| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warning: Wall-O-Text
I would have been more than happy to continue throwing my hard-earned money at Paizo and Lone Shark Games as long as they continued to pump out great PACG content. I was consistently impressed with their ingenuity in improving the game and making things different. As with many, I was sorely disappointed upon learning that the game would no longer be supported. Though fans have fought the good fight to keep the game alive, the lack of new products and official content has led to a natural decline, which is unfortunate since this is such a great game with so much potential and a wealth of material for continued development.
What if the game was renewed, however?
I don’t have an inside track on this, so this is just my view of a possible path forward. My ideal outcome, naturally, is that Paizo and Lone Shark Games decide to resurrect the game. In a (far) distant second place, Lone Shark Games passes the torch to someone else who is going to pour their heart and soul into the game, paying due homage to Mike Selinker and his crew of creatives.
Now this is just my thinking right now. Admittedly, I’ve been thinking about this for a while. But I’m just one person with a limited viewpoint and other players have their own viewpoints and experiences. Practically speaking, a real plan would have to be the result of multiple people working together, comparing notes, and collaborating to create something better collectively than any one person might develop individually. So while I’m an advocate for these ideas, I’m not wedded to them and hope to foster some discussion that might lead to even better ideas with other players’ input.
My focus here is solely future products following on from Core/Curse. I’m leaving the classic products in the rearview mirror (sort of). That’s not to say that I don’t care about them, but I’ve previously discussed my ideas for them in the Possibilities for Drive Thru Cards as continuing support for official products and Now that the game is dead, what can we design? discussions (and maybe some others). I’d still like to see a lot of that stuff happen, but I’m really focused on looking forward from Core in this discussion.
One important thing to get out of the way is that I believe that Society play was (and will be) a vital element of the PACG hobby and the design space needs to incorporate Society play into its planning and development.
I have one significant hot take, so I’ll get that out of the way.
I think that continued development of post-Core PACG products should eventually lead to a hard separation between the classic products and the post-Core products. Yes, all those classic products can be used in the [post-]Core products, but it’s odd having two different cards that have the same name, but which function [slightly] differently and have different formats. Using those classic cards, including the class/character/adventure decks, with [post-]Core products was an excellent and player-friendly design decision as a transitional step, but the continued product development should have eventually led to all those classic products being replaced (or perhaps updated in official products). Players could still use them with the classic APs, including the PACS products, so they would have remained useful.
And a slightly less “hot” take is my view that the character tokens should have the same card backs as the banes and boons. Having the double-sided cards was all fine and dandy in the early APs, but as soon as they introduced mechanisms for tokens to be shuffled into locations, trapping characters in those locations, the double-sided nature of the tokens became problematic. All future products and reprints of Core products should use the single-sided character token cards (and I discussed how this can be implemented for the classic products in the previously linked topic about Drive Thru Cards).
I’m not proposing changing any card formats. Some people like the new format and some people don’t, but I’m more focused on making up for lost time and developing new content that we can enjoy. Even those who don’t like the new format can (probably) agree that it is serviceable. Okay, the one format change I urgently recommend is larger font size in the storybooks (I’m old). Aside from that, I would leave format alone.
You may disagree with one or more of those, and that’s fine. I don’t know that I’m “right,” but I can’t be wishy washy about these things when laying out my vision of a possible future that is driven by those views.
Okay, now that the hot takes are out of the way, it’s time to focus on the meat and potatoes of my vision. I don’t see any need to wrangle over adventure paths – we could go round and round about who wants what. Suffice to say that the Pathfinder RPG has provided us with a plethora of options, and the ongoing Society play will likely continue to serve as a basis for parallel development of “Season/Year of…” products. Instead, there are two product types that I’d like to focus on:
- Character decks (updating [most of] the existing decks and then expanding)
- Core Set expansions (giving us settings without full APs)
Updating the character decks seems like a no-brainer to me, especially since we’ve seen a few of the classic iconic characters replaced in the second edition of the Pathfinder roleplaying game (e.g., Damiel has been replaced by Fumbus as the iconic alchemist, Lirianne has been replaced by Nhalmika as the iconic gunslinger, Balazar has been replaced by Ija as the iconic summoner, Alahazra has been replaced by Korakai as the iconic oracle, and Rivani has been replaced by Thaleon as the iconic psychic) and there are also some new classes (e.g., inventor, guardian, thaumaturge, exemplar, animist, and commander). Updated versions of character decks would be the trigger for separation between classic and Core – so when an updated version of the Fighter class deck is created, the original Fighter class deck would no longer be usable with [post-]Core products; and once all the classic character decks are replaced (or those that will be updated/replaced, anyways – see later), that hard separation would finally be in place.
There are a few complications in the wake of the Core Set changes, however.
One of the great things about the classic character deck model is that a player could participate in Society play with only a single character deck purchase. Most of those decks include a generic version of the iconic character for that class as well as two or three additional characters. With the iconic (generic?) versions of 12 characters included in the Core Set, we now face the complication of how to support Society play for users of those classes when those players want to use the iconic characters.
- Would the player be expected to use (i.e., have) the Core Set? This increases barrier to entry.
