| 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.
I'll leave that call up to people above my pay grade. My concern is doing the most we can with our current resources. And at this time it is not apparent that our current resources can support more than two scenarios a month unless we cancel something else.
|
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is.
In business, we like to make incremental changes, especially when the changes impact our finances.
If it was me, I’d start with 3 scenarios every 2nd month and increase it to 3 scenarios per month after a few months. I’d start slowly to see how it impacts your sales; see how badly it impacts your time. It might make more sense to ramp up faster; I don’t know your personnel, business or time commitments.
I would focus a lot more on tier 1-5 compared to what many people are suggesting. Focusing on tier 1-5 supports:
- Players can get back into the action if their PC permanently dies
- Veterans can easily mix with new players
- Players can more easily try new character concepts
- Upper tier scenarios from seasons 0-4 will be played more often (justifying the cost)
If you produce 3-4 scenarios per month, two of them should be for tier 1-5. If you’re going to stay with two scenarios per month, one of them should be for tier 1-5.
My 2 cents. Good luck.
|
|
Stop assuming WotC doesn't know what it's doing. The resurgence of Magic and the absolute dominance of that game (with the DEATH of all those other games that were their competition being the result, by the way) proves that they know EXACTLY what they are doing with organized play.
I never said WotC doesn't know what it's doing. In fact I think I referred to the DCI as a brilliant marketing tool that has helped to establish Magic: The Gathering as the most successful CCG, and perhaps the most successful fantasy gaming product, of all time.
However the success of Magic: The Gathering is something they've never been able to duplicate. Not with Hecatomb, C23 (or Hercules or Xena), Duel Masters, Dreamblade, Harry Potter, Showdown, Maple Story...
Pathfinder Society will have the same advantage over many other organized play systems as it always has...it is almost entirely self-governed. While WotC would like to standardize and homogenize organized play, Paizo simply provides the tools and lets their application be up to individual play groups.
You should also stop assuming that people will remain content to do all of a company's work when they may see greener pastures...
I guess I don't consider running and playing in Pathfinder events "work"...it certainly takes less time and energy than navigating the restrictions of WPN. You are clearly a fan of WotC and their products and programs (as I once was) and I know you have built a successful business utilizing both. But one of the biggest misconceptions people have is that their corner of the world is an accurate representation of the rest of the universe.
|
|
Development isn't a roadblock any more than editing is; it's simply part of the process.
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.
This is good news to hear, that the addition of John has created comfort with producing two scenarios per month. The concern about development as a "roadblock" stems from previous posts on the matter of why, in the past, PFS could not really improve itself. I look forward to not seeing any more posts like this one, this one, this one, or this one. Instead of seeing posts about the constraints of development, it would be nice to see Paizo applying enough resources to overcome the constraints which have shackled the campaign down since its inception.
I'll leave that call up to people above my pay grade. My concern is doing the most we can with our current resources. And at this time it is not apparent that our current resources can support more than two scenarios a month unless we cancel something else.
This is an important statement, and I am glad that it's been shared with us. The picture being painted here is one of where the, as I called it, roadblock to improvement is. This issue is one beyond that of how many scenarios to release each month. It encompasses everything about the content production process and about the management of the organized-play campaign.
The context of the discussion YOU seem to want to have is "Paizo is not producing enough PFS scenarios."
That's not actually correct. My post had to do with identifying the roadblocks to improvement, by pointing out where Paizo can step up and increase quality as well as quantity instead of being complacent by adhering to the status quo. There could be ten scenarios per month, but if they are all generic hack-and-slash-fests akin to the vast majority of PFS's current offerings, then that is not a very effective expenditure of additional resources. There could be 110 products released per year, but that does not imply that they are any good.
I appreciate that you guys have shared with us some details of staff additions, specifically John Compton and Jessica Price. It tells us something about what Paizo is doing in order to settle into its role in the gaming industry.
