Sooo ... about dropping fiction out of APs? Now that we have a fiction line, weekly blog fiction and stuff...
*Gorbacz's hopeless post on the matter, episode 352*
Nope.
I've said it before and it hasn't changed.
Fiction in the AP may be polarizing, but more people like it than not. And it lets us explore portions of the world in ways we can't explore in other print products. And it lets us find and try out new fiction authors. And it REALLY helps to distribute the workload—if we didn't do fiction, those 6 pages would have to be handled by the AP's other developers who are already scrambling to handle the rest of the product's contents. Six pages might not seem like a lot, but being able to hand off 6 pages a month (along with the concept and development work—which is VERY different for fiction than it is for adventures and game material) to James Sutter, our Fiction Editor, is immensely helpful.
And we at Paizo enjoy the fiction. That counts for a lot.
We will fight...at the beaches... in the air... we'll never surrender!
Unless it's all going to be written by Sutter.
Enjoyed "Death's Heretic" but will still take Dave Gross over Sutter, I think. Enjoy his characters better, and just his style of writing.
. . . But, I wouldn't complain about Sutter . . . ;)
|
In addition... the middle adventures are the easy ones. The HARDEST part of an AP is starting it and ending it, because that involves more than just adventure development. Starting it requires the creation of an outline and concepts for the entire thing—a process that takes a LOT of work. Ending it requires the creation of a "Continuing the Campaign" article. Increasing those two sets of tasks to 3 times a year instead of 2 times would make it more difficult to pull off a monthly AP product, and as you can see by the fact that we're constantly struggling with keeping the thing on schedule... ANYTHING that makes it more complicated to produce is not really an option.
Especially, as in the case of doing 3 four-parters, that change would not only increase complexity, but result in an overall poor reaction from most of our customers, who, if anything, are asking for LONGER adventure paths overall (in that, as mentioned above, folks want APs that go to 20th level).
We've taken more steps recently to address the fact that our current methods of producing an AP aren't as efficient as they need to be, and I'm confident that over the course of 2012 we'll be able to get back on schedule and, more importantly, STAY on schedule—I can't really talk too much about those plans for the moment, but once we're comfortably on schedule... THAT'S the point to start thinking about making things more complicated. And even then I'd step carefully.
One 4-parter, and one 8-parter. Shut up the fans of simple and epic all in one year.
Ah, that's the one I was missing. I was rather impressed to see in on the PX shelves in Afghanistan however.KOBOLD QUARTERLY: Afghanistan's #1 RPG magazine!
Actually that'd be The Simurgh. Providing support material for Rostam: the RPG since 2006.
I would be fine in getting rid of the fiction in the APs for more monsters, magic items, articles, NPCs, etc.
But I would stop buying them if there no Bestiaries.
Sooo ... about dropping fiction out of APs? Now that we have a fiction line, weekly blog fiction and stuff...
*Gorbacz's hopeless post on the matter, episode 352*
Nope.
I've said it before and it hasn't changed.
Fiction in the AP may be polarizing, but more people like it than not. And it lets us explore portions of the world in ways we can't explore in other print products. And it lets us find and try out new fiction authors. And it REALLY helps to distribute the workload—if we didn't do fiction, those 6 pages would have to be handled by the AP's other developers who are already scrambling to handle the rest of the product's contents. Six pages might not seem like a lot, but being able to hand off 6 pages a month (along with the concept and development work—which is VERY different for fiction than it is for adventures and game material) to James Sutter, our Fiction Editor, is immensely helpful.
And we at Paizo enjoy the fiction. That counts for a lot.
We will fight...at the beaches... in the air... we'll never surrender!
Unless it's all going to be written by Sutter.
Enjoyed "Death's Heretic" but will still take Dave Gross over Sutter, I think. Enjoy his characters better, and just his style of writing.
. . . But, I wouldn't complain about Sutter . . . ;)
To be honest, I was a bit disappointed in the last Dave Gross book. I thought Prince of Wolves was far better
Sooo ... about dropping fiction out of APs? Now that we have a fiction line, weekly blog fiction and stuff...
