RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Ok, so to give a bit of personal feedback, I started this campaign in November 2012. Generally speaking, I play or GM 2 scenarios and 1 AP session per week. Sometimes, if the scenario is a short one, I'll GM 2 scenarios in a day at my RL store.
Let's look at what I've experienced and what I haven't, from the level 1 accessible scenarios.
Season 0: Played or GMmed 8/13
Season 1: Played or GMmed 7/15
Season 2: Played or GMmed 4/10
Season 3: Played or GMmed 6/13
Season 4: Played or GMmed 5/6
Total : Played or GMmed 30/57 [52%]
So, since November 2012, I'm slightly more than halfway through the available level 1 scenarios. While I realize that PFS can't accommodate somebody of my play level sustainably, I also realize that this pushes me into higher level scenarios, more often than not. This means that I meet new players less frequently, and I have a harder time organizing a table.
I've played or GMmed about 5 3-7s and about 10 5-9s. I have never participated in a 7-11.
I do make use of modules, but they are sometimes tough to schedule. You don't want to constrain yourself to running them in a single day, but things happen and sometimes characters can get tied up in the middle of one. Things come up and people can't make the second session. For this reason, I've been lax to schedule them.
I should also point out that there are a lot of scenarios in there that I really wouldn't want to play again, and a lot of people don't want to schedule - these are mainly early scenarios that seem to end really, really quickly and be easy for a modern party to handle. There are certain scenarios that are just not representative of what PFS is today.
In the end, as I said in my other thread on the subject, I feel that the lack of 1-5s is a growing problem, and one that needs to be confronted. We have plenty of 5-9s and 7-11s, but we're risking our new players with the trickle of low level material.
Edit to add: Oh, and from a monetary standpoint, I've GMmed for roughly 20-40 new players in my time in PFS. I've personally convinced 4 to start playing. Each of those 4 has bought a core rulebook, as well as other material. One of them is recently getting into GMming and has been encouraging others to play as well. That's a lot of books sold that, on paper, have nothing to do with PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'd like to expand on this. Paizo knows who's played what. Groups I deal with have tried various methods of keeping track in order to find available scenarios, but they all require constant maintenance.
If the "who's played what" was opened up, it would greatly improve the mustering process.
Yes, this would be a huge help. I know that VCs can look up what people have played, but it's still a painstaking operation that requires looking up each person individually and making a list. I'd love for that system to be automated and open to anyone for use in planning an event.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 was clearly a revised version of 3.0 in a way that 4e was not.
Indeed, one could argue that 3.0 is amazingly successful, because it's still the market leader-- Pathfinder is often described as 3.75, and rightly so, because it's built on the same basic rule system. It's not exactly the same thing, no, but it's probably closer than 2e was to 1e.
In practice, most of us who play Pathfinder don't use much in the way of 3e material with it (there's plenty there in Pathfinder itself), with the possible exception of some setting and adventure stuff (although, again, lots of people like Golarion, and Paizo puts out huge amounts of adventures, never mind the 3pp). So, it's not entirely fair to call Pathfinder "part of the same edition" as 3.0. However, that style of game seems to have caught on and held people in a way that 4e wasn't really able to dislodge.
My prediction is that Next doesn't actually present all that much of a threat to Pathfinder. I may be wrong. I haven't paid too much attention to Next, but it sounded like they were really going after the 1e/2e crowd. I can't help but think this is a mistake; it sounds like they're trying to recapture the glory days when D&D was everything, before the OGL allowed other people to play in their sandbox and before 4e's attempt to grab WoW players failed. (I don't think WotC handled the OGL terribly well. Paizo is doing a great job with it, precisely because they embrace it. The fact that all of their RPG line rules material shows up in the PRD, and that all of the rules material in general is open content, makes it very easy to bring new players in without telling them they have to buy anything. Hopefully, later, they buy stuff, but even if they don't, it means that GMs are motivated to buy Pathfinder stuff because they know they'll be able to show the rules to their players (via the PRD) even if the players won't buy the rules.)
Next will probably just fragment WotC's customer base further. I don't believe that the 1e/2e holdouts are really all that large of a segment of the population. They're certainly there, but I don't know if it's enough to build a new edition on, even if the majority of them were open to moving to a new edition, which I doubt. The set of folks who preferred the 3e rules to 4e have already migrated (mostly) to Pathfinder. The 4e people (who do in fact exist, and are probably greater in number than the 1e/2e holdouts) are only going to be cheesed off by the direction that Next is taking.
The real question is if WotC can pull enough people away from Pathfinder, OR, ideally, bring enough new people into the hobby, to catch on, or if it will not be big enough for a Hasbro-sized company (who plays in a whole different league from every other RPG publisher) to believe that it's even worth continuing. Worst case scenario is that Next draws a lot of people, but not enough to satisfy Hasbro, and when it goes down the resulting whirlpool is too strong for smaller companies like Paizo to survive.
I don't know if any of this is relevant. In any event, the focus should more be on "making PFS better and more attractive" rather than "responding to Next". The former will naturally do the latter, and focusing entirely on the latter could lead things astray.
|
|
What rknop said. Edition 3.x is *still* the market leader, after 13 years, even though it was stripped of its D&D branding. Some might want to separate 3.0, 3.5 and 3.75, but even PF is still 80-90% compatible with the game that was launched in the summer of 2000. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same game with tweaks rather than the complete overhaul that 2e->3e or 3e->4e were.
Worst case scenario is that Next draws a lot of people, but not enough to satisfy Hasbro, and when it goes down the resulting whirlpool is too strong for smaller companies like Paizo to survive.
And the best case scenario is that Wizards fails so bad that they give up on the brand entirely and sell it to Paizo. If we want to consider the worst case scenario then we should equally consider the best case scenario too. :)
|
I think a lot of people are over-exaggerating an issue. Who knows how Paizo will react, but with Wizards piss poor handling of current OP. (Aside from David Christ who runs all large con op for Wizards, and is pretty much a marketing equivalent of Rick James)
Next will have a good head start, but if they have the same kind of marketable adventure cohesion as LFR, and allow for throw away characters, with no real development, than what's to worry about?