Now, as a part of that "leveling up" process mentioned, what I would like to reiterate is that Paizo is blessed with a gold mine of data with which it could make a lot of informed decisions about the sorts of questions that have come up in this thread. Questions like what sort of production schedule is ideal, what sort of products (in PFS's case, for what level ranges) would be ideal, and what the ideal level of resources to devote to the lines would be.
Where Mark and Erik have both spoke of listening to feedback, and where Mike has asked us about the ideal production schedule, it is important to put forth that the data can answer this question so much more accurately than this messageboard can. Instead of simply asking us what we want, perhaps what Paizo can do is examine demonstrated behaviors to determine what would work best, then add staff, time, and other resources to achieve the answer. You guys have the data to do it, and you guys will get more accurate answers than what the messageboards say.
Again, Paizo has a golden goose staring them in the face with the format used by Pathfinder Society. With D&D Next on the horizon, there is a pressure to get that golden goose on Paizo's side, solidifying its viability into the release of Next and in the face of whatever organized-play offerings WotC introduces, and seeing it really work wonders for both Paizo and the roleplaying community at large.
-Matt
|
|
I think the big difficulty with the number of scenarios published each month is the stronger LGS regions.
Not including local conventions, in St. Louis there are 19 playable slots per month just at LGS. This is not total slots, just the number of available games that 1 person could play in. If I had to put a number to the number of total tables per month it would be around 70. Brett or Nathan may be able to give more accurate numbers. Now most players don't play at every event but the regulars are probably playing 7+ scenarios a month. The modules/APs are a great idea but they are more difficult to schedule because they require multiple day commitments.
I would love to see an increase in the number of scenarios per month but I absolutely know that it won't solve the "running out of content" problem in regions like ours.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
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.
This is great news to hear. I agree completely that an "Intro" should not take that long of a commitment to new players. That is one of the things that was done right with the Beginner's Box Delves. A similar format for new players to induct them into PFS is almost a necessity; it not only gives a "primer" type adventure to players, but gives a similar tool to potential GMs as well. Far too often, I hear PFS players that would make great GMs back off, scared that they have insufficient rules knowledge or some other undefined skill. A true Inro adventure would make things not only easy for a player to pick up, but for a GM as well, invoking confidence in both.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see something similar to Master of the Fallen Fortress where you go on a standard "adventure" which is not a stretch for players to buy into. At some point, during the scenario, they are introduced to the society and at the conclusion, they are offered membership and awarded their first Fame/Prestige. It represents the "extra" reward you receive on top of experience and gold that is common in RPG's, but is what makes PFS "unique."
This would alleviate the disconnect from Seeker of Secrets that all members go through a lengthy and rigorous training program which does not really jive with the vast majority of character backgrounds.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Stop assuming WotC doesn't know what it's doing. The resurgence of Magic and the absolute dominance of that game (with the DEATH of all those other games that were their competition being the result, by the way) proves that they know EXACTLY what they are doing with organized play.
I thought the dominance of Magic: the Gathering was more a direct result of overwhelming "cease and desist" lawsuits against all of WoTC's competitors using the term "collectible card game" prior to Hasbro's purchase of them? Is this not correct?
Only the recent resurgence of M:tG can be attributed to smart marketing, in my opinion, not its dominance. They had to eliminate their competition through the use of the court system to get there.
|
|
While I'd love to see Paizo start publishing a greater quantity of scenarios, we don't know if the company can afford that extra manpower. More quantity = more cost, so it has to be a financial decision more than anything.
People aren't going to suddenly start playing more PFS, thus buying more scenarios to run, just because there are more available. So there won't be an immediate increase in revenue to make up that cost. It's more of a long term investment in keeping PFS players engaged longer before they run out of scenarios to play, so the exact value to the company will be harder to determine.
It's not a question of "will new scenarios make us more money," it's a question of whether Pathfinder Society is a useful tool for Paizo overall. If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to want to grow it.