- Would the table coordinator provide the necessary cards on loan from the Core Set? This creates a risk of cards being accidentally taken by players.
- Would those cards be duplicated in the character deck? This seems mildly inefficient, though it would be effective.
- Would the iconic character be left out of the corresponding character deck, allowing three other characters to be featured while owners of the Core Set and APs can use characters of that class with the character deck? This seems counterintuitive [to me].
Another question to ponder is whether or not to preserve [most of] the non-iconic characters that appear in the classic decks. In truth, there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer, with some non-iconic classic characters being modernized to Core Set rules and some being dropped. This will definitely be true in the case of the first run of character decks that included four characters. My general view of character deck composition is that one character should be human, one should be from one of the other core races (elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, or half-orc), and one can be from any race, including the more exotic races. On occasion, a half-elf may substitute for a human, but then the other core race character couldn’t be a half-elf or an elf. An example of this substitution is the Magus CD which features the iconic Seltyiel, a half-elf, as well as angelkin and dwarf magi. Obviously, this wouldn’t apply to the race decks, nor does it have to be followed 100% of the time (e.g., the classic Oracle CD features the iconic Alahazra, a human, as well as lizardfolk and pitborn oracles – both exotic), but it provides good diversity in characters and allows players with different preferences to find characters that work for them. It also allows players to go for racially themed teams with diverse abilities (e.g., I’m looking forward to trying out a team of six half-orcs). Choosing which characters to drop would prove an interesting challenge, especially as there is almost certainly someone somewhere who loves that character that is in the crosshairs.
An example of this is a hypothetical Gunslinger Core deck. With Lirianne, a half-elf, being replaced as the iconic gunslinger by the dwarf Nhalmika, Angban, also a dwarf, breaks my preferred deck composition. So as much as I like Angban, I would want to replace him with a human or half-elf character (since the third gunslinger, Skizza, is a ratfolk and fills the exotic race slot). I expect that fans of Angban would not support this, and I don’t blame them. In this hypothetical case, Lirianne might be retained since she’s a half-elf.
Getting the early class decks to three characters will be interesting. For my money, the easy answer is to take the “evil” characters out first. This doesn’t work for all decks, unfortunately. I’m pretty sure that Zarlova (cleric), Wrathack (ranger), Wu Shen (rogue), and Darago (wizard) are evil. I have no idea if any of the bards, fighters, or sorcerers are evil - perhaps Valendron (sorcerer). Assuming we want to leave the original characters in the decks and simply modernize them to Core, removing those evil characters (and including the iconic characters) would leave us with the target of three characters per deck. What would I do with those evil characters? Well, I think the Hell’s Vengeance decks are ripe for sequels. After the first two are modernized to Core principles, we could see 3, 4, 5, etc. Actually, I’m on the fence about that - I could see something else to support the more villainous characters, but I’ll bring that up later.
Updating the “Ultimate” decks would be interesting. While it’s great to have a samurai, ninja, arcanist, vigilante, and shifter, I envision dedicated character decks with three characters (including the iconic) for each of those characters. I could see updated “Ultimate” decks replacing those iconic characters with non-iconic characters. In this, I would plan for the class-based character decks to be developed before the updated “Ultimate” decks. And it should go without saying that the Core Set expansion (see later) for Tian Xia would include Hayato and Reiko.
Once [most of] the classic decks are updated, I would love to see character decks for the classes that don’t have decks (e.g., swashbuckler, arcanist, cavalier, etc.). I would also love to see character decks for each of the [major] races. The concept that the Goblins Burn! And Goblins Fight! Decks covered would work very well for other races, allowing boons, archetypes, and prestige classes for those races to be represented.
And what would we call new character decks that modernize the old decks? For my part, I’ve been leaning towards incorporating “Core” into the name – Fighter Core or Core Fighter, Gunslinger Core or Core Gunslinger, etc. Those might be dumb names, though they align with the PFRPG Second Edition product names such as GM Core and Player Core. If someone has a better idea, I’m all ears. Once the Core version of the character deck is released, the classic version would no longer be usable with [post-]Core games, but would remain usable with the classic games (and vice versa). And we might even get to see multiple decks for classes, giving players even more versatility. That would be much further down the road, however.
The second type of product would be expansions to the Core Set. Technically, I suppose character decks and APs are expansions, but I’m talking about sets that expand the options of the Core Set. These would be built around representing locales within the setting of Golarion and would probably include some rules that expand the possibilities. They would include:
- locations
- banes
- boons
- characters (four to six)
- a simple adventure (similar to The Dragon’s Demand)
The Core Set expansions would better support sandbox creativity, giving hobbyists more tools to work with in developing content that other hobbyists can use. They would also support one (or more!) APs, including Society play. So a hypothetical expansion supporting seafaring adventures would work for a Skull & Shackles reboot as well as subsequent APs, adventures, and scenarios that feature seafaring.
Some subsequent APs might require the inclusion of specific Core Set expansions. Even if a Core Set expansion costs the same as an AP (assuming the $50 price of Curse of the Crimson Throne sets the standard), that would still be cheaper than the previous model of having to buy a base set as well as five adventure decks (2-6) and maybe a character add-on deck for the AP (running about $180 plus tax for a complete AP). More importantly, these would give players more sandbox tools for creating their own gaming content (and sharing that content with others!).
