I agree in that I would also like to see more connected modules, like the Darkmoon Vale modules and the Immortal Trilogy.
I do like the idea of larger single modules (though at some point the line between "large module" and "adventure path" will start to blur), and I also really like the idea of modules tied into an adventure path.
I suspect the initial response will be "that'll be tough, since the exact content of an adventure path isn't known until pretty close to publishing, and given the lead time necessary to create a module and an adventure path volume, it'd be extremely difficult to synchronize the two."
But here's the thing. Many people don't run an adventure path right when it comes out. For example, I'm still in Haunting of Harrowstone, and Jade Regent is about to finish up.
So, for me, a module that tied into Carrion Crown would be awesome. Not only that, with the adventure path line planned for groups of 4 characters, things like extra modules can give that little XP bump that allows me to avoid restructuring all the encounters to be easier due to the lower levels.
And it wouldn't have to be synchronized. In fact, such a thing might increase interest in an adventure path that's been out for a year or two and isn't garnering as much attention.
|
I agree in that I would also like to see more connected modules, like the Darkmoon Vale modules and the Immortal Trilogy.
+1
I really like a couple of conected modules. Sometimes starting a new AP is just a commitement which is too huge. Presently I have this year to GM. As we play only once a month, I decided to GM the Price of Immortality, which will just be the right length for this year. An AP would be too huge and I presently don't feel like GMing such a huge thing. But some connected modules (which you can easily expand anytime if you feel like you have to) would be awesome.This would also serve those subscribers which wish for shorter APs (and just to be clear, I like the APs as they are!).
So, yes, more connected modules, please! :)
|
I think the modules would be great if they fit neatly into the cracks of Adventure Path books. Take that Acadmae adventure in Korvosa, if they fit that into the level range where the PCs are still in Korvosa it'll bs much easier for Curse GMs to slip in there.
Or a Qadira based adventure that could fit in the "gap year" between books 1 & 2.
Or unofficial "book 7" adventures for APs, such as the Bandit Council for Kingmaker, or "The Tomb of Savith Yi" for Serpent's skull. The kind of thing that can be inserted easily after or during book 6 or could be run as stand-alone modules.
I broadly agree with the OP. However, I fear that those of us who like the modules line are a fairly small minority, mainly because, sine the AP subscription offers so much more in each instalment (and much greater value), those 'testing the waters' are far more likely to start with an Adventure Path than with a module.
Personally, the 'small step' experiment I would like to see Paizo try is to be willing to vary the page count (and hence pricing) of individual modules within the line. I think the occasional 48 page, 64 page or even 96 page adventure would be worth a shot - based on nothing but gut feeling, I couldnt imagine many subscribers being put off by a few dollar increase one month (especially given it is so easy to opt-out for one instalment and then resubscribe).
Tying modules together is also something I'd also like to see more of, although if there were some longer modules produced, that would also be another way of achieving essentially the same goal.
I'd very much like to see this line be monthly as well, but I'm somewhat gloomy as to the prospects of that actually happening.
|
I think the biggest problem with the bi-monthly schedule is that if you had a three part series released in a year, you're tying up 50% of the subscriptions for the year.
If they went to a monthly schedule then I think there would be more room for a few closely tied adventures. (I love the three module arcs myself, and would like to see more)
I'd also like see the modules subscription get an "Annual" super module or something. Maybe make that the 96 page beast.
|
I loved the Price of Immortality Trilogy, but Squeatus is right; when you're publishing 6 modules a year (one of which is tied up by a Superstar), you're effectively tying half of that year's modules to one theme and rough geographic location.
I also love the connected modules and I think the annual is a pretty decent idea.
Chief Technical Officer
|
...why can't the PF Modules line be more dynamic in its content, format and even release schedule?
Having a consistent format and release schedule is of exceedingly high import for two reasons.
First, subscribers like—and, in many cases, *demand*—that predictability. I'm confident that changing the line from bimonthly 32-pagers to "however long we want, whenever we like" would result in a net loss of subscribers.
Second—and actually *more* importantly—that predictability is also crucial to our own workflow. Managing all of the resources that go into all of our product lines is complex, and the fewer variables, the better.
