Legitimately asking, not trying to be rude:
Why does it matter if they release them faster than you can keep up? What is the downside to "monthly" even if you're limited to only being capable of doing one every two months? That's like saying restaurants should only server food at normal breakfast, lunch, and dinner times because you're not hungry in between. Or that's how it seems to me. I'm just saying, if Paizo releases one every month, then the faster players are happy and there's no downside to the slower players (there's nothing forcing them to buy faster than a bi-monthly schedule), but if they release it slower then the fast players have to wait for some arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with them or the game's development.
Of course, there is a downside for slower players. They have to have the subscription to get the promos! If they are not rich may be they cant afford monthly...
Currently it is
Monthly : Bi-Monthly = 10:18
So more gamers enjoy to play without any pressure of the next adventure deck release. RotR was bi-monthly. SS was monthly plus (!) Organized Play!! So the game speed did not just doubled from RotR to SS, but quadrupled thanks to Organized Play...
If you want to do both base game and OP, it is very hard to achieve by a monthly adventure deck release.
More gamers that responded to this post want Bi-Monthly, a straw poll of 28 is hardly the full picture Sir.
Further not everyone is even attempting to do both a S&S & OP cadence (which I could only attempt as a student with no other commitments)
Reg. Full picture: in this forum huge paizo fans get connected and share their ideas. So if the ratio is showing a favor to bi-monthly, then the most dedicated pacg players judge so.
There are many gamers out there whi e.g. Skipped SS due to the porate theme. But the most dedicated fan did not do it.When we are talking about monthly and bi-monthly... 6 weeks is the average.
So how about 6 weeks release then?
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to say that this is not a democratic process (and I'm also under no illusion that this thread is directly representative of our entire customer base), but I *am* nevertheless listening. (I am also not the least bit surprised by what I'm hearing.)
On the topic of players skipping APs, I would like to point out that we have had the exact same issue in our RPG Adventure Path line since we released the first issue of the second AP 7 years ago. Very few people can play through a full RPG AP in 6 months, and many people can't afford to buy the ones they can't play (6 volumes at MSRP come to $137.94, and that's assuming you're not buying any of the many complimentary products we produce for each AP). This has not prevented the RPG Adventure Path line from being very, very successful, and indeed, a cornerstone of Paizo's business.
This is similar to the RPG but different in another way. I wonder about the retailer that puts two base sets and expansions on their shelves each year. That's a bit different than twelve RPG modules. But if Paizo thinks they can sell PACG on a monthly schedule than maybe some of us just skip an AP eventually. No big deal, really.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the RPG AP, we don't intend to keep sets in print forever. In fact, apart from the original reprint of RotR (needed because the first printing sold out months before S&S was available), we probably won't reprint PACG products apart from (maybe) the Class Decks. By the time we get to our 4th AP, I would expect most retailers to just have the latest ones on the shelves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game plays great without the promos. If someone has a compulsion to "collect it all" then the onus is on them to deal with it. Asking the publisher slow down their release schedule, and thus disrupt the playing pace for other people, seems a bit self-centered.
But if we're wishing for things, here's my wish: Paizo should sell a "big box" version of each AP that comes with everything. I would much rather buy it all at one time and go through it at whatever pace I choose than have to wait a month or two to get the next installment, risk stock-outs, etc. Basically the binge-watching model for serial content.
The german version of PACG is sold in a big box. So base set plus all adventure decks at once. It is so popular in germany that it was SOLD OUT within two weeks!
In this way you save a lot of shipping costs... Compared to a monthly release!
Like the RPG AP, we don't intend to keep sets in print forever. In fact, apart from the original reprint of RotR (needed because the first printing sold out months before S&S was available), we probably won't reprint PACG products apart from (maybe) the Class Decks. By the time we get to our 4th AP, I would expect most retailers to just have the latest ones on the shelves.
Availability of RPG APs is different though; there isn't a limited-time promo included with an AP; you can always buy PDFs of an AP even if it's physically out of print. To me, it doesn't seem to be your intention to purposely keep things out of print for the RPG APs, because you make them available in some form.
Unless you plan to offer all the cards through DriveThruRPG eventually, I don't see the analogy holding.
