|
I like the idea of current season scenarios costing a bit more, though overall I'm willing to pay more per scenario to see if we can't squeeze in a few others. I also like the idea of making longer play period, higher priced 12+ scenarios. But that's totally not a bias around having a post EotT PC I want to play. Nope.
A bit of a side bar, but...
Something I've found interesting about Pathfinder Society vs its RPGA Predecessors (Living Greyhawk, Living City, Living Arcanis, etc.) is how little costs seem to be shared between organizers/players. It was not uncommon at all during game days for said campaigns that folks were expected to toss in a $1/each as players to cover printing costs. And this is when the adventures/scenarios were available for free.
While I can see that a lot of folks aren't fans of a price increase, I'd challenge them as to why they are getting stuck paying all the costs when there can be up to six other people at the table enjoying a scenario for free. If scenarios became $5, you'd only need to ask everyone to kick in .71 cents to pay for it. Maybe a full $1 if printing was involved.
I'm aware that PFS is aversive to any sort of enforced "pay to play" arrangements for game days, but it is not inappropriate to create some social contracts around asking folks to pay what they are able to to cover costs so the GM or non-VO organizer doesn't have to. I think a lot of concerns about raising the prices on scenarios to get more "oomph" overall (be it more scenarios, better editing, or both) would dissipate if this were the case.
Contributor—Canadian Maplecakes
|
I like the idea of current season scenarios costing a bit more, though overall I'm willing to pay more per scenario to see if we can't squeeze in a few others. I also like the idea of making longer play period, higher priced 12+ scenarios. But that's totally not a bias around having a post EotT PC I want to play. Nope.
I'm actually quite curious about this thought process.
How many people have characters that have complete EotT and want to see additional 12+ content? How many players would intentionally build a new character up to level 12 to play such content?
To me, it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy that no one reports/plays high level games when there's no reason (beyond EotT) to reach that level. Would additional high-level content incentivize players to stick with a single character and build towards 12+?
Just curious!
|
|
I cannot speak for others, but I would be interested in potential scenarios (rather than modules, since they are not part of the PFS storyline) for Seeker characters. I currently have two characters at 13.2 (one played Eyes, the other got there by GMing Eyes). While there is some content at that level, it is pretty sparse, and relies heavily on APs (which, I'd prefer to play though all the way, even though it isn't highly likely that I'll have time to do so!)
But, having even a single scenario per year (perhaps available as a 4+ star exclusive) would be great. Given that development cost would likely be higher (do tiers 11-15, 13-17, etc), I'd also be willing to pay more for it. However, I realize that the number of Seeker characters world-wide is far lower than those in lower tiers (but as Thursty states, might be a self-fulfilling prophesy).
If there are only about 1000 characters world-wide currently at 12+, it might be hard to justify the higher tier stuff. Would definitely mean we'd need to pay a premium price for it, if only to offset the costs to produce (would it be fair to price these at $7.99 or more?)
I'd love to play and GM such material, especially if it offered more insight into the operations of the Pathfinder Society, as it stands now!
|
How many people have characters that have complete EotT and want to see additional 12+ content? How many players would intentionally build a new character up to level 12 to play such content?
To me, it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy that no one reports/plays high level games when there's no reason (beyond EotT) to reach that level. Would additional high-level content incentivize players to stick with a single character and build towards 12+?
Just curious!
I just retired my 6th character at DunDraCon.
Of those 6, 2 have completed Eyes of the Ten (once played, once GMed). Their levels are 15, 13.2, 12.1, 12, 12, and 12.
When I played, it was with 5 other players. When I GMed, it was for 6 players.
Hopefully, by the end of March, I'll have a 2nd Eyes group ready to go.
There is much interest in 12+ play in Northern California.
|
|
Actually, Thurston, you're aware of THIS thread, right? And its accompanying Google Doc?
It's probably the longest-running record we have on the number of retired characters out there.
|
|
I'm mostly ambivalent about scenario costs as I tend to play more than GM at this point and consider whatever I spend on scenarios to be a bit of balance towards what others have spent (or contributed as VO's). That said, I do think that there's a theoretical balance about the costs of the scenarios vs. creating a barrier of entry for folks who are not currently involved in PFS getting involved via home game groups, and the costs for folks who are running PFS for public venues attempting to draw more people into PFS. I know at D*Con last year Erik M. mentioned that the cost model for PFS GMs running public games was something he wanted to look into more (with the implication that he didn't want the cost of the scenario as a barrier to folks looking to GM for PFS).
An interesting point was raised (though perhaps inadvertently) up-thread about the perception that you are paying for someone else. Has anyone explored the concept of opening up an opt-in PFS model primarily driven by player contribution? I seem to recall RPGA used to have a membership rate per year that included a polyhedron subscription. While I don't think we should require PFS players to have to pay to play (it is a primarily a marketing tool, after all), I can see opening up an option to give Paizo more revenue to support PFS by having an opt-in model for players.
