|
I did not expect paizo to turn out more scenarios. They are going to print out what is profitable. I understand that.
All of my arguments are to stay the path, or make more.
You guys are doing a great job. If you guys find it more profitable to make more 1-5s I would understand that argument. Although I would disagree.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Finlander: How many 7-11 tables go off at your local gameday per month? How many tables are there at your local gameday? What percentage of extant 7-11 scenarios have you played?
I don't feel that anybody is advocating for the removal of Tier 7-11, we are just recognizing that there is less penetration of those scenarios (as evidenced by the lack of reviews) and that as a result, they are likely not needed as strongly.
We probably wouldn't be having this discussion had Season 4 not had so few 1-5s.
|
|
Here's a bit of a crackpot idea: What if each scenario offered 1.5 XP? How about each new 1-5? That would certainly improve the accessibility of higher-tiered games.
Given they didn't go for the 2 XP for playing up idea for the wealth issue since many were worried that more XP would bring people to high levels before they were ready for them, I think any idea that increases XP gain isn't going to work.
Finlander: How many 7-11 tables go off at your local gameday per month? How many tables are there at your local gameday? What percentage of extant 7-11 scenarios have you played?
I don't feel that anybody is advocating for the removal of Tier 7-11, we are just recognizing that there is less penetration of those scenarios (as evidenced by the lack of reviews) and that as a result, they are likely not needed as strongly.
We probably wouldn't be having this discussion had Season 4 not had so few 1-5s.
Not Finlanderboy, but at our main venue, we're likely to have 4/16 tables as 7-11 this month. It would be more, but we're running a repeat Season 0 7-11 across from a brand new Season 5 1-5, so there's only 1 table of that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I feel I am working towards a goal: 7-11 play and reaching a seeker arc. I love options and the higher level you get the more options are available.
I would be very disappointed if the high tier of PFS collapsed to support low level Pathfinder, where power attack is king and anyone else has run out of spells already. You see a ghoul.
I do not support removing art. Art is valuable content that can be used in many areas - blogs, sourcebooks, campaign wiki, further scenarios.
As a game coordinator, I would support more 1-5 and 3-7 scenarios, as hooks to draw in new players and have a scenario accessible for the majority of my player base.
I do feel that the 'PFS does not make money' line is inaccurate. So many player companions sell because someone wants to use something for their PFS character. More 1-5s can mean more people introduced to the campaign, which will mean more player companion sales. It is not a case where the Paizo player companion team are knocking it out of the park and the PFS team is dragging their heels.
If we have 100,000+ active PFS players, what per cent increase does that represent from active player base in Seasons 1-2? Why can we not have a small per cent increase in scenario output as a result? This allows us to have more variety in the product range - in two months we can either have one scenario that is all about RPing and political intrigue or we can have that AND a action-packed quest to rescue some refugees from a hideous demon. This is a situation where two groups of your market get the kind of product that they're after. The dedicated consumers purchase both.
Who holds the purse strings and how do we convince them that as an audience grows, the range of product offerings should show some growth as well?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 GM'd about twice as many times as I've played. About half the time I play is because a table needs a player or I've been released from my GM slot. I enjoy GMing 6x as much as playing.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) I am very reticent about removing Tier 7–11 entirely
2) Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows?
3) Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful?
Recommended 4-8 tier
1) We don't want the tier gone or you to stop producing them. I don't know where I'm at in the list of "those that play a lot", but at over 100 plays I still have a lot of 7-11 I can play for credit. I have more trouble finding other players in the level range to actually sit down to play. I think I know why and I'll put in
I don't know a fix for this.
I have an off the wall suggestion. Provide incentive for people to play the same character weekly (instead of changing up.) I don't know how or even if it would ultimately be a good thing. But it might make people "progress more" instead of pulling out lower level characters to make party mix better or force a low tier, etc.
2) I can't think of anything to hurt that, and I think lots of people use them this way. We tend to schedule new ones when we can do back to back weeks of new scenarios. So if you did one a month, we often would combine two months into a back to back week schedule.
3) One or three of them are fine. I also recommended Tier 3 and Tier 5 (one each) evergreens modules. My theory is this would help funnel the level 3 straight to level 4. Bench-marked to 8 hours so it could be ran as a game day once a month on a weekend.
4) I could get behind a 4-8 tier to replace 3-7 and 5-9.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks John for your post, I would like to address some of the questions you brought up. Though I will address them out of Order.
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.
So the reason I want to address this first is because for myself my greatest concern was not doing more Tier 1–5 scenarios but getting you all not to do less.
Season 0-3 all had 11+ Low Tier Scenarios while Season 4 only had 6. Only having 6 is still hurting my scheduling to this day. I do not want to see that repeated again and would like to see the number get back to at least prior seasons. Yes I am aware that Season 0-2 had a Low tier that no longer exist (Tier 1-7) but Paizo was still able to kick out 11 tier 1-5 in season 3 despite the lost of Tier 1-7.
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.
I have no problem with this as long as we get back to at least prior to season 4 number of Low Tier scenarios released.
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.
Well that is actually 3 Questions..
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful?
Yes they are useful but they are less useful for normal Game days due to the fact it forces everyone to have a level 1 PC. They are way to level restricted to comfortably fit game day.
Where Tier 1 Scenarios strengths lay are at events that will attract a lot of new players and as a Side Scenario to always have prepped just in case you need to quickly fill another table. In other words an emergency Scenario.
Are they only appreciated when they are published as bonus scenarios?
Since you brought this up I am assuming you saw my post here. I was very dispointed to see a Tier 1 Scenario take up a normal Scenario slot in your production schedule, due to the reason I state above about them being difficult to schedule because of the limited level range. I would much prefer see them as Bonus Scenarios not in the normal production schedule like First Steps.
