If those players want to see more post-12th level opportunities, I suggest they get those 12th level PCs through Eyes of the Ten and report their sessions. If we see a huge influx in 12th level play, we will readjust our plans for high-level events based on that. Until more than a handful of people have played the highest level stuff we've offered, we won't be investing resources in catering to even higher-level play.
Absolutely makes sense, and they (we) will do so within the next few weeks/months when we can find time in the calendars to play the 12s).
I really am not trying to be a pain in the rump her (though I am sure some folks think I am). I just don't want this topic to die off without trying to discuss many of the variables that make this possible.
I am interested though, Mark, what do you all consider a "handful" of players?? 200 may not be a lot to you, but is 1000 even enough to tip the balance?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
BTW, Eye of Ten Part IV is now #2 on the Society Top Selling list....(the collectors must have been busy this weekend) :)
Just to add a little context, the top ten lists are based on a relatively short snapshot of time, so newer products almost always tend to dominate the top ranks. It's a good picture of what are popular sellers _right at this moment_, but not a great indicator of sales over a longer period of time.
As such, it is one data point we might look at to determine where to dedicate resources, but longer-term sales numbers, reporting, and general customer feedback are far better benchmarks to help us make our decision.
|
BTW, Eye of Ten Part IV is now #2 on the Society Top Selling list....(the collectors must have been busy this weekend) :)
I'm glad to hear that.
Honestly, when you were pointing out that it was #3, that was indicating a weakness in sales IMO.The best-seller lists are based on recent sales, so the 2 latest scenarios should be #1 and #2.
The really popular scenarios have crossed over onto the main best-sellers list. No lie - I remember when Frozen Fingers passed the 4e PHB on that list.
Edited due to cyclops ninjas
|
I, and no one else that I have seen yet, is saying that _everyone_ wants higher level play options.
What I am saying is that a lot of players do.
More than what is represented in the play numbers for the events or is generally being portrayed on these message boards.
It may be that a lot of players want to see high-level play, however, as Mark has stated the numbers aren't there yet, until they are we're going to have to wait.
Another interesting common theme this weekend was that everyone I talked also said their play records were woefully inadequate. But they as players also did not care. I don't think it is logical to most players that said database would be what so many of the campaign decisions are made from.
Again .. using Mark's post before yours, it may not be what players are basing their desires on, but it is what Paizo is basing their data collection on. Granted we don't have access to that and never will (why would we?) my opinion would be we'll have to go with what they say for the numbers not making a solid case for the company expending their resources on higher level content.
And really, you want to make the argument that the order total is high because people want to add it to their collection? I am not saying that is impossible, but few people are so anal or $$-flush to be giving it away like that. By that logic, it would then also mean that most of the below 12 mods are also being ordered for collecting purposes. I just don't buy that reasoning.BTW, Eye of Ten Part IV is now #2 on the Society Top Selling list....(the collectors must have been busy this weekend) :)
Yes, yes I really do want to make that argument, that is also my opinion of why it is at the top of the best seller list, if I had the funds I would have all the mods when they came out and I would count myself in the realm of those collectors.
|
|
I'm curious to hear from those folks who'd like more high-level play opportunities to speak to what exactly they would like to see us do?
We've got the Eyes of the Ten series, which based on play reporting and sales, seems like it came out too early and a lot of people are still waiting to play it, even though they have characters who qualify. I must confess that this puzzles and frustrates me (mostly as the narcissistic author of the first one, but also as publisher). It seems to me that, despite our best intentions, the Eyes of the Ten series does not appropriately speak to the desire of the folks clamoring for high-level play.
We've also sanctioned high-level Pathfinder Modules for Society play, specifically Tomb of the Iron Medusa (level 14) and (very soon) Academy of Secrets (level 13). I'm guessing that the nature of module play in the Society means that these efforts don't appropriately scratch the high-level itch, either.
So from my perspective, both efforts we have made to improve high-level play opportunities for the campaign have been failures, partial failures, or are too early to tell.
If these options are not sufficient, what would be?
Adding high-level tiers to all adventures?
Adding more high-level adventures at the expense of low- or medium-tier events?
Special high-level scenarios at Gen Con? (High-level "megadeath" events, etc.?)
What is it, exactly, that would satisfy your desire for more high-level PFS play?
Personally, I've not had a chance to play the lvl 12 mods as I'm one of the few in my area that has 1 lvl 12; let alone the fact that I'm going to retire my 2nd lvl 12 at Gencon. That being said, there are plans for a group of us to play the start of it at Ucon in November and then finish it at Gamicon in Febuary.
My personal preference is that I like to be able to try out different character concepts and so having the level cap where it is works for me, with the caveat of there possibly being special scenarios for lvl 12 characters to come out of retirement for .. perhaps with the battle interactive have a lvl 12 table that those of us that want to can break out our favorite characters for.
I'm not sure if adding high level tiers to all the mods would be worth the effort .. once we've played them we cannot go back and replay them, or would there be a special dispensation made for lvl 12s?
|
Another interesting common theme this weekend was that everyone I talked also said their play records were woefully inadequate. But they as players also did not care. I don't think it is logical to most players that said database would be what so many of the campaign decisions are made from.
Well Mark Moreland just told you what would need to happen for them to offer more 12th level play and to even consider higher level play.
If the players aren't willing to report their play (or they don't care) then they don't really want high level play.
What else are they supposed to use to base their decisions on?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If the players aren't willing to report their play (or they don't care) then they don't really want high level play.
As a player, rather than a GM, I didn't know it was my responsibility to report sessions. As a player, I'm not even sure I understand how to do so.
What else are they supposed to use to base their decisions on?
Well, they could take a look at the sales figures.
The could also pay attention to the reported results on Tier 7-11 scenarios. If those have grown to be proportional to the lower-tier scenarios, then that suggests that there's healthy upper-tier play.
They might also base them on the number of polite requests, such as those in this thread.
Speaking for myself:
I don't have a PC ready to play Eyes of the Ten, but I could have, had I chosen to apply module-credit to my 9th-level summoner. I've been in no hurry because I've been waiting for the series to come out in its entirety.
I suspect that its popularity, light as it is, will wane once GenCon comes and the year of the Shadow Lodge comes to a close. I don't imagine its plotline would make any sense at all after the threat of the Shadow Lodge is no more.
|
In the Denver area it looks good that we will be running the 12th lvl arc in October/November. One of our local GM's is going to play through it at GenCon and then there is our local Con (TactiCon, come and play with us) over Labor Day weekend. Most of the players that would have characters of retirement level will be busy GM'ing the Con. So for us it seems to be a logistics issue more than not wanting to play with our retired characters.
|
|
Just to add an anecdote:
The group that I've been playing in here in Atlanta has been waiting until the final Eyes of the Ten module was released to play all four. This last weekend we played through all four of the scenarios and it should already be reported. I hope to see more epic Tier 12 scenarios in the future after playing through Eyes of the Ten!
