|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And PS, I have no objection to it being about finances. I'm responded to the overwhelming rejection by other posters that this is about finances. It's dishonest to say it's about farming and not money.
Organized play is a marketing effort, and a good one. Its particular silo doesn't need to make money in order for Paizo to see a vibrant and successful organized play campaign as worthwhile.
I would also be interested to hear your theories behind why companies continue to fund marketing departments and why some companies donate time and money to charity.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I would also be interested to hear your theories behind why companies continue to fund marketing departments and why some companies donate time and money to charity.
Well that is easy, marketing budget is the easiest to cut. It literally doesn't produce any revenue directly. Out of here!
Same for charity, no direct gain! Out of here!
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Ideally every game store which sees PFS play has a Venture Agent attached. Venture Agents receive free access to scenarios so they can run them or print them to loan to others to GM.
So just about anyone playing in public should be able to run scenarios without buying scenarios. I'm not seeing the scenarios as the main money machine here.
Actually, pointing out how far Paizo goes in making scenarios available to play makes it a lot easier to explain to people why it's fair that they pay for the stuff they want to use on their characters.
|
Organized play is a marketing effort, and a good one. Its particular silo doesn't need to make money in order for Paizo to see a vibrant and successful organized play campaign as worthwhile.
I would also be interested to hear your theories behind why companies continue to fund marketing departments and why some companies donate time and money to charity.
It probably varies by company. Some are probably backed by more good intentions than others.
In the case of Paizo's organized play, the goal is likely both to promote the current sales and the creation/support of additional customers to promote sales in the future. I'd imagine that stores which have PFS organized play, probably sell more pathfinder/paizo products than those without PFS organized play.
Though you make a good point, never really thought about PFS as an extension of marketing. That's a good way of looking at it.
PS: As an aside, are we allowed to use the scenarios provided by the venture captain? I was under the impression that only the person with the watermarked name on the PDf was permited to use it in PFS. I've been turning down the Venture Captain on this offer because I was under the impression it was being offered "under the table" which bothers me from a morality stance (though more of a code in my case).
|
|
Organized play is a marketing effort, and a good one. Its particular silo doesn't need to make money in order for Paizo to see a vibrant and successful organized play campaign as worthwhile.
I would also be interested to hear your theories behind why companies continue to fund marketing departments and why some companies donate time and money to charity.
It probably varies by company. Some are probably backed by more good intentions than others.
In the case of Paizo's organized play, the goal is likely both to promote the current sales and the creation/support of additional customers to promote sales in the future. I'd imagine that stores which have PFS organized play, probably sell more pathfinder/paizo products than those without PFS organized play.
Though you make a good point, never really thought about PFS as an extension of marketing. That's a good way of looking at it.
Exactly! It doesn't need to directly generate income to be worthwhile. It's the bard, singing inspire revenue to the other parts of the organization.
That's why you're seeing such skepticism about the argument that limited replay is all about money. It might be, to the extent that everything is about money to a business at the end of the day, but it's not directly increasing sales. It's about keeping a marketing tool useful. Keeping PFS fun for everyone involved.
|
|
Exactly! It doesn't need to directly generate income to be worthwhile. It's the bard, singing inspire revenue to the other parts of the organization.
That's why you're seeing such skepticism about the argument that limited replay is all about money. It might be, to the extent that everything is about money to a business at the end of the day, but it's not directly increasing sales. It's about keeping a marketing tool useful. Keeping PFS fun for everyone involved.
Ah, so I'm poorly wording my argument, and that's what you are objecting too? That's pretty much the direction I've been trying to go, though I can see why you'd conclude I wasn't. I'd call marketing being about sales, even if the marketing itself isn't gear towards "direct" sales. So we agree, more or less. Sorry about the confusion and thanks for sticking it out with me.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Ah, so I'm poorly wording my argument, and that's what you are objecting too?Exactly! It doesn't need to directly generate income to be worthwhile. It's the bard, singing inspire revenue to the other parts of the organization.
That's why you're seeing such skepticism about the argument that limited replay is all about money. It might be, to the extent that everything is about money to a business at the end of the day, but it's not directly increasing sales. It's about keeping a marketing tool useful. Keeping PFS fun for everyone involved.
There is a vast difference between 1) no replays -> sell more scenarios -> make money; and 2) no replays -> better campaign -> sell rulebooks -> make money. They may both get to the same place, but you were very clearly speculating that #1 was paizo's motivation. If that's not the case, I'd appreciate if you quoted yourself with explanations.
|
|
Ah, so I'm poorly wording my argument, and that's what you are objecting too?Exactly! It doesn't need to directly generate income to be worthwhile. It's the bard, singing inspire revenue to the other parts of the organization.
