bugleyman's page

Paizo do not have the bandwidth address imaginary rules problems.

"If it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" almost verbatim, laced with a tinge of condescension (because clearly my players -- along with all other people who have posed this question here and elsewhere -- are just imagining things).

Thank you for so effectively demonstrating precisely the attitude I described!

This is a case where a simpler rule that doesn't worry about rounds at all works better than a more complex rule that does.

I agree! And if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have the agreed the entire time. The problem is that my players don't, even after reading this thread.

Paizo could solve this problem in five minutes with a FAQ entry, giving me something official to point my players to. And so I asked if anyone was aware of that having occurred. Instead of an answer, I got a bunch of folks insisting that -- despite the existence of this thread -- there is no problem (with the added bonus of several being pretty condescending).

I do not understand how this sort of reception is supposed to help the game, or Paizo, but we should be trying to do better than "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."

I'm gad to see some new errata. Hopefully this marks getting back on schedule.

Unfortunately it's not about "this not being asked frequently enough". Paizo does not answer rules questions about PF2 outside of errata. Full stop. They haven't in years, ever since people like Mark Siefer left. We can't get anything answered these days.

Hell, we can't even get errata right now for absurdly basic questions like "how many spells are in an Oracle repertoire?" where the rulebook literally contradicts itself in the same block of text.

It's extremely frustrating.

Well...I guess I should consider myself lucky, then.

I'm sorry you can't get an answer. :-(

Bugley man, is this the GM? Is it players who think they just can’t use delaying actions if they roll badly for initiative?

If it is the GM, then the issue is bigger than delay because casting spells late in the initiative order is going to have issue if rounds are measured in combat rounds and not the time between players turns.

But if the players (whether GM or not) understand that, then they do understand how delaying works too, there is just some reason they think it works differently?

You don’t generally see “official FAQ” for things like how to make an attack roll or how to determine AC, because those things are clearly stated in the rules. Players who ask questions about them on forums have other players answer those questions and developers don’t chime in because the rules on it are clear.

You do see newer players occasionally ask these questions in live stream or live AMA type events and sometimes developers will explain it there, but that is not any more official FAQ than the response you get from players here. Typically, FAQ happens when a large section of players are interpreting rules differently from each other and there is nothing close to a consensus.

This thread is very old and has had the occasional player reask the question, but the consensus on the issue has never come close to shifting.

I am the GM. And while the rules seem quite clear to me, my players brought this up, and I wanted to do my due diligence before just shutting them down. A search returned this thread, as well as multiple Reddit threads -- meaning this has come up before -- but no official answer. I guess I just genuinely expected this to be a quick check in the FAQ to clear it up, but I guess this question isn't asked frequently enough to warrant inclusion (which seems odd, given that issuing a ruling on a message board is effectively free, and Paizo has deliberately designed an extremely codified system in PF2...but I digress).

In any case, thank you for actually trying to be helpful; it is appreciated. As a very long time member of these boards, the number of unsolicited drive-by responses that amounted to "rules are clear, u r dumb" has been profoundly disappointing.

The notion that the last person in initiative cannot delay their actions just because they rolled low on initiative is ludicrous.

It doesn't make narrative sense. It doesnt really make game logic sense. There is no benefit whatsoever to enforcing it, so it doesn't make practical sense either.

Yes, I get that many don't find the rules unclear. As it happens, I don't personally find them unclear, either. But several of my players do, and the existence of this thread (and others like it) is a pretty good sign that my players aren't alone, and as such, official clarification doesn't seem like a unreasonable request.

It feels weird that I have to keep repeating this, but here we are...

I'm not saying you're wrong to ask. I'm following the answer.

Part 1 (what you asked): No, there is no clarification or official ruling.

Followup: One is unlikely, I would not count on ever getting one.

It seems to me that that information could have been conveyed without also asserting that the RAW is clear (thus implying the question needn't have been asked). Sorry if that wasn't what was intended in this case, but it is an all too common response in this forum.

No.

But because it isn't unclear, I wouldn't expect it to ever come up in a FAQ or something, either. Officual rulings aren't even common for things that DO need a clarification.

*sigh*

Yes, I get that many don't find the rules unclear. As it happens, I don't personally find them unclear, either. But several of my players do, and the existence of this thread (and others like it) is a pretty good sign that my players aren't alone.

That's a management failure, at the end of the day. This stuff is a necessary part of the process, and management allocating no time or budget to it is a mistake.

THANK YOU. I simply don't understand why so few people seem to get this. One thing decades in corporate America taught me is that "it costs too much, there aren't enough resources, it isn't our area of expertise" and the like are ultimately just euphemisms for management failure. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well, and when it isn't done well the responsibility ultimately rests with the people in charge.