We've got the Eyes of the Ten series, which based on play reporting and sales, seems like it came out too early and a lot of people are still waiting to play it, even though they have characters who qualify. I must confess that this puzzles and frustrates me (mostly as the narcissistic author of the first one, but also as publisher). It seems to me that, despite our best intentions, the Eyes of the Ten series does not appropriately speak to the desire of the folks clamoring for high-level play.
Speaking for the few tables of players I know and play with, its mostly been a scheduling issue, and waiting for the whole arc to become available. Plus we got additional people involved in playing since the first table started playing, so its also about getting some folks up to 12.
Now that all 4 scenarios are available I expect we'll play them either before GenCon or before the end of Sept. We just have to figure out which group of PCs we want to play :)
If these options are not sufficient, what would be?
Adding high-level tiers to all adventures?
Adding more high-level adventures at the expense of low- or medium-tier events?
Special high-level scenarios at Gen Con? (High-level "megadeath" events, etc.?)
I'd love to see a wider variance of playable levels for each scenario, not necessarily all past levels 11-12, though some could easy be made so. I find it can be quite tricky to plan out playing everything as is now, with the 1-5, 1-7, 5-9 and 7-11 structures and varying release dates, though the releases seems to be more organized the past 6+ months as events have been released on/before published dates. With as easy it is to advance NPCs and even monsters, the same badguys can be "built up" to challenge any party.
Where does the time come from? Hard to say as I don't know what the staff work loads and time requirements for each adventure are, but based on what has been produced thus far:
...(28 scenarios Year 0, 28 scenarios Year 1, 28 scenarios Year 2, plus some specials and published adventures)...
I think looking at something like 2 mods for level 1-12 play each month, then adding in a 12+ every other month is not un-doable.
I'd LOVE to see special events (Battle INteractives, MegaDeath adventures, etc.) at PaizoCon, Origins, GenCon (and whatever cons can suport them).
But in general terms, I'd like to see similar to what Eyes of Ten is (from what I hear), but with its story more built off the general campaign stories/plots and have it very focused around some new central issue (of some previously unknown item power/aspect/threat uncovered by the Pathfinders).
What is it, exactly, that would satisfy your desire for more high-level PFS play?
Here's a rough draft of my large-picture notions/desires:
I think this is a two-tiered issue and is not just about high level play, but it certainly builds into it.
And my concern about the limited level 12 play options is that in spite of have all four scenario parts out now, a group can resolve those in one weekend of play. Then they have about nothing to play, since there seems to be no plan to do more at this time.
Most of my personal dis-satisfaction to the Society scenarios thus far has been the general lack of any really interesting over-riding stories. Certainly the Shadow Lodge story is the first stab at making a larger story and that has made improvements in scenario quality.
But the vast majority of adventures thus far still amount to "Go find these items" (for the Society and/or a Faction) or "go stop random Shadow Lodgers XYZ". And that is not meant as any "rip" on the authors of the scenarios who have written fine things, its more about the larger view. The Shadow Lodge story is not nearly as interesting as that of the Rise of the Runelords. And that is where I think the Society mods should be!
So other than geographic/location variety on Golarion, there is not a lot of variance adventure to adventure. And to end a character at level 12, and being able to get there very quickly, is not very rewarding. As someone succinctly stated previously, part of the interest in playing an organized play campaign (for me) is about the quality of the journey, not just the quantity/hours of play time. And to me, being involved with more than monster of the week adventure is what is improves campaign quality. I think (hope) most players would agree with that.
Tier 1
Scenarios for levels 1-12
I think the campaign should have larger and more involved story plots, 1 or 2 years in length. I'd like to see the plots of these be more like the Adventure Paths where the PCs get involved in a larger issue that has a beginning and an end.
Players would make a character for each arc and play them from start to finish, from level 1 to 12. At the end, if/when they reached level 12, most characters would probably be ready to "retire" from general Society activities and move into other areas of their lives (administration of the Society as Venture-Captains, family, religious callings, etc.).
Not every scenario would need to be plot-centric (though the over-riding issue could affect them) so it'd be entirely cool to have some one-off adventures.
Then, the PCs that did the whole series would be ready for the level 12+ story arc. Players had no interest in playing past 12 could retire their character once they hit whatever level they were happy with.
Tier 2
Scenarios for level 12+
The PCs that finished the previous 1-12 arc could then (if they wanted) get involved with a more specialized/focused plot, maybe some forays into especially dangerous or isolated parts of the world/planes the Society would not send its "regular" Pathfinders. All of these events would be plot-related.
As someone mentioned previously, these PCs would be more of a Seal Team Six group, characters that may wield more martial/magical power but not the organization/faction/information power of the Venture Captains or other powerful NPCs.
This arc would also have a beginning and end though it'd of course not need nearly as many scenarios each year (6 would be great).
The end of these story arc scenarios would be "retirement" for this character except for any unique/original events like PaizoCon/GenCon specials or published modules (like Iron Medusa) that Paizo would decide to do.
Now the key to all this is timing, so when regular campaign story arc #1 begins, that is what would be available. As the story arc #1 ends, the story arc #2 begins, as does the 12+ story arc #1. As story arc #2 arc ends, so does the 12+ story arc #1. So things would stagger on a continual basis.
Players interested in playing "everything" would likely have two "active" characters, one for the regular story, one for 12+. People with no interest in playing past 12 can have as many active characters as they want (same as now).
I know this whole idea isn't perfect, but its a rough idea of what I think would work well, especially for something like Paizo that has proven it can produce scenarios on a set schedule (an essential aspect).
If the players aren't willing to report their play (or they don't care) then they don't really want high level play.
What else are they supposed to use to base their decisions on?
I think this is an inaccurate and unfair assumption to make.
I would believe that most people (certainly the ones I play with) have other things in life to pay attention to, they aren't really interested in doing an audit of their playing history.
Additionally, the system has some flaws,s ince it is relying on DMs and Con coordinators to enter all this. It can be a lot of work, things can get lost, etc. Its not realistic to assume everything in a person's play history is accurate, their own fault or not.
Event reporting was a dismal failure in most every organized play campaign I've ever seen. I am not saying that Paizo should not try to do it, but it should be taken with a grain of salt, an inaccurate data set will produce inaccurate results. It should not be the only/major factor determining what is produced. I'd think raw sales numbers would be far more important to them, since the argument of what sells is what is produced.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But the vast majority of adventures thus far still amount to "Go find these items" (for the Society and/or a Faction) or "go stop random Shadow Lodgers XYZ". And that is not meant as any "rip" on the authors of the scenarios who have written fine things, its more about the larger view. The Shadow Lodge story is not nearly as interesting as that of the Rise of the Runelords. And that is where I think the Society mods should be!
I got to join a group playing the last couple of years of Living Arcanis modules, and that was the best aspect of that gaming campaign. There were all sorts of world-changing and deepening adventures. Secrets of the gods were revealed. Great political changes happened. Mysterious realms were opened for exploration. I remember several sessions where we were all trooping along when someone noticed an NPC's last name, or a sigil on a weapon hilt, or some such, and everyone was excited about the ramifications.
(Well, everybody else. I was kind of clueless about a lot of the revelations, not having been around for the mystery set-up.)
