The word out of PaizoCon (which I am not at) is the next base set won't arrive until GenCon 2018 at the earliest, and possibly later.
Also: Paizo says:
-- they want to make PACG more accessible
-- they want to include more story
-- they want to reduce the price.
I'm starting this thread for rampant speculation on this news. (Currently, it's uninformed speculation. At PaizoCon at noon PST today there will be a panel where Mike & Co will talk more about what is planned for PACG.)
My initial thoughts are:
I'm in favor of including more story. The adventure paths are rich in story, but we diehard players have looked to Autoduelist & friends to supply story for the card game.
I'm concerning about what would be necessary to reduce the price. The game is $180 for a complete set if you pay full price (but, most people don't; you can find it for $150 or less). That is a lot of money. But reducing this would have to mean fewer cards, in my mind. I'd really regret that.
PACG does need redirection. My gaming group quit after 3 seasons of OP, primarily because two players (not me) thought the game was (1) too easy and (2) too repetitive.
Thoughts?
|
I'd like to see a story booklet, perhaps borrowed word for word, out of the AP it was taken from, which connects the scenarios together more thoroughly.
Also, why not partner with Syrinscape to add a soundtrack to each game?
And, don't know how it could work, or if it would be profitable, but to allow better character selection/creation, why not offer a character creation program or website, where you can design your character, customize it following a rule design set, and then have it printed and shipped to you, ready for use in any of the adventure paths?
I'm concerning about what would be necessary to reduce the price. The game is $180 for a complete set if you pay full price (but, most people don't; you can find it for $150 or less). That is a lot of money. But reducing this would have to mean fewer cards, in my mind. I'd really regret that.
I think the easiest way to cut the prices without shortening the game is to make the game even more modular, so that more parts can be reused.
There is a sliding scale to doing so - using a base set in conjunction with separate lines of ADs is one, and so is adding new APs in the form of physical versions of the seasons at drivethru. Depending on how long preparation is supposed to take, making separate 'bestiary' decks that you can build your monster lists from is another possibility. You can boil the game down to generic stuff + AP stuff and separate them cleanly. Some of these options naturally make more sense than others.The new season has its premier at GenCon and will probably shed some light on future trends, since currently I don't quite see how a campaign relating to Taldor and the PFS factions fits into the MM box thematically.
And, don't know how it could work, or if it would be profitable, but to allow better character selection/creation, why not offer a character creation program or website, where you can design your character, customize it following a rule design set, and then have it printed and shipped to you, ready for use in any of the adventure paths?
Besides sounding very generic, you can already do that by going to drivethru and buying your own custom cards. I'm sure everyone is able to swap out some signature powers from certain classes to build their own character already, and the homebrew section is very helpful, if inactive at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... but to allow better character selection/creation,...
Hi Sliska.
See my other post on new ideas. IMHO I don't think we need more characters (except for compulsive completionist), boons or powers (except for compulsive would-be-divine-min-maxers). We need more adventures, scenarios, new challenges...
I'm concerning about what would be necessary to reduce the price. The game is $180 for a complete set if you pay full price (but, most people don't; you can find it for $150 or less). That is a lot of money. But reducing this would have to mean fewer cards, in my mind. I'd really regret that.
I think the easiest way to cut the prices without shortening the game is to make the game even more modular, so that more parts can be reused.
Actually, the easiest way to cut the price is to include more cards per product. Card games are cheaper to print per-card when the set includes more cards. The character and adventure expansions are 110 cards for $20; that's 5.5 cards per $1. The current base sets are over 500 cards for $60 which is about 8.4 cards per $1. Using this logic, they could potentially have the same number of cards that were in the five adventure expansions split into only two expansions instead and sell each of the two sets for $35. That'd be $70 total for the additional adventure content instead of $100. It looks like the Apocrypha Adventure Card Game is using a similar release strategy.
|
First, I think they have ideas they want to pursue and are going to try them. I'm hoping that it will be a common base set and AP decks to flavor the base set which will be the same base set for the next AP. Sounds like they like the Adventure and Scenario format of Organized Play so I'd expect to see those AP, Adv and Scenario cards go bye-bye. And full page sheets to replace the cards.
