|
Might Paizo initiate a dialog in the near future to consider changing the model for its flagship product, the Adventure Paths, now that the gaming industry, changes led by other companies, is heading for a major overhaul?
I see two possibilities:
Paizo will keep its publishing model and ride the "stability" platform to get new customers unhappy with other companies' new stuff.
Or,... Paizo will begin deciding if "soon" will be a good time to consider moving from Adventure Paths to something else, about the same time other companies publish their new stuff.
For my own preference, I hope paizo considers moving away from Adventure Paths. Publish Shattered Star and maybe one final one in Absalom & The Spire of Nex, then begin a new model after volume 72 (12 full APs).
That will be GenCon 2013, the most likely date when other companies will finally publish their new gaming models. And Paizo introduce its shiny new flagship publication to replace the Adventure Path.
This also means that the final 2 APs would be more traditional, a Varisian "Rod of 7 Parts" campaign and an "Undermountain/ Greyhawk/ Ptolus" campaign -- right during the year long open playtests and greater industry dialog.
Hopefully a 96 page, softcover, perfect-bound book on high-quality paper featuring 2-3 independent adventures, one of which can be part of a longer campaign, and 1-2 gaming articles, plus comics, an editorial, book and game reviews and great art.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our Adventure Path line does extremely well for us both in terms of reception and providing a predictable monthly income that allows people like me to have a job to come into every day. I'm curious why you think we should change our business model away from one that works to something that might jeopardize not only our bottom line, but also our position as the preeminent fantasy RPG on the market today. Was it just yesterday's announcement, or are there specific issues you'd like to see addressed in our Adventure Path offerings?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you're describing a mix of Dungeon and Dragon magazine. As much as I loved those magazines, I much prefer the APs, with a full campaign, and support articles for that campaign. A lot of the articles in Dragon were nice, but I only rarely used in actual play. Plus, now Kobold Quarterly is pretty much meeting that need, regarding gaming articles.
|
|
@Yoda-Ate-My-Head,
I don't know the numbers, obviously -- and do not have a business background to boot.
However.
It seems the AP model is limited to begin with (exactly 6 volumes per campaign, every adventure HAS to fit a specific mold), but also it seems that by relying on Adventure Paths, Paizo can not take chances on new design & development ideas in their APs -- it's too risky to give even one volume to a new writer or new gaming concept.
Under a different model Paizo can have material from The Great Beyond and an adventure in Hell and alternate game systems/ subsystems (like Bloodstone, Birthright or Planescape) without making long term risks. A customer may not like one volume but that's only one volume -- as opposed to SIX volumes and half a year's products.
Finally, the current AP model will grow stale. We're already seeing it at our table playing Carrion Crown.
Sometimes the game needs a jump start. A fresh infusion of inspiration. The current model can't take a chance on it -- 6 volumes depend on it. And I trust Paizo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Yoda-Ate-My-Head,
I don't know the numbers, obviously -- and do not have a business background to boot.
However.It seems the AP model is limited to begin with (exactly 6 volumes per campaign, every adventure HAS to fit a specific mold), but also it seems that by relying on Adventure Paths, Paizo can not take chances on new design & development ideas in their APs -- it's too risky to give even one volume to a new writer or new gaming concept.
Under a different model Paizo can have material from The Great Beyond and an adventure in Hell and alternate game systems/ subsystems (like Bloodstone, Birthright or Planescape) without making long term risks. A customer may not like one volume but that's only one volume -- as opposed to SIX volumes and half a year's products.
Finally, the current AP model will grow stale. We're already seeing it at our table playing Carrion Crown.
Sometimes the game needs a jump start. A fresh infusion of inspiration. The current model can't take a chance on it -- 6 volumes depend on it.
Doesn't the module line scratch that itch?
|
|
@Joel
Yes, I'm specifically describing Dungeon but with a bit of Dragon. That's intentional.
