|
And look how often it results in a bad experience for all involved.Now, take that "don't care" mentality and put it into a situation where replay is allowed and watch as the community crumbles.Replay for no credit is already allowed.
You're going to have to show me, because I have no evidence to look at.
|
|
How many of you would pay $8.00 a scenario in order to get three released a month instead of two?
$8 a scenario? Ehh, that math doesn't add up for me. However, if you upped it to $6 per scenario, Done! I would easily pay six dollars per scenario, if we could get three a month. I think that would be a reasonable uptick in costs, that follows the same line of thinking that Paizo did with the Modules line. You pay a little big more, but you get a larger, module. Same principle could definitely apply here. Pay a little bit more , get a little bit more.
Regarding the choice between 7–11's or 1–5's and the seeker arc: though I love the story in the seeker arc, I do think that newer spells, feats and items are coming out to make it show it's age. I think if a new seeker arc was to be released, do one this season and 2 next season. OR have it be a exclusive/special thing like Bonekeep is, without the convention requirement. Don't get me wrong, Bonekeep is awesome and I appreciate all that Paizo has done and has planned for it, but I think that really ate into development time for the special and the first three season 5 scenarios. Again, please don't take that as a shot as Paizo for stepping out on a limb for trying something new (Because i loved Jason's idea), but if we are putting everything on the table, that means we have to talk about that elephant in the room too.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, Bonekeep is awesome and I appreciate all that Paizo has done and has planned for it, but I think that really ate into development time for the special and the first three season 5 scenarios.
Agree. Bonekeep is awesome, and I love that Jason is doing content for PFS, but it did seem to mess up the regular pipeline and I don't feel it was worth it. For the Uber-player that plays everything, yes, but not for the casual player.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You're going to have to show me, because I have no evidence to look at.And look how often it results in a bad experience for all involved.Now, take that "don't care" mentality and put it into a situation where replay is allowed and watch as the community crumbles.Replay for no credit is already allowed.
Fair 'nough. I can only encourage you to read through the various threads where people are upset about this awful game or that awful game. Often it is due to this lousy GM or that lousy player. Sometimes it's because of "stoopid n3wb playing a pregen." But I remember a good share of, "He'd already played it, so kept telling everyone what to do," and the like.
I, myself, play PFS specifically because of replayers in LFR. I was GMing one particular scenario that I was very excited to run because it had several RP opportunities that many LFR modules lacked. When we got to the first one, a player literally walked away from the table with this comment: "He doesn't have any real information. When you move on, let me know." When we hit the second RP point, he held up his hand and said, "Look, man, five of the six of us have already played this. We know what the story is, so you don't have to bother telling it. Just run the fights so we can finish this up. I'm after the kip-up boots on the AR."
I never GM'd for LFR again. Worse, I watched as player after player who thought the way I do walked away from the system. Ultimately, no one ELSE ever played LFR, either. And please don't point at 4E as the "real" culprit for that. LFR died long before 4E sales ever did.
|
|
And look how often it results in a bad experience for all involved. [...]
I'll reiterate what I said further up: for all intents and purposes replay for no credit is NOT allowed in my store. I work very hard to be sure it doesn't have to happen, and I work extra hard to keep it from being ever even a option I have to go to.
I'm not really sure where you're drawing from. If you're referring to LFR replay being a bad experience, the no-credit thing makes PFS replay very, very different.
Players like the ones you refer to, Drogon, who are just in it to farm for XP and treasure, they don't show up to no-credit replay things. They tend to whine, then do everyone else a favor and go home. Meanwhile, guys like me who don't really care about XP help the tables make, and we all have a good time. If you take away the perverse incentive that replay-for-credit brings, which PFS has done, then you take away the consequences of an environment with such an incentive. In other words, those "bad experiences for all involved," which are entirely associated with replay-for-credit, don't happen.
I'm suddenly wondering what the state of no-credit replay is at Dragnmoon's location... perhaps the "shortage of 1-5" isn't so bad after all...
-Matt
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Don't get me wrong, Bonekeep is awesome and I appreciate all that Paizo has done and has planned for it, but I think that really ate into development time for the special and the first three season 5 scenarios.Agree. Bonekeep is awesome, and I love that Jason is doing content for PFS, but it did seem to mess up the regular pipeline and I don't feel it was worth it. For the Uber-player that plays everything, yes, but not for the casual player.
I don't think it ate into as much development time as you might think, although I too am speaking without full knowledge of what happens behind the scenes. My thought is this, though.