I wouldn't want it to be a "pay-to-win" type of thing, nor do I think that it would be fair to others for early notice / access types of things (or fair to the Paizo employees to try to wrangle that), this would be more of a minor reward or something equal to what other folks can get relatively easily.
What would others think of actually trying to create a sort of opt-in $ option for PFS players?
-TimD
P.S. As we're discussing price points, I'm thinking something like $20-$25 / year, maybe $50/ year with a PFS opt-in only T-shirt, but I'm sure it could go all over the place and maybe even have different pricing levels. I'm not really invested in any specific amount, but think that it would help if there was an option for folks who play more than run to have a way to contribute as well to the overall Society.
|
I could support increased cost for more content but IMHO 2 things need to happen
A) season based cost - I really like the .99, 1.99, 2.99 etc. Idea
B) 12+ scenarios
I have 3 characters at 12+, a 4th close and several 8's & 9's I would love to see 2 scenarios a year designed for 12-16 APL (12-13 and 15-16 subtiers)
|
|
Also, add me to the support for 12+ play. My perception that 12+ was going to be supported was one of the main reasons I became involved in PFS to begin with.
I've not yet gone through Eyes, but that's mostly because my g/f is going to go through it with me and she only has time / interest for one PFS game / month.
-TimD
|
I don't pay for my content anymore (well, not monetarily at least) but would most likely not complain about a price increase in scenarios. I don't know that the market would accept it, nor am I in a position to make any calls about it. But I would not mind seeing it experimented with.
I too would also like more high level content, as it is the part of the game I don't often get to engage with. I'd also like to see less combat and more problem solving encounters that force high level characters to use those resources they have gathered over their career. Less 'pouncing eidolon one-shots the boss' and more 'everyone has to use their skills and magic to figure out how to secure their objective'. Beacon Below was a very good example of this, and I know it is hard to write such things so that it makes sense. But it is what I would like to see more of.
|
|
I like the idea of current season scenarios costing a bit more, though overall I'm willing to pay more per scenario to see if we can't squeeze in a few others. I also like the idea of making longer play period, higher priced 12+ scenarios. But that's totally not a bias around having a post EotT PC I want to play. Nope.I'm actually quite curious about this thought process.
How many people have characters that have complete EotT and want to see additional 12+ content? How many players would intentionally build a new character up to level 12 to play such content?
To me, it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy that no one reports/plays high level games when there's no reason (beyond EotT) to reach that level. Would additional high-level content incentivize players to stick with a single character and build towards 12+?
Just curious!
I'd do some pretty embarrassing stuff to be able to continue playing Ozuman.
|
|
Before PFS, my highest-level homegame character (that actually started at level 1) was a 14th- level Dwarf Paladin, using D&D 3.5 rules, before Pathfinder was a thing.
In 20 years of gaming, I'd never adventured above that, and always wanted to.
Now, in PFS, I have a 15th-level Tengu Rogue who will probably get to 18th or 19th, and a Nagaji Druid that I plan to level to 20.
Long-running homegames are incredibly difficult to maintain. IMO, getting a high-level character in PFS is more achievable (though still admittedly difficult).
So, if there's a possibility for more 12+ content, I'd happily pay more, or at the very least support it.
|
|
Pathfinder Society Scenarios seem like a bit of an odd duck, in that PFS has a substantial promotional value...which is hard to quantify. Consequently, it is difficult to set their price -- which is probably part of why it hasn't changed. The impact of a change would be hard enough to measure after the fact, so predicting it? Good luck. You'd pretty much have to have an (actually magical) Harrow Deck. :P
Before I became a VL, I regularly purchased scenarios as they came out, and I would often go back and buy older scenarios when I signed up to GM them. So from my perspective, they were a good value at $4.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
To get a metric of how a price increase would affect purchases, I would suggest that Paizo check the difference in sales between September 2014 and Feburary 2015 to Australian customers: they have endured a 25% weakening of the exchange rate: effectively raising the price by 25%.
Personally. I would be willing to increase the price by $1 or two per scenario, but only if there was an immediate increase in release frequency and quality.
Other way round for europe. The dollar was pretty weak compared to the euro, but they have been creeping closer together. (almost the same nowadays)
|
|
I'm just fascinated by players that have gone through all available PFS legal content, devour two scenarios a month, and still want more.
I haven't played, quite, everything, especially at higher tiers, but I still have two 12th level PCs, and one at 15th level, with my next highest level being two PCs at 8th.
On higher tier, I am ambivalent, I would like to play more, but I don't feel confident running that stuff.
As to higher cost, it would vary depending on my current available funds. Due to money issues, I am currently already running behind on acquiring scenarios, and, equally, on some of the Pathfinder books...
|
|
Something else to consider is that you don't need to have played EVERYTHING available as much as you have had to play a large enough majority of available content that it is very difficult to get tables together where you and at least three other people are able to play it at any given game day.
