Paizo Blog: Upcoming Changes to Pathfinder Adventures

[Benedict Votras]

When some kind soul starts creating "GM Guides" for PFS scenarios with monster stat blocks, may I humbly suggest that they also include the spells those monsters possess?

I have played spellcasters as martials an embarrassingly large number of times because I forgot to look up a monster's spell list in advance and didn't want to slow down play.

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

I have to say, from a Comms/Marketing perspective, combining these two changes (hardcover APs; PFS scenario format changes) into one blog post is a misstep.

Personally I don’t engage with PFS at all, so the comments about the changes don’t resonate with me. It does seem like you’ve made very unpopular changes.

As for the change to hardcovers, I….actually couldn’t see any problems with that, apart from above-mentioned comments about the burden of an upfront cost vs. smaller incremental costs monthly. I would hope that an omnibus approach would improve quality and cohesion.

I must admit, as someone who has been buying “modules” for over 40 years, there’s definitely a disconnect when holding a big “hardcover” “path”.

My only real issue is that I have absolutely zero interest in Hellbreakers or Hell…whatever the other one is. Hoping for something really interesting and inspiring down the track.

[Soluzar]

I like the scenario changes. It seems like it's moving closer to what SF2 is doing.

Face it. Spending an hour just blindly rolling dice to get past a series of skill challenges is not fun. It's not roleplaying, it's rollplaying.

[bugleyman]

Soluzar wrote:

Face it. Spending an hour just blindly rolling dice to get past a series of skill challenges is not fun. It's not roleplaying, it's rollplaying.

I don't think many people would debate that, but it is unclear to me why you apparently believe shorter scenarios will necessarily mean higher quality.

[Naarg]

My biggest problem is with the level range reduction on PFS scenarios. It's going to be a lot more common for a scenario to come up that I don't have a character in range for, and higher level tables are going to be even harder to fill.

[Jim Butler]

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Will existing Adventure Path subscriptions roll on to the new format?

Yes. We'll add a new Special Edition Adventure Path subscription later in the year when the new store launches.

-Jim

[bugleyman]

Naarg wrote:

My biggest problem is with the level range reduction on PFS scenarios. It's going to be a lot more common for a scenario to come up that I don't have a character in range for, and higher level tables are going to be even harder to fill.

This one is gonna hurt for sure, especially at the lower levels. Our little lodge often has to combine players from 1-2 and 3-4 to make a legal table.

Plus it seems (to me) like simply an attempt to reduce the amount of work that goes into a scenario while keeping the same price -- "shrinkflation" if you will -- rather than something intended to actually benefit the player base. Unless, of course, the benefit is avoiding a further reduction in the number of scenarios produced.

Either way...feels bad, man.

[Naarg]

bugleyman wrote:

Naarg wrote:

My biggest problem is with the level range reduction on PFS scenarios. It's going to be a lot more common for a scenario to come up that I don't have a character in range for, and higher level tables are going to be even harder to fill.

This one is gonna hurt for sure, especially at the lower levels. Our little lodge often has to combine players from 1-2 and 3-4 to make a legal table.

Plus it seems (to me) like simply an attempt to reduce the amount of work that goes into a scenario while keeping the same price -- "shrinkflation" if you will -- rather than something intended to actually benefit the player base. Unless, of course, the benefit is avoiding a further reduction in the number of scenarios produced.

Either way...feels bad, man.

The higher levels are going to be hurting also. For example, right now if an 11-12 were released, I couldn't play it until I could find at least two new 9-10 scenarios to play, in order to get a character into range.

It feels like this needs some kind of tweaked mentor boon situation, where you can temporarily boost a character up a level to get into the level band of the scenario (maybe spending a couple of AP each time), so people can play with their friends, tables can be filled, and you can get past level ranges you don't have a character for. The GM would still only have to prep one band; the work for the adjustment would be on the player.

[bugleyman]

Naarg wrote:

The higher levels are going to be hurting also. For example, right now if an 11-12 were released, I couldn't play it until I could find at least two new 9-10 scenarios to play, in order to get a character into range.