As for the content, we certainly do want to offer variety within those six 32-page modules... but that's a little bit difficult.
As you mentioned, the RPG Superstar-winning module takes up one of those 6 slots per year, so the choice about what that one is isn't up to us—it's up to you!
And then, when it comes to planning the other five, to be honest, the audience doesn't reward variety as much as you think. I'm sure you've heard it before, but low-level adventures sell better than high-level adventures, and first-level adventures sell best of all. So we pretty much *have* to plan at least one or two first-level adventures, and one or two that start higher than 1st, but still are pretty low, and that leaves room for just a couple of moderate-level and high-level adventures per year.
Then, the problem is if we take, say, our one moderate-level adventure slot, and we do something truly weird with it, anybody who doesn't like that flavor of weird doesn't *get* a moderate-level adventure that year. (This is part of why the "weird" stuff generally ends up in the AP line... but even then, we don't want every AP to be full of weird, so we generally do one traditional and one more offbeat AP per year.)
It's a balancing act, and it's one that tends to mean we get a lot more "pepperoni and cheese" than "pineapple and bacon".
It's a balancing act, and it's one that tends to mean we get a lot more "pepperoni and cheese" than "pineapple and bacon".
..... but, but pinapple and bacon are awesome on a pizza.
Perhaps get a lot more "pepperoni and cheese" than "octopus and vegemite"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, subscribers like—and, in many cases, *demand*—that predictability. I'm confident that changing the line from bimonthly 32-pagers to "however long we want, whenever we like" would result in a net loss of subscribers.
I am glad to see you make this point, as it is a strong one with me.
Honestly if the value of the adventure paths were not as high as they are, I wouldn't put up with even the variability that is in the schedule now. I never know when it is going to hit and that has cause budget issues some months were the charge comes on the single bad day of the month to hit me with over draft fees.
If it was anything else I would just unsubscribe, but the AP is my guilty pleasure.
|
|
I love buying adventures, but the fairly long list of subscriptions after my name does not include Pathfinder Modules.
On the whole, I don't find the Pathfinder modules to be very interesting. I'm happy with the ones I have, and I buy the odd one or two every couple of years which grab my attention, and pass on the rest.
So if Paizo added more variety to the Pathfinder Modules line, they'd gain at least one new subscriber. (I appreciate they believe they'd also lose some.) If Paizo publish a 96 page module, I'll buy it.
I would LOVE to see--and would be more likely to buy than a standard module--the kind of "sandbox scenario" that Dr. Johnny Fever outlines as part of his original post.
I do not often run modules, and only own very few. For the ones I do own, I farm them for ideas and maps than use them from start to finish (the exception is when running demos and one-shots).
I would love to see something where you get
- A detailed description of an area and the problems facing it
- Nice maps of key locations
- Statblocks for key NPCs and potential antagonists
- Suggestions for how PCs might be attracted to exploring or assisting in a specific place--but as broad hooks, not a linear path they must follow.
I definitely don't think they should be part of the modules line--and I'm sure subscribers wouldn't either--but as something separate.
These would be especially nice for high level (15+) adventurers, where a linear module is just extremely difficult to get to work, since what the party is capable of is so varied and powerful. They could even be used as something players and GMs could use when they finish playing through an AP, which tends to leave PCs around 15th level. I am sure not all players want to stop playing their characters there, but explicit modules may not be an answer. But maybe a loose scenario (I realize you need a different word since you use that for PFS, but I can't think of a good analog) that takes place in the same setting as a recent AP would be great to give the GM something to work with for a high level party that is yet more freeform, suiting a high level play style adventure with lots of possibilities.
Since we're giving feedback on the module line here, I would really like to see them go up to 64 pages and would be happy to pay the difference in price. I have no idea if that is possible though..
|
Since we're giving feedback on the module line here, I would really like to see them go up to 64 pages and would be happy to pay the difference in price. I have no idea if that is possible though..
What if they went up to 64 pages, the module used what of that it needed (providing a bit more flexibility in 32-64 pages), and the rest was filled with short side-treks that could be dropped into that or other adventures, one-shot encounters, interesting NPC descriptions and funky maps?
