Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
only 28 scenarios a year is not nearly enough, especially for players where pfs is the primary source of their pathfinder games.
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players, where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.
|
|
Drogon, my post was aimed at the "trust me, WotC will screw it up" camp. I seem to have missed my mark. The link to this post was a silly way for me to say "from places where folks vent about WotC's certain failure...like many already have here on this very thread."
I'm actually with you about the state of PFS as less beginner-friendly and that WotC seems to be quite specifically not screwing it up. Also, I share Doug's hope that WotC succeeds and for the same reason.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
trollbill, the D&D 3rd Edition Design Team noted that some of the spells and Feats were designed for NPC stat blocks more so than PCs. They no more expected PCs to take Toughness than they expected PCs to take levels in Warrior.
And regarding the number of PFS scenarios published per month:
* Whether we have 10,000 or 30,000 PFS players, the issue ramains, "how many scenarios can an individual player go through each month?"
* Right now, we have two or three Adventure Paths opened to PFS credit, and fistfuls of modules. If your PC is going through an AP volume, a module, and two scenarios each month, and then you're going through the same material as a GM, you're a statistical outlier. A third scenario per month isn't going to make a difference for you.
--
Living Greyhawk? You think so?
I would have banked on either (a) Forgotten Realms again, or (b) something entirely new.
|
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.
None of the "general population" know the financial implications of increasing the number of scenarios from 2. But I think that increasing the number from 2 to 3 would seem to be a good start. Asking people to throw out a number to you seems pointless other than to gather whether there is any interest in more scenarios. You already know that there is interest. Were you looking for some other type of info from us that I missed?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
only 28 scenarios a year is not nearly enough, especially for players where pfs is the primary source of their pathfinder games.This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.
This is a really good question. I can think of four major considerations:
1) Limited development resources. This will obviously impose some kind of upper limit on how many scenarios can be produced per month, regardless of anything else.
2) "Hard-core" PFS fans who play very often will want lots of scenarios.
3) "Casual" players will want a few scenarios, but not so many that they can't play enough to follow the ongoing storyline (assuming they care about the metaplot).
4) New players need a good selection of low-level scenarios. More specifically, they need low-level scenarios that veteran players haven't played yet, so that they have someone to teach them the game.
Personally, I think I fall into #3. I'm worried as it is about "missing" the metaplot, since I only play about once a month (plus occasional convention play). So I would prefer to not see too many more scenarios. However, I think a shift towards more lower-level scenarios would be a good idea.
One possible solution would be to produce a few more (say, three per month), but also have more of them be "one-shot" adventures that don't really tie into the overarching plot of the season.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Drogon, my post was aimed at the "trust me, WotC will screw it up" camp. I seem to have missed my mark. The link to this post was a silly way for me to say "from places where folks vent about WotC's certain failure...like many already have here on this very thread."
I'm actually with you about the state of PFS as less beginner-friendly and that WotC seems to be quite specifically not screwing it up. Also, I share Doug's hope that WotC succeeds and for the same reason.
Got it.
To fix that in the future, touch the "x minutes ago" note above the post. That will link you to the proper post.
Glad we're on the same page with our thoughts, though. (-;
|
|
According to Forbes, Wizards is providing a four-day, level-1-through-10 all-Gen-Con experience.
Cool. We should improve the idea and then steal it.
A Pathfinder run for Gencon (and Scotty's) that will take you from 1 to 12! HA! What now WotC? Umadbro? :P
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
only 28 scenarios a year is not nearly enough, especially for players where pfs is the primary source of their pathfinder games.This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players, where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.
I will advise that you keep it simple:
3 scenarios per month.
1 tier 1-5 scenario
1 tier 3-7 scenario
1 tier 5-9 or tier 7-11 scenario
That would keep the diversity that you need to maintain a healthy stream of scenarios to keep veterans leveling up and keep new players from being left behind.
This also allows for those players who have maxed out their options to still play three times per month and then GM once per month (a good mix, I think, that would keep those players' interest level in GMing up).
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.None of the "general population" know the financial implications of increasing the number of scenarios from 2. But I think that increasing the number from 2 to 3 would seem to be a good start. Asking people to throw out a number to you seems pointless other than to gather whether there is any interest in more scenarios. You already know that there is interest. Were you looking for some other type of info from us that I missed?
I hear people asking for more scenarios each month but with no idea how many more satisfies that request. So, just trying to get an idea if 3, or 4, or some other number would satisfy those needs. Are we going to immediately be able to pump out 3, 4, 5, etc... scenario a month? Nope. Does it give us a possible target number for future consideration? Yep.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. That sounds better. I'd gotten the impression it was going away without a similar replacement.