As far a class decks, I'd expect to not see a change in that format whether class or character decks.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I'll echo Theryon's comments here. Over the course of PaizoCon, all the things I heard from Vic, Mike and Tonya just made me all the more excited for the future of the game. They're taking the time to rethink things and provide us with a better product, and that's awesome. And in the meantime, organized play scenarios will be getting even more strange and awesome than they've been during the Season of Plundered Tombs.
Add to that the fact that Mike sat down at our Kobolds table and had a blast with us, and PaizoCon 2017 was my favorite convention I've ever been to. :-D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll do a blog on this. But I can definitely say there was no intent to deliver a message of doom and gloom. We're all pretty excited about what we're working on, anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He was also quite surprised when I told him I couldn't go to the banquet about an hour before the banquet. So that's on me.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the easiest way to cut the price is to include more cards per product. Card games are cheaper to print per-card when the set includes more cards. The character and adventure expansions are 110 cards for $20; that's 5.5 cards per $1. The current base sets are over 500 cards for $60 which is about 8.4 cards per $1. Using this logic, they could potentially have the same number of cards that were in the five adventure expansions split into only two expansions instead and sell each of the two sets for $35. That'd be $70 total for the additional adventure content instead of $100. It looks like the Apocrypha Adventure Card Game is using a similar release strategy.
Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. There are a lot of things that go into getting that Base Set price down, not the least of which is that our profit margins are lower on the Base Set because we want to price it where people won't balk too much.
Yes, there are volume breaks bringing the per-card price down, but part of that comes from the fact that we print a lot more of the Base Set than we do other products, and that product has nearly 5 times as many cards as a 110-card deck. The number of cards in the Base Set print run exceeds the number of cards in, say, the Character Add-On Deck print run by nearly an order of magnitude.
That said, I do believe we can bring the cost of buying an AP down significantly without reducing the amount of gameplay, but if it were as simple as merging a few adventure decks into a single box, we'd have done that a while ago.
Also: Paizo says:
-- they want to make PACG more accessible
-- they want to include more story
-- they want to reduce the price.
Thanks for the update ElCoderDude!
I'm in favor of including more story. The adventure paths are rich in story, but we diehard players have looked to Autoduelist & friends to supply story for the card game.
Me too. Creating the guides is a lot of work, plus some extra purchases of official Paizo material, so I'd be fine with retiring in favor of official story content... or not if the new edition of PACG is lacking and players want more guides.
I suspect the amount of story content will be similar to what's being done with Apocrypha or the Adventure Card Guild scenarios. If I get around to re-working Wrath of the Righteous, I'll have to try my hand at a "short" version to that mimics the Organized Play scenario length too to see how it does.
As far as reducing the price goes, I'd imagine some sort of base set with fixed cards that are used across multiple product releases, similar to FFG's Living Card format. Do we really need Bunyip cards with different Base set logos for Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles? No we don't. The offset of course is a bit more complexity: "Exclude the following Monsters from when constructing Mummy's Mask location decks: Bunyips, Giant Eels...."
I came up with another suggestion for the minor errors in the rulebook thread. Perhaps locking down the gameplay examples with a picture of the card in question would cut down on the number of rewrite-then-proofread problems required for each new base set. For example, It's much less important that the displayed Mattock comes from Rise of the Runelords in the Mummy's Mask rulebook than the fact that the written gameplay example matches what's on the card. Just lock it down by showing the Mattock and the Character card (with corresponding powers that alter the check). At least do this for the sections of the rulebook that aren't the play-by-play example at the back of the book, that way you never need to change them once they're proofread.
Hopefully we'll get a wrap-up on the outstanding errata decks for Skull & Shackles, Wrath of the Righteous, and the Class Decks - or at the very least - an official cancellation notice of the projects.
I've been busy enough that I haven't played the S&S and WOTR APs yet, so updated cards have a lot of value for me.
Look at the drivethru 'season of...' card packs, none of them are over 110 cards (I believe without checking). Why are these not becoming a produce that could merge in with class decks to become a new produce line that adds adventure/season packs to class/other packs. You need only check that you have the required base set to use the pack you are interested in buying. This way I wouldn't have to pay Paizo and drivethru to get a single complete product (season of...) like I currently have to.