Would having that easily mineable extra content encourage more people to subscribe, rather than just cherry-picking the ones they wanted each year?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: as the developer of the Pathfinder Modules line, I wanted to address your concerns personally. Since you clearly took a lot of time to compose your thoughts and post them here, that seemed the least I could do.
I mean this as an honest criticism, so please forgive me if this sounds harsh (it is certainly not meant as a personal criticism of anyone) but the Modules line, as it stands today, seems like little more than a proving ground of sorts for adventure authors that Paizo is vetting or possibly grooming for bigger things.
That role is covered more these days by the Pathfinder Society Scenarios line, which, as a PDF-only product line involves less production cost for the risk, and the difficult nature of designing a tiered adventure for organized play allows us to really test people in a crucible of design difficulty.
Let me explain. First, it is a well known fact that the opportunity to write a module in the PF Modules line is the grand prize, if you will, of the RPG Superstar contest. So, one out of six of the adventures that we'll see in a year of the PF Modules line is written by a newcomer to the industry, and that's a good thing. Cultivating fresh talent is critical to the future health of the gaming industry that we all (presumably) love. However, it also means that Paizo is accepting a certain level of risk. This is, after all, the professional maiden voyage of someone who won a contest, which leads me to my second point.
That's true; it is a risk for us. That's why we only offer it to the winner. But that's a risk we're willing to take to give people the incentive to participate. You'll note that the runners-up were offered Pathfinder Society Scenarios, which have smaller word-counts (and thus less pay) and are less prominent as they're never printed and sold in stores. But one module a year by an untested author is an ok risk, as far as I'm concerned, in order to promote RPG Superstar and to truly reward the person who lasts to the end and comes out on top.
The Pathfinder Modules line is bi-monthly. I believe that a two month gap in the line is intentional because many of the developers in this line are not full time employees of Paizo and thus there is the risk that the initial drafts, reworks, etc might not arrive on time or at a level of quality that Paizo is comfortable with. I'm guessing that the two month gap between adventures is a safety net to allow Paizo time to recover from an adventure author who drops the ball for whatever reason.
I am the primary developer on the Pathfinder Modules line, and I am a full-time employee at Paizo, so that isn't the reason for the bi-monthly production schedule—not directly at least. While I work on this bi-monthly line and handle all the outlining, assigning, art ordering, revisions, and general freelancer back-and-forth as the adventures are written, I'm also doing the same same thing with the Pathfinder Society Scenarios line, which involves two scenarios a month. Thus, in a two month period, I'm personally overseeing, from start to finish, five adventures. To add another 32-page module on top of that would simply be more than I (or anyone, for that matter) could have time for and maintain both the high quality we strive for at Paizo and a semblance of sanity (not to mention a marriage and social life). Paizo is growing, and it may be that we take on more developers as time goes on who can help with some of the workload and enable this line to go monthly, but that's not something we have specific plans for at the moment.
Third, the PF modules line has been, at least up to now, a 32 page softcover. I believe that this, again, is by Paizo design as an intentional risk management firewall against a new or inexperienced adventure author getting in over their head with a project too large for them to handle. And, of course, poor sales on a 32 page adventure is a more easily absorbed loss than a 96 page super adventure that sells poorly.
This comes back to the same issue as above. Development of the adventures in our Pathfinder Adventure Path line (which usually come in around 55 pages, on average) are a full-time job for my fellow Developer, Rob McCreary. Doubling the size of the Pathfinder Modules line would necessitate the hiring of an additional person to take on development of it, as that amount of work is enough to occupy someone's plate all the time. As Vic pointed out above, it's also not something we can vary from month to month, and even changing the product length (and thus price) on people who have been subscribing for going on 5 years no would likely result in more cancelled subscriptions than it would net. That is the real risk with making changes to the format of the adventures, not a fear of a freelancer dropping the ball. We trust all of our freelancers to be professional and turn in the absolute best material in the industry, and we wouldn't assign someone to a project if we didn't think they could do it.