I've authored two modules for LFR, and have helped with several others, and currently I see no competition between the two. Next will have to blow people away like 3e did to be nearly as successful, as the 4e track record of broken promises (PDF's, Online combat table, etc etc) it's just lost too much faith with too many people to be deadly.
But hey, I think Paizo's staff has a solid head on their shoulders, they back products, have good clean well organized mod's that aren't 60-80+ pages to get a story across in a four hour slot.
All in all, not much to worry over.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I went back to read through the entire thread, as I feel things may have derailed a bit from my original intent. Of course, having done that, I’ve found a great many things to reply to and comment on, so I’m feeling a bit conflicted as to how to approach this post. I’ve decided to trust what I know about Paizo: that they are a smart group of people comprising a company that knows how to listen to its customer base. Thus, I’m going to try to continue the conversation I wanted to have at first, instead of continuing the debate about what is complacent, or whether Next is valid.
To start, I think I want to address what I just said: I did not start this conversation in an effort to save a failing campaign. Far from it. I started this conversation in an effort to let a SUCCESSFUL campaign know that they needed to pay attention to something that is imminent in order to maintain that success.
I.E., I want Paizo to look at the success of Pathfinder Society and know that its strength is not a guarantee, that it is still something they need to focus on maintaining. I simply feel that focus has drifted a bit, and wanted to give them something to look at to realize that a renewed focus is, indeed, necessary.
Doug Miles questioned why Paizo can’t benefit from competition. Todd Morgan took it a step further and questioned why Paizo can’t set the bar for the competition, instead. Both are accurate in asking the questions. But both questions are dangerous if not approached actively. The goal of competing, and of setting the stage for that competition, is what I wanted to get Paizo to look at for Pathfinder Society.
The challenges are the things I listed in my first post: 1 - D&D (the brand name) and, 2 - WotC’s adept use of its own (and very strong) organized play system, the Wizard’s Play Network.
WotC understands how the Dungeons & Dragons brand name’s power can work for them. Witness the fact that multiple products carry the D&D name, but AREN’T actually D&D. Paizo has themselves made huge strides in this same understanding, as nearly every product line they produce now carries the name “Pathfinder.” This is a powerful display of marketing knowledge, and cannot be trivialized. I applaud Paizo for coming to this realization and making use of it. But D&D has 35 years of extra time in the forefront of the general public’s minds that Pathfinder has not had. Going head to head in brand name recognition, Pathfinder will lose; #1 RPG sales spot two years running, or not.
WotC also has two decades worth of experience with organized play with The DCI (now called the Wizard’s Play Network, as pointed out earlier). The very name change is testament to the fact that WotC understands what organized play can do for them. Several people have pointed out how Paizo has mountains of data that they can look at to see what they need to do with Pathfinder Society. WotC has mountain RANGES of data after two decades, and has a department dedicated exclusively to that data and how to use it.
A (once commonly) known fact: Magic was created as a diversionary game meant to take up time between D&D game sessions, or to while away the minutes waiting for the rest of the players to show up. Magic has obviously acquired a life of its own, but it still attracts many gamers who cross from one genre to the other with ease. WotC knows this, and I cannot imagine they will not try to capitalize on that.
So, I want to revisit what Jason S so succinctly summed up:
PFS has grown; you need to begin to publish more adventures. PFS needs to continue to grow; you need to publish more entry level adventures so that veterans can sit with their trainees. PFS has become a massive volunteer network; you need to begin to show those volunteers that they MEAN something to you and that you are aware of everything they have done for you.So if I understood your feedback correctly, your feedback is:
1) Produce more tier 1-5 scenarios.
2) Produce more scenarios in general.
3) Do more to support new players.
4) Support the GM network in some undetermined way.
5) Create innovative ideas to be better than the D&D Next OP program.Is that right?
I originally replied with a simple, “Yes.” I want to adjust that response to what follows.
I want Paizo and the members of PFS to do these things:
1) More frequently produce tier 1-5 scenarios.
2) Produce more scenarios in general, to match the higher demand the growth of PFS has created.
3) Come up with new ways to support new players.
4) Acknowledge the GM network as it deserves to be acknowledged for the work it has done, and the work it will continue to do.
5) Create innovative ideas to stay ahead of the challenges the D&D Next OP program may be capable of creating.
We have debated #s 1 & 2, provoking some emotional replies from both sides. So be it; I think it has been (mostly) constructive, so far, and hope that continues. #4 is being addressed in threads like this. I’d like to see that continue, and it can certainly be discussed here, as well.
That leaves #3 and #5.
Chris Mortika had an awesome idea. Having never been to GenCon, I’d like to see that explored in such a way that the concept can be taken to any convention across the country.
Art Lobdell has another idea. I especially love the concept of cross promoting Adventure Paths with PFS, which Paizo has been doing already. But this takes it a step further, prompting AP GMs to purchase PFS adventures and prompting PFS players to think more seriously about picking up the showcased AP.
I also like Mike Lindner’s idea of creating Tier 1-3 scenarios. He’s right, I assume, considering all Mark has said on the topic: lower word count, less stat block development, and less rules content would all make this concept much easier to implement, and solve many of the “not enough scenarios” problems we are discussing. I would rather see Tier 1-2 scenarios, as that is a smaller range and won't require adjustment of current WBL awards.
Finally, Lab_Rat floated these ideas. Both are valid, innovative, and accomplish the task of making PFS more efficient to administer.
I would like to add some of my own ideas:
1 – Events along the style of the Beginner Box Bash. These types of events are awesome draws for new players, and the boon that was created for the one that was run is an excellent way to draw those same players into the Pathfinder Society. It worked great in October 2011; I'm not entirely sure why we don't continue to do it more regularly, now.