Thursty did the special, and Jason did Bonekeep. Those are two people that previously weren't super involved in the PFS machine (despite a bit of scenario authoring). The developer for both Bonekeep and Siege was John, who is the new guy on the PFS team. So we really had three "extra" people working on Bonekeep and the Special, that we otherwise didn't have last year. So I don't think that either project hampered PFS production that much.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
And look how often it results in a bad experience for all involved. [...]
I'll reiterate what I said further up: for all intents and purposes replay for no credit is NOT allowed in my store. I work very hard to be sure it doesn't have to happen, and I work extra hard to keep it from being ever even a option I have to go to.I'm not really sure where you're drawing from. If you're referring to LFR replay being a bad experience, the no-credit thing makes PFS replay very, very different.
Players like the ones you refer to, Drogon, who are just in it to farm for XP and treasure, they don't show up to no-credit replay things. They tend to whine, then do everyone else a favor and go home.
I'm suddenly wondering what the state of no-credit replay is at Dragnmoon's location...
-Matt
Bolded to call something out of that post.
I want to say this, and then I'll leave replaying alone (finger crossed): No one should HAVE to whine or do anyone a "favor." The right release schedule, and the right attention paid to what is necessary, and none of that is happening. I prove it every month in my store. It's just that lack of content is making it harder for me to accomplish that ideal.
|
|
I want to say this, and then I'll leave replaying alone (finger crossed): No one should HAVE to whine or do anyone a "favor." The right release schedule, and the right attention paid to what is necessary, and none of that is happening. I prove it every month in my store. It's just that lack of content is making it harder for me to accomplish that ideal.
Unfortunately, the PFS environment is one of scarcity. There will always be a lack of content...
Unless PFS were to institute something akin to My Realms, perhaps by making use of the Quest concept. How did My Realms go, by the way?
-Matt
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Don't get me wrong, Bonekeep is awesome and I appreciate all that Paizo has done and has planned for it, but I think that really ate into development time for the special and the first three season 5 scenarios.Agree. Bonekeep is awesome, and I love that Jason is doing content for PFS, but it did seem to mess up the regular pipeline and I don't feel it was worth it. For the Uber-player that plays everything, yes, but not for the casual player.I don't think it ate into as much development time as you might think, although I too am speaking without full knowledge of what happens behind the scenes. My thought is this, though.
Thursty did the special, and Jason did Bonekeep. Those are two people that previously weren't super involved in the PFS machine (despite a bit of scenario authoring). The developer for both Bonekeep and Siege was John, who is the new guy on the PFS team. So we really had three "extra" people working on Bonekeep and the Special, that we otherwise didn't have last year. So I don't think that either project hampered PFS production that much.
Even though Thurston did the the special that same special was called out as the reason for delays in the final scenarios for Season 4. Even though Jason did Bone Keep it was pointed at as one of the justifications for less content during Season 4.
It's not just me disagreeing with you; it's Paizo. I'd point you at the thread, but I've mentioned it earlier: it's best left dead.
|
|
I don't think it ate into as much development time as you might think, although I too am speaking without full knowledge of what happens behind the scenes. My thought is this, though.
In prior years, when there were three less people we had 4 scenarios released at Gencon plus a special not 3 like this year.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I'll reiterate what I said further up: for all intents and purposes replay for no credit is NOT allowed in my store. I work very hard to be sure it doesn't have to happen, and I work extra hard to keep it from being ever even a option I have to go to. Why? Because of what I saw it do to other OrgPlay games I promoted. It really is that bad.
I, myself, play PFS specifically because of replayers in LFR. I was GMing one particular scenario that I was very excited to run because it had several RP opportunities that many LFR modules lacked. When we got to the first one, a player literally walked away from the table with this comment: "He doesn't have any real information. When you move on, let me know." When we hit the second RP point, he held up his hand and said, "Look, man, five of the six of us have already played this. We know what the story is, so you don't have to bother telling it. Just run the fights so we can finish this up. I'm after the kip-up boots on the AR."
I never GM'd for LFR again. Worse, I watched as player after player who thought the way I do walked away from the system. Ultimately, no one ELSE ever played LFR, either. And please don't point at 4E as the "real" culprit for that. LFR died long before 4E sales ever did.
God that sounds terrible. Sorry you experienced that. I want to say it's a corner case, but it sounds like this was a real problem in LFR (I only played to level 3 in that), so I can't speak to that. I can speak about PFS, though.
I've been replaying scenarios for no credit for a while in PFS, and it's been a blast. I love getting the chance to sit down at a table of a scenario I know forwards and backwards and see how these players will get through it. The GM knows that I've got metaknowledge, and the players know I won't make metagamey decisions (like deciding what door to open, what NPC to question, etc). Any everyone still has a great time.
