| 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!