With Dungeon, let's not forget -- we got an Adventure Path and other adventures. In the same space that an AP volume has now, I believe.
Also, I believe most people buy APs not because "they're unhappy with other companies' new stuff.", but because it is the best product on the market.
True.
At least -- I would say BOTH reasons, quality AND customer service.That doesn't mean Paizo can't ALSO look to continue to change the gaming industry for the better. And why not take a look at the possibility now, when other gaming industry companies are also doing it -- and thus customers all over are looking at the industry as a whole.
(NOTE: I edited my first post -- it is more accurate now. Paizo IS leading the industry; my intent was lost in wording.)
|
|
Last time Paizo risked new writers we got a so-so AP with author dropout problems in one issue (Serpent's Skull, hello!). IIRC that prompted Lisa to establish a "tried and tested writers only" policy.
Thanks for giving a concrete example to help prove one of my points. (Though I was thinking of the Second Darkness problems.)
The current model cannot take those kinds of risks.
But the fact remains that the industry does need to try occassional changes -- different models, design strategies, sub-systems, heck, even artists and editors.
I just wonder if the near future may be a good time for Paizo to consider it, one way or the other.
It seems the AP model is limited to begin with (exactly 6 volumes per campaign, every adventure HAS to fit a specific mold), but also it seems that by relying on Adventure Paths, Paizo can not take chances on new design & development ideas in their APs -- it's too risky to give even one volume to a new writer or new gaming concept.
Under a different model Paizo can have material from The Great Beyond and an adventure in Hell and alternate game systems/ subsystems (like Bloodstone, Birthright or Planescape) without making long term risks. A customer may not like one volume but that's only one volume -- as opposed to SIX volumes and half a year's products.
Isn't this pretty much the exact space that modules (and linked modules) fill? I don't see why you'd need to get rid of the (awesome, popular) APs to do something like this.
Finally, the current AP model will grow stale. We're already seeing it at our table playing Carrion Crown.
Sometimes the game needs a jump start. A fresh infusion of inspiration. The current model can't take a chance on it -- 6 volumes depend on it. And I trust Paizo.
Once sales numbers start dropping, then Paizo might consider making some big changes. But perhaps it isn't the AP style that has gotten stale, but your current game? APs are a huge time commitment, and a given campaign can run out of steam before the end. After Carrion Crown do some one-shots and a Planescape homebrew, then see if APs still seem "stale."
I would, however, agree that varied length APs would be great. I know the current system works really well, both in terms of work and how dates land in relation to GenCon and stuff, but it would give a chance to do some of the weird APs people ask for without full half a year commitment. Although I might just think this because I doubt we'll get a Xidao AP without it.
The AP books brought me into pathfinder, and 3.5 as well to a lesser extent. Without them I'd have very little reason to stick with pathfinder. I mean, white wold finally seem to be producing product that might interest me again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the module line scratch that itch?
+1. There's a big difference between Coca-Cola experimenting with new soft drinks in addition to their flagship brand and them replacing their flagship brand so that it is no longer available.
Personally, I would have no interest in the product you describe. I don't get enough chances to play to want lots of short adventures; I'm more interested in sticking with one group of PCs through a long storyline, i.e., the AP. There are already module and scenario lines for that.
I don't need gaming articles or comics, book reviews or editorials. That's what the Internet is for these days, particularly these messageboards. When you can already interact directly with the authors and developers personally and get answers to your questions and concerns, what's the point of "A Word from the Publisher" or "Letters from the Editor"?
Hopefully a 96 page, softcover, perfect-bound book on high-quality paper featuring 2-3 independent adventures, one of which can be part of a longer campaign, and 1-2 gaming articles, plus comics, an editorial, book and game reviews and great art.
Paizo has most of those things (minus the comics and reviews), just in different product lines (e.g. the module product line and the campaign setting product line). It's not clear what benefit Paizo would get from combining multiple products into a single product. For instance, I don't know if it would be more or less profitable for Paizo to combine three 32-page products which cost $12 each into a single product at $36.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ,
Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved.