The Pathfinder team, and James Jacobs in particular, has indicated that Golarion is much more stable than that. Taldor and Qadira are sabre-rattling, but will never go to war. The Runelords will never exert any impact on the world. No new gods will ascend. There will not be a Time of Troubles, or a Greyhawk Wars kind of event.
Of course, as Erik says, never say never. It'll never happen, till it happens. But the campaign world is much more stable than that, and the Guide to the Inner Sea still has too much of that new book smell to invalidate.
To that end, it might be nice if there were some way for Pathfinder Society to carve off some area of Golarion and be allowed to monkey around with it. Someplace that the Guide to the Inner Sea doesn't detail, so it can't be made obsolete.
But that plays against the strength of PFS, in terms of introducing players to Golarion through organized play. I don't think anybody at Paizo wants the world of PFS and the world of all the gazeteers and adventure paths to be separate.
|
|
I'm curious to hear from those folks who'd like more high-level play opportunities to speak to what exactly they would like to see us do?
To be up front about my play, I play a lot; likely more than most. I have a 12th, an 11th (who I could have retired, but I was waiting to play one last adventure with some friends), a 5th, and a 2nd. My play is woefully under reported by the conventions and gamedays I have attended. I have slightly more experience running OP campaigns than FrozenTundra and roughly on the order of Erik. I have a vested interest in playing PSS as I am not allowed to get a high level fix by playing LFR (as I manage that campaign, and have been an admin in one form or another on three other major OP campaigns). I have written more than 100 adventures for OP campaigns, and some day hope to write one as good as Erik's As He Lay Dying for LG. That's the perspective I am coming from when I answer these questions.
If these options are not sufficient, what would be?
I think that the Eyes of Ten adventures were a good start and I enjoyed both playing and running them at two different conventions and a home game. Each time I ran them, players asked me when/if the players would be able to advance their PCs to level 13 or beyond. This leaves me to believe that there is an under reported mass of players who would be interested in some high level play.
Adding high-level tiers to all adventures?
I think this would be a poor choice. We all know that scaling an adventure across many levels causes not only some of the combats to break down, but also causes the story to suffer (aka the little old lady who has both dire rats and ancient red dragons menacing her garden). High level play requires extra attention when writing and paying it, and I wouldn't want it to pull attention away from the good adventures PSS is already trying to put out (and I applaud the increasing story, but dislike the number of fights we've had against a single leveled humanoid who is instantly defeated by one failed save, but that is an arguement for another time).
Adding more high-level adventures at the expense of low- or medium-tier events?
All OP campaigns have to balance this so based on experience I don't think we should have large numbers of high level adventures (As examples, LFR does 3 per year and LG allowed each region 1 per year). There just are more low level players, so you need more low level adventures. That said, I don't think three a year is too much to ask. They may have to be classified as two round adventures simply because high level adventures may take longer to play (combats take longer and established PCs are more emmersed in the story and RP more), but that shouldn't mean we don't have them.
Special high-level scenarios at Gen Con? (High-level "megadeath" events, etc.?)
I would love this. The stories these have created from LC, LD, LG, LA, HoR and other campaigns are the stuff of legend and Erik was there for many of them. ("Six men enter, no men leave!") I think maybe having one of the adventures at PaizoCon and replayed at Gen Con (and therefore perhaps one less "regular" high level adventure), you would get a lot more people to come and play there. I for one don't play much PSS at the big cons as I know I can always pick them up at the local cons, so my time is filled with rarer games and sadly lots of meetings and seminars. A "Temple of Elemental Evil" style event would draw a lot more players and judges to PSS.
What is it, exactly, that would satisfy your desire for more high-level PFS play?
I would like to see three to four of these high level (maybe level 11-14) adventures a year, with perhaps one of them being a convention special (which is released for home play later on). I am interested both in tougher combats and for more detailed role-playing and story. I love the wheels within wheels types of complicated plots. I once had a good late night discussion with Bulmahn before he moved west about what level of quality you should write and adventure for, and I refuse to believe it does our hobby any good to write the simpliest, generic adventures. Sure everyone can play them, but after awhile they don't come back. Please continue to increase the quality of PSS events (I hope to see them reach the quality of the Adventure Path adventures which are excellent), and don't forget there are lots of us who haven't been reported but have high level PCs and would love to still play them.
|
Where does the time come from? Hard to say as I don't know what the staff work loads and time requirements for each adventure are, but based on what has been produced thus far:
...(28 scenarios Year 0, 28 scenarios Year 1, 28 scenarios Year 2, plus some specials and published adventures)...
I think looking at something like 2 mods for level 1-12 play each month, then adding in a 12+ every other month is not un-doable.
Statements like this make me think that there is little understanding to the amount of effort that goes into producing Pathfinder society scenarios, and the amount of effort required to produce even a 20 page module. Adding an additional 20%-25% to the module load Paizo has to produce for PFS every year (which is roughly what 6 modules would represent) involves art costs, freelancer costs, and technology costs, not to mention Mark's time. Two modules every month plus special events AND developing the metastory, AND working on his other commitments is a real amount of effort for Mark. Paizo already struggles around the summer months when the back-to-back conventions eat away most of their time. In the case of your request, I would not be surprised that you're talking about another 15%-20% to the marketing budget before factoring in that they would likely need to hire another in-house developer to help out in what could be considered a 100% overhead position. Quite simply, I don't see how it's not feasible with their current staff and until they begin to see some real objective evidence to interest (and no, a thread on the boards is not sufficient objective-based evidence). I think it's going to take a lot more time to implement than anybody who is clamoring for high level play really understands. Might it happen some day? Absolutely possible and I hope PFS is popular enough that an option presents itself. Is it going to happen in the short-term? I'd bank on Erik becoming king before that happend. How about the mid-term? That's something I'd like to see but again, from my perspective viewing it financially, I can't really see. Long-term? One can hope, but by long term, one has to realize you're talking about the "more than a year" category.
I know there are a number of players who can't wait for this. I also know that my local area doesn't even have more than a handful of 8's, let alone enough level 12's to indicate that high-level play is ready for the mainstream. History has already proven that low-level play is absolutely vital for the long-term viability of PFS and that one low-level module is required every month. This was also near disastrous about 9 months ago when Paizo had to completely revamp their release schedule to bring out low level modules. Until a base can be founded which allows for players to really appreciate and play low-level games, I struggle to understand why people are pushing so hard because it just isn't going to happen.
Letting Paizo know you're interested? Good. Pushing on and on about it and specifics of what they should do? Your time is probably better spent at this point.
|
|
I have written more than 100 adventures for OP campaigns, and some day hope to write one as good as Erik's As He Lay Dying for LG.
As a side-note, my pdf copy of Erik's COR2-01 As He Lay Dying is 45 pages long, including the Adventure Record. My favorite of Skerrit's Highfolk modules, HIG4-06 All the Empty Places of the World, is 58 pages long. My favorite Living Greyhawk experience altogether, GEO5-03 The Weight of Words, is 65 pages long.
