Recent Posts
Every group is different, and when Paizo writes an AP, they can't tailor the adventures to every party perfectly. That's the DM's job. Having run through most of the 1st installment of this adventure, I can say that it is only as railroady as the DM wants it to be. ESPECIALLY the first 2 installments. It's up to the DM and the players to make characters that are invested in the campaign and actually interested in helping. That is part of the campaign set-up. If your character doesn't give a rat's fat ass about Korvosa, then you need to make a character that does, because it's integral to the story.
The first two installments are a series of short scenarios punctuated by a few longer treks. How would you, as an author, get the PC's involved if NOT by NPC's? You pretty much can't. But your DM can. He can tailor the hook for specific PCs, and they can interact as much as they want with the rest of the city as the DM is comfortable. IMC, one character is a second son of a Dock House, and instead of Field Marshal Kroft siccing the party on Devargo, I tailored it so that the diplomat was trying to blackmail the PC's father into selling his holdings at far below cost. The motivation for the diplomat is given in the adventure, (he is trying to drive down the price of property so he can buy it up and live like royalty), I just made it personal. The party went off after Devargo because they heard he might have something on the diplomat (how did they hear? not by an NPC running up and telling them! Several of the rescued street urchins now work as informants for the PC, at his request, and he had them watch the diplomat and report back). They went on the adventure, and the NPC "questgiver" never entered the picture. This is just one example of how the DM can take the bare bones of the adventure and make it come alive by tailoring it to HIS party. NPCs handing out quests is usually the default method, but also the last resort.
As for the "always buffed" problem, the statblocks often (although not accurately) portray the NPCs in their buffed state for simplicity. If there is no good reason for them to buff up (or to still be buffed after a long delay, as in your example) then that is the DM's fault, not the AP. Your DM either didn't read the encounter very carefully, or just decided not to rework the stats to reflect the unboffed condition. Hardly the AP's fault. In fact, often in an old 1st ed game I played in, when we knew we were being watched (scry, etc) we'd walk right up to the door, act like we were about to bust it down, then walk away and come back in an hour for the express purpose of tricking the NPCs into buffing and then letting the buffs expire.
So if your main question is - will the adventure more or less be about getting adventure ops from NPCs etc. and then going on those adventure ops then the answer is yes - that is exactly what the campaign will be about.Then quite frankly this is a very poorly designed series of modules. There are lots of ways to lead characters by their noses in an adventure path without going to RPG version of Inspector Gadget and the explosing mission note at the beginning of every "episode" of the adventure.
Thanks for the information. Basically I can sit back, let the scenary go by and defeat the monsters it drops off in front of me.
One would think though that an Adventure Path based around a city with the complex relations that exist in the city would deviate from this path at least a little bit. But obviously that was too complex an idea.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Of all the four complete APs out at the moment, "Curse" is by far the most versatile and open one. If your GM does not take that opportunity and goes down the "NPC gives you a mission" path... now that definitely is HIS fault.
For several of the missions, the PCs should have motivations of their own, regardless of being told by the NPCs, especially if the players get into the game of interacting with the city, its inhabitants and the backstory unfolding.. e.g. "showing interest"
Plus, a good GM, without much work, can easily re-tailor many of the "kick-offs" as to come off naturally, spinning tie.ins from the characters backstories, having them meet NPCs long before they become relevant as "mission-givers" and making the characters care about them.
all in all, if he is doing his homework (and yes, I work a demanding full-time job and have a social life besides GMing a - comprehensively extended - Curse-AP). Any pre-written adventure must either be adjusted, added too or trimmed down to run fluently with any given group. Show me ONE that doesn't and is above par.
Even on pre-made adventures there is an invisible sticker "some assembly required".
As an example - a friend of mine is running "curse" as well, and though we have rather similar ideas about gaming and gamed together for years, his Korvosa does not resemble mine at all. Simply because our groups are set up differently, in players, characters and flavour chosen for the campaign. His chars are merchants and established folks. Mine are ex-gutter rats. His players sided with the revolutionaries. Mine didn't. Mine on the other hand, for a time, worked for the "secret branch" of the Blackjackets. His were wanted criminals, now pardonned. All of this with in the very "offical" framework of the AP
And, yes "Curse" has its conceptional problems, but they are neither railroading in nature nor being unimaginative. So, you either have a lazy or a less than skilled GM. Possibly both... it happens, has happened before and will happen again.
BUT....Neither of that is the fault of the AP or its authors. The facts as are of the AP don't really back you up your opinion.