We move on then to, "Is PFS in a place where it needs some growth?" Or, if you prefer, "Does D&D Next present a challenge that should be responded to with growth?" I contend that the answer to both is yes.
From there, the question becomes, "Does increasing the number of scenarios lead to growth of PFS?" I think yes, but I have no data to go with that. Neither, it seems, does anyone else, since Paizo staff types are asking for our opinions on the matter. Which isn't a bad thing--it just hasn't been tried, so there can't be any data. So then it becomes a question of whether it's worth the risk.
tl;dr: PFS isn't about selling scenarios, it's about getting people to play Pathfinder, which leads quite naturally to people becoming customers of Paizo. Spending money on this seems like a good idea to me.
|
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.
Not to belabor the obvious, but if the editorial team is consistently a bottleneck, then identify why and do something about it. Assuming you've got good people on that team now, then the obvious solution would be to hire more help for them. Obviously, if you want to accomplish more, you'll need more people to do it.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Paizo has grown quite a bit in the past couple of years. Presumably, this means you have the money to do some additional hiring now.
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.
Case in point...
It does sound like Paizo is just adjusting to its newer, larger size. I've worked with quite a few companies over the years that have suffered from growing pains. Remember the .com crash? I installed computer software for a few of those companies that went out of business, because they didn't have the infrastructure necessary to support their sudden growth. Paizo isn't growing quite that rapidly, so I don't expect that type of total meltdown.
In fact, the talk from Paizo staff in this thread about how having project managers in every department has helped really makes me think they're doing things right. They're just not doing them quite as fast as some of their fan base would like.
|
|
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 don't think there's any straightforward answer. I guess the questions would be this:
1. Can you, with current manpower, produce more scenarios a month? If so, I would say do it.
2. Based on some of Mark's comments, it seems like it's not that you guys can't find authors or balance story; it's more about editing and development. With the addition of one person on the back end, can you afford to produce more scenarios per month? If so, I would recommend hiring them and increasing output accordingly.
Long story short, I'd say to start making the minimum more than you can, either without hiring anyone, or with a minimal staff increase. That way Paizo isn't risking any more than it has to, and you can watch for results before adding more.
|
|
Perhaps an additional intern/s can be hired to help with the layout/editing/development of the scenarios? I expect that a good portion of the process is "mechanical" and could be entrusted to non-game designers/developers.
Perhaps the price of the scenarios needs to be increased? They have been the same since the start five years ago. While I like that they are sooo inexpensive, Paizo did recently announce an increase to the AP line. Maybe scenarios should be increased to $4.99 to help offset the cost of additional resources.
|
|
I'll leave that call up to people above my pay grade. My concern is doing the most we can with our current resources. And at this time it is not apparent that our current resources can support more than two scenarios a month unless we cancel something else.
That's regrettable. I was under the impression that Paizo was dominating the industry and expanding rapidly, so I didn't expect limited resources to be an issue.
Speaking as a PFS player, I'm inclined to at least ask--are you certain that the return on increasing PFS output (vs. something else) would be so low that it's not worth canceling anything? Or is your next-lowest-returning product so awesome that PFS can't hope to compare?
(That question is not sarcasm! You guys do have a tendency to produce some seriously awesome stuff. And PFS is a marketing tool, so if you guys have decided that expanding it won't be worth your time, that's fair. But it would save a lot of time and debate to know that now.)
|
|
Perhaps the price of the scenarios needs to be increased? They have been the same since the start five years ago. While I like that they are sooo inexpensive, Paizo did recently announce an increase to the AP line. Maybe scenarios should be increased to $4.99 to help offset the cost of additional resources.
I was going to post something similar, but since Bob broached the subject...:)
I have heard before that PFS by itself (Just by itself, not counting adding new players that buy other products) does not make much for Paizo.
It might not be a bad idea to raise the price $1 and to stop giving so many free ones away. Stop giving your VOs free access.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
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?
