|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m writing this in response to both the recent changes in SFS and the recently announced changes coming to PFS.
At the risk of being patronizing, organized play is marketing. Marketing is traditionally viewed as a cost center. Expecting OP scenarios to earn a profit is like expecting advertisements to turn a profit – not by driving sales – but in and of themselves. Imagine if Anheuser-Busch expected this year’s Superbowl ad to turn a profit; not by driving beer sales, but directly, as if they expected people to pay to watch the ad. That is, in effect, what you currently expect of organized play scenarios.
To be fair, organized play scenarios looks very much like your other adventure products. They need writers, editors, play testers; art, layout, and trade dress. Because of this, you have fallen into the trap of expecting them to earn a profit like your other adventure products. This is mistaken. That is not what they are for. They exist to hook people you otherwise wouldn’t have reached. And in my experience, they work.
Now, I do understand that the promotional value of OP is difficult to quantify (as is often the case with marketing, as opposed to say, sales), but the fact remains that trying to treat it like a profit center is misguided. And even if it weren’t, your current practice of charging $9 for a four (soon to be two to three) hour scenario is fundamentally flawed, because you have priced scenarios too high in comparison to both the larger market and your own non-OP adventures. They are so overpriced, in fact, that you have almost certainly decreased overall revenue (please take a moment to Google “price elasticity of demand” – seriously). The recently announced move to shrink scenarios is effectively the third price increase in a handful of years. Prices increases didn’t work the last two times...why do you think the third time will be the charm?
In short, not only are you are pursuing a mistaken objective (make OP scenario profitable), you’re doing so in a fundamentally flawed manner, as you’ve priced yourself out of the market.
What you're doing now to make PFS "sustainable" isn't working. Perhaps instead of tripling down on higher prices and less content, it's time to change course. Keep the current 4-hour scenario length. Keep the wider level bands. Keep the statblocks. Find a way to continue sanctioning Starfinder adventures (HMM make an excellent suggestion for how to accomplish this). Finally, drop the price of PFS scenarios back down to a level where they represent reasonable value (~$5). Trust that the promotional value justifies the associated costs, even if you struggle to directly measure it. Or don’t...but in that case, what exactly is the point of OP, anyway?
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, in my opinion you might want to question your assumptions—I don't think the changes are meant to make Org Play scenarios "profitable."
Honestly, assuming they lose money (I don't know that for a fact but I agree with your logic), I don't even think the changes are to make the scenarios lose less money.
Which undercuts the core of your argument.
It doesn't really sound patronizing, it honestly kinda just sounds clueless.
(To be clear, I don't necessarily even like the changes, which is something I have made known. But I think your basic assumptions here are very misplaced.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, in my opinion you might want to question your assumptions—I don't think the changes are meant to make Org Play scenarios "profitable."
Honestly, assuming they lose money (I don't know that for a fact but I agree with your logic), I don't even think the changes are to make the scenarios lose less money.
Which undercuts the core of your argument.
It doesn't really sound patronizing, it honestly kinda just sounds clueless.
(To be clear, I don't necessarily even like the changes, which is something I have made known. But I think your basic assumptions here are very misplaced.)
Wow; now that is not a reply I was expecting!
Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost). These changes, coupled with the fact that they have NOT dropped the price of scenarios correspondingly, make it hard for me to see said changes as anything other than largely financial.
Do I 100% know that? I do not, but I encourage you to read some of the older blog posts, especially this one about "pricing and sustainability," which is clearly about the bottom line. With respect, as someone all too familiar business-speak, that blog post alone makes it plainly evident that PFS, over the last few years at least, has been managed primarily by spreadsheet -- which is having the effect of drowning it in a bathtub. :-(
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost).
This is exactly what I mean about questioning your assumptions, though. To my knowledge, the change to 2-3 hours was because people have been having trouble fitting scenarios in as venues have been closing earlier and earlier—and might I add, has been one of the most welcomed changes. Like I said, for me, don't love it, but it is what it is... And to be fair makes them easier to run because I don't have to block out 5-6 hours of my day.
And removing stat blocks... Is it about saving money, or about reallocating resources? Because in exchange for people not having to format and proofread stat block appendices, we get two scenarios per month. Again, I don't necessarily love the change, because it's going to make things a bit more annoying to prepare and run. But on balance, I can see why the team saw stat block appendices as lower value.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are some big issues (narrower level bands being the main one), but I think you're fundamentally barking up the wrong tree here and it doesn't come
across like you know something Paizo doesn't—quite the opposite, in fact.
|
|
Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost).This is exactly what I mean about questioning your assumptions, though. To my knowledge, the change to 2-3 hours was because people have been having trouble fitting scenarios in as venues have been closing earlier and earlier—and might I add, has been one of the most welcomed changes. Like I said, for me, don't love it, but it is what it is... And to be fair makes them easier to run because I don't have to block out 5-6 hours of my day.
And removing stat blocks... Is it about saving money, or about reallocating resources? Because in exchange for people not having to format and proofread stat block appendices, we get two scenarios per month. Again, I don't necessarily love the change, because it's going to make things a bit more annoying to prepare and run. But on balance, I can see why the team saw stat block appendices as lower value.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are some big issues (narrower level bands being the main one), but I think you're fundamentally barking up the wrong tree here and it doesn't come
across like you know something Paizo doesn't—quite the opposite, in fact.
Fair enough, but I guess I don't see any difference between "saving money" and "reallocating resources"; those seem like different ways to say the same thing. But perhaps I've just sat in one too many corporate meetings... :-)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you have priced scenarios too high in comparison to both the larger market and your own non-OP adventures. They are so overpriced, in fact, that you have almost certainly decreased overall revenue (please take a moment to Google “price elasticity of demand” – seriously). The recently announced move to shrink scenarios is effectively the third price increase in a handful of years. Prices increases didn’t work the last two times...why do you think the third time will be the charm?
I don't know how you can make any of these claims without proprietary Paizo sales data.