Most of my personal dis-satisfaction to the Society scenarios thus far has been the general lack of any really interesting over-riding stories. Certainly the Shadow Lodge story is the first stab at making a larger story and that has made improvements in scenario quality.
But the vast majority of adventures thus far still amount to "Go find these items" (for the Society and/or a Faction) or "go stop random Shadow Lodgers XYZ". And that is not meant as any "rip" on the authors of the scenarios who have written fine things, its more about the larger view. The Shadow Lodge story is not nearly as interesting as that of the Rise of the Runelords. And that is where I think the Society mods should be!
My point being, PFS really needs to up the page count of their modules. A twenty-page mod is not sufficient to deliver stories and plotlines of consistently-high quality.
And it's not just story which suffers from a low pagecount; combats suffer as well. When statblocks have to be recycled within a module due to lack of space... that's not enough space. When the final combat Tier 10-11 section of a certain 7-11 module I played last Sunday is, literally, the 7-8 combat along with six recycled mooks with +5 to hit, there is a space problem. And if 20 pages is not enough for a solid 7-11 module, it's definitely not going to be enough for a solid Tier 12+ module.
Fortunately, we are seeing some improvement in this regard. Murder on the Throaty Mermaid, for example, is 31 pages long. I had a memorable experience running that one, as opposed to the entirely-forgettable combat-filled slugfest that was the 20-page The Devil We Know II: Cassomir's Locker, or the module that left me so disappointed in PFS that I did not actively participate until around summer of last year, the scenario that left me so deflated that I only played PFS when I really had nothing better to do than spend a Sunday morning with the Online Collective, the 21-page Among the Living.
In addition, the decision to migrate over to Tier 1-only modules, as well as dropping Tier 1-7 in favor of Tier 3-7, are both applaudable moves. It's very nice to see that the quality of the PFS experience is improving; I know that some of us may sound like we have nothing but trash-talk to throw at PFS modules, but yet we're still here. Some of us have just been around long enough to have experienced organized-play campaigns execute high-quality plotlines with immersive, story-driven scenarios. We have seen the promised land, and we don't want to selfishly keep those wonderful experiences all to ourselves.
Anyways, before delving into high-level play, let's focus on developing the quality of the 7-11 experience first. Upping the page count is a good start.
-Matt
|
|
Matt,I agree that another increase in wordcount would be really nice (the scenarios went up by 20% from Season 0 to 1). An increased word count would add the flexibility needed for higher level scenarios, as well as covering more eventualities and different statblocks between sub-tiers.
However, I don't see how a 50% increase (20 pages to 30) could be sustainable under the current PFS structure.
I expect something like that would require another developer dedicated to scenarios. I also think that the pdf price would increase substantially, to cover both writing and development. A 50% increase in wordcount likely results a greater than 50% increase in production cost.
Even then, I expect we would have more missed deadlines - those cases where a writer drops the ball and someone has to step in last minute to finish a scenario.
I agree with the concept, I just don't think it can happen in the near future. Or cheaply.
|
|
Matt,I agree that another increase in wordcount would be really nice . . . other good stuff . . .
I agree with the concept, I just don't think it can happen in the near future. Or cheaply.
Is it word count or page count? Maybe just a change to what is counted as part of the page count, maybe include player handouts, but don't include maps. That would help out by allowing the GM to receive better maps because their size didn't count against the total page count of the mod and would allow some more text to fill out the story or stat blocks?
|
|
As someone who was a primary author and stat creator for an organized play campaign that went to level 20, I personally thought the most enjoyable levels were levels were after level 7. Every mod I wrote always went to the current level cap and there was never a shortage of players wanting to play there.
I personally did not find it to be difficult to challenge PCs at high levels, though my favorite mods involved little combat at all.
Nor was 4 hour play in a high level mod that difficult. Keeping time isn't as much about the level of the players but the judge running them. Judges that are not comfortable with high level play will drag an encounter far beyond it's intended length.
This issue feeds itself. Lack of opportunities to judge high level play means that judges will not be able to handle high level play when the opportunities happen. This only further reinforces the false assumption that high level play takes too long to run.
Ultimately my experience as a campaign admin is that people most people just want to continue a character's story. Each unique character creates a unique experience. Artificial level caps breed discontent amongst your player base. People who have invested the time it takes to get a PC to high level play represent some of your most loyal and dedicated customers. Keeping them engaged in the product will only benefit Paizo long term.
Here is what I personally would like to see:
#1. High level play opportunities once every 3 months. Wether they give gold and xp or not would be secondary to the chance to play the character that on average you have played for around 18 months. I haven't looked at my 12th level PC this year. When that one play opportunity in a year comes around, it will take me some time to even get back to feeling the character. This eliminates that concern.
#2. A high level track at any interactive where it would be story appropriate. For instance, a gathering of all the members of the Pathfinder Society shouldn't have a level limit at the door.
If you truly believe that high level play requires more investment from Paizo, then simply increase the cost of the product. If the concern is that a mod will run too long, then make it two rounds even if it only has one round worth of encounters. Paizo has the advantage of coming after many past campaigns and can tap a vast amount of knowledge to overcome problems that many other campaigns have already had.
You could certainly find volunteers who would want to see high level play succeed and flourish. This would minimize your risk in the venture.
|
|
Unfortunately, I believe that maps/artwork are even more expensive than text.
If cost is an issue, then either:
A: Find volunteers. I was never paid for my position. I did it because I loved the campaign.
B: Raise the cost of the product and if the demand is there, it will support the cost. This can be accomplished in the same manner as addressing the time concerns. Make high level play two rounds in time and in cost. Problem solved.
There are no challenges that can not be overcome with some creativity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, Chris, what you quoted was my response to Todd, where I was trying to say why adding maps would not be cheaper than adding text.
As far as your comments, you are correct that creativity will give us solutions to any problem. But honestly, in this case the solution doesn't require that much thought:
Run and Report games.
If you want high-level play, Run and Report high-level games.
If you want games beyond 12th level, Run and Report Eyes of the Ten and high level modules.
The reporting system is the only objective measurable feedback Paizo actually has to what is happening with Society play. If they see a spike in general play, they will allocate more resources to putting out more (or longer) scenarios. If they see a surge in high-level play, they will adjust the release schedule to meet that need. If they see a spike in post-11th level play, they will take requests to expand the allowable levels in PFS more seriously.
If you don't feel you can rely on your GM to report the sessions, become the event co-ordinator yourself.
Can you be sure that every session is being reported, and that the picture is 100% accurate? Of course not.
But you can try to make it as accurate as possible.
|
Is it word count or page count? Maybe just a change to what is counted as part of the page count, maybe include player handouts, but don't include maps. That would help out by allowing the GM to receive better maps because their size didn't count against the total page count of the mod and would allow some more text to fill out the story or stat blocks?Matt,I agree that another increase in wordcount would be really nice . . . other good stuff . . .
I agree with the concept, I just don't think it can happen in the near future. Or cheaply.
I believe that would just increase the cost of producing the scenario in two ways. To my knowledge the writers are paid by the word for their work and artists are paid based on the size and complexity of a map. So the increased amount of text and higher quality of the map would both have increased costs.
|
|
Run and Report games.