The AP does neither require railroading, nor does it presume a certain order of the sub-chapters and few of them are essential. Some NPcs should be met, some things achieved. If you don't, the story, like every heroic story arc, ends in failure. But it does require a GM willing to improvise and detail many things beside the framework given in the adventures
But let me drop one hint - interact with the environment and NPCs. Start stuff with NPCs that is not immediately related to the adventure at hand. Add detail to the world on your own. Live and breathe the city.... You even have a paladin, the made-to-order "we need to do something about this" character-class. If your GM does not pick up on your free hints, or grabs the hooks you hand him.... well then he isn't a good GM.
Every group is different, and when Paizo writes an AP, they can't tailor the adventures to every party perfectly. That's the DM's job. Having run through most of the 1st installment of this adventure, I can say that it is only as railroady as the DM wants it to be. ESPECIALLY the first 2 installments. It's up to the DM and the players to make characters that are invested in the campaign and actually interested in helping. That is part of the campaign set-up. If your character doesn't give a rat's fat ass about Korvosa, then you need to make a character that does, because it's integral to the story.
The first two installments are a series of short scenarios punctuated by a few longer treks. How would you, as an author, get the PC's involved if NOT by NPC's? You pretty much can't. But your DM can. He can tailor the hook for specific PCs, and they can interact as much as they want with the rest of the city as the DM is comfortable. IMC, one character is a second son of a Dock House, and instead of Field Marshal Kroft siccing the party on Devargo, I tailored it so that the diplomat was trying to blackmail the PC's father into selling his holdings at far below cost. The motivation for the diplomat is given in the adventure, (he is trying to drive down the price of property so he can buy it up and live like royalty), I just made it personal. The party went off after Devargo because they heard he might have something on the diplomat (how did they hear? not by an NPC running up and telling them! Several of the rescued street urchins now work as informants for the PC, at his request, and he had them watch the diplomat and report back). They went on the adventure, and the NPC "questgiver" never entered the picture. This is just one example of how the DM can take the bare bones of the adventure and make it come alive by tailoring it to HIS party. NPCs handing out quests is usually the default method, but also the last resort.
As for the "always buffed" problem, the statblocks often (although not accurately)...
I so agree with that^^
Of course there are groups so inured to the NPC-Mission concept they never take the initiative and dumbfoundedly wait for an NPC to come along and tell them what to do.
Someone posted that the ship first appears at the beginning of the module but you do not explore it till just about the end. Which is obviously true, if you arrived at the ship at 4th level the hag would be a nightmare. Though I would like to point out that the hag had a shark animal companion which suggests she was not on the ship from the start but moved in after the ship sank. If this is the case then a party that explored immediatly could get there before the hag was there and thus avoid the tough encounter.
Woah there! Stop bashing your DM! That is the modules fault!
Sorry, I had to be a little smart alecky.
You are, of course, correct. There is a LOT of things that your DM could have done with the situation that would have made it not feel railroady... but as you describe him he seems unwilling to even apply logic to the situations regarding buffing, let alone adjust encounters.
I know you don't want a DM bashing session, but frankly, in this case that is where the issue lies. As others have mentioned there could be a LOT of reasons for that, be it inexperience, no time to read the adventures and get to know the plot, or just being bitter that he has to run a module instead of the uber-campaign he had thought of. They aren't mutually exclusive, but none might be the case as well. For whatever reason your DM is running this MUCH different than how I would having read the modules or how the journals of others show that they did.
To answer your original question though, I don't feel the later modules will open this up for you any. They have tons of ways they could be open but it doesn't sound like your DM will use them as the first two also could be very open and your DM decided not to do so. I don't see any indication in what you have said that should make you think your DM would be any different in running the future adventures.
Sean Mahoney
(This is assuming he is doing this) Now if you do this to make it a challenege for the barbarian then you seriously screw the poor monk who only has a +6 to hit. I love it when every big baddie we enounter requires a 19 or 20 to hit unles I flank, in which case I merely need a 17 or 18.
Well, tactics do come into things. Does the monk try grappling the big baddie? Sure there are times it isn't a good idea, but looking at the encounters that you are describing it would be a GREAT idea.
The wererat (Girrigz) had a touch AC (buffed) of 14. Well within range of someone with a +6 to hit. His grapple check (once again buffed) was +7, if you could have beat that, even for a round (and avoided the AoO from either a feat or a miss), the encounter would pretty much be over... His AC would have dropped at that point from a 25 to 21 and as he is then denied his Dex bonus to anyone not in the grapple a precision damage comes into play as well. He also wouldn't be able to do much besides deal with the monk while the rest of the party gangs up and stabs him to death.
