|
Magazine is something that falls into a "magazine" category for legal and business purposes.
It's something that has to be monthly. Can't slip.
It's something that needs to be injected into press distribution cycles. On time. And gets returned if not sold.
It's a nightmare which I believe Paizo is happy to have left behind.
|
|
@OP: This sounds more like an issue with your group than anything. I started Kingmaker when Book 1 was released, and we're only in Book 3 now (2 years later). Are you guys racing through the APs or what? At this point if you include Shackled City, AoW and Savage Tide there should be like 15 years of gaming to be had!
Perhaps you should take a break from the APs, run some crazy one shots, classic dungeon adventures or stuff from the modules line. Remember any Adventure Path might be someone's first. I still love reading APs I know I may never run, and occasionally splurge on modules to insert as side-treks to APs I do run.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Magazine is something that falls into a "magazine" category for legal and business purposes.
It's something that has to be monthly. Can't slip.
It's something that needs to be injected into press distribution cycles. On time. And gets returned if not sold.
It's a nightmare which I believe Paizo is happy to have left behind.
And it's expected to be available for sale exactly once, is on sale for a fixed period, and then is never reordered.
And people expect to pay a tiny, tiny amount of money for it relative to its cost, with the difference usually subsidized by advertising.
The thing I feel is lacking most is Paizo created supplemental material for various lines to further expand current or (primarily) past products. I would kill for a PDF supplemental that came out after an AP and Module cycle has passed. For instance, Legendary Games is made up of some of the main Paizo contributors but with the products they have or plan to release in support of APs, they have to still skirt the IP as they are considered a 3rd party publisher. Surely this points to those writers having ideas beyond what makes the cut for the products but in most cases is of the same quality but has to be tossed over to 3rd party land.
Mainly I am looking at things such as the old Set Piece articles, for example, which most likely cross various writers minds as they are writing an AP but at this point get cut for space or so forth. Not setting a firm deadline but still making new material beyond what is in an AP/module would be a nice addition to those lines. Even perhaps adding in some errata that shores up some of the holes that sneak by within such a supplement would be very helpful as opposed to the archaic forum search that is required in some cases.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
WARNING: Long rambling wall of text to follow... and I may have misremembered here and there...
There's several ways a magazine is different than a book (all of the print products we publish now are technically books—none are magazines).
A magazine typically the majority of its money on advertisement sales—newsstand sales and subscription sales are not the primary point of income.
A magazine has a shelf life of a month and doesn't get reprinted. A book has a shelf life of years, and if it gets reprinted, that can extend for MANY years.
A magazine has to deal with a bunch of weird and archaic and unusual restrictions as regards distribution and newsstands and printing—with a magazine, you print WAY more than you know you'll ever sell, since you need to "reserve" your spot on those newsstands with the volumes of each month that don't sell. And that means that a significant portion of what you pay to print for a magazine you'll also end up eventually NOT selling (and thus losing that potential revenue) and also have to PAY MORE to have destroyed.
Income generated from a magazine has to go through all sorts of hoops and stuff—and that generally means that you won't see profit (if ANY) from a magazine for about a year after you spend the money to create any one particular issues—and in the meantime, you need to pay to put out 11 more issues, so you can't use money from the first issue to help pay for the next 11 issues, more or less. With a book, you get paid as soon as the distributor buys it—which can be many many many months sooner than you'd ever see from a magazine.
There are many more differences (not the least of which is the fact that organized crime and corruption have a SIGNIFICANT impact on whether or not you can make a success at printing magazines), but those above are enough to prevent Paizo from wanting to try to launch a brand new magazine. Especially since launching a magazine requires an INSANE amount of money up front (on the order of over a million dollars if you want full market penetration like Dragon and Dungeon both had) that you won't know if you're ever even going to have a chance to make back for at least a year.
One of the GREATEST advantages Dragon and Dungeon had was inertia. They'd been magazines for decades. Having a legacy of being on newsstands for decades is ENORMOUS, and that's, frankly, one of the reasons those magazines lasted and other magazines that Paizo started new (like Undefeated) did not. And if a magazine leaves the shelves... however long you had a presence on those shelves pretty much goes away. Amazing Stories, for example, started back in the early 20s, and had an on-off again presence. When Paizo relaunched Amazing Stories, none of that mattered—it basically had to start fresh with the same disadvantages of any brand-new magazine—it's legacy was irrelevant. And unfortunately, now that Dragon and Dungeon stopped being print magazines, the same goes for them—getting them back in print on shelves as widely distributed as they were before would cost millions. For each magazine.