Previously, I brought up the evil characters and updating the classic Hell’s Vengeance CDs and then giving them sequels to include other evil characters. I can see two alternatives to this. The first is to create CDs for each of the classes represented by the iconic villains, so there would be a CD for hellknights, a CD for antipaladins, etc. Another option is to create a variation on the Core Set expansion that includes the six iconic villains and the other non-iconic evil characters (including those that were removed from other classic character decks), as well as suitable boons (more blessings for the evil gods, of course!). This set might include the rules for corruption/redemption, too.
I envision the Core Set expansions consisting of about three decks each (some standardized number), being slightly smaller than the Core Set.
Each Core Set expansion box would be of sufficient size to store all cards standing up and sleeved. The storybook becomes the lowest common denominator in terms of length and width. I would probably want to store my Core Set expansion cards and storybook in the Core Set (meaning I would want the Core Set box to be a little deeper to accommodate multiple storybooks over time).
For what it’s worth, I like the physical size of the storybooks that were included in the Core Set and the Curse of the Crimson Throne (minus the font size, as I already mentioned).
While I’m not here to dicker over which APs I want to see and in what order , the basic composition and incorporation of APs is important. I distinguish between boxed set APs (such as Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne) and Society APs (such as Season of the Runelords and Year of Rotting Ruin).
With the Core Set expansions including cards relevant to the AP, this allows for more AP-specific stuff to be in the AP while retaining the same card count as Curse of the Crimson Throne (550 cards). It also allows Society play packets to lean on the Core Set expansions instead of/in addition to the APs.
Note that classic APs consisted of almost 1,100 cards each (including the AP, adventure decks 2-6, and the character add-on deck) while Curse of the Crimson Throne consisted of 990 cards (including the 440 that are in the Core Set). I don’t know if the 550 card count for the Curse of the Crimson Throne would be retained if the Core Set expansions that I suggest are implemented. I might be possible to shrink the card count down to three decks or so, further reducing the cost per AP when some Core Set expansions might apply to multiple APs.
APs would not feature iconic characters. Instead, they would feature non-iconic characters that are designed for the AP. Such characters would have one generic role that might render them usable in any AP, and one role that is tailored for the AP in which they are included. Curse of the Crimson Throne gave us four characters (not including the Blackjack role), and that seems like a good model to follow for APs. In addition, APs might include new role cards for a few (four to six?) iconic characters that are in the Core Set or the Core Set expansion that supports the AP (one role card providing two roles). These roles would reflect the needs of the AP. So I would start with identifying suitable iconic characters from the Core Set and applicable Core Set expansion, then fill in the ability gaps with the AP-specific characters (while observing the theme of the AP).
My initial focus would be:
- Re-designing the Core Set box so that it can accommodate all Core Set cards, all cards for a single Core Set expansion, all cards for an AP, and all storybooks for those
- Re-designing Curse of the Crimson Throne to factor in a suitable Core Set expansion,
- Creating character decks for the characters that currently appear in Curse of the Crimson Throne, but which will be replaced in the reissue
- Updating classic character decks
- Finishing the Year of Reborn Strife
The re-designing of the Core Set box is probably easiest as it only entails slightly more depth to the box (that may be easier said than done, I know). The box is already of sufficient size to hold all the suggested cards.
Re-designing Curse of the Crimson Throne includes:
- Figuring out the theme of the supporting Core Set expansion
- Determining if any of the current iconic characters (Hakon, Kess, and Quinn) need to be in the AP or the Core Set expansion (I could see Varian staying in the AP and Kess and Quinn staying in the expansion, but Hakon seems ill-suited for either)
- Filling out the characters in both the AP and the expansion
- Possibly expanding cards in the AP and the expansion to get each up to 330 or so cards (i.e., we would need about 110 additional cards total between the two)
I’m not sure how much work was done on the Year of Reborn Strife, but I have no doubt that most of us would like to see that AP completed.
The remaining workload would be devoted to getting as many of the classic character decks as possible updated.
Important: The AP boxes would be sized to fit all the cards within standing up and sleeved! This includes a reissue of Curse of the Crimson Throne. I guess the storybook becomes the lowest common denominator in terms of length and width.
My assumption is that a renewal of PACG would follow the previous pattern of one AP per year, along with a Season/Year of… Society play AP and character decks.
In my mind, the basic sequence each year would be:
- Core Set expansion
- AP
- character decks
- promo stuff
Eventually, we might even see the classic APs reissued under Core Set rules and format. I’m not sure if that’s really necessary, but it’s worth bringing up as an option. I count 25 Pathfinder RPG 2e APs, and that number will continue to grow. And the 1e APs remain an option, too, with 19 of those (not including the five that have already been released as PACG APs). And then there are all the standalone adventures and scenarios – fertile ground for small releases.
Now that’s actually quite a bit of work, and I don’t think anyone that hasn’t been involved in the design process can really appreciate how much work is required and the resources required to perform that work to a high level. Much of that work depends upon the size of the team involved.