Thanks, but as I thought I had clearly indicated in my previous post, I'm not looking for interpretations. I am looking for is an official clarification.

Nor does telling me that clarification is unnecessary in any way settle the debate (which I am NOT trying to rekindle). So while I appreciate that responses attempting to explain the rules may be well-intentioned (if a bit patronizing, especially since I *personally* agree that the RAW are clear), they aren't helpful. In my opinion the existence of this thread really leaves little doubt that a clarification is in order.

So with that out of the way, I'll try again: is anyone aware of any official ruling ever having been issued?

Just necro'ing this thread years down the line to say that our group ran into this exact issue today. I personally never found the rules ambiguous, but to my surprise several of my (smart and earnest) players felt otherwise!

Is anyone aware of an official clarification ever being issued? Or even just a comment from a designer?

shroudb wrote:

I think people are overcomplicating stuff.

Having a developer who's responsible for rules/balance stuff, or even for a part of them, say to Maya and in turn they inform us here that (as an example here):

"I spoke with the developer who did the remaster of the Psychic, and they told me that their metrics showed the class as ok, hence why there weren't any buffs, and that the nerf to IW was because the framework for force damage had them lower the damage"

or "I spoke to the dev who wrote the monster mythic abilities rules, the reason Mythic Resilience is different than Mythic resistance is X".

would go a terribly long way towards alleviating a ton of the issues that frequently pop up.

Heck! we have whole threads dedicated to errata that one can peruse to get a list of questions, and then grab the relevant dev, to give us at least some answers.

---

I'm not talking about more complicated technical issues, that would require a TON of work to actually fix (instance of damage), but even simple things are left in the void.

---

Having absolutely no communication, not even aknowledging the issues that appear, is not the correct way to go forwards imo.

As a long time DM and player, I tend to disagree. Sometimes table fixes work better than anything Paizo might put out. A group that finds a problem comes up with a table fix that the group likes can often work better than an official ruling from Paizo.

With all due respect, the fact that a group is often able to patch the rules is beside the point. Ambiguities should not be allowed to persist, especially in a game as heavily codified as Pathfinder 2E, where so much of the value of the 1,000+ page core rules is in providing a consistent, clear foundation upon which all the fiddly bits will rest.

Let me give an example that cropped up on my table earlier today. Our group had a disagreement about the way delay works (the specifics aren't terribly important, but interested parties can look here for the gist of it). The way this falls could easily be the difference between a character living or dying. Yet that thread is now over six years (!) old, and the issue has never been settled. No designer feedback has been provided. Nothing about it appears in the FAQ (that I can find), nor was the wording cleared up in the remaster. Perhaps Paizo simply doesn't consider the rules to be ambiguous, but the fact that this exact debate has sprung up in multiple other places online (for example, here is a thread on Reddit) would tend to indicate otherwise.

How is something this foundational in the core rules going answered for more than six years--including through a remaster--good for anyone? Especially when the entire matter could be settled with a single sentence? I just don't get it.

So yes, I'm worried about quality. I don't know that it has gotten worse since the remaster, but it doesn't appear to have gotten any better.

Uh, isn't that normal? I've only ever been to a smaller con, but they never schedule old scenarios, only ones from the last season.

I've been to many, many cons, including four Gen Cons, and no, that definitely isn't normal. Certainly newer stuff gets played more, but it's never been exclusively new stuff. In fact, in my experience one of the draws of going to bigger cons was getting to play stuff you may not have been able to play locally.

In any event, I've had my say, and probably won't be replying further (especially given that there are far, far more important things going on in the world right now).

Driftbourne wrote:

3. The missing stat blocks is eaisly delt with now that AoN has a feature that lets you download all the stat blocks for a scenario with one click as a single printer-friendly PDF or that can be used on a phone or tablet.

Unfortunately this only helps if they are showing the correct stat blocks. There are still errors in 7-01 (at least).

** spoiler omitted **

As much as I appreciate AoN trying to pick up the ball Paizo so casually discarded, killing stat blocks -- along with the subsequent refusal to even discuss the matter -- marked the end for me as a PFS GM. It was just a bridge too far in terms of GM prep effort (not to mention too casually disdainful of customers in general) to sit well with me. As the saying goes: “You must find the courage to leave the table if respect is no longer being served.”

In fact, I'm currently running a (non-PFS) group through Seven Dooms, but once that wraps up, that'll be it for me and PF2 entirely. The ability to drop in/out easily via PFS is what kept me coming back to PF2 in spite of my somewhat lukewarm feelings about the system, and with that ability now gone, I'll just run something else entirely (Dragon Bane, perhaps?).

As a customer since near the very beginning, I'll still check in every few months to see whether Paizo has course-corrected, but that'll probably require entirely new OP leadership. PF3, maybe?

I'm a my cup is half full kind of guy, lets look on the bright side.