So now we have two examples of how replaying in OP can go. Terribly, as Drogon so vividly remembers. Or awesomely, as it's currently how I participate as a player 99% of the time. That leads me to think that any system is going to be great or suck based off of the kind of people that participate.
If someone from Drogon's harrowing tale stepped by one of my tables and spoiled the game there for my players, we would have words. And that would be one. If it happened again, they would be gone. There isn't a two in my book when you're spoiling the game for others. It wouldn't be because replaying lead to the issue, it would be because the person is the issue. We are a community, and we shouldn't have to tolerate people that act without consideration for others.
|
|
I know its hard to make happen, but vet players need to step up and replay for no credit to get new guys up to their level.
Yes, but do you have any suggestions that might actually happen? Because that's just not terribly practical. It might be nice when it happens, but it's not a sustainable solution.
And that's assuming Paizo could accommodate that — many of the posters on this thread are aware with how busy everyone who works there is already — or would be willing to consider adding the necessary manpower to do so.
That's the problem, isn't it? It's come up a couple times. There's been a lot of talk about delays in the editorial process--consider the Dragon's Demand chronicles, for a recent example--but for some reason they aren't just hiring another editor.
Maybe they want to avoid getting too big. Maybe they aren't showing enough profit to justify another employee. I don't know, and I doubt we'll find out. But it does seem to be the issue.
PFS is a marketing campaign for the Pathfinder product. If PFS is making enough money for the business to be worth the time and money, I think they need to step up and invest more money, even if it's for general editorial staff that would make it practical to produce more content overall.
If not, well. These things do have a way of reaching critical mass and then failing. I'm not prepared to say it's not around the corner, but it's certainly possible--and if it's not still making money for Paizo, I don't even know that it would be something lamentable. (Noble experiment, etc.)
|
|
Drogon, I would love to go to your store and meet and play with you.
I contribute to my community and I would be horribly insulted if anyone said otherwise. I come early to help people, I GM much more than I play, and I often brng food.
I honestly play the low level things as a chore sometimes. Now that I have high level characters those are the games I want to play. To me it is like World of Warcraft. I see the new areas for level needed, but the high end stuff is where the most enjoyment is. You have so much more to work with to maker thing interesting that you can not do at the low levels.
Drogon my wish is that they made 4 scenarios a month one for each tier. But I am greedy and want more. I honestly think the means they release the tiers right now are fair and work for everyone. I would push for more high end sutff, and you the other end.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Even though Thurston did the the special that same special was called out as the reason for delays in the final scenarios for Season 4. Even though Jason did Bone Keep it was pointed at as one of the justifications for less content during Season 4.It's not just me disagreeing with you; it's Paizo. I'd point you at the thread, but I've mentioned it earlier: it's best left dead.
Oh, didn't recall. Good to know.
In prior years, when there were three less people we had 4 scenarios released at Gencon plus a special not 3 like this year.
Yeah, now I remember that for S4. Thanks!
So we didn't get the 7-11 at Gencon this year, right? But we did get the same amount of 1-5, 3-7, and 5-9; right. One of each? So in effect, it changed nothing if we're talking about the releases of 1-5 scenarios at the time of Gencon.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Walter: From my experiences playing LFR for about 2 years. It's not having 1 replayer at the table that's really a problem. They can sit back and go with flow.
It's a problem when everybody but 1 player at the table is a replayer.
I doubt that with no credit for replays, this will ever be the case, though. The most I have seen so far is 2/6 replaying for no credit.
Right now we replay when we need to, ideally not all the time. I and a few other people are corner cases because we have either ran or played every scenario out there. Or at least 95% of them.
|
|
I think people balking at $8 a scenario fail to grasp that $3.99 a scenario (3.39 for AP subscribers, free for VO's which spread to volunteers often) already doesn't make Paizo a profit. PFS is a loss leading marketing tool. Asking for more content without an increase in price is dumb. Why do you think APs and modules were made PFS legal? They actually make a decent profit on those products :)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Walter, how much MORE fun would it be if you didn't have to replay?
Yep, a group is most often fun because of its participants. Just as often it is kept fun by the rules put in place to manage the group.
For example: those same guys I couldn't stand at that LFR table are now playing PFS. After all, LFR doesn't exist, anymore. Know what? They're fun to play with now that they can't replay. Some of them are even decent GMs. I'd venture the theory that several of them have even been "converted" to the No Replay Faction that has made PFS a success. But there is no reason to introduce rules into their game that would allow them to "regress" back into the replaying jerks they used to be.