And even without that, I can see so-called "out of print" APs in the store on a regular basis.
PACG RotR and S&S are probably going to command premium prices a few years from now.
As others have mentioned, OP is an issue as well. If the majority of people can't even finish their OP campaigns before others start, it's an issue. As it is it's almost impossible due to the non-modularity of the campaign pieces for people to play OP to their satisfaction - and it's only going to get worse the more APs get released.
(I don't think Myfly intended to conduct a vote as a demand. I think it was meant as a straw poll)
I would like to offer the following compromise, there seems to be a lot of interest in a subscription offer for the class decks, and while people seem to express a lot of interest in that, might I suggest this:
How about a rotating schedule of Class decks one month, and then Adventure Decks on the other month? This might satisfy the camps who are voting for the bi-monthly releases, yet also might satisfy those who would like monthly releases as well. I am more interested in what Vic, Mike and Tannis can realistically expect to accomplish, and if they might feel that this might be more feasible from a design and business point of view.
I have been a big fan of the PACG since its release, and when it first came out, people were blowing through the decks before the others came out. Now that we have more options, some people seem to enjoy replaying ROTR or S & S with the new character decks, or exploring other options, and the general feeling from this thread seems to be that people might want to slow down a bit.
Just my two coppers worth...
The Pale :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Like the RPG AP, we don't intend to keep sets in print forever. In fact, apart from the original reprint of RotR (needed because the first printing sold out months before S&S was available), we probably won't reprint PACG products apart from (maybe) the Class Decks. By the time we get to our 4th AP, I would expect most retailers to just have the latest ones on the shelves.Availability of RPG APs is different though; there isn't a limited-time promo included with an AP; you can always buy PDFs of an AP even if it's physically out of print. To me, it doesn't seem to be your intention to purposely keep things out of print for the RPG APs, because you make them available in some form.
Unless you plan to offer all the cards through DriveThruRPG eventually, I don't see the analogy holding.
And even without that, I can see so-called "out of print" APs in the store on a regular basis.
PACG RotR and S&S are probably going to command premium prices a few years from now.
In the context of my most recent post, my analogy was intended to extend solely to the question about retailers becoming overwhelmed with AP after AP. A few sets from now, retailers will not be able to buy older sold-out sets from their distributor, so the shelf space dedicated to the line won't be ever-expanding (unless, as you point out, they choose to offering them as premium-priced collectibles—but that will be the exception, not the rule). Continuous availability of the APs in PDF form has no bearing on that analogy.
If you're talking about the post I made before that, continuing sales of out-of-print product in PDF form doesn't hurt, of course, but isn't required to make it a successful line. The AP line is successful counting only physical sales.
On my behalf it was not a demand, it was a poll, to check how many people are happy with the release schedule... As Vic asked in another thread what may be improved on SS...
Your math doesn't add up -- a monthly release with no gap would mean two APs a year and a monthly release with a 3 month gap (so how S&S currently is) would mean an AP every 9 months, so 1.5 APs a year. Bimonthly with no gap would mean 1 AP a year. They could do monthly with a 6 month gap in which case it'd also be 1 AP a year, but that's a very long wait time in between sets with absolutely nothing coming out (too long, in my opinion).
If we end up going monthly, I personally think the sweet spot for the gap is 3-4 months (I'd prefer 4 in case it matters, so e.g. if a set had AD6 release in February the next set would release in June). A 3 month gap gives some time to wrap up the campaign but the 9 month overall time is a bit on the short side to get through home game AP + OP + replay (although is sufficient at least in my case for getting through the first two, I'm going to finish up with the home game by early April and the OP by mid April). 4 months would give enough time to also convince others to take a faster-paced replay out for a spin where we can churn through the majority of an adventure in one sitting due to already being familiar with it.
3 months has the advantage that the cost of the base set is spread out over those months if you have a subscription, so it ends up being a flat $20 per month amortized.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bi-Monthly. We can't even get enough winning sessions to keep up. Our local shop traditionally sets up 1 2-hour session every two weeks just before PFS. Plus if you can't win and get the Scenario Reward you fall that much further redoing that scenario.