Personally, time prohibitions at our public venues keep us from offering either of the above in my region. And the "drop in and play" format of PFS appeals to the larger part of my player base.
|
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.
I pretty much agree with this, with the small exception of occasionally switching things up. It doesn't really have to be absolutely formulaic. Having no metaplot in a month, not having 4 every month, or maybe occasionally having two 1-5s, and two 3-7s would all be nice changes occasionally. Another aspect I do think might do well to get more people into both the game and into PFS is to step back (a bit) from the metaplot, and particularly focusing too much on one are (Tian Xia -> Varisia -> Worldwound), which left a bit of a bad taste in some people's mouths, (too much of that, not nearly enough of this), and instead sort of return to the earlier scenarios sense of exploring/discovering the world. I kind of view it a bit like the X-Files, the ones pretty much everyone liked, and what it's remembered for was all of the stand alones that didn't involve the overarching story.
As for the AP's and Modules, we have almost run a few. AP-wise, I'm really waiting for Carrion Crown and/or Legacy of Fire to be allowed before I'm going to attempt it. That's just my preference as DM, though. I just wasn't really that excited about most others, and I seriously doubt that Age of Worms is going PFS. Modules I think will be a lot more realistic. We have a few sort of sitting on the back burned, but tend to go with the scenario's instead.
I also both play Table Top games and Play by Posts. I tend to play 1 game a week Table Top, (with occasional 2 games a day, or skipping a week when not enough people can make it), and playing Play by Posts constantly, a game lasting anywhere from a few weeks to maybe 2 or 3 months, per scenario.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
Not to belabor the obvious, but if the editorial team is consistently a bottleneck, then identify why and do something about it. Assuming you've got good people on that team now, then the obvious solution would be to hire more help for them. Obviously, if you want to accomplish more, you'll need more people to do it.As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Paizo has grown quite a bit in the past couple of years. Presumably, this means you have the money to do some additional hiring now.
Well, we've hired something like 7 people in the last two years to address exactly this. One thing that's very difficult for people outside the publishing business to understand is how long it takes for an in-house change to be visible to people out of house. By way of example, we ship our products to the printer 5-7 months before they come out, and work on those products begins as much as a year prior to that.
In fact, the talk from Paizo staff in this thread about how having project managers in every department has helped really makes me think they're doing things right. They're just not doing them quite as fast as some of their fan base would like.
Yes.
In fact, the talk from Paizo staff in this thread about how having project managers in every department has helped really makes me think they're doing things right.
Actually there's just one. I just meddle in every department. :-)
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a PFS player, I'm inclined to at least ask--are you certain that the return on increasing PFS output (vs. something else) would be so low that it's not worth canceling anything? Or is your next-lowest-returning product so awesome that PFS can't hope to compare?
We've already mothballed our lowest-performing line (Planet Stories) to allow for more editorial capacity. All of our other lines are profitable with growing subscription bases and increased market penetration.
I don't want to get into profit analysis on PFS scenarios, because making a ton of money is not really the purpose of PFS. We make money on all the books active PFS players buy, which is a much more difficult thing to measure.
In any event, PFS now has more resources dedicated to it than ever before. It frankly has more in-house resources dedicated to it in terms of manpower and management than the RPGA ever did. And we will continue to add resources to it for as long as it makes sense to do so.
I've already mentioned what needs to happen in order to increase scenario releases. I've already mentioned how we are on the path to doing so. I get that some of you would prefer that this happened in the past, or even the present, but I'm afraid the truth is that it will be happening in the future.
|
|
| 2 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.
Most of us play in weekly games. Ergo, 1 scenario per week would probably be more than we need (on account of players being unable to attend every week). Personally, I think 3 scenarios out of every 4 weeks would be great. That works out to 39 scenarios per year. I recognize that this is a 50% increase in production, but you asked for a target number. :)
|
|
To state the obvious, putting out more replyable tier 1 &2 mods would ease the development process. They just need to fit a 4 hour slot unlike master of the fallen fortress.