1. More blocks mean more games played.
2. GMs and players get more frequent breaks.
3. The missing stat blocks is eaisly delt with now that AoN has a feature that lets you download all the stat blocks for a scenario with one click as a single printer-friendly PDF or that can be used on a phone or tablet.
4. The shorter scenarios are easier to prep and set up at the table, with fewer maps and pawns to carry around at a convention. Even more important if you are GMing more than one scenario at a convention.
5. There are 10 normal blocks and 10 scenarios available from season 7, plus whatever is available for the start of season 8. That's enough scenarios to not have to repeat any.
6. I would imagine a chance to be the first to play scenarios for the new season would be very popular, which is likely why new seasons start at the largest gaming convention in the world.

These all seem like big benefits for running a large convention. Meanwhile, you can still play older scenarios in other places.

I'm not denying that there are advantages. I'm merely pointing out that one of the predicted disadvantages of the scenario changes has already come to pass (and sooner than even I expected).

For me the whole situation would rankle less if OP leadership had simply taken the time to explain their thinking (the way James explained the thinking behind the AP changes) as many requested, but alas, they did not. I get that they're busy, but between that and the months-long radio silence on Starfinder 2E adventure sanctioning, it really feels like the OP team simply can't be bothered.

Oh well.

According to today's blog, the Gen Con 2026 PFS schedule will, with the exception of the special, consist exclusively of new format scenarios (that is, the 3hr, no stat block format scheduled to debut next month). That means that literally all PFS content from 2025 or earlier -- six and a half out of seven seasons, or 93% of existing PFS 2e content -- will be entirely absent from organized play at the largest gaming convention in the world.

While I've given up any hope of response from Paizo to the community's concerns about the scenario changes, I can't help but be curious what the "of course the scenario changes won't reduce the variety of content being offered" crowd from a few months back would say now...

This feature addresses a huge void in the PFS prep space come January. Here's hoping they're able to stick with it for future seasons.

That's a great feature.

Sad that it came to this, but still a great feature.

At this point, lack of a response is the response.

Precisely what I said in another thread. They know best, and simply aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. :-/

At this point all I can really hope for is that someone higher up the food chain recognizes the current death spiral for what it is and steps in before it is too late.

Disappointed in the lack of response to all the feedback from the August update with the changes to how PFS is going to work.

After this long, it's pretty hard to not take the lack of response as the response, if you know what I mean. :-/

On the plus side, last weekend I attended a great little local con, and I finally got to play both Vaesen and Mothership. Yay!

Not a single post here who isn't in support of a generic chronicle. Paizo, PLEASE consider this.

What you gain by not allowing a generic chronicle: ?

What you gain by allowing a generic chronicle:

* GMs have more material to run for credit, rewarding them for their efforts to run more of what you produce. Reward GMs. I can't emphasize this enough. It really is the core of any organize play program. Without rewarding volunteers in this way, to those who choose to spend their time preparing to run to your player community, it just feels like a huge snub, though I know it's not intended. The reward structure is just not there for SFS2E the way it is with PFS2E. The logical conclusion is that SFS2E will be played less, and APs even less. I don't think that is a sound business decision.

* I can't imagine that allowing a generic chronicle would generate less sales; in fact, reason would dictate it would result in quite the opposite for Chronicle-awarded Adventures and APs.
* Players receive credit for playing SFS2 AP products, and satisfaction. For some, it can make the difference about whether they play SFS2 or not.
* SFS2 becomes an equal choice with playing PFS2.
* I'm a very long time organized play player (Since 2001) and author of 2 organized play adventures (in Living Greyhawk). Much of my interest in Pathfinder came from having the chronicle award, when 4E D&D was not offering chronicles. I migrated from 4E to Pathfinder because I wanted an org play program that rewarded players and GMs.
* Honestly, I think this is the biggest mistake of SFS2E rollout. The GM achievement is also an issue, but you've hinted that there may be change in the future.
* You have a community of willing and very able volunteers to address a generic chronicle. Let the love flow. Please.

It's kinda crazy that there hasn't been any comment on this from Paizo.

[Oh and also, I don't know why 3 Novas aren't showing on my profile.]

I have the same problem with 3 of my 4 GM stars. I hope you have better luck getting an answer than I have.

That is definitely not what I meant but you read my words as you wish.

Alternatively, you might consider the possibility that I don't have an agenda, and you're just not sending the message you intended. Because I honestly don't know what else you meant with declarations like this:

The PFS team has all the info we use in our own analysis and more.

...
They have the full picture and we do not.
...
And we cannot give feedback without that. Only opinions.
...
Which is likely why they have not actually asked for feedback BTW.

Not only do you explicitly state that Paizo "have the full picture and we do not" -- which I have explained is not the case -- but you very much come across as "Paizo can do no wrong, so keep your feedback to yourself."