It feels like this needs some kind of tweaked mentor boon situation, where you can temporarily boost a character up a level to get into the level band of the scenario (maybe spending a couple of AP each time), so people can play with their friends, tables can be filled, and you can get past level ranges you don't have a character for. The GM would still only have to prep one band; the work for the adjustment would be on the player.

Yeah...it is just a pretty large obstacle to forming legal tables. I want to believe there is some motivation here beyond "cut costs," but to be frank it is hard to imagine what it might be (and, unlike the AP changes, Paizo did not share their thinking).

[Mister Advocat]

Honestly I'm kind of worried about the changes to 'simplify' the experience for GMs. Assuming 6 PCs is a bit much for starters. I've been GMing in a private lodge for a while and sometimes we don't even have a full 4 PCs so we bring along a pre-made like the rules suggest.
I liked that tables assumed 4 and then were able to swing up to 6 players for busier nights.

[Gradba]

Cyrad wrote:

I always appreciated having the full stat blocks of monsters in the back of each PFS scenario. I'm pretty upset that's going away.

Not having to flip between bookmarks for each monster was such a godsend, especially for multi-table specials.

This might be a deal breaker for me, as table space is limited and having multiple books open bogs down combat, not to mention that some creatures are in the older bestiaries that many don't have.

[Kelseus]

I only rarely purchase APs (I have 4 total), but I have had problems with the books falling apart. I think switching to a single hard cover will help alleviate that issue.

I also agree it will make it much easier to refer back to an NPC or location from earlier in the AP if it is all in one book rather than in 3 (or 6).

[DragonstormSTL]

To be completely honest, these changes to Society killed pretty much any hype I’ve had for running more tables.

First off, going for an “Adventure Path format” in Society play can only slow the game down. Instead of having convenient stats and a place to roll initiative, I now have to flip through books and make sure something is or isn’t immune to something or do them like spells.

Second off, down in St. Louis, we’ve got a decent sized gaming convention called Die Con. Even there, any scenario starting in a level range above 7 probably doesn’t fire. We’ve heard absolutely nothing about level 7 pregens, and we’ve heard that you always have to start at level 1. How many scenarios do you expect are going to be high level going forward? When we’re over halfway done with this current edition of Pathfinder if 1e is any indication, this feels like a massive error.

[William Ronald]

We should address a few of the concerns here. I can perhaps deal with the stat block issues but I can see why many are concerned.

Could we have some way to handle a situation where we have players who do not have characters of the appropriate level in a scenario. I am trying to revitalize one location and would like to do more with others. Are there any plans on having a player who does not have any character of an appropriate level accrue benefits for another character. (Let me give two examples. Amanda (fictional player) only has a first level character and the only event scheduled is a 3-4. Meanwhile, a few hundred miles away, Bob (another fictional player) just leveled his character up to 3rd and the local shop is only scheduling a 1-2. Neither Amanda nor Bob have timee to create a character on the fly.

I have to admit that I found the Angry VC suggestion mentioned up thread intriguing.

In this thread, a few people I respect expressed their reservations and concerns. I would like to have us work together as a community to address these concerns. From what I have seen being a part of Organized Play for 15 years, we are stronger and wiser when we work together.

[Gayel Nord]

Keith Apperson wrote:

I was frustrated enough seeing the changes to Starfinder Society (shorter scenarios, infinite replay, players making characters higher level than they can competently play) but was glad it wasn't impacting Pathfinder as well... but here we are.

The reduction in level bands will make it harder to schedule. The reduction of time will water down the scenarios and make them less deep and exciting. The removal of stat blocks means I more often have to reference a separate book or document. The "GM fiat" is the exact reason Society is good - consistency and prescription of difficulty.

(I was also around when we won the Appendices for Pathfinder Society - it was so great! It was such an improvement! Gone were the days of waiting for a couple of key volunteers to build out a separate document of statblocks for us!)

Just like I said with Starfinder: Maybe we should be doing one or two changes, seeing how they work, and then deciding if we need more changes, rather than turning this into a completely different organized play environment overnight? There's barely been enough time to see if any of this is good for Starfinder, let alone decide that this is the healthy and good choice for Pathfinder.

Wait... The scenarios most of the time are 5 hours even if they say 4.