2 – Create a “new store” package for PFS promotion. Something that goes beyond the simple poster that is available, and has a one-sheet detailing everything that can be done to promote PFS within a store. Links to the Guide, the Additional Resources page, the list of Venture Officers, and the PFS specific products can be included, along with a guideline of how to start your PFS Game Day and what steps you should follow to ensure that it is a success.
3 – Create a promotional package that organizers can request for special events containing a static number of things like boons to hand out to players, or perhaps a copy of the Character Folio to give to the player voted MVP. This package would have a small poster that can be used to promote the event, with a blank spot that the coordinator can use to write in his own information.
I am certain, that, if I sit here and think a little more, I can come up with more. But this starts the ball rolling. I look forward to seeing what else people can come up with.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Do more players necessarily mean more scenarios are needed? New players have a backlog of scenarios available to play. Between that and 2 new ones a month, new players aren't the ones who need more scenarios.
It's more the long term hard core players who need more scenarios to play. As active membership grows, there will be more of those, but at what percentage? And is that number enough to justify more scenarios?
It seems to me Paizo should have the data to tell if more scenarios are needed. Dig through the records of who's played which scenarios and see how many players have played through all or most of the latest scenarios. That's your player base for more scenarios a year.
Players who're already playing only 3/4 of the available scenarios aren't likely to play more if there are more available. They're limited by something other than lack of scenarios to play.Probably break it out by tier too. If there are a lot of people who've played everything available in a certain tier, they probably need more adventures at that level.
Hmmm. I wonder if what they really need is a part-time database guy to pull some of this info out in a useful form. Assuming they don't have it already.
There are two problems with older scenarios. First, it's tough sometimes to schedule them, as a lot of people have played them. Second, a lot of the really old ones just aren't worth playing, in my opinion. Very, very short and very, very easy.
|
|
I don't believe that an extra few scenarios a month will solve the issue of running out. Some regions just play a LOT at the LGS level. There are 19 games a month within 20 minutes of my house. What an extra scenario a month will do is alleviate the stress when an overactive player does run out.
I agree with Drogon on a lot of issues. The battle between Pathfinder and D&D Next is not going to be at the home game level. Players will always like one rule set over another. The battle will be at the LGS and in the "Living" campaigns. Anything Paizo can do to help LGS promote, run, and administer events will help.
|
|
The Sky isn't falling because Wizards is cranking out another version of D+D. The Sky didn't fall with the next version of Hero. Nor will Paizo suddenly lose all of the players it drew from fourth edition.... because for the most part it didn't draw any. Most of the people who started out as Paizo's core players were those who refused to play fourth edition at all.
This isn't true at least in my area. Even a good portion of the VOs were 4th edition players and organizers.
One other thing, simplifying and clarifying some rules would benefit play. For example, the light rules. Also what does being hidden give you? Virtually every time I run for a party with a stealth character some player complains loudly that hidden gives no benefits in combat. It is tiresome to say the least and makes stealth one of those newbie traps for a lot of gms. In one online game I once even had a player call the 3 rogues in the party idiots for hiding.
Also improving some underperformed classes like monk and rogue would be helpful.
|
|
This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.
|
|
True, but sort of irrelevant. If I started today and even if I went straight to 4 scenarios a month, how long before I started to run out of worthwhile scenarios that can still get scheduled?
If the problem is being driven by increase in player base, there should be plenty of new players who haven't played the old scenarios. Or even last years.But again, this is info Paizo can glean from their database: How many people are playing 24+ scenarios in a year? Anyone playing less than that isn't going to need...
Part of the problem for me with this argument is that you are left playing all of those old scenarios in a vacuum. All of the experienced players that help make this kind of gaming fun can't play with you because they have already played the adventure you are playing. Although most GM's don't mind running scenarios multiple times (not gaining any credit for their characters) it is still more fun when you do get the credit.
|
This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
...suggestions...
Plenty of the larger conventions do have things like this, just not run by the official Paizo people. Most of them are combat oriented but some are more general like your suggestions. Last year at GenCon (and again this year I believe) there was a Team Death Match. Dragon*Con has several like this - last year there was a "Dragon-slayers" series (journey/adventure type modules) where the best team got to move to a final round. The Cheese Grinder (combat and puzzle-solving) has been around for years (48 Hours of semi-cooperative qualification rounds with a competitive final). Last year's TCG trophy was the size of an eight-year-old.
So yeah, people can (and do) run events like this using Pathfinder rules. I *believe* some of them have received minor prize support from Paizo (a book or two - prizes may have been from FLGS, I'm not sure). I actually like the fact that these diverge from "official company policy" and are just the ideas of fans. The good ones survive, the bad ideas fall away after one con with no interest. The Paizo people have more than enough to fill their hands with just Organized Play.
So, Lab_Rat, fire up your synapses and put together a tournament for next year's GenCon. Get your GMs together and ask around to see if you can get some sponsorship. I look forward to seeing the final result!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
Just wanted to point out that I like the general premise of this idea for a new intro scenario. I'd add that it would be important that, unlike We Be Goblins, it would give you 2PP rather than 1, so that you can grab that healing wand before hitting your first "real" scenario.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Should we just throw away all the old scenarios, then?Part of the problem for me with this argument is that you are left playing all of those old scenarios in a vacuum. All of the experienced players that help make this kind of gaming fun can't play with you because they have already played the adventure you are playing. Although most GM's don't mind running scenarios multiple times (not gaining any credit for their characters) it is still more fun when you do get the credit.True, but sort of irrelevant. If I started today and even if I went straight to 4 scenarios a month, how long before I started to run out of worthwhile scenarios that can still get scheduled?
If the problem is being driven by increase in player base, there should be plenty of new players who haven't played the old scenarios. Or even last years.But again, this is info Paizo can glean from their database: How many people are playing 24+ scenarios in a year? Anyone playing less than that isn't going to need...
Good lord, no. Most of these scenarios are like any other: they can be fun when done properly, and they have their place. Taking them away would simply make the problem worse.
