|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is always intriguing to me when I find myself having the opposite opinion from the majority of posters.
For the hardcover AP thing, I thought directly about negative impacts that I have already talked about in the dedicated thread and will not repeat here.
And for the PFS thing, I see many benefits.
In fact, what struck me most when reading the blogpost and then the negative comments is how strongly it made me think of a paradigm change, just like going from PF1 to the PF2 playtest was.
In fact, I now believe this is PFS actually adapting to the PF2 paradigm and trying to tackle all of PFS' current big problems.
Single level band is just common sense as far as PF2 is concerned. Just look at all the posts warning GMs away from mixed level parties.
I just wish they avoided the lvl3-4 band as that is where there is a significant difference of power between 2 levels because of the Striking runes.
Shorter, tighter scenarios ? Yes, please. I have been playing PFS almost exclusively since PF2 started. I think I can count on a single hand the times when we did not exceed the famed 4 hours, sometimes by a wide margin.
And in exchange for all this, we will have more scenarios available every year. YES. This is a huge upside. It will definitely help PCs reach required levels faster.
What most intrigues me is the 6 PCs baseline, when it is the uppest limit on table size IME, and the Easier mode in addition to this.
I feel this might be some cunning playing on PF2's encounter budget so that you can adapt a scenario to another party size just by changing the level band.
We'll see.
And if this change ends up being a wrong move, as so many predict, I am sure PFS will quickly see the light and adapt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before: these decisions and the way you're talking sound a lot like people at big conventions with lots of tables & lots of GMs solving their own problems with zero regard whatsoever for how it's going to impact small groups that don't have those kinds of numbers.
I mean sure but for most of my ten years as a player and organizer I'd often GM at venues where there were two to three players.
That's the fundamental problem. I just don't think people like hearing that the solution to a lot of problems they're having is oOoOO sweet merciful heavens so much work. So much work.
And on top of that don't run a specific scenario if your player base can't play it. I'm not sure how this is a problem that wasn't an issue before this change nor do I wonder why talking to your players wasn't a solution.
FWIW I GM my PF2 Kingmaker campaign on a table but I mostly use my phone to go and get the stats for opponents, rather than peruse the HUGE book. It is pretty feasible IME.
Depends on the area and the reliability. I know in Gencon getting good reception is very hard at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if this change ends up being a wrong move, as so many predict, I am sure PFS will quickly see the light and adapt.
That makes one of us. ;-)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But seriously, with respect to PFS course-correcting, let's look at the $9 PFS scenario.
I recently bought Claws of the Tyrant for $20. 128 pages of AAA RPG adventures. Tons of great art, great custom trade dress, great editing. Custom maps. Very often a cool backstory, custom plot hooks, adventure tool box full of supporting material.
Meanwhile, look at your typical PFS scenario. $9 for ~20 pages. Consistently bad editing. Recycled mediocre trade dress. Probably a flip mat, lots of recycled art. Often a threadbare story. No supporting material.
But wait, one might say: the adventure sells many more copies. Economies of scale and all that. Of course they do! In fact, the whole point is that PFS scenarios are priced right out of the market that Paizo itself has had a very large hand in creating.
And so, as PFS continues to struggle to be "sustainable" in the wake of a comically ill-conceived price hike, what happens? Prices are increased *again*, of course! (Wait, sorry: the price is the same, just for less content; same difference.) Because surely this time it will fix things!
And so I do not have much optimism with respect to PFS decision making. The hubris is too strong. In fact, it brings to mind an old saying: There are two ways to learn: The easy way, and the not-so-easy way. At least as far as PFS is concerned, Paizo seems absolutely wedded to the not-so-easy way.
And yes, I know: more flies with honey than with vinegar. But at some point exasperation is the only appropriate response.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shorter, tighter scenarios ? Yes, please. I have been playing PFS almost exclusively since PF2 started. I think I can count on a single hand the times when we did not exceed the famed 4 hours, sometimes by a wide margin.
One hand? This might be a group problem. I can count on one hand the number of times we went over. My FLGS closes at our 4 hour mark. If the game is running over we have to end it early. This is not an issue we have had consistently. We don't speed through things, we do light RP, and we aren't better than anyone else in combat.
Online too we can keep scenarios in their allotted time or less. Your experience sounds like an extreme outlier. Yes, there are bad ones. "Devil in the Details" and "Twice in Steel" are recent standouts of badly measured scenarios, and there are others, but it isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. You might need to tell your group to RP less and to tighten up their turns, because that is not a normal experience.And if this change ends up being a wrong move, as so many predict, I am sure PFS will quickly see the light and adapt.