I don't know your histroy with the mags but, well, hopefully you remember how every few years they'd change something, sometimes big sometimes small, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
In the 40s-60s of Dungeon many people screamed that linking adventures across several issues was horrible. When Chris Perkins had Jason Kuhl start the first ever AP in issue 69, "Slave Vats of the Yuan Ti," the next 4 issues (concluding with Eric Boyd's "Eye of Myrkul"), became among the most popular adventures to that point -- and the Mere of Dead Men series was WORLD SPECIFIC!
When Chris Thomasson got Chris Perkins to start the AP in it's current conception, lots of people hated the idea. Now Shackled City has its own hardback.
Other tries, Alternity and a glut of Ravenloft adventures, were hit and miss for quality.
But we'll never have an "Old Man Katan" or a "Devil Box" -- or even a "Lady of the Mists," "Seeking Bloodsilver" or "Umbra" with Pathfinder, it seems.
And there's always room for an occassional BoVD issue such as 95.
Sometimes people get their start in this industry by doing what no one else could do in a project that is specifically looking for something different -- such as in issue 12 when some teen named Jacobs wrote a "Choose Your Own Adventure" module. And sometimes they grow up to be James Jacobs.
.
.
.
Paizo ain't broke.
But it CAN be fixed!
Maybe instead of six part AP try considering 4 part APs? Just a thought.
|
|
There's a big difference between Coca-Cola experimenting with new soft drinks in addition to their flagship brand and them replacing their flagship brand so that it is no longer available.
This is a REALLY good point.
The only reason Coke didn't go under with New Coke was because, well, because they are Coke.
Certainly food for thought.
We can't afford to lose Paizo -- they're the only source for D&D.
|
TOZ,
Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved.
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
:)
I don't know your histroy with the mags
...
Paizo ain't broke.
But it CAN be fixed!
For the record, I subscribed about three issues before the cancelation.
I don't disagree with your view, but as people have pointed out, Paizo has other avenues to innovate in, while keeping the tried and true bill-payers on track.
|
|
As a Charter AP and Modules subscriber I obviously have supported Paizo from the beginning. For me it was from my Dungeon subscription; I only got the occassional Dragon from my LGS after my last subscription ran out back in like, '98 or something.
And I've been vocal in my support from the beginning -- heck, before RotRL even, of APs that are not ALWAYS absolutely 6 volumes. I've said for years now that a better, if more difficult to publish, AP would be an occassional 6 volume, an occassional 4 volume or 7 volume or 3 volume, etc., etc. would be better.
This way, not only can Paizo better avoid stagnation, they can outright try different stuff in a smaller AP without as much of a risk. But mostly I've just said that not all campaigns should be 6 volumes. That's just dumb. A few years ago I asked about the potential awesome campaign that would only be 3 or 4 volumes long -- that just gets watered down to fill 6 volumes or thrown away altogether. Or the awesome 8 volume campaign that gets cut apart and ruined or thrown away altogether. I think it was Josh Frost or someone who replied that they can connect or not-connect modules that way.
Fact is, though, that the modules don't do a good job of this. Maybe because they're not getting the development time the APs are, I dunno -- Paizo does have limited resources afterall.
I'm going add my voice to the status-quo crowd. While I wouldn't mind seeing more adventures, I'm perfectly happy with the current AP design. That's the anchor product around which all my other Paizo purchases revolve. I don't want to see change to the AP line, beyond episodic variability (ie. different topics covered, areas etc).
What Paizo is doing works. While "everything can be improved", some things work so well that modifying them has a MUCH higher likelihood of failure.