And remember it's only most active who are going to have a problem with this. If you're not playing more than twice a month, you're not going to even use up each year's scenarios.
But again, my real point is that more players doesn't drive the need for more scenarios. If you double the number of players, each of them still has the same number of scenarios to play. More active players, those who play a lot of games, drive the need for more.
Maybe I'm underestimating the demand. Maybe the growth in membership comes with a growth in those who'd play 40-50 scenarios a year. I don't know. You don't either, other than anecdotally and locally. Paizo should have that info.
As you said, our information is specific to each of our own situations. But may I say that my own observations are based on four years of coordinating, with each of those years encompassing 150-200 tables worth of players? I think that's at least a reasonable sample. So, I will endeavor to answer your questions with my own (anecdotal) information:
Are there enough people maxing out on the new scenarios and/or playing more by working through the backlog to justify the expense of making more?
Justifying the expense of making more is a matter of looking at what has come before. You make profit as a company to accomplish two things: 1 - pay yourself and, 2 - invest in the vehicle that makes you more profit.
Paizo, at some point in their history, justified doing what they did with the creation of Pathfinder Society. Five years later it has grown to an exponential level beyond whatever it was that justified that decision. That growth justifies the creation of more content, thus supporting more growth.
Or will making more every month just split sales?
No. The people who purchase all the scenarios that are made will very likely continue to purchase all the scenarios that are made. I know I, and the coordinators in my area, certainly will. I am certain that everyone who is currently clamoring for replay or questioning what they should do now that they've maxed out their available gaming will also buy them all.
Finally, as Todd mentioned, the problem isn't simply that more content should be made available for the larger player base. The problem is getting the veterans (who have played most of the available low-level options) to sit down at a table with new players (who HAVE to play low-level options). Gaming groups do not grow by fours and sixes; they grow one or two players at a time. Sticking those new players in a queue until there ARE 4 to 6 "newbies" is not a good solution.
Besides, you want those guys exposed to the fun that is the entire group, not stagnated playing with the same faces over and over. It's a Society, not a Private Party.
|
|
The Cheese Grinder (combat and puzzle-solving) has been around for years (48 Hours of semi-cooperative qualification rounds with a competitive final). Last year's TCG trophy was the size of an eight-year-old.
Jealous....Mine and my wife's are only a foot tall. My gaming group of 4 at the time made the final table of TCG at Origins 2010.
While I love fan based tournies, having a Paizo approved one means you could do cool stuff like skip multiple levels so that you could play the tournament through a variety of scenarios and get credit for it. Players are always asking how they can speed up leveling. Why not give a select few the the option at GenCon. It would also be a great way to showcase the new scenarios released at Gencon. I could do the same thing but people would not walk away with a legal character. I will think about it.
|
|
This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.
Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.
|
|
Save that outside of messageboard theorywonks, those classes don't "underperform" at all. They will however be problematic for people who insist that they should be able to simply do damage by stupid. They are inherently more advanced classes to play.The Sky isn't falling because Wizards is cranking out another version of D+D. The Sky didn't fall with the next version of Hero. Nor will Paizo suddenly lose all of the players it drew from fourth edition.... because for the most part it didn't draw any. Most of the people who started out as Paizo's core players were those who refused to play fourth edition at all.
This isn't true at least in my area. Even a good portion of the VOs were 4th edition players and organizers.
One other thing, simplifying and clarifying some rules would benefit play. For example, the light rules. Also what does being hidden give you? Virtually every time I run for a party with a stealth character some player complains loudly that hidden gives no benefits in combat. It is tiresome to say the least and makes stealth one of those newbie traps for a lot of gms. In one online game I once even had a player call the 3 rogues in the party idiots for hiding.
Also improving some underperformed classes like monk and rogue would be helpful.
I just wanted to point out that there are ton of threads about this on the boaords. Paizo even stated they were going to redo the monk. It just hasn't happened yet.
If by more advanced classes to play you mean require more system mastery to not suck then I agree with you. Problem is that around half the new people want to play a rogue or monk.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Good lord, no. Most of these scenarios are like any other: they can be fun when done properly, and they have their place. Taking them away would simply make the problem worse.Should we just throw away all the old scenarios, then?Part of the problem for me with this argument is that you are left playing all of those old scenarios in a vacuum. All of the experienced players that help make this kind of gaming fun can't play with you because they have already played the adventure you are playing. Although most GM's don't mind running scenarios multiple times (not gaining any credit for their characters) it is still more fun when you do get the credit.True, but sort of irrelevant. If I started today and even if I went straight to 4 scenarios a month, how long before I started to run out of worthwhile scenarios that can still get scheduled?
If the problem is being driven by increase in player base, there should be plenty of new players who haven't played the old scenarios. Or even last years.But again, this is info Paizo can glean from their database: How many people are playing 24+ scenarios in a year? Anyone playing less than that isn't going to need...
Right, I'm not saying that the old scenarios are completely pointless. They're great for when you have a really, really underperforming party that needs a few softballs, or a GM who is willing to take the time and energy to put in extras that make the scenario more interesting. A great example is Among the Living, in which I created a bunch of NPCs to interact with as the theatre patrons and staff. We just can't expect all GMs to have that sort of drive and ingenuity on a uniform level, though.
Do me a favor. Pull out The May Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch, Among the Living, Among the Dead or Murder on the Silken Caravan. Then, pull out Severing Ties, The Gods' Market Gamble, Rise of the Goblin Guild, The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment or The Frostfur Captives. Do you think that there's any real comparison there?
There are a lot of factors that go into this, of course. The game world is richer, with more history. The page limit was increased. Season 0 scenarios suffer from underpowered monsters due to the 3.5 conversion. There's even one Season 1 scenario that can't be ran properly without a third-party document, and GMs everywhere scratch their heads when they get to certain abilities the monster has.
|
|
I am involved at 8-12 tables a month, occasionally more (Home game gets spotty, or I go to a con).
