| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking questions like:
How often should campaign setting books be released?
How often should Player Companions be released?
Should we continue with those two lines - is there some other way to break things up?
What sort of topics should be in a campaign setting book? How much mechanics, how much flavor?
How important is it to keep APs at 6-6 vs 7-5 from time to time? 3-3?
How often should we release hardcovers, bestiaries vs Campaign books, etcetera?
Is the modules line worth resurrecting?
Do people care about expanding/maintaining licensed product lines (novels, minis, etcetera)?
Would map folios sit better in the maps subscription vs the campaign setting subscription? Could they be expanded into their own subscription? (Including excerpts from campaign sourcebooks as well as APs, for example)...
It seems to me you'll probably be nailing those sorts of things down now (if you haven't already) and that "after the playtest" will be too late to change the structure of support products - once you begin releasing, I'm sure there's a kind of "branding inertia" that means it's unlikely you'll alter from the course in the first couple of years (barring exceptional commercial responses, of course).
Anyhow - do you want to hear about things like that? Will it be included in the surveys? Is it too late?
(To be clear, the above is a sample of what I could think of that people might care about - I wouldn't want you to change much, but I would like to offer some persepctives on some of them).
Cheers
Steve
Steve,
Thank you for bringing up something that no one has really been focusing on in all of the talk about rules.
I think these questions are important, but in all honesty, I wonder if there was anything we could say that would give insight that 10 years of hard data wouldn't already give?
I'm not saying this in a negative way or anything, just thinking about it.
I do hope, in fact, that they offer surveys on this topic. I just am being realistic about how much perspective these answers would offer compared to the data. Would be interesting to see how the population of survey respondents answered versus the data of the last 10 years.
Anyway, just thinking out loud. Thank you for bringing it up!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think these are the sorts of things that are better answered by Paizo's sales numbers than a playtest survey. The survey is going to be populated by a self-selected group of people who care enough about the game to participate in its design prior to release and also log on to the website and fill out a form; I can guarantee you that isn't going to be everyone, and I can also guarantee you that "people who care about player companions" will make up a larger amount of that group than it does Paizo's entire playerbase.
For a second I thought this was about whether Paizo cared about our input on things like "Should Pharasma be more forthcoming? Does Ng need a sexier outfit? What should have happened to Aroden? etc."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking along these same lines--a sort of "meta-feedback" on the entire Pathfinder brand. It might be "how can we improve the FAQ/errata process?" or "should we design more encounters at longer ranges so that range increments and spell ranges become more significant?" or "would you like more content set outside the Inner Sea?" Etc., etc. There are always going to be monetary and creative considerations that we can't comment on, but some broader feedback would be nice to see considered.
I think some of these very questions popped up in the survey that they sent out to a random sample of folks...a year ago?
I think these questions are important, but in all honesty, I wonder if there was anything we could say that would give insight that 10 years of hard data wouldn't already give?
I'm not saying this in a negative way or anything, just thinking about it.
I do hope, in fact, that they offer surveys on this topic. I just am being realistic about how much perspective these answers would offer compared to the data. Would be interesting to see how the population of survey respondents answered versus the data of the last 10 years.
I think these are the sorts of things that are better answered by Paizo's sales numbers than a playtest survey.
I think the sales data will be very important (and I agree with the principle that where people put their money always trumps where people say they'll put their money).
However, some of it can't be tested by sales figures. Even Paizo don't know how a standalone map-folio subscription (with a couple of "campaign setting" sets alongside the AP-focussed sets) would go, since it's never been tried. Each time a map folio rolls around there's a bunch of cancellations and resubscriptions later - perhaps that's indicative of a restructuring opportunity as much as it's indicative of disatisfaction.
Similarly if the distinction between Campaign Setting books and Player Companion books was abandoned in favor of "Flavor-Focussed books" and "Mechanics-Heavy books" (presumably with better names). Historical sales figures won't answer that directly, since it hasn't really been tried. (Reviews can provide insight, but perhaps not the whole picture).
I'm by no means suggesting we should have a deciding vote - merely that it might prove a good opportunity to get some feedback on stuff like this. As I mentioned in my OP, I fear that if Paizo wait until after the playtest, the schedule for the first year or two is unlikely to be changeable in any drastic way. I'm sure restructuring and/or rebranding product lines is like turning an oil tanker.
If there were appetite to explore new product lines (or new ways of distributing material amongst current product lines) it seems like now would prove an ideal time.
Agreed.
I think some of these very questions popped up in the survey that they sent out to a random sample of folks...a year ago?
I thought they were different - certainly some of the things I'd want to say weren't covered. (But I had a few of those questions where my opinion didn't really "fit" so maybe it's just me).
So I won't keep bumping this (it doesn't sound like there's many who feel the need to provide such input) but I am curious if there's any comment from Paizo?
I'm not going to be participating in the playtest from a rules perspective, but I would be interested in making comments on some of the meta-stuff referenced in the OP. Is it worth me looking for surveys on that kind of thing? Or has the time for input feeding into you making those decisions been and gone?