Taking into account their replayability, are they generally more or less useful than a Tier 1–5 scenario?
Oddly enough replayability for local experience actually is not helpful at all. Locally at least replaying a scenario is not enjoyable due to the fact of you already know the story. Though I am intrigued about the statement that it can play different on replay so I will hold my opinion on that until I read the scenario.
That said Due to the level limitation of Tier 1 they are significantly less useful then Tier 1-5. I would be extremely disappointed if Tier 1 Became a stable inclusion into the normal 26 scenarios released a year. They need to be released as Bonus scenarios only, outside the normal production schedule of the 26. Otherwise they will be more of a hindrance then a boon.
If Paizo for Season 5 continues what they did in Season 4 I am worried that I will start losing players due to the fact of not able to sit enough players and the low tier scenarios. If I can't sit veteran players at the low tier tables the games will not happen and I will not be able to grow.
Can we be giving any insight on what the plans for the number of Tier 1-5 scenarios are planned for this season?
|
|
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.
First Steps, while active, was ran a few times in our area's developing PFS group. The replay value was hard to bring to the table for the jaded players who played it multiple times before. They had a "been there, done that" feeling. I have high hopes for the new scenario. Having a go-to scenario to have a new GM test their mettle with or an emergency scenario for a full game day would be nice, in my opinion. If the Tier 1 is refreshed often, it'll keep from becoming stale.
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.
So, one month of two 1-5s and a month of a combination of 3-7s/5-9s/7-11s?
I'm okay with this. I could get behind it as a game day coordinator in my area, mainly because we haven't run every PFS scenario.
|
|
Your viewpoints on this issue are going to depend greatly on the tone of your area.
First some responses to (non-John Compton) thoughts/points from a local viewpoint.
-Replaying for no credit has not caused any of the problems that Drogon is concerned about (spoilers/domination). The flip-side is true. Last night I was playing a table of Halls of Dwarven Lore with me (who had GMed the scenario before), two who hadn't played the scenario, and one replaying for no credit. The only issue was that the two of us who knew what was going on were holding back a lot of input. We made skill checks our characters would reasonably make, but offered minimal player input on any of the various puzzles, which in turn made some things take a LOT longer than they should have.
-Personally I have 2 level 1-3 characters, 1 level 6, 1 level 7, 1 level 8, and 2 level 12+. I am actually holding back the level 7-8s a bit because I can't get them both to level 12 with available scenarios, really enjoy playing them both, and want to make sure I have a good-fitting character for the next retirement arc.
-Locally we have 5 groups that have done Eyes, two are already scheduled to do it this year, and 15-20 more high-level players that are just trying to coalesce into balanced parties.
-I agree that having new players and old players mix CAN BE good. The problem that I see most often (both locally and at conventions) is that the older players show up at low level tables with whack-a-doo nutso builds that require a lot of GM adjudication - OR - builds that completely dominate the social or combat aspects of a scenario. This is especially pronounced at first level (when the players often just play a 20 strength vital-striking barbarian planning to retrain it at second level). I have found that with all new players I have much greater opportunities to explain the various aspects of Pathfinder, both the role-playing and combat sides.
And to actually respond to John's post:
No, I don't think we should lower the ratio of high-to-low scenarios. Older players love the high-tier stuff and new players look forward to it. Again, speaking from a local perspective. Most of the newish level 3-5 players I sit down with have said things to the effect of "I can't wait 'til I can play some of those higher level scenarios. What they were doing at the next table over sounded AWESOME!" (New levels 1-2 are often still trying to figure out PFS.)
But Mike and John have the actual numbers. I don't know if they have the granularity to do searches like this, but I'd love to know what the distribution of scenarios played is for people with more than (say) 30 scenarios played. There's all kinds of reasons people restart at level one (without dying). They've been touched on. Realize the build is bad, want to play with friends, just fall out of love with the character concept.
Maybe it's just the expectation. Some places may view low-level as the standard because you can experiment a lot. Locally the expectation is that low-level is a prelude to the really cool stuff.
|
|
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows?
I could see that helping the issue at hand. It would be interesting to see how that would pan out.
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?
I'm going to agree with a few of the posters above me. I believe that Tier 1 evergreen scenarios are useful. They are scenarios that you can always have prepped and have ready for the new players that happen to come out and want to check out Pathfinder as well as players who want to level up some new characters.
Though I know that all of the scenarios you guys produce are appreciated, when the Tier 1 scenarios were released for the first time in Season 3, I think it gave the PFS community the presumption that all Tier 1 scenarios were going to be bonus scenarios on top of the regular season. Now, when it's being released in a regular season's lineup, that is why Paizo is getting the, "Wait?...What?...Why?...NOOO!!" response.
Are they more or less useful than Tier 1-5's? Really depends on who you talk to, in my opinion. I think Tier 1-5's are better because you can still have level 1's at those scenarios. Hell, if you had at least 3 level 1's, you could have an entire table of them. But, that same scenario can also have levels 2-5 in it to encompass more players. However, with a tier 1 scenario, it's replayable. So those players out there that are running out of scenarios, they can replay the tier 1 evergreen scenario and with it being everchanging, that makes it even better.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Currently there are 11 Tier 1-5/7 scenarios in Season 0 which are still under 3.5e/OGL rules. About half of them, I've never even had the chance to play, because no one likes running them*. I think that if they were updated/converted (which should take a lot less development resources than writing brand-new scenarios), it would increase the effective pool of available low-level content. I'm sure there are plenty of other people like me, who didn't become active players and GMs until the older scenarios were already gathering dust on the shelves.
*Because the conversion is a hassle, they're too easy, the gold is subpar, etc.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Older players love the high-tier stuff and new players look forward to it.