I think 3-4 scenario's a month would be excellent. I would love to see one scenario a week.
in RE: Mark's Post.
Currently my weekly games are Mondays, and wednesdays, and most saturdays.
Wednesday Night - Almost always two tables, and we're working through the scenario's quite quickly, Part of the "problem" is that many people will play other events, and we can run into problems finding tables for some folks to play.
Monday Night - it's a newer group, made up of people playing on wednesday's who really wanted to play more PFS. So far we have run the first 3 levels of thornkeep, and Carrion hill module. That group is capable of more stable planning and can run modules, so I have been focusing on that direction to preserve scenario's.
Saturday Game-Days. Throughout the area Game Days are rotated through 4 Stores that actively promote PFS, a system spearheaded by Now-VC Mat Starch, the stores organize a fair amount of play through those events, but recently a couple tables have been having difficulty firing, simply because too many people had played X scenario, and we have had to do some last minute audibles to make things work.
I will claim some "credit" for that problem, because I'm organizing 3 tables a week, it eats scenario's.
With my home game; I recently ran Shattered star (the whole thing) and got into ROTR. Then real life happened and we have been on a bit of a break.
The sanctioned portion of an adventure path is simply too long for a Game Day, or a weekly slot, it requires a convention day or two day's of slots, or a committed weekly group to properly function, that being said, they are awesome, and really fun, but don't alleviate pressure on scenario consumption as much as provide the more hardcore additional options.
I think the most impressive thing about sanctioned Adventure Paths is the reduction in demand to write/publish "Seeker level" modules/adventures, making them still an excellent use of resources, but a DIFFERENT one than the scenarios.
I am not saying there is a magic number that will make everyone happy, but based on my current consumption of scenarios, and my awareness that there are certainly stores that consume more than I do.
4 Scenario's a Month would be an excellent target number. 3 Scenario's a month is what I personally, and professionally, would like to see throughout much of season 5.
Drogon's Breakdown is excellent.
1x 1-5
1x 3-7 OR 1-5
1x 5-9 OR 7-11
The bottom line is simple, people with level 10 characters CAN play in 1-5's with new characters, but people with level 1's CAN'T play anything else.
|
|
Me, myself I love all forms of D&D. I am sorry if this offends anyone but pathfinder is a form of D&D. I enjoyed D&D in all of it's forms. I think the idea of next is a great thing and healthy for PFS as well. I think pathfinder should watch Next and see what it does well and steal from it. I think the management of pathfinder would be downright foolish to not try the game(I know a VL that is scared to be seen playing 4e because they might take his position away). I am excited for Next. Personally I do not like the playtest version currently as the game focuses too much on Mother may I from the DMs. That style can work awesomely, but you need a great DM. I want to see what ideas they add to the game I love so much.
So do nto ignore it. embrace it. Heck if you play everything in PFS and need something else here a great possibility for your second option.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually 3 amI 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!
Mike Brock doesn't sleep. He waits.
|
While WotC is, of course, the 600lb gorilla in the room, the truth is 5E (no, I'm not going to follow the marketing trick of calling it "D&D Next" and everybody who does that should feel ashamed of themselves) is targeting a whole different crowd. 5E is going after the old school players. The evidence is all over the place: removal of skills and relying on the "ask GM if you can climb this wall" system, simplified monster statblocks, combat grid being completely done away with, using Gary Gygax adventures as playtest material, distancing the game from anything strongly associated with 3E (PrCs, multiclassing, feat/spell bloat) and 4E (grid, encounter/at will/daily, dragonborn shadowstorm avengers)...
...and that's a very smart move on WotCs part. They figured out that going head to head against Paizo could end up not that great and that relying on people who love 4E is not that cool an idea either given the small of number of those. Who's left? The OSR people, who don't have a well-developed market presence taking care of them and are spread across 30 retroclones. There's money right there, and no competition to speak of.
So, of course, WotC will be trying to re-assert themselves as market leaders BUT they'll do so by going after a whole different group of people. The question is, what part will OrgPlay have in that...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010
|
Mike Brock doesn't sleep. He waits.Actually 3 amI 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!
Source sited:
Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish).
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.
Yes it was. And by and large, we received an overwhelmingly negative response because people advised they would rather have a game they worked together with instead of a game they competed against each other. We are not planning another tournament style event for the foreseeable future, and instead focusing future efforts on cooperative game play, such as this year's special.
|
|
Yes it was. And by and large, we received an overwhelmingly negative response because people advised they would rather have a game they worked together with instead of a game they competed against each other. We are not planning another tournament style event for the foreseeable future, and instead focusing future efforts on cooperative game play, such as this year's special.Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.
For what it matters, I would love to see one tournament style event at Gen Con by Paizo, in the same vein as the D&D Championship every year. Competition is fun, and as long as it isnt the main stay I think people would have a grand ole time of it.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
For what it matters, I would love to see one tournament style event at Gen Con by Paizo, in the same vein as the D&D Championship every year. Competition is fun, and as long as it isnt the main stay I think people would have a grand ole time of it.Yes it was. And by and large, we received an overwhelmingly negative response because people advised they would rather have a game they worked together with instead of a game they competed against each other. We are not planning another tournament style event for the foreseeable future, and instead focusing future efforts on cooperative game play, such as this year's special.Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.
I admit to being surprised that the tournament style was received negatively. I, too, would expect that people would want to be able to play something like that.
SoA is likely correct: have a tournament, but make that the reason for the event, not just a part of the event. For instance, in Season Three, if there had been a mainstream "interactive" GenCon Special, and then a side-line "tournament" special, that would have fit together pretty well.
The Bonekeep style scenarios would also be a good tournament experience.
|
Venture-Agent, West Virginia—Martinsburg
|
I have gotten to try D&D Next while at Norwescon this year. The person running is one of the current designers and developers of the game, and was doing it for feedback as well as testing what he had in place currently to see how well it worked.
My opinion?