If you’ve stuck with this wall of text post from beginning to end, I’m impressed (and grateful). I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have about my ideas, and I have no doubt that there will be other opinions, and I’m more than happy to hear them and to discuss them (and possibly change my mind).
Will any of this amount to anything? I don’t know. I doubt that anything will happen unless someone gets the ball rolling, though, so this is me giving the ball a push.
* My rationale for Jade Regent being first (after redesigning Curse of the Crimson Throne, of course) is that the “Ultimate” character decks need to be updated early in the process to support Society play and the movement of Hayato and Reiko to a Core Set expansion supporting Tian Xia (necessary as part of a Jade Regent release year) means that new characters would be needed to replace them (and the other characters) in the “Ultimate” character decks. Removing those two characters from the stable, even temporarily, rubs me the wrong way, so they need to be taken care of early. That and I really like the Tian Xia theme. Besides, this is my pipe dream. ;)
The biggest challenge here is that whatever direction they would hypothetically go with needs to be able to generate enough revenue to continue further development and maintain profitability. On the Pathfinder Quest crowdsourcing, I had mentioned PACG needing some love and crowdsourcing to be a potential solution to that as they could gauge interest and profitability before actual production. It got some traction, but also a very noncommittal "hey, thanks for letting us know what you like" reaction from Paizo. I stand by Kickstarter or whatever being a great way to market and revitalize PACG by introducing it to people in a modern way.
My rub a genie lamp wish would honestly be for them to sell the engine to someone else so they could remake the game with a new IP. Not because I dislike Pathfinder, I've just not been wholly impressed with how they've done business post-pandemic in general and don't feel like they can sustain any non-RPG PF/SF product line. But, even that's a gamble as the current board/card game development industry is in a bit of turmoil.
So, let's start from where you're leading, Brother Tyler...
In the interest of profitability, I strongly disagree with revamping Core in any way. I do think they need to focus exclusively on Core and divest away from Pre-Core, as much as I love it. But, build off of existing Core AS IS. If they went crowdfunding route, obviously offer packages with Core set involved.
The real first AP should be what was already being developed with Return of the Runelords IF they still have any resources available from the previous cycle. I freely suggest this without hesitation, not from a preference standpoint, but from a cost one. If they have previous development collateral, this would save some cost and time on their part. If they DON'T have the development collateral from it, then I digress and don't really care what AP they chose.
From the reworking core suggestion (even if only in methodology) you would reintroduce the transition problem from preCore to Core that we already experienced. "Is my old set any good? Do I need to buy the new one if I already have this? Why do I need to rebuy a new game system?". Someone, somewhere is going to feel alienated by the process. And if there's anything a relaunch will need is accessibility and security for ALL players, new and experienced. For anyone hoping for a revision of content, wouldn't it be better to have a new AP at all? The priority here should be new product 1st far and wide beyond fixing anything at all. Get people back into the game, get them new AP to play in, then see where things are before anything else. No other priorities whatsoever. Without new sales, none of this goes anywhere.
edit: to be clear, I very much welcome the discussion, even if we don't agree on all points. A reintroduction of PACG in ANY form would make me quite happy.
Great to see people still thinking about this, even if it's not anyone with Paizo or Lone Shark :)
Agreed with Deekow—any future should build off of Core as it is, rather than a redesigned Core. The biggest changes I'm willing to sign off on there are updated traits and names to reflect changes in the PF2E remaster (e.g. Aiuvarin instead of Half-elf, Force Barrage instead of Force Missile)—but the original Core Set should always be compatible with new APs.
For a similar reason, the old Class Decks should still be allowed to be played with the new sets, even when a new version is made. The two sets are compatible for a reason. And, this also puts less pressure on the developers to remake EVERY character.
I love the idea of setting expansions. No notes. (except that the name should be Setting Expansion, rather than Core Set Expansion)
In my mind, a Setting Expansion should cover levels 3–6, as that's where Core starts to really drop off.
I'm undecided on whether having new APs require SEs is a good idea or not. On one hand, that's more cards for the designers to work with; on the other, more products you have to buy (even if they are still cheaper than the old APs, it could well be a sticking point). I'm leaning towards "No, but call out the matching SE in the Build The Vault text".
PACS seasons/years, on the other hand, can and should mix and match Setting Expansions and Adventure Paths.
As for character decks—again, I agree with most of what you said (with the exception I already said, of not actually disallowing the old CDs.) Reprinting the Core Iconics with the same base powers but different role cards seems like a sensible and interesting way to go. (And with that concept, I see no reason for the new APs to not include iconics, but they don't need to either.)
I like the Core standees and will advocate for those over token cards of any sort, but I suppose some sort of solution is needed for the old sets where you could shuffle your token into a location. Maybe each new character deck can come with a single "Character proxy" for that situation? (With each deck's having different art.) It's not quite ideal, but it's also a bit of a corner case.
What I'm not sure about is what to call the new character decks. "[Class] Core" is nice thematically and for RPG consistency, but would absolutely lead to confusion when the game has a "Core Set" that's something completely different, especially among new players (who are likely to be told "just buy any Core deck and you can join"). The next obvious choice is "[Class] Class Deck", but that's already been taken by the old versions and a different name would be greatly preferred. "Base" is out for the same reason as "Core".