We have offerings on the 2013/2014 schedule that will replace First Steps. 15 hours to play through all three parts of First Steps is a bit much to ask of a brand new player. So, we have some ideas with how to improve on those introductory experiences that we learned from First Steps.
John and I have looked long and hard at the development schedule and the overall scenario plan for Season 5 to determine when we can fit it in, and currently, we're planning on having a new introductory scenario out by the end of 2013. That's subject to change, of course, but the current goal is to have one out and in-play by holiday season. We feel it's important to get one out as soon in the Season as possible.
|
|
I think if you wanted to increase it from the current number, 3/month is a good target. If you get much higher, you cater to the small number of people who play a TON of games and run out quickly, but you leave the much larger group who finds 2 to be enough or more than enough in the dust by releasing more content than they can hope to play in a timely manner.
I think if you shot it up to 5, for example, you would wind up shooting yourselves in the foot, cause the sales from each individual scenario would slip. They would stop being a must have to a 'I'll buy the ones that have good ratings'. $8 per month to have all the scenarios is probably doable for most people who are interested. $12 is probably still alright. $20 I think will hurt more than help. :/
|
|
One possible solution would be to produce a few more (say, three per month), but also have more of them be "one-shot" adventures that don't really tie into the overarching plot of the season.
This is an interesting idea. I don't know how much load this would take off the writers and developers, or what the appetite from the players would be for this. I think that I'd quite enjoy the occasional side-job for my PFS characters.
Edit:
I think if you wanted to increase it from the current number, 3/month is a good target. If you get much higher, you cater to the small number of people who play a TON of games and run out quickly, but you leave the much larger group who finds 2 to be enough or more than enough in the dust by releasing more content than they can hope to play in a timely manner.
I think that the maximum reasonable frequency is 1 per week, which is ideal for a gaming group that meets weekly and has characters at various levels so that they can play anything that comes out. That group will play every scenario that is released.
I think that most groups meet at least once per month. So it would be good if the 'keystone' adventures that outline the story-arc for that season fit into 12 episodes. That way they get to join in all of the meta-plot and don't get left behind.
So the remainder of the adventures have some level of Pathfinder flavour to them, but are not tied directly to the arc for that season, or if they are they aren't milestone adventures where the summed reporting results direct the course of the meta-plot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of 4 per month, if at all doable.
I have a further tweak to what was mentioned above about 2 being related to on-going story arcs and 2 being stand alones. Could at least one of the side stories be tied to the current Adventure Paths, like side treks? and or tie them to product releases?
I think the levels mentioned were right:
2 tier 1-5 or tier 3-7 scenarios
2 tier 5-9 or tier 7-11 scenarios
|
Thinking of my own situation, there's a new group that recently started in my area that I can attend fairly often, so I'm now able to play twice per week instead of just once. Assuming I show up to both my old and new groups every week (which I won't, but we're speaking hypothetically), that's roughly 8 games per month, with no sessions long enough to include modules or AP play, so it's all scenarios.
If there were 4 new scenarios every month, then I'd be able to show up twice per week, GM 50% of the time, and never run out of scenarios. That seems reasonable, if you assume that the people who are running out of scenarios to play really should be GMing more than the general population.
I also like the suggestions from a couple of the other recent posters that adding new scenarios shouldn't add metaplot that people will feel they have to keep up with. More stand alone scenarios would be good, so people who can't keep up with everything won't feel left out.
|
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One possible solution would be to produce a few more (say, three per month), but also have more of them be "one-shot" adventures that don't really tie into the overarching plot of the season.This is an interesting idea. I don't know how much load this would take off the writers and developers, or what the appetite from the players would be for this. I think that I'd quite enjoy the occasional side-job for my PFS characters.
From a resource allocation standpoint, an adventure's position within a larger metaplot is less an issue than the number of words involved. It takes a little bit more time on the front end to ensure that a metaplot-heavy adventure picks up the necessary dangling threads and leaves the right ones hanging at the end, but after the author's written the adventure with those plot elements in mind, development, layout, and editing for the adventure are pretty much the same as anything else.
As Mike's indicated, we're aware that people would like more Pathfinder Society content (and as a participant in the campaign myself, I would too). Before we'd commit to such, however, we'd need to ensure that we aren't setting ourselves up for failure. This means a lot of behind-the-scenes meetings here at Paizo about how much our already busy staff can handle, what the budget can handle in terms of adding 50% or more to our annual production costs, and other business concerns. And these things all take time from when we come up with an idea or make a decision to when they get enacted, announced, and then released into the wild. All this is to say that we're listening, but if we hold our cards close to our chests or you don't see anything coming from your feedback, it doesn't mean we aren't hearing you or considering how to continually improve the campaign, both for our benefit as a company and for the benefit of the tens of thousands of players who participate in the campaign on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis.
trollbill, the D&D 3rd Edition Design Team noted that some of the spells and Feats were designed for NPC stat blocks more so than PCs. They no more expected PCs to take Toughness than they expected PCs to take levels in Warrior.