Also, point of order: Whether or not these changes will ultimately hurt PFS isn't actually a matter of opinion, but of fact. While it's true that we'll never know for sure either way, it remains useful to differentiate between a matter of fact (albeit one about which we lack perfect information) and a matter of opinion ("vanilla ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream"). For instance, it is possible to be wrong about the former, but not the latter.

As I said, it's only an opinion and we will likely have to wait a few months more to know the whole of it.

The truth is that nobody will ever truly "know the whole of it," because perfect information simply doesn't exist. How could it? Even if the reporting system and underlying database weren't poorly designed — and to be clear, for those who know what to look for, they absolutely are — how would one even collect data about tables that didn't happen...from every GM at every game day, everywhere? That is manifestly impossible.

Consequently, it seems to me that what you are in effect doing is summarily declaring invalid any analysis that is not based on a (non-existent) complete dataset. Which is not a hill I'd choose to die on, but you do you.

Personally, I'll rely on (admittedly incomplete) personal observation coupled with deduction. And yes, I could still be wrong...but not all arguments are created equal.

We don't need to wait and see how that will play out because we can look at what just happened and see how the new rule would have applied. The answer is badly.

Yup.

I'm a little slower to ascribe malice. I think its one of those gamer things where solution A is not perfect therefore solution B must be the right answer. This goes double when someone assigns a rule, and the rule starts to seem like an unchangeable fact when rules are very changeable. (IE, making the treasure in a scenario balance out to the payout was (is? I think they changed that?) Was an enormous fiddly nit picky PITA that provided only the pay out of.. a little bit of immersion and complying with the rule? I think the immersion could have been solved with a check and or a Bill for in game damages...

To be clear, I don't actually believe that someone at Paizo is trying to kill organized play.

I do, however, believe that removing stat blocks is such a comically bad idea that I can understand why someone might.

I think Paizo more often than not gets things right, but occasionally they get obstinate about sticking with really boneheaded decisions (like say, Pathfinder Online). I did a few years as a software engineer right out of college in the late nineties, and it was blindingly obvious that Paizo really had no clue what they were biting off with that one (though they at least had the sense to eventually spin Goblinworks off so it wouldn't take the whole company down with it).

The stat block decision seems similarly clueless...no matter how I come at it, it just makes no earthly sense.

Pirate Rob wrote:

Here's the thing. Somebody needs to gather the statblocks. It can be done once by Paizo, or it can be done hundreds if not thousands of times by GMs, and adds another point of failure.

Eyup.

I cannot for the life of me, after ...10+ years of asking at least (with a break in the middle largely because they started putting the monsters in), get a sensible answer on what kind of "development" an appendix of critters needs to be function.

Needs. to be functional.

NOT

What kind of development it gets.

If you can't swing the kind of development it gets just run it through an online templater and stick it on there the same way any other DM could. I can't see how any error could possibly be worse than it not being there. If you copy paste in a flux capacitor instead of capacitor flux someone will let you know.

WHY make someone replicate that work ad nauseum?

The bottleneck in running OP is new DMs. How much easier is it to say "here's a scenario, there's the monsters" than " oh right, heres the scenatio, there's the mechanics, go to this other website and download the monsters and switch back and forth between the two files...

On the other hand, if you wanted to hold a pillow over the face of organized play so it dies a slow, quiet death, then this would be a great way to do it.

As I've said before, I can live with the narrower level bands, and with the shorter scenarios (and hey, at least the price is coming down correspondingly). But no stat blocks is a deal killer, and will absolutely ravage the PFS GM pool. Putting aside the question of whether aggressively pursuing cost savings for PFS scenarios (i.e. marketing) is really even a good idea, cutting stat blocks is just an incredibly short-sighted way to go about it.

Just started reading and prepping this.

Love the wine call back to 1-11. I really love continuity details like that.

Can it be?

I've run that scenario two or three times, and every time played up the wine. That is a an awesome callback (and 1-11 was a great scenario, except for the maps -- which made no earthly sense).

I've very sorry for your loss.

I'm glad you got to say goodbye; that's no small thing. When I lost my mother several years ago, she went quite suddenly (pulmonary embolism).

I don't think its a big deal since APs already work this way, but it has been pretty convenient to have everything already included.

To me, APs and PFS scenarios are very different beasts.

For instance, I'm currently running Seven Dooms, for which I have a pretty beefy desktop PC, effectively limitless power, and very good (and redundant) Internet access. Not to mention I'm using a Foundry package for the adventure, so all of the stat blocks are right there.

Contrast that with my PFS experience, nearly all of which takes place in a game store, where I typically have much less space, rarely have access to AC power (so no beefy laptop, even if I were willing to bring such an expensive item to use in a public venue), and where Internet access that is often iffy (doubly so for conventions, which is where I play the rest of my PFS). Finally, I often have significantly less prep time for PFS.