So... the idea of doing a periodical that has 3 different adventures in it, like Dungeon had, isn't something we're opposed to—it's the magazine part that we're opposed to.
Of course... we're also pretty much "at capacity" as for how much we can produce on a monthly schedule, and so if we WERE to start doing a 3-adventure periodical publication like Dungeon, we'd have to do something like cancel a line of books we're already doing OR hire a lot of new staff members. And since we're doing a pretty good job being successful and making money with the books we're doing now... Paizo's just not really in a position where we can entertain adding or significantly changing something at the drop of a hat. Heck... even if your suggestion took Paizo by storm and we decided to put something like this into print IMMEDIATELY... it'd still be about a year before such a product saw print (due to the realities of how long it takes to create a game product like what you describe), and probably six months before we even announced something like it was coming soon.
|
@OP: This sounds more like an issue with your group than anything.
You heard wrong.
It's no biggie.I just think that there's nothing wrong with being open minded about the possibility of changing the AP to something else after volume 72, the completion of the 12th AP, which will coincide at GenCon 2013 and (likely) the newest offal-offering from the other gaming company.
Mona just said the Modules line is struggling.
I'm a charter subscriber to that line as well as the AP line.
I don't like like the modules.
AND they compete with the AP line -- the flagship line (not to mention the Society Scenarios).
Why not cancel the line altogether in 18 months and make each "AP" volume a monthly (or thereabouts) softcover, perfect-bound book of high quality paper that instead of having p.1 of 6, has 3 unrelated adventures and a couple supporting articles for DMs and Players.
That was successful when Paizo did it and they had the time constraints of "magazine" (thanks for the clarifications, btw), and the content restraints of being subcontracted from WotC (or whatever, don't know if "subcontracted" is correct.)
That's what my OP asks for.
Open minded dialog.
|
|
Heck... even if your suggestion took Paizo by storm and we decided to put something like this into print IMMEDIATELY... it'd still be about a year before such a product saw print (due to the realities of how long it takes to create a game product like what you describe), and probably six months before we even announced something like it was coming soon.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to start a revolution, just open the door for some community conversation about possible change.
And my OP DOES say GenCon 2013 -- after the completion of an AP after .
Good timing to start the dialog now, I said, because of other companies starting a dialog about their own changes -- not that that, as you pointed out, really means anything for Paizo.
I think 12 APs would be a great run. And finishing with an AP in Absalom & The Spire of Nex would be cool, or whatever.
In any case, we trust Paizo to make the best product for our dollar.
And like Paizo enough to take a leap of faith for their products.
Are you asking them to cancel the Modules line and replace it with non-Magazine Dungeon? Because Modules are every-other-month, so replacing it with a monthly product that requires commissioning and developing several different people's work (including new talent not used to Paizo's way of doing things) is a lot more work than commissioning and developing one person's work who has worked with Paizo before.
I'm a subscriber to the Modules line. I wouldn't be to a "grabbag of gaming-related stuff" line.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't buy a monthly bunch of unconnected modules. I have zillions of those from oooh the whole Dungeon print run and 3PPs.
What I don't have is quality campaigns - something WotC was never able to do well, and 3PPs never had the resources to do.
This is the kinda dialog that I like to see.
If a Dungeon content-like book won't work cuz lots of folks share Gorbacz's opinion -- what about something else?
For 4 years now Jacobs has been saying that APs can't be anything but 6 volumes and for 4 years now I've felt that every "reason" he gives is silly. Harder work on the designers, no doubt. But not undoable (You guys are working your dream-careers, yes?) Not impossible to make sure a new AP begins every GenCon. You got 12 months: One 7 and one 5. Or a 6 and two 3s. Or a 4 a 6 and a 2. Harder work but doable . . . . And you don't have to start every one at 1st level. Starting a 3 volume AP at level 9 would not lose customers. Finishing an 8 volume AP at level 21 would not lose customers. (in theory)
|
|
@ Joana,
No.
Really, I'm just trying to start a dialog exploring future possibilities under the that the AP format (6 volumes of a campaign lvls 1-16) is going to become (has started to become) stale. Or stagnant. Or whatever.
And what might a few good options be for altering that line -- the flagship line.
