Also keep in mind that with Pathfinder, we're basically starting over. We couldn't bank on the INCREDIBLE momentum of Dungeon, since we weren't sure if Pathfinder was going to even be noticed by the world at the time we were building Runelords. We certainly didn't want to try something too unusual for its First Adventure Path, so in a lot of ways, Runelords is a pretty by-the-numbers classic D&D campaign. Goblins, ghouls, ogres, giants, evil wizards. Pretty standard fare.
Understood. I appreciate all of the variables that have gone into RotRL; and like I said the adventures are still great. Let me reiterate their greatness for anyone who might have doubts! Im throwing out this concern just in case folks like you are listening, and do want to hear it.
I will be looking forward to many APs to come, and im sure the process will continue to refine itself over time. Until then they are still the finest adventures around.
If the series were presented in quicker succession, I doubt that anybody would be voicing the OP's complaint.That wasn't the point of the OP.
Although I admit, it's even more frustrating when the DM is in the dark, his complaint is from the character's perspective.
We have the Shackled City hardcover book. We have Age of Worms. We have Savage Tide. Comparing how these campaigns unfolds versus War of the Burning Sky...ok, maybe I've said too much about War of the Burning Sky. I'm more than willing to continue talking about it, but I don't want to spoil it for others.
If I can continue expanding on the "Puppetmasters of the Tarrasque" 'campaign saga' (won't get into the AP trademark debate again) example, here are some suggestions for improvements:
1.) Make the endgame apparant in the first session. In PotT you're going to kill the Tarrasque, in AoW, you're going to kill Kyuss, in Savage Tide, you're going to kill Demogorgon, etc.
2.) Make the cast of villains known by all. In PotT, one of the Puppetmasters is an infamous evil wizard named Morgahi who has enslaved an entire city. Another Puppetmaster is Lord Varinton, a despot who claims to own the homeland of the PCs. The party also knows of Thunderstone, a great blue wyrm that terrorizes the barbarians to the east. The moors are infested with lizardfolk ruled by Sorantis the Most High, a yaun-ti priest who demands blood sacrifices from all travelers to the great Scaley One. All of these powerful characters will hopefully fall at the hands of the PCs, but their presence should be known by everyone in the game world even when the PCs aren't able to stop them yet. If the world knows of the atrocities of the villains and hates them, it will make their defeat much more meaningful to the PCs.
3.) Let the PCs see their progress as they're making it. In the first adventure the PCs discover that the Tarrasque avoids Lord Varinton's troops, so King Storringard tasks them with exploring the dungeon underneath...
I would strongly disagree with this standpoint. Although I don't mind variety, I'd hate to only get a single option. Personally, I enjoy mystery and figuring things out, and I wouldn't like to know where I was headed. It'd feel like my characters were in some Elric saga bemoaning fate and predestinies.
Also, I don't feel that the points you make are as strong as you may think. Although the endgame isn't as apparent as, say, "Let's gather the Fellowship of the ring and travel to Mount Doom to destroy it," my player has spotted arcane texts, statues of mysterious figures, and has noticed a certain rune that has become increasingly more frequent. It's not "in your face," but something I'd call "foreshadowing." With a "cast of villains" then it becomes a glorified egg hunt. The spoilers are ruined, all of the connections are revealed right away, and then it's the characters going through the motions without any deductive reasoning. I think it can be just as meaningful, if, say a trusted ally, who has been revealed as a force of evil, can be just as poignant as an enemy the PC's know about all along. I don't think one method is the only one to use. In this game so far, my player absolutely witnesses the accomplishments she has made. Her characters are always travelling closer to the bigger picture, and in the meantime has undermined the unity and strength of the local goblins, have smashed the Skinsaw cult in Magnimar, has created strong ties to Ameiko, Shelelu, Mayor Deverin and Sheriff Hemlock, and is about to strengthen ties bewteen Sandpoint and Magnimar. Her players are becoming movers and shakers in the world, and the stories of her players' heroism and self-sacrificing actions are spreading fast.
There can be plenty of mystery and storyline to uncover surrounding a villain who's known for atrocities and is loathed by the party as soon as the campaign starts. It isn't a "single option". You just know a number of bad guys. It isn't necessarily an "egg hunt". You don't have to know all of their plots and plans from day one, I'm just saying you should at least know who they are and why they're hated.
I would call what Paizo has done "overshadowing", to the point where your story is meaningless to the populace at large. Going into a tavern and the bards recount the tale of Reynos, the champion who killed Voric the Mad. Voric who? Oh some strange cultist or creature who no one ever head of, hiding in an old warehouse, but might have killed everyone had it not been for Reynos?
It's fun to unravel the mystery, but it seems like you only hear of these villains when you kill them. And even then, sometimes you have no idea who they and what their plot is until you read a journal. I'm not saying that's a bad way to do it, but it seems like that's the most common way its done at Paizo.
Your players have spotted arcane texts, statues of mysteious figures, noticed a certain rune. Going forward, they undermined the unity of a local group of goblins, smashed a cult in the city and made strong ties with the leaders of their hometown.
If your PLAYERS decided to pack up and abandon your campaign at this point, they can honestly feel like they've accomplished what they need to.