If you want high-level play, Run and Report high-level games.
If you want games beyond 12th level, Run and Report Eyes of the Ten and high level modules.The reporting system is the only objective measurable feedback Paizo actually has to what is happening with Society play. If they see a spike in general play, they will allocate more resources to putting out more (or longer) scenarios. If they see a surge in high-level play, they will adjust the release schedule to meet that need. If they see a spike in post-11th level play, they will take requests to expand the allowable levels in PFS more seriously.
If you don't feel you can rely on your GM to report the sessions, become the event co-ordinator yourself.
Can you be sure that every session is being reported, and that the picture is 100% accurate? Of course not.
But you can try to make it as accurate as possible.
+1 Quadrillion.
The only piece of objective evidence Paizo has to go off of is reported events. Everything that is said here is tempered by the fact that none of us, with the exception of Paizo, really has a high-level view of the distribution of modules played. Requests can be made until you're blue in the face, but until the numbers say otherwise, I really doubt Paizo will take action based on the comments in a thread. If you want to have high level play, get the players in your area together, get a number of players into the 10-11 range, and when you can get them to play Eyes of the Ten.
I got to join a group playing the last couple of years of Living Arcanis modules, and that was the best aspect of that gaming campaign. There were all sorts of world-changing and deepening adventures. Secrets of the gods were revealed. Great political changes happened. Mysterious realms were opened for exploration.
The Pathfinder team, and James Jacobs in particular, has indicated that Golarion is much more stable than that. Taldor and Qadira are sabre-rattling, but will never go to war. The Runelords will never exert any impact on the world. No new gods will ascend. There will not be a Time of Troubles, or a Greyhawk Wars kind of event.
Of course, as Erik says, never say never. It'll never happen, till it happens. But the campaign world is much more stable than that, and the Guide to the Inner Sea still has too much of that new book smell to invalidate.
I don't think it is necessary to have Pathfinder have events that were as earth-shaking as what Arcanis did, in fact, I think that would be a bad idea for them. Clearly Golarion is a different world than any other, and should be treated as such.
That said, there is a spot between world-impacting revelations and random treasure hunts and/or isolated adventures.
And that is where I think the Society would be at its best.
Statements like this make me think that there is little understanding to the amount of effort that goes into producing Pathfinder society scenarios, and the amount of effort required to produce even a 20 page module.
Well you would be wrong. I know pretty well what it takes to write, edit and produce a scenario for an org. play campaign. I wrote more than a dozen for LC and LG campaigns. I edited and play tested dozens more.
Adding an additional 20%-25% to the module load Paizo has to produce for PFS every year (which is roughly what 6 modules would represent) involves art costs, freelancer costs, and technology costs, not to mention Mark's time. Two modules every month plus special events AND developing the metastory, AND working on his other commitments is a real amount of effort for Mark. Paizo already struggles around the summer months when the back-to-back conventions eat away most of their time. In the case of your request, I would not be surprised that you're talking about another 15%-20% to the marketing budget before factoring in that they would likely need to hire another in-house developer to help out in what could be considered a 100% overhead position. Quite simply, I don't see how it's not feasible with their current staff and until they begin to see some real objective evidence to interest (and no, a thread on the boards is not sufficient objective-based evidence).
I do not think you'd need to add much of anything under, say, the rough model I posted yesterday (and again, that was just a first-crack at a general idea I think could work, obviously there would need to be some massaging).
28 scenarios a year is more than most players play during the 12 months of a campaign Season, right? That is a pretty clear message that everyone saying they have no or very few characters over 9th level are saying (intentionally or not). As of now 26 of the 28 (Seasons 1 and 2 each had 2 scenarios) are for levels under 12. If the majority of players aren't playing everything, why not "steal" a couple more and make them available for those that are playing everything? 24 scenarios for everyone to play, 4 for those with level 12+. This would leave enough events for the more casual player to enjoy, and a few more play opportunities for those wanting to dust off some old characters. I don't think that's any ridiculous ratio, and is producing the same amount of material as now. Which is pretty much a 0% increase in any budget.
I know there are a number of players who can't wait for this. I also know that my local area doesn't even have more than a handful of 8's, let alone enough level 12's to indicate that high-level play is ready for the mainstream.
Ryan, you may want to learn a bit more about the players in your local area. Most of the people I am taling about and play with are IN the Mpls area, or a few hours drive. Just because they do not come to your game days doesn't mean they are not around.
History has already proven that low-level play is absolutely vital for the long-term viability of PFS and that one low-level module is required every month. This was also near disastrous about 9 months ago when Paizo had to completely revamp their release schedule to bring out low level modules. Until a base can be founded which allows for players to really appreciate and play low-level games, I struggle to understand why people are pushing so hard because it just isn't going to happen.
And my point is about planning for the future once those (previously new) players have been around for a while, you need to offer them other play opportunities, offer them new and unique things to keep them interested. And I firmly believe that, even if its "only" 25% of the player base, that interest is in playing events past the level 12 cap.
|
|
Can you be sure that every session is being reported, and that the picture is 100% accurate? Of course not.
But you can try to make it as accurate as possible.
What would the best mechanism be for this? I see only two adventures reported of all of the PSS I've played and I have a 12th-level and several other PCs, including an 11th. If we can't rely on the various conventions we attend to report the games we play, would you suggest that individual players contact the camapign with a complete list of their play history? That seems like the only solution to your reporting problems if you are using reported games as your sole measure of high level play demand.
Just tell me where you want these play histories sent and I will get the word out in our local area (where there are roughly a dozen players with 1-2 12th level PCs).
As a side-note, my pdf copy of Erik's COR2-01 As He Lay Dying is 45 pages long, including the Adventure Record. My favorite of Skerrit's Highfolk modules, HIG4-06 All the Empty Places of the World, is 58 pages long. My favorite Living Greyhawk experience altogether, GEO5-03 The Weight of Words, is 65 pages long.
My point being, PFS really needs to up the page count of their modules. A twenty-page mod is not sufficient to deliver stories and plotlines of consistently-high quality.
Fortunately, we are seeing some improvement in this regard. Murder on the Throaty Mermaid, for example, is 31 pages long. I had a memorable experience running...
Amen. I definitely think the scenario length limit is a quality-limiting factor.
Now I understand that page count and word count have real/potential $ implications for the business end of scenario production but it would be my strongest argument that producing quality is far more important than quantity.
The reporting system is the only objective measurable feedback Paizo actually has to what is happening with Society play.
The only piece of objective evidence Paizo has to go off of is reported events. Everything that is said here is tempered by the fact that none of us, with the exception of Paizo, really has a high-level view of the distribution of modules played.
I would argue that the most important and decision-driving measurable Paizo has is sales figures.
Numerous people have said that they are in this business to make money, so no factor should weigh heavier than sales.
Additionally, as experienced as many of the Paizo folks are they have to know/understand how amazingly incomplete the play records have to be. You're just never going to get an even reasonably accurate set of responses, people just don't value giving a company feedback as much as a company wants it, that is why most companies are trying to find give away product to get good customer feedback.