Do you know they've made less money selling fewer units on a higher priced product than they would have selling more units on a lower priced product? It's possible that Paizo itself doesn't know that, so it's very unclear why you're so sure.
Did price increases not work the last two times? I don't know why you just state that like a fact.
But, perhaps, most controversially,
organized play is marketing
I question whether this is fundamentally true. Sure, it started off as marketing, 15+ years ago. Does it still function that way?
Put another way: of all the players that come to PF2 now, what percentage of them come in through PFS2? Does PFS actually bring in new players? If there's some quantitation of the value of a new player (like the likelihood they by the Player Cores, multiplied by the profit on a book), how does that compare to the purported loss on the scenario?
This next part is simply my personal speculation, but I think the "golden era" of PF2 is over. A lot of people heard about it when it first came out, and maybe over the next 4-5 years, I'd always hear people saying "I've been wanting to try that!" And in general, Society play was a great way to invite people. That interest has really dropped in the past 1-2 years. It's not the game everyone's been waiting to try, any more. So, in that context, if Paizo / Org Play (I always consider them the same, even if everyone gets huffy about conflating them) wants to just admit that PFS isn't a loss leader, that they're no longer willing to take a significant loss on the products, I understand that.
Keep the current 4-hour scenario length. Keep the wider level bands. Keep the statblocks.
I've commented on this in the main thread, but one of these is going to affect players far more than the other two. The 3-hour scenario change is mildly positive IMO, and the statblock change is pretty neutral.
The 2-level bands is really the only thing worth complaining about. It's pretty strongly negative for low- and medium-volume players, and will require players to have far more characters in their stable than the 4-level bands, or everyone just has to play pregens, which sucks.
|
|
Regarding stat blocks: Has Paizo said that they're removing stat blocks entirely, or just that there won't be appendices for them anymore? The changes I've heard about sound like they will be switching to something very close to (perhaps even identical to?) the new model that Season 1 of Starfinder Society 2E is using. Those scenarios DO include all necessary stat blocks, but they're presented in the main text because the change to two-level tiers means that the authors no longer need to design two full sets of stat blocks for a single adventure. (The awkwardness of having those multiple subtiers of stats in-line is why they moved them to appendices in the first place.)
Granted, the Starfinder Alien Core book hasn't yet come out, so it might be possible that once it has, adventures using those monsters might simply get a citation rather than a stat block (as they did in early seasons of 1E PFS and still do in APs). If that's the case, then I will be very disappointed, as it will require more prep by the GM (having the necessary book(s) handy, keeping links to AoN open during play, or printing/copying the relevant bestiary pages to keep with the adventure).
Venture-Lieutenant, Conventions—PaizoCon
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add to things;
4 hours can be pretty taxing on a lot of GMs, plus if you run in a game store, store close times are an outside factor to take into account.
Players may be able to play 4+ hours, but I as a GM, have only so much extra energy. I start flagging the last hour of 4 hour+ scenarios, and I frankly hate splitting session of Society games. It's not worth it to me.
I mean, hell, if you play in a public space on a weekend, you could get 2 scenarios in for the time an old, longer running one took. If we're talking purely from a "I want as much Society XP as possible", that's doubling your XP in 6ish hours time.
The lower run time doesn't preclude the scenario fitting in a good plot. Longer run time doesn't always mean the scenario story is impactful in some cases.
Also, dropping the stat blocks may not neccessarily be shrinkflation. Have you considered that Society scenarios generally have an allocated number of pages to a scenario. What if you got more plot, encounters or fun skill challenges in exchange for those statblock pages?
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding stat blocks: Has Paizo said that they're removing stat blocks entirely, or just that there won't be appendices for them anymore? The changes I've heard about sound like they will be switching to something very close to (perhaps even identical to?) the new model that Season 1 of Starfinder Society 2E is using. Those scenarios DO include all necessary stat blocks, but they're presented in the main text because the change to two-level tiers means that the authors no longer need to design two full sets of stat blocks for a single adventure. (The awkwardness of having those multiple subtiers of stats in-line is why they moved them to appendices in the first place.)
Granted, the Starfinder Alien Core book hasn't yet come out, so it might be possible that once it has, adventures using those monsters might simply get a citation rather than a stat block (as they did in early seasons of 1E PFS and still do in APs). If that's the case, then I will be very disappointed, as it will require more prep by the GM (having the necessary book(s) handy, keeping links to AoN open during play, or printing/copying the relevant bestiary pages to keep with the adventure).
The initial adventures in SFS2 have all stat blocks included exactly because Alien Core has not come out and there was no book to cite. The intent is that creatures that are published in the relevant creature books (e.g. PF2 Monster Core, SF2 Alien Core, etc) will be cited and not have stat blocks included. This can already be seen in the scenarios of season 7 of PFS2, where the creature appendices for published creatures simply cite Monster Core.
(EDIT to add: if you've ever run or even read an AP or adventure module book, this is exactly how it works there. The removal of stat blocks of published creatures is conforming to the "AP format and workflow".)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate that many folks are skeptical about my assertions regarding Paizo expecting PFS scenarios to turn a profit. Please understand that I do not claim to have any special insight or insider information. It’s just that, to me, the signs seem crystal clear (sequential price hikes, talk of “sustainability,” etc.). Overall it’s a pattern of behavior and messaging that I’ve seen many times, both in my career and in higher education (I have an undergrad business degree).
But putting Paizo’s potential motivations aside for a moment, I want to talk about an experience I had yesterday. Before I do, I want to mention that while I only appear with one star as a 1E GM, if you click on my profile you’ll see that I’m actually a four star 1E GM, with a bit more than one hundred tables of credit. I’m also a 2 glyph 2E GM, with a table count in the low thirties. (No, I don’t know why my star count is busted. Yes, I’ve emailed customer service as well as posting on the boards s about it; no reply. I’ve given up on fixing it, and what's important to my point is how many tables I've actually run).