Thesaurus, help me. "Essence"? Actually, "Essential [Class]" might work. It's not ideal, but I'm having trouble finding what is. "Essential Fighter", "Essential Sorcerer", "Essential Bard"... it has a decent ring to it.
And now I have a bold idea of my own to propose. Like how the old CDs can be paired with Ultimate decks, the new Essential decks can be paid with a new kind: Archetype decks! These would feature both archetypes that were classes in 1E—such as Cavalier and Vigilante—but also new and more eccentric ones like Gladiator, Acrobat, and Field Propagandist. Like the Ultimate decks, these Archetype decks would include one new character that exemplifies the titled archetype, but the real focus would be a number of new archetype roles (I'm thinking three) that can be applied to any character, like Blackjack in Curse! (For example, the Vigilante archetype deck might include the Vigilante, Dandy, and Assassin archetype roles.)
I'm thinking you can pair any two of the five deck types together (Class/Character, Ultimate, Essential, Archetype, and Adventurer's Pack); also that only the old Class/Character decks get two packs, all others only one. Also thinking that, once we have Essential decks for the twelve Core classes, Adventurer's Packs would be removed as an option for new characters.
Of course, as everyone, I'd be thrilled to have any new PACG content, whether it matches anything we've said here or not! :)
Unfortunately, Brother Tyler, I think it literally is a pipe dream, at least as you envision it.
For physical product, I agree that crowdfunding is probably the only way this would happen, and the price would probably need to be on the high side since the game doesn't have mass appeal. Even then, we'd be lucky to get one new AP, so a new AP like Curse, using the new design model, would be the best hope. I'd be fine with Return of the Runelords or any other AP.
Unlike Deekow, I wouldn't want to see the PACG engine used on a different IP. Cartmanbeck did that with Starfinder, and I just had no interest because I'm not interested in Starfinder. More PACG is what I want.
I agree with foxoftheasterisk that compatibility with old material is best, though I wouldn't change heritage traits on the cards (eg Aiuvarin instead of Half-elf). In the story it can be noted that there are newer terms, but needing to know all the new names and which old racial traits to which they're equivalent is too much for many casual players.
Setting expansions, revamped class decks, archtype decks*, and such fanciful ideas are unlikely to be big draws, as fun as they might be. These would be better as Pathfinder Infinite projects. Let's hope I'm wrong, and the obvious first project - a new Core era AP - would do well enough to spark interest in trying a myriad of new products, but it's probably better to stick with what would have the broadest appeal to maintain profitability and continued new development.
(*Actually really like this idea if they were toned down a bit compared to Blackjack)
These characters you mentioned use artwork from the NPC Codex:
Bard - Bekah (Esaye Polbele) - Tribal Leader (p. 36) - LE
Ranger - Wrathack - Angel Slayer (p. 138) - CE
Rogue - Wu Shen - Death Whisperer (p. 158) - LE
Sorcerer - Valendron - Storm Sorcerer (p. 163) - NE
Wizard - Darago (No name given) - Grand Necromancer (p. 193) - NE
Zarlova's artwork comes from Inner Sea Gods. She doesn't get an RPG stat block anywhere AFAIK, but as a Cleric of Nethys I'd lean towards True Neutral.
ObTopic: While I don't expect Paizo to ever come back to the PACG, if they were to do so at this moment I'd expect them to start with a new Core Box because they'd want to align everything with the RPG's Remastered Second Edition.
Brother Tyler, shame on me for not leading with how much I enjoyed reading and imagining your vision for the game. I, too, would love to see your dream realized, and I appreciate that you took the time to share it!
I commend this idea. Every time we talk about what campaign-oriented board-game we're going to play next, I look over at Mummy's Mask and ponder trotting that one out again.
And as someone close to the two guys who used KS to resurrect a ten-year-dead CCG recently (Warlord, starting to deliver to backers now), I'll say it can be done.
Number one hurdle is obviously the biggest - rights and licensing. I hear so little about Lone Shark these days that I don't know what their take would be. Paizo, otoh, just did PF Quest and has Runefire in the works. They probably won't like competition.
Beyond that, I'm not sure the Core Set Expansion is needed to be separate from the AP. But that will come down to card pool decisions as much as anything. i.e. What needs reprinting/updating/adding to the permanent core pool vs how much custom content does the AP need?
It is interesting how, outside of characters, people don't even try to port cards from set to set. None of my friends ever said, "can we put even one Augury into SotS, pleeeaaase?" So maybe that expanding core pool is a necessity (favorites from each previous AP could migrate), similar to how CCGs reprint expansion cards in later edition base sets. :shrug:
|
Speaking as someone who ran tables of the organized play variant of PACG for all seasons, and has a stack of at least 10 PACG base sets (plus all add-on adventure decks) in one corner of our 'game room', plus every other PACG card deck. etc. (usually in multiple copies), I'd love to see more interest in PACG and PACG-like games. But it's hard to get enough people together in one place at the same time for games nowadays - I'm not sure there's enough of an audience for in-person play.