Ultimately my experience as a campaign admin is that people most people just want to continue a character's story. Each unique character creates a unique experience. Artificial level caps breed discontent amongst your player base. People who have invested the time it takes to get a PC to high level play represent some of your most loyal and dedicated customers. Keeping them engaged in the product will only benefit Paizo long term.
Excellent, Chris, thanks for putting this into words in an appropriate manner!
|
|
Ryan, you may want to learn a bit more about the players in your local area. Most of the people I am taling about and play with are IN the Mpls area, or a few hours drive. Just because they do not come to your game days doesn't mean they are not around.
Then have them contact me. This interaction is a two-way street. I try to make game days known, post and recruit on a lot of the common locations, and show up at other games in the area that I know are happening or send a proxy. I can't reach out to people that don't reach back. If your players really want this, then have them get involved in their local game days, heck, just have them e-mail me, my address is in my profile. I may not like high level play, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to push for what my players want. Up to now, my players aren't even at the point that it's an issue - if your friends want this brought to the forefront I can relay that information. Believe it or not, the VCs do have Paizo's ear and any of us will relay information as we hear it - I'm not hearing it though from the people I talk to and thus I don't have it to report, in fact I have quite the opposite at this point.
|
|
I see only two adventures reported of all of the PSS I've played and I have a 12th-level and several other PCs, including an 11th. If we can't rely on the various conventions we attend to report the games we play, would you suggest that individual players contact the camapign with a complete list of their play history?
I find it very odd that you've only gotten two adventures reported out of everything that you've played. I would be bugging the coordinator of those events to be reporting. I've missed out on maybe 2 reported sessions, and this is with about 125 sessions (DM or Player) in total.
Having an individual reporting tool would be nice, but there's no good way to link up different individuals with a singular game unless there's a coordinator doing it. Their job as coordinators is to report, so they should be doing it. And I'd personally be emailing/bugging them to get it reported ASAP. I know I've done that for one or two of the cons that I've gone to where it took a while to get reported.
|
I disagree as it is actually the DM who controls the adventure; sometimes the DM lets the players control it depending on the players tactics and after playing many types of campaigns (LC, LG, Arcanis, Blackmoor) it is possible to create an adventure of high level thats falls within the alloted timeframe.
(1) Time: High level play slows things down significantly and this is more and more of an issue as things progress. It's therefore more difficult to create scenarios when time is a factor.
2) Options: As players progress they get more ways of dealing with things and are able to bypass encounters completely in some cases. The more options the players have the more difficult it is to present a challenging encounter.
This brings validation to the fact that high level play can quickly end an encounter in some situations thereby still making the scenario finish earlier.
3) IC reasons: In Golarion 11th level+ characters are seen as powerful, well known heroes. As such they would not be field agents but would become Venture Captains in their own right. The Pathfinder Society does not send out a bunch of Venture Captains together and it's illogical to have 16th level characters doing grunt work.
As mentioned previously; there are so many options open to high level play which involve planar travel, Darkland empire issues, powerful giant incursions,demonic or devilish threats, even diplomatic missions to convince powerful rulers from invasion(for those players that prefer non-combat), Undead cult uprisings, Unique monsters(Tarrasque) decimating a countryside, Demi-god threats, etc..., etc... I could go on for ideas, but the potential is there; grunt work is for farmers not for powerful heroes that would be required for such an undertaking.
Some have mentioned that it is difficult to get a flat CR for challenging high level players, but I disagree in some points, not all
scenarios would be difficult to create a challenging scenario for high level. I think the BIGGEST mis-use is not using the other 75% of the bestiary for challenging the players; many times the more common creatures are used goblins, orcs, etc..etc..
I'm sure there are many low CR creatures that can provide a good story threat to challenge the players and also make them think "WOW, I didn't expect this where are the orcs?" the more different kind of creatures used, the more of a fresh perpective the scenario will have as it will have even experienced players feel like I have never fought this before how refreshing!!!
The same I think holds true to high level play as there are so many high CR challenge monsters that are never used that will make players of that caliber say "I never thought I would ever fight this, this is FUN!!!!"
|
|
I would argue that the most important and decision-driving measurable Paizo has is sales figures.
Numerous people have said that they are in this business to make money, so no factor should weigh heavier than sales.
And it would be. If the only people buying the mods were people playing PFS. There's a lot of non-PFS players that purchase the mods as home game filler or for other various reasons that have nothing to do with PFS. These people skew those numbers (probably to the higher end, to be honest).
The only true test is reporting, which has been woefully inadequate, but still more than enough to keep the campaign going.
Ryan, you may want to learn a bit more about the players in your local area. Most of the people I am taling about and play with are IN the Mpls area, or a few hours drive. Just because they do not come to your game days doesn't mean they are not around.Then have them contact me. This interaction is a two-way street. I try to make game days known, post and recruit on a lot of the common locations, and show up at other games in the area that I know are happening or send a proxy. I can't reach out to people that don't reach back. If your players really want this, then have them get involved in their local game days, heck, just have them e-mail me, my address is in my profile. I may not like high level play, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to push for what my players want. Up to now, my players aren't even at the point that it's an issue - if your friends want this brought to the forefront I can relay that information. Believe it or not, the VCs do have Paizo's ear and any of us will relay information as we hear it - I'm not hearing it though from the people I talk to and thus I don't have it to report, in fact I have quite the opposite at this point.
Ryan, I am not saying you do not do a great job running events, so hope you did not take it that way. I have noticed your numerous posts about games in Mpls the past year or more, so good job!
But until I checked your profile this morning I did not even know you were the VC for Mpls.
(I did not think there was one yet as of Jan/Feb of this year.)
I will say that not everyone wants or needs a VC to help them get at a table for games. For many of us, a week night or other game store event may not work with our life's schedules. "My" group plays at one of our houses over the course of some weekend, then we travel to a few regional/national conventions each year (mostly to play with other friends from around the country).
But lack of attendance at local events does not mean lack of playing. So making blanket statements about all players in one area is not automatically accurate just because it comes from a VC.
If one of the VCs jobs/responsibilities is to report back to Paizo about activities in their area AND it is going to have an influential role in product production, well then that is valuable information more players need to know.
I would argue that the most important and decision-driving measurable Paizo has is sales figures.
Numerous people have said that they are in this business to make money, so no factor should weigh heavier than sales.
And it would be. If the only people buying the mods were people playing PFS. There's a lot of non-PFS players that purchase the mods as home game filler or for other various reasons that have nothing to do with PFS. These people skew those numbers (probably to the higher end, to be honest).
The only true test is reporting, which has been woefully inadequate, but still more than enough to keep the campaign going.
Does Paizo really care why someone is paying them money for a product they are producing as long as it is selling decently? Do they really care if people are playing them as official Society manner or as home games?
Regardless, by that logic, don't then the sales numbers of the regular 1-11 events get just as "skewed" as the level 12s?