But I want to go back to my first question. Seriously, do you think you would have LESS fun if you weren't replaying adventures with those guys of yours?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people balking at $8 a scenario fail to grasp that $3.99 a scenario (3.39 for AP subscribers, free for VO's which spread to volunteers often) already doesn't make Paizo a profit. PFS is a loss leading marketing tool. Asking for more content without an increase in price is dumb. Why do you think APs and modules were made PFS legal? They actually make a decent profit on those products :)
$8 for 4+ hours of fun for 5+ people? It's a steal! Gaming is such a cheap hobby.
-Matt
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Walter: From my experiences playing LFR for about 2 years. It's not having 1 replayer at the table that's really a problem. They can sit back and go with flow.
It's a problem when everybody but 1 player at the table is a replayer.
I doubt that with no credit for replays, this will ever be the case, though. The most I have seen so far is 2/6 replaying for no credit.
Right now we replay when we need to, ideally not all the time. I and a few other people are corner cases because we have either ran or played every scenario out there. Or at least 95% of them.
But if the only way to get that one new guy up to speed is for the four veterans to replay, this will become more common. I know this because I am seeing it at other stores in my area. I'm pretty sure it's not really going well for them.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Walter, how much MORE fun would it be if you didn't have to replay?
Yep, a group is most often fun because of its participants. Just as often it is kept fun by the rules put in place to manage the group.
For example: those same guys I couldn't stand at that LFR table are now playing PFS. After all, LFR doesn't exist, anymore. Know what? They're fun to play with now that they can't replay. Some of them are even decent GMs. I'd venture the theory that several of them have even been "converted" to the No Replay Faction that has made PFS a success. But there is no reason to introduce rules into their game that would allow them to "regress" back into the replaying jerks they used to be.
But I want to go back to my first question. Seriously, do you think you would have LESS fun if you weren't replaying adventures with those guys of yours?
Perhaps I skipped a page in catching up tho this conversation...
We're talking about replaying for no credit, right? I don't think that's an "introduction of a rule." Hasn't that been a round for a while, now?In answer to your question, though: I think I have just as much fun playing for no credit versus playing for credit. I honestly don't care about the chronicle. I do enjoy playing with the locals in my area, but only because they are awesome. I also enjoyed playing in Redmond, St. Louis, Gencon, and elsewhere - credit or no, I just want to play.
|
|
But I want to go back to my first question. Seriously, do you think you would have LESS fun if you weren't replaying adventures with those guys of yours?
If it meant that those guys would not get to play at all, meaning that I would get to play less overall, then yes, me not replaying for no credit would make me have less fun.
Personally, I enjoy replaying for no credit a lot, but I think I'm an outlier. Once I got the first three PCs into the 7+ range, XP just wasn't a big deal for me anymore. There was only one Tier 12+ arc to look forward to. As I said in my post on Page 3, players need something to build towards, and after Eyes, that anticipation is just not there. Until Wardens of the Reborn Forge gets sanctioned, that is. Then we'll all have a second arc to build up to.
Again, the no-credit bit takes away the ability to farm the scenarios, so any bad experiences due to scenario-farming don't happen.
-Matt
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Drogon, I would love to go to your store and meet and play with you.
I contribute to my community and I would be horribly insulted if anyone said otherwise. I come early to help people, I GM much more than I play, and I often brng food.
I honestly play the low level things as a chore sometimes. Now that I have high level characters those are the games I want to play. To me it is like World of Warcraft. I see the new areas for level needed, but the high end stuff is where the most enjoyment is. You have so much more to work with to maker thing interesting that you can not do at the low levels.
Drogon my wish is that they made 4 scenarios a month one for each tier. But I am greedy and want more. I honestly think the means they release the tiers right now are fair and work for everyone. I would push for more high end sutff, and you the other end.
One last comment and I will leave you alone, friend: I don't let anyone in my store GM more than they play. If someone is playing PFS in my store 4 times a month they GM a max of twice while playing twice. This is what I meant by being a part of the community; I did not mean to imply that you weren't contributing to yours.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Walter, how much MORE fun would it be if you didn't have to replay?
Yep, a group is most often fun because of its participants. Just as often it is kept fun by the rules put in place to manage the group.
For example: those same guys I couldn't stand at that LFR table are now playing PFS. After all, LFR doesn't exist, anymore. Know what? They're fun to play with now that they can't replay. Some of them are even decent GMs. I'd venture the theory that several of them have even been "converted" to the No Replay Faction that has made PFS a success. But there is no reason to introduce rules into their game that would allow them to "regress" back into the replaying jerks they used to be.