Theoretically there's a woman out there that would make me happier, but I love my wife plenty, and I absolutely won't play the grass-is-greener game when I'm this happy. Same goes with the APs.
|
|
W E Ray, I can't help but read most of your posts as change for change sake. The AP line isn't just the flagship line, but it is the reason we are here. If not for its continued success in the face of 4E, PFRPG probably would never have been born. It also has evolved organically, and doesn't keep to a strict format.
From a pure structure perspective we've seen the removal of the set piece adventures in favor of more meat on the AP. We've also seen smaller things like Carrion Crown 4 which eliminated one article in favour of an over sized bestiary (to hold some over sized horrors of awesome.)
We've also seem, with a variety of success a lot of different approaches, linear adventures like Second Darkness and Carrion Crown, sandboxes like Kingmaker and Serpent Skull. Within Jade Regent we have sort of a mix with new mechanics for NPCs and Caravans playing a central role in a epic journey adventure. We are also looking forward to some piracy mechanics to appear in the upcoming AP.
Is every AP issue, or every AP on the whole perfect? No of course not, but that is the nature of the game itself, what works at my table doesn't necessarily work at yours.
What has made the APs in my group so successful is that it is a complete campaign, our table is a group of 30+ parents, no one has time to curate a universe for our mutual enjoyment, but to flesh out the bones on someone's awesome writing is something we can do.
I don't think we need to look at what Wizards is doing as a timetable for radical change, again, we are all kind of here because Paizo didn't follow after Wizards so no need to start now.
That doesn't mean the APs shouldn't change, but they should continue to change in the manner they have been, slow, measured and cautious innovation.
I think some of what I hear from your posts is a cry for most of what we used to get in Dungeon, you want on top of the APs a line of light weight modules, or a magazine like format with several modules. Don't forget there is a pretty high degree of module production coming out of PF Society play, and of course the module line. That being said, with the Internet/PDF Distribution at our disposal I don't think we need to depend 100% on Paizo for pure modules.
I do agree with you that I would like to see an 7 module AP from time to time, or an AP+ line that continues into epic levels where appropriate (IE Carrion Crown is begging for a 7th module and maybe 8th module)
I think we all need to just stop worrying about what WotC is doing, they aren't the leaders in the industry that they once were, they aren't setting the direction, tempo, or innovation they once were. Paizo should take our feedback (as they always have) and work their magic on this game we share.
W E Ray, I can't help but read most of your posts as change for change sake.
My interpretation is that there are quite a few people out there who liked Dungeon magazine better than the Pathfinder adventure path line (myself included). There are a number of reasons why that might be:
But, as has been pointed out many times, Paizo has no interest in going back to that business model.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I'd call it a suggestion for change merely for the sake of change. I really do feel (have felt) that the AP line could be modeled differently -- better. And I've posted such in many Threads over the years.
This Thread, specifically, is a result of the WotC news, obviously.
But we have had a great run of APs, finishing our 9th and starting our 10th (with the Shattered Star mentioned as #11). Even with the variances you mentioned such as Kingmaker's sandbox format, it won't be too long before creative torpor becomes a problem.
Why not begin a dialog of possible change as a litmus test, even, to see where we are? (Obviously more folks like the current model to remain.)
I don't see why creative torpor is inevitable. All an Adventure Path is, is an campaign that takes PCs from level 1 to level something-teenish. Countless DMs everywhere have been making them up for years. Now, if it was just one guy inventing them all, yeah, maybe his well would run dry. But between the Paizo staff and their stable of contributors, I'm sure there's more than a dozen stories out there yet to be told.