That's the problem the OP is trying to highlight. A group could run Burnt Offerings as it is designed and feel like every stone is unturned when it's done. There are no antogonists, no impending doom and nothing driving to continue the path any further. They could have skipped these adventures and started off with the next one. I think that's what Paizo is going for, but I think if they tried something a little more cohesive and dependent on each other they would have a product that felt more like a campaign to many gamers.
Fair enough, that is one approach. I find RotR to be cohesive and in fact it feels more like a campaign to me than many others in large part because of the way the plot is growing.
Naturally a DM could fairly easily make the Runelord more prevalent from the beginning.
As a side note, I'd rather see where the designers Muse takes them, as opposed to pushing them into a corner.
I'm just saying you should at least know who they are and why they're hated.I think that's what Paizo is going for, but I think if they tried something a little more cohesive and dependent on each other they would have a product that felt more like a campaign to many gamers.
As a side note, I'd rather see where the designers Muse takes them, as opposed to pushing them into a corner.
I personally think it would be very interesting to see what a single designer could come up if commissioned to write an entire adventure AP by himself. Mr. Jacobs, is this even remotely possible? I'm sure you have plenty of time to whip up half a dozen adventures together. :)
Naturally a DM could fairly easily make the Runelord more prevalent from the beginning.
I disagree. I think the way the adventure path is designed, part of the fun is unraveling the mystery. The path is not designed to reveal him from the beginning, so to shoehorn it in that way would feel very unnatural. Again, I'm not saying a slow reveal of a mysterious, shadowry ancient evil isn't fun, but when they're ALL like that it starts to make Paizo look like a one trick pony.
I personally think it would be very interesting to see what a single designer could come up if commissioned to write an entire adventure AP by himself. Mr. Jacobs, is this even remotely possible? I'm sure you have plenty of time to whip up half a dozen adventures together. :)
I'd personally like to see what a Logue comes up with all on his own for 6 straight adventures (hey, I like the Chimes at Midnight trilogy a lot).
Creative Director
|
Burnt offerings is kind of SUPPOSED to work as its own self-contained adventure, as are most of Runelords. Keep in mind that, while we know now that Pathfinder is quite popular, and its future seems pretty bright... there was none of that when we were designing the product. It was uncharted territory for Paizo in lot of ways. We weren't sure if a product that was All Adventure Path All The Time would be accepted by our readers and customers, and so we wanted to make sure that each installment COULD serve as a standalone adventure.
In a lot of ways, we're starting over from scratch; Rise of the Runelords is certainly NOT the adventure path we would have done if we were still printing Dungeon.
As Pathfinder carves a niche for itself, we'll be able to start getting more experimental with the contents, which is what we were starting to do wiht the Dungeon Adventure Paths (for example; Savage Tide's strict reliance on the campaign model makes it so that some of its adventure components don't stand up as well on their own—and others are much more "railroady" than we'd normally consider running for an adventure).
I'm pretty pleased with the reception Pathfinder's had so far, and MUCH more confident going into "Curse of the Crimson Throne" that we'll be able to pick up where we left off at Savage Tide much more quickly.
|
Creative Director
|
I personally think it would be very interesting to see what a single designer could come up if commissioned to write an entire adventure AP by himself. Mr. Jacobs, is this even remotely possible? I'm sure you have plenty of time to whip up half a dozen adventures together. :)
It's possible, I suppose, but only if we have that poor author start working on it a few years in advance. Remember, to do something like that, he'd also need to write all of the back matter (bestiary, city backdrops, ecologies, etc.) since those tie in to the adventure pretty strongly. It's an interesting idea, but not one that's very feasable, alas.
It's hard to be patient to see where everything is going. I totally get that. If the series were presented in quicker succession, I doubt that anybody would be voicing the OP's complaint.Hi Steve, thanks for the post.
In response, I don't think that having the entire series out would make me feel too differently; I am not at all feeling "impatient" so much as confused as to how to relay an epic theme to my players when it seems entirely absent from the stories thus far. It would still be a lot of adventures within a limited cycle that feel disconnected from the overall theme. Ironically if this where back in the Dungeon days, I would be less concerned, because I would know there would be 13 or so adventures to spread everything out; a schedule like that allows for a few tangents. With the new APs only being 6 issues long, however, I feel the current idea of making the adventures as stand alone as possible is hurting the idea of an Adventure Path, and not helping; it would benefit from a tighter focus.
Well, keep in mind that the amount of page count in Pathfinder dedicated to the adventure itself is about the same as having 2 Dungeon sized adventures. Which means that when you come down to it, it's pretty much the same amount of adventure. It's just concentrated into 6 installments.
Now to help you out with the theme, if it were ME running this adventure, there are two basic themes throughout RotRL I would focus on: an ancient power and sin.