I too want to believe this, but there is some grave examples to the contrary. The irregular and too infrequent erratas, Korakai still being broken, and STILL not hearing from corporate about any of our concerns. Paizo is not engaging with its community more than some surveys (Excluding Jacobs).
I'll believe they can adapt quickly when I see it.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But seriously, with respect to PFS course-correcting, let's look at the $9 PFS scenario.
I recently bought Claws of the Tyrant for $20. 128 pages of AAA RPG adventures. Tons of great art, great custom trade dress, great editing. Custom maps. Very often a cool backstory, custom plot hooks, adventure tool box full of supporting material.
Meanwhile, look at your typical PFS scenario. $9 for ~20 pages. Consistently bad editing. Recycled mediocre trade dress. Probably a flip mat, lots of recycled art. Often a threadbare story. No supporting material.
So you do know Paizo severely undercharges for certain PDFs and quite honestly all you have done is point out that they really should charge more for the $20.00 one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you do know Paizo severely undercharges for certain PDFs and quite honestly all you have done is point out that they really should charge more for the $20.00 one.
...which, even if true, changes nothing. The market is the market; PFS scenarios have to exist in it.
In a perfect world, that wouldn't be the case: PFS would be viewed by Paizo as a promotional tool, with the understanding that the value of PFS scenarios is difficult to quantify by looking at direct revenue alone. But, since Paizo seems determined to viewing PFS scenarios in purely economic terms, I believe it makes sense to point out that they are already not viable at $9. What better way to do that than by comparing them to Paizo's other products?
And now the size (3 hrs instead of 4), scope (no stat blocks), and utility (level ranges) of scenarios are all decreasing? Madness.
They may as well take PFS out behind the chemical shed and get it over with.
(╥﹏╥)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the AP change is broadly positive. But from a GM and organiser POV, the PFS2 changes are a step backwards.
I am ambivalent about the timing change as we don't have firm timing at our venue, but I dislike the loss of the appendices that we fought to include.
But the 1-2 level range, without the SFS2 changes that makes it work,is awful. Many people upthread have said it better, but I would ask whoever makes decisions on PFS to at least give the ability to make characters at 1, 3, 5 and 7 like SFS2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The SFS one went from $9 to $6 when they changed the length and level range for SFS2, hopefully the same will happen here.
That's great! I wasn't aware of that, and I completely agree: hopefully the same will happen here.
Though if that *is* the plan, leaving such critical information out of the announcement would be an...interesting choice (though not one that inspires confidence).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you do know Paizo severely undercharges for certain PDFs and quite honestly all you have done is point out that they really should charge more for the $20.00 one.But seriously, with respect to PFS course-correcting, let's look at the $9 PFS scenario.
I recently bought Claws of the Tyrant for $20. 128 pages of AAA RPG adventures. Tons of great art, great custom trade dress, great editing. Custom maps. Very often a cool backstory, custom plot hooks, adventure tool box full of supporting material.
Meanwhile, look at your typical PFS scenario. $9 for ~20 pages. Consistently bad editing. Recycled mediocre trade dress. Probably a flip mat, lots of recycled art. Often a threadbare story. No supporting material.
Or that's what we should expect for 20 dollars, so everything missing for about half stands out as a bad deal.
It is extremely hard to justify 3 hours of gaming for 9 dollars when you could buy three adventures of much higher quality from CotT instead. We can argue if CotT is too cheap and Paizo could have asked for more, but they didn't, and now we can compare a gorgeous 20 to an unappealing 9.And I'll agree with Sanwah and Bugleyman that is the price was 6 dollars for 3 hours and questionable editing it would be an easier pill to swallow. But at Bugleyman noted, if that was going to happen here it is a very important thing to have forgotten to tell us.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've mentioned elsewhere, but from the office of Expectation Management: Dead God's Hand is going to be a standalone adventure, NOT an Adventure Path. It'll be a bit longer than the standard 128 page standalone length, but not up to the 256 page Adventure Path length.
As a Society GM - If Organized Play is thinking about giving a Pathfinder Society metaplot the "Scoured Stars" compilation treatment, I would love to see Immortal Influence (season 6), Equal Exchanges (season 5) or Boundless Wonder (season 4) get it - particularly Equal Exchanges, which I think could benefit from a little extra material in the middle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you do know Paizo severely undercharges for certain PDFs and quite honestly all you have done is point out that they really should charge more for the $20.00 one....which, even if true, changes nothing. The market is the market; PFS scenarios have to exist in it.