Personally there should be a base game. Then you have these AP Expansion Packs that you add to the base game for new/updated characters and theme-driven equipment. Then you have the AP Adventure packs out bi-Monthly and periodically release a separate Modual pack every few months to give something unique to plat with.
There is no reason to totally reinvent the base game every AP. Do we com out w/ a new Core RuleBook to replace the old one for an AP? No,
I take all of Vic's points, and I'm not expecting Paizo to change their distribution policy based solely on forum activity.
That said, if we're all sharing opinions, I'm going to explain my thinking. Maybe it's just me.
For most people, I don't see why skipping an AP would mean they won't pick up a later one.
Even so, I plan to pick up a later AP once we're done with S&S.
At the moment, we're slightly backed up with PACG content - last scenario of 1 party on S&S, another group at the end of Adv 4, and half-way through OP.
However, we're not so far behind that I'm planning on skipping Wrath. I still come here every day to look for news. That means Pathfinder's in my mind, and when I'm deciding what game to play, it's near the top of the pile.
Suppose I skip an AP. For a month or two I keep playing, but I don't bother checking the forums - why would I want to read news about an AP I'm not collecting? I also don't do the next season of OP - We don't have a shop-based group, just by the scenario pdfs, so if I don't by the base-set, can't do OP.
Over time, I'll probably end up playing the game less. I have plenty of other games that have been sat on the shelf, struggling for table-time since I got into Pathfinder. either my play tails off, and I never finish playing the current cycle, or else, I finish and have 3-4 months with no new input regarding the game, so forget about it.
By the time the AP after is printed, it's off my radar. I already have massive amounts of Pathfinder content, and have given them enough of my money and shelf-space. I'll be on to the next new and shiny...
The german version of PACG is sold in a big box. So base set plus all adventure decks at once. It is so popular in germany that it was SOLD OUT within two weeks!
In this way you save a lot of shipping costs... Compared to a monthly release!
They released the german version of RotR IIRC over a year after the original version was released. And though S&S is now finished, there is afaik no release date for the german version. So I don't think you can directly compare these two distribution models
I don't really mind whether the Adventure Deck release schedule is monthly or bi-monthly, but I definitely agree with the sentiment running through this thread that two APs per year is too aggressive.
I'm a PACG VL in my city, and my S&S experience has been ALL OP so far; I haven't even touched the regular out-of-the-box Adventure Path. I think a slower AP release schedule would allow OP players some much-needed catch-up time. I haven't seen any indication anywhere of OP groups actually keeping pace with the weekly releases. It's nice that they're there if folks want them, though.
A little breathing room would also open opportunities for enhanced exposure for the game and OP. For example, our group plays weekly at one game store. I would love to have sessions running at one or two of the board game cafes in town, but there's only so much time in the week. If I had a full year to run through a season before the next set came out, I could run sessions at different stores over rotating weeks.
And it would appeal more to the casual gamer crowd as well, giving them time to really put a set through its paces -- whether that involves doing multiple run-throughs with different characters, or just getting through the entire AP over a series of casual gatherings -- before the next set is released. I think that would give the impression of better value for the cost of the game as well as keeping interest fired up. My previous casual group plowed through RotR week after week to get the campaign finished, and (excluding myself!) were pretty burned out on PACG when S&S arrived. Much to my chagrin, none of them have played since.
TL;DR: Take it eeeeasy, man. No more than one AP per year, please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say bi-monthly, ideally alternating with bi-monthly class decks, so that there's a new 110 cards pack every month, but with more content diversity
I'd say bi-monthly, ideally alternating with bi-monthly class decks, so that there's a new 110 cards pack every month, but with more content diversity
In this way, you could have the standard subscription for Adv. Packs and another subscription for the class decks. That would be 6 class decks a year. For the class deck subscription, you could also introduce promo cards ;-)
These promo cards would be bound to eAch character class (class bound), unlike the iconic heroes cards which are connected to one hero only (owner bound)???What do you think about this idea??
Your
CInO
My straw poll sentiment is that 1 AP / year for the PACG is enough for me personally. If we are comparing the ACG APs to the RPG APs (which is an apples to oranges comparison, I know), the PACG is a good deal more repayable. There are tons of classes to try, especially if one buys Class Decks and wants to revisit an old AP with new sets of characters. In the RPG, it's rather a different experience if you know all the encounters you will be facing.