The hag had a touch AC of 13, but a grapple of +13... still doable if you had worked on grapple at all, but tougher to beat at a grapple.
The 'goth chick' had a touch AC of 15 and a grapple of +6... and she was a caster, so grappling her would have pretty much ended her good time very easily.
And that is just one tactic to consider. You mention flanking, but throw in aid another (even monsters from a summon monster I can flank and perform aid another actions), higher ground is great if you can get it for another +1 (jump up on tables and chairs and do other swashbucklery fun things to get it), and of course buff yourselfs!
Spellcasters have access to lost of touch attack spells and they would have ended things quickly here.
So yeah, a monk can't hit someone full AC as well as a raging barbarian who took feats to get bonuses and put all their stats into Str... big shock... but monks are a fight smarter, not harder kind of class. Grapples, trips, disarms... they all make a big difference in the right situation. Use them and then laugh as the barbarian smashes them easily (and probably can drop some BAB into Power Attack to finish them that much quicker).
Sean Mahoney
So we are completely lacking in decent healing. The current joke is that the first person to die has to roll up cleric since we need one pretty badly. Depending on how they look in revised Pathfinder I may just swap out my character the monk for a cleric for party benefit.
If you are using the Magic Item Compendium (or their original source) then healing belts are your best friend here. Wands of Cure Light Wounds (and higher) can be used in this party by the Paladin and possibly the thief if they have been working on Use Magic Device. Frankly, playing a cleric shouldn't make you the healer, but a really powerful buffer and combatant who can also heal if you get the urge.
Sean Mahoney
So far we have:
escorted the not assasin
stopped the perfume/cure fraud
killed the vampires
killed the were-rat
just finished capturing the goth-elf in the party manorOh and we averted the Grey Maidens from slaughtering a crowd of almost rioting civilians.
Are we going to be able to pull off the end portion of this module at our current level?
It looks like you still have (assuming your DM ignores the sidebar giving seeds for further non-stated encounters):
EL 2 - 1
EL 3 - 1
EL 4 - 1
EL 5 - 1
EL 6 - 1
EL 7 - 1
EL 8 - 3
EL 9 - 3
EL 10 - 1
EL 10 - 1 (optional through RP)
Several of those could considered as much of 'big bads' as the folks we have talked about so far, if not more so. It is also likely that you will level again before you hit those 10's.
For a party of 5 who are 5th level and make six during the move to the finale, yes this is doable, but it is possible you will have a death. That is always the possibility though. It is very common in an adventure to see the final encounter be average party level +4 for the EL.
Sean Mahoney
Robert Brambley
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
One would think though that an Adventure Path based around a city with the complex relations that exist in the city would deviate from this path at least a little bit. But obviously that was too complex an idea.
I'm going to chim in here. First off - it's abundantly clear that you've gotten many responses already that are pretty much saying the same thing - and I'm sure you're tired of reading the same thing. Let me try a somewhat different approach.
Given the quote of yours that I put above, to me, it sounds mostly like what you're looking for is a "campaign setting" to play in. Not an Adventure Path.
So ultimately - what your frustration stems from is simply a difference in expectations. Adventure Paths primarily have a story to tell and a way to tell them. Is it railroady? Sure. But if the AP did as you seem to prefer - there would be no adventure story. It would simply say: Setting: Korvoso. Background: Place is a riot. Typcial creatures found: x, y, z. "Have fun."
Then it's up to the DM to create stories and allow the PCs to interact and find or make stories themselves with what they want to do.
The problem with that is - it isn't an AP, there's no way to get 45 pg module out of it - and especially not 6 of them!!!
Chances are your DM's expectations is simplistically running a made module to have fun playing the game - with as many have pointed out - may have a myriad of reasons why he isn't taking the time and effort to expand on it - which believe me - DOES take a considerable amount of time and effort to do.
The point of an AP is to have players introduced to the concept, and make a character that FITS into that concept. This is different from the campaign setting idea that is more free for all - you can make what you want and go from there - but this rarely works in a story-driven AP that was written ahead of time.
It is easier however for most gamers and consumers of the products, to have a module written on the railroady side with all the info provided that may be needed and allow DMs who lack the time, energy, or creativity to make it more than that and could still provide means for those DMs who can and will make it their own; than it is to make a free form module with little to no direction - and expect most gamers/consumers to be able to make it a viable adventure and expect that module to sell to the mass public of their fans.