I'm in this boat right now and I play only ~3/times a month. If I wanted to, I could play twice/week every week but I don't often enough have things that a) I can still play b) Other people sign up to play and c) Someone is willing to GM all at once.
|
|
On higher tier, I am ambivalent, I would like to play more, but I don't feel confident running that stuff.
You and me both; I dislike running high tier material...too much going on, too many interactions to remember. I'm a pretty bright guy (Mensan) with multiple decades of GMing experience, but I don't think I've ever run (or played) a high-tier table without seeing at least one mechanical oversight. But I digress. :-)
|
|
On higher tier, I am ambivalent, I would like to play more, but I don't feel confident running that stuff.You and me both; I dislike running high tier material...too much going on, too many interactions to remember. I'm a pretty bright guy (Mensan) with multiple decades of GMing experience, but I don't think I've ever run (or played) a high-tier table without seeing at least one mechanical oversight. But I digress. :-)
Yeah, well, I think I need to take a break from GMing for a while, I just totally messed up on two big encounters in the Enigma Vaults, and caused a fail that may not have been correct.
I don't run enough PCs with things like Uncanny Dodge, and it looks like I was applying sneak attack where it shouldn't have applied; and I misremembered one of the NPCs as being another tiefling when she was human. Overall, it made one encounter much tougher than it should have been, and dropped one of the PCs when he should still have been up and fighting.
|
|
uptop it says pathfinder/pathfinder society/general discussion
Right Click pathfinder society and open in new tab so you can see these instructions while following them
scroll down and click "pathfinder society grand lodge"
In the left hand column you'll see local online online local local online local. click one of the locals
In the upper right it says "Add new thread" Title the thread something like "Looking for game near Tomball Texas. Someone should be along to point you towards a venture officer.
Welcome to the institution :)
|
|
I think I would be ok if current season scenarios would cost 1$ more and Paizo would release three instead of one per month. If I compare PFS to other hobbies it is still relatively cheap and 3$ a month would not hurt me financially. I pretty much purchase and run 75% of new scenarios, some I get free from conventions and some higher tier scenarios can't get enough players for them.
I believe many would subscribe to PFS scenarios if it would be possible.
Also, I just checked that I can play 19 older season scenarios for credit (in the classic mode campaign) so more of the new stuff would be welcome. :)
Salutations sir! My name is Tyson, and I was going to ask if there are any societys that I can get involved with in the Spring, Tomball area.
Tomball, Texas?
Try contacting one of the local Society coordinators here:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/about/regionalCoordinators
Scroll down a bit, there are quite a few in Texas. They should be able to direct you to a local Pathfinder Society group.
-j
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Paizo offers/offered Season Packs, where you can buy all scenarios of one season, think for about the same or a similar price.
I believe that´s only possible after a season is closed and seems to be no longer there since season 5.
Now what would you people think about pre-buying a season pass?
Meaning you pay the whole price once, get the whole season added as it is published. Perhaps get some extra goodies or merchandize?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I am not interested in paying more money for more content because:
1) I am satisfied with the current level of content.
2) I have always found it galling that Paizo puts the burden of payment on the same people they put the burden of volunteerism on. So increasing that burden would simply be more galling. I realize this is done for reasons of practicality but that doesn't make it any less galling. And as such, it can be a contributing factor to GM/Organizer burn out.
Having said that, if they upped the price I would still probably soldier on just because I am a masochist.
|
|
Of course, Erik Mona may just turn that completely around as well :)
In a couple of months I’m going to be implementing free roleplaying game scenarios, so every month we do two of those. Usually they’re about $5. Up until now we would contact the campaign coordinator; we don’t want stores paying for scenarios—that’s for the general public. If you need a free one, talk to Mike [Brock] and he’ll get it to you. Now we’re making that automatic as well, so all of our organized play collateral will be delivered to registered stores immediately at no charge. That’s something I’m pretty excited about, and I’m trying to get a lot of retailers here to know about that program and to sign up for it.
As a store coordinator, I find this veeery interesting :)
Can't wait to hear more.-TimD
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that caught my eye out the interview...
Almost every Pathfinder Society organized play scenario that we’ve done uses these maps. We’ve got 199 of those scenarios out as of today since the beginning. A lot of them reference maps that have gone out of print, so Flip-Mat Classics bring eight out-of-print, very popular, very high utility maps like ship, tavern and forest back into print.
I want the tavern...
|
|
Something that caught my eye out the interview...
Almost every Pathfinder Society organized play scenario that we’ve done uses these maps. We’ve got 199 of those scenarios out as of today since the beginning. A lot of them reference maps that have gone out of print, so Flip-Mat Classics bring eight out-of-print, very popular, very high utility maps like ship, tavern and forest back into print.I want the tavern...