In a perfect world, that wouldn't be the case: PFS would be viewed by Paizo as a promotional tool, with the understanding that the value of PFS scenarios is difficult to quantify by looking at direct revenue alone. But, since Paizo seems determined to viewing PFS scenarios in purely economic terms, I believe it makes sense to point out that they are already not viable at $9. What better way to do that than by comparing them to Paizo's other products?
And now the size (3 hrs instead of 4), scope (no stat blocks), and utility (level ranges) of scenarios are all decreasing? Madness.
They may as well take PFS out behind the chemical shed and get it over with.(╥﹏╥)
As someone who was involved deeply in planning a transition between venues in the last few months, a 3-hour scenario makes working with our venues infinitely easier, as more sites are going to be happy with watching a group of people eat up table real estate for 3 hours as opposed to 4-6 hours (especially places like taprooms, which actually seriously depend on table turnover to make money). And even game stores are closing at 8-9 PM on weekday nights now instead of 10 PM or later. A 3-hour scenario might seem shorter in terms of word count and page count, but in practice we've already had to cut down longer scenarios to fit that kind of time constraint in the real state of play over the last 2-3 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who was involved deeply in planning a transition between venues in the last few months, a 3-hour scenario makes working with our venues infinitely easier, as more sites are going to be happy with watching a group of people eat up table real estate for 3 hours as opposed to 4-6 hours (especially places like taprooms, which actually seriously depend on table turnover to make money). And even game stores are closing at 8-9 PM on weekday nights now instead of 10 PM or later. A 3-hour scenario might seem shorter in terms of word count and page count, but in practice we've already had to cut down longer scenarios to fit that kind of time constraint in the real state of play over the last 2-3 years.
Putting the economic arguments aside, to my mind this simply isn't the sort of change than can reasonably be made in the middle of an edition.
For instance, in order to make three hours slots work, are you just only ever going to schedule the newer, shorter scenarios? If so, you lose access to almost all of the campaign's six-plus years of existing content, which seems like a non-starter, at least for most folks. If not, your schedule still has to accommodate the longer scenarios...in which case I can't see how this is going to help. What am I missing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
all of these changes are good
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have feedback similar to others. I think many of the PFS changes will be problematic.
I like the change to a 3 hour format, but only if scenarios will have a reasonable optional section so that we can play to 4 hours (currently the optional encounter is a waste of time. Optional was much better in PF1 imo).
We already have short scenarios, they’re called quests! I don’t understand why people don’t like them. Will people also not like short 3 hour scenarios for the same reason? I don’t know.
Part of the problem with scenarios these days, is that they are all “4 hour scenarios”, but there is too much variation, I’ve had some scenarios last only 1.5 hours and others last the equivalent of 7 hours. There shouldn’t be that much variation. Why don’t you fix that first?? Are we going to have “3 hour” scenarios that last 5 hours or 1 hour?
I think having a single level band will be a real problem. In conventions, there’s always someone out of tier.
As a player, it’s like a combinatorics problem trying to schedule a convention where you play most of the time. If you’re going to do this, you also need to give us the ability, like in SF, to create higher level versions of our characters where we don’t have chronicles for them yet.
The easier/harder scenario adjustment, hopefully “easier” is written for 4 players. If you are worried about time and cost, why are you bothering with a “harder” version? Hardcore mode in PF1 was a failure and appeals to only 1% of the player base (most hardcore players are the only ones playing at high levels). If you’re worried about time and money, stop appealing to a small fraction of the player base, don’t bother with “harder” mode.
As mentioned by others, writing content for 6 players and then making a 4 player adjustment just didn’t work well in PF1. Why do it again? We already know the result.
In my opinion, you should try to make your CP adjustments simpler. I’ve seen some scenarios where the CP adjustment is just a nightmare, it’s trying to be too exact. It’s bad for GMs and it’s bad for writers, especially when you have different creatures coming in and out. Have a mook creature in the combat, and just add mook creatures as the CP increases. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Simple is best.
Having the stat blocks in the back of the scenario has been great. Reprinting stat blocks from Monster Core should be easy, copy/paste, why is this hard? It’s not like you’re printing more paper, it’s a PDF.