My DM, Scott is running the CotCT; he does take the time to add some additional flavor and we have had many instances where we - not so much deviated from the flavor of the path (such as your suggestion of leaving for a while to go dungeon stomping); but we have taken some liberties and direction as to how to approach certain situations with a little of creativity and ingenuity and been given the rope and leeway to do so. But our characters wouldn't have wanted to go elsewhere and do other things out of town at that time - it would be counter to the AP; and our PCs were made within the framwork of the AP - they are caring citizens of Korvosa who hated what they were seeing happen to their city - and the wannabe heroes that they are - decided to get involved and do something about it - which is the very premis that the AP is written on. This doesn't mean he's a better DM than yours is - he just has the time and takes the time to do it. And at the same time - we as players understood what the AP was about and opted to make characters that would fit the AP well - for the overall enjoyment for everyone. To do otherwise would lead to similar frustrations that you are espousing.
For instance (I think at this point in your AP, you've already met the King of Spiders), after meeting the King of Spiders, I (playing a paladin) negotiated with him to free the captive psuedo-dragon which he was unwilling to allow without an exorbitant amount of money or some less than desirable acts to be performed; but my paladin blood spurred me to want to release the guy (since it telepathically told me that it was miserable and begged me to free it). So I went to the city government - had Cressida's Croft's reward to me - instead pay the highest and greatest level of barristers in the city to find all sorts of ways that the King of Spiders could save money using the legal system of taxes, fines, write-offs, etc and I sold him that info - that could perpetually make him money - in exchange for the release of the psueodo-dragon to which he agreed to. This was certainly not in the AP - but the DM patronized me with it and allowed the ideas to flow and be aribitrated freely. It's still within the scope of the path - I didn't go anywheere for kicks - I still stayed within the path - but had the freedowm to develop these side plots. So it's a two-way street - I as a player remained within the framework of the path and didn't deviate too far, and he as DM was willing and able to allow a little leeway and reward for my creativity. But these things DO take more work and effort than just running the AP as is.
It sounds like the campaign setting free-for-all adventuring approach would be more suited for you - but again - that just means that there's a difference in your levels of expectations from the game. The only way that is going to be resolved is if you express these expectations and hopes to him/her - but in a friendly non-accusatory fashion. But that style of planning from a DMs perspective is a lot harder.
Otherwise - to make the short answer long - you're going to continue to be frustrated - for the remainder chapters of this AP and all the others that have been written. Because they're designed for one purpse - to have a storyline plot for you to engage in - make a character that fits the AP and has a reason to be involved, and to experience the story in an interactive way. The level of deviation from that - and the ability to ad-lib and add more personal flavor content is up to the individual DM - his preferences, his experience, his capability, and his time and energy he has for it. If you're not gelling on that - it's time to discuss it with him and see what kind of player and DM compromises can be made so that all sides are having fun. worst case scenario - it is what is and will never be anything but, and it won't be anything you'll ever enjoy - which means you'll either continue to not having fun, or have to find another DM/group.
But in truth - it is not the APs fault you're not having fun - it is the concept of an AP and a DM who is opting to run it verbatim that is the reason for your frustration - because they don't match what your ideal game would be like.
Hope this helps
Robert
Chances are your DM's expectations is simplistically running a made module to have fun playing the game - with as many have pointed out - may have a myriad of reasons why he isn't taking the time and effort to expand on it - which believe me - DOES take a considerable amount of time and effort to do.
I am currently GM'ing CotCT. This game is entirely online using MapTool and Ventrilo.
I spend about 4-8 hours prior to each 4-6 hour game session doing prep work. A lot of that time carries over to the next session. For example, in last night's 6-hour session we covered only a third of what I had prepped, so I have a smaller prep for the next session. (Only I won't do that -- I'll spend the time and prep even further ahead.) This prep time is required for the online gaming model because I must have maps and such ready before game time. But I also use the D&D3.5/PF campaign framework that includes configurable macros for each image on the map (to handle creatures attacking, search checks for doors, spell casting, and so on). Because of the framework, I spend a lot more time in advance than strictly necessary, but it allows the players to see health bars, for walls to block vision, for "mouseover" notes to appear for players when they enter areas, and so forth. And that prep time speeds up play for me.
A GM who won't do any prep will have a very hard time running an AP. We are currently in part 3 of 6 and I've read the entire series once, and I'm always reading through the current section (part 3) between sessions so that I can be intimately familiar with the NPCs and their motivations. The GM needs to know which NPCs will appear in later modules so that he can foreshadow their appearance (maybe seeing a hot chick on the street in one module and that chick turns out to be a key player later on!).