I'm an older player (my PFS number is 4 digits: 1045) and I've played as much as I can find a table to play. Yet I still have a lot of old modules in 7-11 range I can play for credit. Are there older players who have ran out of 7-11 modules or 5-9 modules to play for credit?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
RDN --
Let's say, hypothetically, that you had already purchased several of the Season 0 scenarios.
If Paizo updated them, would you pay $3.99 each for the updates? (People who bought "Mists of Mwangi" in the 3.5 format got a free upgrade to Pathfinder.)
If you don't think that's reasonable, then you're asking Paizo to develop, layout, etc. a bunch of scenarios for free.
|
|
Older players love the high-tier stuff and new players look forward to it.I'm an older player (my PFS number is 4 digits: 1045) and I've played as much as I can find a table to play. Yet I still have a lot of old modules in 7-11 range I can play for credit. Are there older players who have ran out of 7-11 modules or 5-9 modules to play for credit?
Locally (same region as Belafon), I can think of one player that has 3 total scenarios left to play for credit, and a second one who probably has 5-6 left to play for credit. Those are all actually a mix of tiers.
|
|
RDN --
Let's say, hypothetically, that you had already purchased several of the Season 0 scenarios.
If Paizo updated them, would you pay $3.99 each for the updates? (People who bought "Mists of Mwangi" in the 3.5 format got a free upgrade to Pathfinder.)
If you don't think that's reasonable, then you're asking Paizo to develop, layout, etc. a bunch of scenarios for free.
Chris, I think he is talking mainly for newer players that may not have purchased them as they didn't seem worth it. But that is a good point, any of the old stuff would not generate as much revenue as a new product. It also should not cost as much to update it though.
|
|
Currently there are 11 Tier 1-5/7 scenarios in Season 0 which are still under 3.5e/OGL rules. About half of them, I've never even had the chance to play, because no one likes running them*. I think that if they were updated/converted (which should take a lot less development resources than writing brand-new scenarios), it would increase the effective pool of available low-level content. I'm sure there are plenty of other people like me, who didn't become active players and GMs until the older scenarios were already gathering dust on the shelves.
*Because the conversion is a hassle, they're too easy, the gold is subpar, etc.
I completely disagree. We have run the majority of these scenarios at my venue and I have heard maybe one comment about the gold amounts being lower in the season, and that is the only complaint.
The conversion is definitely NOT a hassle (use PF stats if the CR is the same, otherwise, use 3.5 stats. CMB/CMD is easy to calculate, and just use Spot/Listen where appropriate instead of tryign to roll them into Perception).
Also, if you skip over these scenarios for reasons like that, you are missing out on some good ones.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Chris, I think he is talking mainly for newer players that may not have purchased them as they didn't seem worth it. But that is a good point, any of the old stuff would not generate as much revenue as a new product. It also should not cost as much to update it though.RDN --
Let's say, hypothetically, that you had already purchased several of the Season 0 scenarios.
If Paizo updated them, would you pay $3.99 each for the updates? (People who bought "Mists of Mwangi" in the 3.5 format got a free upgrade to Pathfinder.)
If you don't think that's reasonable, then you're asking Paizo to develop, layout, etc. a bunch of scenarios for free.
Exactly. There are several I haven't bought because I've never had a chance to play them, and I prefer to only run scenarios I've already played. It would be less revenue, but also less editorial resources, and likely be a breath of fresh air for a lot of groups running out of new low-level content.
|
|
Locally (same region as Belafon), I can think of one player that has 3 total scenarios left to play for credit, and a second one who probably has 5-6 left to play for credit. Those are all actually a mix of tiers.Older players love the high-tier stuff and new players look forward to it.I'm an older player (my PFS number is 4 digits: 1045) and I've played as much as I can find a table to play. Yet I still have a lot of old modules in 7-11 range I can play for credit. Are there older players who have ran out of 7-11 modules or 5-9 modules to play for credit?
I have a few (5-6) players that have only this months scenarios to play.
I personally have only about 10, and most of them are seasons 0 and 1, level 7-11 scenarios.
This is not most players though. I am actually scheduling a new con for January that will have all 27 tables as 1-5 or 1. These are mainly new players and I think that is where the growth is. And as stated before, to these new players, all the old scenarios are actually new content.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
A few comments..
Evergreen Scenarios: Personally, I think these are much needed. First Steps saw a lot of play locally. Yes, people have to make new characters for them, but most of our local players have at least one built character that they haven't actually played. Alternatively, we'd sometimes have a character building session to go along with the running of the Tier 1 game. Building a level 1 character doesn't take that long, especially because the player can rebuild after playing them once.
Season 0 Scenarios: Personally, I sort of dislike running Season 0 scenarios, and it's not just due to the gold or the conversion. It's due to the lack of content. Unfortunately, these early adventures were written with an 11 page limit, which makes them run super-short compared to other games. The GM is then forced to include a lot of fluff of their own making.
Perhaps a good solution to this could be community-driven? We could make some sort of a supplement for these adventures that updates all of the stat blocks and offers some interesting ideas for expanding upon the roleplay? A few good examples:
It would be good if we could get this effort sanctioned - if John or somebody could look over them and say that the changes within the document would be PFS-legal, that would be ideal. If he would be willing to do so, I also wouldn't mind updating tactics or perhaps improving on some opponents. Also, when I say sanction, I mean that he could certify that the adventure would be PFS-legal if ran from either the document I describe OR the adventure as printed, GMs' choice.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you don't think that's reasonable, then you're asking Paizo to develop, layout, etc. a bunch of scenarios for free.
I've already updated a number of them myself, I wonder if there is a legal way to disseminate these. My off the cuff idea would be a site where you feed it a pdf and it spits back a pdf marked up to include the 3.5->PF conversion.