I really, really enjoying GMing; far more than I do playing, in fact. I especially like GMing PFS, because:
1. As a retired person, it gets me out of the house.
2. It gives me a chance to meet new people with whom I share a common interest.
3. I get a kick out of showing people a good time. If I walk away from a table I ran and I know everyone had fun, I feel genuinely happy.
So yesterday I ran a table (Lost Maid of Anactoria from season 2) at a FLGS in a neighboring city about 90 minutes from my house. I had a blast, and I think my players did, too (perhaps one of them might even chime in here). I'd like to look at how PFS has changed over the last few years – and how it will be changing again – through the lens of this experience.
First, we had a table made up of characters of levels 4, 5, and 6. The new scenario model simply wouldn’t have supported this table. The other table was folks in 1-2, meaning no matter what, someone would have been turned away under the the new, narrower level bands.
Second consider the stat blocks. I was traveling, and other than the physical bits (GM screen, combat pad, dice, maps, etc.), I brought with me only my 2019 CRB. Had stat blocks not been included in the scenario, I would have to also brought Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2, tripling the amount of hardbacks I had to carry, not to mention find space for at the table (which in a crowded gaming store that was also hosting a Pokemon tournament would have been difficult to say the least). And even if there were space, there is the inconvenience of having to switch between books for the stat blocks in an encounter, or sometimes even having to reference two monsters in the same book at once, which means constantly flipping back and forth. To borrow a phrase from the forward to the AD&D 2e PHB, that would be “physically and intellectually unwieldy.”
Third was the price of the scenario, which in this case was $6. Back in the 1E days, PFS scenarios were $3 (that is to say clearly priced as a loss-leader), so when the local VO wanted me to run something, I’d just buy it without a second thought and I was off and running. Later, after the price was hiked multiple times, ultimately to $9 (which as I have pointed out is terrible value compared to Paizo’s other products; but I digress), I transition to running only scenarios which I already owned, or that the VO was able to provide in hard copy (which I don’t do often, because it very frequently means a separate trip to go and pick up said hard copy if I want sufficient prep time). So in this case, if I hadn’t already owned an appropriate scenario? The table simply doesn't happen.
Taken together, the PFS GMing experience has simply gotten progressively worse over the last few years, and is poised to get worse still. So much worse, in fact, that if I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to conclude that Paizo is actively trying to discourage PFS GMs...a situation which seems genuinely crazy considering that PFS GMs are volunteering to essentially demo Paizo's flagship product line.
The foolish price point and narrowed level bands I can probably work around much of the time (although I don’t really feel I should *have* to), but not including stat blocks will actually be a complete deal killer for me – I will simply stop GMing FPS altogether. And since I prefer GMing to playing, that really means I’ll simply stop participating in PFS altogether. Finally, since I’d no longer be participating in PFS, I’d move on to other systems, which would very likely mean the Pathfinder 2E campaign I’m currently running (Seven Dooms for Sandpoint) would be my last. Kinda a network effect, if you will.
Am I *that* atypical? I’m not sure, though several PFS GMs in other threads have said they will also leave PFS behind if the changes go through as planned, and many others have said they will give leaving serious though. To me, driving off any non-trivial number of volunteers means you that you done f*cked up. YMMV, of course. ;-)
I am not trying to pick a fight with Paizo staff. I am not complaining for fun, or to make myself look clever. I am simply trying to preserve a thing that I enjoy because I believe it is at risk of being mismanaged into oblivion.
|
|
Also, dropping the stat blocks may not neccessarily be shrinkflation. Have you considered that Society scenarios generally have an allocated number of pages to a scenario. What if you got more plot, encounters or fun skill challenges in exchange for those statblock pages?
Given that scenarios are now going to run 2-3 hours, rather than 4, I don't see how that could really be the case -- especially since we're talking about PDF products, where page count itself has no marginal cost (and so they could have included those things without cutting the stat blocks).
I'll be glad if I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The entirely trajectory of PFS over the several years has just felt too much like cost-cutting.
|
|
This can already be seen in the scenarios of season 7 of PFS2, where the creature appendices for published creatures simply cite Monster Core.
I was not aware of that; I thought dropping stat blocks was a forthcoming change. That it has already happened is very unfortunate. And will become more unfortunate once Monster Core 2 is out (not to mention whatever might come afterward).
I suppose it also means I'm just spitting into the wind with this entire thread... :-(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, dropping the stat blocks may not neccessarily be shrinkflation. Have you considered that Society scenarios generally have an allocated number of pages to a scenario. What if you got more plot, encounters or fun skill challenges in exchange for those statblock pages?Given that scenarios are now going to run 2-3 hours, rather than 4, I don't see how that could really be the case -- especially since we're talking about PDF products, where page count itself has no marginal cost (and so they could have included those things without cutting the stat blocks).
I'll be glad if I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The entirely trajectory of PFS over the several years has just felt too much like cost-cutting.
The shorter run time is not about cutting costs; it's about a lot of game stores not staying open as late as they used to on week nights. There's nothing fun about the GM having to hand handwave all the exploration to have enough time for combat. In Arizona, there is nothing fun about having to finish the game and filling out chronicles in a parking lot when it's 110 degrees outside.
Paizo has had to deal with the pandemic, tariffs, and now the Diamond bankruptcy. Paizo also unionised, which I think is a good thing, but that had a cost too. All of that adds up in the cost of making the game.
I'm not a fan of the idea of removing stat blocks, but I don't think it's to save space in a PDF. I think (a wild guess) it's more about simplifying the creation and editing process. The chance of making a mistake when referencing a stat block in a Bestary is very low compared to copying it into an adventure or scenario.
|
|
The shorter run time is not about cutting costs; it's about a lot of game stores not staying open as late as they used to on week nights. There's nothing fun about the GM having to hand handwave all the exploration to have enough time for combat. In Arizona, there is nothing fun about having to finish the game and filling out chronicles in a parking lot when it's 110 degrees outside.