[RobertTHEPerylous]

I like what was announced for the Adventure Paths, so I don't have to go over what has already been stated. But are there any plans to make Pawn Collections for the AP's like we used to get? If they are not very popular, can we at least get a PDF product so we can more easily print our own? Could we do a Crowdfunding model where people pre-order them?

Here's my TLDR on the proposed changes to PFS. Leave them as proposed only. Please do not implement these changes. Here's my reasoning why.

Level bands - It is already hard enough to play a character through a particular storyline when the level ranges jump so severely. See the Burning Sun Orcs story arc where the middle scenario is too high a level for the conclusion of the story. Or some of the Metaplot stories. If Paizo is going for the continuing adventure theme, please fix that error going forward. Reducing the level range of scenarios complicates this process even further. Add the varying levels of Player Characters coming in and it quickly becomes a scheduling nightmare.

A lot of the tables I have run or played at usually did have 6 players, but many had 5 or less. Some only 2. Some of our local venues have put the player cut-off at 5 instead of 6 to make combats run more efficiently. And as a 5-Glyph GM with over 200 tables run, I can say it is less complicated to add opponents or bumps for more players, than reducing. It is more complicated to prep an encounter when you have 8 different monsters to use based on the different CP adjustments. Just change THAT instead!

The reduction in planned time is a mixed bag for me. We have had some scenarios take over 6 hours to complete, and others less than 2. Streamlining this better would be great and I'd love it! But, most of all, this is time out of the house with my friends. Add the "shrinkflation" of getting less for the same cost, and it is really disappointing, if not depressing.

The last thing I'm going to touch on is the removal of the monster stat blocks. I remember when we did NOT have them in PFS1, and was so happy when we were told they would now be included. When they were in the 2E scenarios, I honestly rejoiced! Having those stat blocks was a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the complexity of GMing. Now I'm hearing in the back of my head, "It's ok, you can use the Battle Cards" as a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Maybe it's just me but the solution seems to always be, buy more, get less, and be happy with what you lost.

I'm not happy with these announced changes. But that's my pair of coppers for what they're worth.

[DawidIzydor]

I assume this means Foundry releases are also all-in-one, instead of being split in 3. Will this affect Foundry releases' price?

[The.Vortex]

What we are getting:
- Narrow Level Range
- Shorter Adventures (aka even less room for interesting things to happen)
- stat blocks not included, so you have to juggle multiple books
- simplified rules for adjusting the difficulty to the party

What we are not getting:
- The ability to create characters at higher levels
- everything is repeatable
- no more Treasure Bundles, reputation and factions

Or, to say it in another way: We get all the bad / mixed stuff, without any of the good stuff from the SFS scenarios. I can't say that I am a fan of those changes at all.

That being said, I can see and understand, WHY those changes are being made. The past couple of seasons of PFS2e scenarios were FULL of adventures that had bad editing, stuff that just didn't work, etc. - so reducing the complexity by removing half the possible level range, not having CP adjustments and reducing the overall length (and with that amount of content) of adventures will MASSIVELY reduce the workload for the people creating / editing those adventures. Maybe that is the silver lining I should focus on: That this change MIGHT lead to better adventures with less errors than we had in the recent past? Or am I that just some copium speaking?

PS: I REALLY hope that we won't get too many level 1-2 scnearios! I have no interest in playing at those levels and have used GM / AP chronicles to start almost all of my characters at level 3+.

[Majuba]

Out of curiosity, will the AP volumes continue to be numbered?

[Majuba]

For the scenarios, perhaps it would be better to have scenarios built for a single level, and playable at +/-1, like sanctioned modules (1e at least). Whatever Easy/Hard mode adjustments could be used if the table is all high or low.

With fixed two level ranges, you'll get mostly consistent groups of new players who suddenly can't play together.

[magnuskn]

The AP hardcover solution is good and I fully support it, be it for reasons of cohesion of story and also better shipping costs.

As for PFS, I am playing a bit of it and this new approach sounds problematic in many ways, which has already been expounded upon by many other people upthread. I hope the developers take the (so far uniformly negative) feedback to these changes into account.

[Monkhound]

First off, I'm happy with the 3-hour format! Our lives are busy as it is, and if this means "scenarios that run long" take 4 hours instead of 5-6, that's great.