Last, $9 USD is a lot to pay for something that just promotes Pathfinder as a brand. I know it was a while ago, but it started off at $1.99 (and had 3 level bands!). Inflation, sure, but it’s a lot to pay. As you increase price, you’ll be getting few buyers and GMs will be looking to get it free. You should consider dropping the price substantially and giving out less scenarios for free to VCs, VLs, VAs. Free scenarios are the only reason why your leadership doesn’t care about price increases.
Lots of changes, maybe it’s too much too soon. Would have been good to see Starfinder roll it out first. If you’re going to roll out the SF changes, you need to roll out ALL of the changes to PFS as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the change to a 3 hour format, but only if scenarios will have a reasonable optional section so that we can play to 4 hours (currently the optional encounter is a waste of time. Optional was much better in PF1 imo).
Part of the problem with scenarios these days, is that they are all “4 hour scenarios”, but there is too much variation, I’ve had some scenarios last only 1.5 hours and others last the equivalent of 7 hours. There shouldn’t be that much variation. Why don’t you fix that first?? Are we going to have “3 hour” scenarios that last 5 hours or 1 hour?
Yeah this is the change I like. A lot of scenarios as it stands now don't fit into 4 hours unless you speed run them or just flat out cut stuff. Sometimes the scenario has a note saying "if you're low on time skip this" and sometimes it doesn't and I'm just picking something to cut without guidance.
I don't know how fast they assume a "standard" group is going when determining how much content can fit into 4 hours, but we run into issues with it a lot. Especially with new folks or folks who only play at the convention once a year and thus don't really know the rules. So the scenario itself being shorter gives us more time for that stuff and less chance of running out of time.
It's a hard thing to get right because groups don't run at the same speed, especially in an open format where people are coming and going. Hell, sometimes my AP players suddenly get fixated on something and we spend an entire game night on it when another group doing the same thing just says "yeah we do the thing, here's my roll" and it's done in 5 minutes. I love seeing them so invested but I can't predict when they're going to do that and I've been GMing for them for years.
Having some spare time in a 4 hour slot to let players chew on interesting situations a bit would be nice. It definitely beats "sorry there's no time to RP in this TTRPG, we need to move on."
I think having a single level band will be a real problem. In conventions, there’s always someone out of tier.
As a player, it’s like a combinatorics problem trying to schedule a convention where you play most of the time. If you’re going to do this, you also need to give us the ability, like in SF, to create higher level versions of our characters where we don’t have chronicles for them yet.
Yeah I hate this change. It's going to be a major hassle for us. I really don't understand why the SF2 change to character creation isn't coming along with it because that would help a lot and Paizo treating its own two games this differently is very strange.
From the outside looking in, it kind of smells like Not Invented Here Syndrome where the PFS folks don't like the ability to create characters at higher level and so we're not getting it despite getting other changes that in SFS can be made with the assumption you can do that in place.
The easier/harder scenario adjustment, hopefully “easier” is written for 4 players. If you are worried about time and cost, why are you bothering with a “harder” version? Hardcore mode in PF1 was a failure and appeals to only 1% of the player base (most hardcore players are the only ones playing at high levels). If you’re worried about time and money, stop appealing to a small fraction of the player base, don’t bother with “harder” mode.
As mentioned by others, writing content for 6 players and then making a 4 player adjustment just didn’t work well in PF1. Why do it again? We already know the result.
Agreed. The baseline should be 4 players. You can scale that up for more players by adding more enemies, which is generally pretty easy and plays well: having minions the PCs can blow up lets them feel powerful and makes the big enemy feel dangerous. Scaling down is generally more difficult, especially if you don't have extra enemies to remove. We know this from years of PF2 encounter design.
Like as soon as a scenario writer goes "oh a severe encounter for 6 players means I can put one really big enemy in", it's a miserable time for everyone: That's 180xp vs 120xp for the encounter budget, and if you dump 160 of it into one enemy you now have a +4 level enemy. Those fights are rarely fun at low level (which is where the overwhelming majority of PFS takes place given how hard it is to organize higher level games and how that's getting harder with narrower level bands) as that enemy can take players out very quickly and is extremely hard to land anything on. One of the biggest complaints you see in "new to PF2" threads on places like reddit is some new player playing a caster who runs into a boss monster at low level and feels like they can't actually land anything on it.