Are you basing that on anything in particular? Because as far as I can see, that argument doesn't really hold water unless all of seasons 1-6 are discard, rendering at least ~80% of existing PFS content unusable, as it won't fit in a 3 hr slot. That just doesn't seem realistic for most groups. YMMV, I guess.
BTW, I'm also in AZ. We may even know each other...
Paizo has had to deal with the pandemic, tariffs, and now the Diamond bankruptcy. Paizo also unionised, which I think is a good thing, but that had a cost too. All of that adds up in the cost of making the game.
I'm not a fan of the idea of removing stat blocks, but I don't think it's to save space in a PDF. I think (a wild guess) it's more about simplifying the creation and editing process. The chance of making a mistake when referencing a stat block in a Bestary is very low compared to copying it into an adventure or scenario.
Ok, now I'm a little confused, because you started by making the argument that the forthcoming switch to shorter scenarios wasn't about cost...but then went on to talk specifically about factors that have increased Paizo's costs. And isn't "simplifying the creation process" really just another way of saying cost-cutting? It certainly seems like it to me.
It could also be a combination of factors; the truth is we'll never know for sure unless Paizo decides to elaborate. To be honest, finding out that stat blocks have already been removed from Season 7 scenarios pretty much means the end of PFS for me, so I suppose the "why" doesn't really matter. :-/
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something?
Not that I know of; it's just that neither announcement mentioned a price change, which would seem to me to be a pretty glaring oversight!
Reducing the price would certainly go a long way toward addressing the value complaint.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was traveling, and other than the physical bits (GM screen, combat pad, dice, maps, etc.), I brought with me only my 2019 CRB. Had stat blocks not been included in the scenario, I would have to also brought Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2, tripling the amount of hardbacks I had to carry, not to mention find space for at the table
This is just such a trivial complaint. ALL of those books are available on Archives of Nethys, and we can stop pretending that not everyone has a smartphone. It was a great argument 20 years ago, it was still somewhat valid 10 years ago, but it's 2025 now. Just look it up on AoN, at the table, and you probably don't even need WiFi because mobile data is so good at this point.
BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I be a one eyed pirate and I be unable to see thar tiny fonts on me phone." Okay, fine. Bring a laptop and set your phone as a hotspot, like all the skibidi rizzlers under 40 do.
BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I run a game at NORAD and we're hermetically sealed under 3 miles of concrete and I can't connect to WiFi because I need national security clearance and it's a 32-bit password that rotates every hour." Okay, fine. Just print out the monsters from AoN before you enter Cheyenne Mountain, then.
There is so much information at our literal fingertips that I've resolved rules disputes in real time by punching in questions like "pathfinder does frightened have the mental trait reddit" into Google. Boom, 10 seconds, mystery solved, and less than that if you're willing to blindly accept whatever the AI overview tells you.
10-15 years ago, when they put in the stat blocks, everyone was happy - because Archives of Nethys was different, because smartphones were less powerful, and because data caps existed. It's 2025, now. Just Google it. Or, perhaps since it's 2025, just DuckDuckGo it.
I get it, physical materials are nice sometimes. But pretending like this should be a driving reason to make a bunch of other people do a bunch of extra busywork is disingenuous.
P.S. Just so it's clear, I personally prefer the statblocks. I just don't see why anyone would complain this much about it. Spend the time arguing about the 2-level spreads, instead. That's an actual problem.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing. Somebody needs to gather the statblocks. It can be done once by Paizo, or it can be done hundreds if not thousands of times by GMs, and adds another point of failure. Now you need internet, and a smart device and power, and AoN to be up. I've been to plenty of conventions without functioning wifi or cellular connections.
Also you may need multiple statblocks, and do additional, error prone labor like applying templates.
Even if most of us have those most of these most of the time it's still a barrier and a point of failure and makes scenarios less accessible.
Now, it's not quite as bad as all that. We've got pfsprep.com where unpaid labor of volunteers does that work and gathers statblocks and other aids. But it still requires somebody do it.
---
|
|
This is just such a trivial complaint. ALL of those books are available on Archives of Nethys, and we can stop pretending that not everyone has a smartphone. It was a great argument 20 years ago, it was still somewhat valid 10 years ago, but it's 2025 now. Just look it up on AoN, at the table, and you probably don't even need WiFi because mobile data is so good at this point.
BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I be a one eyed pirate and I be unable to see thar tiny fonts on me phone." Okay, fine. Bring a laptop and set your phone as a hotspot, like all the skibidi rizzlers under 40 do.
BUT BUT BUT, you say, "I run a game at NORAD and we're hermetically sealed under 3 miles of concrete and I can't connect to WiFi because I need national security clearance and it's a 32-bit password that rotates every hour." Okay, fine. Just print out the monsters from AoN before you enter Cheyenne Mountain, then.
There is so much information at our literal fingertips that I've resolved rules disputes in real time by punching in questions like "pathfinder does frightened have the mental trait reddit" into Google. Boom, 10 seconds, mystery solved, and less than that if you're willing to blindly accept whatever the AI overview tells you.
10-15 years ago, when they put in the stat blocks, everyone was happy - because Archives of Nethys was different, because smartphones were less powerful, and because data caps existed. It's 2025, now. Just Google it. Or, perhaps since it's 2025, just DuckDuckGo it.
I get it, physical materials are nice sometimes. But pretending like this should be a driving reason to make a bunch of other people do a bunch of extra busywork is disingenuous.
P.S. Just so it's clear, I personally prefer the statblocks. I just don't see why anyone would complain this much about it. Spend the time arguing about the 2-level spreads, instead. That's an actual problem.
Ah yes. The old "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" canard. I was wondering when someone would trot that one out, so at least in that sense you didn't disappoint (though I could have done without all the sarcasm, and especially without the age crack).
Meanwhile, there is obviously a huge difference between Googling a simple question and juggling three or more stat blocks, often from multiple sources. Maybe your phone works great for that latter task, but mine certainly does not. Even if it did, my eyes wouldn't cooperate. As for a laptop, one powerful enough to do a good job of it isn't something I particularly want to risk in a public venue. And then there is the potential for Internet connection challenges, especially at conventions.