Now, not every AP is a hit with every group of players. Some of the APs I'm pretty meh about. But that doesn't mean Paizo is running out of creative ideas; it only means that particular story doesn't interest me. The AP I'm least interested in (Kingmaker, fwiw) is one of the most popular APs with the population as a whole, judging from messageboard comments and play-by-posts.
|
Creative Director
|
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Adventure Path product is one of our flagship lines. What does that mean? Among other things... it means that it makes us a HECK of a lot of money. Furthermore, it's the reason why Paizo exists today as a game company at all and not just, say, a game-focused web store. When we lost the license for Dragon and Dungeon, it was pretty much the success (and subscription and sales income) of Pathfinder that kept things afloat long enough for us to not only get Golarion off the ground... but to get the Pathfinder RPG off the ground. Furhtermore... back when we started Shackled City, Dungeon magazine was in dire condition—it was hemorrhaging subscribers and we were trying all sorts of things to get folks to keep subscribing and to even BUILD the subscriptions. Folks will doubtless remember numerous "stunts" we pulled with Dungeon back around issues 92–100—some of the bigger ones included bundling Polyhedron with the magazine, putting "subscriber only" content into the magazine, and going monthly with the magazine. Starting a series of linked adventures was one of those "stunts."
I've probably worked on Adventure Paths longer than anyone else in the industry today—I was brought on by Chris early on to write the second installment of Shackled City, and by the time the third installment was being published I'd been hired as an assistant editor for Dungeon. I've been working on Adventure Paths ever since, and during that time I've seen them work magic. They're the reason Dungeon not only kept going, but saw a dramatic INCREASE in subscription numbers. They win awards. And as mentioned above, they're the reason Paizo exists today.
During the last 10 years or so of Adventure Paths, we have indeed listened to feedback and tried new things with them. With each AP, I like to think we get a little closer to perfection... but I also believe that the "perfect" AP is a moving target you can never quite reach. So we DO keep making changes to the format... but those changes are, nowadays, relatively small. Things like adding an NPC index and magic item appendix like we did with Jade Regent.
And the idea that we don't take risks or try out strange adventures in an AP is, frankly, ridiculous. We've published adventures where the heroes have to star in a play, where they have to take part in a trial, where they wash ashore on a hostile island with very few resources, where they have to disguise themselves as drow and invade an evil society, where they get to use wishes over and over and over, where they lead armies, where the villains were deep into the "vile darkness territory," and where they need to build and run their own kingdoms. And we'll keep testing boundaries and limits with the APs. Coming up we've got things like naval battles, adventures that start the PCs out with NO equipment, true sequals to previous APs, and plenty more "risks and innovations" planned for the future for APs that I'm not yet at liberty to speak about.
Honestly, if I had to pick one thing that WON'T be going away from Paizo's book lines, that would be the Adventure Path line. As long as Paizo's around, our Adventure Paths will be around.
And to speak directly to the recent announcement from WotC... I personally think it would be the HEIGHT of foolishness for us to abandon the product line that's kept us afloat, helped define the company, and remains the flagship line at any time... but especially as a knee-jerk reaction to ANY announcement from ANY company.
I'm always eager to hear suggestions on how to change or add to or enhance the AP (with the caveat that I've seen a LOT of things tried with them over the past decade, and many suggestions aren't as viable as some folks think they might be)... but ending the line? Not gonna happen.
Lots of insightful stuff.
Thank you for all you do. As long as the AP's keep coming, I'll keep buying. They're great to read, and even if they're not the story I want to tell, there's always been great information to mine for one I do.
It seems the AP model is limited to begin with (exactly 6 volumes per campaign, every adventure HAS to fit a specific mold), but also it seems that by relying on Adventure Paths, Paizo can not take chances on new design & development ideas in their APs -- it's too risky to give even one volume to a new writer or new gaming concept.
Have you been reading the same APs I have? Paizo puts experimental rules in there all the time. Be it romance, war, kingdom building, caravans, etc. Those are just off the top of my head based on the volumes I've been looking through recently.
Paizo has places to test out new authors: Everything from chapters in the campaign setting books to modules for PFS.
Paizo is throwing around new ideas all the time. I guess if you only read the hard cover rules you don't see that as much. Except when they do things like Words of Power or Build Your Own Race.
If you miss Dragon Magazine, subscribe to Kobold Quarterly.