With 4 players that enemy is an extreme encounter and you can use the Weak template to scale it down, but that's a less than perfect tool. It'll take more adjustments for 5 players. Starting at 4 means it doesn't happen, and "if there's more players, add X of creature Y" is really easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will there be more repeatable scenarios then? What about boosting the level caps in PFS2E?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
No there has been no word about lots of repeatables.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
I mean, we're in what...year 7, and if I'm not mistaken I think there is one scenario for above level 12?
I'm fairly certain level 20 just isn't in the cards (but I'd love to be wrong; maybe a 2E seeker arc?).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
I mean, we're in what...year 7, and if I'm not mistaken I think there is one scenario for above level 12?
I'm fairly certain level 20 just isn't in the cards (but I'd love to be wrong; maybe a 2E seeker arc?).
Which is why I called it "if the madness takes you"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
No there has been no word about lots of repeatables.
The highest-level current adventure is What Walks Again (6-19, level 11-14). That one takes a solid 5-6 hours and would be impossible to schedule on a weekday night (to be fair, even before the current age of "everything rolls up their sidewalks between nine and ten," nothing was open till midnight on a weekday but diners and pizza delivery).
If I can schedule high-level adventures on weekdays, that's a win for me. And I am nowhere NEAR the only weekday VA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I called it "if the madness takes you"Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
I mean, we're in what...year 7, and if I'm not mistaken I think there is one scenario for above level 12?
I'm fairly certain level 20 just isn't in the cards (but I'd love to be wrong; maybe a 2E seeker arc?).
Sounds like we're on the same page, then. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Super excited for the single volume APs! But… hardcover? I like having physical copies to flip through, but I go digital over hardcovers. The paperback option of pocket editions is one reason I pick up PF2 over some other systems, and I decided to run Dooms *because* it was a single paperback and I loved that.
All of that said, the post wording left me with the question: Why are hardcovers easier to reprint? I’ve always seen paperback as preferred for reprints.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of that said, the post wording left me with the question: Why are hardcovers easier to reprint? I’ve always seen paperback as preferred for reprints.
I don't think a single hardcover is easier to reprint than a single paperback. The comparison here is that a single hardcover is easier to reprint than 3 paperbacks that may not sell in equal quantities. That's also true if they first have to be reformatted into a single book (as was done with Abomination Vaults, Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, and Gatewalkers).
If they're already in single book format going forward, a reprint doesn't require any alterations to the interior of the book. Just order another run and go. It should mean reprints of popular APs are easier in the future.
As for hardcover vs paperback... I don't know how those decisions get made but I prefer hardcovers personally for a 200+ page book so I'm happy about that part.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of that said, the post wording left me with the question: Why are hardcovers easier to reprint? I’ve always seen paperback as preferred for reprints.
Because it's a single product that goes out of print, rather than 3 products that go out of print at different times. And because it being a single product makes it easier to reprint (since you reprint ONE thing and not THREE things). And because stores and distributors are more eager to buy hardcover products because they look better on shelves. And because the bigger a book gets, the less structurally sound it becomes if it remains softcover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
No there has been no word about lots of repeatables.
The highest-level current adventure is What Walks Again (6-19, level 11-14). That one takes a solid 5-6 hours and would be impossible to schedule on a weekday night (to be fair, even before the current age of "everything rolls up their sidewalks between nine and ten," nothing was open till midnight on a weekday but diners and pizza delivery).
If I can schedule high-level adventures on weekdays, that's a win for me. And I am nowhere NEAR the only weekday VA.
I admit my group was critting like crazy in this scenario, but it wasn't even 4 hours for us.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit my group was critting like crazy in this scenario, but it wasn't even 4 hours for us.Boosting? If we are lucky they won't lower the level cap.
Bad jokes aside there is no level cap is PFS. The limit is what is playable. Like there are no scenarios for level 15. We could call this a level cap but that wouldn't be entirely correct. You can, if the madness takes you, put AP credits on a character till they are level 20.
No there has been no word about lots of repeatables.
The highest-level current adventure is What Walks Again (6-19, level 11-14). That one takes a solid 5-6 hours and would be impossible to schedule on a weekday night (to be fair, even before the current age of "everything rolls up their sidewalks between nine and ten," nothing was open till midnight on a weekday but diners and pizza delivery).
If I can schedule high-level adventures on weekdays, that's a win for me. And I am nowhere NEAR the only weekday VA.
When you get a lot of crits, it wraps up fights real fast. Granted this is a new scenario as well so variability is going to be higher right now - but I've also seen people struggle to fit it into (and go over) a 5-hour convention slot, so we've got a variability on that scenario's length right now of more than an hour and a half.