YMMV, but to me personally that just isn't a very useful comparison.

To be fair, I'm much less frustrated now that Erik Mona has clarified that the new PFS scenarios will be $6 rather than $9 (i.e. this isn't a stealth price hike), which means I'd actually resume buying them...but pulling the stat blocks is overall too big a blow to my QoL as a PFS GM. My own situation aside, it strikes me as inherently inefficient, because work that could be done once and included with the scenario now has to be done many times (I know there are shared resources available, but I also know that not everyone will use -- or even know about -- those resources).

Overall it just kinda feels like buying a car without tires, only to then be told it's not a problem because tires are available separately.* :-P

* And yes, I do understand this is a flawed analogy. All analogies are, in fact, imperfect -- literally by definition. ;-)

One other small point of order is I believe PFS1 scenarios started and remained at $3.99 ($4) for the vast majority of PF1s lifetime. I don't think they ever cost $3.

I just went back and looked at my order history, and I stand corrected. I blame my old man memory. ;-)

Thank you, Bugleymann. I appreciate both the apology and the explanation.

Hmm

There's a reason I assigned myself a CHA of 7 in my profile! ;-)

But seriously, my bad. I'll be more careful in the future.

We're listening to feedback and will continue to make changes to keep the campaign vibrant and to respond to customer suggestions.

The new shorter scenarios will be $5.99. Probably should have mentioned that in the blog, but I'm mentioning that now just to be clear.

Thank you. That is indeed a key piece of context that was previously missing, and it dramatically improves the value proposition.

We appreciate the dialogue and will continue to listen. We're not ready to make a decision one way or the other on the stat block issue mentioned here, but again, the conversation is very helpful.

Whatever you decide, thank you for letting us know that you are listening.

bugleyman wrote:

Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO.

While I agree with you that the removal of statblocks is problematic for a number of reasons, may I please ask you to refrain from making hurtful statements like the one above? I have written for both APs and scenarios, and put the same love and care into both types of adventures, regardless of length.

Thanks,
Hmm

Hi HMM:

I apologize; it was not my intention to be hurtful. I hold both your opinion and your work in high regard.

To be clear, I wasn't faulting the writing; rather the relative value. In fairness, I do think it's hard to argue that the trade dress, art, supporting materials, etc. are up to the standard set by the APs/modules. Which was totally understandable when scenarios were $3, or even $6. They're just a tough sell at the current $9, which I strongly suspect the revenue numbers will support.

bugleyman wrote:

I hadn't actually run a game there since it was still Game Depot. I like the new layout, but the back room is the prime spot for sure. Even so, our table actually went fine as far as I could tell, Pokemon and all. I hope to have a chance to GM there again.

Do you ever play PFS? Or are you all Starfinder? I ran one table of Starfinder Society first edition, but I really didn't dig the starship stuff.

They're always looking for GMs.

I do play PFS2 once in a while, but Starfinder is my main game. I play a goblin merchant (sorcerer) with only spells related to selling things in PFS2 somehow it works well...

Well I hope I get to run a PFS table for you sometime -- though it will apparently have to be something pre season 7 -- if for no other reason than to demonstrate that I'm less of an insufferable bastard in person than I am online. ;-)

So do you guys run SF 1E, or 2E? I may at some point give 2E a try with a pregen, though SciFi isn't normally my jam.

bugleyman wrote:

Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.

A couple of reasons why I think cutting stat blocks from scenarios is bad, and worse than having stat blocks missing from APs.

A higher percentage of APs are likely to be run as home games, where you are more likely to have all your books or someone else nearby, or a computer.

This matches my experience. I'm currently running Seven Dooms for Sandpoint online on a fairly beefy gaming PC (NVME drive, 32GB of RAM, six core CPU, and most importantly, a big 1440P monitor). Having multiple PDFs open, along with AoN is not a problem. Plus I have plenty of time to prepare.

Contrast that with an unknown amount of public space in a store with limited access to power and internet, and the prospect of running something with very little notice at a con, and the statblocks are just a huge GM QoL upgrade.

Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO.

bugleyman wrote:

Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)

No, I'm the guy who planned ahead and asked to use the back area earlier in the week ;-) I needed the extra space to be able to run around the table with a fake microphone to do interviews for The Great Absalom Relay! I would have been tripping on Pokemon had I run in the main room.

I do like the shorter scenarios for when you do have to play in a loud room.

Details, details. :-P

I hadn't actually run a game there since it was still Game Depot. I like the new layout, but the back room is the prime spot for sure. Even so, our table actually went fine as far as I could tell, Pokemon and all. I hope to have a chance to GM there again.