*Gorbacz's hopeless post on the matter, episode 352*
*whacks Gorbacz* Snap out of it man! Besides, there is a ton of GM resources in the AP fiction. =)
In my humble opinion, there's no reason whatsoever to include massive backstories and statistics for certain characters.
Off of the top of my head-- Goti Runecaster is a throwaway encounter with someone who hardly even matters, but he has a 2 page statblock, backstory and personal art. O-Sayumi doesn't even engage in combat-- why does she need a highly personalized stat block? Vesundvaag is only tolerable because she's a dragon type that doesn't show up in the bestiary (and less tolerable because I'll likely be increasing her CR to make up for her being a single target on the battlefield). Sikutsu Sennaka is take-or-leave.
I felt like book 4 had it correct-- three stat blocks, one of of which was a two-page statblock, for the two main villains and the PC's new ally.
And while I'm giving feedback... no more split tactics between book and the NPC's statblock. :(
I absolutely support this statement. Instead of some of the rather useless extended backstory for one-shot NPC's, it would have been far preferable to include more events and ideas for the supposedly supremely important constant friendly NPC's in Jade Regent.
An AP that uses the fast track XP would only really gain 1 level over a Medium track one.
2) make a faster XP track thingy; less XP needed = less encounters needed = ... well you can figure it out.
.
.I meant it as faster than the current fast track.
|
|
I absolutely support this statement. Instead of some of the rather useless extended backstory for one-shot NPC's, it would have been far preferable to include more events and ideas for the supposedly supremely important constant friendly NPC's in Jade Regent.
I support finding ways to clear up a little space, but I don't support removing "useless extended backstory" for NPC's.
They're far more compelling and easier to play out of the box when there's a set of motives, and in the event my group doesn't take the old school "if it is placed in front of us, we have to kill it" approach, it's nice to be able to play the character accordingly.
That being said, if the combat blocks say things like "they have absolutely no interest in talking. They fight to the death." then yeah, editing should probably be "cool backstory bro" and a ctrl-x.
I absolutely support this statement. Instead of some of the rather useless extended backstory for one-shot NPC's, it would have been far preferable to include more events and ideas for the supposedly supremely important constant friendly NPC's in Jade Regent.I support finding ways to clear up a little space, but I don't support removing "useless extended backstory" for NPC's.
They're far more compelling and easier to play out of the box when there's a set of motives, and in the event my group doesn't take the old school "if it is placed in front of us, we have to kill it" approach, it's nice to be able to play the character accordingly.
That being said, if the combat blocks say things like "they have absolutely no interest in talking. They fight to the death." then yeah, editing should probably be "cool backstory bro" and a ctrl-x.
I can agree with that. But I still think that the important friendly NPC's in Jade Regent got a raw deal, from what they were supposed to be. Ah, well, another topic I will have to write about whenever I have time again.
@HolmesandWatson, there are already people complaining the APs don't take PCs to a high-enough level. Topping out at level 11 or 12 after book 4 isn't going to make the people wanting to go to level 20 happy. And James has stated elsewhere that the quantity of actual adventure text is already at the limit for what can be fit into a monthly schedule, so you can't stuff more adventure into each book.In addition... the middle adventures are the easy ones. The HARDEST part of an AP is starting it and ending it, because that involves more than just adventure development. Starting it requires the creation of an outline and concepts for the entire thing—a process that takes a LOT of work. Ending it requires the creation of a "Continuing the Campaign" article. Increasing those two sets of tasks to 3 times a year instead of 2 times would make it more difficult to pull off a monthly AP product, and as you can see by the fact that we're constantly struggling with keeping the thing on schedule... ANYTHING that makes it more complicated to produce is not really an option.
Especially, as in the case of doing 3 four-parters, that change would not only increase complexity, but result in an overall poor reaction from most of our customers, who, if anything, are asking for LONGER adventure paths overall (in that, as mentioned above, folks want APs that go to 20th level).