But I want to go back to my first question. Seriously, do you think you would have LESS fun if you weren't replaying adventures with those guys of yours?
Perhaps I skipped a page in catching up tho this conversation...
We're talking about replaying for no credit, right? I don't think that's an "introduction of a rule." Hasn't that been a round for a while, now?
Touche.
Not replaying at all is MY rule, though, even if it's "off the books" and merely enforced by my own due diligence instead of via application. (-;
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I don't let anyone in my store GM more than they play.:(
Don't be sad. I suspect you're an awesome player and people would truly miss out on the opportunity if you weren't regularly sitting at a table to show them what it's like to actually PLAY.
|
|
Don't be sad. I suspect you're an awesome player and people would truly miss out on the opportunity if you weren't regularly sitting at a table to show them what it's like to actually PLAY.I don't let anyone in my store GM more than they play.:(
I don't know--in our region, this rule would be quite deleterious. In fact, I suspect that if I randomly was teleported to Denver and wound up being a regular there, you'd basically not be able to make use of me very often due to that rule. No matter how many times you GM, you can always GM more. Not so with playing. Now, granted, if you're running the new ones the month they come out, technically even the most veteran GM and player could find two to play by playing both the new ones every time, but then that means you never get to GM the newest Season at all and additionally you're guaranteed not to be able to find anything to play if you wanted to play something at a con.
Just not loving the idea, though I know it works well for your venue!
|
|
Don't be sad. I suspect you're an awesome player and people would truly miss out on the opportunity if you weren't regularly sitting at a table to show them what it's like to actually PLAY.I don't let anyone in my store GM more than they play.:(
I don't think I'm all that great, I just enjoy GMing more than playing. Even when I'm a player I tend to support the group more than myself.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I've never had the guy who prefers to GM over playing. I suppose I could always be convinced, and will admit my "rule" exists as unspoken and is more a guideline I force myself to follow than anything that is necessary.
And, yes, I run the new stuff the month it comes out. I don't really have a choice to do otherwise, as my veterans would not be able to join if I didn't.
|
|
I've never had the guy who prefers to GM over playing. I suppose I could always be convinced, and will admit my "rule" exists as unspoken and is more a guideline I force myself to follow than anything that is necessary.
And, yes, I run the new stuff the month it comes out. I don't really have a choice to do otherwise, as my veterans would not be able to join if I didn't.
Oh, not saying running the new stuff is bad. Not at all! Just saying that being forced to play the new stuff in order to GM would be a problem for me. If you had me available, let's say I wanted to play at most one of the two new ones each month to save some for con play. I would be willing to run any number for you, including any number of the new ones (and let's also say I'd like to run at least a few new ones to get a sense of Season 5 style behind the screen). You would be unable to have me run more than once per month, to match my one play, and then I don't come to the store two weeks that I was otherwise available. Seems less community-building to me (obviously, if you don't have someone who is willing to always GM and has played mostly everything, this doesn't come up, which is why it probably hasn't!)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people balking at $8 a scenario fail to grasp that $3.99 a scenario (3.39 for AP subscribers, free for VO's which spread to volunteers often) already doesn't make Paizo a profit. PFS is a loss leading marketing tool. Asking for more content without an increase in price is dumb. Why do you think APs and modules were made PFS legal? They actually make a decent profit on those products :)
If I buy two loaves of bread for $3.99 ea, I don't often expect to pay more than $3.99 for a third. Having said that; I agree that they are somewhat underpriced now and an increase to $5.99 wouldn't be the end of the world. You called the product a loss leader, but the year zero and year one scenarios must be making money by now don't you think? As these products are a one time cost (plus hosting costs, negligible) to Paizo I would expect that at some point they will break even or GASP make a profit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people balking at $8 a scenario fail to grasp that $3.99 a scenario (3.39 for AP subscribers, free for VO's which spread to volunteers often) already doesn't make Paizo a profit. PFS is a loss leading marketing tool. Asking for more content without an increase in price is dumb. Why do you think APs and modules were made PFS legal? They actually make a decent profit on those products :)
I would not mind paying 2 dollars to play a scenario. With 3 other players that would be 8 bucks. The sad part is players are often used to not paying anything.