Ancient Power: As you run the adventures, be sure to expose your players to the ancient ruins found throughout Varisia at least once every adventure or every other gaming session. Mine the Sandpoint article in Pathfinder #1 for NPCs interested in the ruins to acquaint the players with. Maybe have one of them hire the PCs to go out into the hinterlands of Sandpoint to do a rubbing for one of the townsfolk. Have the PCs use some Knowledge checks to get the hint that this particular ruin was keyed to some kind of evocation magic or that one seems to be a part of something that used transmutation. Make up a story that the PCs using Decipher Script or comprehend languages can identify when examining an ancient pillar covered in Thassilonian runes - perhaps a recounting of some kind of battle using powerful magic took place in that area and the pillar was part of a larger ruin to commemorate the fallen.
Create your own NPC to throw into the campaign as a half mad prophet foretelling the return of the "Ancient Master" as a foreshadowing of later events. Keep with it until the prophet is intimately known by the players and keep going and going with it. Have the guy show up shouting at the players to repent of their sins or the "Ancient Master" will devour their souls.
Which takes me to the next theme...
Sin: Play up on the element of sin and virtue throughout the campaign. It's a very important element of the overarching theme. You said you felt it was lacking, but this is one theme that isn't. You find bits of it throughout all of the early adventures and it becomes a very strong theme by the time you get to adventure #5.
Find ways to tempt the players. Use all of the 7 cardinal sins in some way, but also provide virtuous influences as well. Your players will start to pick up on this and really enjoy the moral issues developing. Try to get one of the PCs to do a job for the Thieves' Guild. Tempt a lusty player with a gorgeous prostitute. Have some of the NPCs offer feasts for the heroes, and endless buffet, all they can eat and more. Pick fights to test the patience or wrathfulness of specific players. Or, on the other hand, see if the players will donate time or money to a worth cause. And good stuff like that.
If you find ways to work on developing these two themes even more than the published material already does, you'll find your experience with this campaign much more enjoyable, I think.
Burnt offerings is kind of SUPPOSED to work as its own self-contained adventure, as are most of Runelords... <snipped> We weren't sure if a product that was All Adventure Path All The Time would be accepted by our readers and customers, and so we wanted to make sure that each installment COULD serve as a standalone adventure.
<snipped>
I'm pretty pleased with the reception Pathfinder's had so far, and MUCH more confident going into "Curse of the Crimson Throne" that we'll be able to pick up where we left off at Savage Tide much more quickly.
Thank you for the assurance. I'll be looking forward to future AP's then, and just use Runelords as a series of modules to be run separately.
Now to help you out with the theme, if it were ME running this adventure, there are two basic themes throughout RotRL I would focus on: an ancient power and sin.
Thanks for the ideas and inspiration. I will be sure to use them, along with some other ideas I've concocted, to help me achieve my goal of imparting a thematic narrative that should hopefully serve to give my players (and to a some extent, their characters) a stronger sense of looming drama whose flavor retains some sense of consistency throughout the adventures.
I continue to look forward to the rest of these adventures, and to the next AP as well!
|
Creative Director
|
Thank you for the assurance. I'll be looking forward to future AP's then, and just use Runelords as a series of modules to be run separately.
YAY! This is one of the more encouraging messages I've read! Because honestly, one of my largest fears is that the fact that Pathfinder does Adventure Paths would make some readers assume that if they don't like one particular campaign plot that there's nothing for them in that entire six-volume arc. We really do try to make each volume of Pathfinder work on its own, either with the backmatter and bestiary, or by keeping each adventure at least somewhat workable as its own standalone.
It's good to hear that it might be accomplishing that goal! WHEW!
It's not at all that I expect the players to confront the Runelord right away at first level; it's just that everything leading up to this final epic confrontation is so disjointed that, as it was put previously, I am having a really hard time finding the themes to hit on to make sure my players know this is a "campaign", and not just episodic random adventures in Varisa.
I just feel that it would be more thematic if every adventure in the AP had 2 of its 4 or so chapters heavily steeped in the thematic elements of the overall campaign. So the players arnt fighting the Rune Lord in Burnt Offerings and Skinsaw, but there should be lots of rune magic, rune mysteries, rune creatures . . .runes runes runes! The players should know early that "hey, this ain't called Rise of the Runelords for nothin!"
Anyhow, I'll of course continue to purchase the Paizo products, as I am always delighted with them, in general - please no one take this as some blanket condemnation that will cause me to cancel my subscription. At the same time, however, I'd like to provide this constructive critism, and join my voice with Takasi requesting that the next AP do a better job of making the major theme of the campaign readily apparent throughout the greater majority of the adventures.
Agreed on all points. My biggest problem with every AP to date -- and it's a big problem -- is that the metaplot doesn't become apparent to the players until halfway through. I'd like to see the threat hit earlier -- page one, for example. That said, I'm finding RotRL to be really, really meaty. Each adventure has had great set pieces that DMs not running the AP should be shamelessly stealing -- Thistletop in Chapter 1, Foxglove Manor and the Shadow Clock in Chapter 2. And, um, gee, the homicidal hillbilly farmstead, the ogre-conquered fort, the dam covered in skulls, and Hook Mountain itself in Chapter 3. Point being, I don't think a more tightly plotted AP will diminish the value of Pathfinder to those DMs who aren't running the AP, because Team Paizo is talented enough to keep the threats and locations varied and memorable. I might not ever run an Underdark adventure, for example, but I can't wait to see (and steal) what Paizo does with aboleths in "Second Darkness."