If, however, Paizo were to change the AP line to something either like Dungeon-content or just differing length APs (and with the Society Scenarios growing), there would be no need to have a Modules line at all. And since it's struggling anyway -- and since Paizo has fewer resources (man hours) than say, a larger company, cancelling the Modules line in 2013 may make alot of sense.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For 4 years now Jacobs has been saying that APs can't be anything but 6 volumes and for 4 years now I've felt that every "reason" he gives is silly. Harder work on the designers, no doubt. But not undoable (You guys are working your dream-careers, yes?) Not impossible to make sure a new AP begins every GenCon. You got 12 months: One 7 and one 5. Or a 6 and two 3s. Or a 4 a 6 and a 2. Harder work but doable . . . . And you don't have to start every one at 1st level. Starting a 3 volume AP at level 9 would not lose customers. Finishing an 8 volume AP at level 21 would not lose customers. (in theory)
Frankly... "harder work on the designers" is perhaps the number ONE reason I'm not all that eager to switch the 2 APs a year formula. (To a lesser extent is my fear that many AP readers and players would be less interested in shorter Adventure Paths, since we've seen a fair amount of resistance already to APs that don't go as high level as others.)
But working a "dream-career" should NOT be code for "you get to work 80 hours a week on a salary that assumes a 40 hour week just because you enjoy your job enough that if we asked you to work that much you would."
|
Creative Director
|
Man, now I wonder how Wolfgang does it with Kobold Quarterly...
Wolfgang's got 3 aces in his sleeve:
1) It's a quarterly product, not a monthly one.
2) He's got a VERY small staff, and that makes it actually easier to take risks with an entire company. (I for one am very glad he took the risk, because KQ is super awesome!)
3) He's not trying to get into mass market distribution. That wouldn't really be an option for a larger company like Paizo.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I don't know if saying the Modules line is struggling is actually accurate. It's not our best-selling line, for sure, but it does what it aims to do. Could we have more subscribers for it? You bet. But it gets no less attention than our other lines, and I believe offers things that no other line does or can without changing those lines away from the formula that makes them the successes they are. While you are correct that we currently publish three different lines of adventures, each is aimed at a different goal, and thus they wouldn't really serve to replace one another if one of the lines went away.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For 4 years now Jacobs has been saying that APs can't be anything but 6 volumes and for 4 years now I've felt that every "reason" he gives is silly. Harder work on the designers, no doubt. But not undoable (You guys are working your dream-careers, yes?) Not impossible to make sure a new AP begins every GenCon. You got 12 months: One 7 and one 5. Or a 6 and two 3s. Or a 4 a 6 and a 2. Harder work but doable . . . . And you don't have to start every one at 1st level. Starting a 3 volume AP at level 9 would not lose customers. Finishing an 8 volume AP at level 21 would not lose customers. (in theory)
You're treating AP volumes like interchangeable widgets, and that's not so.
First off, you should realize that doing 12 installments in the AP line per year currently uses our full capacity. (Actually, you might note that historically, it takes about 13 months of development time to do 12 AP volumes, so we're technically *over* capacity, and end up nearly killing ourselves to get caught up each Gen Con.) And this is not a problem that can be solved by throwing more people at it—it doesn't work that way. So any change we would consider needs to be something that won't increase the workload *at all*.
If we went to, say, three 4-volume APs in a year, it would take more person-hours, because creating and outlining an AP is a big job, and the amount of effort to do that is only partly related to the number of pages of content needed. So "more (but shorter) APs per year" is not feasable.
Also, higher-level adventures are harder to develop, and take longer than low- and mid-level advantures, so stretching APs further into high-level territory would increases the amount of time it takes to do one. So longer APs are not feasible; even doing an 8-volume and a 4-volume would probably take more time than two 6-volume ones. (Maybe we could fit in a 5 and a 7, but A) the 7 would be pushing it, and B) that's just weird, and I don't think it would particularly improve anything.)
And yes, we *do* have to start every one at 1st level. Low level adventures sell better. Always have, always will. There are some really good posts on the boards on that topic already, so I won't repeat them.
Bottom line here is that we have a formula that works really well, and I fail to see any real reason to screw with it.