Its a different beast. 4th edition felt like too much of the WoW-on-tabletop to me, and when I speak with some others and use such words to describe it, they typically agree. D&D Next goes back a little bit to 3.X, but seems to have simplified down even further in the terms of skills, abilities, and class models.
I will say that due to the simpleness of the skills, it almost felt like they were trying to get people to imagine and role play a little bit more than what 4th edition offered. They wanted people to think about things, try some things out by simply being ingenious and describing how they would be performing said act and allowing the DM to come up with whatever roll he wanted them to do to see if they succeed.
Did I like it? I had fun. Will I play it when it comes out? Nope. It didnt feel like D&D anymore. It felt like another fantasy game system which is trying to keep a market presence while drawing in new players. Im not going to say it will fail; It has a very good chance of catching the attention of new players with its simplistic system. I do not think, however, it will pull people away from the 3.X/PF games they are currently playing for any considerable length of time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Put me in the category of people who prefer games where folks work together rather than elimination/tournament style games. (Not that I can't enjoy both; that just tends to be my preference.) So, I can easily understand why people seemed to give feedback that way, and why, if Paizo needs to focus on one, that's the one they'd choose in the future.
|
|
D&D Next goes back a little bit to 3.X, but seems to have simplified down even further in the terms of skills, abilities, and class models.
I will say that due to the simpleness of the skills, it almost felt like they were trying to get people to imagine and role play a little bit more than what 4th edition offered. They wanted people to think about things, try some things out by simply being ingenious and describing how they would be performing said act and allowing the DM to come up with whatever roll he wanted them to do to see if they succeed.
This is very much how D&D worked in the "good ol' days" of OD&D and BECMI. Back then, few used miniatures and your visual imagination was a much bigger part of the game. There weren't small-scale battle maps, only large, castle/kingdom/continent maps. Players had to draw the map on grid paper as they investigated the dungeon. For most actions, the GM had to decide not only what was a reasonable target for success, s/he had to design, often on the fly, what ability score, saving throw, proficiency, etc. applied and even what die/dice would be used to resolve the action's success.
While a system like that might appeal to the grognards, I think that the average gamer has become more visual and rules-based. Whether you play computer games, MMO, table-top, or console, rules have become very comprehensive and you can actually see what is going on either on a computer screen or a table map. Gamers these days seem to need the rules to help them develop what they can/not do in the game. In most cases, when you ask, "I want to do [X], how does that work?" there is a developed game mechanic to guide you to resolution.
But, maybe I'm just one of "those" old guys that thinks things were better in the ol' days. I love Pathfinder and have loved every iteration of D&D, but sometimes I miss the freedom of the old "rules lite" versions of the game.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
My group won't buy anything from WOTC period. They are so pissed off at shelling out $1,000+ dollars on 3.0 products only to have rules revised and another $1,000+ dollars with 3.5 products only to have all this stuff become pretty worthless when 4.0 came out. To them it does not matter how good the rules are they just expect them to be thrown out and re-done again every 3 years so WOTC can make money and ignore the needs of the players. For me it's Pathfinder or nothing, I'm all in.As a GM/DM I am in the same boat with regards to purchasing materials.
These statements continue to confuse me.
The total number of books available for purchase in 4E stands at 55 (every setting book and every core book with rules). Assuming you bought every single one, and paid retail, you spent in the neighborhood of $1500.
The total number of books available for purchase in 3.0/3.5 (both iterations) stands at 70 (assuming all books with mechanics and setting information). Again, assuming full retail (adjusted for inflation), you're at around $2000.
The total number of books available containing mechanics and setting information for the PFRPG? 232. If you purchase these at retail, you're spending a whopping $5000. Even with the 15% discount you can get through Paizo, we're talking about $4000+.
Why do people keep making this argument?
|
|
Why do people keep making this argument?
Actually, I think it has more to do with what felt like repeated restarts moreso than the money spent. As an ol' skool gamer, I was a bit miffed when I had to buy new "core" books for 2E. When 3E came on line, my group rebelled. We refused to upgrade for a number of years until the availability of 1/2E material became soo scarce, we were killing our progression. That and I think we got bored with the status quo.
The particular problem with 3E/v3.5/4E is that they seemed to occur in a short period of time. The upgrade to v3.5 wasn't a huge issue to most gamer I knew. Most felt some of the power-levels were to big and too fast (with respect to level progression) so v3.5 seemed inevitable and even somewhat expected. However, 4E seemed a little too fast for most. And killing LG virtually at the same time was a double kick in the gut for most.
So while your evaluation of the money investments is largely accurate, we are really talking more about how people "feel" they were treated by the publisher. Oh, and I'm sure the mob-mentality has something to do with it too. When "everyone" says something sucks, there is a good portion of people who feel it sucks too, even without experiencing it for themselves.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people keep making this argument?Actually, I think it has more to do with what felt like repeated restarts moreso than the money spent. As an ol' skool gamer, I was a bit miffed when I had to buy new "core" books for 2E. When 3E came on line, my group rebelled. We refused to upgrade for a number of years until the availability of 1/2E material became soo scarce, we were killing our progression. That and I think we got bored with the status quo.
The particular problem with 3E/v3.5/4E is that they seemed to occur in a short period of time. The upgrade to v3.5 wasn't a huge issue to most gamer I knew. Most felt some of the power-levels were to big and too fast (with respect to level progression) so v3.5 seemed inevitable and even somewhat expected. However, 4E seemed a little too fast for most. And killing LG virtually at the same time was a double kick in the gut for most.
So while your evaluation of the money investments is largely accurate, we are really talking more about how people "feel" they were treated by the publisher. Oh, and I'm sure the mob-mentality has something to do with it too. When "everyone" says something sucks, there is a good portion of people who feel it sucks too, even without experiencing it for themselves.
The core books for 3.0 came out in August 2000.
35 months later came the PHB for 3.5.
59 months later came the core books for 4.0.
If we count Essentials as a "re-write," those started coming out 27 months later.