Do you ever play PFS? Or are you all Starfinder? I ran one table of Starfinder Society first edition, but I really didn't dig the starship stuff.

I mean, can't cost-cutting be a valid enough reason on its own? As much as I hate the decision, I understand that several pairs of eyes poring over statblocks to look for mistakes isn't the most efficient way of spending one's time. It may not be a lot, but I bet it adds up over time. Just copy-pasting a Monster Core entry is much more efficient.

Not to me; especially not when scenarios are still priced at $9. Not only does the $9 price point represent terrible value compared to Paizo's other products, I believe that it lends credence to my argument that someone at Paizo appears to be thinking about PFS scenarios strictly in terms of P&L...which I believe is fundamentally misguided.

I get that saying that sort of thing is akin to heresy in these parts, and some folks just won't entertain the idea that Paizo is mismanaging something, but I'm calling it like I see it.

You're welcome, and thank you so much for this feedback, bugleyman!

Thank you for listening.

I'll admit I've not had much to do with customer service facing Paizo folks since Sara Marie got done dirty, but I do appreciate it when you are able to take the time to reply.

Which is a good indication that the 2-3 hour long scenarios can still be fun. They're also easier to prep, which has been my experience from either side of the table.

Yeah, believe it or not that was actually part of why I mentioned it...the bigger part being that I don't remember the last time a early run of scenarios for PFS was that well reviewed. If shorter scenarios really translates to better scenarios over the long haul, then maybe it is worth it.

At this point, assuming Paizo drops the price of Pathfinder Society Scenarios to $5.99 to match the Starfinder (which if they were planning to do, they really should have led with!), then my only big remaining complaint is the statblock situation. The narrower level bands aren't great, but can be worked around using pregens (which aren't ideal, but at least the table still goes off).

Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.

There was an organized play survey at the end of last year. Scenario length was one of the questions on it. I don't have time to go through 10 months of blog posts and Paizo live videos, but somewhere it was said that shorter scenarios are something that scored high on the survey. So the idea for shorter scenarios didn't come from Paizo trying to cut costs; it was from customer feedback. Cutting stat blocks, that's a different story; that one is on Paizo, and I think it's a bad idea for scenarios and organized play, much more so than it is for APs.

I don't need the receipts; I believe you. I was unaware of the survey, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I think I met you briefly before I ran the Starfinder Scenario on Saturday.

Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)

You guys brought back the preview images! Very much a customer-friendly choice. Thank you.

bugleyman wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something?

Not that I know of; it's just that neither announcement mentioned a price change, which would seem to me to be a pretty glaring oversight!

Reducing the price would certainly go a long way toward addressing the value complaint.

Starfinder 2e scenarion pricing.

Understood, but to my knowledge there was no mention of the same thing happening for Pathfinder Society scenarios, which seems like a very odd thing to leave out. I guess time will tell.

Edit: Wow, that is a really impressive run of good reviews for Starfinder 2e scenarios. I am jelly. :-P

This is just such a trivial complaint. ALL of those books are available on Archives of Nethys, and we can stop pretending that not everyone has a smartphone. It was a great argument 20 years ago, it was still somewhat valid 10 years ago, but it's 2025 now. Just look it up on AoN, at the table, and you probably don't even need WiFi because mobile data is so good at this point.

BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I be a one eyed pirate and I be unable to see thar tiny fonts on me phone." Okay, fine. Bring a laptop and set your phone as a hotspot, like all the skibidi rizzlers under 40 do.

BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I run a game at NORAD and we're hermetically sealed under 3 miles of concrete and I can't connect to WiFi because I need national security clearance and it's a 32-bit password that rotates every hour." Okay, fine. Just print out the monsters from AoN before you enter Cheyenne Mountain, then.

There is so much information at our literal fingertips that I've resolved rules disputes in real time by punching in questions like "pathfinder does frightened have the mental trait reddit" into Google. Boom, 10 seconds, mystery solved, and less than that if you're willing to blindly accept whatever the AI overview tells you.

10-15 years ago, when they put in the stat blocks, everyone was happy - because Archives of Nethys was different, because smartphones were less powerful, and because data caps existed. It's 2025, now. Just Google it. Or, perhaps since it's 2025, just DuckDuckGo it.

I get it, physical materials are nice sometimes. But pretending like this should be a driving reason to make a bunch of other people do a bunch of extra busywork is disingenuous.

P.S. Just so it's clear, I personally prefer the statblocks. I just don't see why anyone would complain this much about it. Spend the time arguing about the 2-level spreads, instead. That's an actual problem.

Ah yes. The old "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" canard. I was wondering when someone would trot that one out, so at least in that sense you didn't disappoint (though I could have done without all the sarcasm, and especially without the age crack).