I don't think that's strictly true. They included Toughness as suggested feats for the wizard and sorcerer starting packages in the 3.0 Players Handbook. Those stating packages were definitely there for player use.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I think if you wanted to increase it from the current number, 3/month is a good target. If you get much higher, you cater to the small number of people who play a TON of games and run out quickly, but you leave the much larger group who finds 2 to be enough or more than enough in the dust by releasing more content than they can hope to play in a timely manner.I think that the maximum reasonable frequency is 1 per week, which is ideal for a gaming group that meets weekly and has characters at various levels so that they can play anything that comes out. That group will play every scenario that is released.
I think that most groups meet at least once per month. So it would be good if the 'keystone' adventures that outline the story-arc for that season fit into 12 episodes. That way they get to join in all of the meta-plot and don't get left behind.
So the remainder of the adventures have some level of Pathfinder flavour to them, but are not tied directly to the arc for that season, or if they are they aren't milestone adventures where the summed reporting results direct the course of the meta-plot.
I think this analysis is basically spot-on. No more than one scenario per week would keep people from being overwhelmed (honestly 4/month is probably a better target number, just because it's easier to manage). And no more than one "keystone" adventure per month would allow people who aren't "hard-core" players to participate in the metaplot without getting completely left behind.
Personally, I'd prefer 3/month rather than four. I like Drogon's idea of one 1-5, one 3-7, and one higher-tier adventure per month. It's simple, easy to keep track of, and helps ensure a steady supply of content for new and/or casual players, while still giving dedicated players more content they can play.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Mike's indicated, we're aware that people would like more Pathfinder Society content (and as a participant in the campaign myself, I would too). Before we'd commit to such, however, we'd need to ensure that we aren't setting ourselves up for failure. This means a lot of behind-the-scenes meetings here at Paizo about how much our already busy staff can handle, what the budget can handle in terms of adding 50% or more to our annual production costs, and other business concerns. And these things all take time from when we come up with an idea or make a decision to when they get enacted, announced, and then released into the wild. All this is to say that we're listening, but if we hold our cards close to our chests or you don't see anything coming from your feedback, it doesn't mean we aren't hearing you or considering how to continually improve the campaign, both for our benefit as a company and for the benefit of the tens of thousands of players who participate in the campaign on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis.
Mark, I am about to become confrontational, and for that I apologize.
One October 13, 2010 you posted this blog.
The second paragraph says the following:
Additionally, we will be releasing at least one low-level Pathfinder Society Scenario each month from now on, so you'll never run out of new material to run for seasoned and rookie Pathfinders at your local game day.
So, the confrontational part: If you had not abandoned that promise (of several others that were made in that blog), we likely would not be having this conversation. What happened?
Moreover, you titled that blog "We're Listening." Meaning, you've said what you said above before. Please put your money where your mouth is, this time.
Again, I apologize for calling you to the mat on this, but it is something I have felt strongly about for two-and-one-half years, now. I hope you understand that I have nothing but respect for you and the job you do, along with that of Paizo. But I don't want to be placated, again. I want a commitment shown to me in like kind to the commitment I show to you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is.
My personal opinion on this is we do need an increase of scenarios a month based on the many reasons stated in this thread and threads all over the place *Mostly by Drogon ;)*.
But to answer your Question
I would like to see an increase to 4 per month 1 for each Tier.
But I expect that is too much so as an adjustment to what above I truly think would work I think just an increase of 1 extra scenario a month with the extra one always being Tier 1-5 would work as well, just not as well as 4 a month.
|
|
Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?
Mark these are Great Options and I use them all the time, that said...
Your Bread and butter for getting new players are done at Conventions and Stores, Modules and APs are very difficult to run at those locations due to the time frame they take to run them (Thornkeep, Free RPG day being the excpetion). So for the purpose of this thread on helping getting new players and keeping PFS strong, they don't work as well towards that.
|
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Valparaiso
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?
I almost never have more than 4-5 hours to devote at once and the people I game with would much rather do a complete 4-5 hour adventure then one that will take multiple sessions, especially if we don't know exactly when we'll get together next. As a result Modules and Adevnture Paths just don't work.
Personally I think 4/month would be ideal.
I'd like:
1. A Tier 1-5 Scenario. related to metaplot
2. A Tier 1-5 Scenario. NOT related to Metaplot
3. A Tier 3-7 Scenario. Metaplot Optional
4. Alternating between Tier 5-9 and Tier 7-11. Metaplot Optional.
If the next step is simply to go up to 3/month then I agree with Dorgon above.
|
|
Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?