Well, there is an official Vic answer floating around, I believe, but the point I took from it - they don't see much market potential in it. A lot of people are probably content to play the Seasons with proxies and xeroxed copies of the Season cards, though for me this the equivalent of reading fan-faction - gives some thrill to the most content-starved die-hard fans; not nearly 'official enough' and on the level of the original experience for everyone else...
A lot of people are probably content to play the Seasons with proxies and xeroxed copies of the Season cards, though for me this the equivalent of reading fan-faction - gives some thrill to the most content-starved die-hard fans; not nearly 'official enough' and on the level of the original experience for everyone else...
As a member of "everyone else", I've never had any problem using proxies in all the Organized Play seasons I've played. It's just a mechanism for introducing new cards without having to actually print them. (If you sleeve your set, it's effectively the same thing as printing them.)
It's a totally different game, of course, but the last time I looked at the design of Apocrypha, it always uses proxies, to help improve the variety of cards available in the set (I haven't looked at the final version, though).
My bet is that if they were to rebuild PACG today, they would have made a "Generic Henchman" card (i. e. proxy), avoiding to create multiple copies of generic henchmen in each 110 cards pack.
Any summoned card as well as specific cases like "servitor demons" are already proxies to some extend.
The only reason I buy Drivethru "seasons decks" is that it's just cooler to play with, but it's not at all needed to play.
Not to be confused with Drivethru "errata decks" which from where I stand are must buy because no one wants to check the FAQ after each card is played.
My bet is that if they were to rebuild PACG today, they would have made a "Generic Henchman" card (i. e. proxy), avoiding to create multiple copies of generic henchmen in each 110 cards pack.
This is an interesting idea. It might work even better with obstacles, monsters, and boons. Have cards called "Obstacle", "Monster", "Weapons", "Spell", etc. for building decks, and then the player draws a card from the box. It'd save a lot of time when building location decks and allow Paizo to abstract some of the specific encounters for a set, possibly aiding in game designs requiring the addition or removal of cards like the class decks (imagine never having to swap out cards at the end of scenarios ever again...)
Not to be confused with Drivethru "errata decks" which from where I stand are must buy because no one wants to check the FAQ after each card is played.
Totally. For a game with a golden rule of "cards do what they say / don't do what they don't say", this is a must.
I provided the anecdote of my set progression earlier in case their was a feeling back at Paizo HQ that "nobody needed the errata cards because they're done playing."
I am surprised there have been no further sets of errata cards advertised on drivethru (unless I missed something?!).
No Beagle, you're not missing anything. They're not done yet. Vic and Lone Shark have been busy with other projects and there's some tight coupling between the base sets and class decks that need to be resolved before the cards are finalized.
It could be so that there is a base set. All those blessing of gods and all other basic staff.
Then there could be area deck (the location where the game happens) all those flavor cards that Are suitable to the environment/or specific area in the world.
Then there would be adventure deck (all those spesial banes, maybe some special locations, Villains and ofcourse adventure cards.)
Then for example Runelords adventure would consist the base set, Runelords adventure and the area deck. Then you could use the same base set and area deck in the Goblins adventure that just have different adventure deck.
You could use the same base set with area deck (world wound area) that is suitable to Mummys mask and then have different adventures in there.
You could use same base set, different area deck and different adventures in that specific area. So it would be more modular.
Other option would be that each area would have separate base deck and then you could publish different adventure decks to that area. It would make the base set more expensive, but reduce the time to setup. You just would have to replase all adveture cards with the next adventure.
But in all these options it should be so that it is easy to tell apart what cards belong to what deck type. So that you can remove the special decks from the base box after playing the game. It could be a Little bit like Lords of the ring and Arkham horror lcg system but more simple. Because there would be less different deck to construct the Gaming kit.
Maybe the scenarios could be released as PDF:s. So you don't have to publish Large text as a printed versions. Then there would be more room for flavor and game mechanics. But all those needed cards would be in the base, location/area and adventure decks.