Not to get too far off topic with the magazine/book issue, but since it came up, I'm curious; is the difference between a magazine and a book issue that is being described something that is endemic to the publishing industry and/or distributors as a whole, or is it just a perception issue? (IE, is it something hardwired into the system as it stands that would require a massive reinvention of the wheel to change?)
|
|
I guarantee you would lose more customers than you would gain starting an AP at levels other than 1. Lower level adventures sell better,
I'm also not convinced the format is stale, I have been collecting AP issues since Crimson Throne, and am consistently impressed by the quality and diversity of adventures presented in the AP line.
I think the Modules line could use some help, but dramatically changing the AP line to do it might not be the best answer.
I never had a subscription to Dragon or Dungeon - I couldn't even get any of the first year's issues of Dungeon here in Australia anyway. I do have lots of Dragon issues, however - most of them from issue 70 to 200 something, then from about 300 to the end, as well as all the Dungeons from about 80 onwards. And I still go through them at odd intervals and enjoy them for the entertaining read they provide, as well as ideas that I unashamedly lift and drop into both my D&D (actually Pathfinder, but my group and I have been playing the game since the early 80's and D&D is what we play, if you can understand that) and Deathwatch campaigns.
I also have all of the AP books up to 52 sitting on a shelf behind me - 53 hasn't arrived down here yet. I've read them all cover to cover, some of them several times and have found something enjoyable and/or useful in each one of them - even those APs that didn't appeal much to me. Jade Regent falls into that category - I don't care much for the overall story line, but the vikings were cool and I'm stealing them for later use in my campaign.
My current campaign is actually set in pre-disaster Desert of Desolation (the old I series, updated to Pathfinder) with the heroes having captured and locked away the Zargon of B4 fame, ready to be discovered again in a few thousand years of campaign time.
And how many of the APs have I run to date?
Apart from Shackled City (which is single handedly responsible for getting my group back into gaming after a hiatus of about a decade), None.
Do I feel I've wasted money on books that run to 6 parts of an adventure that I haven't used - not in the slightest.
The moment I read that Dragon and Dungeon were cancelling, after I got over the shock of realising that a fixture of my gaming life since I'd discovered the game back in 1982 was vanishing (essentially) forever, I checked with my wife and then started a subscription for the AP - something I'd never done for an overseas publication before. All because the company's online presence seemed reliable and customer centred and their products to date were of good quality and entertaining. And I haven't been let down.
So I don't use them as self contained campaigns, so what? I can 'steal' (and do!) ideas from them all the time, and I can sit down and read them again and again for the entertainment value they provide - which is what gaming is for me; a distraction from an otherwise very busy home and work life.
As far as I'm concerned the APs as they currently exist, with their gradual ongoing evolution from story arc to story arc, fill the niche that I need them to fill, and judging by the apparent success of Paizo, must be filling some sort of niche for many, many other people.
Why mess with that?
Reggie.
If people really want different sized Adventure Paths, it seems to me that is the place for 3PP to step in. Of course, the complicated nature of adventure paths mean that it may take smaller companies 2+ years to publish an entire path. Very few can match Paizo's output volume. But I've heard good things about 0one Games or Frog God Games's offerings.
If people really want different sized Adventure Paths, it seems to me that is the place for 3PP to step in. Of course, the complicated nature of adventure paths mean that it may take smaller companies 2+ years to publish an entire path. Very few can match Paizo's output volume. But I've heard good things about 0one Games or Frog God Games's offerings.
.
.This one also depends on if the 3PP are aiming at Golarion compatible or just Pathfinder compatible. Hell, so 3PP could make its own Game-world.
This one also depends on if the 3PP are aiming at Golarion compatible or just Pathfinder compatible. Hell, so 3PP could make its own Game-world.
The only option for third-party publishers is the second—third parties can't make commercial products set in Golarion. Just off the top of my head, I know that Open Design's Midgard and Louis Porter Jr.'s NeoExodus campaign settings both use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game ruleset.
I just think that there's nothing wrong with being open minded about the possibility of changing the AP to something else after volume 72, the completion of the 12th AP, which will coincide at GenCon 2013 and (likely) the newest offal-offering from the other gaming company.
There's nothing wrong with being open-minded about McDonalds changing the Big Mac to something else after the n billionth one is sold either. I mean, other than there being no sign of a declining popularity.
But seriously, you're right that there's nothing wrong with discussion. It's being discussed, so that's good.
I don't like like the modules.
AND they compete with the AP line
Complement. You misspelled "compliment". When I want to run a long campaign without prep-work, I grab an AP off the shelf. When I need an adventure to fill in a home-brew campaign, I grab a module off the shelf. I wouldn't want to cancel either subscription as they're both of high utility to me.