Alternatively, it would be easy to make a PDF of the changes enumerated in list form with page numbers:
Page - From - To
8 - DC 15 Spot - DC 15 Perception
15 - +5 Grapple - +5 CMB to Grapple
15 - . - CMD 13 (15 to Grapple)
|
|
Let me echo those that are asking for more low teir scenarios! I'm often getting more new players at the FLGS I run out of and it keeps putting the regulars in the position of having to scramble to form up two tables or sitting out/playing for no credit as so many of those early ones have been done by the regulars. More low teir would help getting the new guys and veterans in play together.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I've GM'd about twice as many times as I've played. About half the time I play is because a table needs a player or I've been released from my GM slot. I enjoy GMing 6x as much as playing.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, on the other hand, only enjoy GMing 5.3x as much as playing. I'm not as hardcore as Kyle.
|
|
Older players love the high-tier stuff and new players look forward to it.I'm an older player (my PFS number is 4 digits: 1045) and I've played as much as I can find a table to play. Yet I still have a lot of old modules in 7-11 range I can play for credit. Are there older players who have ran out of 7-11 modules or 5-9 modules to play for credit?
I got my number at Gencon Season 0 but didn't really start playing in earnest until much later (after Season 3). The only reason I'm not down to about 2 left is because I GMed more than played, GMing many of them before playing.
|
|
Scenario Production Baseline Assumption View Behind the Curtain
First off, John, thanks for this. Even if it's something many of us have learned in one way or another, having it all put together in one place still has lots of value.
Further accepted baseline assumptions/realities:
Level shapes the stories we can tell.
and
In my experience, level 7+ scenarios serve an important community purpose.
Wholeheartedly agree. In regards to the second, it's a carrot (one of them, anyway) that drives play. And play is a Good Thing [tm].
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows?
Anecdotally speaking, this would be okay, if not necessarily ideal.
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?
This three-parter is the one on which I've probably dwelt the most, because each is a question I hadn't asked myself before, and therefore didn't have the beginnings of an answer already.
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful? Yes, I think they are; but JMSO, they are substantially less useful than a Tier 1-5 scenario. While I'm intrigued by the Tier 1 Kyle's written due to its malleability, I have to agree with Nathan's take above (which echoed others) that the prospect of Tier 1s taking up annual scenario slots instead of being bonus scenarios is not an appealing one.
Again anecdotally speaking, I loved playing 4 of the 6 1-5s released in Season 4 (not a Cyphermage Dilemma fan, and I steadfastly believe Severing Ties, which has a great story, should be a 3-7 NOT a 1-5 cos it's a low-level TPK waiting to happen), and have GMed most of them. That's a good percentage, and additionally each of the four is a scenario I'd ask a rookie GM to prep to see how she can handle a table. Thus, they're good proving grounds for both players and GMs. I also have found that Tier 1 scenarios (or at least the Tier 1s from which we've had to choose) are less valuable in that role.
Do more Tier 1–5 scenarios!
Glad to hear this is in the works.
Three scenarios a month would be great.
It would, though I do understand at this time it's not feasible.
I would like to add that I have thoroughly enjoyed the story arc line used for Season 4 and hope Season 5's is likewise compelling. Thematically connected scenarios help scratch the campaign itch for me while still allowing the flexibility of organized play.
|
|
One possible point skewing the numbers Paizo has (don't know how prevalent this actually is).
I touched on this briefly, but the number of high tier scenarios (7-11) reported as being played by me would be higher if there were more scenarios of that tier available!
What I mean is: I want to have the flexibility to play the really high tier stuff (new retirement arc? GenCon specials? modules?) with a variety of characters. In other words if I played everything I could, then if a new retirement arc showed up as the first four scenarios of next year, I'd hypothetically be saying to the group forming "OK, I can play an alchemist or a monk (who hasn't been played in three years)." "We need a healer and a buffer? Well, I have a level 9 oracle and a level 9 bard, but we're going to have to wait until I can GM six 7-11 scenarios (that I haven't already gotten credit for).
I've definitely passed on a 7-11 I could have played, and I know others have for the same reason.
|
So I haven't quite gotten through reading this whole thread, though I did read more than half of it, and made a point of reading everything from Paizo staff in this thread.
Here's a question that I don't think anyone's asked, though someone has in one of the later posts that I didn't get to. Has anyone at Paizo gone into their database to analyze how many players are running low on low level scenarios available to play vs how many are running low on higher level scenarios to play?
Maybe it's because I'm a database guy professionally, but gathering hard data instead of just listening to opinions and the experiences of a small percentage of the community seems like the best way to start. And we know Paizo has that data - they'd just have to look at the played scenarios for every player.
I would guess that most people have more 7-11 scenarios that they haven't played than 1-5, for obvious reasons, but that is just a guess. So if that guess is accurate, then producing more 7-11 scenarios isn't as high a priority, because people can play the older ones. But producing more 1-5 is high priority, because more people (like me) will have a hard time finding 1-5 stuff that they can play with the newbies who haven't played any of them yet.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
suspension of disbelief if everybody does it?
being a common occurrence?
Heck is that considered abuse?
Ignore the disbelief issue, otherwise you couldn't watch Star Trek.
Lets hope it is more common (less stress on lower tier module needs.)
I run as many of them as I can get players to play, since they are not something that others who have played them will want to join and it is a easy way of getting people up a level or two without burning out the other players trying to get the low levels up to higher levels.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've already had 3 evergreen scenarios, plus multiple modules. I do not believe that they have been abused.
One has been.