That's why you're seeing such skepticism about the argument that limited replay is all about money. It might be, to the extent that everything is about money to a business at the end of the day, but it's not directly increasing sales. It's about keeping a marketing tool useful. Keeping PFS fun for everyone involved.
There is a vast difference between 1) no replays -> sell more scenarios -> make money; and 2) no replays -> better campaign -> sell rulebooks -> make money. They may both get to the same place, but you were very clearly speculating that #1 was paizo's motivation. If that's not the case, I'd appreciate if you quoted yourself with explanations.
Seems rather counter-productive to rehash a resolved debate, but I could if you really think it would be productive here on the boards.
Though if you want to check it out for yourself, go back and look at the entirety of what I post, then see what is quoted or responded to from that post. Usually, the quote/response isn't directed at the full text, rather an incomplete portion. This quoted incomplete portion misleads others, who then respond to the quote/response as if it is my full text. I then try to steer it back, but it isn't always possible. Sometimes I give up on steering it back and address a new point created by a misquoted response, either because the new point is very good despite it's origins, or in an effort to tie the two back together. Such is the nature of online Forums.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I asked you to represent yourself, Murdock, because you often make rather inflammatory comments. If you can explain your comments and the thought process behind them, it helps me and others that read these boards often learn to read and understand your words as you intended them. Refusing to clarify your thoughts will only result in you being misinterpreted again in the future.
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs. I do not see any other logic behind this approach (though it could be an issue found in other areas, not something local to me).
I do see the logic of preventing the same character from playing the same scenario multiple times, since as a role playing game, repeating scenarios wouldn't make sense on the same character.
From experience, the best scenarios are those which the GM has run many times. And the ones run the most are the ones that can be replayed the most. Limiting replays reduces the quality of a scenario.
In terms of balance, I don't feel that balance of a scenario should be established by it being an uncommon encounter. A scenario should remain just as balanced if things are suprising for the players or not, since it is the character that is being roleplayed, not the player.
So, I conclude that if Paizo is purposely reducing the quality, the motive cannot be balance or role play related, and must be about finances.
This is your first post on the topic. You may have changed your mind since you posted this, but your position was very clearly stated. No one was objecting because your argument was poorly worded, they were objecting to your argument.
You said that Paizo's motive was to sell scenarios to GMs, and that it was not balance or roleplay related. How is that anywhere near the same as the idea that Paizo's motive is to create the best possible organized play campaign? In what way are those ideas going in the same direction?
I'll understand if you were later convinced that marketing is more important than direct sales, but you can't pretend that was your position all along.
|
Not to mention that it's not strictly necessary for a GM to purchase a scenario to run it.
Venture Officers receive all the scenarios for free with the intent of being able to distribute physical copies to GMs who might be pulled in at the last minute to run them at events.
For conventions, the organizer can also request through the VOs that the GMs receive digital copies of the scenarios they are running for free as part of the convention support processes.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Since it was asked for.
Here's a link to some large threads from each year from the last 5 years about this topic.
|
|
I asked you to represent yourself, Murdock, because you often make rather inflammatory comments. If you can explain your comments and the thought process behind them, it helps me and others that read these boards often learn to read and understand your words as you intended them. Refusing to clarify your thoughts will only result in you being misinterpreted again in the future.
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs. I do not see any other logic behind this approach (though it could be an issue found in other areas, not something local to me).This is your first post on the topic. You may have changed your mind since you posted this, but your position was very clearly stated. No one was objecting because your argument was poorly worded, they were objecting to your argument.
You said that Paizo's motive was to sell scenarios to GMs, and that it was not balance or roleplay related. How is that anywhere near the same as the idea that Paizo's motive is to create the best possible organized play campaign? In what way...
I don't think Paizo's motive is to create the best possible organized play campaign. I have never said that. I think that PFS exists to sell product. The other guy was saying that he thought of PFS as marketing, and that making the best possible organized play would result in better sales. To that, I said we agree, more or less. It was meant as a compromise, since it is "more or less" what I was saying before.
My arguement is poorly worded if my point that isn't hostile, comes off as hostile. That's what makes it poorly worded. The fact that you conclude different things of my posts than I intend to is anther example of how it is poorly worded. Ideally, my post should be fully understood by others. Granted, I could blame you for misreading them, but I have no control over how you see things, so it's more practical to say my posts are poorly worded.