We really do try to make each volume of Pathfinder work on its own, either with the backmatter and bestiary, or by keeping each adventure at least somewhat workable as its own standalone.
It's good to hear that it might be accomplishing that goal! WHEW!
James, I thought GameMastery is the part of your line meant to act as standalone adventures, and Pathfinder the part meant to act as adventure paths? Isn't it best that Pathfinder work as part of a whole, and let GameMastery work on its own? In other words, shouldn't Pathfinder be the place I can be guaranteed to find a tightly-plotted AP, if that's what I'm in the market for?
Burnt offerings is kind of SUPPOSED to work as its own self-contained adventure, as are most of Runelords. Keep in mind that, while we know now that Pathfinder is quite popular, and its future seems pretty bright... there was none of that when we were designing the product. It was uncharted territory for Paizo in lot of ways. We weren't sure if a product that was All Adventure Path All The Time would be accepted by our readers and customers, and so we wanted to make sure that each installment COULD serve as a standalone adventure.
In a lot of ways, we're starting over from scratch; Rise of the Runelords is certainly NOT the adventure path we would have done if we were still printing Dungeon.
As Pathfinder carves a niche for itself, we'll be able to start getting more experimental with the contents, which is what we were starting to do wiht the Dungeon Adventure Paths (for example; Savage Tide's strict reliance on the campaign model makes it so that some of its adventure components don't stand up as well on their own—and others are much more "railroady" than we'd normally consider running for an adventure).
I'm pretty pleased with the reception Pathfinder's had so far, and MUCH more confident going into "Curse of the Crimson Throne" that we'll be able to pick up where we left off at Savage Tide much more quickly.
So if I want an 'Adventure Path' of well linked adventures I should possibly cancel my subscription until Pathfinder #7 is available? I was okay with 1 and 2 not being too terribly well linked to the Runelords, but I've just read 3 and it doesn't seem to link to the Runelord very well either. When will the Runelord take center stage? Not until the 6th of 6 books?
|
Creative Director
|
Seems like no matter what I say in this thread, people are destined to take it the wrong way.
Rise of the Runelords is meant to be a slow reveal of the main bad guy, similar to the classic Queen of Spiders series where you don't really discover that the Main Bad Guy behind it all is Lolth till toward the end of the adventure. Getting there is one of those "wheels within wheels" type things where each group of bad guys you defeat slowly reveals a larger conspiracy. By the time the PCs finish Hook Mountain, they should know that what appear to be several seemingly unconnected groups (ogres, goblins led by bandits, cultists, lamias, ghouls) are in fact all being manipulated by powerful forces at work.
In any event, Runelord Karzoug himself won't take center stage until the last adventure. He's a powerful bad guy, and not one that should be directly confronting the PCs till they themselves are high level. Until then, the PCs will be unravelling his plots and facing his minions.
|
Creative Director
|
James, I thought GameMastery is the part of your line meant to act as standalone adventures, and Pathfinder the part meant to act as adventure paths? Isn't it best that Pathfinder work as part of a whole, and let GameMastery work on its own? In other words, shouldn't Pathfinder be the place I can be guaranteed to find a tightly-plotted AP, if that's what I'm in the market for?
Correct. I personally think that the Rise of the Runelords adventures DO work better as a whole. It's very tightly plotted. This thread actually makes me think it's TOO tightly plotted in some ways, in fact, and that Curse of the Crimson Throne could do with more obvious links between adventures.
Again... the plot for the campaign was spelled out in Pathfinder 1. Sorry if somewhere along the line the idea that the path was going to be a throwdown against all seven runelords got out there somewhere... but that's not what Rise of the Runelords is about. It's about the process of these ancient wizards coming back to life, starting with one in particular. The runelords are powerful foes, and if we have them all show up too early, the campaign would turn into little more than a TPK machine.
|
James,
Personally I think the plotting is just about right so far for RotRL. IMO players feel smarter when they can figure things out on their own rather than being spoon fed the opposition. If there was an open war (as in Lord of the Rings) then I could see having the main villain named from the beginning. But aside from a war scenario, it makes much more sense for the players to have to try and figure out what is going on.
The fact that each adventure is semi-self contained is in my book a bonus as well. As has been noted, it makes each pathfinder book much more valuable giving it more utility. It also means that if I have to end the campaign midpoint (which has happened to me on more than one occassion) it will be easier to wrap it up in a satisfactory manner.
Let me congragulate you on producing such a good product and I look forward to many years of enjoyment from them.
Again... the plot for the campaign was spelled out in Pathfinder 1. Sorry if somewhere along the line the idea that the path was going to be a throwdown against all seven runelords got out there somewhere... but that's not what Rise of the Runelords is about. It's about the process of these ancient wizards coming back to life, starting with one in particular. The runelords are powerful foes, and if we have them all show up too early, the campaign would turn into little more than a TPK machine.
For the record, I never thought RotRL would feature more than one Runelord (I was paying some attention to the previews in the Paizo blog). Or at least, I knew that even if more than one was awakening, the campaign would deal only with one. My concern has only ever been with the lack of strong thematic links to interconnect the story.