Intro #2 offered a boon called "Debt of the Kirin." Locally, when people found out that #4-21, Way of the Kirin would give a payoff on that boon the scenario started appearing everywhere. People were speeding new characters (ideally Lantern Lodge faction) through the first two levels and including this scenario so they could get the boon (a boon, by the way, that originally did not get handed out very often - you had to be quite the jerk, in the role playing sense, to get it). Then, after playing #4-21 they were up a stat and up in WBL.
Easy solve: don't include boons like that in evergreen/replayable scenarios.
|
|
I do like the idea of consolidation of 3-7 and 5-8 to 4-8. That seems to be the simplest solution. That way each span is equally large. It does leave 3, 6, and 9 somewhat out in the cold, but this really isn't that big a deal IMO.
Oh, I should mention I really don't much care about 1-5s much myself as I try to avoid levels below 3 via GM credit, so this isn't exactly beneficial to me. However it does seem that this would benefit the community in general.
I also vote in favor of axing the art. While cover at is all well and good, most of the internal art is really just for consumption of the GM, and while it is nice, it is certainly not necessary if it is any significant cost. This does not, as Drogon said, mean skimp on maps.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 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.
The bolded part and the comments afterward I am 100% in agreement with.
The italicized part frightens me, as I don't recall seeing it discussed here, at all. So, to anyone with whom you have discussed removing Tier 7-11 entirely, take heed on John's prior two sentences; Tier 7-11 scenarios are the the motivation for players in this campaign, and are the reward for remaining in the campaign. Remove motivation and reward from your campaign only at your own peril, for I suspect you will not like the result.
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows?
I am about to be hit with no flexibility (the months of November and December). I do not have a choice except to deal with that. If my reward for successfully navigating that stretch is a two month stretch in the future of greater flexibility, I will accept it. But that kind of ebb and flow is not conducive to maintaining a regular gaming group. Meaning, I hope for my sake it is not something you build into the schedule as a regular occurrence.
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful?
Yes. But my reason is different than most, I suspect.
I run a “Learn to Play” night. Right now, it is Pathfinder, only, but has included D&D (and will again) and Shadowrun. I use PFS to operate this game, as it allows me to get GMs (who aren’t me) and players (who aren’t new) involved in the game. That second part is something I keep hammering away at, isn’t it? I want my veterans to sit down and play with my new players. An evergreen Tier 1 scenario caters to this event of mine like no other scenario can. The only thing that would be better would be to have, oh, six different ones. That way I could rotate through them without fear of causing boredom to my veterans, or the irritation of repeating prior months for new players who feel they need more than one session before jumping into Adventure Paths or PFS.
But they won’t be a regular part of my game days. Tier 1 does not lend itself to regular PFS play within my store.
Are they only appreciated when they are published as bonus scenarios?
For reasons already stated (and others that I believe you can infer from what I've written already), yes.
Taking into account their replayability, are they generally more or less useful than a Tier 1–5 scenario?
This, of course, is a double sided coin. They are more useful due to replayability (as I will always be able to attract a GM and always be able to attract a couple “ringers” for my LTP table). They are less useful due to their lack of flexibility (as I will not offer them on my regular game days).
I have also made it very clear how much distaste I have for replay. This, alone, makes them less useful to me, personally, but I understand that this is my problem and not others'.
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.
I have no quarrel with this, beyond it taking up a “regular” 1-5 spot (or any regular scenario, for that matter). See above for reasons. Obviously, if I want six of them, I would hope that they appear more regularly than once per year; otherwise I'm waiting a long time for my ideal situation with these. (-:
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.
Great. But I’m not going to lie: this rainbow has been on my horizon for quite some time, now. Eventually I’m going to stop trying to get to the pot of gold you keep telling me is there.
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.
Okay. And we will pursue them with you, and accept what you come up with. We don’t have a lot of choice. Once again, however, I cannot lie: the “we don’t have a lot of choice” part changes when WotC decides to create an OrgPlay system for D&D Next. The right approaches will keep the fields of PFS play lush and green, always growing. The wrong approach will kill a lot of grass, and make WotC’s side of the fence look awfully appealing. As a store owner, I will not lose in either situation. As a true fan of Paizo, I'll be pretty sad to see WotC re-achieve dominance over this area of the RPG market.
|
|
Something that I would like to point out about the tier 7-11 scenarios is that those are the ones that people tend to talk about when they talk about their Pathfinder games. It's very rarely the 1-5's that people talk. It's always the crazy creatures, spells that were used against them and the like.
No one ever talks about how a Blasphemy hit them when they were level 2. :p
That's because dead PC's tell no tales ;)
|
|
Something that I would like to point out about the tier 7-11 scenarios is that those are the ones that people tend to talk about when they talk about their Pathfinder games. It's very rarely the 1-5's that people talk. It's always the crazy creatures, spells that were used against them and the like.
No one ever talks about how a Blasphemy hit them when they were level 2. :p
I hear more talk of the Blackros museum than anything else, and the occasional dragon. Just sayin'.
Edit: :-)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, since Mattastrophic gave me credit for my remark about 4-8, I suppose I should actually expand my veiws on what I'd like to see out of PFS going forward. First, to be clear, my idea of Tier 4-8 was an entirely off the cuff remark. Upon further contemplation, I think that's actually a bad idea; changing the structure of past scenarios is a flusterbluck waiting to happen, and inconsitency in tier between the seasons is a pain. Lets work within the existing framework, because there's a better fix than Tier 4-8 within it.
So, first up, some quick responses to John's comments followed by my ideas for correcting output of PFS scenarios to better cater to the player base the campaign has developed. This one's gonna be long. You might want to read it after work, or in stages between flipping to another tab where you look like you're being productive the way you would read MPR.org or Grantland (best website ever) at the desk without your boss knowing. What do you mean only I do that? Anyway, this is long. There won't be a TL;DR version at the end. Deal.