As mentioned in my last post, I can (when other things don't get in the way) play PFS at two public gaming stores per week. Both of them only have time for scenarios.
I'm not one of those few who are actually out of scenarios to play yet, though I'm starting to run low on scenarios left that I can use for my level 2-4 PCs, and I have 9 characters in that range right now. My problem is at least partially that I keep coming up with new PC ideas that I'd like to try.
I do occasionally play modules in other venues, so I've played probably close to half of the sanctioned modules so far. I haven't GMed any of them yet, though I'm currently prepping Feast of Ravenmoor to run 9 days from now at someone's house.
I've never played an adventure path, though I'd like to, regardless of whether I get PFS credit for it. Given the high quality of adventures published by Paizo, I expect that I'd enjoy doing a home campaign based on one of your APs, but I just haven't been part of a group that's done it yet.
|
|
Now that we have established a "solid group " of players (20 to 30 weekly) , we are running 2 or 3 scenarios from Season 4 ( we are a new lodge , and would have liked to stay only with this season , and going forward from here )a month , and we are having the problem of not having enough 1-2 scenarios out there.
We begun an AP to give our more constant players something to play monthly , and have been using modules ( instead of past seasons scenarios ) in the gaps that are starting to appear , nevertheless , i have to start playing Season 3 scenarios for some players that had their old characters killed and for new players.
In short:
-I would like to have more low tiers scenarios released for each season .
-The idea of having scenarios for the metaplot and other "one-shots" seems to me as a wonderful one , to use to complement the "principal scenarios" ( for various reasons : players that had players killed , that want new PC´s , to use in events for fewer players , etc).
-The idea of releasing 3 scenarios a month, seems to me the ideal one , with probably 1 1-2 , 1 3-7 , 1 5-9 and 7-11 ( alternate).
-More old ( and new )AP´s and possibly older modules capable of being reported.
|
Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?
I think these new sanctioned adventures are serving a different need. I know that I'm about to run Reign of Winter for my home group. I currently play in PFS, but my players don't. However, I expect that after I give them this awesome looking Chronicle sheet, with cool stuff they can get it they start playing PFS, they will start checking it out.
Which is to say, the constraints on gaming that make PFS attractive in the first place, make longer adventures such as APs difficult to run in PFS venues. But I think that there is room to expand PFS by bringing it into spaces that don't have those constraints, and I think that's what you're gaining with this new content.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are the industry leader. They need to start acting like it. They have the money. They have the sales figures. They have the presence. Instead, they continue to act like a small house publisher. They are complacent.
You make a lot of excellent points in this thread, and we certainly do appreciate the suggestions posted here about how to deal with the imminent release of a new edition of D&D. This will obviously be a challenge to Pathfinder's current market leadership and it does indeed pose a risk of losing players and volunteers who are interested in trying something new.
I do take issue, however, with the idea that we have gotten complacent. That is absolutely not the case. In the past two years, we have invested the following into PFS:
1) Hired a new full-time campaign manager in the form of Mike Brock. Previously, campaign administration had been _part_ of the job of our marketing director or scenario editor. Now we have full-time people in all three of those positions.
2) Increased art budget for PFS scenarios, allowing for more maps and illustrations to improve the quality and depth of each adventure.
3) Dramatically increased attendance and PFS evangelism at industry trade shows and distributor open houses to open direct one-on-one relationships with retailers.
4) Hired John Compton to help Mark Moreland with the scenario workload and allow some extra capacity for things like the Kids Track, Beginner Box demos, special events like Bonekeep, and other stuff that hasn't been announced yet.
5) Co-sponsored Gen Con, including shifting Pathfinder Society to the massive Sagamore Ballroom, the largest organized play space in the entire convention. We will be running hundreds and hundreds of PFS tables at the show, including a mega-event on Friday that will feature more than 1000 players at once.
6) Published two complete books on Pathfinder Society (The Pathfinder Society Field Guide and the forthcoming Pathfinder Society Primer). Dramatically increased incorporation of PFS ties in all product lines, especially the monthly Pathfinder Player Companion.
7) Tripled our ranks of Venture-Captain volunteers, added the Venture-Leiutenant rank to assist VCs, and expanded the campaign into more than 23 countries across the world. Mike Brock has only just returned from a PFS tour of Germany, one of several national and international trips he's done or will do this year.
8) Revised numerous campaign rules like factions, faction missions, and similar to be more responsive to player feedback.
9) Added PFS boons for all Pathfinder Tales novels. In the process of adding PFS ads in the back of all our mass market paperback releases.
10) Sanctioned most of our Modules for PFS play.