Meanwhile, there is obviously a huge difference between Googling a simple question and juggling three or more stat blocks, often from multiple sources. Maybe your phone works great for that latter task, but mine certainly does not. Even if it did, my eyes wouldn't cooperate. As for a laptop, one powerful enough to do a good job of it isn't something I particularly want to risk in a public venue. And then there is the potential for Internet connection challenges, especially at conventions.

I do agree with one thing you said, though: someone here is being disingenuous...

Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something?

Not that I know of; it's just that neither announcement mentioned a price change, which would seem to me to be a pretty glaring oversight!

Reducing the price would certainly go a long way toward addressing the value complaint.

The shorter run time is not about cutting costs; it's about a lot of game stores not staying open as late as they used to on week nights. There's nothing fun about the GM having to hand handwave all the exploration to have enough time for combat. In Arizona, there is nothing fun about having to finish the game and filling out chronicles in a parking lot when it's 110 degrees outside.

Are you basing that on anything in particular? Because as far as I can see, that argument doesn't really hold water unless all of seasons 1-6 are discard, rendering at least ~80% of existing PFS content unusable, as it won't fit in a 3 hr slot. That just doesn't seem realistic for most groups. YMMV, I guess.

BTW, I'm also in AZ. We may even know each other...

Paizo has had to deal with the pandemic, tariffs, and now the Diamond bankruptcy. Paizo also unionised, which I think is a good thing, but that had a cost too. All of that adds up in the cost of making the game.

I'm not a fan of the idea of removing stat blocks, but I don't think it's to save space in a PDF. I think (a wild guess) it's more about simplifying the creation and editing process. The chance of making a mistake when referencing a stat block in a Bestary is very low compared to copying it into an adventure or scenario.

Ok, now I'm a little confused, because you started by making the argument that the forthcoming switch to shorter scenarios wasn't about cost...but then went on to talk specifically about factors that have increased Paizo's costs. And isn't "simplifying the creation process" really just another way of saying cost-cutting? It certainly seems like it to me.

It could also be a combination of factors; the truth is we'll never know for sure unless Paizo decides to elaborate. To be honest, finding out that stat blocks have already been removed from Season 7 scenarios pretty much means the end of PFS for me, so I suppose the "why" doesn't really matter. :-/

This can already be seen in the scenarios of season 7 of PFS2, where the creature appendices for published creatures simply cite Monster Core.

I was not aware of that; I thought dropping stat blocks was a forthcoming change. That it has already happened is very unfortunate. And will become more unfortunate once Monster Core 2 is out (not to mention whatever might come afterward).

I suppose it also means I'm just spitting into the wind with this entire thread... :-(

Also, dropping the stat blocks may not neccessarily be shrinkflation. Have you considered that Society scenarios generally have an allocated number of pages to a scenario. What if you got more plot, encounters or fun skill challenges in exchange for those statblock pages?

Given that scenarios are now going to run 2-3 hours, rather than 4, I don't see how that could really be the case -- especially since we're talking about PDF products, where page count itself has no marginal cost (and so they could have included those things without cutting the stat blocks).

I'll be glad if I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The entirely trajectory of PFS over the several years has just felt too much like cost-cutting.

I appreciate that many folks are skeptical about my assertions regarding Paizo expecting PFS scenarios to turn a profit. Please understand that I do not claim to have any special insight or insider information. It’s just that, to me, the signs seem crystal clear (sequential price hikes, talk of “sustainability,” etc.). Overall it’s a pattern of behavior and messaging that I’ve seen many times, both in my career and in higher education (I have an undergrad business degree).

But putting Paizo’s potential motivations aside for a moment, I want to talk about an experience I had yesterday. Before I do, I want to mention that while I only appear with one star as a 1E GM, if you click on my profile you’ll see that I’m actually a four star 1E GM, with a bit more than one hundred tables of credit. I’m also a 2 glyph 2E GM, with a table count in the low thirties. (No, I don’t know why my star count is busted. Yes, I’ve emailed customer service as well as posting on the boards s about it; no reply. I’ve given up on fixing it, and what's important to my point is how many tables I've actually run).

I really, really enjoying GMing; far more than I do playing, in fact. I especially like GMing PFS, because:

1. As a retired person, it gets me out of the house.
2. It gives me a chance to meet new people with whom I share a common interest.
3. I get a kick out of showing people a good time. If I walk away from a table I ran and I know everyone had fun, I feel genuinely happy.

So yesterday I ran a table (Lost Maid of Anactoria from season 2) at a FLGS in a neighboring city about 90 minutes from my house. I had a blast, and I think my players did, too (perhaps one of them might even chime in here). I'd like to look at how PFS has changed over the last few years – and how it will be changing again – through the lens of this experience.

First, we had a table made up of characters of levels 4, 5, and 6. The new scenario model simply wouldn’t have supported this table. The other table was folks in 1-2, meaning no matter what, someone would have been turned away under the the new, narrower level bands.