We've taken more steps recently to address the fact that our current methods of producing an AP aren't as efficient as they need to be, and I'm confident that over the course of 2012 we'll be able to get back on schedule and, more importantly, STAY on schedule—I can't really talk too much about those plans for the moment, but once we're comfortably on schedule... THAT'S the point to start thinking about making things more complicated. And even then I'd step carefully.
As an end user, I don't need an AP monthly. So I wasn't suggesting 3 a year, of 4 parts each. Doing 2 good ones a year of 4 parts would be fine. I'm not asking more AP content, I'd be fine with less.
And there seems to be enough product in the other lines (Companion, Campaign Setting, etc) to provide supplemental stuff for the current AP.
And guess I'm in the minority that I think there's more than enough high level stuff.
As an end user, I don't need an AP monthly. So I wasn't suggesting 3 a year, of 4 parts each. Doing 2 good ones a year of 4 parts would be fine. I'm not asking more AP content, I'd be fine with less.
As a business, Paizo relies on monthly AP income -- or at least on selling 12 issues a year for those months when their schedule slips. While it might meet your needs to have less content, it wouldn't allow them to meet their payroll. Employees -- and utilities -- want to get paid all twelve months in a year, not just 8. :)
We've tried a couple of times to shift adventures away from being obviously set in Golarion, and the results were less than satisfying.
I'm not really sure what "the results were less than satisfying" really means, but I'm curious what those were...
What I do know is that the APs that were too Golarion (and yes, there is very much such a thing) were the stinkiest APs that Paizo put out (SD and CoT, I'm looking at you), so maybe a middle ground would be great for everyone (as the best Paizo APs have clearly shown can be done - RotRL, CotCT, even LoF and KM).
Beware the Midnight problem and its fate - make an overly niche-y setting, and watch it dwindle away to death as it is supported by an ever-reducing number of wacko fanboys only.
|
I have a couple of thoughts:
1. The NPC gallery seems a little bit stretched for my taste. Looking at some of the ones in JR, it almost looks like the designers didn't have enough material to fill 2 pages on them. I wonder if the APs could get more mileage out of devoting 1 page per NPC, and if more backstory is needed, including it in the adventure itself.
2. Count me in as one who likes the fiction. I look forward to it every month.
As a business, Paizo relies on monthly AP income -- or at least on selling 12 issues a year for those months when their schedule slips. While it might meet your needs to have less content, it wouldn't allow them to meet their payroll. Employees -- and utilities -- want to get paid all twelve months in a year, not just 8. :)
I get the revenues vs expenses thing. But I used to be an adventure path subscriber. But two of the past three weren't worth about $120 to me, so I cancelled. The successful business model of today might not work tomorrow.
I remember when TSR owned the RPG industry and Judges Guild was #2. They're both gone now.
One 4-parter, and one 8-parter. Shut up the fans of simple and epic all in one year.In addition... the middle adventures are the easy ones. The HARDEST part of an AP is starting it and ending it, because that involves more than just adventure development. Starting it requires the creation of an outline and concepts for the entire thing—a process that takes a LOT of work. Ending it requires the creation of a "Continuing the Campaign" article. Increasing those two sets of tasks to 3 times a year instead of 2 times would make it more difficult to pull off a monthly AP product, and as you can see by the fact that we're constantly struggling with keeping the thing on schedule... ANYTHING that makes it more complicated to produce is not really an option.
Especially, as in the case of doing 3 four-parters, that change would not only increase complexity, but result in an overall poor reaction from most of our customers, who, if anything, are asking for LONGER adventure paths overall (in that, as mentioned above, folks want APs that go to 20th level).
We've taken more steps recently to address the fact that our current methods of producing an AP aren't as efficient as they need to be, and I'm confident that over the course of 2012 we'll be able to get back on schedule and, more importantly, STAY on schedule—I can't really talk too much about those plans for the moment, but once we're comfortably on schedule... THAT'S the point to start thinking about making things more complicated. And even then I'd step carefully.
I'd be interested to hear Paizo's take on experimenting with a 4/8 split for a year.