I do agree with one thing you said, though: someone here is being disingenuous...
|
|
Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something?Not that I know of; it's just that neither announcement mentioned a price change, which would seem to me to be a pretty glaring oversight!
Reducing the price would certainly go a long way toward addressing the value complaint.
|
|
Starfinder 2e already made the switch to 2-3 hour-long scenarios, which got a price drop to $5.99. I don't see anywhere that it suggests the price would be any different for the shorter PF2e scenarios coming out next year. Did I miss something?Not that I know of; it's just that neither announcement mentioned a price change, which would seem to me to be a pretty glaring oversight!
Reducing the price would certainly go a long way toward addressing the value complaint.
Understood, but to my knowledge there was no mention of the same thing happening for Pathfinder Society scenarios, which seems like a very odd thing to leave out. I guess time will tell.
Edit: Wow, that is a really impressive run of good reviews for Starfinder 2e scenarios. I am jelly. :-P
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to reiterate what PirateRob said: the GM has to do more work now. Granted, it's not a lot of work, but with the workload already present for a GM, that adds up. Whether you use paper and print the statblocks out, use Monster Core, or use a device to look it up, no matter which way you slice it, it adds time/effort for the GM. Time and effort that could have been avoided if Paizo had stuck to the old model.
I get their argument of "it saves money on our end, so why not let the players do it," but I've viewed this as a service Paizo provided. And now that service has been taken away. I don't know the amount of money this saves Paizo, but I do feel the money they save doesn't weigh up against the loss of goodwill.
I've commented on this in the main thread, but one of these is going to affect players far more than the other two. The 3-hour scenario change is mildly positive IMO, and the statblock change is pretty neutral.
The 2-level bands is really the only thing worth complaining about. It's pretty strongly negative for low- and medium-volume players, and will require players to have far more characters in their stable than the 4-level bands, or everyone just has to play pregens, which sucks.
Interesting to see, I have pretty much exactly the opposite opinion. Not meant to argue, just showing there's different opinions:
- I strongly dislike the shorter adventures. Again, I see the value for game stores, not going to argue with that, but I don't have many games in my immediate vicinity. I need to travel quite a bit to get to a game. For four or five hours, I'm willing to travel and make a day of it. But for two to three hours, I basically spend more time travelling than gaming. And there's cost to travelling as well.- Statblock change: as I've said, very bad decision. I can live with it, but still not happy about it.
- Smaller level bands: I see the problem, but I think that's just a player responsability thing. I get that some players want to keep playing one character, but for the good of the group I think it's good to look at your characters and notice, "huh, I have multiple characters in the 5-8 range, but none in 1-4." Yeah, it's feelbad to have to miss out on a game because you don't have anything in tier, but in my experience it's also not very fun to play very out of tier (like a level 4 in a group of 1s, or vice versa).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Wow, that is a really impressive run of good reviews for Starfinder 2e scenarios. I am jelly. :-P
Which is a good indication that the 2-3 hour long scenarios can still be fun. They're also easier to prep, which has been my experience from either side of the table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you basing that on anything in particular?The shorter run time is not about cutting costs; it's about a lot of game stores not staying open as late as they used to on week nights. There's nothing fun about the GM having to hand handwave all the exploration to have enough time for combat. In Arizona, there is nothing fun about having to finish the game and filling out chronicles in a parking lot when it's 110 degrees outside.
There was an organized play survey at the end of last year. Scenario length was one of the questions on it. I don't have time to go through 10 months of blog posts and Paizo live videos, but somewhere it was said that shorter scenarios are something that scored high on the survey. So the idea for shorter scenarios didn't come from Paizo trying to cut costs; it was from customer feedback. Cutting stat blocks, that's a different story; that one is on Paizo, and I think it's a bad idea for scenarios and organized play, much more so than it is for APs.
Because as far as I can see, that argument doesn't really hold water unless all of seasons 1-6 are discard, rendering at least ~80% of existing PFS content unusable, as it won't fit in a 3 hr slot. That just doesn't seem realistic for most groups. YMMV, I guess.
Nothing has been discarded. There's nothing saying you can't run longer scenarios or even run 2 back to back, assuming you are playing somewhere that allows time for it.
BTW, I'm also in AZ. We may even know each other...
I think I met you briefly before I ran the Starfinder Scenario on Saturday.
The newer Tempe SFS2/PFS2 group plays on Saturdays, so scenario length is really not an issue with the store being open from 10am to 10pm, there's even enough time to run 2 back to back. I don't organize the events, so I don't know if we have a scheduled time limit not related to the store closing. But the old Tempe/Mesa group played on Sundays and had to be done by 5pm, some games had to be handwaved and rushed a lot to finish on time.
Not all groups play on weekends, and a lot of stores cut hours after the pandemic. Trying to run a scenario after work and being done by 9pm is hard.
|
|
There was an organized play survey at the end of last year. Scenario length was one of the questions on it. I don't have time to go through 10 months of blog posts and Paizo live videos, but somewhere it was said that shorter scenarios are something that scored high on the survey. So the idea for shorter scenarios didn't come from Paizo trying to cut costs; it was from customer feedback. Cutting stat blocks, that's a different story; that one is on Paizo, and I think it's a bad idea for scenarios and organized play, much more so than it is for APs.
I don't need the receipts; I believe you. I was unaware of the survey, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I think I met you briefly before I ran the Starfinder Scenario on Saturday.
Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)
|
|
Which is a good indication that the 2-3 hour long scenarios can still be fun. They're also easier to prep, which has been my experience from either side of the table.
Yeah, believe it or not that was actually part of why I mentioned it...the bigger part being that I don't remember the last time a early run of scenarios for PFS was that well reviewed. If shorter scenarios really translates to better scenarios over the long haul, then maybe it is worth it.