I would not be ok with paying 8 dollars to DM the advenutre for someone else.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Oh, not saying running the new stuff is bad. Not at all! Just saying that being forced to play the new stuff in order to GM would be a problem for me. If you had me available, let's say I wanted to play at most one of the two new ones each month to save some for con play. I would be willing to run any number for you, including any number of the new ones (and let's also say I'd like to run at least a few new ones to get a sense of Season 5 style behind the screen). You would be unable to have me run more than once per month, to match my one play, and then I don't come to the store two weeks that I was otherwise available. Seems less community-building to me (obviously, if you don't have someone who is willing to always GM and has played mostly everything, this doesn't come up, which is why it probably hasn't!)I've never had the guy who prefers to GM over playing. I suppose I could always be convinced, and will admit my "rule" exists as unspoken and is more a guideline I force myself to follow than anything that is necessary.
And, yes, I run the new stuff the month it comes out. I don't really have a choice to do otherwise, as my veterans would not be able to join if I didn't.
Someone always has to "eat" the new stuff. I just try very hard to not let it be the same person every month. I mention my "rule" only to point out to someone like Finlanderboy that you don't HAVE to GM more than you want to, if the coordinator is doing his job, and he has enough tools at his disposal.
You would be able to play or run as much as you would like, and would not be locked out due to a GMing limit. You just wouldn't be required to GM if you wanted to join us, and I'd rather replay were off the table as well. That's all I'm trying to point out.
|
|
My bad! I really misunderstood you back with
One last comment and I will leave you alone, friend: I don't let anyone in my store GM more than they play. If someone is playing PFS in my store 4 times a month they GM a max of twice while playing twice.
Consider me fully in agreement with you then, as is often the case!
Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are enough ideas in this thread that I think I’ll have to break up the post a bit with different headers. Also, though I appreciate Mattastrophic’s division of low/mid/high levels of play in PFS, I’m going to use a slightly different metric for this post: low (levels 1–4), mid (5–8), high (9–11), and seeker (12+).
First off, I would like to establish a few baseline assumptions for discussing how many of each scenario we should have; I won’t claim that these are 100% rigid, but working within them is much easier and is much more likely to be implemented. In many ways this is like how Mike established a baseline assumption in the weapon cords thread; if we’re not addressing the feasible options, we’re having a less productive conversation.
Scenario Production Baseline Assumption 1 (SPBA 1): Paizo can produce a limited number of scenarios per year. For the past three seasons we have produced 26 standard scenarios each year plus a rather massive special and some number of bonus features that include First Steps, Ruins of Bonekeep, and that considerable wealth of sanctioned products from the Module and Adventure Path line. I know that many of you want to see 30+ scenarios each year, but for now let’s work around the assumption that I can develop the equivalent of 28 scenarios a year. If that number increases as a result of any number of factors in the future, then I can base further decisions on how to array the number of scenarios by tier off of what I accomplished with a smaller number.
Scenario Production Baseline Assumption 2 (SPBA 2): Pathfinder Society Scenario development draws upon more resources than John alone. I rely heavily on the art department and the editorial staff in making the scenarios look and read the way that they do, and both of those teams have around ten other product lines that they are working hard to see out the door.
Scenario Production Baseline Assumption 1.1 (SPBA 1.1): Like John, the graphic designers and editors are limited by the number of hours in the day and the amount of time that they can (or should) work in a week.
Scenario Production Baseline Assumption 3 (SPBA 3): Any boost in the number of scenarios each month comes at a cost. If there are more scenarios developed, that comes at a cost to Paizo, be that requiring employees work more hours or sacrificing other published products to make more scenarios.
Alright, that covers the essential baseline assumptions. Yes, I realize that one or more of them may come across a little zero-sum game-y. You’re right that a business can grow to meet player demand, revise production methodology, and all of that, but a) I’m not the one deciding to hire on more staff, and b) at this time I’m not fishing for an answer of “John, you need to do your job better.” Whether or not that last bit is the case is something I feel we can handle internally at Paizo.
With that, let’s look at some challenges and ramifications of focusing more on adding to the number of Tier 1–5 scenarios. I’ll also ask a few questions.
Level shapes the stories we can tell. Part of the appeal of gaining levels is that one can now adventure in the areas that are traditionally tougher. As a means of maintaining the integrity of those areas, we rarely if ever send PCs of a particular level to a particular area.
A few areas quite conducive to low-level play: Absalom, Andoran, Cheliax, Osirion, Qadira, Taldor, western Varisia
We should probably only send mid-level and higher here: Galt, Hold of Belkzen, Irrisen, Mwangi Expanse, Rahadoum, Realm of the Mammoth Lords, Sekamina
Most PCs should be high-level: Eye of Abendego, Geb, Mana Wastes, Orv, Tanglebriar, Worldwound, other planets
We can tell stories in areas based in these higher level areas for lower level characters—in fact we have told stories for some of these in this way in the past—but often that requires mitigating effects that cheapen the location’s impact. This is especially true when such an adventure is the first glimpse of a region, as it establishes that (for example) everything Paizo has written about the area before was actually blown out of proportion; we sent our 3rd-level characters into Tanglebriar and did fine!