I can appreciate the fact that the "bookend" episodes of an AP require considerably more work and this solution seems to avoid that problem. Plus it stretches the usual parameters of APs rather than totally reinventing them, which seems to be Paizo's preferred method of experimentation.
One problem I could imagine would be that the two groups you list (the 'we want short-and-sweet APs' crowd and the 'we want to go all the way to 20th level +' crowd) might be more motivated to drop the AP they're not interested in.
I'm not really sure what "the results were less than satisfying" really means, but I'm curious what those were...
What I do know is that the APs that were too Golarion (and yes, there is very much such a thing) were the stinkiest APs that Paizo put out (SD and CoT, I'm looking at you), so maybe a middle ground would be great for everyone (as the best Paizo APs have clearly shown can be done - RotRL, CotCT, even LoF and KM).
I, too, would like to know which adventures this refers to. I can't think of which APs or Modules were less Golarion-y than others, or which were less awesome because of it.
I don't agree, however, that "too Golarion" is a thing. People hated Second Darkness because of the bait-and-switch story and the fact that the elves were jerks, which is not a Golarion-centric problem at all. Council of Thieves suffered from a weak overall narrative, not from being set in Cheliax. Sixfold Trial is considered a great adventure, and is probably the most Chelish adventure in the path.
Frankly, given Golarion's "kitchen sink" nature, I find it difficult to even call one AP more "Golarion" than another, let alone consider if that is a problem or not.
I don't agree, however, that "too Golarion" is a thing.
Needless to say, I'm not surprised that certain people on the Paizo messageboard wouldn't.
Needless to say, I'm not surprised that certain people on the Paizo messageboard wouldn't.
Well, that isn't terribly enlightening. Could you elaborate on the reasons you find Second Darkness and Council of Thieves more Golarion-centric than other APs, and how that influenced their quality? Are there specific aspects of there Golarion-ness that caused problems, or is it just an observed correlation? Would you personally prefer adventures set in no particular world at all, or just ones that were in a setting other than Golarion?
To be clear, I don't mean things can't be "too Golarion" in a "Mmm... Golarion! More Red Mantises and Pathfinders in everything!" sort of way. Rather, I don't think there are many aspects of it that are so out there that adventures can't be popped out and set in any other generic faux-medieval fantasy setting with minimal effort.
For some, it might more be "too much Varisia" than "too much Golarion".
Creative Director
|
We've tried a couple of times to shift adventures away from being obviously set in Golarion, and the results were less than satisfying.I'm not really sure what "the results were less than satisfying" really means, but I'm curious what those were...
What I do know is that the APs that were too Golarion (and yes, there is very much such a thing) were the stinkiest APs that Paizo put out (SD and CoT, I'm looking at you), so maybe a middle ground would be great for everyone (as the best Paizo APs have clearly shown can be done - RotRL, CotCT, even LoF and KM).
Beware the Midnight problem and its fate - make an overly niche-y setting, and watch it dwindle away to death as it is supported by an ever-reducing number of wacko fanboys only.
"Results less than satisfying" basically means one of two things.
1) The fact that we created cool new elements and continuity but did not anchor it to Golarion well made it difficult in years to come for various reasons to work that continuity into the world in future products—for example, this is why information on the Shory civilization may have felt "tacked on" to the world for a time.
2) By exploring themes and ideas in non-Golarion-specific areas, we were diverting resources away from expanding our campaign setting and, in a way, were competing against ourselves. This was especially frustrating in cases where we did things that, in hindsight, could not fit into the world of Golarion as we had been expanding and detailing it in other lines.
I like to think that we've learned from some of our mis-steps in the Adventure Paths, in any event—I don't think those missteps suffered from making things TOO Golarion, though, but from perhaps using authors who weren't the best suited for adventure path content, or as an unavoidable result of the chaos one gets when you switch a game edition, or simply as a mis-reading of the audience's perceived interest in a certain topic. Or simple errors in plotting of an AP (such as Second Darkness's error in providing a compelling region and theme with Riddleport and its elements of criminal activity and then shifting gears to a much more good-guys versus the evil elements halfway through).
|
Creative Director
|
I get the revenues vs expenses thing. But I used to be an adventure path subscriber. But two of the past three weren't worth about $120 to me, so I cancelled. The successful business model of today might not work tomorrow.