At this point, assuming Paizo drops the price of Pathfinder Society Scenarios to $5.99 to match the Starfinder (which if they were planning to do, they really should have led with!), then my only big remaining complaint is the statblock situation. The narrower level bands aren't great, but can be worked around using pregens (which aren't ideal, but at least the table still goes off).
Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, can't cost-cutting be a valid enough reason on its own? As much as I hate the decision, I understand that several pairs of eyes poring over statblocks to look for mistakes isn't the most efficient way of spending one's time. It may not be a lot, but I bet it adds up over time. Just copy-pasting a Monster Core entry is much more efficient.
|
|
I mean, can't cost-cutting be a valid enough reason on its own? As much as I hate the decision, I understand that several pairs of eyes poring over statblocks to look for mistakes isn't the most efficient way of spending one's time. It may not be a lot, but I bet it adds up over time. Just copy-pasting a Monster Core entry is much more efficient.
Not to me; especially not when scenarios are still priced at $9. Not only does the $9 price point represent terrible value compared to Paizo's other products, I believe that it lends credence to my argument that someone at Paizo appears to be thinking about PFS scenarios strictly in terms of P&L...which I believe is fundamentally misguided.
I get that saying that sort of thing is akin to heresy in these parts, and some folks just won't entertain the idea that Paizo is mismanaging something, but I'm calling it like I see it.
|
|
Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)
No, I'm the guy who planned ahead and asked to use the back area earlier in the week ;-) I needed the extra space to be able to run around the table with a fake microphone to do interviews for The Great Absalom Relay! I would have been tripping on Pokemon had I run in the main room.
I do like the shorter scenarios for when you do have to play in a loud room.
|
|
Oh, so you're the guy who kicked me off my table and cast me down into the hell that is Pokemon! ;-)No, I'm the guy who planned ahead and asked to use the back area earlier in the week ;-) I needed the extra space to be able to run around the table with a fake microphone to do interviews for The Great Absalom Relay! I would have been tripping on Pokemon had I run in the main room.
I do like the shorter scenarios for when you do have to play in a loud room.
Details, details. :-P
I hadn't actually run a game there since it was still Game Depot. I like the new layout, but the back room is the prime spot for sure. Even so, our table actually went fine as far as I could tell, Pokemon and all. I hope to have a chance to GM there again.
Do you ever play PFS? Or are you all Starfinder? I ran one table of Starfinder Society first edition, but I really didn't dig the starship stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.
A couple of reasons why I think cutting stat blocks from scenarios is bad, and worse than having stat blocks missing from APs.
A higher percentage of APs are likely to be run as home games, where you are more likely to have all your books or someone else nearby, or a computer.
The other big advantage APs have is that there's no time pressure to get it finished in one session, most of the time. So if you have to stop to look something up, and you get behind you just pick up where you left off next week, instead of rushing to finish.
A scenario with stat blocks makes it easy to run on short notice, and by short notice, I mean a GM called out because they were sick, and some steps in with 5 minutes notice to prep and run a scenario. It would likely be one they ran before, but without stat blocks in it, if they didn't bring the right books, they couldn't run it. Or if enough new players show up to start a 2nd or 3rd table, and one of the experienced players from one of the games drops out to GM for the new players, again, much easier to do if the scenario has stat blocks. Those are situations that could stop a game from happening.
Having said all of that, the shorter scenarios, only covering 2 levels, are easier to prep. You don't have to pick between 2 tiers of creature stat blocks for each encounter, and there is normally only 1 or 2 combat encounters. So fewer creatures to prep as well.
I tend to over-prepare and make notecards for all the stat blocks, so it doesn't matter to me where I get the stat block. So for me, the big issue is will not having stat blocks will prevent some games from happening on short notice. Or for GMs who don't have spare time to do extra prep.
|
|
I hadn't actually run a game there since it was still Game Depot. I like the new layout, but the back room is the prime spot for sure. Even so, our table actually went fine as far as I could tell, Pokemon and all. I hope to have a chance to GM there again.
Do you ever play PFS? Or are you all Starfinder? I ran one table of Starfinder Society first edition, but I really didn't dig the starship stuff.
They're always looking for GMs.
I do play PFS2 once in a while, but Starfinder is my main game. I play a goblin merchant (sorcerer) with only spells related to selling things in PFS2 somehow it works well...
|
|
Those statblocks, though...that remains a deal-killer, especially since I have yet to see any plausible explanation other than cost-cutting.A couple of reasons why I think cutting stat blocks from scenarios is bad, and worse than having stat blocks missing from APs.
A higher percentage of APs are likely to be run as home games, where you are more likely to have all your books or someone else nearby, or a computer.
This matches my experience. I'm currently running Seven Dooms for Sandpoint online on a fairly beefy gaming PC (NVME drive, 32GB of RAM, six core CPU, and most importantly, a big 1440P monitor). Having multiple PDFs open, along with AoN is not a problem. Plus I have plenty of time to prepare.
Contrast that with an unknown amount of public space in a store with limited access to power and internet, and the prospect of running something with very little notice at a con, and the statblocks are just a huge GM QoL upgrade.
Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO.
|
|
I hadn't actually run a game there since it was still Game Depot. I like the new layout, but the back room is the prime spot for sure. Even so, our table actually went fine as far as I could tell, Pokemon and all. I hope to have a chance to GM there again.
Do you ever play PFS? Or are you all Starfinder? I ran one table of Starfinder Society first edition, but I really didn't dig the starship stuff.
They're always looking for GMs.
I do play PFS2 once in a while, but Starfinder is my main game. I play a goblin merchant (sorcerer) with only spells related to selling things in PFS2 somehow it works well...
Well I hope I get to run a PFS table for you sometime -- though it will apparently have to be something pre season 7 -- if for no other reason than to demonstrate that I'm less of an insufferable bastard in person than I am online. ;-)
So do you guys run SF 1E, or 2E? I may at some point give 2E a try with a pregen, though SciFi isn't normally my jam.
|
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO.