Or, to put it another way, I understand that there is great reluctance (justifiably so btw) in making any significant changes to the very successful Pathfinder AP formula (6 adventures, monthly, starts 1st level, finishes at 13th-17th level), but why can't the PF Modules line be more dynamic in its content, format and even release schedule?
As I said above, our subscription model means we can't be dynamic with the format of books that belong to subscription-based lines. You'll notice, for example, that our forthcoming Rise of the Runelords hardcover is not part of a line, as it wouldn't fit within what our subscribers tend to expect from month to month. That said, I feel the content of recent modules has been very dynamic. Adventures such as The Harrowing and The Ruby Phoenix Tournament are stories and types of adventures that we haven't done anywhere else, and that, at least internally, really excite us in terms of non-standard adventures we'd like to run or play. Coming up, we have The Moonscar, in which high-level PCs travel to the moon to face demons in an outer space jungle. That's pretty non-standard if you ask me, and not something we could do with any of our other product lines. The Modules line, as a relatively low word count line of one-off adventures is actually the perfect place for us to do weird or experimental adventures that might not be everyone's cup of tea. After all, if something doesn't interest you, you aren't committed to running five other adventures around it, and can simply not use that single adventure.
Hollow's Last Hope, Crown of the Kobold King, Revenge of the Kobold King, Hungry are the Dead, Tower of the Last Baron and Treasure of Chimera Cove were loosely connected, but that trend seems to have stopped in the modules line for the past year.
With only six adventures a year, one of which we're committed to having as the annual RPG Superstar module, that leaves only five to work with for linked adventures. And if the level range or concept of even a two-part arc isn't to people's liking, that's a third of our annual production run that we risk having lower sales on, as opposed to the normal sixth that we risk with any product. At the moment, there are no plans for other linked modules, but I wouldn't rule it out as something we'll never do again.
What we have done this year, however, is link a module (this month's The Ruby Phoenix Tournament) to the metaplot of our Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign for the season, thus synergizing the two product lines and adding an additional level of continuity to the world as a whole. If folks like this, we may do other crossover modules down the line.
The most obvious, to me, is the mega dungeon crawl. Most of the ones that I've seen done well (ToEE, Ruins of Castle Greyhawk, Undermountain) are not going to fit into a 32 page module, but nor are they likely going to be your entire campaign. Rappan Athuk Reloaded and Slumbering Tsar from Frog God Games are two exceptions of mega dungeons that are, IMO, full campaigns but they include more than just dungeon delves in a specific site. The dungeons listed in the book 'Dungeons of Golarion' would make good candidates here.
I agree. These would make awesome adventures, and we've said for a long time that we'd love to do a megadungeon book. But as stated above, it can't be part of this line, as people didn't sign on to the subscription with that as a contingent. If we were to do one down the line, it would likely be handled like the Rise of the Runelords compilation coming out this summer. But until we have such an adventure that we're ready to publicly announce, we could always handle it differently.
'Sandbox with walls' areas, as I call them, are also good candidates. This is a valley, or a kingdom, or a forest, or some other geographic area that will have numerous encounters and sites for adventure in it, but it is designed specifically for a limited range of levels. 'The Valley of So-and-So' details 50 different encounters, for levels 7-9. It won't fit into a (single) 32 page module but it also isn't something that merges nicely into a themed Adventure Path. Nor is it necessarily an area large enough for an entire campaign. Falcon's Hollow is a good example; not coincidentally, the area around FH made for my favorite series of adventures in the Modules line to date.
That's actually an interesting idea. I think we might be able to do a series of adventures in the same region to do this sort of thing, similar to how the early adventures in the line were often set in Absalom or Falcon's Hollow, to provide a number of unlinked adventures for GMs to pick apart and use as they needed in a sandbox-style campaign in the same region. It's not really something that we've discussed since I took over the line, so the suggestion is certainly one I'll bring up in our next long-term Pathfinder Modules planning meeting.