I remember when TSR owned the RPG industry and Judges Guild was #2. They're both gone now.
We DO watch our subscription numbers. And to tell the truth, we DO lose subscribers all the time, particularly at the end of an Adventure Path. The key is to maintain a product momentum that results in a net gain though—it's sad to lose, say, a hundred subscribers, but if in that same amount of time we GAIN 200 subscribers, that tells us we're doing the correct thing and are on the right track with a product line. Currently... ALL of our lines are trending upward in this fashion.
That's certainly not to say that we don't listen to complaints or to reasons why folks unsubscribe. We do. And that's also why we're constantly changing things and trying new things with all of our lines... or frankly, that's why we do have multiple different book lines to offer for folks to enjoy.
|
Creative Director
|
I'd be interested to hear Paizo's take on experimenting with a 4/8 split for a year.
I can appreciate the fact that the "bookend" episodes of an AP require considerably more work and this solution seems to avoid that problem. Plus it stretches the usual parameters of APs rather than totally reinventing them, which seems to be Paizo's preferred method of experimentation.
One problem I could imagine would be that the two groups you list...
A 3/9 split, or anything further than that, is too much. A 3 part Adventure Path simply isn't long enough to justify it being an adventure path, in my opinion.
But a 4 part one? Dunno. That's certainly on the edge. A 5/7 split might be even more doable.
It's certainly something I'll keep in the back of my mind and keep thinking about. For now, my primary goal is to get the current model under control and on schedule—something that we've struggled with since the start, and mixing things up with a longer AP and a shorter one add too many variables to my comfort level at this point... especially when I think that we might have finally solved something with getting the AP line into a more manageable state (and no, I can't talk about that quite yet, but I will soon!).
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree, however, that "too Golarion" is a thing.Needless to say, I'm not surprised that certain people on the Paizo messageboard wouldn't.
Saying it that way almost sounds kind of snarky and condescending. I'm pretty sure you don't really mean it that way, though... but still.
If folks can't be excited and supportive of Golarion here... then where CAN they be?
I'm certainly willing to hear criticisim about our products and to learn from our mistakes... but I'm really NOT a fan of people criticising other people for their likes. It's not cool.
So please, keep your criticism and suggestions on improvement to Paizo products, and don't snipe at other people whose interests and preferences may differ from your own. Thanks!
I'd be interested to hear Paizo's take on experimenting with a 4/8 split for a year.
I can appreciate the fact that the "bookend" episodes of an AP require considerably more work and this solution seems to avoid that problem. Plus it stretches the usual parameters of APs rather than totally reinventing them, which seems to be Paizo's preferred method of experimentation.
One problem I could imagine would be that the two groups you list...
A 3/9 split, or anything further than that, is too much. A 3 part Adventure Path simply isn't long enough to justify it being an adventure path, in my opinion.
But a 4 part one? Dunno. That's certainly on the edge. A 5/7 split might be even more doable.
It's certainly something I'll keep in the back of my mind and keep thinking about. For now, my primary goal is to get the current model under control and on schedule—something that we've struggled with since the start, and mixing things up with a longer AP and a shorter one add too many variables to my comfort level at this point... especially when I think that we might have finally solved something with getting the AP line into a more manageable state (and no, I can't talk about that quite yet, but I will soon!).
No worries. I, for one, am interested in seeing you continue to experiment with the format the way you have so far. As such, I'd like to see a 4/8 or 5/7 trial at some point - 'a change is as good as a rest' and all that.
I dont have a clue as to whether that would actually be successful, of course - I could also see it messing with some of those rhythms you've developed (like working out what to do in a four part AP with the deity article due in instalment 5, for example).
We've tried a couple of times to shift adventures away from being obviously set in Golarion, and the results were less than satisfying.I'm not really sure what "the results were less than satisfying" really means, but I'm curious what those were...