Less so about the triple change: "level band", "basing scenario's on 6 player characters" and "CP replaced by a difficulty band".

The level band is ideal for conventions and lodges with a bigger player pool. For smaller lodges it mostly means we're forced to play a new character as soon as a new society player joins, or if a player is bored with their character. It was already hard to schedule high level content, and I now fear mid-level content is at risk as well. Letting us start characters at level 1, 3 or 5 might partly solve this, but it's still not an ideal situation.

Basing scenarios on 6 players was done in PFS1 from season 4 to 10 and it performed poorly when you applied the 4-player adjustment, and 5-player parties were always playing in hard mode. It often resulted in players wasting actions applying conditions that were already applied because of the adjustment. In other cases encounters became utterly uninteresting, and in rare cases monsters benefited from the "nerf" (looking at you Sanos Abduction). I'm therefore a bit skeptical about replacing the CP system by an easy/hard system to cover smaller parties.

I get that difficulty is harder to predict and to write for with the 4-level band, and the CP system isn't perfect, but from my perspective, the combination of all three of these changes overtunes it too much, while at the same time putting a strain on smaller lodges.

Finally, if it means we don't have monster stat blocks in the appendix anymore, that's putting a lot more work in the hands of the GM gathering stats. Why? Or did I misunderstand this?

[Quentin Coldwater]

shadowhntr7 wrote:

Chiming in to say I'm honestly not a fan of the PFS-side changes. Many times, a scenario feels too short and rushed as it is, with players leaving scratching their heads over what happened and whodunnit. Cutting out a quarter of the time not only means authors (and players) can invest less time in building a proper scene and story, but also players who like roleplaying and developing their characters have less time to do so.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but if a four-hour adventure becomes a three-hour adventure, wouldn't that leave more time for RP? (Assuming you'll still play for four hours.)

---

I'd like to voice my discontent about in-adventure statblocks as well. It might be easier for the editing team, but this was a huge quality of life improvement for GMs. No more statblocks spread across multiple pages or having to look up and print out additional statblocks, everything you needed was just in one place. Could very well be that I'm underestimating the load on the editors, but I believe in this case the end user should profit the most, not the makers of the product.

Also, as someone else mentioned, I'm not a fan of shortening adventures mid-season, and hell, even mid-edition. It's sort of fine if you only sign up for the newest adventures, but if you sign up far in advance for a "to be determined" slot, you don't know how much of a time investment it'll be. Some people might not be willing to travel for a 3-hour adventure, but a 4+-hour adventure might be worth the commute. If I sign up for an adventure and hear much later it'll be a "short" one, I might decide it's not worth my time and sign out, which is a shame.
(I'm not sure how much of an issue this is, but at least around here we use "to be determined" a lot, but maybe I'm just the aberration.)
But with the change mid-edition and even mid-season, less enfranchised players don't know what they're gonna sign up for. If someone new joins a few sessions of the shorter adventures, they might assume all adventures are 3 hours. If they then join a pre-season 7 adventure without knowing these are longer, they might run into time issues.
I just like the clarity of "one edition, one standard." You can change standards in between editions, but at least maintain consistency within the same edition.

Also, very very minor gripe: this messes up the "one hour of play = one experience" system. >_>

[Gray Ghost]

bugleyman wrote:

Adventure path change seems overall like a win, though it might be time to drop the "path" moniker. It's really just a big adventure at this point, no? Especially since pretty much everything will be hard cover now. The name "Pathfinder" is recognizable as its own thing; you don't need the name "adventure path" around. Overall, this seems like a great opportunity to simplify your branding.

to me I think Adventure Path is still a valid, reasonable way to refer to them in order to actually differentiate them from standalone adventures. There's still a meaningful difference in my mind because an AP is much longer, goes for a longer level range and has more going on. Plus the level ranges are more fixed. Whereas the Standalone's can in theory be at any level. And when it comes down to it, APs are pre-made campaigns that just are meant to last a long time. There's enough difference in my view to justify a unique name.

[Cori Marie]

Majuba wrote:

Out of curiosity, will the AP volumes continue to be numbered?