There are some very tough encounters in the second module (IMO) and my party had to run away and go back later -- with reinforcements!
The AP itself is not the problem. Trust me. This series is very well written and the encounters are well thought out. Your Gm probably just hasn't/can't invest the time needed to fully prep.
Something that can really help, both on the level of individual GMs and on the level of module authors, is to try to guess the likely interests of the PCs and write toward them, rather than away from them. You will never be 100% successful even with your own, known player group, and it's even harder as a module author writing for unknown players. But the more you can do this, the better the game will run. A railroad that goes where the players have already decided to go is infinitely more palatable than a railroad that goes in the wrong direction.
For many groups, the ship episode seems to be an example of railroading away from the PCs' goals. The players work hard to identify clues, trying to play actively and with engagement, and the GM is then obliged either to frustrate them or to kill them. If I were running this, I would want to redo it so that the PCs could successfully investigate the ship at the level where they are likely to want to do so. It's a lot of work, though, and if you are running modules due to lack of prep time, it may be unfeasible.
I think RotRL shows how the railroad can be aligned more tightly with what the PCs actually plan to do. As GM, I didn't have to push much to get the PCs to do most of the adventures; those were the kinds of things they would naturally be doing anyway, given the information they had.
While some amount of railroading is necessary to make any AP work, I do think there are plotlines that take too much of it, and a player can legitimately object to that without demanding that the GM go totally freeform.
If someone threatens the PCs or those they care about, it's perfectly legitimate to expect them to respond. If they accept a job to investigate something, it's perfectly legitimate to expect them to investigate it (and it's generally reasonable to expect them to take job offers, unless the offers are blatantly awful).
It's not so good if the module author gives the PCs evidence that they can't fight something, and then expects them to fight it anyway. Or if the PCs are hired to investigate something, but are expected not to investigate it, or to investigate something else instead. Or if they are expected to abandon the things they care about, or to fight for things they actively dislike, or to take jobs from someone who has previously betrayed them. Or if they are given clues that do not fit the actual solution, so that they can never successfully put the clues together. (I can give a published example for each of these, alas.)
So I don't think all railroading criticisms should be met by "Well, then you can't play an AP." Not all APs are alike. We had to do very little railroading to get RotRL to work, whereas there are some spots in SD which are almost impossible to force the PCs to do.
Mary
From what I remember playing through this, we as a group were given a choice of several different missions and did them in whatever order we wanted. Heck we didn't even do the Wererat one.
Having read this whole thread, it definitely seems like your DM is focusing too much on the book, one of our DMs has done that with an AP and it killed the AP pretty quick for us. You as a DM HAVE to be willing to work the AP to your PCs (and make sure the PCs are a good fit for the AP). APs are an interactive novel, with your characters as the starring role, it is very story and event driven rather than character driven.
In a game like that the focus is on the DM to supply the plot and adventure and keep it fun, rather than a player driven one where the DM is more reactionary to the actions of the players.
I think there *is* a flaw with the shipwreck in Seven Days to the Grave, in that the adventure starts off with a mysterious shipwreck in the night, no survivors, but then skirts away from it for most of the rest of the adventure. What adventurign party *isn't* going to be intrigued by this? Better, I think, to play down the initial wreck until after the PCs get the information from Yelloweyes ("Now that she mentions it you *do* recall some strange goings-on in the harbour a few weeks ago").
Yes, also, there is a certain amount of being given job offers by NPCs, although again this can be modified by either using new NPCs with connections to the PCs or by a bit of hook-feeding. For example, the Eels End section is probably one of the more open sections. The PCs are only hired by Kroft to make a deal with Devargo, but the information is there for a full-scale assault on Eels End. I had a friend of one of the PCs become a Shiver addict, giving the PC a strong grudge against Devargo (once they discovered he was responsible). Plus there's Majenko the pseudo-dragon written into the adventure to stir things up.
So, I agree that there *could* be issues if you take the adventures as written (although in fairness it's *also* written in the APs *not* to stick to them zealously), but then no pre-published module is ever going to suit every party straight out of the box. I tend to view them as a set of maps and stats that I don't need to make.
A seperate issue of perhaps the GM's inexperience is this issue with the 21 Strength barbarian. *If* the GM is buffing up opponents so as to "negate" this effect, then this is poor play. The player has gone for a particular build (a very common one given D&D's propensity to melee combat), and should not be penalised for doing so. I find it good to take a certain joy when a PC super-crits a big bad guy in one go - they made the character so they could do that, why take away their fun?