Also, there is the 'event' type of adventure. Something significant is going to happen, or should happen, and the PCs either have to make sure that it doesn't or that it does. The event, whatever it is, is big enough that 32 pages isn't going to allow for enough detailed coverage of it, but an entire AP centered around the idea is going to end up stretching the PCs' patience (I felt like this by the end of the Age of Worms AP....cripes show up already, will you, Kyuss?).
Event-based adventures are really hard to pull off, even by experienced authors, and that's one reason we haven't done a ton of them. This month's The Ruby Phoenix Tournament is sort of an event-based adventure, but perhaps it's time to do another one in the future. It has been some time since we did one.
Maybe this is an area that Paizo has consciously decided to leave to third party companies. Certainly Frog God Games has scratched this itch for me up to now. But, when Paizo has enough confidence to branch out into online games and comic books, I have to believe that it can take a calculated risk on the Pathfinder Modules line in order to get it to that next level.
I'll note that both our online and comics products (as well as our various minis lines) are licensed to other companies, meaning they take far less resources than something produced internally. I too want to see the Pathfinder Modules line rise up your excitement ranking and this sort of feedback is exactly what we need to do that. Thanks for taking the time to post such extensive commentary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Mark for the insightful post,
it does answer most of the OPs concerns and questions.
And I, like the OP, really do like the loosely connected modules (The Falcon's Hollow series were really freaking great)
And it gives me a look into the life of a Paizo staff member.
|
|
I'm reminded of Hommlet or Keep on the Borderland. To me, that's what Falcon's Hollow was, and still is.
I was going to say something like that. I know the modules are going to go off to different locations, but it could be useful to see Falcon's Hollow and the surrounding area be abused fairly frequently.
Twice a year, with nothing tying them together except the location really, and in a few years you'd have an unofficial campaign of sorts, without all the dependencies that the AP line creates.
I like story arcs too but I would resubscribe in a hot minute IF...
We had modules that were optional side treks to the current ongoing AP. Almost like the Set Pieces of old, just more connected to the AP while still being able to run it as a one shot.
I like story arcs too but I would resubscribe in a hot minute IF...
We had modules that were optional side treks to the current ongoing AP. Almost like the Set Pieces of old, just more connected to the AP while still being able to run it as a one shot.
What about people that are not interested in the ap or are gming the ap and want something different to play?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I like story arcs too but I would resubscribe in a hot minute IF...
We had modules that were optional side treks to the current ongoing AP. Almost like the Set Pieces of old, just more connected to the AP while still being able to run it as a one shot.
One of the main reasons Set Pieces are no longer included in the APs, and why they often seemed so unconnected from the main adventure when they were there, is that the same person can't develop both the AP adventure and any side quests. That means that it's near impossible for the two not to either contradict one another or be completely unrelated simply because they're a story being told by two people. It's the main reason we make sure that the same person develops each AP from start to finish.
Would you consider Academy of Secrets a side quest for Curse of the Crimson Throne? If so, that level of connection is certainly possible, but much closer than that and we risk crossing the streams, and that's bad for everyone.
What about people that are not interested in the ap or are gming the ap and want something different to play?I like story arcs too but I would resubscribe in a hot minute IF...
We had modules that were optional side treks to the current ongoing AP. Almost like the Set Pieces of old, just more connected to the AP while still being able to run it as a one shot.
Just saying what interests me. My taste is my own and I don't speak for everyone.
To date since the modules went PFRPG, there have only been a handful that have interested me. These are Fellnight, Carrion Hill, Iron Medusa, Godsmouth and Witchwar, I could see myself running these. The rest really haven't been my cup of tea. Ymmv of course.Oddly there were more 3.5 modules that appealed to me beyond the Darkmoon Vale adventures. Again ymmv.
@ Mark Moreland
Yep, it fits. Also the modules I listed above can fit in well as a side quest/set piece to a few APs (besides the obvious Carrion Hill/CC). Fellnight can fit with Kingmaker, Medusa fits well into CC or even as an epilogue to CoT. I'd still like them to maintain their own identity so to speak so that they could still run as one shots. A little better fit to the APs as side quests would be great though. :)
Thanks for listening.
|
|
I like story arcs too but I would resubscribe in a hot minute IF...