The product page for Hellbreakers still lists it as 222, so seems to be

[Hamsterpillar]

shadowhntr7 wrote:

Many times, a scenario feels too short and rushed as it is, with players leaving scratching their heads over what happened and whodunnit. Cutting out a quarter of the time not only means authors (and players) can invest less time in building a proper scene and story, but also players who like roleplaying and developing their characters have less time to do so.

It seems to me that this will actually increase the amount of time you can invest in RP and character development? Usually when I'm left scratching my head over what just happened in the scenario its because the GM is plowing through encounters and subsystems to try and make sure we finish.

If there's less to "make sure we get through" then there's potentially more time to actually talk to NPCs and for the PCs to interact with each other.

[kahn265]

I just watched the Paizo Live...

I'd love to see Starfinder Fly Free or Die compiled into hardcover and translated to Starfinder 2e.

(if for no other reason than for non-fragmented PDFs - I do a LOT of copy pasting and using Adobe's "Read aloud" function)

[shadowhntr7]

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

shadowhntr7 wrote:

Chiming in to say I'm honestly not a fan of the PFS-side changes. Many times, a scenario feels too short and rushed as it is, with players leaving scratching their heads over what happened and whodunnit. Cutting out a quarter of the time not only means authors (and players) can invest less time in building a proper scene and story, but also players who like roleplaying and developing their characters have less time to do so.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but if a four-hour adventure becomes a three-hour adventure, wouldn't that leave more time for RP? (Assuming you'll still play for four hours.)

Hampsterpillar wrote:

It seems to me that this will actually increase the amount of time you can invest in RP and character development? Usually when I'm left scratching my head over what just happened in the scenario its because the GM is plowing through encounters and subsystems to try and make sure we finish.

If there's less to "make sure we get through" then there's potentially more time to actually talk to NPCs and for the PCs to interact with each other.

Interesting that you both feel that way! Perhaps I'm the odd one out in that, but I'd be concerned that with the expectation and timeslot being set for 3 hours, players would assume no more than 3 hours runtime and plan to leave at that point. This of course assumes a perfect world where scenarios are written appropriately for the time slot, instead of being excessively short/long.

In addition, to me, part of the RP experience is how your character reacts to the events of the scenario. If a quarter (or more) of the scenario is cut to try and fit this new, reduced timeslot, would I not also have a quarter less 'triggers' for roleplay? Plus, there's enough people out there who are full 'rollplayers' instead, they'll be wanting the combats and stuff included in full, and cuts have to be made somewhere.

[DarthMelon]

shadowhntr7 wrote:

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

shadowhntr7 wrote:

Chiming in to say I'm honestly not a fan of the PFS-side changes. Many times, a scenario feels too short and rushed as it is, with players leaving scratching their heads over what happened and whodunnit. Cutting out a quarter of the time not only means authors (and players) can invest less time in building a proper scene and story, but also players who like roleplaying and developing their characters have less time to do so.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but if a four-hour adventure becomes a three-hour adventure, wouldn't that leave more time for RP? (Assuming you'll still play for four hours.)

Hampsterpillar wrote:

It seems to me that this will actually increase the amount of time you can invest in RP and character development? Usually when I'm left scratching my head over what just happened in the scenario its because the GM is plowing through encounters and subsystems to try and make sure we finish.

If there's less to "make sure we get through" then there's potentially more time to actually talk to NPCs and for the PCs to interact with each other.

Interesting that you both feel that way! Perhaps I'm the odd one out in that, but I'd be concerned that with the expectation and timeslot being set for 3 hours, players would assume no more than 3 hours runtime and plan to leave at that point. This of course assumes a perfect world where scenarios are written appropriately for the time slot, instead of being excessively short/long.

In addition, to me, part of the RP experience is how your character reacts to the events of the scenario. If a quarter (or more) of the scenario is cut to try and fit this new, reduced timeslot, would I not also have a quarter less 'triggers' for roleplay? Plus, there's enough people out there who are full 'rollplayers' instead, they'll be wanting the combats and stuff included in full, and cuts have to be made somewhere.