In my COTCT game I have one character who is massively geared towards stealth. He pretty much defeated All the World's Meat by himself by infiltrating and disarming everyone in their sleep. He freed Majenko singlehandely and could almost have robbed Devargo blind. It was fun to play, even if it isn't the "proper" way to do it. He created his character a certain way, so I give him the opportunity to flex those skills. I think the barbarian should be given the same opportunities, and believe me there will be times when your party will be grateful for somebody able to dish out large amounts of damage reliably!
I think there *is* a flaw with the shipwreck in Seven Days to the Grave, in that the adventure starts off with a mysterious shipwreck in the night, no survivors, but then skirts away from it for most of the rest of the adventure. What adventurign party *isn't* going to be intrigued by this? Better, I think, to play down the initial wreck until after the PCs get the information from Yelloweyes ("Now that she mentions it you *do* recall some strange goings-on in the harbour a few weeks ago").
I wouldn't call this a flaw, but rather a poor handling of the situation. For example, in a previous game of mine, I'd always hand out 4-5 rumors at the beginning of a session. 1-3 would be real plot hooks, 1-2 would be irrelevant information, and 0-1 would be blatantly false. If the only facts you ever mention about the world are plot relevant, the PCs are going to realize the shipwreck is important.
When I ran that session, I used a different tactic, however. I announced that everyone had leveled, and while they were scrambling for the books and discussing amongst themselves, I started describing the opening events of 7DttG. (it backfired a little, since it took a *lot* of prodding to get them to remember the shipwreck at all when the time came)
I think there *is* a flaw with the shipwreck in Seven Days to the Grave, in that the adventure starts off with a mysterious shipwreck in the night, no survivors, but then skirts away from it for most of the rest of the adventure. What adventurign party *isn't* going to be intrigued by this? Better, I think, to play down the initial wreck until after the PCs get the information from Yelloweyes ("Now that she mentions it you *do* recall some strange goings-on in the harbour a few weeks ago").
in a similar vein, I arranged for a little "side-trek" adventure which allowed the characters to witness the sinking of the "Black Ship"... so many things to do in a hrabour with a bunch of gutter rats gone "guard".... Gave them the creeps, especially since they had been forewarned by the Harrow deck of "Death approaching you under black wings" but they felt they had had a narrow escape for a time. Seeing that the vessel had been flying the yellow lanterns of a plagueship in the first place, none of the characters sensibly even cared to go/swim/dive anywhere near it - until they got an excellent reason to do so.
This is typical of the major fault of the AP - too many great and cinematic things on which the campaign hinges are happening "off-screen" to the characters. The GM gets to see them, the players don't which lessens their enjoyment to some degree - in a movie they would have at least have had the cut-away-scene. Same for the "opening scene of part#3"...
I used the Harrow deck at times to show them fleeting glimpses (via major image ) to have a hunch of what things were happening somewhere else. Racked up the tension level some - nothing is more worrying to some events viewed in fleeting shadowy glimpses outside of context^^
But none of this is rail-roadish.
I think there *is* a flaw with the shipwreck in Seven Days to the Grave, in that the adventure starts off with a mysterious shipwreck in the night, no survivors, but then skirts away from it for most of the rest of the adventure. What adventurign party *isn't* going to be intrigued by this? Better, I think, to play down the initial wreck until after the PCs get the information from Yelloweyes ("Now that she mentions it you *do* recall some strange goings-on in the harbour a few weeks ago").
I agree with you here though its tad to bad that its an issue. Essentially I think the adventure writer was trying to use the old standby of foreshadowing an important event to make it more powerful when the event is finally dealt with. The problem of course is that the players are not under the DMs control and foreshadowing is really difficult with players since they have a good chance of choosing to get straight to the heart of the matter.
This was a big problem in Prince of Red Hand as well - the moment the players sighted the evil Ziggurat they were likely to freak out and launch an all out attack or choose to retreat in order to figure out what they would need to launch an all out attack. As the AP is written the Ziggurat was more or less foreshadowing that the players would eventually be back this way but in practice it just did not work out like that.
In the end I guess the lesson is that foreshadowing, in adventure writing, should usually be with stuff where it does not matter if the players interact with the thing being foreshadowed. So one might use undead liberally to foreshadow an encounter with a necromancer and that'll probably work fine but don't foreshadow a location unless your ready for the players to drop everything and go to that location.