The other thing to consider is the quality of the product that comes out. It takes TIME to read the AP books, absorb the AP and let it rattle around in your head, talk to experts of the AP, transfer the feeling of the AP to cards, artwork, and then worry about mechanics. If too much product comes out too quickly, creativity tends to suffer as everything is rushed out. Which will lead to everything feeling "the same" with maybe 1 new mechanic for the AP. <<< Not what we are looking for.
Haven't been too happy with some of the class decks, especially the fighter deck (which wanted to purchase but will not). Cleric deck doesn't even work for 2 of the characters (Zarlova, Tarlin) in OP and doesn't look like it was tested properly (I also wanted to purchase but won't). I hope that trend doesn't continue.
Cleric deck doesn't even work for 2 of the characters (Zarlova, Tarlin) in OP and doesn't look like it was tested properly (I also wanted to purchase but won't).
Why doesn't Tarlin work? He works just fine for me. Is it not having enough 2-Handed weapons for his healing power? That's not really a big deal since he can use Blessings instead.
Also, with the character count going down to 3 per deck, hopefully that will help let them be more effective. And I think Tanis has mentioned that she's thinking about ways to fix the issues with older characters and this is what I'm suggesting.
Zarlova also works ok (I run her as my secondary OP character so primarily in a 2p group to catch her up), and if she's the only caster or one of two casters at the table going Theurge makes sense even if there are no Arcane cards in the class deck because a lot of the Arcane spells have good utility for the scenario itself if you encounter them. It's not great, but it's not unplayable :)
Unrelatedly, I've suggested this like twice before but if you do bi-monthly, a great way to fill the off months would be (in my opinion) standalone adventures that aren't part of an AP. Think of them as sidequests or something. Rewards would primarily be cool loot I'd think so as to not change the balance of the AP itself, but handing out the very occasional feat or two I think would also be fine. The sidequests don't really even need to fit the main plot at all so can use up all the wacky ideas you thought of but don't fit within the constraints of your pre-written plot.
Zarlova also works ok (I run her as my secondary OP character so primarily in a 2p group to catch her up), and if she's the only caster or one of two casters at the table going Theurge makes sense even if there are no Arcane cards in the class deck because a lot of the Arcane spells have good utility for the scenario itself if you encounter them. It's not great, but it's not unplayable :)
ALL of the Class Deck characters out so far are "playable", but Zarlova and a number of others are far below the power curve compared to other characters that don't need specific support. The problem with Zarlova is that other than Blessings, Spell and Item are her most dominant card types. Cleric Class Deck items are just abysmal. And while I understand the utility of having the Arcane skill without Arcane-only spells in the Class Deck, the spells she does get really don't support a primary spellcaster. There are zero damaging Attack spells in the deck from set indicator 1 through 4! Also, a large amount of cards are used on melee weapons which are extremely bad ideas for her.
So yeah, out of the characters in the first seven class decks, I'd say Zarlova is easily within the top five that are in the greatest need of more support. Flenta, Melindra, and Meliski being some of the other contenders for top spots.
Tarlin: Not enough 2H weapons or good weapons in general and relies on melee to be effective. Gets his first good 2H weapon at Adventure 2 (pitiful staff before that) and has no top end weapons (Greatclub +3 @4 is best).
How many blessings of Iomedae are in the deck?
Maybe I am biased since I rarely use 1H weapons with melee characters. It's made worse by the fact that this character was meant to use 2H weapons.
Zarlova: There are no arcane spells in her class deck, which is her main gimmick as a Theurge. She's a spell caster, so she's forced to use 1 Inflict and 1 Holy Light throughout most of the AP. Probably feels pretty weak at Adventure 4.
Again, maybe I am prejudiced by the fact that I don't like to be without weapons on turn 1, and I like characters that can explore multiple times per round.
Yes, everything is playable, playable is just a mindset of the player. In general I like these characters but because of the class decks, I'd just prefer to play them in home games, where they can be used to full effectiveness.