As to 5th Edition, unless 5E is released OGL, there's no way Paizo would jump to it. They will never use another license that expires again. Even if 5E was OGL, they'd have to have a really compelling reason to switch. Like a huge drop in their existing sales.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of insightful stuff.Thank you for all you do. As long as the AP's keep coming, I'll keep buying. They're great to read, and even if they're not the story I want to tell, there's always been great information to mine for one I do.
That bit I bolded is important, and it's something that some folks don't realize is an important part of ANY adventure.
Simply reading an adventure for entertainment validates that adventure's existence. Even if you never run the adventure, it'll inspire you and help you to make better adventures on your own. And even if it doesn't do that, if it's still enjoyable to read, then it was time well spent.
@Hogarth I also observed that, but it was done near the bottom of my treatises (tirade?)
I missed that. But my point is that it's not "change for change's sake", it's "change for I-liked-it-better-the-old-way's sake".
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
adventures that start the PCs out with NO equipmentSweet - the A-series Slaver's adventure where the PCs started with no equipment was always one of my favorites. Will this be happening in Skull and Shackles?
Yes.
|
Creative Director
|
W E Ray, I can't help but read most of your posts as change for change sake.My interpretation is that there are quite a few people out there who liked Dungeon magazine better than the Pathfinder adventure path line (myself included). There are a number of reasons why that might be:
Page for page, it was cheaper (not important for some people, but I'm pretty cheap)
It had more variety in each issue
A particular issue of Dungeon was more self-contained than a single volume of an adventure path. But, as has been pointed out many times, Paizo has no interest in going back to that business model.
I should note that it's not the format of Dungeon that we're not interested in going back to. It's the MAGAZINE format that we're not interested in going back to.
With each AP, I like to think we get a little closer to perfection... but I also believe that the "perfect" AP is a moving target you can never quite reach. So we DO keep making changes to the format... but those changes are, nowadays, relatively small. Things like adding...
Count me as one of those who appreciates the constant experimentation with the format. Along those lines- are there things you've introduced in later APs that you find yourself thinking "Man- if only we'd have had that in XXX!!" or get tempted to return to and tweak at all?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The Pathfinder Modules line is where we do some of the more off-kilter one-shots. While we probably wouldn't do something like "The Harrowing" in an AP format, we're more than happy to do it in the Module line.
So if you're looking for more variety and shorter adventure arcs, I highly recommend checking out that line.
It could use your support! :)
I should note that it's not the format of Dungeon that we're not interested in going back to. It's the MAGAZINE format that we're not interested in going back to.My interpretation is that there are quite a few people out there who liked Dungeon magazine better than the Pathfinder adventure path line (myself included). There are a number of reasons why that might be:
Page for page, it was cheaper (not important for some people, but I'm pretty cheap)
It had more variety in each issue
A particular issue of Dungeon was more self-contained than a single volume of an adventure path. But, as has been pointed out many times, Paizo has no interest in going back to that business model.
If you're saying that you're not opposed to switching back to a format of several unrelated short adventures + one adventure path segment in a single book (with little or no non-adventure material), may I be the first to say: SWEET!!
I have a strange feeling that Paizo will surprise us in 2013 by something.
Well, since James has confirmed no mythic rules for 2012, here's to hoping my original prediction of 2013 proves accurate :)
Also ...
Lots of insightful stuff.Thank you for all you do. As long as the AP's keep coming, I'll keep buying. They're great to read, and even if they're not the story I want to tell, there's always been great information to mine for one I do.That bit I bolded is important, and it's something that some folks don't realize is an important part of ANY adventure.
Simply reading an adventure for entertainment validates that adventure's existence. Even if you never run the adventure, it'll inspire you and help you to make better adventures on your own. And even if it doesn't do that, if it's still enjoyable to read, then it was time well spent.