My local lodge plays almost exclusively on Weekdays. Our start times are generally 6pm so people can come after work, the problem is the game stores close at 10pm. This means we have to be out the door within 4 hours. There are a lot of scenarios where we have to rush through it. The change to a 3-4 hour scenario will give us much needed breathing room.

That said, very disappointed by the level band changes. As others have said, scheduling is always the final boss. Our lodge has been growing lately and changes like this make it much harder to put a table together. Not having all the star blocks in the adventure is also a bad change for the GM. Hope they reverse course on those.

[Pikadidi]

While I hope the change to Adventure Paths will result in a boost in quality I can't help but be worried until I see the PDF and Foundry Module prices. A big part of what made them appealing was that I could pay a bit a few months apart rather than having to pay a big sum upfront.

[James Jacobs]

Majuba wrote:

Out of curiosity, will the AP volumes continue to be numbered?

They'll continue to be numbered in their product code (the number that starts with PZO in tiny writing in the back), but they will no longer have numbers on the spines. I suspect folks will continue to use numbers to refer to them for a while, and we likely will internally since we often don't have a title set in stone when we start brainstorming them, but yeah, the numbers on the spines are going away.

[James Jacobs]

And as for the branding—the term "Adventure Path" isn't going away. Even when they're one book things, they're still Adventure Paths, just as all our previous hardcover versions have been.

[Fumarole]

James Jacobs wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Out of curiosity, will the AP volumes continue to be numbered?

They'll continue to be numbered in their product code (the number that starts with PZO in tiny writing in the back), but they will no longer have numbers on the spines. I suspect folks will continue to use numbers to refer to them for a while, and we likely will internally since we often don't have a title set in stone when we start brainstorming them, but yeah, the numbers on the spines are going away.

So Hellbreakers will be #222 and Hell's Destiny will be #223, meaning just one code per hardcover? Or will Hell's Destiny be #225 and whatever comes after it #228?

[keftiu]

I don't play PFS, but I do collect some of the scenarios, and I feel like the reviews for every single one are inevitably a chorus of "there was just no possible way this was going to fit in the timeslot." I'm not surprised to see them getting cut down a little.

[RealAlchemy]

As others have expressed, I find the tighter level banding in PFS scenarios to be a poor idea. I believe it is likely to make it harder for PFS tables to fire in local game shops.

[James Jacobs]

Fumarole wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Out of curiosity, will the AP volumes continue to be numbered?

They'll continue to be numbered in their product code (the number that starts with PZO in tiny writing in the back), but they will no longer have numbers on the spines. I suspect folks will continue to use numbers to refer to them for a while, and we likely will internally since we often don't have a title set in stone when we start brainstorming them, but yeah, the numbers on the spines are going away.

So Hellbreakers will be #222 and Hell's Destiny will be #223, meaning just one code per hardcover? Or will Hell's Destiny be #225 and whatever comes after it #228?

Not quite.

Hellbreakers will be PZO15222-HC. Hell's Destiny will be PZO15223-HC. And so on—we won't be "skipping" numbers. That number appears in tiny print on the back cover down by the UPC code, but we won't be printing a standalone #222 anywhere on the book, and now that we're moving forward with the announcement I suspect the store pages will shift away from that as well.

[Kittyburger]

bugleyman wrote:

Adventure path change seems overall like a win, though it might be time to drop the "path" moniker. It's really just a big adventure at this point, no? Especially since pretty much everything will be hard cover now. The name "Pathfinder" is recognizable as its own thing; you don't need the name "adventure path" around. Overall, this seems like a great opportunity to simplify your branding.

The PFS changes I like much less. Removing stat blocks from scenarios means either extra prep work, more books to carry, or both. But my bigger concern is that this is 25% less content for the same price -- and said content only supports half the level band. I'm sure they'll be easier to produce, but this is, in effect, shrinkflation (and therefore really yet *another* price increase for PFS scenarios in the last few years, tripling down on the fundamentally misguided, not to mention baffling, strategy of trying to make a promotional tool profitable). Scenarios were already relatively overpriced at $9; now they'll be 25% smaller, and less flexible to boot. At the end of the day, these changes make things more painful and costly for society GMs, which seems very unlikely to end well for anyone.