I've tried running PACG on Table Top Simulator, but I found it a poor substitute for face-to-face gaming. I much preferred the interface that the single-user computer game used; that was designed to give you the information you wanted, when you wanted it, and was much more user-friendly. I've often wondered how feasible it would be to provide a Foundry platform implementation with a similar look-and-feel.
I really appreciate all the thoughtful and honest responses, even those that shoot my ideas down. I know that I’m not the only person who enjoys this game and wants to see it reinvigorated, and I know that my vision isn’t necessarily representative of what others would like to see. It’s always good to compare notes and, maybe, see if something positive can come out of discussion.
The biggest challenge here is that whatever direction they would hypothetically go with needs to be able to generate enough revenue to continue further development and maintain profitability. On the Pathfinder Quest crowdsourcing, I had mentioned PACG needing some love and crowdsourcing to be a potential solution to that as they could gauge interest and profitability before actual production. It got some traction, but also a very noncommittal "hey, thanks for letting us know what you like" reaction from Paizo. I stand by Kickstarter or whatever being a great way to market and revitalize PACG by introducing it to people in a modern way.
I’m deliberately avoiding the funding aspect. I fully understand how important the funding aspect is, but that’s a decision that must be made inside the boardroom and based on data that is not available to me. I would support official crowdfunding campaigns the same as I would support a traditional publishing/funding model. While I’m not opposed to private/fan efforts, I see those as having much more limited chances of success and overall support compared to the official efforts that I’m focused on.
I strongly disagree with revamping Core in any way.
… any future should build off of Core as it is, rather than a redesigned Core.
The only “changes” about the Core Set that I’ve proposed have been the inclusion of character tokens (using the same card backs as the banes and boons) and increasing the font size of the storybooks. I don’t see those as significant revamps/redesigns. Yes, the character tokens don’t exist in the [current] Core Set and I can’t recall any cards off the top of my head that might result in characters being trapped in locations, but that mechanic was used in the classic APs and including such character tokens as a matter of forward compatibility seems prudent. This would also provide backward compatibility, allowing [post-]Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne characters to be used in classic APs without having to proxy character tokens. If they were ever to revisit PACG, there may be ways to get tokens without having to add them to the Core Set (which might affect other cards). These might include using the updated character decks, errata packs, etc. Regardless, I firmly believe that tokens need to be reintroduced. I absolutely agree with the view that the standees are superior [to tokens] for indicating a character’s location, but standees can’t be shuffled into locations in a way that makes their placement random/unknown. You can see some of the standees that I use in my blog post (scroll down to the bottom). Under my vision, the existing Core Set would remain perfectly valid. Since the Core Set is no longer in production, however, and since the Core Set would be a necessary component for any future AP if the line were to be renewed, there would have to be additional runs for as long as the product line continues to be supported. In a way, though the Core Set revitalized some things, its requirement for future APs painted Paizo into a corner of sorts regarding the need to continue production for the duration of the product line (never mind the fact that the product line was aborted shortly after the Core Set was released). In this, the classic APs provided a different sort of flexibility with regard to production (i.e., each AP being self-contained allowed production of an AP to end without affecting the rest of the product line).
… the original Core Set should always be compatible with new APs.
Agreed.
The real first AP should be what was already being developed with Return of the Runelords IF they still have any resources available from the previous cycle. I freely suggest this without hesitation, not from a preference standpoint, but from a cost one. If they have previous development collateral, this would save some cost and time on their part. If they DON'T have the development collateral from it, then I digress and don't really care what AP they chose.
This is a very logical argument; and we already know that it wasn’t Jade Regent (dangit!). If any of the in-development and analysis material remains available to future developers, that material should be utilized to the fullest extent. And if the expansions I’ve suggested aren’t used, or are used in a very limited manner and none would be created for the Tian Xia setting, my hoped for sequencing of Jade Regent becomes moot. If an expansion for the Tian Xia setting would be on the table, however, I would definitely want that AP as early as possible in the sequencing.
The biggest changes I'm willing to sign off on there are updated traits and names to reflect changes in the PF2E remaster (e.g. Aiuvarin instead of Half-elf, Force Barrage instead of Force Missile)…
…I wouldn't change heritage traits on the cards (eg Aiuvarin instead of Half-elf).
I had to think about this suggestion a bit. I had seen some of the name changes when reading the Pathfinder Wiki entry for Oloch (i.e., Dromaar replaced half-orc). I hadn’t formed a solid opinion when composing my initial post, however. After consideration, I definitely agree with updating names of spells and the like, but I disagree with renaming the races. “Aiuvarin” is an Elven word and “Dromaar” comes from an Orcish word. While these names are apropos in the setting, they become obscure to players, especially those who might not be familiar with the roleplaying game. The use of the English (okay, Common) names preserves accessibility, especially when new players are likely to ask “What is an Aiuvarin?” and receive the response “It’s a half-elf.” The game generally (but not always) simplifies race names. For example, we don’t see “Ilverani,” “Vourinoi,” “Aiudeen,” etc. Instead, all are referred to simply as “Elf.” Using thematic names should only be done when it is necessary (e.g., I could see “Drow” instead of “Elf,” but only if it is necessary to reflect rules impacts such as something only applying to Drow cards and not to Elf cards).