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful? Are they only appreciated when they are published as bonus scenarios?
While a Tier 1 evergreen scenario has its niche, in my experience it is not useful to schedule it for a game day. Tier 1 evergreens are nice at convention play. They're also generally useful to open up a new venue in a new geographical area. As Drogon states, they can be useful on nights dedicated to teaching new players specifically. However, my experience is they're not useful for local game stores. Its rare that we get a full table's worth of walkups, instead of two or three, and their limited tier range makes them an unattractive option for long-running players who are deciding whether or not to attend a game day. Its great to have a GM who has run it before so it can be brought out under duress, but putting it on the schedule is not productive after the first time and even the first time likely faces underwhelming turnout. They're handy as bonus scenarios, but if the choice is between seeing them in the production line and not having them, I'd rather not have them.
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows?
As long as 12/26 scenarios are Tier 1-5 we're OK; I'd rather see every month include a 1-5, but c'est la vie. The big thing is making sure that the season has a 1-5 option for each month. More on this later, but I'm of the opinion the magic number of Tier 1-5 scenarios is 12 per season under the current production format, since the ideal option, three scenarios per month, is currently not on the table.
In my experience, level 7+ scenarios serve an important community purpose.
Level shapes the stories we can tell.
I agree with this in spirit. High level play does serve as an important reward for playing the campaign over an extended period of time. High level play also opens up new areas that can't be presented as effectively in low-levels. However, and this is a great transition to where things get really wacky, I don't think 7-11 is a natural pairing of tiers. It works nicely in the PFS format, because everything is a 5-level range with a low and high subtier, but unlike the other ranges there is a huge gap between characters of 7th-8th level and 10th-11th level. This gap manifests in both the mechanics of combat at those levels/subtiers, and as an extension of that in the stories that are appropriate for characters of those levels. Levels 7-8 really aren't high level yet; they're really low level. Not low tier, because that's a metagame construct unique to PFS, but low level in reference to the spectrum of levels in the full Pathfinder RPG. They fit in the category of stories appropriate for low level characters, and their combat mechanics look a lot more like 5th level than 15th. By 10th level that changes completely; combat mechanics look more like 15th level characters more than 5th level ones, and the stories they're appropriate for change commensurately. Based on personal experience and anecdotes from my community I think part of the disconnect on 7-11s is that the Tier 7-11s functionally become Tier 10-11s; 7-8 only sees play when a 7-11 is scheduled at a game day for a pre-organized 10-11 table. So, while I agree high level play serves as a reward, Tier 7-11 is not a great way to showcase high level play because the scenario's content either fits 7-8, adapting low-level mechanics to high level play (The Cultist's Kiss) or it uses high level mechanics and is a poor fit for 7-8 play (The Waking Rune). Therefore, I'd advocate for the elimination of 7-11 scenarios entirely, coupled with an evolution of how PFS supports high tier, and thus high level, play.
To address the current (perceived?) deficiencies in PFS production schedules I'm going to toss out some suggestions for how I'd "fix" the release schedule (and some other stuff not directly related to the release schedule while we're under the hood anyway) if I were campaign coordinator for a day and could make all the decisions. Some of these may have budgetary limitations; I don't have Paizo's or the campaign's budget and finance information in front of me, so I can't address those limitations effectively. Instead, I will work within the structure of the existing campaign as much as possible to avoid running afoul of them, because the existing structure is built off of those finances. The final few suggestions are drastic changes that would have drastic one-time costs associated with them. Unavoidable failing of my sugggestions; I think those one-time costs would be worth it. I will proceed from least to most controversial.
1. Earmark 12/26 scenarios for Tier 1-5. Pretty straightforward. Just accept that every month needs a 1-5, and one month needs two to account for the lack of a 1-5 premiere at PaizoCon. If the X-Ex for this season is a 1-5, it does not count against this 12 scenario total because its not readily available to any game store (more on this later). This keeps stores like Drogon's that run every week and need fresh material for brand new players, but are likely not going to recruit six brand new players every week to fill out an entire Season 2 or Season 3 1-5 table. Those stores are vital to the success of PFS, so they need to hold a high priority in the allocation of campaign resources.
While we're here, I have another ancillary addition to this. 1a. Use the additional low-tier scenarios to develop at maximum two plot threads that include recurring NPCs who the PCs regularly interact with multiple times over the course of their careers, and who show up again later in the now more abundant 3-7 and 5-9 offerings. One of my longest-running gripes with PFS is that no matter what I do, I never grow the level of attachment to the setting that I see in my old LG characters or in my current LoA character. I hypothesize that the reason for this is that unlike in those campaigns, the only recurring NPCs that I see are the faction heads and the Venture-Captains, and they barely get any screen time anyway. What I would hope to see is a recurring villain (who we might finally have in the form of an annoying conjuror from Cheliax) who I can grow to hate, maybe a few friendly allied NPCs I can grow to respect, and a few sleazy cheats that I can grow to want to throw under the bus when I finally get my chance. I read often that players have, "Lots of characters to cover whatever the party needs." Make that stop; I want my players to sit down and say, "Man, I really want to play BillBill in this adventure because he played the last three parts of the arc!" rather than, "I have a healer, a rogue, and a tank for this tier. What classes are you playing?" Characters having an in-character investment in what's going on in the game world will do wonders for the number of poeple who keep playing the same PC to higher levels rather than stalling out, especially now that retraining is running around to let them fix poor early choices if they find that particular PC can't hack it in the 5-9s.