I would be very curious to see/hear about the differences between ordering numbers and reported Society play numbers for the scenarios, in all the level ranges.
|
|
To give you an idea on how bad reporting is, according to my account:
My Level 12 is Level 5
My Level 9 is Level 2
My Level 5 is Level 2
My Level 2 is Level 1
The people on this message board are the small group of your players who even login to this site. Most of your players have likely never been here. Yet even those that do make it here tell you that there are MASSIVE issues with the accuracy of reporting.
Knowing this, you can only come to two conclusions:
#1. You have a large group of cheaters.
#2. Your data is faulty. As Corporate Asset Manager, one of my teams in charge of data integrity. It is hard enough to get people who are paid by you to accurately enter data time and time again. The 90% accuracy months are rare (mind you we look at data that everyone enters across the company). To expect people who have no investment outside of hobby and free time to be even in the 30% correct range is frankly naive. The person giving you the number does not perceive value in it, so you adding value only compounds the issue.
Which is more likely?
You can continue to base business decisions around a horribly flawed concept or you can adapt. As someone who would like to see Pathfinder Society succeed, I hope you adapt.
|
|
Ryan, you may want to learn a bit more about the players in your local area. Most of the people I am taling about and play with are IN the Mpls area, or a few hours drive. Just because they do not come to your game days doesn't mean they are not around.Then have them contact me. This interaction is a two-way street. I try to make game days known, post and recruit on a lot of the common locations, and show up at other games in the area that I know are happening or send a proxy. I can't reach out to people that don't reach back. If your players really want this, then have them get involved in their local game days, heck, just have them e-mail me, my address is in my profile. I may not like high level play, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to push for what my players want. Up to now, my players aren't even at the point that it's an issue - if your friends want this brought to the forefront I can relay that information. Believe it or not, the VCs do have Paizo's ear and any of us will relay information as we hear it - I'm not hearing it though from the people I talk to and thus I don't have it to report, in fact I have quite the opposite at this point.
Well, I can certainly do that for you Ryan. I've been playing PFS since launch with Frozentundra and that crew (we number around 12-15 in our "group"), playing Society play at conventions and home events for the past three years. I play with 5-8 people locally in the Twin Cities/St Cloud area regularly who have participated in PFS play, with characters in levels from 1 to 12, and enough retired PCs to fill a table; we are a much larger group when you add in friends we coordinate weekends and con travel to play with.
That said, I have not participated in any local events as I have little left to play outside of the high level events, or adapted modules that I've chosen to wait on. I usually attempt to play at GenCon (currently my one major con of the year), 2-3 conventions in Milwaukee (where years of gaming have afforded me numerous friends in WI and Chicago I love to play with and enjoy time with), and a handful of organized weekends with friends (organized as our schedules between jobs, family, life, and other interests allow). That said, I've played, judged, and written in numerous campaigns from back in finding LC at Gencon in the mid to late 90's to currently PFS, with stops along with way with LG, LF, LA, and Blackmoor.
I've currently got a retired 12th, an 11th with two modules left before retirement (planned to play at GenCon with friends), a 5th, and 2-3 concepts/themes being planned, discussed, and plotted as GenCon means that a new character needs to be rolled up, else myself and my acquantances will find ourselves without characters to play the released events for possibly long stretches of time (aka the need for more lower-level scenarios mentioned above). In order to keep playing regularly, it's an annual ritual to plan for a new first level character, a requirement for a dedicated player and customer. Do I like rolling up new character builds/concepts? Yes, but there is a point were it wears on me.
In LC and LG, I would create characters that I would enjoy, and I was able to enjoy the highest level ones because of time to advance and grow the character (corrected some with the slow advancement being offered) and develop a personality, relationships, and history to fall back on when doing the roleplaying of the character. It was memorable and enjoyable. They feel like a comfortable pair of shoes, and I can/could slip into those characters with ease, even after all these years. Secondary and beyond characters were not annual tasks, but moments of inspiration or desire, having thought up a campaign-oriented and/or rule-oriented character I wished to create. Right now, even though I manage to create characters to keep playing, it's not as fun or exciting at times as it was in the past (not that my friends and I have not come up with some great concepts, good and bad, roleplayish and power-gamish). Heck, one of the local players has begun naming his characters variants of numbers after his first PFS character, since it was going to become an annual ritual.
HL characters don't need to topple kingdoms, kill gods, do the impossible, to be given play opportunities. A good story, memorable and with an arc, and a chance to flush out the character's personality and/or enjoy the character we've putting much time into is what we are looking for.
That said, instead of the answer being more and more lower level modules to give play opportunities, why not fill in with some HL play? Right now, the campaign has three years of modules, between 60 to 80 events, that cover levels 1-11, with 4 events written for Tier 12 only. By my count, unless players are failing at events and earning no XP, or choosing to have a corral of lower-level PCs, is more than the 33 events required to hit level 12 twice-over, regardless if play results state otherwise. I have harassed/bothered/asked/show those not reporting events to do so, but with the handful of retired mods, it may be near impossible to have my play results hit 33 on my characters.
And before I get the 'play the current ones first' response, it's planned, but to be honest, when right now its the only series available to play at high level, there is not a huge urgency to do it right this minute. There is no next challenge currently, no continuing story, and it has become easy to put it off another month or two when we can align our schedules to play them. We'll get to them sooner than later, given things, but the lack of more content for retired characters is one of the reasons I have not yet played, along with wanting to share the experience with friends.
Consider this my request to have you ask for more HL event play.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I would argue that the most important and decision-driving measurable Paizo has is sales figures.
Numerous people have said that they are in this business to make money, so no factor should weigh heavier than sales.
Additionally, as experienced as many of the Paizo folks are they have to know/understand how amazingly incomplete the play records have to be. You're just never going to get an even reasonably accurate set of responses, people just don't value giving a company feedback as much as a company wants it, that is why most companies are trying to find give away product to get good customer feedback.
We give many, many copies of our scenarios away for free to GMs at conventions or game stores that have registered in our database. While we still sell many, many copies of each scenario, the number of sales does not give an indicator of how much people are playing or where. For us to know where to position resources, both in terms of in-house time and budgetary allotments and in terms of promotional material, venture-captain saturation, and other marketing concerns, we need to know that people aren't just buying PFS scenarios, but playing them. In many cases, the people running the most tables of a scenario didn't pay for it; if they don't report, then those tables neither show up on our sales or session reports.
I understand that many members of the community have years of experience working on other OP campaigns to varying levels of involvement. This is great, and we welcome the expertise. But when it comes down to it, we're not going to make business decisions or campaign-wide changes unless we've got a fairly high level of confidence (backed up by various metrics, including online feedback, sales, and reporting) that doing so is the right decision.
We've heard the request for post-12th level events. Every week we look at the sales numbers for every PFS scenario ever. And just as often we look at trends in reporting. So if you've already made your request on the boards, do everything you can to show us the need for these additional high-level events through the other two channels. Until all three metrics support high level play, it will remain a future possibility and not something we're actively devoting time and resources to.
We give many, many copies of our scenarios away for free to GMs at conventions or game stores that have registered in our database. While we still sell many, many copies of each scenario, the number of sales does not give an indicator of how much people are playing or where.