Right now I have 2 sites that I'm responsible for - one has a drop deadline of 9 PM (so we start at 6 to get 3 solid hours in) and one has a "the workers would like us to get out so they can go home" time of 10 PM (so 3.5 hours with our usual start time of 6:30). 6-19 cannot fit in the first site and in the second site we MIGHT be able to run it but would be realllllllll compressed unless people were critting like it's Critsmas.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already have short scenarios, they’re called quests! I don’t understand why people don’t like them. Will people also not like short 3 hour scenarios for the same reason? I don’t know.
Doubtful.
I did not enjoy playing quests that much because they took us an evening of play, ie roughly the same as a scenario, but gave you only 2 XPs vs a scenario's 4 XPs.
ROI divided by half.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I serious think your group is an outlier. You are telling me the group cannot complete Swordlord's Challenge, Elsewhere Feast, Footsteps of Horror, or Winter Queen's Dollhouse in less than 2 hours. It staggers rationality. Surely you jest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I LOVE hardcover adventures! So I'm a big fan of the AP changes!
Maybe I'm over looking it, but I'm assuming our Adventure Path subscriptions carry over to this new format as well and don't need anything done on our end to do so?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I serious think your group is an outlier. You are telling me the group cannot complete Swordlord's Challenge, Elsewhere Feast, Footsteps of Horror, or Winter Queen's Dollhouse in less than 2 hours. It staggers rationality. Surely you jest.
Not sure we did those, but I recall quite vividly that, when playing my first Quests, I was a bit upset at having devoted my evening to PFS for half the usual XPs.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still radio silence from the powers that be on the (overwhelmingly negative) feedback on the (overwhelmingly unpopular) Society changes.
I wish I could say I’m surprised. :-/
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I LOVE hardcover adventures! So I'm a big fan of the AP changes!
Maybe I'm over looking it, but I'm assuming our Adventure Path subscriptions carry over to this new format as well and don't need anything done on our end to do so?
I asked the same question further up the thread, and was told "yes".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I serious think your group is an outlier. You are telling me the group cannot complete Swordlord's Challenge, Elsewhere Feast, Footsteps of Horror, or Winter Queen's Dollhouse in less than 2 hours. It staggers rationality. Surely you jest.Not sure we did those, but I recall quite vividly that, when playing my first Quests, I was a bit upset at having devoted my evening to PFS for half the usual XPs.
I didn't list them all, but those are a few, including the first of series 2 which got a lot of attention. I am assuming you played series 2 because you have been consistent about 2xp. I haven't played all those, and two I have played I only played once, so I can't speak for all of them, but you are saying you could count on one hand how many end at time, and from my experience thats just hard to fathom. For at least Swordlord's Challenge, Elsewhere Feast, Footsteps of Horror, or Winter Queen's Dollhouse, and Escort a Mirage I know these are fast. I have limited experience with Tanuki Troubles, but we kept it under. To the best of my knowledge, only Lacking Respect has time problems, and thats three hours, not four, which is still overtime, but not a whole scenario bad. Just regular bad.
All that is to say I don't know what is happening at your tables, but it smells like an outlier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked the same question further up the thread, and was told "yes".I LOVE hardcover adventures! So I'm a big fan of the AP changes!
Maybe I'm over looking it, but I'm assuming our Adventure Path subscriptions carry over to this new format as well and don't need anything done on our end to do so?
Thanks for the reply! I was digging and couldn't find the answer haha!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still radio silence from the powers that be on the (overwhelmingly negative) feedback on the (overwhelmingly unpopular) Society changes.
I wish I could say I’m surprised. :-/
Exactly :(
As things stand right now, if they haven't changed course or -at very least- addressed the many valid concerns in in a satisfactory fashion, I am seriously considering ending my PFS play once these changes hit. Which is not an easy decision to make, as I've been playing since late PF1 Season 1.
However, as has been mentioned upthread, not only has there been nothing whatsoever said in response to our feedback, these changes were shoved at us without asking us, the players. Add to that the increased costs of scenarios, books, etc. The consistently poor editting and proofreading that leaves players and GMs alike scratching their heads, the widely variable play times... it feels too much like the people in charge are doing this for money, not for the love of the game- which is why I even started Pathfinder in the first place.