I seem doomed myself to have people continually misconstrue my desire for thematic links with a desire for an open plot. This isn't what I was advocating for - they are two entirely different issues. Im fine with players not knowing the plot, it does not need to be spoon fed to them; what I have concern about is the adventures not having themes threads strong enough to let the players (and eventually the characters) know that this is a campaign about sin and ancient reawakening magic.
Let me choose a different example other than Lord of the Rings; the Matrix. Who knew at the end of 1 that the plot was going to end up as it did in the 3rd? Few if any, the plot was not revealed. But every Matrix movie feels like "the Matrix" because there are both obvious and subtle cues to let the viewer (not to mention the protagonists) know that these stories are interlinked.
So my concern is all about "feeling and flavor" and less "obvious plot made readily apparent". I hope that makes sense!
Seems like no matter what I say in this thread, people are destined to take it the wrong way....
Hey! You lookin' at me?
I said, are YOU lookin' at ME!?
|
|
One Idea to help the players tie things together without giving too much away.
We are currently working on characters for RotRL and we are going to be using binders. For each binder I am printing off the inside of the Pathfinder covers, featuring the Sihedron runes. I plan on putting these on the inside covers of the binders without comment.
When they see the sihedron rune in the game and ask for what it looks like I will let them know it is similar to the graphic in their binder.
Wow. After reading through this thread, it seems that there are some that will never be satisfied.
I haven't seen anything released yet that wasn't expected. I never expected to see all seven runelords in this path. The synopses in the first Pathfinder laid out the path nicely (my opinion). I've never seen any kind of product released from anywhere that has 100% approval.
BTW, I wish to extend a hearty and well deserved "Thank You" to James and the Paizo gang for giving me some gaming material that suits me just fine. Perfect? Of course not! But it is damn close for me. How could anyone but me write my "perfect" adventure?
If you aren't happy, stop buying or write your own. Just my 2 cents.....
|
|
Just downloaded chapter 3; I'm tempted to run this after we finish playing SCAP, JUST so my buddy Matt can have a flashback to our first ever session together...15 years, on & off? How time flies...
"HOOO-WEEEHHH!"
"HOOO-WEEEHHH!"
"HOOO-WEEEHHH!"
<note: I was NOT the DM...>
I know you're out there, Matt, readin' my posts...since you slapped a SCAP spoiler in the middle of an AOW thread...to the bemusement of Turin! ;-)
Wow. After reading through this thread, it seems that there are some that will never be satisfied. {snip}
If you aren't happy, stop buying or write your own. Just my 2 cents.....
Torillan, in the defense of the posters that have voiced their various concerns, none of them have stated that they are so dissatisfied with Pathfinder that they want to up and stop supporting it. IMO, these have all been very valid concerns and very courteously presented (unlike some other posters [or just one in particular] I could point to).
Torillan, in the defense of the posters that have voiced their various concerns, none of them have stated that they are so dissatisfied with Pathfinder that they want to up and stop supporting it.
This particular post stood out regarding that:
So if I want an 'Adventure Path' of well linked adventures I should possibly cancel my subscription until Pathfinder #7 is available? I was okay with 1 and 2 not being too terribly well linked to the Runelords, but I've just read 3 and it doesn't seem to link to the Runelord very well either. When will the Runelord take center stage? Not until the 6th of 6 books?
This comes across as whining. That was why I suggested the "don't buy or write your own" bit.
IMO, these have all been very valid concerns and very courteously presented (unlike some other posters [or just one in particular] I could point to).** spoiler omitted ** So, no need to be quite so harsh is all I'm saying. Most everyone here has said they like things they've seen so far, but a few elements have been problematic for them.
Valid points, so I apologize if I came across as "harsh". Not my intention. I agree that the vast majority really like what's been released so far, its just that the few whiny ones come across a little bit louder.
So, no need to be quite so harsh is all I'm saying. Most everyone here has said they like things they've seen so far, but a few elements have been problematic for them.
Mr. Greer, you are ever a scholar and a gentleman. Let it not go unsaid that your tact and manners are both appreciated and fine examples for all of our imitation.
|
Someone mentioned "Lord of the Rings" a while back. I think an AP where low-level characters found something WAY out of their league in part 1 and had to spend the next few adventures defending it, researching it, and trying to figure out what to do with it would be fun. They might be overpowered in certain situations (and why not give them a few, just for fun - a staff that lays waste to whole tribes of goblins, for example) but at a terrible price (all the water withing 10 miles boils, injuring people, killing fish and ruining farms).
It could also give Paizo a chance to do something interesting with the idea of weapons that grow more powerful as their users gain levels (I understand Weapons of Legacy wasn't that good). Or intelligent items that try to control their users (like one of the last adventures in Dungeon).
The writers would have to plan for a couple of contingencies, like what if the PCs sold the damn thing. The merchant who bought it is found dead the next morning and the "terrible price" starts happening again. PCs must hunt down the thief, who turns out to be a mid-level minion of the big bad who wants the item. PCs should be able to recover it before it's too late.
Anyway, it might be fun.