We had modules that were optional side treks to the current ongoing AP. Almost like the Set Pieces of old, just more connected to the AP while still being able to run it as a one shot.
One of the main reasons Set Pieces are no longer included in the APs, and why they often seemed so unconnected from the main adventure when they were there, is that the same person can't develop both the AP adventure and any side quests. That means that it's near impossible for the two not to either contradict one another or be completely unrelated simply because they're a story being told by two people. It's the main reason we make sure that the same person develops each AP from start to finish.
Would you consider Academy of Secrets a side quest for Curse of the Crimson Throne? If so, that level of connection is certainly possible, but much closer than that and we risk crossing the streams, and that's bad for everyone.
I for one do and would very much like to see connected modules in this vein. However doing so would mean that 2 of the 6 modules a year would likely be connected to an adventure path and as such it might not be an optimum option for the developers to choose.
I for one do and would very much like to see connected modules in this vein. However doing so would mean that 2 of the 6 modules a year would likely be connected to an adventure path and as such it might not be an optimum option for the developers to choose.
Why wouldn't it ?
Paizo has gone on record numerous times about how well the APs are doing and they aren't changing anything about it. Maybe these types of modules would sell better.Personally, I mainly buy modules and adventures. It's why I love Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer, etc. I cancelled my PF module subscription which of all things, I never thought I would do. I know i would resubscribe if modules began to go the route discussed.
|
|
I have to say, for the most part, I like the current structure of the modules. The only exception is I would like to see more interconnectivity with the suppliments published at the release of the module.
I think Paizo is on the right track with Pathfinder as a whole and at this point, changing a formula that is working is quite frankly dangerous to the company. I remember the mistakes TSR made by not having a proper release schedule and would hate for Paizo to fall into the same trap. To be honest, a delay in one of the AP books causes a momentary flashback to the dark days of Dungeons and Dragons. I am able to calm down as soon as I look at all the quality releases from Paizo and realize those days are long behind me.
Almost every concern mentioned in this thread has been addressed by third party publishers. Utilizing adventures and suppliments from other publishers is the best way to prevent your campaigns from being exactly the same as everybody elses. I urge everyone to support third party developers, after all, Paizo started as one.
Also, with a little effort on the GMs part, many of the adventures can easily be tailored to suit your needs. I rarely run my adventures exactly as they are written. I am a single father running his own business so I know time is at a premium for everybody but it really doesnt take that long.
|
|
Generally I like the modules line...but to an extent I do agree they could be more. For example: the best single adventure IMO they've done is Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale. "Sandbox with walls" as someone described it above. I've run it through completeion three times for three different groups. They all loved it, and it was a thrill to GM.
More in this style would be a huige preference of mine.
|
Almost every concern mentioned in this thread has been addressed by third party publishers. Utilizing adventures and suppliments from other publishers is the best way to prevent your campaigns from being exactly the same as everybody elses. I urge everyone to support third party developers, after all, Paizo started as one.
I think that's very true. However, I think it would be awesome to see Paizo take some of those great designs being offered by third-party publishers and bring them in-house. That way they can be integrated into the official Golarion setting, and they can also be given the famous Paizo quality polish.
From what Mark Moreland says, it seems pretty clear that the Modules line is probably not the place to do this.
Maybe there could be an additional product line, something like "Pathfinder Special Presentation" or the like, not regularly scheduled like the other lines, for featuring larger or weirder one-off adventures.
It would certainly be more work for the staff, and that would probably mean expanding the company a bit. Maybe Paizo could snap up some of the top-notch third-part developers that are doing such good work already -- or maybe there are some people who have recently been let go by some other major publisher who might be interested...
Meh! Re-subscribed just now. The latest ones for preorder look good even if they are few months away.
|
|
I ask for this every couple months so I am sure Mark has seen it though I dont think I have ever gotten an official response.
I want the module line to become a bimonthly 64 page double feature product. Two 32 page modules every other month. I miss Dungeon mag and am running out of adventures to write. I also think this will allow them to pair something experimental with a guaranteed seller which imho is a definite winning combination.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I ask for this every couple months so I am sure Mark has seen it though I dont think I have ever gotten an official response.