11) Provided a PFS boon to all backers of the Pathfinder Online Kickstarter effort.
12) Sanctioned Adventure Paths for PFS play.
And I'm cutting it off there because I have to run to a meeting. I'm not saying there isn't more to be done, or that it wouldn't be a good idea to try some of your suggestions (and we are already planning to do several). I'm not saying it's not a challenge and that we don't have to make sure we're doing everything we can to make people as happy with PFS and Pathfinder as we can.
But I am saying we are not complacent, and I think the list above proves that to be the case.
|
|
Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?
Modules are hard to schedule for. If even a few members of the group can't make an extra long slot or can't reliably make two sessions in a row it gets problematic.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
invested the following into PFS:
1) Hired a new full-time campaign manager in the form of Mike Brock.
You noticed Erik's wording. He chooses it carefully because he still hasn't decided if I'm really a doppelgänger as I claimed as one of my talents on my résumé ;-)
|
|
4/month might be great, but it also seems like a big leap. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to 3/month (or even less? An extra one every other month?) and see how that plays out? If sales for each scenario stay up and overall sales numbers rise and demand stays high, then consider 4/month.
Doubling the work load and the scenarios available seems like a much bigger gamble.
At this point, we seem to still be having a theoretical conversation about what we'd like to see. I'm sure whatever goal Paizo ends up setting for themselves will be implemented on an incremental basis, increasing the workload and hiring new people a little at a time, according to what's reasonable for the business. So even if they decide that they'd like to do 4 per month eventually, I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 per month for a year, followed by upping it to 4 later on.
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On October 13, 2010 you posted this blog.
The second paragraph says the following:
Additionally, we will be releasing at least one low-level Pathfinder Society Scenario each month from now on, so you'll never run out of new material to run for seasoned and rookie Pathfinders at your local game day.So, the confrontational part: If you had not abandoned that promise (of several others that were made in that blog), we likely would not be having this conversation. What happened?
Moreover, you titled that blog "We're Listening." Meaning, you've said what you said above before. Please put your money where your mouth is, this time.
Again, I apologize for calling you to the mat on this, but it is something I have felt strongly about for two-and-one-half years, now. I hope you understand...
I appreciate your candor, Drogon, and I don't take offense. That said, the post in question was made over 30 months ago, just over a month after I began working for Paizo and just a few weeks after Hyrum took over as Campaign Coordinator. A lot has changed since then, from Hyrum's departure from that role to some shifts in our overarching vision of the campaign. In the months following that post, we learned a lot about what people wanted and what we could reasonably handle within the campaign, and the result was that some of the "promises" made in that post had to be set by the wayside. One of the first lessons I learned was not to speak in absolutes and talk about things until they were finalized and totally, absolutely happening.
Thus, in hindsight (20-20 and all that), using the phrase "from now on" was a mistake. Mea culpa. I should have said, "for the foreseeable future." Ultimately, we released a new Tier 1–5 (or Tier 1, or Tier 1–7) scenario every month through the remainder of Season 2, through all of Season 3, and through August 2012, almost 2 full years after the blog in question. One of the unforeseen changes that took place in the campaign around that time (at the start of Season 4) was our shift toward a larger metaplot, which was in direct response to fan's asking for such. We felt that we could maintain the spirit of that original promise for a new low-level scenario each month while widening that definition to include both Tier 3–7 and Tier 1–5. Clearly our assumption that the existing Tier 1–5, Tier 1–7, and Tier 1 content as well as a new Tier 1–5 scenario every other month would be sufficient for event organizers was incorrect.
The result of releasing a Tier 1–5 scenario each month without an increase in our monthly output, however, would have changed the types of stories we could have told in Varisia, since many iconic locations simply aren't acceptable places for low-level PCs to go. We would have effectively lost 2 each of Tier 3–7, Tier 5–9, and Tier 7–11 scenarios over the course of the season, resulting in the forthcoming dwarf mini-arc, the runelord/Lissala season-long arc, and the ongoing Zarta/Blackros/Desimire plotline having less presence. We simply wouldn't have had the scenario slots available for each of these adventure tiers to do those stories justice.
Does any of that change the fact that, clearly, a Tier 3–7 scenario every other month isn't what the campaign needs? I guess not. But with 2 scenarios a month at present (and for the foreseeable future); with people responding well to the increased interrelatedness of the season's scenarios; with the fact that next year, the campaign is headed to the Worldwound, where low-level PCs simply won't survive? There's not an easy solution.
If there's any question about how we prioritize scenarios in the overall scheme of Pathfinder Society material, however, the fact that ancillary adventure content like quests and converted Season 0 material have been sidelined in order to get scenarios out regularly should indicate that it's our number-one priority for the campaign. We'd love to release more a month, which would allow us to both release a new Tier 1–5 scenario monthly as well as tell the higher-level stories that campaign participants are also asking for. But we're not there yet, and even if we decided today to do so, it likely wouldn't be for as long as a year before that change took effect.