2. Allocate the remaining 14 scenarios per season thusly: six Tier 3-7, five Tier 5-9, three Tier 7-11. This seems pretty straightforward and weighted towards lower level; the preponderance of evidence in this thread and in my own local reporting shows that this is where the demand is. It doesn't do away with high level play entirely; the carrot is still there. It caters to the largest segment of the player base, and the most valuable consumer among the player base. That's what the campaign has to do to survive and retain profitability, so lets make this happen in our hypothetical PFS-world. We can talk about growth (and more high-tier scenarios) after we secure the foundation, and the foundation is 1-5.
3. Eliminate the X-Ex scenario and reallocate that resource to producing things that game days and conventions can run without a special class of GM. This has been discussed elsewhere. In my opinion, and this suggestion is 100% opinion based on nothing but anecdotes of others and personal experience, its not a productive use of time to release a scenario that only a few GMs in any geographical region can run. Spend that production time on something everyone can enjoy without importing a 4-star or VO to run it, like an extra scenario or another convention special (see below). If something isn't productive for the entire player base for whatever reason, in this case that its availability is limited by the number of VOs available to run it, do away with it. This is not productive for the entire player base.
4. Retire Eyes of the Ten. I still believe that Requiem for the Red Raven is the best single product Paizo has produced out of its PFS-centric lines, both the scenarios and the modules. I have to disagree with PirateRob and say its not even close; second place (Blakros Matrimony) is closer to last place (The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch) than it is to Requiem. That said, the changes we're going to make later are going to make having a dedicated "Seeker arc" completely redundant. As a result, lets do away with the last relic of an old (and in our hypothetical soon to be dead) construct. Plus, while I love this arc, Part III is a steaming pile o' mess and Part IV has a chronicle entry that is wildly inappropriate and unbalancing, 2x more unbalancing (literally) than the Way of the Kirin/Rivalry's End boons. Its had a good run; now lets put it out to pasture.
5. Eliminate Tier 7-11, drop subtier 7-8 entirely from the campaign, and move subtier 10-11 to Seeker play. OK, we're getting on to thinner ice here, I can see some cracks, but bear with me because I covered this earlier; subtier 7-8 and subtier 10-11 are not intuitive partners in 3.x offpsring rules, and PFRPG is no exception. One wants to be low-to-mid tier, one wants to be mid-to-high tier. So lets make Tier 10-11 what it wants to be; high level play. This doesn't mean cutting support for Tier 10-11, simply changing it by no longer holding it back by saddling it with accommodating low-tier needs. There was tacit acknowledgement that this is the case in Siege of the Diamond City; 10-11 was lumped in with subtiers 12-13 and 14-15 rather than being paired with its scenario mate 7-8, which didn't even make an appearance on the chronicle. Lets put 10-11 where it belongs, with the high tiers, and do away with that strange 7-8 pairing that really doesn't need to exist in the first place. How, you ask and/or demand? Hold on, the metaphorical ice is gonna break shortly.
6. Produce two convention-only X-Sp events anually, one for Gen Con to launch the season and one for PaizoCon to cap it. Hmm... sure is wet in the water (and that'll end my running thin ice schtick). I know that this has been done away with, but this is where I'd choose, in my King for a day hypothetical, to reallocate that X-Ex scenario development time to. Special events are way to incorporate the Seeker tiers, whose players have invested three or more years in the campaign, and the more Specials that come out the more incentive to travel to conventions; I miss the old days in LG where I had to go to Wisconsin to play Highfolk or Iowa to play Dyvers. Why go to a convention in Iowa City or Madison to play PFS? I can do it here and not spend $500. However, if there's a convention-only special down there, I now have an incentive to spring that extra money traveling. Lets breathe some life back into that convention with an additional convention special, and then lets release it to the wider public because, as I said above, anything that isn't available to the entire player base is a poor use of resources. Also, lets release both specials to all conventions because we also decided to...
7. Produce a high-level plot series every year at Tier 10-11, written as a single continuous story and published in three parts, like Bonekeep, to become a three-part scenario arc for high level PCs. Remember that allocation for three scenarios at Tier 7-11, way back in suggestion #2? What I propose happens to Tier 10-11 is that each year the high-level story arc that relates to the Season-long story is written as one continuous super-scenario, then broken down into three parts kind of like the Lissala arc (except with three parts instead of five). This allows for a tight, self-contained plot that actually works well for high level characters and puts them on the same pace to “retire” a PC every other season, just like Eyes "retired" a PC every other season. Potentially, you could also cap out a PC every season by playing the two Specials (Gen Con and PaizoCon) plus a Season 0-5 7-11 scenario (no reason to retire what’s already written, after all), but those events wouldn't be mandatory to get the story of the high level arc of the Season story. The goal here is less about retiring a PC than allowing the 10-11 author, and ideally it would be one author writing the whole thing in the way one author writes a whole module, to write one tightly bound and well-polished ~75 page module that presents a complete, appropriate experience for the highest tiers of play. The goal isn’t to eliminate high level play, but to make it feel truly high-level and awesome; these guys are, after all, the badasses of the Society. The traditional scenario format just doesn't have enough room to do that kind of character justice, in or out of combat.
8. As the changes to 7-11 play have obviated the need for one, eliminate the Seeker arc. After the changes outlined above, all play beyond 11th level can be handled in the Modules line and the sanctioned APs, because the annual 10-11 story fills that capstone role for the PCs that was formerly intended to be filled by Eyes of the Ten/future Seeker arcs. Really, the entire Seeker designation only serves to distinguish players who have graduated from field work to become special operatives no longer beholden to the traditional chain of command (couple this with an in-game VC title vanity for, lets say, 30 PP). As long as the Modules and AP lines remain robust and put out something sanctionable for Tier 12+ every year between the two of them, the high level groups are still going to have play opportunities without taxing the limited campaign budget. Meanwhile, the campaign itself is still putting out fresh capstone arcs every year to cater to the demand that is repeated every year for new Seeker material.