What I do know is that the APs that were too Golarion (and yes, there is very much such a thing) were the stinkiest APs that Paizo put out (SD and CoT, I'm looking at you), so maybe a middle ground would be great for everyone (as the best Paizo APs have clearly shown can be done - RotRL, CotCT, even LoF and KM).
Beware the Midnight problem and its fate - make an overly niche-y setting, and watch it dwindle away to death as it is supported by an ever-reducing number of wacko fanboys only.
"Results less than satisfying" basically means one of two things.
1) The fact that we created cool new elements and continuity but did not anchor it to Golarion well made it difficult in years to come for various reasons to work that continuity into the world in future products—for example, this is why information on the Shory civilization may have felt "tacked on" to the world for a time.
2) By exploring themes and ideas in non-Golarion-specific areas, we were diverting resources away from expanding our campaign setting and, in a way, were competing against ourselves. This was especially frustrating in cases where we did things that, in hindsight, could not fit into the world of Golarion as we had been expanding and detailing it in other lines.
I like to think that we've learned from some of our mis-steps in the Adventure Paths, in any event—I don't think those missteps suffered from making things TOO Golarion, though, but from perhaps using authors who weren't the best suited for adventure path content, or as an unavoidable result of the chaos one gets when you switch a game edition, or simply as a mis-reading of the audience's perceived interest in a certain topic. Or simple errors in...
I hope we see more and more integration with Golarion in the APs. =)
Well, that isn't terribly enlightening.
*shrug* Sometimes I'm not - it often isn't worth going into too much detail on these boards when the most likely result is to get shouted down by the uber-fans (happens more often than not if you look around a bit). But with that said, you ask great questions.
Could you elaborate on the reasons you find Second Darkness and Council of Thieves more Golarion-centric than other APs, and how that influenced their quality? Are there specific aspects of there Golarion-ness that caused problems, or is it just an observed correlation?
It's an observed correlation. I'm certainly not saying that the Golarion weirdness in those two APs (how the wonky drow work, the Winter Council and Golarion elves, and a very specific devil-ruled region) actually caused the problems, but I don't think it's a coincidence. It's a nebulous issue that likely can't be pinpointed (much to the chagrin, I'm sure, of messageboard readers, who really seem to like that sort of thing), but it's there. And, as I said in my previous post, it doesn't surprise me at all that the type of person who hangs out on Paizo's messageboards (often rather... "strong" fans of the setting) can't/won't see it. Just the nature of the beast. [And I'm not taking that back, regardless if JJ decides to take the worst out of one single sentence.]
Would you personally prefer adventures set in no particular world at all, or just ones that were in a setting other than Golarion?
No, nowadays definitely Golarion - for many reasons. See, the great thing about Golarion is it's design philosophy - that there's room for (almost) anything. That's absolutely fantastic. It gives the authors the freedom to try new things while still staying in the same world. Further, Golarion is what Paizo authors know (or rather, most of Paizo's authors - see JJ's post above for when things fall apart), so we can be relatively sure we're getting something consistent. Further, it makes (for the most part) adapting the APs to ones' own campaign (whatever that might be) a snap.
One of my favorite things JJ has said is that they have to use proper names anyways, so why not be consistent all the time? You pretty much kill two birds with one stone, there (have to name things, and get a consistent setting in the process).
Rather, I don't think there are many aspects of it that are so out there that adventures can't be popped out and set in any other generic faux-medieval fantasy setting with minimal effort.
I don't think there are "many" aspects either (and I at the very least implied as much in my post, so I'm not sure where you're going with that). The (current) design philosophy behind Golarion is doing all the right things, AFAIC.
But, like I said in my previous post, the Midnight problem exists. While certain fans can't/won't see it, I have little doubt at all that the wider audience, the non-Paizo-messageboard audience, is absolutely aware of it, as it's not a new thing. People talked about it for 20+ years, how even FR adventures (FR!) were too niche-y and unadaptable, and we're aware of the fates of the real niche-y settings like Oathbound and Midnight. Difficult for people to use/adapt? Death.