Could we, perhaps, have a public poll set up so that the players themselves can vote for which changes they would like to bring to the system? I have to imagine the majority of people on this site and reading the news are long-term Pathfinders like myself. Who better to get feedback from than the ones affected? There are some people here who like at least parts of the planned changes, let those who drive PFS speak up and find what is best for the majority.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have not had the chance to read all the above comments, but have scrolled through them. When I see these changes, all that I can think of is that Paizo has decided to hire some type of a management consultant who does not understand gaming in any way (or at least I hope so since the PFS change to a 2 tier system is going to really mess up gaming and only makes sense to me from a consultant who has decided that it will save a few hours having 2 levels instead of 4).
I have run a few scenarios, I am at about 210 games of PFS2 run at this point. We have a game at a local store which started with 3-4 players about 2 years ago. I ran every session for well over a year. We now finally have 3-5 GMs that run intermittently, which is a relief as running every week is tiring to say the least, and frequently have 2 and sometimes 3 tables.
The new 2 level scenarios create a system which makes it much more difficult to allow infrequent players to be able to play. At the store, we are usually running 2 and sometimes 3 tables once a week. With a 4 level/scenario range, we can have a 1-4 and a 3-6, or a 1-4 and a 5-8 or even 7-10. The 1-4 allows anyone newer to play, and also allows those infrequent players who have not leveled up a lot to play. It also allows anyone who does not have a character in another level range to be able to create a new level 1.
With the new ranges, we will either be running a 1-2 or a 3-4. For the high table, it will be a 5-6, or a 7-8, or a 9-10. So, if I want to run a high game, say a 9-10, then everyone who does not have a very high level character exactly in that level range is pretty much hosed, and either does not play that week, or has to play a 1-2, if one is running. This also has the effect of rather than 2 tables with 6 players in the high tier (say 2x7, 8, 2x9 and a 10), now you are either running a 9-10 with 3 players, or a 7-8 with 3 players (both hard core), but more importantly, if the 3 players want to play hard core, you have the additional problem of now having 9 players in the 1-2 table. Thus, unless a store is lucky enough to have extra GMs around, you are going to end up with 3 people not being able to play.
Regarding the removal of the stats blocks, which is a terrible idea (and really sounds like it came from a management consultant). If Paizo does not want to pay to print them on paper, that is their choice, but including them on a PDF, or as a separate PDF is a minimal cost since it should just be cut and paste from the monster core. When I run, I print all the monster stat blocks on paper so that I can have them in front of me. With rare occasions, most fights are at most 2 pages (if it is 3, then usually his is high points, so one page is not used), which are easy to flip through. If we don't have them at the end then, either I am flipping through 5 different pages on Archives of Nethys (for each fight which REALLY slows things down), or am scrolling through multiple pages (and books) of the bestiaries, NPC Core, etc, each time, or I have to spend extensive time prepping them (which probably adds 20-30 minutes to my prep time) by printing each monster from each encounter (which also is going to waste tons of paper since currently there are 2-4 monsters on each page).
In the end, if one of the "goals" of these changes is to shorten the playing time, by removing the stat blocks from the end is going to INCREASE the amount of time I take to run a scenario, and the extra time is not going to be fun role playing, but instead, it is going to be re-pulling up a webpage or PDF that I accidentally closed.
Unlike some people above, I do not plan on stopping playing or running, however, I may well cut back on how often I do run. The AP stuff is irrelevant to me, but the changes to the scenarios (both the 2 level range and the elimination of the stat blocks) is a terrible idea.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still radio silence from the powers that be on the (overwhelmingly negative) feedback on the (overwhelmingly unpopular) Society changes.
I wish I could say I’m surprised. :-/
Exactly :(
As things stand right now, if they haven't changed course or -at very least- addressed the many valid concerns in in a satisfactory fashion, I am seriously considering ending my PFS play once these changes hit. Which is not an easy decision to make, as I've been playing since late PF1 Season 1.
However, as has been mentioned upthread, not only has there been nothing whatsoever said in response to our feedback, these changes were shoved at us without asking us, the players. Add to that the increased costs of scenarios, books, etc. The consistently poor editting and proofreading that leaves players and GMs alike scratching their heads, the widely variable play times... it feels too much like the people in charge are doing this for money, not for the love of the game- which is why I even started Pathfinder in the first place.
Could we, perhaps, have a public poll set up so that the players themselves can vote for which changes they would like to bring to the system? I have to imagine the majority of people on this site and reading the news are long-term Pathfinders like myself. Who better to get feedback from than the ones affected? There are some people here who like at least parts of the planned changes, let those who drive PFS speak up and find what is best for the majority.