And yes I know a lot of people hate the whole idea of replay.
I'll second this. Especially since those of us with many characters quickly run out of low-level scenarios to level up.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: modules I've played a couple low tier, ran a couple low tier, ran some of Thornkeep. Mid to high level modules don't fit well into a 8-10 hour day IMHO.
Re: Adventure Paths I'd love to start Reign of Winter. but finding time and organization is a bear.
Re: Growth. MY VC has more precise numbers of course, but right now we've 4 stores we try to rotate through, and I'm trying to start a 5th store alternating Sundays. (Of course my store is on the other side of the city. Life's funny like that) And there's at least one other store we're trying to include. We're building our GM pool, with more and more people volunteering. I'm hoping to get more fresh meat, er players, with Origins. We have at least one table every Saturday, and alternating Mondays and Wednesdays. I try to keep a 'kit' handy when I get to play, just in case I need to run a walk in table.
Re: Scenarios
Count me in for the needing more 1-5s. Something else I'd like to see is a 'hook' scenario. While I like running linked scenarios (The Devil We Know needs an update. :-)) players like it too. Quest for Perfection is popular not just for the boon, but that you have to complete them all to get the boon. It would also be a hook if the 1-5 scenario doesn't tie into the metaplot for that (or a future season) but ties into a scenario that ties into the metaplot.
To use a quick and dirty example, say there's a season 3 self contained scenario that pus you in touch with the Heidmarch family. Then you play season four and the players recognize the name. It invests them in the world, without requiring a buy in of material. Then as they get more invested in the world, that buy in increases.
Re: D&D Next.
IMNSHO, Anyone who doesn't consider a resurgent D&D brand both simultaneously good for the hobby, and a threat to Paizo, is whistling in the dark. WotC never thought Pathfinder would do as well as it has, but D&D is still the "Xerox" of RPGs. WotC may not have the most stellar track record since Hasbro bought them, but it's not like they're Palladium.
I want to see Paizo grow. I'm emotionally invested in the company, and would love for 10 years from now, people to tell laymen they're playing Pathfinder like how people use D&D as a 'universal term' now for RPGs.
Just think about the consequences if D&D Next doesn't hit the ball out of the park... I worry about Paizo if there isn't a vigorous competitor.The past five years without a vigorous competitor seem to have only improved Paizo's market position...
Both 4th ed and 3.5 were competition for pathfinder and still are. They are both d20 systems that fill the RPG niche.
Even if D&D NEXT flops, Paizo still has plenty of competition for people's free time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The past five years without a vigorous competitor seem to have only improved Paizo's market position...Both 4th ed and 3.5 were competition for pathfinder and still are.
I couldn't disagree more about 4e. Four years from launch to the announcement of the next edition is an abysmal failure. It basically left a huge void in the marketplace screaming for Paizo to fill it. PF wouldn't be where it is, if 4e had been a success.
3.5 is competition -- heck, I still have a backlog of 3.5 products to buy that are competing with my PF money -- but only on the secondary market, which is a subset of the entire market.
|
A lot of people in the industry say that a strong D&D system is good for every RPG line out there. While that may have been the case years ago, with Pathfinder being the new frontrunner, why can't it be said "A strong Pathfinder system is good for the industry"?
I remember posts on sales figures and how quickly Pathfinder topped the market and has stayed up there. It is strong. Could it be stronger? Personally as a Venture-Captain, I see it becoming stronger all the time. While I do get to peak behind the veil every once in awhile, I think I mostly see it in the general boards. What I mean is, look at all of the 'new-player' questions that have popped up in the past two years compared those same types of questions in the first two seasons of the campaign. I see a lot more, and that is great to see. In my region, I'm getting 1-2 new tables of players bi-annually. We are seeing growth (and I hope this is true worldwide).