As long as that potential problem is kept in the back of the mind, everything should be hunky dory. Hell, I own every Paizo AP except one (yes, even the wretched SD and CoT, of which even those can be mashed into something useable), so they're clearly doing it right. Hell, I don't have anything bad to say about the 6 parts, either, as I think they hit the sweet spot (though I'll always pooh-pooh the inclusion of fiction, and the fact that they don't go to high enough levels).
But yeah, I get it... Criticizing anything Paizo on their messageboards has always been rough seas, even from the staff themselves (who sometimes take the worst of what one writes).
|
Reasons a 5 - 7 format is superior to 6 - 6:
Campaign "frameworks" don't have to be exactly start-to-finish the same length, allowing more variety in plot structure.
Once a year one of the AP volumes will feature an adventure for higher than 15th Level PCs.
Once a year an entire AP will not advance too high in PC Level.
Reasons a 5 - 7 format is superior to 6 - 6:
Campaign "frameworks" don't have to be exactly start-to-finish the same length, allowing more variety in plot structure.
Once a year one of the AP volumes will feature an adventure for higher than 15th Level PCs.
Once a year an entire AP will not advance too high in PC Level.
I can see a problem though,
say the 5-7 format did take hold,now say the first AP of the year is a theme you like, but is not the length you like,
but the second AP is the theme you dislike, but a length you like.
What happens?
some will buy, some won't,
some will get both, others buy none.
the chance for a loss could increase a lot or be less.
|
|
As opposed to say, a six volume AP theme a customer dislikes.
Not seeing the difference.
Take me for example,
I'm a Charter AP subscriber and I'm about to cancel now, even before the final volume of Jade Regent comes out in mid-Feb. I "hate" Tian Xia that much and figure that the Minkai volume that I just got is sufficient for the entirety of my "Oriental Adventures" Pathfinder material.
Or a better example,
I'm absolutely cancelling for Skull & Shackles even if I do continue for the final Jade Regent volume.
BUT,...
I'm ABSOLUTELY coming back for Shattered Star.
I don't think one volume, one way or another, would change much.
If you don't like it, you're not likely to buy it whether it's 5 or 6 or 7 volumes.
(I would, though, probably keep my Charter Subscription if the Pirate AP were only, say, 3 volumes. $60 for pirates I can swallow. But even if it were 5 volumes I'd cut it out.)
one volume actually means a lot,
one volume times the sum of the number of subcribers and potential buyers is quite a lot, and times that buy it's cost and it equals a load of cash.
so the 6/6 format is most stable,
the 5/7 format is a real gamble,
what happens if the 5/7 format is used;
if the 5 vol is popular and the 7 vol is unpopular,
that's a big cash drain.
if the 7 vol is popular and the 5 vol is unpopular,
it is a big cash gain.
And like you I'm dropping the Skull & Shackles
am not sure about Shattered Star yet.
|
|
Well, cancelling hurts no matter what but let's see if I can articulate better what I'm thinking, then y'all folks who actually know this kinda business & finance stuff can show me why & how I'm wrong...
Say there's 100 AP subscribers and two of us, Azure 0 and I, hate pirates so much we're cancelling for this AP. Now, we're gonna cancel this themed AP whether it's 5 or 6 or 7 volumes. So that's a 2% drop for either 1 or 2 or 3 volumes. It sucks but it's not devastating. Right?...
The blunder would be if Paizo decided to do an AP theme that everyone hates. Like Eberon or The Mana Wastes Suck or Numeria for Dummies. Then they'd lose much much more than 2% for either 1 or 2 or 3 volumes.
And if they go to a 5 - 7 format they can do slightly more non-traditional plot or location themes in a 5 volume AP and stick to the traditionally big-selling themes for the 7 volume APs. Right?...
Lots of folks LOVE pirates and want Skull and Shackles so they'll get a couple new subscribers (like what Jacobs was saying earlier).
But given the choice wouldn't Paizo rather lose a subscriber (like me and Azure 0) for 5 volumes as opposed to 6?
ever hear of
"for every 1 person who speaks up, there is X number of people who don't."
so 2 people have annouced they don't like it so how many more also don't like it.