Tarlin: Not enough 2H weapons or good weapons in general and relies on melee to be effective. Gets his first good 2H weapon at Adventure 2 (pitiful staff before that) and has no top end weapons (Greatclub +3 @4 is best).
How many blessings of Iomedae are in the deck?
Maybe I am biased since I rarely use 1H weapons with melee characters in general when 2H weapons are available. It's made worse by the fact that this character was meant to use 2H weapons.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm belittling your complaints, but Tarlin is very far from being one of the worse off Class Deck characters when using the OP format. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you haven't seen and/or have no interest in the Ranger Class Deck because man, if you think Tarlin has a raw deal when it comes to weapons, pretty much every ranger is just as bad or worse off. For your starting deck, every ranger is forced to take at least two melee weapons and two ranged weapons unless you apply your Mini-Chronicle Sheet upgrade to get a better weapon and that actually doesn't even help Harsk since there are only 3 B ranged weapons all together in the Ranger deck and he starts with five weapons.
And again, Tarlin only has one power that uses 2-Handed weapons and it's one that he just ditches it for a heal and can use a blessing as an alternative (and honestly, I generally tend to hate the standard Cleric healing power anyway). Compared to that, Wrathack is in much worse shape. Yes, the Ranger deck actually has a total of 11 2-Handed weapons, but one of those is the old pathetic quarterstaff and 3 of them are longbows. Up through Adventure 3, there are only 5 2-Handed Melee weapons (including the quarterstaff) when Wrathack starts out with five weapon cards. Each set indicator after that has one new 2-Handed Melee weapon for her, so if a Wrathack player wanted to max out her weapon cards to 8 and wanted to use nothing but 2-Handed Melee weapons, she'd have no choice in what weapons to use (again, being stuck with the quarterstaff). Wrathack starts out with a very useful combat boosting ability that can only be used with 2-Handed weapons. I have a Wrathack player who actually used to take the Vindictive Harpoon loot weapon early in the game if no one else needed it just so he would have an extra 2-Handed weapon to recharge even though it was pretty much useless for him otherwise. Then, if you take the Doombringer role, you can even take the usual recharge-instead-of-discard Fighter power, but restricted to 2-Handed weapons, putting those weapons into even higher demand.
Sorry for going on a Ranger tangent, but really, I don't know why you're that hung up on 2-Handed weapons for Tarlin. A 1d8 weapon is pretty solid in my opinion. Although I am kind of curious as to why they didn't include any greatswords and/or bastard swords in the Cleric deck so they could perform double duty for Tarlin and Kyra.
There are three Blessings of Iomedae (as well as three Sarenrae for Kyra and three Cayden Cailean for Heggal) in the Cleric deck which I consider to be perfectly reasonable since in the base game there are only 5 blessings total of each type in the box and specific blessings are usually pretty difficult to acquire. However, touching on Zarlova for a moment, there are only two Blessings of Nethys in the Cleric deck and they're both Adventure 6 cards! Yet another slap in the face for the poor spellcaster.
Yeah, as you can see from my previous post, I totally agree when it comes to Zarlova, although I do see a decent amount of potential for her Arcane skill even without any Arcane-only spells in the deck.
Monthly
Flenta, Melindra, and Meliski being some of the other contenders for top spots.
What support does Melindra need? I haven't seen a Wizard class deck yet. And i'm guessing you'd like Meliski to have more Gambling cards, and maybe an Amulet of Mighty / Fiery fists.I played Meliski through OP Adventure 1, and found him entirely playable, though I went for Weapon as my first card feat, no question, which seems like something one that intended to go the Brawler route wouldn't want to do.
Also, I will acknowledge that I was playing with an Abarundi, so he basically always had a melee weapon that he could loan me floating around in his deck; now that I think about it I took advantage of that a lot. (Correct me if I misremeber, but I feel like it was the Repelling Pike +1 I rather appreciated as a loaner weapon.)
What support does Melindra need? I haven't seen a Wizard class deck yet.