It works in Fantasy flight lcg games. You buy separate products that you use to make adventures.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to Hannibal's suggestion:
The different boxes he's talking about wouldn't need to be sold completely separately, they could come in the same large box. Using Rise of the Runelords as the example:
-Base Set cards (200-ish very general things like Cure, Longsword, Ancient Skeleton henchmen, etc)
-Varisia Region box (110-card box with more specific banes and boons, would include things like Goblin henchmen, locations like Junk Beach and the Sandpoint Cathedral, etc.)
-Adventure box 1-6 (110-card boxes, essentially the same as the way they're done now)
Then if you wanted to put out, say, Second Darkness, you'd only have to print Adventure boxes 1-6 (which could include things like Drow banes, some Riddleport-specific locations, etc), and the players would already have the Base Set cards and the Varisia Region cards necessary from their first (larger) purchase.
If you wanted to put out, say, Reign of Winter, you could print a new Irrisen Region box with winter-specific banes and boons and wintery locations, and adventure boxes 1-6, and the players would only re-use the Base Set cards.
So basically, what I think Hannibal is suggesting and I strongly support is to modular-ize the game as much as humanly possible, but not necessarily sell them as entirely separate items, and then when you put out new adventures or scenarios, just tell us which boxes to shuffle in.
|
|
In regards to Hannibal's suggestion:
The different boxes he's talking about wouldn't need to be sold completely separately, they could come in the same large box. Using Rise of the Runelords as the example:
-Base Set cards (200-ish very general things like Cure, Longsword, Ancient Skeleton henchmen, etc)
-Varisia Region box (110-card box with more specific banes and boons, would include things like Goblin henchmen, locations like Junk Beach and the Sandpoint Cathedral, etc.)
-Adventure box 1-6 (110-card boxes, essentially the same as the way they're done now)Then if you wanted to put out, say, Second Darkness, you'd only have to print Adventure boxes 1-6 (which could include things like Drow banes, some Riddleport-specific locations, etc), and the players would already have the Base Set cards and the Varisia Region cards necessary from their first (larger) purchase.
If you wanted to put out, say, Reign of Winter, you could print a new Irrisen Region box with winter-specific banes and boons and wintery locations, and adventure boxes 1-6, and the players would only re-use the Base Set cards.
So basically, what I think Hannibal is suggesting and I strongly support is to modular-ize the game as much as humanly possible, but not necessarily sell them as entirely separate items, and then when you put out new adventures or scenarios, just tell us which boxes to shuffle in.
The problem I see what that setup is that some regions are used in more APs than others.
A Varisia deck would suit you for RotRL, CoCT, SD and SS.
An Irrisen deck would only be useful for RoW. A Numeria deck only for IG, and so on.
I'd love to have a base set that offers generic B-6 cards, and an AP add-on set that has B-6 cards flavored for that AP and a booklet of full-page scenarios in adventure card guild style. Whether that could be kept to a reasonable price I don't know.
Cartmanbeck get it right. That is what I am suposing. One basic release that include basic set and one area and one adventure. Then you just replase the adventure cards from that set when you buy new adventure and replase the area deck when you have adventures in the different area.
A lot like basic roleplaying system with area casetteer and adventure modules.
Hint: Any strategy that requires you to own more than one thing to be able to play the game is not going to fly.
Hum that would mean you need the full character+scenario+locations+banes+boons set in each product?
I hope what you meant is more something like, once you have bought the "base game", then you can include, enjoy and "play" an extension, whatever the extension is, without having to buy another one.
This would end up not changing that much from today, except that you do not need to buy new base sets to play new adventures.
There would be a mandatory starting base set with something like:
- a few base iconic characters (something between 4 and 6)
- generic locations that you always need whatever the adventure (tavern, mountain, bridge on river, temple, cave...)
- generic banes that you always need whatever the adventure (bandits, rats, wolves, assassins, dragons, drow elves, pits, chests, fire, ...), at all "levels"
- generic boons that you always need whatever the adventure (dagger, cure, leather armor, potions, basic allies, blessings of the god and a set of standard blessings), at all "levels"
- maybe a set of conditions cards (see curses) that you always need whatever the adventure (asleep, stunned, exhausted, poisoned...)