I am SEVERELY unsure as to whether or not I got all my stat blocks right for Within the Glacier, but I'm glad I got the chance to write custom stat blocks for my villain and some of the crucial monsters.

On the player side of things, I am hoping very much that we get a hardcover compilation version of Extinction Curse!

[fujisempai]

I would like to humbly request that you keep putting the numbers on the spines. My local game store stores adventure paths on the shelf spine out and in order making it easier to find the newest or a given installment. I also like being able to put them on my home bookshelf in order without having to remember which came after the other.

[Swiftbrook]

At the end of the day, Paizo is a business and needs to stay profitable. It sounds like the PFS scenario changes are all business related.

I don't buy many PFS scenarios and I don't see that changing. Less content for the same amount of money.

I live a hour from the nearest PFS store and game. I will be traveling and playing less. The shorter adventures makes it less worth while to go. The tighter level ranges makes it more problematic to play, both having my PC in a specific range and getting enough for a table. Game play opportunites in Mid-Michigan is limited already.

Less work by Paizo in preping the scenarios (cutting stat blocks), equates to more work for the GM. I don't see myself volunteering much more to help run games.

I also see Pathfinder Society as Paizo's front door for many players, whether online or in person. From my point of view, the changes to the PFS scenarios all look bad, from attracting fewer GMs to run games, to making it more challenging for players to get into a game. I can only hope that Paizo quickly realizes that these changes are a mistake and reverses course.

[James Jacobs]

fujisempai wrote:

I would like to humbly request that you keep putting the numbers on the spines. My local game store stores adventure paths on the shelf spine out and in order making it easier to find the newest or a given installment. I also like being able to put them on my home bookshelf in order without having to remember which came after the other.

Since we're moving away from the monthly cadence, the magazine-inspired spine numbering makes less sense. But an even bigger concern is that by numbering things like that we can give the false impression that you have to have the previously numbered one of a line in order to use the currently numbered one. While I do empathize with and understand the value of being able to stock them in order, spine out, by their numbers... numbering these going forward would defeat the purpose of them being self-contained and could imply that you have to have all of them in order to run any of them.

Personally, I of course would LOVE for everyone to keep buying every Adventure Path! But since the new format is leaning into self-contained campaigns rather than sequentially presented serialized stories, keeping numbers on the spine isn't really an option.

[Boolian]

Honestly pretty happy with this and would even be fine with a reduction to just two a year so they can be give more time and care.

[Brinebeast]

I hope this improves the chance for older Adventure Paths to get compiled into a hard cover. I understand that still takes a whole lot of work, but I would love to see an updated Second Darkness.

[bugleyman]

Swiftbrook wrote:

At the end of the day, Paizo is a business and needs to stay profitable. It sounds like the PFS scenario changes are all business related.

This appears to be Paizo's mindset with respect to PFS, and honestly, it just doesn't make sense to me at all. Pathfinder Society is a promotional tool. The point is to bring in new players in order to increase sales. And the best way to bring in new players? Offer an awesome game play experience so they have a great time, associate that great time with the game, and then buy in. If PFS accomplishes this, it doesn't matter whether the individual scenarios are profitable! Yes, it can be difficult to directly attribute revenue to PFS, but trying to make PFS scenarios "profitable" just completely misses the point, and frankly reeks of classic management-by-spreadsheet.

This is also the third effective price increase for PFS scenarios in a handful of years, greatly outstripping inflation. By failing to understand basic economic principles like price elasticity of demand, Paizo has, in effect, priced PFS scenarios out of the market and put the entire line into a death spiral. Personally, I think the writing was on the wall when scenarios were priced at $9 in a misguided (and now clearly failed) attempt to make them "sustainable," but that's another rant. :-)

Ok, so in the interest of not being totally negative (confusing for me, I know!), how would I go about fixing this?

1. First and foremost, drop the price of PFS scenarios back down to no more than $5. This is a cost borne entirely by your volunteer GMs, upon whom you are 100% reliant on to provide the aforementioned awesome game play experience; stop punishing them! $9 a scenario is comically bad value, especially compared to Paizo's other adventure products.

2. Keep challenge points and multiple level bands. As everyone on the ground is telling you, both are absolutely necessary to actually make legal tables go off.