Going backwards, 2nd Edition was 11 years prior. 1st Edition AD&D was 12 years prior to that. I won't bother counting all the Basic, Expert, White Box, Blue Box, whatevers. Too many paths to sort.
So, yes, I can see where 3.0 --> 3.5 --> 4.0 --> Essentials seems like a bunch of money grabs.
But the PF Core Book came out in August 2009. Counting ONLY PFRPG product, and removing from the list things like map sets and the Beginner Box, 154 products (again, containing setting and mechanics material) will have been released in 5 years, for an average of 30 per year.
Oh, and Erik says there are plenty more on the slate for next year.
I just continue to see this argument and be baffled by the stance. I wish people would get over it and be content supporting their favorite game because, well, it's their favorite game. That reason at least makes sense...
Edit: BAD math! BAD dates! You get where you belong!
|
|
My group won't buy anything from WOTC period. They are so pissed off at shelling out $1,000+ dollars on 3.0 products only to have rules revised and another $1,000+ dollars with 3.5 products only to have all this stuff become pretty worthless when 4.0 came out. To them it does not matter how good the rules are they just expect them to be thrown out and re-done again every 3 years so WOTC can make money and ignore the needs of the players. For me it's Pathfinder or nothing, I'm all in.As a GM/DM I am in the same boat with regards to purchasing materials.These statements continue to confuse me.
The total number of books available for purchase in 4E stands at 55 (every setting book and every core book with rules). Assuming you bought every single one, and paid retail, you spent in the neighborhood of $1500.
The total number of books available for purchase in 3.0/3.5 (both iterations) stands at 70 (assuming all books with mechanics and setting information). Again, assuming full retail (adjusted for inflation), you're at around $2000.
The total number of books available containing mechanics and setting information for the PFRPG? 232. If you purchase these at retail, you're spending a whopping $5000. Even with the 15% discount you can get through Paizo, we're talking about $4000+.
Why do people keep making this argument?
I don't think a lot of people actually realize this, but it does go back to the beginning of this thread showing that Paizo really hasn't gotten complacent :).
I do think Paizo is having difficulties handling the growth of PFS.
I signed up around 10 months ago, my number is 56000s new numbers are in the 88900's 60+% increase in less than a year seems pretty insane. I am very happy to hear from this thread that Paizo IS working on solutions, but from my outlook, I believe they are simply overwhelmed. Of course there is the secondary.
Hiring people takes time, seeing that turn around in publishing takes time.
I would like to see rewards for GMs, partially because I'm quickly approaching my 4th.
I think it could easily be things that already exist (con boons, shirts ect), they could be distributed to VCs in the area, for the VCs to give out at Game Days and other events which would reduce shipping costs.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I do think they are still having difficulties handling the growth of PFS.
I signed up around 10 months ago, my number is 56000s new numbers are in the 88900's 60+% increase in less than a year seems pretty insane. I am very happy to hear from this thread that Paizo IS working on solutions, but from my outlook, I believe they are simply overwhelmed. Of course there is the secondary.
Hiring people takes time, seeing that turn seeing that turn around in publishing takes time.
I can very much get behind these observations.
So, if that's the case, then stop stalling, Paizo. Start getting ahead of the pace. That's why I started this discussion. There is more than a year before any of this actually happens (if anything does happen). Use your position as The Industry Leader and the company that everyone wants to emulate to your advantage. GROW your organized player base enough to handle any potential drop in those numbers so that you remain neutral with the prior year. PLAN to be ahead of where you are now instead of responding to catch up to where you need to be.
Edit: PS - When I say grow your organized player base, I understand that this is already happening. I'm saying that the infrastructure that is currently in place can't handle the growth, as-is. It needs to get better to simply handle what's here, much less what will be necessary to accommodate MORE growth (which should be desired and is likely inevitable, but should NOT be taken for granted).
|
|
I will agree that while Paizo is playing catch-up, to the growth of their organized play program, they can attempt to get ahead.
If PFS has grown 60% in a year, and it currently takes 2 full-time people and PART of a project manager's job to handle that, Hire 2 more people and be ready for this next year.
PFS does make money, it might be hard to quantify exactly how much money it makes, because the profit comes from people buying books. I can only provide the data I have seen in my store.
Since December, when I started my weekly game days, my Pathfinder RPG sales have increased by ~150%. The push to get the "new stuff" has more than tripled from the perspective of selling books in the first week they are out.
All that being said, I want to point out exactly how many people it takes to develop a PFS scenario, I think this is commonly overlooked, it isn't just a matter of getting another guy to write something.
Author • John Compton
Contributing Artists • Lane Brown, Andrew Hou, and Tyler Walpole
Cartographer • Sean Macdonald
Creative Director • James Jacobs
Editor-in-Chief • F. Wesley Schneider
Senior Editor • James L. Sutter
Development Lead • Mark Moreland
Development Team • Logan Bonner, John Compton, Adam Daigle, Rob McCreary, Mark Moreland, and Patrick Renie
Editorial Team • Judy Bauer, Christopher Carey, and Ryan Macklin
Editorial Interns • Jay Loomis and Cassidy Werner
Lead Designer • Jason Bulmahn
Design Team • Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Sean K Reynolds
Senior Art Director • Sarah E. Robinson
Art Director • Andrew Vallas
Graphic Designer • Sonja Morris
Production Specialist • Crystal Frasier
Publisher • Erik Mona
Paizo CEO • Lisa Stevens
Chief Operations Officer • Jeffrey Alvarez
Director of Sales • Pierce Watters
Sales Associate • Cosmo Eisele
Marketing Director • Jenny Bendel
Finance Manager • Christopher Self
Staff Accountant • Kunji Sedo
Chief Technical Officer • Vic Wertz
Senior Software Developer • Gary Teter
Campaign Coordinator • Mike Brock
Project Manager • Jessica Price
Licensing Coordinator • Michael Kenway
Customer Service Team • Erik Keith, Justin Riddler, and Sara Marie Teter
Warehouse Team • Will Chase, Heather Payne, Jeff Strand, and Kevin Underwood
Website Team • Ross Byers, Liz Courts, Lissa Guillet, and Chris Lambertz
|
|
Yes it was. And by and large, we received an overwhelmingly negative response because people advised they would rather have a game they worked together with instead of a game they competed against each other. We are not planning another tournament style event for the foreseeable future, and instead focusing future efforts on cooperative game play, such as this year's special.Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.