- an a few introductory 0-level scenarios so that buying an extension isn't mandatory to play
In short, the basic DM toolbox.
Then, still following Cartmanbeck and the usual RPG product line you could have different types of extensions
- extension for more players (basic boons to enable creating starting decks for 6 players, if not covered in the base set)
- modules obviously (same as today: scenarios/banes/boons/loots at a certain "AD level")
- companion = heroes deck (same as today: characters/boons), without the need to include (to create doubles of) basic/standard equipment since already existing for all levels in the base set
- "campain" decks that would for example add locations and special banes and boons of a specific region (all levels) or linked to a specific race > go Cartmanbeck (could include - if works - scenarios).
... browsing ideas.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hint: Any strategy that requires you to own more than one thing to be able to play the game is not going to fly.Hum that would mean you need the full character+scenario+locations+banes+boons set in each product?
I hope what you meant is more something like, once you have bought the "base game", then you can include, enjoy and "play" an extension, whatever the extension is, without having to buy another one.
Right. We need to be able to say "If you buy this one thing, you can play the game. Once you own that one thing, here's some other stuff you can buy." We cannot say "This game is not playable until you buy one item from list A and one item from list B."
I love the idea of modularizing the game! The idea of having a base set that contains the generic cards found in any AP is really intriguing to me, because it allows people to make 1 big purchase that they know can be expanded though smaller add-on deck purchases for years to come. As a kid, I loved games & toys like that, because I could get the big base toy for my birthday, and then the smaller add-ons as rewards for things like getting A's. Plus the add-ons were inexpensive enough that it was feasible to save up my allowance for them. I realize that there are probably way more adults than kids playing this game, but the idea of buying a small thing to add more entertainment to a game I already own is still appealing. It feels like I'm being thrifty, even though I'll probably still spend $180+ a year on expansions...
As far as making sure that the base set is still a game that doesn't require anything else to be played, I think it could be really interesting to make an "Introduction to Golarion" mini-adventure to include with it. I would guess that most AD 4-6 cards are less generic & more tuned to the specific flavor of the AP, so the Base Set (Golarion Adventure Box?) could contain generic cards for AD B-3 (Cure, Blessing of __, Prison, etc.), along with a handful of cards that may never be used again (villains & henchmen, though I could totally see a Bandit or something popping up in multiple APs). So this set would be a complete game, albeit a shorter one, but still more gameplay than just a B adventure. I also just think the idea of having one Golarion box serving as the base of your adventures is kind of poetic...
Then you can have add-on boxes for APs, whether that's 1 box or several per AP. This would also give you more flexibility in terms of the size of each individual AP. And while the first deck of an AP might be a bit bigger than the subsequent decks due to new mechanics (S&S's ships, MM's scourges, etc.), they don't need to be near as big as a current base set, because all of the cures & daggers & whatnot are already in the generic box. Each B add-on deck for an AP can also specify that certain cards from the generic base set should be removed for that AP (Blessing of the Gods for MM, for example). It also lends itself to having other types of add-on decks, like class decks or bane decks or even a mini-pack of new allies or something. Maintaining the Afghanistan principle gets a bit harder, but instead of breaking it or printing potential duplicate cards, maybe you could bend it a bit, so you can assume the generic base set + the add-on B adventure pack for a given AP? Also, I absolutely love the idea of "regional" decks, and I think it would be really awesome to incorporate that too...I know adding extra locations isn't feasible without an adventure to go with them, but maybe they could be their own "Welcome to Varisia" B adventure or something.
Also I was typing this, I realized that while I love this idea, 3 of my 4 base sets are currently mid-game, which is something that I couldn't do if I had only 1 generic base set, so I can understand why full modularity isn't exactly ideal for everyone. That said, since I know my playstyle, I'm probably likely to purchase a couple of those generic base sets...