This is not to say that we can’t tell good stories in Tier 1–5; we’ve done exactly that before. My point is more that we’re limited in where that story can go geographically and sometimes conceptually. In Season 5, we’re hoping to do more in the Worldwound, but we’re loathe to send low-level characters in there—certainly not far, at least, as The Wardstone Patrol attests.
In my experience, level 7+ scenarios serve an important community purpose. A few have commented on this before, so I’ll aim to keep this short. Higher-level scenarios typically reward organized play participants who have stuck with the campaign, and by the sound of things they’re also potent motivation for others to play more Pathfinder Society. It sounds as though a strong majority supports having high-level play, just not in the ratio presently presented. I am very reticent about removing Tier 7–11 entirely, and this is not the first time I’ve discussed it.
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows? I ask this in all seriousness, as this shows up in at least one of the season-long models that I’ve drawn up.
Tier 1 scenarios are restrictive and/or hard to schedule. Boo.
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful? Are they only appreciated when they are published as bonus scenarios? Taking into account their replayability, are they generally more or less useful than a Tier 1–5 scenario? Again, I ask this is all seriousness (despite my hint of snark), as my models aim to include a new evergreen Tier 1 scenario with some regularity.
Do more Tier 1–5 scenarios! I say this not to play down the conversation that has happened here so far over the past day or so, but we actually heard you, listened, and began working toward such a long-term goal several months ago.
Three scenarios a month would be great. That’s a great target to aspire to. It would feel great as a developer to put out three scenarios in a month (beyond the July-August crunch). Management is aware that you would like to see more scenarios per month. At this time, though, I must respectfully encourage other approaches.
|
|
I think people balking at $8 a scenario fail to grasp that $3.99 a scenario (3.39 for AP subscribers, free for VO's which spread to volunteers often) already doesn't make Paizo a profit. PFS is a loss leading marketing tool. Asking for more content without an increase in price is dumb. Why do you think APs and modules were made PFS legal? They actually make a decent profit on those products :)I would not mind paying 2 dollars to play a scenario. With 3 other players that would be 8 bucks. The sad part is players are often used to not paying anything.
I would not be ok with paying 8 dollars to DM the advenutre for someone else.
This is the crux of the problem with raising the price. Especially so for online games.
It'd be interesting to see if Paizo could develop some sort of kickstarter-style pledge-to-play system where players and the GM could opt in for a smaller amount each before play. Maybe they could even all receive a copy of the scenario once that scenario is reported for them. In that case, raising the price would be fine, and it might even encourage more GMing to happen.
|
|
pie
Okay. So PFS has no further resources; it can only reallocate the ones it has. Which presumably means either PFS isn't making the company much more than they're putting in, or the company as a whole doesn't have more resources to expand. Either option sucks from my perspective. But since it is what it is, here's what I have to say:
It seems like you're asking if you should decrease the number of 7-11 scenarios and increase the number of 1-5 scenarios. I say yes, even if means that certain aspects of the setting will be neglected. Certain aspects of the setting are always neglected. Hermea and Numeria didn't even make your list. Such is life.
You also seem to be asking if you should take resources away from big one-shot projects (like Tier 1 scenarios) and devote them to regular scenarios. Again, I say yes. First Steps was useful, but it was boring. It was boring the first time, and it was boring the fifth time. Even if it had been great the first time, I can't stand replaying, and even GMing the same thing over and over gets dull. WBG! is at least fun to run for newbies because I get to watch them enjoying it; let's just stick with that.
Finally, regarding the specials, I think they're great, but they're incredibly hard to pull off outside of conventions, and even then they take a lot of work. I'm not advocating the removal of specials, but I don't think putting as much emphasis on them is useful. Hell, two years ago the special had a sequel that only some con-goers got to play, and the rest of us aren't even allowed to read; what kind of resource allocation is that?
If we concede that there is an issue--and I'm comfortable doing that, given the people who are bringing it up--and if what we have to work with now is all we're going to get, your options seem limited to moving stuff around, or just ignoring the problem. I vote for the former.