Look at the list Erik posted. This is either the list of a company spreading itself way too thin or a company that has expanded into new markets and options because it can. Releases aren't being delayed and the quality of their products hasn't dipped, so I don't think the first option is very likely (plus I have complete confidence that the higher ups know what they are doing).
I don't think D&D Next scares them. Far from it. I think they are excited to see what their friends at WoTC have come up with, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of their weekly games becomes a Next game. Heck, I'll be playing some games regularly, but that's me. I love trying new systems and Organized Play campaigns.
I have confidence in the OP system that Paizo has created. I have confidence in MMJ and that they will continue to do what they feel is best for the campaign. More importantly, I have confidence in my fellow volunteers who will continue to yell about the awesome-ness of PFS from their soapboxes, drawing new players to the game.
|
If the major resource consumer during the process of creating a PFS adventure is generating the words, and if people are happy to have adventures that do not tie directly into the meta-plot (I didn't see anyone scream above), then is it time to open the gates wider for people to submit adventures?
That way, perhaps, Paizo could build up a pile of adventures, the cream of which could be dropped into the schedule at a rate of 0-2 per month to even out fluctuations in the rate that the official team can work at? Maybe even risk a submission from an unknown on the months that they need 2?
Also, if they were less strongly tied to meta-plot, perhaps they would be more attractive for non-PFS GMs to pick up to reuse for their own purposes.
|
|
In previous posts , Mike and Erik asked for feedback on the use of modules and AP´s , and scenarios for that matter, and it does worry me that the guys from their site department appear ( and i underline appear )not giving them more acurate data from what we report (it´s pretty easy programing-wise).
I would probably just suggest to put a new field in the reporting online sheet , to put the specific tier (to differentiate 3-4 from 6-7 , for example) played in a given scenario ,and they could easily , and in realtime have constant and recent data on this matter.
As to listening to us , they already showed that they are , it will just probably take some time for us to see it.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
It's not that we can't mine the reporting data to detect trends of what's getting played where and the like, but the current set up doesn't do much to give us a qualitative sense of how play, organization, and enjoyment of Modules and APs works in the real world with real people. That's where asking for feedback comes in.
We prefer to look at both data inputs and make important decisions based on a fuller picture than just raw numbers.
I love how the Paizo staff (Erik et al.) really do follow and engage their players and customers -when's the last time you ever heard of Steve Jackson ever posting on the forums to HIS customers? Great job guys-seriously.
BUT that being said- ITS FRIGGIN 2 AM! GO TO BED ALREADY!
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how the Paizo staff (Erik et al.) really do follow and engage their players and customers -when's the last time you ever heard of Steve Jackson ever posting on the forums to HIS customers? Great job guys-seriously.
BUT that being said- ITS FRIGGIN 2 AM! GO TO BED ALREADY!
Actually 3 am
|
|
I would love to see a better planning/mustering setup brought to the PFS website. As it is almost every large group utilizes non-Paizo websites for organization and mustering. Because of this A LOT of players never actually get on the boards, never socialize with all the great people here, and never hear the words of law that get past down through random Mike sightings. One of the things Paizo does extremely well is this board and so I would love to see a few more things added in to try and bring players onto the boards.
1) Mustering: We as players already register our characters on Paizo's website and can locate events near us but I wish it went a step further. I wish that once we found that event we could sign up for it and muster right on Paizo's website instead of having to utilize a third party site.
2)Organizing: I think it would be useful to have a forum section for each Venture Captain. This way games could be organized and conversed about within Paizo's forum instead of spread over a multitude of third party websites. As it is I am a member of 4 facebook groups, 1 google group, 1 yahoo group, and 2 meetup groups just to keep track of opportunities and talk to people in the StL area.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
1) Mustering: We as players already register our characters on Paizo's website and can locate events near us but I wish it went a step further. I wish that once we found that event we could sign up for it and muster right on Paizo's website instead of having to utilize a third party site.
+1 to this.