3. Retain the scenario stat blocks! Yes, they makes development more expensive, but the goal here -- again -- isn't to make PFS scenarios profitable. It is to encourage people to run them, and run them well, and so GM quality-of-life matters.

@Paizo, I understand there is no shortage of armchair quarterbacks on the Internet. But as it happens, I have an actual business degree. I'm a former VL. I have run a ton of PFS (and Living Greyhawk before that). This isn't just some uninformed rant. But you don't have to take just my word for it! Every PFS GM in here -- every single one of whom wants you to succeed -- is telling you these changes are a terrible idea.

Please listen.

TLDR: Trying to make PFS profitable not only misses the entire point of PFS, it risks eventually killing it off entirely.

[/soapbox]

P.S. If I'm a bit too invested in this, so be it, but it has been just heart-breaking to watch PFS be mismanaged over the last several years.

[Noven]

Pocket Edition APs by chance?

[Randuril]

One other point I did not see above regarding stat block inclusion is from the POV of a small convention planner - there are always extra players around who aren't in tier on what's offered up front. While they could play a pre-gen, that's nowhere near as "involving" as playing your own PC. In the past, when I was a VC, we would whip out something of a suitable level for their PCs and one of us would run it for them. With no stat blocks, this becomes a real chore, as there is no prep time for the GM. The lack of a PC in-tier will only get more common with the narrow banded new scenarios. I join the chorus to say that this is a poor decision. Please don't do it!

[Tridus]

James Jacobs wrote:

Green Eyed Liar wrote:

I wish there were plans for occasional (biennial?) cohesive level 1-20 APs.

Just saying.

While we don't have any announcements for a single book 1st to 20th level Adventure Path... the first two Adventure Paths of next year, "Hellbreakers" and "Hell's Destiny" are designed to be parts 1 and 2 of a single larger story that lets you play the PCs from the 1st one in the 2nd one relatively seamlessly and that continues the overarching story. Hopefully this sort of two-part thematically linked offering will delight folks who have been waiting for another chance to start at 1st level and play all the way to 20th!

This feels like a good way to do it. I know why Paizo moved away from 1-20 adventures, but my group misses them. Two narratively coherent but otherwise distinct adventures recaptures some of that feel while meaning another group can just jump in for only one half if they want.

Also like the hardcover change! The APs I own are mostly hardcover reprints (Vaults, Ruby Phoenix) because I tend to only buy when we're finishing the one we're currently doing. Having a single volume more readily available will be a great change for my games!

[CorvusMask]

I guess there is still possibility for some kind of premium 1-20 hardcover book (or even going experimental and skipping some levels again whether thats 1-3 or some level skips between 1 and 20. *shrugs*), though 10 levels at once is probably better for lot of tables. I do still like having grand coherent 1-20 campaign even if it includes lot of sidetrips to fill space for 20 levels xD

[Driftbourne]

Arshean Ardent wrote:

Sooooo happy to hear this change! I hope Starfinder will take a similar model with adventures. I'm appreciating yall's flexibility!

Starfinder switched over to all hardcover APs before the end of SF1e

[Driftbourne]

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

shadowhntr7 wrote:

Chiming in to say I'm honestly not a fan of the PFS-side changes. Many times, a scenario feels too short and rushed as it is, with players leaving scratching their heads over what happened and whodunnit. Cutting out a quarter of the time not only means authors (and players) can invest less time in building a proper scene and story, but also players who like roleplaying and developing their characters have less time to do so.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but if a four-hour adventure becomes a three-hour adventure, wouldn't that leave more time for RP? (Assuming you'll still play for four hours.)

That's exactly my experience. Not necessarily tied to the length, but if the length fits the time slot. There's nothing worse for roleplaying opportunities than rushing through a scenario to finish before the store closes. I've played in some 1-hour bounties that ended up having some great roleplay moments. Given there is time for it, how much roleplaying happens is also greatly dependent on the players.

I was worried that shorter scenarios would impact the story, but having played some of the new shorter SF2e scenarios, I think the new length is fine. Telling longer stories is what meta plots are for. I'm hoping we get more mini plots too, that take 2 or more scenarios to tell.