YMMV, etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, level 7+ scenarios serve an important community purpose. A few have commented on this before, so I’ll aim to keep this short. Higher-level scenarios typically reward organized play participants who have stuck with the campaign, and by the sound of things they’re also potent motivation for others to play more Pathfinder Society. It sounds as though a strong majority supports having high-level play, just not in the ratio presently presented. I am very reticent about removing Tier 7–11 entirely, and this is not the first time I’ve discussed it.
OK. Given that Tier 7-11 is sticking around, it would be very bad to have less of it, because you risk making the capstone of a PC's career being a sparse experience, devoid of immersion, due to having to bounce around the seasons and storylines to get to 12th. Remember, 10-11 is the only thing a 10th or 11th level PC can play. Season 4 was smart in that the Lissala Arc essentially was the second Seeker arc, in that it was a set of linked adventures that had a climax at the end, and was for PCs at the pinnacle of their careers.
The more I think about it, the more a different approach seems like a more solid one. Instead of focusing on Tier 1-5 vs. Tier 7-11...
What if the problem lies in 3-7 and 5-9? Has anyone considered that the mid-levels (by John's definition) are too "fat?" Tier 3-7 is considered low-level by Mike, yet it's not low-level enough for Dragnmoon and Drogon. Maybe that's the problem.
Perhaps four level bands is just too many for an organized-play campaign producing two scenarios per release. I give VC Ryan Blomquist full credit for the idea that follows: perhaps the campaign could merge 3-7 and 5-9 into a single 4-8 Tier? That way, there could be a 1-5 every month, and the second scenario could alternate between 4-8 and 7-11. With one less level band to support, all three level bands would get more support. Sure, it might be a bit clunky for PCs of levels 3, 6, and 9, but it'll solve the Tier availability problem by rearranging existing resources, and both Tier 1-5 and Tier 7-11 support would actually increase.
The campaign would not have to sacrifice the high-level stories in favor of low-level stories if it were to instead trim the fat in the middle. John, you already divide the setting into three level bands; perhaps dividing the scenarios into three level bands is the way to go?
-Matt
|
Developer
|
Okay. So PFS has no further resources; it can only reallocate the ones it has. Which presumably means either PFS isn't making the company much more than they're putting in, or the company as a whole doesn't have more resources to expand. Either option sucks from my perspective. But since it is what it is, here's what I have to say:
...
If what we have to work with now is all we're going to get, your options seem limited to moving stuff around, or just ignoring the problem. I vote for the former.
What I want to emphasize is that it's more useful for me to be able to plan around what can be done with the existing resources and then expand from there as resources permit rather than have only a plan for the best-case scenario. One is flexible, and the other is less so.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps four level bands is just too many for an organized-play campaign producing two scenarios per release. I give VC Ryan Blomquist full credit for what follows: perhaps the campaign could merge 3-7 and 5-9 into a single 4-8 Tier? What way, there could be a 1-5 every month, and the second scenario could alternate between 4-8 and 7-11. With one less level band to support, all three level bands would get more support.
That's brilliant, and I fully endorse it.
|
|
What I want to emphasize is that it's more useful for me to be able to plan around what can be done with the existing resources and then expand from there as resources permit rather than have only a plan for the best-case scenario. One is flexible, and the other is less so.
I appreciate the necessity of this clarification, but it seems like we've been seeing certain bottlenecks more and more lately, and over time, the drawing of certain conclusions becomes difficult to avoid.
|
|
Perhaps four level bands is just too many for an organized-play campaign producing two scenarios per release. I give VC Ryan Blomquist full credit for the idea that follows: perhaps the campaign could merge 3-7 and 5-9 into a single 4-8 Tier? What way, there could be a 1-5 every month, and the second scenario could alternate between 4-8 and 7-11. With one less level band to support, all three level bands would get more support.
Intriguing. If you brought me your idea last year, I'd have considered it more strongly. With the current wealth rules, though, which disincentivize playing at the exact middle of any level range, you will now have the problem that level 3s and level 6s are always out of tier with new scenarios.
|
|
Intriguing. If you brought me your idea last year, I'd have considered it more strongly. With the current wealth rules, though, which disincentivize playing at the exact middle of any level range, you will now have the problem that level 3s and level 6s are always out of tier with new scenarios.
Yeah, it's a bit clunky as is. The main point is about having three level bands instead of four, however they end up looking.
-Matt
|
|
Wouldn't making a 4-8 tier have the same issues that the 1-7 tier did? Namely that it was suppurbly difficult to get the scenario balanced for all the tiers? I don't have much experience to go by, but that seemed to be the gist of several complaints of scenarios that I saw of that tier level.
~NPEH
Presumably it would be 4-5 and 7-8, so just as easy as anything else to balance.