As for the quoted bit, I am expressing my understanding of a situation. I am not trying to imply that my understanding needs to be your understanding. That's why I lead with "As I understand it..." for the first sentenance, and then "I do not see any other logic..." for the second sentance. I'm trying to establish that this is how I saw it in the present moment.
As for selling scenarios vs selling rulebooks, I think the no replays, at it's core, is about selling scenarios and scenario related materials. The point of PFS is about selling pathfinder products (like rulebooks). Saying that PFS is about finances seems entirely on topic with my original point.
That said, this topic is wearing on me, mostly because of hostilty resulting from misunderstandings and intollerance of other's opinions. You don't have to agree, but slaming my opinions down as falsehoods because they differ from your opinion is intollerant. So I'm done here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the future, you should do the same and avoid accusing others of dishonesty.
|
|
In the future, you should do the same and avoid accusing others of dishonesty.I didn't accuse anyone specifically. And I stand by that statement
And PS, I have no objection to it being about finances. I'm responded to the overwhelming rejection by other posters that this is about finances. It's dishonest to say it's about farming and not money.
Perhaps the wording is off? I mean/meant: I think it's dishonest to say that PFS scenario replay is exclusively about farming and entirely unrelated to finances.
And if PFS is about marketing, then the above is a true statement. But you don't have to agree, that is just my opinion.
Anyway, said I was done before, I'm done this time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the future, you should do the same and avoid accusing others of dishonesty.I didn't accuse anyone specifically. And I stand by that statement.
It was still an accusation.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I don't think Paizo's motive is to create the best possible organized play campaign. I have never said that. I think that PFS exists to sell product. The other guy was saying that he thought of PFS as marketing, and that making the best possible organized play would result in better sales. To that, I said we agree, more or less. It was meant as a compromise, since it is "more or less" what I was saying before.
My argument is poorly worded if my point that isn't hostile, comes off as hostile. That's what makes it poorly worded. The fact that you conclude different things of my posts than I intend to is another example of how it is poorly worded. Ideally, my post should be fully understood by others. Granted, I could blame you for misreading them, but I have no control over how you see things, so it's more practical to say my posts are poorly worded.
As for the quoted bit, I am expressing my understanding of a situation. I am not trying to imply that my understanding needs to be your understanding. That's why I lead with "As I understand it..." for the first sentence, and then "I do not see any other logic..." for the second sentence. I'm trying to establish that this is how I saw it in the present moment.
"I do not see any other logic..." is not a good phrase to use for an opinion. It generally signals that the speaker considers their opinion to be fact. In this case, the phrase betrayed an ignorance of the history of the campaign and the motivations behind historical decisions. I'd suggest using "In my opinion..." in the future.
As for selling scenarios vs selling rulebooks, I think the no replays, at it's core, is about selling scenarios and scenario related materials. The point of PFS is about selling pathfinder products (like rulebooks). Saying that PFS is about finances seems entirely on topic with my original point.
I think that a lot of the misunderstanding in this thread arose from the equivocation of the PFS organized play program and the campaign decision to limit allowed replays. Everyone agrees that the PFS program is a marketing tool to drive sales of Pathfinder product. Many people disagreed that the campaign decision to limit replays was made to drive sales of scenarios rather than to increase the quality and appeal of the campaign.
That said, this topic is wearing on me, mostly because of hostilty resulting from misunderstandings and intollerance of other's opinions. You don't have to agree, but slaming my opinions down as falsehoods because they differ from your opinion is intollerant. So I'm done here.
Contrary to popular belief, there are such things as wrong opinions. It is not intolerance to correct falsehoods masquerading as opinion.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I think I'm done with this thread. My only purpose is to try and get people to not hate on GMs that follow the rules. I feel I've successfully shared my view in that attempt so there's no reason I see to keep going.
You are seriously priming hate for PFS.
Your posts are a parody of people that hate PFS say that pfs is. Overly persnickity adherence to THE RULES! Placing the rules above players. A complete total and utter lack of common sense. Stepford wives role playing taken to inane levels
The replay rules exist for good reason. People replaying clog up games for newcomers. Replayers have metagame knowledge that can ruin a game for the rest of the players. None of those reason is to keep someone that heard "Greetings pathfinders, today we...." and ran out the door to run to a fire to have just one more thing get added to whats going wrong on a day that's already going bad enough.