It could also give Paizo a chance to do something interesting with the idea of weapons that grow more powerful as their users gain levels (I understand Weapons of Legacy wasn't that good).
The Legendary Weapons rules in Unearthed Arcana are open content. They're pretty much just a framework, so it would still take creative geniuses (like the Paizo folk) to make the cool stuff out of them.
Of course, for all we know this is what's coming
Mr. Greer, you are ever a scholar and a gentleman. Let it not go unsaid that your tact and manners are both appreciated and fine examples for all of our imitation.
Hear! Hear!!
So, no need to be quite so harsh is all I'm saying. Most everyone here has said they like things they've seen so far, but a few elements have been problematic for them.Mr. Greer, you are ever a scholar and a gentleman. Let it not go unsaid that your tact and manners are both appreciated and fine examples for all of our imitation.
Thanks, Wes and Torillan. :)
That's the problem the OP is trying to highlight. A group could run Burnt Offerings as it is designed and feel like every stone is unturned when it's done. There are no antogonists, no impending doom and nothing driving to continue the path any further. They could have skipped these adventures and started off with the next one. I think that's what Paizo is going for, but I think if they tried something a little more cohesive and dependent on each other they would have a product that felt more like a campaign to many...
Should every AP be the same? Honestly Im glad we dont know all the villians and plots ar the start. Im finding this a nice slow start and gives the players a reason to defend their region. I also see numerous connections tween Skinsaw and Burnt Offerings.
I do hope the next AP can have the villian know right away to keep variety going. Both styles I think are good.
Actually the fact that the Runelords do NOT pop up immediately but instead with the slow, everpresent theme of "Sin" and punishment for that is what I like about the RotRL-AP. The players are bound to know what is being played, and the fact that there must be something "not quite obvious" out there, linking the whole development should be rather unsettling.Besides everything else unsettling about the path.... installment #2 and #3 are impressively freaky and should really unsettle any group I know.
In stark contrast - having "the Big Eye" make a guest appearance in the first installment of the SCAP was really too much of a fright for one group I it for. Having a high CR villain even throw his shadow on some plot to be foiled at low level does make players (sensibly, from their charcter's POV ) timid and afraid.
So, keep up the good work
I think it works well, even if it is a bit subtle. I haven't run Burnt Offerings yet (I'll probably run the whole AP once all 6 are in my grubby lil' paws), but knowing my group, I can already see where the giant statue head upon which Thistletop is constructed will intrigue some of them.
Sure, the rise of an ancient evil is pretty cliche, but I've always gotten the best mileage out of throwing a new coat of paint on an old standby. Hell, the goblin lair will thrill some of them already simply because it's not the usual "hole-in-the-ground gang".
I'm hella pleased, but would also be interested in seeing a more obvious foe presented from moment one. Something along the lines of "For countless generations, the Frost Giants of Jotungaard have menaced the simple nomadic tribesmen of Sturmheim, but the lack of raids this winter have left the bards and sages outright worried. The white dragons don't flit about the mountaintops any more. A shadow has fallen over the peaks, and prophets tell of an army of the undead amassing in the highlands where fierce battles were once fought. The banner of the Liche Lord Skarskell once again flutters in the wind from atop Rookery Tower."
Just getting to Rookery Tower could be too formidable for low levels, but from moment one, the PCs know they're going to have to go up there and rip Skarskell a new one before tearing down his banner in a reverse Iwo Jima moment.
First off I didn't read all the posts as really were saying much the same thing.
Me I am really enjoying the Pathfinder Series. Were starting it in January which works so well as I am able to preread the adventures, and set up ideas before hand. Also I am not just running RotR as I am using the last Dungeon series of the Rising Tides and the great Isle of Dread stuff. For me the adventures do seem a bit of a jump but they clearly say to and provide ideas for all sorts of side adventures to flesh out the campaign. Abig part for me and my players will simple be exploring this new campaign world that none of us have played in before. All sorts of new things to go look at, to explore and meet. The slow evolution of the game is something I have always enjoyed. I am in fact starting the campaign before the actual first PF, early spring or so and plan for the PF to start late spring or early summer. The idea that under the town is this evil well recently awakend and what minor problems that might have is great for setting up portents and dark dreams for the players. Plus by giving them several adventures before the PF, will I hope insulate them into the town well and have them give a darn about what happens to this town.
I hope they all continue to be of this quality, story, art, and on line support. Simple great!
Thanks
|
|
I've turned the quiet convert who tends the graveyard (name currently escapes me) into a fire-and-brimstone preacher (he wasn't until the Late Unpleasantness) who bangs on about sin, sinners, temptation and damnation.
When one of the players showed him the weird rune they'd found underground (pointed his way by the sage) he destroyed the picture and railed against the Sihedron, "the mark of worldly sin"...
So that's hammered home - not done anything to play up the Runelords though, not yet.
I have no complaints whatsoever-I have played twice, and my group is to thistletop, and this is by far the most fun we've had gaming in a long time...keep it up!