… the name should be Setting Expansion, rather than Core Set Expansion…
I prefer the name you suggested and will use it from now on.
I'm not sure the Core Set Expansion is needed to be separate from the AP.
(And all the other comments about my suggested expansions…)
Realistically, my theoretical setting expansions (to use foxoftheasterisk’s superior name) would really only be viable if each supported two or more APs, and the more APs any expansion supports, the more cost-effective it becomes. That would depend upon long-term sustainability of the product line. So while I really like the idea of the expansions and firmly believe that they would be beneficial for supporting both official products and community-created efforts, I could see them not being used, or perhaps being used on a much smaller scale (i.e., only where necessary).
…the old Class Decks should still be allowed to be played with the new sets, even when a new version is made.
I could live with that. In my mind, the intent of updated decks would be to replace the old decks, but I can understand how some players might want to continue using the old decks with new Core products. While I still prefer the hard separation, I think both sides can be appeased by giving players conversions of the other cards in the decks. We already took care of the characters and I believe that other hobbyists have worked on similar efforts for the other boons in those decks, so officially codifying those products (with corrections, of course) would be a workable solution.
What I'm not sure about is what to call the new character decks. "[Class] Core" is nice thematically and for RPG consistency, but would absolutely lead to confusion when the game has a "Core Set" that's something completely different, especially among new players (who are likely to be told "just buy any Core deck and you can join"). The next obvious choice is "[Class] Class Deck", but that's already been taken by the old versions and a different name would be greatly preferred. "Base" is out for the same reason as "Core".
Thesaurus, help me. "Essence"? Actually, "Essential [Class]" might work. It's not ideal, but I'm having trouble finding what is. "Essential Fighter", "Essential Sorcerer", "Essential Bard"... it has a decent ring to it.
Yup, this was difficult for me, too. I know the "~ Core" idea is meh.
At this point, I’m of the opinion that simply referring to them collectively as “character decks” and then calling each by its name (e.g., Fighter Deck and Warpriest Deck), appending something like "Updated" or "Revised" to those decks that are updated from classic to [post-]Core would be easiest. Another alternative is to follow the precedent of PFRPG 2e and use the “Remastered” designation.
And now I have a bold idea of my own to propose. Like how the old CDs can be paired with Ultimate decks, the new Essential decks can be paid with a new kind: Archetype decks! These would feature both archetypes that were classes in 1E—such as Cavalier and Vigilante—but also new and more eccentric ones like Gladiator, Acrobat, and Field Propagandist. Like the Ultimate decks, these Archetype decks would include one new character that exemplifies the titled archetype, but the real focus would be a number of new archetype roles (I'm thinking three) that can be applied to any character, like Blackjack in Curse! (For example, the Vigilante archetype deck might include the Vigilante, Dandy, and Assassin archetype roles.)
At first I was confused by this suggestion because I only understood archetypes in the contest of PFRPG 1e, and the roles often reflected various of those archetypes. After gaining an understanding of how the archetypes have changed in PFRPG 2d, however, I think this is a great idea.
A variation on this idea is that the new class decks might include an archetype role card that isn’t associated with one of the characters in the deck. So you would have the three characters and all three cards associated with them (Character, Role, and Token), plus one card that has two archetype roles. Any character from any deck/AP/Core Set might choose one of the archetype roles and, in Guild play, use the character deck from which the archetype role card comes. The trade-off here, though, is that there would be that one of the boons would have to be replaced (or the instruction card might be replaced) with this archetype role card. So the [theoretical] Swashbuckler character deck would include three complete characters as well as a general use Swashbuckler role card. Depending on the variability or requirements necessary for a multiclass archetype, one role would be for characters from other classes to take the Swashbuckler as a multiclass, and one might provide either an alternative or, if the first is sufficient, provide an alternative role that any Swashbuckler character might choose. This is an elegant solution for general use roles, and is better than an idea I suggested back in 2017 (though I’m certainly not the first one to come up with that idea).
I’m totally down with extending the concept of the add-on decks, allowing players to use two decks for their characters in Guild play. In such cases, the default would be to use whatever deck the character appears in and one other deck (in the case of a multiclass archetype role, the second deck would be the deck that includes that role card). There might be guidelines about the second deck, most likely along the lines of allowing any add-on deck or a deck based on traits the character has. For example, if my hypothetical Elves Character Deck were ever created, any Elf character might use that deck in addition to their main deck (e.g., Merisiel from the Thief Class Deck or the updated Thief Deck (whatever that might end up being called) could pair that deck with the Elf [Character] Deck). Similarly, that is the sort of concept I was working towards with my Non-Gunslinger Gunslingers and Harrower Character Deck projects. In the first, I was creating characters who used guns, but who were actually either multi-classed Gunslinger-X or were other classes (one was a Ranger, one was an Inquisitor, and one was a Goblin Barbarian). In the second, I was creating characters who used the Harrows in different ways, each from a different class (one was a Witch, one was a Magus, and one was a Summoner). Each of the six characters would theoretically be able to use their parent deck (Non-Gunslinger Gunslingers, whatever that ended up being called, and Harrowers) as well as the class deck for their class.
