere else in the world. The changes Paizo want to make are supposed to reduce costs for us (hopefully), suggesting we all have to buy a separate storage solution for this game is a backward (and expensive) move since we do not currently have to do this.

We already have +6000 cards for this game and at least another +600 Class Deck cards will be added before the release of the next base set. This game is as big as most historical CCGs and it's getting bigger all the time. This is why suitable storage solutions for me are a big issue. The current big box does a good job of holding and differentiating my cards in an easy to understand manner i.e. by adventure path (themed if you like).

Jim Landon wrote:

I watch people catch on to their dice's issues all the time and disbelieve wht they're seeing, chocking it up to superstition. If you ever feel like checking if your dice are balanced:

Thanks for that link, if I suspect any of the dice I have I may check them out. I can't say I've noticed any trends, historically or at present. I've always liked to have a larger dice pool anyway so I'm not always drawing the same 1, 2 or 3 dice.

Jim Landon wrote:

Chessex aren't exactly good quality dice, the only modern dice I'm familir with that are less accurate are Crystal Caste.

That's an interesting article but I won't be switching out my dice anytime soon as I've used Chessex dice for a long time, without any perceivable problems or issues. I don't RPG anymore but still have a lot of dice, like many of you. I've just re-purposed some of my existing dice to this game and added the odd new set here and there to make up 5 sets of each colour.

Mike Selinker wrote:
I am moderately curious how many of you folks store dice in the base set box, and how many you store.

Each of my base sets has extra polyhedral dice sets (I don't include the D20 or the second D10)

RotR has 5 x Ivory dice sets
SaS has 5 x Black dice sets
WotR has 5 x Red dice sets
MM has 5 x Yellow dice sets

They are all Chessex Opaque sets (easy to read, good quality).

There's a lot of talk here about how to divide up the game and some interesting ideas for how this game might look when we next see it.
My concerns are more basic.

Here's what I like about the current big box configuration;

1. I've fitted wooden box inserts to allow me to re-organise my cards to fit all of the base-set, AP and 'seasons of' cards (perfect fit sleeved).
2. I also have room in each base set box to store extra dice, a card caddy and various character decks (in play).
3. It's a one-box solution, no extra storage needed, no messing, no fuss.
4. I still have room to put quite a few 'season of' sets into each box so there a good degree of future-proofing built in.

Here is what concerns me about the talk of a smaller form factor.

1. I will encounter problems trying to achieve any of the points I have mentioned above.
2. Anyone remember the original Doomtown CCG (or quite a few other CCGs for that matter). No suitable, sensible storage solution ever provided, extra expense and problems finding a decent solution.
3. So what about a medium size base set and then smaller box add-ons similar to some FFG games. Personally, I don't like multiple boxes and when you consider we may still be seeing new base set/AP releases each year then all those big boxes/small boxes start to get very annoying.
4. I am already buying storage solutions for all of the Class Decks, I don't want to be doing this for the game as well.

As for game format ideas;

1. I like the idea of incorporating shorter APs.
2. I like the idea of maybe having a base set tied to an important location and then multiple APs can evolve from that location (e.g. base set features a city as the starting point).
3. I like the idea of having large format pages for story/flavor.
4. I am interested to see if the current 4 base sets/APs/Seasons of/Class Decks will need to be modified much to fit in with the re-design/re-imagining of this game going forward.

Autoduelist wrote:
Will some of the "construction" include the outstanding errata for class decks and base sets? Skull & Shackles and some of the early class decks are getting long-in-the-tooth.

I'd also like to know this since I'm guessing it's going to cost a fair chunk of money and the best time to pay for this would be before the release of any new set.

Thanks for the swift reply Mike, I look forward to reading more over the coming months. I am pleased to hear the Hunter set will have lots of animals. I have been planning to make a few animal cards at drivethru (I have some of the art done) but I just don't get the time in general.

Is it possible to make the blessings cards available through drivethru?, so that we can print extras for our other sets inc. the Promo blessings? These are the only cards from any of the base sets that need extra copies if you want to keep your 'in play' character sets complete.

Thanks for the update Mike, to be honest, I am grateful for the hiatus in the release of a new set. I look forward to seeing where PACG goes in the future.

I am curious about a couple of things though...
At the banquet, there was mention of stories carrying over/interweave from PACG to the Pathfinder Society storylines. Will this mean PACG players will get an incomplete story from future planned sets if players don't invest time and money in other aspects of Paizo products such as those of the Pathfinder Society?

Also, whilst the big box sets are large they are also practical especially once drivethru 'season of' cards are added along with all of the tuck boxes and extra dice etc and sleeved cards. I am curious to see what form the new storage boxes will take, will Paizo allow space for players to grow their sets in the same way as the current base-sets do?

Autoduelist wrote:

No Beagle, you're not missing anything. They're not done yet. Vic and Lone Shark have been busy with other projects and there's some tight coupling between the base sets and class decks that need to be resolved before the cards are finalized.

Thanks, I don't often check in with this forum, maybe 2/3 time per year to check if I've missed something important. Is there a thread where upcoming errata cards are discussed? I would appreciate a link to this discussion so that I can read through and update myself in this regard.

Frencois wrote:

The only reason I buy Drivethru "seasons decks" is that it's just cooler to play with, but it's not at all needed to play.

Not to be confused with Drivethru "errata decks" which from where I stand are must buy because no one wants to check the FAQ after each card is played.