I want the module line to become a bimonthly 64 page double feature product. Two 32 page modules every other month. I miss Dungeon mag and am running out of adventures to write. I also think this will allow them to pair something experimental with a guaranteed seller which imho is a definite winning combination.
It's not going to happen. I did mention this in one of the threads you pitched that idea in:
Dungeon actually provided us with evidence that if people *didn't* like one adventure in a magazine, they'd avoid the entire issue.
I think it would be even worse with the $19.99 price point that a 64-page book would require.
Beyond that, though, the main reason is that we feel we're pretty much at the saturation limit—for our staff as well as for a lot of our audience—and doubling the modules workload is just not in the cards. And if it *were*, it would be as monthly 32-pagers.
|
|
Beyond that, though, the main reason is that we feel we're pretty much at the saturation limit—for our staff as well as for a lot of our audience—and doubling the modules workload is just not in the cards.
Saturation like customer interest in adventures (of any type, single, mini-ap, ap, whatever) or saturation like "there are tons of other PF products in development?"
If it's the latter, is there a point where expansion of the world and/or ruleset slows and more focus is made on doing things in all the locations you've developed? (i.e. "More adventures, less everything else" for a while)
I know nothing about publishing, so I don't know if that's something that would work in a "creative vision" sense or in a "we actually have to pay our employees" sense. :)
|
|
I ask for this every couple months so I am sure Mark has seen it though I dont think I have ever gotten an official response.
I want the module line to become a bimonthly 64 page double feature product. Two 32 page modules every other month. I miss Dungeon mag and am running out of adventures to write. I also think this will allow them to pair something experimental with a guaranteed seller which imho is a definite winning combination.
It's not going to happen. I did mention this in one of the threads you pitched that idea in:
Dungeon actually provided us with evidence that if people *didn't* like one adventure in a magazine, they'd avoid the entire issue.I think it would be even worse with the $19.99 price point that a 64-page book would require.
Beyond that, though, the main reason is that we feel we're pretty much at the saturation limit—for our staff as well as for a lot of our audience—and doubling the modules workload is just not in the cards. And if it *were*, it would be as monthly 32-pagers.
Weird, I remember reading James's posts in that thread but missed yours. I agree you guys have probably reached a saturation point but I personally would prefer less campaign setting material and more adventure. My group bailed on Golarion back to our homebrew a couple years ago.
|
|
Why—did he accidentally leave some people alive there?Falcon's Hollow also had some excellent Bulmahn/Logue/Hitchcock writing in its creation.
I'd love the see Hitchcock return to Falcon's Hollow.
:D
I'd actually really appreciate seeing a module which let your players try to drive the Lumber Consortium out of Falcon's Hollow and clean up the town: something between levels 8-11.
A bit more sandbox-ish perhaps, just with the players getting some item/information that gives them the opportunity and motive to change things (and thus provides a hook).
Why—did he accidentally leave some people alive there?Falcon's Hollow also had some excellent Bulmahn/Logue/Hitchcock writing in its creation.
I'd love the see Hitchcock return to Falcon's Hollow.
:D
I'd actually really appreciate seeing a module which let your players try to drive the Lumber Consortium out of Falcon's Hollow and clean up the town: something between levels 8-11.
A bit more sandbox-ish perhaps, just with the players getting some item/information that gives them the opportunity and motive to change things (and thus provides a hook).
I agree in that, it would be great to continue the series.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Beyond that, though, the main reason is that we feel we're pretty much at the saturation limit—for our staff as well as for a lot of our audience—and doubling the modules workload is just not in the cards.Saturation like customer interest in adventures (of any type, single, mini-ap, ap, whatever) or saturation like "there are tons of other PF products in development?"
Not so much "customer interest" as "customer willingness to spend." It's hard to gauge, because there will always be customers who want us to produce more, and there will always be customers who want us to produce less... but when we produce too much, we see superscriber numbers go down. When we're on the right track, they stay steady or climb a bit.
Right now, we think we've got an appropriate mix when it comes to regular products—or, at least, we think we will be once the Pathfinder Player Companion goes monthly.