As I said here, I think the Wizard Class Deck is all around the worst of deck structurally speaking. Melindra is a rogue-like character with a great Dexterity and starts out with two weapons on her Cards List. However, there are only 4 total Ranged weapons in the Wizard deck: Sling (B), Allying Dart +1 (1), Light Crossbow +1 (2), Force Sling +3 (5). The Wizard deck also includes a Rapier and a Cutlass +1 which I'm not really sure why they are there as they are melee weapons that require weapon proficiency to use well. My only theory is that at some point in development Melindra was supposed to have weapon proficiency and finesse weapon fighting.
Also, Melindra stars out with 4 items on her Cards List (with feats that can bring it up to 7 items) and has a power that interacts with items, but the Wizard Class Deck items really leave something to be desired. I mean, they're not as bad at the Bard or Cleric items, but they still don't really fit Melindra all that well, in my opinion.
And i'm guessing you'd like Meliski to have more Gambling cards, and maybe an Amulet of Mighty / Fiery fists.I played Meliski through OP Adventure 1, and found him entirely playable, though I went for Weapon as my first card feat, no question, which seems like something one that intended to go the Brawler route wouldn't want to do.
Right. And I've stated before that all characters in the class decks are playable. That's not really want to arguments of adequate support for character roles is all about. It's about being able to choose any specialization (such as Gambling or unarmed fighting for Meliski) and not being significantly underpowered.
Wow, I really didn't proofread my last post well:
As I said here, I think the Wizard Class Deck is all around the worst of deck structurally speaking.
I think the Wizard Class Deck is all around the worst of the decks structurally speaking.
Also, Melindra stars out with 4 items on her Cards List (with feats that can bring it up to 7 items) and has a power that interacts with items, but the Wizard Class Deck items really leave something to be desired.
Also, Melindra starts out with 4 items on her Cards List....
That's not really want to arguments of adequate support for character roles is all about.
That's not really what the arguments of adequate support for character roles is all about.
Bi-monthly
Lets move the class deck discussion to another thread.
Bi-monthly
Lets move the class deck discussion to another thread.
Or 6 weeks would be ok.
Bi-monthly or monthly with a 3 month gap.
Bi-Monthly.
My group and I like the slower pace and now with the games coming in so fast they actually seemed to have lost interest in the game overall. Skull & Shackles sits mostly unplayed. When I asked about it they said it was to much to keep up with.
I prefer Monthly.
If there are people who would like to play bi-monthly, fine by me. But why not just have everything already in the house for later? I still have a Closed Box here from Pandemic with Expansion for 6 months, doesn't mean it's not nice to have it in possession.
Monthly would be great for fast players (like me and my gf, who complete an Adventure in 2-4 days) and great for slow players, who can store it nontheless in their big box if they want to take it slow.
I enjoy the monthly release myself. Me and my wife only play once a week on sunday when our son is at my mother's for the night. But we get through around 2 scenarios a play session. If we had to wait a whole extra month we would never play in til we had like 4 adventure decks because we would play and by the time we get the next adventure deck we would forget what our characters have and how we were progressing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could've sworn I already posted in this thread. But anyway, I highly prefer the monthly release as well.
I'd rather have an Adventure deck or two in backlog and knowing we have new scenarios to play when the group's schedule frees up more than usual, than stopping short of play because we have to wait 6 more weeks to progress to the next Adventure.
But even so, by my group's pace, monthly release is perfect. But then again we aren't participating in OP, so that could be it.
Fortnightly would be ideal for me, I think.
That's unlikely to win much support (from either fans or designers) :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortnightly would be ideal for me, I think.
In fact I'm with you here.
My Skull & Shackles deck 6 went missing in transit and that just killed the momentum. If I buy Wrath of the Righteous, I think I'll wait for the whole game to be released (up to deck 6) before starting to play with it.
Fortnightly would be ideal for me, I think.In fact I'm with you here.
My Skull & Shackles deck 6 went missing in transit and that just killed the momentum. If I buy Wrath of the Righteous, I think I'll wait for the whole game to be released (up to deck 6) before starting to play with it.
This. I mean, it's a bummer for all those people who have more time invested or available to play the game but would be held back by the bi-monthly release because of everyone else who plays slower or because they simply do not have enough time to play.
Cost or quality content would be a better argument.
Bimonthly
Still playing through pack four at present