My perspective is that of a non-roleplayer who mainly plays Organized Play (I'm also of a detailed personality type instead of big-picture). IMO there is plenty of story on the OP Adventure/Scenario sheets and my personal enjoyment of the game would not be lessened by not reading them. The mechanics of the game are more interesting to me, in addition to playing a growing character. I'm obviously in the minority but others who don't roleplay (& aren't married to a a VL/event coordinator lol) are probably less likely to visit Paizo's site & forums to contribute that opinion. ;)
I love the concept of only having to spend $20 for a Class Deck to play a whole OP season; can't get much more affordable than that.
I do like the idea of having more replayability from the sets already released, such as from a new set of scenarios.
Also personally I find proxies annoying; it often detracts from any story to me because of the extra mechanic, though I know they are intended to add to story.
I've thought about that Base Set Idea too.
I'd like to see the Base Sets become reusable, but not necessarily limited to just one. You'll have to excuse my lack of Pathfinder knowledge here, but pretend for a second that there were a few adventure paths that were similar in terms of setting and tone to Rise of the Runelords. They aren't necessarily exactly the same geographic location in the Golorian world, but their similar in that they are more like forests and towns than deserts and islands.
I know Rise of the Runelords takes place in Varisia so I'm going to use that for my example. So, pretend we got a Varisia Base Box. Instead of 500 cards, you strip id down to more like 350 or 400. It contains a smaller number of locations, maybe a few character, and few villains or henchmen. Then, you release:
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 0
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 1
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 2
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 3
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 4
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 5
Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 6
And you also release:
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 0
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 1
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 2
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 3
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 4
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 5
Shattered Star Adventure Deck 6
And you also release:
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 0
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 1
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 2
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 3
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 4
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 5
Jade Regent Adventure Deck 6
They all use the same "Varisia Region Base Set". That means I get 3 standard adventure paths from one Base Set.
Then, you release a Cheliax Region Base Set. And with it, Adventure Paths for Council of Theives, Hell's Rebels, and Hell's Vengeance. They all play from the Cheliax Region Base Set.
With my nearly complete lack of the card game business, that would seem to provide a way to lower costs (reusable base sets) but still provide a significant variety in each adventure path.
Maybe regions isn't the way to go about it. Maybe it is more about "theme" or some other core concept that ties multiple (maybe more than 3) adventure paths together. But the idea is a smaller, repeated Base Set, but not just one and only one Base Set.
You then sell them packaged this way:
You can buy Varisia Region Base Set with RotR Deck 0
You can buy just RotR Deck 0 (for those already owning Varisia Region)
You can buy Varisia Region with Shattered Star 0.
You can buy just Shattered Star 0 (for those already owning Varisia Region).
You can buy Varisia Region with Jade Regent 0.
You can buy just Jade Regeent 0 (for those already owning Varisia Region).
Some further notes:
Afghanistan Principle could be that you have to have the Base Set and Deck 0 for the full adventure path.
You could do a few characters in the Base Set, and a few in Deck 0.
Base Set could contain 3 basic scenarios. Deck 0 contains 5 scenarios.
You could get a bit more "variety" in Organized Play by having scenarios that use cards from adventure paths in the same region. i.e. an Organized Play Scenario that required both Rise of the Runelords Deck 1 and Jade Regent Deck 1.
But again, I admittedly know nothing about the business side of this.
Sometimes it's funny Hawkmoon, seeing the bits of world knowledge that you miss not being familiar with the RPG.
Jade Regent starts off with a caravan leaving Sandpoint and heading north across the top of the world and into the Dragon Empires (The East)
While Varisia would be fine for deck 1 it would be wholly inappropriate for decks 2-5.
Rise of the Runelords and Shattered Star I think could share a lot of cards though. They are both set in Varisia and deal with overcoming ancient Thassalonian threats.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it's funny Hawkmoon, seeing the bits of world knowledge that you miss not being familiar with the RPG.
Jade Regent starts off with a caravan leaving Sandpoint and heading north across the top of the world and into the Dragon Empires (The East)
While Varisia would be fine for deck 1 it would be wholly inappropriate for decks 2-5.
Rise of the Runelords and Shattered Star I think could share a lot of cards though. They are both set in Varisia and deal with overcoming ancient Thassalonian threats.