While I agree with you that the removal of statblocks is problematic for a number of reasons, may I please ask you to refrain from making hurtful statements like the one above? I have written for both APs and scenarios, and put the same love and care into both types of adventures, regardless of length.
Thanks,
Hmm
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're listening to feedback and will continue to make changes to keep the campaign vibrant and to respond to customer suggestions.
The new shorter scenarios will be $5.99. Probably should have mentioned that in the blog, but I'm mentioning that now just to be clear.
We appreciate the dialogue and will continue to listen. We're not ready to make a decision one way or the other on the stat block issue mentioned here, but again, the conversation is very helpful.
|
Contributor
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Erik!
I know that you already know my stance on the whole statblock thing, so I'll just summarize it for everyone else here because there are multiple 'Hilarys' reacting to this change.
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
Freelancer Hilary dances around the room as she realizes how much time she has saved in producing her manuscript. "Yay, I don't have to spend multiple days of writing time formatting statblocks anymore!"
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
GM Hilary sighs as she realizes that her scenario prep has gotten longer and fussier. "I have to find and print out all these statblocks in advance because I have no idea what the wi-fi is going to be like where I am going. I hate having to add this extra step to my GM Prep, and I'm going to make mistakes!"
(I am begging and pleading with all of you to please keep statblocks in multi-table specials, where there are so many different combats to worry about.)
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
Organizer Hilary shakes her head at this decision. "Oh, dang. This is going to make it so much harder to recruit GMs."
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
So yes, I personally know how painful it is to format statblocks, and how much effort goes into double-checking my work by my awesome developers and editors. But I gotta say that Freelancer Hilary would rather help GM Hilary and Organizer Hilary out here, for all the reasons that Pirate Rob listed.
Thanks so much for coming in and acknowledging this thread. It always helps to know that someone is reading, even if you disagree with them.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how otherwise inferior organized play scenarios are to Paizo's own APs/modules, the removal of statblocks is just a bridge too far IMO.While I agree with you that the removal of statblocks is problematic for a number of reasons, may I please ask you to refrain from making hurtful statements like the one above? I have written for both APs and scenarios, and put the same love and care into both types of adventures, regardless of length.
Thanks,
Hmm
Hi HMM:
I apologize; it was not my intention to be hurtful. I hold both your opinion and your work in high regard.
To be clear, I wasn't faulting the writing; rather the relative value. In fairness, I do think it's hard to argue that the trade dress, art, supporting materials, etc. are up to the standard set by the APs/modules. Which was totally understandable when scenarios were $3, or even $6. They're just a tough sell at the current $9, which I strongly suspect the revenue numbers will support.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're listening to feedback and will continue to make changes to keep the campaign vibrant and to respond to customer suggestions.
The new shorter scenarios will be $5.99. Probably should have mentioned that in the blog, but I'm mentioning that now just to be clear.
Thank you. That is indeed a key piece of context that was previously missing, and it dramatically improves the value proposition.
We appreciate the dialogue and will continue to listen. We're not ready to make a decision one way or the other on the stat block issue mentioned here, but again, the conversation is very helpful.
Whatever you decide, thank you for letting us know that you are listening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing. Somebody needs to gather the statblocks. It can be done once by Paizo, or it can be done hundreds if not thousands of times by GMs, and adds another point of failure.
Not exactly. Either GMs do it or GMs pay Paizo to do it. Paizo openly admits that this takes up an editor's time. It's not that they don't think it needs to be done, it's that they don't want to do it, either.
Now you need internet, and a smart device and power, and AoN to be up. I've been to plenty of conventions without functioning wifi or cellular connections.
I love you and all, but ... I attend a bunch of the same conventions and play in many of the same places, I've got a sub-$100 phone on a MVNO plan, and I can't remember the last place I've been, outside of intentionally-remote places like National Parks, where I could get neither cellular service nor WiFi.
To be clear, this DIDN'T apply 10 years ago. All those "Can you hear me now?" commercials existed for legitimate reasons, and those reasons were that carriers had dead spots and boosters were expensive. That's why things are different now, why changes made now may be different from changes made 10 years ago.
Ah yes. The old "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" canard. I was wondering when someone would trot that one out, so at least in that sense you didn't disappoint (though I could have done without all the sarcasm, and especially without the age crack).
Meanwhile, there is obviously a huge difference between Googling a simple question and juggling three or more stat blocks, often from multiple sources. Maybe your phone works great for that latter task, but mine certainly does not. Even if it did, my eyes wouldn't cooperate. As for a laptop, one powerful enough to do a good job of it isn't something I particularly want to risk in a public venue. And then there is the potential for Internet connection challenges, especially at conventions.
I do agree with one thing you said, though: someone here is being disingenuous...
I don't know what else to say other than Welcome to 2025.
If your phone doesn't do tabs, download a better browser. If your computer is too valuable, go onto Ebay and find a 5 year old tablet for $20, that's big enough to read and cheap enough to carry around.
And remember - even if you're positive you won't have a connection, you can always print out the stat blocks yourself! Pro tip: you can do this at restaurants, too, since everyone who's complaining about WiFi obviously has the same problem at every single restaurant that has online menus. Right?
Do you not have a printer? Check with your public library, many of them offer printing services for free. Or get a teenager to print out stat blocks for you for $3/scenario. Because if there's a market for this, there's a bored teenager willing to make a few bucks.
|
|
Smaller level bands: I see the problem, but I think that's just a player responsability thing. I get that some players want to keep playing one character, but for the good of the group I think it's good to look at your characters and notice, "huh, I have multiple characters in the 5-8 range, but none in 1-4."
You're right in that it becomes a player responsibility. But it's a pretty significant one. Because a player needs to advance a character into a narrow band every time one exits the narrow band, it's a significant amount of planning.
For example, let's say a player starts off with four characters, A-D, levels 1, 3, 5, and 7, respectively. For starters, someone needs to play 36 scenarios just to get that setup! But once they do, they're good until they play 6 scenarios in a certain band. Then, say, Character C ends up leveling up to 7, and the player can't play any Tier 5-6 scenarios until Character B makes Level 5. But when Character B levels up to 5, then the player can't play any Tier 3-4 scenarios until Character A reaches Level 3.