While yes, I have finite cash resources, my wallet decisions don't come down to "I may have to sacrifice my 12 $20 books a year subscription to be able to afford my 6 module a year subscription."
Why not cancel the line altogether in 18 months and make each "AP" volume a monthly (or thereabouts) softcover, perfect-bound book of high quality paper that instead of having p.1 of 6, has 3 unrelated adventures and a couple supporting articles for DMs and Players.
I think the appropriate Internet meme is "do not want". Or more appropriately "do not want in stead of." I'd pay for more modules from Paizo. I'm on the brink of picking up Dreamscarred Press' adventure path, and I subscribed to Slumbering Tsar but I still can't get enough adventure material. Well... sort of. I need to pause for a tiny bit because my January bill is going to be kind of stupendous what with the minis case, but the point remains.
You're getting open-minded dialog. So far it mostly doesn't agree with you, which is kind of depressing, I'm sure. I'll grant that I'd love to see a random 3-module bound book each month. But not at the cost of the coherent adventure path product. The one thing I didn like about Dungeon (and incidentally I'm only not a Charter subscriber because I didn't roll my Dungeon subscription to RotR before the cut-off date for that to happen... I was seamless) was the high amount of "not useful to me right now" material. At least with APs, I know six months of "oh, a pirate AP" fits together and when I shelf it I do so knowing maybe someday I'll need this. A bunch of random adventures complements, not competes with an AP for my dollar.
So I'm hoping your thread brings about an additional product. I know it won't and can't, or the current Paizo staff will explode, but hey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This! I have all the print Dungeon magazines, and a ream of modules. I want / need complete campaigns!
-- david
Papa.DRB
I wouldn't buy a monthly bunch of unconnected modules. I have zillions of those from oooh the whole Dungeon print run and 3PPs.
What I don't have is quality campaigns - something WotC was never able to do well, and 3PPs never had the resources to do.
|
@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.
The old saying goes, "if it waint broke, dont fix it". So far, while I didnt like every AP, its working for them, they dont need to change it.
As for dragon/Dungeon comparison, I can honestly say while dungeon was pretty useful every issue, having collect dragon from the days of double digitls(issue 50? 70? I cant remember), Dragon magazine wasnt always worth the cover price, or was that useful even for reading material. Even during Paizo's tenure.
So I'm hoping your thread brings about an additional product. I know it won't and can't, or the current Paizo staff will explode, but hey.
Pretty much this. I'd love to see it happen, but not at the cost of quality.
I'm not an AP subscriber, but it's not because I don't find the APs to be superb products (cos I do). I'm not a module subscriber either, but again, it's not because the craftsmanship isn't top-notch (cos it is).
I have picked up several of both AP books and modules. I'll continue to do so, cos I think the value for my dollar is there every single time I do.
Mona just said the Modules line is struggling.
No, I did not.
I said the line could use your support. There are fewer subscribers for Modules than there are for APs, but the line is doing just fine.
I might have been the one to imply that modules aren't as strong as the other lines. But I only base that conclusion on the fact that it hasn't expanded to monthly yet. I'm sure there are workflow issues around that as well though.
I'm sure it is meeting its target numbers, I just don't think it is as strong as the APs, Rulebooks, or Campaign Books. But I don't have any hard numbers, just a gut feeling based on the rankings when the subs are shipping out.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For 4 years now Jacobs has been saying that APs can't be anything but 6 volumes and for 4 years now I've felt that every "reason" he gives is silly. Harder work on the designers, no doubt. But not undoable (You guys are working your dream-careers, yes?) Not impossible to make sure a new AP begins every GenCon. You got 12 months: One 7 and one 5. Or a 6 and two 3s. Or a 4 a 6 and a 2. Harder work but doable . . . . And you don't have to start every one at 1st level. Starting a 3 volume AP at level 9 would not lose customers. Finishing an 8 volume AP at level 21 would not lose customers. (in theory)Frankly... "harder work on the designers" is perhaps the number ONE reason I'm not all that eager to switch the 2 APs a year formula. (To a lesser extent is my fear that many AP readers and players would be less interested in shorter Adventure Paths, since we've seen a fair amount of resistance already to APs that don't go as high level as others.)