This particular post stood out regarding that:
So if I want an 'Adventure Path' of well linked adventures I should possibly cancel my subscription until Pathfinder #7 is available? I was okay with 1 and 2 not being too terribly well linked to the Runelords, but I've just read 3 and it doesn't seem to link to the Runelord very well either. When will the Runelord take center stage? Not until the 6th of 6 books?This comes across as whining. That was why I suggested the "don't buy or write your own" bit.
When stripped of context this post does seem like whining. However, it was in direct response to comments made by James Jacob stating that the Rise of the Runelords AP was intentionally not as well linked thematically and plotwise as previous APs (specifically the Savage Tide). I have invested US$75 in the first three installments of the RotR series. The question of waiting until the next series is very much a question of economics. I will be paying US$135 for the entire RotR series. I don't think wanting it to be thematically and plotwise well linked together is too much to ask, nor do I consider stating such a desire to be 'whining'.
I would call what Paizo has done "overshadowing", to the point where your story is meaningless to the populace at large. Going into a tavern and the bards recount the tale of Reynos, the champion who killed Voric the Mad. Voric who? Oh some strange cultist or creature who no one ever head of, hiding in an old warehouse, but might have killed everyone had it not been for Reynos?
It's fun to unravel the mystery, but it seems like you only hear of these villains when you kill them. And even then, sometimes you have no idea who they and what their plot is until you read a journal. I'm not saying that's a bad way to do it, but it seems like that's the most common way its done at Paizo.
I think your criticism is a little misguided here. My personal preference for campaigns is those that begin small, with no apparent over-arching plot and a great deal of freedom for the characters to pursue their own interests, which eventually leads to bigger, more epic deeds. So from that perspective, the model of the "slow reveal" fits very well with what I enjoy.
Now that you know where I'm coming from, I think that there are plenty of examples in each of the Paizo AP's that deal with known villains. Looking back at each of the AP's, the adventurers have to deal with all of these villains, each a known quantity:
Dragotha
Demogorgon
The Runelord of Greed
Only the Shackled City doesn't have the heroes confronting a previously known villain, but Lord Vhalantru was certainly known to all, even if he wasn't known as a villain! So if a bard were to sing about the exploits of the heroes from any of these AP's, noone would say, "Who's that?"
If your PLAYERS decided to pack up and abandon your campaign at this point, they can honestly feel like they've accomplished what they need to.
That's the problem the OP is trying to highlight. A group could run Burnt Offerings as it is designed and feel like every stone is unturned when it's done. There are no antogonists, no impending doom and nothing driving to continue the path any further. They could have skipped these adventures and started off with the next one. I think that's what Paizo is going for, but I think if they tried something a little more cohesive and dependent on each other they would have a product that felt more like a campaign to many...
This is a criticism I can understand, but I don't necessarily agree with it. There are pros and cons to a campaign with a blatant, over-arching goal from the beginning. On the one hand, it can provide focus and a sense of urgency to the campaign. On the other hand, it can become tedious and overbearing by the end. A campaign with a slow-reveal provides more breathing room at the beginning to flesh out the PCs. In a campaign with an up-front goal, the focus shifts more to the goal at an earlier point in the campaign. I think, for variety's sake, I'd like to have both types of campaigns to choose from. However, in my experience a campaign with a slow reveal has more staying power because it feels less forced and is more focused on the PCs.
When stripped of context this post does seem like whining. However, it was in direct response to comments made by James Jacob stating that the Rise of the Runelords AP was intentionally not as well linked thematically and plotwise as previous APs (specifically the Savage Tide). I have invested US$75 in the first three installments of the RotR series. The question of waiting until the next series is very much a question of economics. I will be paying US$135 for the entire RotR series. I don't think wanting it to be thematically and plotwise well linked together is too much to ask, nor do I consider stating such a desire to be 'whining'.
I do see your point. No offense was intended, perhaps I just read too much into your post. My apologies. :-)
As for the money, I can see how that would become an issue for some. Even with a discount, it may be hard to justify purchasing. I was coming from a perspective of having a bit more "disposable income" than some might have. [note to self: take off blinders!]
To be honest, this is the first Adventure Path that I have purchased, and while I am very happy with everything so far (I consider myself a VERY casual gamer), I can see how others who have purchased other Paths previously may be expecting certain things to be present. So far, I remain a loyal customer.
I think your criticism is a little misguided here. My personal preference for campaigns is those that begin small, with no apparent over-arching plot and a great deal of freedom for the characters to pursue their own interests, which eventually leads to bigger, more epic deeds. So from that perspective, the model of the "slow reveal" fits very well with what I enjoy.
You can have a political climate in a campaign with known villains while also providing freedom of exploration and downtime. You can also have small obstacles to overcome at first and eventually move on to bigger, more epic deeds. And finally, you can still have a "slow reveal" of a cohesive plot even if you know there are bad guys in the realm.
Now that you know where I'm coming from, I think that there are plenty of examples in each of the Paizo AP's that deal with known villains. Looking back at each of the AP's, the adventurers have to deal with all of these villains, each a known quantity:
Dragotha
Demogorgon
The Runelord of Greed
Dragotha, Demogorgon and the Runelord of Greed are not at all what I would consider known villains that will cause the world to rejoice when they're gone. In all of the these APs, how are any of the commoners in Sasserine, Diamond Lake, the city of Greyhawk, Sandpoint, Magnimar, etc aware of any influence, or even the existence of these villains?