(read a few other threads and we are not the only ones who hate the pirate AP)
their is also a possiblity of a vocal minority who'll be very vocal for an AP, that no one likes the idea of and it could end up eating paizo's cash.
|
|
The blunder would be if Paizo decided to do an AP theme that everyone hates. Like Eberon or The Mana Wastes Suck or Numeria for Dummies. Then they'd lose much much more than 2% for either 1 or 2 or 3 volumes.
That wouldn't be a blunder, considering the amount of calls for a Numerian technofantasy AP.
|
|
That wouldn't be a blunder, considering the amount of calls for a Numerian technofantasy AP.
I think he meant a badly produced or poorly thought out Numeria AP. "Numeria for Dummies" in other words.
That's just what I assumed he meant anyway. Shrug.
NOTE: although it did bring to mind a Numeria campaign where everyone has to play an INT 4 Barbarian. Dummies indeed... :)
|
|
No, I was being a jerk, attacking Eberon, Mana Wastes & Numeria.
My point remains, though, that whatever the format, the more non-traditional theme, plot or setting Paizo uses for any given AP will turn off many gamers while really appealing to a few others.
You have any empirical data for this, or are you just projecting your personal preferences as to AP themes?
|
|
No, I was being a jerk, attacking Eberon, Mana Wastes & Numeria.
Oh! My apologies for mistaking what you meant.
But you may want to check out the "APs You'd Like to See" thread where Numeria has been bouncing around in the top 5 (with Linnorn Kings, political intrigue and Worldwound... after taking out Pirates of course since that's already now a definite).
Just sayin'... :)
EDIT: and I just saw you were there a couple hours ago so nevermind. lol.
|
Creative Director
|
You have any empirical data for this, or are you just projecting your personal preferences as to AP themes?No, I was being a jerk, attacking Eberon, Mana Wastes & Numeria.
My point remains, though, that whatever the format, the more non-traditional theme, plot or setting Paizo uses for any given AP will turn off many gamers while really appealing to a few others.
He might not, but I do.
Science fiction-based RPGs have traditionally NOT had nearly as strong sales as have fantasy RPGs. So when you start getting into science fiction or even science fantasy (which I would categorize the Mana Wastes and Numeria as), you risk driving away the stronger and larger audience.
We've been testing science fantasy content for a while, and so far the customer feedback has been MOSTLY quite positive, though, which is a pleasant surprise. And which does help us make decisions to pull triggers on larger projects.
I'm pretty happy with Adventure Paths as they are, but one thing I would maybe like to see is some inter-mixing betweeen Module line and APs. What I mean is basically that occasionally a Module could come out that actually acts as a direct continuation of an AP. I think it would be pretty awesome for groups that have run an AP to its finish to have a module come out a year or so later that lets them pick up their old characters and carry on that storyline at higher levels. Do you think this is something that Paizo might ever consider doing?
|
Creative Director
|
I'm pretty happy with Adventure Paths as they are, but one thing I would maybe like to see is some inter-mixing betweeen Module line and APs. What I mean is basically that occasionally a Module could come out that actually acts as a direct continuation of an AP. I think it would be pretty awesome for groups that have run an AP to its finish to have a module come out a year or so later that lets them pick up their old characters and carry on that storyline at higher levels. Do you think this is something that Paizo might ever consider doing?
Well...
Last year's free RPG day module was a prequel to Jade Regent. And this year's upcoming RPG module is a side trek for Shattered Star. And at least ONE of our already published modules is a stealth prequel... sort of... for an upcoming and unanounced AP.
So it's something the we ARE doing. Just not a lot yet.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Turns out that awesome art is 94% of how you convince RPG fans that they want something that they've not yet read about.I actually hated Golarion until Wayne Reynolds made me like it.Wayne Reynolds can make me like anything.
The Demon Within was what attracted me to Golarion. But Wayne's art made me enjoy the setting more. Good visuals. I am glad I picked up 'The Art of Wayne Reynolds'