Second consider the stat blocks. I was traveling, and other than the physical bits (GM screen, combat pad, dice, maps, etc.), I brought with me only my 2019 CRB. Had stat blocks not been included in the scenario, I would have to also brought Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2, tripling the amount of hardbacks I had to carry, not to mention find space for at the table (which in a crowded gaming store that was also hosting a Pokemon tournament would have been difficult to say the least). And even if there were space, there is the inconvenience of having to switch between books for the stat blocks in an encounter, or sometimes even having to reference two monsters in the same book at once, which means constantly flipping back and forth. To borrow a phrase from the forward to the AD&D 2e PHB, that would be “physically and intellectually unwieldy.”

Third was the price of the scenario, which in this case was $6. Back in the 1E days, PFS scenarios were $3 (that is to say clearly priced as a loss-leader), so when the local VO wanted me to run something, I’d just buy it without a second thought and I was off and running. Later, after the price was hiked multiple times, ultimately to $9 (which as I have pointed out is terrible value compared to Paizo’s other products; but I digress), I transition to running only scenarios which I already owned, or that the VO was able to provide in hard copy (which I don’t do often, because it very frequently means a separate trip to go and pick up said hard copy if I want sufficient prep time). So in this case, if I hadn’t already owned an appropriate scenario? The table simply doesn't happen.

Taken together, the PFS GMing experience has simply gotten progressively worse over the last few years, and is poised to get worse still. So much worse, in fact, that if I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to conclude that Paizo is actively trying to discourage PFS GMs...a situation which seems genuinely crazy considering that PFS GMs are volunteering to essentially demo Paizo's flagship product line.

The foolish price point and narrowed level bands I can probably work around much of the time (although I don’t really feel I should *have* to), but not including stat blocks will actually be a complete deal killer for me – I will simply stop GMing FPS altogether. And since I prefer GMing to playing, that really means I’ll simply stop participating in PFS altogether. Finally, since I’d no longer be participating in PFS, I’d move on to other systems, which would very likely mean the Pathfinder 2E campaign I’m currently running (Seven Dooms for Sandpoint) would be my last. Kinda a network effect, if you will.

Am I *that* atypical? I’m not sure, though several PFS GMs in other threads have said they will also leave PFS behind if the changes go through as planned, and many others have said they will give leaving serious though. To me, driving off any non-trivial number of volunteers means you that you done f*cked up. YMMV, of course. ;-)

I am not trying to pick a fight with Paizo staff. I am not complaining for fun, or to make myself look clever. I am simply trying to preserve a thing that I enjoy because I believe it is at risk of being mismanaged into oblivion.

bugleyman wrote:

Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost).

This is exactly what I mean about questioning your assumptions, though. To my knowledge, the change to 2-3 hours was because people have been having trouble fitting scenarios in as venues have been closing earlier and earlier—and might I add, has been one of the most welcomed changes. Like I said, for me, don't love it, but it is what it is... And to be fair makes them easier to run because I don't have to block out 5-6 hours of my day.

And removing stat blocks... Is it about saving money, or about reallocating resources? Because in exchange for people not having to format and proofread stat block appendices, we get two scenarios per month. Again, I don't necessarily love the change, because it's going to make things a bit more annoying to prepare and run. But on balance, I can see why the team saw stat block appendices as lower value.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are some big issues (narrower level bands being the main one), but I think you're fundamentally barking up the wrong tree here and it doesn't come
across like you know something Paizo doesn't—quite the opposite, in fact.

Fair enough, but I guess I don't see any difference between "saving money" and "reallocating resources"; those seem like different ways to say the same thing. But perhaps I've just sat in one too many corporate meetings... :-)

For what it's worth, in my opinion you might want to question your assumptions—I don't think the changes are meant to make Org Play scenarios "profitable."

Honestly, assuming they lose money (I don't know that for a fact but I agree with your logic), I don't even think the changes are to make the scenarios lose less money.

Which undercuts the core of your argument.

It doesn't really sound patronizing, it honestly kinda just sounds clueless.

(To be clear, I don't necessarily even like the changes, which is something I have made known. But I think your basic assumptions here are very misplaced.)

Wow; now that is not a reply I was expecting!

Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost). These changes, coupled with the fact that they have NOT dropped the price of scenarios correspondingly, make it hard for me to see said changes as anything other than largely financial.

Do I 100% know that? I do not, but I encourage you to read some of the older blog posts, especially this one about "pricing and sustainability," which is clearly about the bottom line. With respect, as someone all too familiar business-speak, that blog post alone makes it plainly evident that PFS, over the last few years at least, has been managed primarily by spreadsheet -- which is having the effect of drowning it in a bathtub. :-(