What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.
-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.
Interesting. I'm inclined to wonder if the prize in question didn't sway that opinion, though--given how upset people are about missing the chance to get a goblin boon, I suspect that having the chance to get one and "losing" stings even more.
Overall I think coop play is a better decision, though--table variation makes it really difficult to assign objective points to things. I look forward to seeing how people react to this new format.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
A Words of the Ancients Design Team list
That's everyone on staff and, with the exception of the top three lines, is the same list that appears in the front of most Paizo publications. It's a static page that gets put on everything, in other words, requiring minimal changes from product to product.
Regardless, I am not in dispute of the fact that it requires man-power to produce a scenario. I know they are acknowledging the same thing. Where we are differing is in the opinion of whether budgeting for more man-power to be shifted to PFS scenario development is justified.
I say it is, based on growth already achieved.
Erik is saying it's not, based on the fact that his current editorial team can't reliably hit deadlines.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
3.0 to 3.5 was an annoyingly small change. If my hardcover books hadn't been falling apart by that point i could have just penned in the changes.
1st to 2nd was, too. To be frank, if it weren't for the fact that I became intimately involved with the sales side of the gaming industry in the last decade, I'd still not know that there was a difference.
Personally, I think that makes the gaps even longer (23 years from AD&D to 3.0, and another 8 years until 4E). Which, of course, makes the irritation of announcing a 5th edition a mere 4 years later all the worse.
This argument I understand.
|
These statements continue to confuse me.The total number of books available for purchase in 4E stands at 55 (every setting book and every core book with rules). Assuming you bought every single one, and paid retail, you spent in the neighborhood of $1500.
The total number of books available for purchase in 3.0/3.5 (both iterations) stands at 70 (assuming all books with mechanics and setting information). Again, assuming full retail (adjusted for inflation), you're at around $2000.
The total number of books available containing mechanics and setting information for the PFRPG? 232. If you purchase these at retail, you're spending a whopping $5000. Even with the 15% discount you can get through Paizo, we're talking about $4000+.
Why do people keep making this argument?
I'm not sure where you counted golarion products put out before 2009 in that count, and not going to do the math myself to figure that out... But I think the difference is the amount you could 'drag and drop' paizo products that you can't WotC products. Say you're playing a Dhampire (I don't have a listing of what books had what for 3.x in front of me so this is pure thought exercise).
PFRPG: you need Children of the night ($15) This tells you everything about dhampires and the vampire cousins that the Dhampire would know.
3.X: You'd need at least Libris Mortis or a Races of___ book ($30). This would give you 2 pages on Dhampires, possibly 4-6 pages of other undead that the dhampire would have knowledge of, and 183+ pages of uselessness for your character. You've spent twice as much money for 1/4 the page count that is useful to you.
As a player I could never justify the races books in 3.X unless I planned on making a new character every session, because there were too many unused pages. There are some paizo products I feel the same way about, but as a contributor to The wiki I at least have a reason and use for many pages (except for the NPC guide, havn't even opened that yet)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm not sure where you counted golarion products put out before 2009 in that count, and not going to do the math myself to figure that out...
These statements continue to confuse me.The total number of books available for purchase in 4E stands at 55 (every setting book and every core book with rules). Assuming you bought every single one, and paid retail, you spent in the neighborhood of $1500.
The total number of books available for purchase in 3.0/3.5 (both iterations) stands at 70 (assuming all books with mechanics and setting information). Again, assuming full retail (adjusted for inflation), you're at around $2000.
The total number of books available containing mechanics and setting information for the PFRPG? 232. If you purchase these at retail, you're spending a whopping $5000. Even with the 15% discount you can get through Paizo, we're talking about $4000+.
Why do people keep making this argument?
I did it. It's right here.
But I think the difference is the amount you could 'drag and drop' paizo products that you can't WotC products. Say you're playing a Dhampire (I don't have a listing of what books had what for 3.x in front of me so this is pure thought exercise).
PFRPG: you need Children of the night ($15) This tells you everything about dhampires and the vampire cousins that the Dhampire would know.
3.X: You'd need at least Libris Mortis or a Races of___ book ($30). This would give you 2 pages on Dhampires, possibly 4-6 pages of other undead that the dhampire would have knowledge of, and 183+ pages of uselessness for your character. You've spent twice as much money for 1/4 the page count that is useful to you.
As a player I could never justify the races books in 3.X unless I planned on making a new character every session, because there were too many unused pages. There are some paizo products I feel the same way about, but as a contributor to The wiki I at least have a reason and use for many pages (except for the NPC guide,...
I get this, too. I barely own anything, personally. I merely get what I think is interesting and leave the rest to reference on the PRD.
But as a PFS player who has 9 characters, many of which use rules from various books, I am required to own any book from which I use a rule. I know guys with as many as two dozen registered characters. How many books do they need to own? This can get out of hand pretty easily.
And, for real world proof instead of mere theory, I have more than one customer who comes into my store and purchases every book as it is published. I love those guys, obviously, because I see all kinds of tags on these messageboards indicating that the person behind the avatar is purchasing everything available, as well, and getting a discount because he does so from Paizo.
Don't get me wrong: I realize that nearly every book can be a selective purchase. But the same selectivity can be applied to prior editions. Complaining about how much you need to invest to own all the (3E or 4E) books and then saying that Pathfinder doesn't require this is silly.
Saying, "I support Paizo because I think the game/world/guy who publishes the game is cool," makes sense.