Yeah, I like the printed 'season of...' cards and am happy they are available and I am up-to-date with these offerings. I also bought the errata cards for RoR. I am surprised there have been no further sets of errata cards advertised on drivethru (unless I missed something?!). I have removed the plastic insert and have wooden dividers in my boxes and it is convenient for me to include these cards in the relevant base-set box.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An interesting discussion, I've only just bought the last Adventure Deck for MM (I have the previous 3 seasons as well). It is costly and prior to reading this thread, I was considering this especially when you factor in buying the 'season of...' cards from drivethru and 'season of...' scenarios from Paizo and the class decks.

I agree with some others here, I have more characters than I can ever use and a lot of choice in the way I want to play. What would get the most out of my 4 seasons boxes would be new stories/scenarios to play from the base sets I already have. I am hoping there will be a second (and 3rd etc.) set of season scenarios for all existing sets. More adventures, locations, and a variety of winning conditions (e.g. align the clock towers at each location or convert at least half of the monks at the monastery to a chosen faith by challenging their faith in some way). This could add/dovetail in with storylines and provide more interest to everyone.

Look at the drivethru 'season of...' card packs, none of them are over 110 cards (I believe without checking). Why are these not becoming a produce that could merge in with class decks to become a new produce line that adds adventure/season packs to class/other packs. You need only check that you have the required base set to use the pack you are interested in buying. This way I wouldn't have to pay Paizo and drivethru to get a single complete product (season of...) like I currently have to.

Everything you say makes perfect sense for RPG materials, and having read quite a few threads on multiple blogs/threads I am well aware of your background knowledge of this game and other Paizo gaming formats, for which I offer you my respect.

I am coming at this from a different angle/perspective, more as a general gamer who has committed to this game long-term without feeling the need to delve deeper into other Paizo gaming formats. This is a card based game closer to a board game (once corrected not likely to change after a season is finished) than an RPG so it is not a stretch for customers to want printed materials of complete (and corrected) seasons. I don't have the time or gaming group necessary to RPG and this game has scratched that itch for me solo, and in group play and gaming materials/resources add to the play-through experience (which is where I am coming from, so to speak).

Thanks for the heads up with regard to DriveThru PrintOnDemand services though, I appreciate your advice in this regard. Thus far I have only used their card printing facilities and I have had no major problems/issues there. It seems that there will only ever be PDFs available and I will buy into this in time reluctantly. I will wait (some time) though, just in case Paizo responds either positively or negatively to this query.

Makes good sense to me, I'm already committed to using DriveThru for Errata, Season of ... Cards and Community Cards so why not Soft Bound Season of ... Books. I hope the Paizo Team/Mike/Tanis reads this as you have had a good idea here. I have not ordered any books this way as yet, what is the quality like?

I'm in the UK and I will investigate options here, although web-portal printing is probably the way to go here. If you know of any reputable links please do send them.

Perhaps you are right, it's not that I am passionate, it just makes sense to me having seen that Paizo has added character mats, a play mat, wizkid mini characters, class decks and has set about initiating an organised play model for PAGC. Also they seem committed to this game into the near future beyond the next release. They have spent money on character mats for promos so I didn't think it was a stretch for them to add a line of printed 'Season of...' books. Particularly since the Organised Play model is still being fleshed out.

Do you think it is possible that the APP version of this game will eventually have 'Season of ...' adventure paths available?

So could I buy all of the PDFs and ask a 3rd party company to print all of these and bind then into a single book? If yes, do you or anyone else know where this could be achieved (it sounds costly and quality could be an issue)?

I still think that Paizo is missing something here, this is a good product that isn't being marketed/made available. At some point in the future there is a complete new adventure waiting for every owner of the game, these 'seasons' allow gamers to get more value out of products they have already heavily invested in.

Individually printed I agree, but what about printing the complete season as a whole, single printed book. These 'seasons' effectively double the life of the base sets which people have already invested in. Surely there is a market here of existing owners of RotR/SaS/WotR/MM base sets plus add-on packs. With the inclusion of the Season of ... printable card sets the longevity of the game is increased, making it worth investing in a printed book to accompany the relevant printed 'season' card set. Also each 'season' book could include Card Guild setup & play instructions.

Are these 'Seasons of ...' ever going to be printed as a set in either soft/hard cover format? We are nearly halfway through through the third Season, surely I am not the only person waiting for this. I've just bought the Season of Shackles card set and I would ideally like to work off of a nice printed materials in book form. I have been holding off on purchasing the PDFs for some time hoping that a printed edition would become available.

Are these 'Seasons of ...' ever going to be printed as a set in either soft/hard cover format? PDF's just aren't my cup of tea. I've just bought the Season of Shackles card set and I would ideally like to work off of a nice printed materials in book form. I have been holding off on purchasing the PDFs for some time hoping that a printed edition would become available.

Are these 'Seasons of ...' ever going to be printed as a set in either soft/hard cover format? PDF's just aren't my cup of tea. I've just bought the Season of Shackles card set and I would ideally like to work off of a nice printed material/s in book form. I have been holding off on purchasing the PDFs for some time hoping that a printed edition would become available.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are these 'Seasons of ...' ever going to be printed as a set in either soft/hard cover format? PDF's just aren't my cup of tea. I've just bought the Season of Shackles card set and I would ideally like to work off of a nice printed materials in book form. I have been holding off on purchasing the PDFs for some time hoping that a printed edition would become available.