See, the problem is that Hawkmooon's AI has the ability to parse PDFs, but the Adventure Path PDFs are entirely too natural-language heavy and cause some sort of overload for him. The card game PDFs, however, are just enough rules content that his AI can handle it, and therefore he gobbles those up. :-P
Yeah, I just based my grouping off what I found in the Adventure Finder under the "By Region" link. Still, I think the idea is clear. And really, it doesn't have to be region. As long as an adventure path makes sense to use a certain base set, it could be matched with that base set.
Multiple people have been talking about a generic base set, I'm trying to figure out what that would look like, which characters it would have and how the final product would look different from Rise of the Runelords?
I provided my own views here.
I think that the difference between a modular base set and an AP-based base set that takes place in the same region would be that the modular base sets would be far more generic and would provide gaming opportunities that aren't tied to the existing AP. Villains, henchmen, and allies would be more generic - most likely not even named but simply titled (e.g., we wouldn't see Shalelu Andosana, but we might see a Ranger). In fact, I think that such modular base sets would deliberately steer away from characters and events that appear in established APs, simply providing sandbox type adventures. Adventures 2 and higher might provide unique stand alone adventures that take place in/near the regions, but they aren't necessarily part of a larger storyline.
Also, modular sets wouldn't follow a set progression through advanced adventures. Instead, we might see multiple adventure 3 options, allowing players to pick and choose entirely different progressions through adventure 6.
I've given far more description to my own views on the idea of modular sets in the linked post, though.
oops, wrong thread :)
I love the idea of modularizing the game! The idea of having a base set that contains the generic cards found in any AP is really intriguing to me, because it allows people to make 1 big purchase that they know can be expanded though smaller add-on deck purchases for years to come.Multiple people have been talking about a generic base set, I'm trying to figure out what that would look like, which characters it would have and how the final product would look different from Rise of the Runelords?
When I used the term "base set" there, I didn't really mean it in the same way that RotR has a "base set". Maybe a better term would be "foundation box" (or hopefully someone else will have a better term, 'cause that's a mouthful). So the "foundation box" could contain every generic card from RotR AD B-6 (or maybe just B-3, or whatever, but more than just B/1), plus maybe a few other generic cards. Enough that you could play an adventure or two, but maybe without as much of the story aspect that you could get with a full AP, and probably without using all of the cards. You could continue to create homebrew scenarios with just that box, but again, everything's generic, so you have Bandits & Goblin Raiders for henchmen, but no Koruvus or Tsuto Kaijitsu.
Then RotR (or any other AP) would consist of things like the existing AD boxes, containing the remaining henchmen, villains, named allies, loot, and anything else that might be specific to that AP. I haven't actually read a full AP from the RPG, so I don't have any examples, but since all the generic Cures & Heavy Crossbows are in the "foundation box", there's more "freedom" to create niche cards for an AP. And maybe I'm wrong & there's nothing you'd want to put in there besides henchmen, villains, & loot, but I think that's tangential to the idea of modular sets. Anyways, playing the new AP wouldn't need you to play any of the scenarios in the "foundation box", so you're getting new content immediately when you start the new AP, the same way you do today when you buy a new base set, but at a lower cost.
As for characters, maybe the "foundation boxes" contain iconics or maybe beloved NPCs from the region that's represented by the "foundation box", while characters specific to each AP can be added to a Character Add-On Deck for that AP? The only AP I've read is the PDF for the first adventure of MM, but that one has at least 2 or 3 options for NPCs who could be playable characters.
I will add that I really, really like the Hawkmoon's idea of reusable regional base sets. I also think it could be interesting if for an AP that takes place in multiple regions to suggest that you use the Varisia box for AD B-1 and the Dragon Empires box for AD 2-5. They probably don't want to require someone to own multiple "foundation boxes" ("region boxes"??) to play a single AP, but maybe they could offer options for using either box? Or maybe those are rare enough that they don't mind making it a requirement?
As for characters, maybe the "foundation boxes" contain iconics or maybe beloved NPCs from the region that's represented by the "foundation box", while characters specific to each AP can be added to a Character Add-On Deck for that AP?
The CharAdd-On decks, as currently existing won't mesh well with the modular/"foundation box" idea, as they already contain mostly generics, including monsters and barriers, that should be contained in the "foundation box" in the first place, if I'm following correctly.