Not to mention that a person could buy two scenarios and then GM the first one a hundred times and the second one once.
|
|
I have to ask the question "Adapt to what?"
Well to be blunt, every Venture Captains are parroting the line of "reporting determines playability"
Which flies in the face of:
A) Logic - You can't expect people who aren't your employees to be your source of data integrity.
B) Reality - You have multiple people who actually communicate with Paizo (which would be a fraction of your real player base) telling you that the reporting system isn't just inaccurate, but grossly so.
So you can continue the same flawed policy or you can adapt your policy to fit what is really happening within your campaign.
|
|
I have to ask the question "Adapt to what?"Well to be blunt, every Venture Captains are parroting the line of "reporting determines playability"
Which flies in the face of:
A) Logic - You can't expect people who aren't your employees to be your source of data integrity.
B) Reality - You have multiple people who actually communicate with Paizo (which would be a fraction of your real player base) telling you that the reporting system isn't just inaccurate, but grossly so.
So you can continue the same flawed policy or you can adapt your policy to fit what is really happening within your campaign.
Read through this thread and find all 5 of Mark's responses (on the subject there are a couple of others if I remember right).
Read Eric Mona's responses.. they all basically say the same thing, they give us the information that they look at – certainly not the numbers, but where they are pulling their datea.
We can either sit here and argue that the data they are using could possibly be flawed (data we don't have access to see to know if it is actually flawed or not) or we can STFU and work on reporting and ensuring that if we are involved in something that the information reported is accurate and reported quickly
Ask yourself if you're doing everything you can in your area (not just personal to you) to make sure that Paizo is getting accurate data, if the answer is no then maybe you should be out there doing that instead
|
|
You can continue to base business decisions around a horribly flawed concept or you can adapt. As someone who would like to see Pathfinder Society succeed, I hope you adapt.
Forgive me if I missed something, I just sort of skipped to the end of the thread here and scanned your replies on this page so...
I think everyone can agree that the data is dirty. Anyone who knows anything about data knows that. Why are you acting like it's some kind of revelation? I don't see what you are purposing to replace the current system with. Like I said, maybe I skipped it in the Cliff Notes version, but....if not this what?
This dirty data is better than 0 data, and is certainly better than guesswork. Is it the high degree of accuracy I like to make my decisions off of? Of course not. It's a human data entry system, it's got problems miles wide. If you use incentives to promote data entry you are going to have a different set of problems, miles wide.
The point here is that is a reasonable approach to gather some useful metrics. Players who have gaps in their data should be asking their GMs why that is.
But I am curious, if not this then what? How do you purpose to manage these assets?
|
|
I'm curious to hear from those folks who'd like more high-level play opportunities to speak to what exactly they would like to see us do?
We've got the Eyes of the Ten series, which based on play reporting and sales, seems like it came out too early and a lot of people are still waiting to play it, even though they have characters who qualify. I must confess that this puzzles and frustrates me (mostly as the narcissistic author of the first one, but also as publisher). It seems to me that, despite our best intentions, the Eyes of the Ten series does not appropriately speak to the desire of the folks clamoring for high-level play.
I've heard good things on the Eyes of the Ten series. I have not played it, the reasoning two-fold. One, we've been attempting to schedule it with friends, and need to find a time (or times) to do so. That said, given that it is all there is currently for HL play, it has been easy to push the date back on these events to play them, as there is nothing beyond this series (save the newly announced or soon to be announced adapted published modules). We have interest in playing HL PFS, but the limited HL PFS events available has given us pause and excuses to wait to play them, so we can get our group together and find a quality/experienced judge to run us.
We've also sanctioned high-level Pathfinder Modules for Society play, specifically Tomb of the Iron Medusa (level 14) and (very soon) Academy of Secrets (level 13). I'm guessing that the nature of module play in the Society means that these efforts don't appropriately scratch the high-level itch, either.
Having addition play with adapted published mods is welcomed, but not an overall solution. They are not written with PFS in mind, and are not extension to the arc/story of the campaign. They are developed for the campaign directly.
So from my perspective, both efforts we have made to improve high-level play opportunities for the campaign have been failures, partial failures, or are too early to tell.
I'd go with Too Early to Tell. Our delaying is part our scheduling, desire to play with friends with a quality judge (and none of us especially interested in eating any of the 4 HL mods available currently), and the fact there are little to no options tempting/driving us to play these events sooner.
If these options are not sufficient, what would be?
A series of 4-8 HL events in a year would be welcomed. Currently, only 4 events from the past 3 years of published PFS events are Tier 12; 60 to 80 events from levels 1-11 exist to level a character to Tier 12 (not including the new slow advancement, which has yet to be implemented, or people who prefer multiple lower-level characters).
Adding high-level tiers to all adventures?
I'd prefer not - HL play differs enough from lower level, and trying to expand modules to a greater number of Tiers has more going against it than for it.
Adding more high-level adventures at the expense of low- or medium-tier events?
There are currently enough lower level modules to level two characters on the current XP path to 12th level (or one with a full use of the slow advancement track), so would it hurt going forward decreasing the number of low to mid level events in a year? Those who play less than the more active players have a catalog of many events to choose from, and there will still be modules created for them, juts less of them.
Special high-level scenarios at Gen Con? (High-level "megadeath" events, etc.?)
I would have tickets, or be standing and waiting with generics if a Special HL event was being offered at GenCon. LC had a few, but Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, and Blackmoor had special events that were popular options in the past. And even making versions of these available to other regional conventions would allow more draw to PFS play on a community level. I fully endorse this option.
What is it, exactly, that would satisfy your desire for more high-level PFS play?
4-8 events created and worked for PFS play, with a story line that allows players to continue the adventures of characters that they have put much time, effort, and play, usually ones that have better developed and create personalities, that would be fun, challenging, and deep with the rich campaign setting that is available, providing already in the adventure paths, products, and other published materials.
|
|
We've heard the request for post-12th level events. Every week we look at the sales numbers for every PFS scenario ever. And just as often we look at trends in reporting. So if you've already made your request on the boards, do everything you can to show us the need for these additional high-level events through the other two channels. Until all three metrics support high level play, it will remain a future possibility and not something we're actively devoting time and resources to.
I go back to my original question a few posts ago, how would you like players to fix the problem? I want to do what you want us to do to fix this, so tell me what that is. If con organizers don't report tables and our badgering them fails to make it happen, where would you like us to send the data? I, as would many others, be more than happy to let you know our play history so you could make more informed descions.
Basing your plans off of a data gathering system you know is deeply flawed is generally a poor idea (trust me, I'm a scientist). At best you might be able to draw some overall trends, but you certainly cannot say "There are almost no high level PCs" when you know people aren't reporting games (and assuming the players are not cheating they stop playing at 12th-level so their "reported" level will NEVER hit 12).
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If your local organizers have a history of not reporting events and are unresponsive when asked to do so, please email hyrum.savage@paizo.com with that coordinator's contact information as well as any information on dates, etc that haven't been reported. If there is a venture-captain serving your area, you may also try to contact them, as they have the ability to report events they didn't personally coordinate and may be able to light a fire under your event organizer's tail.