Yes. As someone who reads far, far more of the adventure paths than I've ever run, let me second this. The adventure paths are much, much more than just a big module, and there's a lot of entertaining reading there, both as part of the adventure and as part of all the supplemental material.
Plus, they're a showcase for the Pathfinder rules themselves; don't discount the usefulness of that. They show you what you can do with the Pathfinder system.
Much as I miss Dungeon and Dragon, I don't need official Pathfinder magazines. I have the Adventure Paths, the Player Companions and the Campaign Setting lines. I have Kobold Quarterly, and as Erik mentioned just above, there's the module lines for one-offs.
Finally, I have a hunch that there might have been a no-complete clause in the original Dungeon/Dragon agreement with WoTC. It's been long enough that it might have expired by now, but maybe not.
But, if you search back far enough in the postings, you'll find that publishing a monthly magazine is a lot of work. I'm not saying so; the Paizo staff have said so.
So, I'm content to go along for the ride. Well, and to keep my fingers crossed about RPG Superstar. :)
I should note that it's not the format of Dungeon that we're not interested in going back to. It's the MAGAZINE format that we're not interested in going back to.If you're saying that you're not opposed to switching back to a format of several unrelated short adventures + one adventure path segment in a single book (with little or no non-adventure material), may I be the first to say: SWEET!!
Didn't they try that with Set Pieces and nobody liked it? (Ok, I'm sure a few people liked it. Actually, I kind of liked it. But the need they were trying to fill is better suited to modules anyway. I love the modules line.)
Well, I'm very happy with the APs, and the module line as well.
I wouldn't touch a working business model. I've seen FAR too many RPGs go down the tubes because they had good ideas but couldn't make money.
Didn't they try that with Set Pieces and nobody liked it?I should note that it's not the format of Dungeon that we're not interested in going back to. It's the MAGAZINE format that we're not interested in going back to.If you're saying that you're not opposed to switching back to a format of several unrelated short adventures + one adventure path segment in a single book (with little or no non-adventure material), may I be the first to say: SWEET!!
Well, there was one instead of "several" and it was related instead of "unrelated" and there wasn't "little or no non-adventure material". So, kind of, but not really.
Didn't they try that with Set Pieces and nobody liked it?Well, there was one instead of "several" and it was related instead of "unrelated" and there wasn't "little or no non-adventure material". So, kind of, but not really.
Fair enough. But unrelated adventures are already available in the modules line. If there was really that big of a market for them, that'd be a better selling line.
As for non-adventure material, that's the stuff that keeps me buying APs. Like the article on the dark tapestry or other gods.
Lots of insightful stuff.Thank you for all you do. As long as the AP's keep coming, I'll keep buying. They're great to read, and even if they're not the story I want to tell, there's always been great information to mine for one I do.That bit I bolded is important, and it's something that some folks don't realize is an important part of ANY adventure.
Simply reading an adventure for entertainment validates that adventure's existence. Even if you never run the adventure, it'll inspire you and help you to make better adventures on your own. And even if it doesn't do that, if it's still enjoyable to read, then it was time well spent.
I have greatly enjoyed reading the AP modules that I've run, but I try really hard (and it is hard) to NOT read AP's that I'm not running because I hope someone will run them for ME someday. But I do love AP's and I hope they don't go away. That said, I could get on board with some shorter story arcs (2-4 modules). PF Module line, I guess, huh?
|
|
I should note that it's not the format of Dungeon that we're not interested in going back to. It's the MAGAZINE format that we're not interested in going back to.
Could you please articulate what this means -- the difference between the Dungeon format and the magazine format.
Is it just the difference between a-publication-with-adventures-&-DM-supporting-material as opposed to a, what?...
What exactly is "magazine"? No letters to the editor?,... no comics & reviews???,... a Forward instead of an Editorial? (Actually there is no difference between Pathfinder's forwards and Dungeon's editorials.)
I don't understand if there's a real difference.