So again, when I (or Mike, or John, or Erik, or whomever) says that "we're listening," it's because we are. And we want people to keep telling us what they want out of the campaign, even if it's something different than what we have planned in a given moment. It's also something that we could do better, in the sense that listening is different than responding, which gets us into trouble time and again when our words are used against us in later discussions. When we go radio-silent, the community asks us to communicate more. When we communicate, however, especially if we do so in response to pressure instead of when we're truly ready to do so, it invariably results in bad feelings.
And that's my really, really long way of saying that I will do just what you've asked me to do: I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'm listening, even if I say less.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, Drogon, this is great thread. This topic is very important, and one which the community really needs to have. It's important that you took the aggregate, big-picture perspective, although many of the responses have taken the personal, small-picture view. The big picture is the one which matters here. The fact that you can do that, Drogon, likely speaks to your business savvy.
Okay, here we go...
They [Paizo] are the industry leader. They need to start acting like it. They have the money. They have the sales figures. They have the presence. Instead, they continue to act like a small house publisher. They are complacent.
This statement right here is one of the most spot-on and most important I've seen on this board in a long time. You are right, Paizo is acting complacent. Am I the only one who sees irony in an established industry leader relying on Kickstarter? Pathfinder Online's Kickstarter featured big-publisher dollar figures, yet came in a small-publisher format. That right there is evidence of Drogon's observation.
Here's some more evidence of complacency, from a post from a few minutes ago:
From a resource allocation standpoint, an adventure's position within a larger metaplot is less an issue than the number of words involved.
The campaign is in its fifth season. Mark, you have been telling us about this same development roadblock since you started at Paizo. Why is this barrier still a problem? Paizo has had a very long time to get better at producing Pathfinder Society scenarios, yet development is still a roadblock. That's complacency.
Before adding any more scenarios per month, Paizo needs to get better at producing two scenarios per month. It needs to get over this development roadblock first. It needs to start acting like an industry leader.
Erik has informed us of the strides Paizo has been making in this department. It's time to stop telling us about this roadblock and start telling us about how you guys are finally defeating it.
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is.
Why do you guys need to ask us? You guys have the data to answer this question much more accurately than we do. That reporting data that you guys keep telling us to give you has everything you need. You know what we play, when we play, where we play, how often we play, which characters we play with, who we play with, and who our GMs are. And from the financial standpoint, you know what we buy, and you know what our coordinators, GMs, and tablemates buy.
Paizo is blessed with mountains of useful data through its online store and PFS reporting. The fact that you guys don't know the answer to the question of how many scenarios per month is ideal is evidence that you guys have yet to really dig through it. You have the big picture in your database, when all we have are a series of small ones.
You have everything you need to answer your own question more accurately than this board ever could.
Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?
Not only would the data answer this question, but what you guys need to understand is that modules and APs are not a substitute for scenarios. They do not fit in the weekday-evening, five-hour, episodic format. Scenarios, modules, and APs are not interchangeable.
On that note, I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Reduce the number of combats per scenario so session time can fit the format that PFS is perfect for. Season 4 really exacerbated this problem with its six-player assumption and tougher combats, because the number of combats per scenario was not reduced to compensate. You guys need to choose a scenario format that does what you want it to do and stick with it.
The format of PFS, with low GM prep time, episodic play, and not having to commit to more than one session at a time, is the best thing PFS has going for it. It is a golden goose that is staring you guys in the face. It's time to take PFS seriously, by overcoming the development-time roadblocks and figuring out how to structure the campaign based on demonstrated participant behavior.
Erik has presented what Paizo has done. It's great to see that steps have been taken, but these have yet to yield solutions to the actual issues. How does an increased art budget solve the problem of not enough scenarios? Adding more staff is not the same thing as solving the development-time roadblock. Listening to messageboard feedback is not a substitute for analyzing your data on player behavior. Tripling the ranks of Venture Officers does not solve the matter of pushing a generic hack-and-slash campaign which has yet to produce a truly coherent plotline.
You have a large list, Erik, but providing a Kickstarter boon is not solving any problems. The list needs to instead includes issues that have been successfully tackled, the improvements which have been actually made, not the resources that have been thrown at the campaign or the number of products for which boons which have been issued.
It's time to start acting like an industry leader instead of a complacent small publisher. Pathfinder Society cannot ignore D&D Next, as it represents a pressure to improve instead of stagnate.
-Matt
|
|
only 28 scenarios a year is not nearly enough, especially for players where pfs is the primary source of their pathfinder games.This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players, where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.