It's a lot of management, and one that the higher volume players like most of the people posting on the forums naturally take care of. For example, I've got every tier covered, right now, and often double-covered with a martial and a spellcaster (so I can switch characters if the party composition is non-ideal) even before the changes were announced. So, it's not a big deal for me.
But, I immediately see the problem for my kids. They have far fewer scenarios under their belts, and while they had 1-4, 3-6, 5-8, and 7-10 covered with a Level 3-4 character and a Level 7-8 character, they'll need to fill in the gaps now, and they'll need to play an additional 12 scenarios to get a character to level 5 while keeping one at 3. It's a lot of work for them, and, frankly, one that they probably won't do, which brings me to ...
Yeah, it's feelbad to have to miss out on a game because you don't have anything in tier, but in my experience it's also not very fun to play very out of tier (like a level 4 in a group of 1s, or vice versa).
Brutal honesty? It won't feel bad at all. Because the people who don't show up are "invisible" - they're not there to complain. That's what sucks - not for the low-volume players, who will find something else to do, but for Paizo, who gets fewer players.
Think about it this way - why not make single-level scenarios? I mean, hopefully the answer is obvious - there is a downside, and ultimately, there will be a balance between how fun it is to play if you get to play, versus the probability you just don't get to play. PFS2 went down to a 4-level spread from PFS1's 5-level spread. If Paizo doesn't think that was a big enough of a contraction, why not try a 3-level spread (requiring everyone to make 4/3 more characters, instead of 4/2 more characters) first?
Or, Paizo can look at narrow-band scenarios like 2-11 / 99-01 / 99-02 (Tier 1-2 only). How do people like those, or how often do people play those, compared to the bigger-spread Tier 1-4 Repeatables?
Or, the other option is to have different banding at different levels. So beginner-friendly 1-4s and 3-6s mostly remain 1-4s and 3-6s, maybe with a few experimental 1-2s and 3-4s and 5-6s. The higher tiers, especially the ones without pregens available (so that new players are blocked out anyway), go 7-8, 9-10, 11-12?
Venture-Captain, Australia—NSW—Greater West
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the shorter scenario length for our particular set-up, but understand it for other time-constrained set-ups.
I don't like the removal of stat blocks, it seems to be a quality of life change we fought for that is now taken away, making things that bit harder (Hilary said it better).
But the 2-level bands, without the stuff that potentially makes it work for SFS2, is going to break things. We will now have hard brackets with no overlap. I am frequently having new players rock up to play at my venue (a good place to be), but this will make it a lot harder to wrangle and keep them wanting to come back.
I have two suggestions to potentially make it work:
One: like SFS2, allow characters to be created at 1, 3, 5 and 7. Yes, there are some downsides to this, but the 2-level bands mean the upside is greater.
Two: Look at how pregen credit can be applied. With treasure bundles making the gold easy to calculate, it should be possible to apply the credit to any character the level of the pregen or below, allowing people to advance into the next bracket.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Watery Soup: Thank you for the in-depth reply. Makes me understand the situation much more.
Also, Driftbourne made a good point that popped into my head as well. Shorter scenarios means less time spent on reading the scenario itself, which can then be put into looking up the creatures yourself. While I don't like it, I do admit it's a fair argument to make.
|
|
@ Watery Soup: Thank you for the in-depth reply. Makes me understand the situation much more.
Also, Driftbourne made a good point that popped into my head as well. Shorter scenarios means less time spent on reading the scenario itself, which can then be put into looking up the creatures yourself. While I don't like it, I do admit it's a fair argument to make.
Less to read + fewer encounters + half as many stat blocks because there's no split tier.
Having just GM'd my first live SF2e game last weekend, I can say that doing extra prep helped a lot in learning and running the scenario, but that's not a selling point for attracting new GMs. I also had way too much free time to prep, and that is about to end for me.
My other thought is that the new scenarios are only 2-3 hours, and a lot of my prep is seeing how I could make it run longer. For The Great Absalom Relay, I took time to give NPCs more depth and or tied them into other scenarios the PCs had played. I made a tracker for donations that the team got after each task in the relay, so they would have a sense of progress even if they didn't win the race. I made a fake microphone to do an interview with. This was all fun prep. Searching for and printing out stat blocks is more of a chore kind of prep.
If we had enough new players show up that we would need to start an extra unplanned table for them. I could run The Great Absalom Relay again, even if I didn't have my note cards I prepped with me, but I could only do that if the scenario had all the stat blocks needed to run it. I think this is just an issue with scenarios in organized play. Most people don't have enough extra friends randomly show up to a home game to have to start a second table of an AP on short notice. I also don't have enough tables or chairs for that at home.
Another thought is having some stat blocks in the scenario and having to reference others from notes or printouts. If prep time wasn't an issue, I think I'd be fine either way, but going back and forth might get confusing.
Take with a grain of salt; these are the opinions of a GM who's run 3 SFS games so far.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a middle-of-the-night, I can't sleep suggestion. If Paizo does stick to the idea of removing statblocks, here's a compromise.
1. Keep stat blocks in multi-table specials as Hmm suggested.
2. Write the seasons' intros for new GMs, the way that Junkers Delight was written, and include stat blocks. Make it a true repeatable like Acts of Associations, since a local organized play group might have multiple new GMs per season.
3. Include at least 1 first contact scenario each season, with all creatures in it unique to the scenario, so all the stat blocks are included. Makes for another scenario that's good for new GMs, and is a good backup scenario to run on 5 minutes' notice if you need to run another table for new players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One other small point of order is I believe PFS1 scenarios started and remained at $3.99 ($4) for the vast majority of PF1s lifetime. I don't think they ever cost $3.
I just went back and looked at my order history, and I stand corrected. I blame my old man memory. ;-)