If anything, should such modular approach be adopted, the Add-On will/should probably disappear completely, and just give way to "Class Decks", only thematically structured (i.e. "Rise of the Runelord Character Deck: Defenders of Saindpoint" - featuring Ameiko, Shalelu, and Sheriff Hemlock, or "RotRCD: Sages of Sandpoint" - with Father Z, Ilsuari Gandethus, and Brodert Quink - admit it, you've always wanted to play that guy!; and of course, similar curated decks with the Iconics are still on the table). At any rate, Paizo already seems to be doing exactly that, if you only check out their slate for "Class Decks" in the near future (which they admittedly even started calling "Character Deck" for obvious reasons).
On way we could look at it is that you have a granularity of a number of pieces that pretty much must stay together. now it's just a matter on how you select some of those to put them in different boxes while respecting a number of constraints:
- Vic's rule 1 "You don't need extension A to play extension B"
- Vic's rule 2 "Any extension reasonably priced should interest enough people to make it a profit for Paizo"
- House rule 1 "When I have enough characters and boons, I should be able to buy oextensions bringing pretty much only stories"
- House rule 2 "I should get in the base box enough to play some introduction fun"
- House rule 3 "If I'm not a completionist, i should be able to have fun with limited budget"
- House rule 4 "If I like creating my own stories, I should be able with the base box and maybe one add-on have a set of classic locations/banes/boons for standard dungeon crawling type story"
- House rule 5 (not mandatory, but icing on the cake) "If possible, each extension could have a specific orientation/theme (like a region of Golarion or a theme like pirates)"
- FLGS rule 1 (I guess since I'm not using one) "Open Play should work with the result (maybe keeping some kind of "Season's" logic"
That was free marketing advice. My gift. Usually my consulting fees are huge :-)
It seems to me that there's a solution to the column-A-column-B business. You may have to, just one more time, sell a box set like you have been doing.
For the sake of convenience, let's say that the next adventure path that gets made is AP2: Curse of the Crimson Throne. (This also assumes that the next thing that gets made is a full adventure path. That might not be the best move, but we gotta start somewhere.) The debut product in that series could be:
- a bunch of cards that will get used in most or all future products; let's call that the Core Deck
- additional cards specific to CotCT.
Then adventure decks for adventures 2 (1?) through 6 come out as they have been doing.
Then when it's time for the next thing, AP3, Second Darkness, the following products come out:
1) a Core Deck/SD combo, for those who are starting with that path,
2) just the SD cards alone, for those who bought Core/CotCT and don't need another copy of the Core Deck, and
3) just the CotCT cards alone, for those who bought (1), loved it, and also want to get the preiovus AP.
Number (3) might not even need to come out at the same time as (1) and (2), but perhaps eventually.
There doesn't need to be as many of (1) published, since the rabid fans already have Core/CotCT. Now you've started reducing the amount of large boxes you need to sell.
It also occurs to me that a full AP may not be the way to lead this off. Perhaps you start with something shorter. Again, for the sake of example, let's say it's the first Pathfinder Tales novel, Prince of Wolves, and it's designed to be just five scenarios, one adventure long.
The Core/PoW combo is now self-contained and playable. It's one thing, so the commitment being asked for is lower, rather than expecting people to purchase the five things that come after it to make use of the Core Deck they just bought.
For a store to do OP, they just need any copy of the Core Deck, regardless of what's packaged with it, and whatever the add-on (Flavour Deck?) that specifies the story for that season.
I think that covers everyone's requirements....
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We can't have product configurations that work like this:
• If you own A, buy B!
• If you don't own A, buy C!
For one thing, that would confuse a lot of customers and retailers; for another, it would mean that B and C would each be selling to just a portion of our total audience, and that makes it harder to be profitable.
We *can* have product configurations that work like this:
• If you own A, buy B!
• If you don't own A, buy A and B!
...but *only* if A is a fully playable object in its own right.
That sounds like my second version: Core Deck plus a shorter, self-contained game, and that can be expanded by other products. Is there a similar problem with that configuration?