I think 3 per month is a good number plus specials. It is also a 50% increase over current levels, which IMO, is asking a lot of the current staff. But you did ask.
My breakdown over the course of a year:
Specials ...
1 Generic Level 1 only Intro
1 Tier 1-3 follow-up adventure to the Intro
1 EX scenario
1 Gen Con Special
1 Paizo Con Special
1 free RPG day 'Goblins' scenario :-)
? any number of extra specials like BoneKeep that the staff can do
Regular Scenarios
2 Tier 1-5 tied to Plot A
2 Tier 1-5 tied to Plot B
5 Tier 1-5 with no plot ties
2 Tier 3-7 tied to Plot A
2 Tier 3-7 tied to Plot B
5 Tier 3-7 with no plot ties
2 Tier 5-9 tied to Plot A
2 Tier 5-9 tied to Plot B
4 Tier 5-9 with no plot ties
2 Tier 7-11 tied to Plot A
2 Tier 7-11 tied to Plot B
4 Tier 7-11 with no plot ties
2 Tier 12-14
Someone could start a PC at the beginning of the season and bring it to retirement in one year with just the scenarios from that season.
Oh, and you need to keep the First Steps in the mix until a new intro comes out.
Just My Thoughts
|
Developer
|
Here's some more evidence of complacency, from a post from a few minutes ago:
From a resource allocation standpoint, an adventure's position within a larger metaplot is less an issue than the number of words involved.The campaign is in its fifth season. Mark, you have been telling us about this same development roadblock since you started at Paizo. Why is this barrier still a problem? Paizo has had a very long time to get better at producing Pathfinder Society scenarios, yet development is still a roadblock. That's complacency.
Development isn't a roadblock any more than editing is; it's simply part of the process. If it's being complacent to develop our products then it's complacent to have them laid out and edited. There is a limit to the number of words a person can develop (or write or edit or lay out) in a given amount of time. Having experience isn't going to change the fact that there are limits to how much we can do. Such limits are a reality of a publishing business, and affect not just the Pathfinder Society Scenarios line but also everything else we do. If you feel that we're complacent in this, then those are issues that need to be taken up with folks well above my paygrade.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
12) Sanctioned Adventure Paths for PFS play.13. Pathfinder Adventure Card Game
14. Work on a Pathfinder MMO.
15. Pathfinder Comics (Did you hear about the new Goblin comic? I just did. :D )
Those are indeed important initiatives for Paizo, but as they don't relate directly to PFS I didn't mention them. A list of _all_ the cool stuff we've been doing over the last couple of years would have been considerably longer. :)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
lots of stuff...
Nothing makes me happier than a well-reasoned post that proves my (admittedly designed to be provocative) statement wrong.
Please continue the good work. (-;
But I will stand by my initial statements: the signs are there. Increased art does not give you more scenarios. Increased attendance should equal increased support from you in the form of content.
And Mattastrophic is spot-on: you have all this data. My own observations are based on my own store, but I cannot be swayed into the belief that higher level scenarios are what is necessary, and not increasing the number of scenarios available is not justified. It has become increasingly difficult for me to administer to my own player base, and I have grown mine at the same pace you have grown yours. How are you escaping the same problems I am having, when those problems are created by the things we are talking about in this thread.
You are constantly being delayed by "unforeseen" occurrences. Every single year you are backed up by the "GenCon crush." Why? As the industry leader, you should know the pace. You already know that GenCon will be an issue every year, but every year you get tripped up by it and end up overworking your staff.
And, from what I have seen of this pattern, it is always the PFS schedule that suffers the consequences. This year more so than most, with the loss of three scenarios between July and August (and with September not even on the schedule, I dread to find out what's going to happen there).
Your marketing and growth is impeccable. Please continue that. But match the growth of your content to the growth of your fan base, please. Allocate an appropriate amount of money not just to making things look prettier, but to making them more numerous.
Edit: Mark, thank you for the response. I promise to continue the conversation (and be constructive), but have to plead what Erik did: I have a job to do, and will have to get back to you tomorrow.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who sees irony in an established industry leader relying on Kickstarter? Pathfinder Online's Kickstarter featured big-publisher dollar figures, yet came in a small-publisher format. That right there is evidence of Drogon's observation.
The Pathfinder Online Kickstarter was administered by Goblinworks, a different company with much different capitalization and needs than Paizo proper. Paizo does not have the resources or expertise to create a Pathfinder MMO. Goblinworks has the expertise, and the (successful) Kickstarter was an effort to address the resources problem in a way that engages the fan base. It really has nothing to do with anything relative to this discussion.