I don't know what possible pitfalls might await in the Paizo production line for this plan; I don't see behind the curtain at Paizo. I do, however, believe that this would let the current 26 scenario, 2 special production model meet the demands of Drogon, Dragonmoon (yes, misspelled on purpose), and others who are clamoring for more low-tier material while still retaining high tier play as a carrot for players to persevere through those low levels and get to the pinnacle of their PC's career. Also, I would hope that the greater number of low-tier offerings would mean we could spend more time on developing the NPCs the characters interact with from scenario to scenario, which might help with the lack of attachment that some players seem to feel to their PCs.
My 2,000 cp.
Ryan B.
|
|
The Evergreen Scenarios do play a great role in putting together a table of new players. It's not really that uncommon for our lodge to have a good number of walk ins and several new folks at any given game day. As such the old intro scenarios were run as a quick pick up by whatever GM could give up a player seat without reducing a table to less than 4 players.
With all but one of the original intro steps gone (and honestly, I was not a fan of the Intro Steps scenarios), it would be nice to have another group of intro scenarios that could fit this role.
for Tier 1-5, yeah, an increase on these would be nice, though we do have a good number of new players, so we may more bias on that front than others.
And thanks Mike and John for popping in to these discussions. It's always good to see the Folks Behind the Curtain respond to questions/concerns and to give a glimpse of what is percolating in y'all's secret stronghold.
OK, not so secret ... and probably not fortified ... but still ...
|
|
Scenario Production Baseline
Translation: Adding a third scenario would impact our entire production infrastructure, which is not at a point where it can easily grow at the moment. A 3rd scenario per month is not possible at the moment.
(Hopefully you at least let management know that it's desired by the fan base, so they can at least plan what would be needed to make it happen).
Level shapes the stories we can tell.
Translation: Our story arcs in season 5 depend on high level play, as much if not more than previous seasons.
(With that response I don't think you can plan on many additional tier 1-5 scenarios guys).
In my experience, level 7+ scenarios serve an important community purpose.
Translation: John has a personal preference to high level play and thinks that good tier 7-11 scenarios will lead to more players in the community reaching the upper tiers, despite empirical experience that says otherwise.
John is not completely convinced but might be open to changing the ratio of 7-11 tier scenarios compared to 1-5. (Which is my experience is a non-committal answer which means “probably not” or at least “not now”).
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows?
Everyone has said the quantitative number is the problem, not the distribution. Once per month is of course preferable, but we’re not even at the point where you’ve agreed to produce 10-12 tier 1-5 scenarios per year, so what’s the point in having this conversation?
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?
I don't think most people would enjoy playing an evergreen scenario more than a couple of times. If producing an evergreen scenario takes more effort that producing two scenarios, don’t do it.
And here’s another factor. Tier 1 scenarios are exclusive (involves everyone having a level 1 PC); tier 1-5 is more inclusive and covers a wider range of PCs, which is preferable.
Having one or two tier 1 evergreen scenarios would be nice, but I would stop there. If you're replacing tier 1-5 with tier 1, tier 1 isn't helpful at all. Tier 1-5 scenarios are more valuable because they are more flexible and inclusive.
Do more Tier 1–5 scenarios!
Translation: We’ve heard you and we’re implementing your wishes “in the long term” (which sounds like season 6 to me).
Of course, this is only my interpretation, but it sounds like we won’t be having many tier 1-5 scenarios with the current season 5 mix, but it should get better in season 6. Of course if Paizo actually came out and told us how many tier 1-5 scenarios they were planning, there would be no need to guess. I hope I'm wrong.
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.
I actually like this idea a lot and it solves a lot of problems and is just “cleaner”.
|
|
I think...that maybe part of the problem with getting more scenarios is a matter of marketing. Rather than making and selling these as "Pathfinder Society Modules", why isn't paizo trying to sell these like every other product they make. They put so much effort into making a polished scenario...why not sell them as single shot encounters that are sanctioned for pfs. Get rid of the perception that these are for organized play only. Create a "one-shot" subscription like everything else but make them digital only. Get people other than pfs GMs interested in these and helping to fund them.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The problem with the "evergreen scenarios" as they stand currently is that they are all for level 1 only. That means if I'm at a store with a mix of new players and low-level players, the "evergreen" scenario isn't an option.
As it is, I'd prefer a Tier 1-5 rather than an evergreen tier-1 only scenario. If the evergreen scenario encompassed a wider level range (say, Tier 1-3 or even Tier 1-2), then it would be a *lot* more attractive than it is right now.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan, I think that your proposed reduction of level/modification to the Seeker arc would change a lot of things, just because the effective level cap of PFS would drop from 12 to 11.
It would have the unintended side effect of changing the dynamic of how characters are built. It would mean that players don't have that 12th level to play at anymore. That's 3 or 6 less games, and one less level of build time for that character. Level 12 feats or abilities aren't worth building towards, and straight BAB characters that don't multiclass are the only ones that get a 3rd iterative attack at level 11. Sorcerers and Oracles don't get 6th level spells.
I don't know - it seems like we're demolishing the house and re-laying the foundation just to fix the pluming.
|
|
My 2,000 cp.
Excellent post, Ryan. I really like how you hold a focused vision for the campaign which addresses many of its current issues. You have also figured out how to juggle the needs of newbies and veterans, by encouraging sticking with developing characters. I also like how your vision for Seeker play and Specials, and how you are able to place Seekers on a pedestal, giving Seekers plenty of content, expanding the allure and support for 10+ play while also expanding 1-5 play. Under your vision, all Tiers will get more support, because you have figured out how to better distribute Paizo's current resources.
Excellent. We'll see what the staff thinks.
-Matt