Paizo learned long ago, the hard way, not to come and debate with irate posters.
This is not the first time this happens and it will surely not be the last time either.
Does not mean they don't read the posts though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do read the posts. Even if we don't reply to all of them. Please keep giving feedback, and know we are listening. Hopefully we'll be able to give an update soon but for now all I can ask is for folks to be patient and continue giving feedback in as moderate and well-reasoned a way as possible. Getting combative and insulting and antagonistic due to fear and frustration is understandable—it's a passionate topic, after all!—but it's somewhat counterproductive.
Please be patient. We are listening and considering.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Mr. Jacobs but seeing is believing and this was just posted.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo71fj6?September-2025-Organized-Pla y-Monthly-Update
The opinion is practically one sided on the PFS2 changes, but we are being ignored. Its worse they read, no one could be bothered to respond, and ignore feedback to continue unaltered. Not even acknowledging there has been feedback.
This is getting absurd.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After some thought, I dont hate the AP changes as much as I did initially. I dont like what i see as a lack of engagement between AP releases. Having AP volumes every month kept me more "in the loop" on what was going on. Now i think ill be surprused when someting comes out.
I have no opinion on PFS.
-Skeld
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
After some thought, I dont hate the AP changes as much as I did initially. I dont like what i see as a lack of engagement between AP releases. Having AP volumes every month kept me more "in the loop" on what was going on. Now i think ill be surprused when someting comes out.
I have no opinion on PFS.
-Skeld
Having APs be hardcovers that are self-contained will, in theory, also make it easier for us to promote and preview and build anticipation for them as events too, which should help foster more engagement and excitement (not sure if this is what you're speaking to, specifically, but it's something that I feel like we could do better at, and having them be hardcovers should help us there).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having APs be hardcovers that are self-contained will, in theory, also make it easier for us to promote and preview and build anticipation for them as events too, which should help foster more engagement and excitement (not sure if this is what you're speaking to, specifically, but it's something that I feel like we could do better at, and having them be hardcovers should help us there).After some thought, I dont hate the AP changes as much as I did initially. I dont like what i see as a lack of engagement between AP releases. Having AP volumes every month kept me more "in the loop" on what was going on. Now i think ill be surprused when someting comes out.
I have no opinion on PFS.
-Skeld
I hope that you're able to market them more and get added engagement. The forums here are still my main source of info on what's happening because I've abandoned (or never adopted) most of the social media you guys are using (I'm not knocking you for it, it's just the facts of my individual situation). I do see the occasional trailer on youtube, but that's about it. That's probably not very common, but I don't have the insight into the marketing that you guys do.
Regardless, the idea single hardcover idea has grown on me.
-Skeld
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the thing is, when someone tells you they're reading and having internal discussions about it, you still don't believe them. Things like this take time to adjust, and make sure they address things the way that work best for everyone. As James asked, just have a little bit of patience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the thing is, when someone tells you they're reading and having internal discussions about it, you still don't believe them.Has anyone said that? If so, please link it so I can decide how much I actually believe it. If not, why bring it up?
???
It's the seventh post above yours (by James Jacobs)...|
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup; the timing of my post was awkward since a different blog post came out shortly after, but keep in mind that blog posts aren't written day and date minutes before they're posted to the site—folks ARE listening and considering and having internal discussions but still don't have anything to report yet, hence my request for patience. The changeover is months ahead of us still (next January). But since I'm not personally involved much in the org play side of things (spinning all the standalone adventures, Adventure Paths, special projects, and other stuff focused on the print side of the narrative team is more than enough to keep me busy) I can't personally speak to the details over there is all.
So... yeah, keep letting us know your feedback, but also please continue to be patient as well.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup; the timing of my post was awkward since a different blog post came out shortly after, but keep in mind that blog posts aren't written day and date minutes before they're posted to the site—folks ARE listening and considering and having internal discussions but still don't have anything to report yet, hence my request for patience. The changeover is months ahead of us still (next January). But since I'm not personally involved much in the org play side of things (spinning all the standalone adventures, Adventure Paths, special projects, and other stuff focused on the print side of the narrative team is more than enough to keep me busy) I can't personally speak to the details over there is all.
So... yeah, keep letting us know your feedback, but also please continue to be patient as well.
We appreciate your activity in these commments too!