The only reason I mentioned the boon in regards to the Kickstarter is in the context of evangelism of the campaign to the general public. That effort distributed a fun PFS boon to 8,732 people, most of whom were not active Pathfinder Society players at the time. Now that they have "skin in the game" in the form of a boon, it's our hope that many of them will check out the campaign. It's an outreach effort.
I mention THAT, of course, because the context of the discussion is "Paizo has gotten complacent."
The context of the discussion YOU seem to want to have is "Paizo is not producing enough PFS scenarios."
I agree that much of what I posted is irrelevant to the topic you want to discuss, as opposed to the topic we are actually discussing.
Yours is a valid topic, and a valid point of discussion, but Drogon started the thread talking about all kinds of stuff. Scenario frequency is just one issue, and not even one that I addressed directly in my response at all.
But to address it specifically, we'll increase PFS scenario production when the editorial team is able to hit its deadlines reliably and release products on time. I'm pleased to report that I just received a report from my project manager that says all products are on schedule for the first time in a long time. I need for that to be the case for more than a week to make me confident that the department can handle another scenario worth of workload on development, editing, and layout.
Before we added John to the staff Mark was working 80-hours weeks and basically living at his desk. That is not an acceptable lifestyle for Paizo's employees, and the addition of John and some other departmental streamlining has helped a lot. We're not quite to the point where I feel comfortable adding more scenarios to the schedule, but it is a short to medium-term goal that we're all working toward.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to briefly address Drogon's most recent post, the most important thing we've done THERE in the last year is hire a full-time project manager to handle planning and implementation for every step of every product we do.
Counting Pathfinder Society Scenarios, Paizo is set to release 110 products in 2013 (not including licensed products like Pathfinder Battles minis, comics, etc.)
That's a lot of moving parts, and we've finally gotten to the point where it needs to be someone's full time job to keep track of it all. And THAT has had a MAJOR impact on getting everything on schedule, which has been the major impediment to adding more PFS scenarios.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
And to briefly address Drogon's most recent post, the most important thing we've done THERE in the last year is hire a full-time project manager to handle planning and implementation for every step of every product we do.
Counting Pathfinder Society Scenarios, Paizo is set to release 110 products in 2013 (not including licensed products like Pathfinder Battles minis, comics, etc.)
That's a lot of moving parts, and we've finally gotten to the point where it needs to be someone's full time job to keep track of it all. And THAT has had a MAJOR impact on getting everything on schedule, which has been the major impediment to adding more PFS scenarios.
Awesome. I am beyond happy to hear this.
From a resource allocation standpoint, an adventure's position within a larger metaplot is less an issue than the number of words involved.The campaign is in its fifth season. Mark, you have been telling us about this same development roadblock since you started at Paizo. Why is this barrier still a problem? Paizo has had a very long time to get better at producing Pathfinder Society scenarios, yet development is still a roadblock. That's complacency.
PFS scenarios are only one in a web of products, and that web of products keeps getting bigger. In addition, development is one of the most variable stages in the production process as far as time needed.
Development is not a "roadblock." It's an essential stage in the production process.
Having John here has gotten us to the point where we're comfortable that we can produce two scenarios each month, on time, without an issue. But at the same time, it's not as if we're now at 200% PFS development capacity. Mark has moved on to development of other product lines, although he's still involved in concepting and outlining, and is also helping do a knowledge transfer to John. We are, however, for the first time (to my knowledge), actually at 100%.
Part of our getting better at doing PFS scenarios was realizing that being the PFS developer is a full-time job in and of itself. We've corrected that misconception and will continue to experiment and recalibrate as needed.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a resource allocation standpoint, an adventure's position within a larger metaplot is less an issue than the number of words involved.The campaign is in its fifth season. Mark, you have been telling us about this same development roadblock since you started at Paizo. Why is this barrier still a problem? Paizo has had a very long time to get better at producing Pathfinder Society scenarios, yet development is still a roadblock. That's complacency.PFS scenarios are only one in a web of products, and that web of products keeps getting bigger. In addition, development is one of the most variable stages in the production process as far as time needed.
Development is not a "roadblock." It's an essential stage in the production process.
Having John here has gotten us to the point where we're comfortable that we can produce two scenarios each month, on time, without an issue. But at the same time, it's not as if we're now at 200% PFS development capacity. Mark has moved on to development of other product lines, although he's still involved in concepting and outlining, and is also helping do a knowledge transfer to John. We are, however, for the first time (to my knowledge), actually at 100%.
Part of our getting better at doing PFS scenarios was realizing that being the PFS developer is a full-time job in and of itself. We've corrected that misconception and will continue to experiment and recalibrate as needed.
Growing because you HAVE TO to meet demand is not the same thing as growing because you SHOULD in order to meet your goals.
One is complacent. One is being a leader. Please start to lead.