It is interesting how, outside of characters, people don't even try to port cards from set to set.
Well, in most cases those other cards aren’t really necessary. Most of the time, the boons necessary for an AP are included in the AP. The exceptions I can think of relate to characters, and occasionally specific roles, for which suitable boons are only found in the AP in which the [version of the] character is found. For example, Sea Witch Feiya (S&S) needs Hshurha blessings, Lirianne (S&S) needs Firearms, Fallen Arueshalae (WotR) needs those Corrupted cards, etc. Having the corresponding character decks might help, but if those aren’t available to you (or if you just want more of the “right” boons), you’ll need to add the cards from the AP. Many characters don’t need this, however, so there is much less focus on adding boons from other sets.
My rub a genie lamp wish would honestly be for them to sell the engine to someone else so they could remake the game with a new IP.
I’m invested in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game and would be more than happy to continue throwing my money at that. I’m not at all opposed to the engine being used for some other IP/setting, but my interest here is in seeing it continue under Paizo. I have no idea if I would have any interest in any other IP/setting.
Thanks for the information on the characters, Parody.
Speaking as someone who ran tables of the organized play variant of PACG for all seasons, and has a stack of at least 10 PACG base sets…
You just made me remember something else that I’ve been thinking about. With the legacy model of an AP being self-contained in a single box, it was possible to play multiple APs at once. With the Core Set model, however, and the arrangement of each AP requiring the Core Set, you would only be able to play one AP at a time unless you have additional copies of the Core Set. This is an [unexpected?] inefficiency in the Core model compared to the legacy model, especially since we only ever saw one AP for the Core Set. Had the product line not been aborted, however, some players (especially those involved in Guild play) would have run into this problem. Realistically, this wouldn’t have been a problem for most of us. I suppose the lower cost of the Core Set offsets the inefficiency somewhat, but it’s still something to be considered.
And on the track of something I didn’t bring up before, if PACG were ever to be reinvigorated, I would love to see a master living rulebook (digital). This would be a single rulebook that incorporates all of the rules in their most current format, allowing players to download a single file instead of having to consult multiple rulebooks. The individual rulebooks would still be available, as now, but if you want to read about Traders and The Harrow and Plunder, you can check the living rulebook instead of having to open Mummy’s Mask, Curse of the Crimson Throne, and Skull & Shackles. Come to think of it, that might be something for Pathfinder Infinite (hmmm…maybe a new project with which to divert myself…).
In my mind, a Setting Expansion should cover levels 3–6, as that's where Core starts to really drop off.
New APs as expansions similar to Curse, focusing on levels 4-6+ (mainly) with 3-4 sheets à 110 cards sounds great…
I don’t think the expansions (or the APs, for that matter) should be limited to levels 3/4 or higher. While I could see the preponderance of cards being of those levels, there should definitely be room for lower level cards where necessary to the theme/AP.
As for the size of the box, I was able to easily fit everything from CoCT inside its box even when sleeved - in PerfectSize sleeves. So I do not see the need to change its size; as for the Core box, it's size would not suffice for many APs, but is there a need for it? Original pre-Core boxes are huge: they fit enormous amounts of cards when fitted with cardboard inserts like in Core (all my S&S, WotR and ~ 12 character decks + extra cards for Seasons.
While I could see it being possible to store the Curse of the Crimson Throne cards in the original box when sleeved, they wouldn’t be upright (unless I’m remembering incorrectly, but this discussion indicates that I’m remembering correctly). They might be stored sideways, which I suppose is fine. Actually, I can’t be certain that my memory is correct since I decided that the Curse of the Crimson Throne box was too small and got rid of it when Paizo/Lone Shark killed the game. Do you have any pictures of your game box with the cards stored within? I went in the opposite direction, storing all the Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne cards in the Core Set box, sleeved and with dividers and other stuff. Had the line been continued, we would have quickly reached a point where the size of the box would have been insufficient to permanently store more cards. In this, I could see a system whereby an AP’s cards would be permanently stored in the original (redesigned) AP box, and added to the Core Set box when playing that AP. With the additional pipe dream of Guild season/year cards also being stored in the corresponding AP box, and often having multiple seasons/years per AP, having a little additional room in those boxes would be important if we ever got officially available cards. My classic AP boxes ended up being filled almost to capacity, with a little room for season/year cards [had that ever happened]. You can see an image of my Wrath of the Righteous Base Set with the Broken Token PACG organizer, all sleeved cards, and my dividers here. The total card count for the Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne is a bit lower than the classic APs (990 cards versus 1,160 cards), but there is no way that the current Core Set box would be able to store more than two (three?) sets’ worth of AP cards [if all cards were fully sleeved] along with the other stuff that is in there like the standees, tokens, etc. You can see a picture of my Core Set box with all of the Curse of the Crimson Throne contents added, all cards sleeved, and my homemade dividers included here. The AP boxes (if we were ever to get more) would have to be able to serve as permanent storage solutions with the Core Set box only working for the current AP in play being added.
Unfortunately, Brother Tyler, I think it literally is a pipe dream, at least as you envision it.
Oddball says to knock it off with them negative waves. ;)
I mean, you’re not wrong, but let an old man have his dreams.