Change in the Pathfinder Modules

[Paul Ackerman 70]

Is it too late to jump in with a "I'd like to keep the Alpha/Numerical designators"?

I noticed that they're gone. I believe it was Vic that said Paizo thought they were confusing people.

How did you think people were confused? What evidence led to this? Is this still even open to discussion?

I really like them. It helps when grabbing a module for a one-shot or something similar. I very often grab one of the Pathfinder modules when I have friends over. I ask them what sort of adventure would you like to play in? Giving them a short description of the options and they pick.

Yes, this would still be available. But, having all of them Gamemastery/Pathfinder reading each and every description...

I don't know. I would just like to keep them.

[SirUrza]

I liked them as well. They should have found a way to explain all the labels inside the modules.

Star Wars (for example, on all products) uses different logos for different eras and they manage to index the labels in most products. :)

[Paul Ackerman 70]

I know there was a description on the site and everyone can ask and find out.

I'm just wondering how confused people were. They seemed fairly obvious and the ones that weren't it only took a quick check to find out.

I really want to know if this is up for debate.

[tdewitt274]

I could see that J2 would look like a sequel to J1. Not knowing what "J" is would also be confusing. Just putting "Journey Adventure" would be enough.

[Paul Ackerman 70]

I can see that.

But, a quick read of the description would tell you otherwise. I just don't see the problem being that big of a deal.

That's just me though.

[SirUrza]

The whole letter and number thing goes back to AD&D. Never confused by it.

[Paul Ackerman 70]

Oh I know. I really dig it.. it has the old feel that I love. Never had a problem with those either.

I just wonder if the confusion comes from WotC doing something similar.

[Cpt_kirstov]

Paul Ackerman 70 wrote:

Oh I know. I really dig it.. it has the old feel that I love. Never had a problem with those either.

I just wonder if the confusion comes from WotC doing something similar.

I think that it was some of the meanings that get confusing: When you have a Journey that ends in a dungeon, is it a J module, or a d one?

What constitutes a J mod, do they have to be moving the whole time for it to be considered a journey?

[SirUrza]

Yes they should be, or else it's a D, W, or something else module.

[Davelozzi]

I like them too, but they should definitely go if they are confusing potential customers. Keep in mind that it's one thing for us folks who hang on the boards to ask and get clarification, but a lot of people who are just looking in the stores will probably just not buy it if they aren't clear on whether or not its a sequel. In fact, if I remember correctly this was the same reason TSR got rid of the codes on the modules they published back in the day.

[Vic Wertz]

Basically, the problem is that the letter/number prefixes had a far more prevalent but completely different meaning (that is, identification as part of a series) than we were using (identification of theme). So people were expecting continuity where none existed, and not looking for continuity where it *did* exist. (That's actually the bigger problem here—people were unable to easily find adventures that tied in to one another.)

We'll be using graphic hints to indicate adventures that are tied together, and we'll be including keywords in product descriptions (where appropriate) to indicate theme.

[Gary Teter]

[moved thread to Pathfinder Modules forum]