But working a "dream-career" should NOT be code for "you get to work 80 hours a week on a salary that assumes a 40 hour week just because you enjoy your job enough that if we asked you to work that much you would."
Tru dat. Case in point: I'm up at 1 in the morning on a school/work night because I've got an AP adventure to finish. I love gaming and I love getting paid to write gaming stuff... but a little extra shuteye wouldn't be amiss either, and that's just for me as a regular Paizo contributor that works in and around their production schedules, not even an in-office person in Redmond.
It's easy enough to say, "You love it, just do more," but I've turned down opportunities before for stuff that would've been fun, but I just ain't got the time vs. the other things I want to be able to do. All money ain't good money, bro. :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop producing the most successful and popular product line in a year because The World's Oldest is having another identity crisis?
COME ON!
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.
Paizo has been/IS a change in the industry.
I think you underestimate them and overestimate the relevance of the Distinguished Competition, which was beginning to be eclipsed by countless systems, wargaming and RPG both, even before they made the mistake that led to the situation that caused them to make the announcement you are not-so-subtley dancing around.
Get over it: no one company counts as "the industry."
|
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.
Very true. I love to read the modules and even when I will not them for years and I pilfer material from adventures all the time (and with Paizo PDF I love the chance to pilfer some image too, to use for my games. Giving a "face" to a NPC, taking him/her from another module or the forum is great).
I would like a periodic (quarterly?) compilation of shorter one shot adventures/encounters, maybe with support articles (a bit like the old Dungeon+Polyhedron combo) as a secondary product line, but I am not so sure it would produce a profit for Paizo. I would be very grateful if they were to produce it, but not if it was a substitution for the AP line.
I don't know if saying the Modules line is struggling is actually accurate. It's not our best-selling line, for sure, but it does what it aims to do. Could we have more subscribers for it? You bet. But it gets no less attention than our other lines, and I believe offers things that no other line does or can without changing those lines away from the formula that makes them the successes they are. While you are correct that we currently publish three different lines of adventures, each is aimed at a different goal, and thus they wouldn't really serve to replace one another if one of the lines went away.
My group is a bit new to the Pathfinder AP line and are about to tap into the modules so you might find a boost coming from us and other late comers. I've ordered The Harrowing from my FLGS to slot into Serpent Skull and if that works, I'm confident it will, I'll be looking at what else is out there to add to the AP I'm running.
There's no way Paizo would shift away from the AP line as it's the best thing about Pathfinder. It's a community linking element where players and GMs can share their experiences and help enhance each others games. Previously I've pinch hit as a DM using my own stuff, but have never carried a campaign. Now I am, and its because the AP gives me what I need without requiring a high work load on my part. So far its been real enjoyable running it, reading it and post-book chat. I've found the forums a huge help. I don't see a need for a shake up in how the APs are being done as they are popular, well written and are to put it simply - fun.
Currently with my group I'm doing Serpent skull (up to book 2), one player is setting up for Kingmaker and another has claimed Skull and Shackles. Before this, we pretty much just had the one guy DMing all the time with the odd cameo behind the screen. The APs is whats got us players to step up and take a turn behind the screen. I don't think that would have happened without the APs and the Paizo forums. I've enjoyed the AP I'm running and yeah James is right, reading them is an enjoyable too.
I suspect that this point will be lost in the discussion that's going on in this thread, but I'm going to make it anyway as the early discussion seemed to echo this. I just ordered Second Darkness during the Black Friday sale, and I was pleasantly surprised at the...was it "Setpieces?" The little single-location encounters that were designed to complement the actual adventure paths, but could fit into any campaign?
Frankly, I'd be willing to pay a little more for a slightly larger AP volume (an extra ten or twelve pages, for example) that included one or two Setpieces. I plan to throw two of the Second Darkness Setpieces into my Kingmaker campaign just because I like the look of them. :)
As an added bonus, it might enable Paizo to "audition" new writers without giving them a whole Adventure Path or Module to write. (Presumably in the same way that PFS Scenarios do.)
The only option for third-party publishers is the second—third parties can't make commercial products set in Golarion. Just off the top of my head, I know that Open Design's Midgard and Louis Porter Jr.'s NeoExodus campaign settings both use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game ruleset.
JBE is coming out with Shadowsfall this year. Its the plane of shadows and it can easily be the Plane of Shadows for Golarion or Midgard or NeoExodus for someone's home game. Though there are no official ties.
[Shameless Plug]
|
I think the AP and module lines are both fantastic.
The only change I would want to see is more modules a year (if they could be of the same quality) but even then my wallet is telling me to stop this foolish thinking...
Chwarae teg to Molech for stating his case but I think he's in the minority.
<wanders off, humming the rolling stones... you can't always get what you want, but if you try some times, you might fin...>
Feegle, the addition of the set pieces added extra development time (which was not good for the staff and production schedule) and customers at the time complained about the inclusion of them, so they got dropped after Legacy of Fire.
|
|
Feegle, the addition of the set pieces added extra development time (which was not good for the staff and production schedule) and customers at the time complained about the inclusion of them, so they got dropped after Legacy of Fire.
Also, they were notoriously hard to fit into the main adventure, due to both being written at the same time by different authors, resulting in a plague of parallel development.
Aaand they were supposed to be a "testing ground" for new authors, but PFS scenarios took care of that.
Feegle, the addition of the set pieces added extra development time (which was not good for the staff and production schedule) and customers at the time complained about the inclusion of them, so they got dropped after Legacy of Fire.Also, they were notoriously hard to fit into the main adventure, due to both being written at the same time by different authors, resulting in a plague of parallel development.
Really? What's to complain about? More adventures? *sigh* Oh, well.
I can't speak to fitting them into the main adventure, but I'd still be happy to have them as a "Book of Lairs" type-thing. If the setting is the same as the main adventure, then they can be fit in, or not, or used independently in home campaigns, or...
Regardless, it seems like that ship has sailed for the AP line, and that makes me a sad panda. :(
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.
The US government says there is a difference. There is I am sure a difference in shipping (though really Paizo AP's are about the size of any weekly science journal, Nature is actually quite a bit thicker.) I think that the AP's could be labeled as a periodical if Paizo wanted it to.
This is significant because many states do not tax periodicals. There is also some US postal deals that at least USED to apply to periodicals.
EDIT: Never mind. I should have read the rest of the thread.
why would you want to change from adventure paths, they're awesome!!
there's a line from "National Lampoon's Senior trip" that applies here "steady as she goes Mr. sulu, steady as she goes"
no need to change things just because someone else is.
the tweaking they've made to ap's over the years is the right way to go (though if you have a creature in an ap from a source that hasn't been released yet then include stats (i'm talking to you noburo in "forest of spirits", i understand most pc's wont fight a kami but they do surprise you sometimes-pc's i mean)
just my opinion:)
I think one of the things you may be missing is that Dungeon and Dragon were not tied into 1 game world. All of the adventure paths now fit into Golarion. So do all the Pathfinder Society and Modules lines. Paizo isn't in the buisness of publishing random adventures that were found in Dungeon, where you had support for many different campaign settings.
I think this is a blessing and a curse. I like that Paizo can focus their creativity and energy in 1 place. I like that it fits together nicely. Overall, I think it works. The downside is though that Paizo is not producing as much adventure support for things that do not fit into their world. It reduces the creative material for people who want to do non-standard campaign settings. In general though, I don't think that is something that Paizo needs to work on, and I would rather they focus and don't compete with themselves the way TSR did.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feegle, the addition of the set pieces added extra development time (which was not good for the staff and production schedule) and customers at the time complained about the inclusion of them, so they got dropped after Legacy of Fire.
Hmmm, a book of just set pieces could be pretty cool, though...
I think one of the things you may be missing is that Dungeon and Dragon were not tied into 1 game world. All of the adventure paths now fit into Golarion. So do all the Pathfinder Society and Modules lines. Paizo isn't in the buisness of publishing random adventures that were found in Dungeon, where you had support for many different campaign settings.
I think this is a blessing and a curse. I like that Paizo can focus their creativity and energy in 1 place. I like that it fits together nicely. Overall, I think it works. The downside is though that Paizo is not producing as much adventure support for things that do not fit into their world. It reduces the creative material for people who want to do non-standard campaign settings. In general though, I don't think that is something that Paizo needs to work on, and I would rather they focus and don't compete with themselves the way TSR did.
I think the support for non campaign specific AP's is not an issue.
Any generic module or AP would still have to have place names, that DM's could include or change at will.
I ran Legacy of Fire in FOrgotten Realms and it worked out perfect for Zakhara. I changed some background that is all.
After the inner sea guide I decided the quality was equal to the old forgotten realms so I made the switch.