You can have a political climate in a campaign with known villains while also providing freedom of exploration and downtime. You can also have small obstacles to overcome at first and eventually move on to bigger, more epic deeds. And finally, you can still have a "slow reveal" of a cohesive plot even if you know there are bad guys in the realm.
Definitely. I never meant to imply otherwise. But with the "slow reveal", you don't know from day 1 that your adventures are going to be focused on taking down the big bad guys. That bit of unknown keeps things exciting and interesting. Otherwise, why would you ever have a campaign set in Greyhawk, for example, that didn't focus on taking down Iuz or the Scarlet Brotherhood, and didn't have the players knowing that from the get-go?
Dragotha, Demogorgon and the Runelord of Greed are not at all what I would consider known villains that will cause the world to rejoice when they're gone. In all of the these APs, how are any of the commoners in Sasserine, Diamond Lake, the city of Greyhawk, Sandpoint, Magnimar, etc aware of any influence, or even the existence of these villains?
It sounds like you want villains that are not only known, but also pose a widespread, direct, well-known threat to the common people of the world. For the sake of argument, I think you could replace Demogorgon in the Savage Tide with Iuz, just change a few minor thematic details, and achieve this.
|
|
Relative to the complaint that the PCs not being lauded as heroes because they did not defeat some legendary well known villain, I have to observe that while it is possible for people to admire great heroes, the ones they really appreciate are the ones who have directly affected their lives.
Sir Shining Pants who defeated the dreadful Turg'zz of the Black Slimy Lake is well known and people think well of him in general. But Old Fred from down the road stood off ten goblins and kept my daughter from being eaten. Everybody looks up to Fred, buys him drinks and asks him his opinion regarding the local drought. When there is danger threatening the village people turn to old Fred. They don't think of writing Sir Shining Pants.
You see this in the Lord of the Rings. At the end, everyone thinks well of Frodo, who did something big way off out there. But it is Sam who stands a chance for being made Mayor because he helped save the Shire.
I think the RotRL actually does a decent job of making the PCs into heroes. They save the village from goblins. They stop a murder spree before it becomes a repeat of the Late Unpleasantness. When the giants threaten, it is the PCs the town will turn to for help.
Definitely. I never meant to imply otherwise. But with the "slow reveal", you don't know from day 1 that your adventures are going to be focused on taking down the big bad guys. That bit of unknown keeps things exciting and interesting. Otherwise, why would you ever have a campaign set in Greyhawk, for example, that didn't focus on taking down Iuz or the Scarlet Brotherhood, and didn't have the players knowing that from the get-go?
And I agree that slowly uncovering the plot of a secret society can be exciting, but we've done that in every single AP.
Let me make this clear for all the Paizo fans out there: I'm not saying that what Paizo has done or what they're doing is 'wrong' in any way, or that their campaigns aren't fun. I'm also not suggesting that people not buy their products, or lose their loyalty (as so many loyal fans have come here to reassure Paizo of their loyalty). It's two different styles we're talking about.
I'm just trying to help them see where some people might not like what they're currently offering, and suggest things that are different to improve their product variety. The slow reveal is great, and having adventures that are very modular and independent can be very useful. However, some people are going to want big bad villains, and when you're offering the same thing over and over again you're never going to attract people who are looking for something else.
If people are going to start a new campaign in their new world, they should have big name villains.
Mr. Jacobs: Who is the Iuz of Golarion? Or the Sauron? Or the Zhentarim? Who are the epic villains that everyone in Sandpoint despises?
Both of our SCAP campaigns foundered badly on the "Huh? Who?" reaction of the players to the campaign villains. In the one where I was playing, the GM went to extreme efforts to give information about the villains early, and the player worked hard to collect and understand it. This had the unintended side consequence (as someone else mentioned with the early big-bad encounter in the first episode) that the PCs knew they were over their heads and things felt hopeless. And even then, I did not have any sense at all of about half of the villains, and the whole Shatterhorn arc felt "so what?" -- no resonance. My PCs hated Ashmantle and Lord V; they didn't care about those guys far away at Shatterhorn whom they'd never met.
In the other campaign, the players did not make quite such an effort to follow the GM's extra hints, with the result that they had no idea who they were fighting by the end, and it was hard for them to care.
In contrast, I'm not having any trouble with revelation of the conflict in RotRL (we are early in Skinsaw now). I'm not sure Hook Mountain will work, because I question whether the PCs will be willing to leave Sand Point. But they are very engaged in what's happening there. They've learned the history, and they are drawing tight connections between Chopper and the current events, between the original massacre at the founding of Sand Point and the current events, etc. Not everything they've connected up is really connected in the module (though I may let it be connected--pity to break things up) but it certainly doesn't feel like a bunch of anonymous opponents the way SCAP did.
One thing that could help a lot: please, please, module-authors, when you include mysterious ancient inscriptions *tell us what they say!* All five of my PCs speak Thessalonian, just for this purpose, and I'm having to improvise like crazy. Also, when you bind an ancient monster with a *binding* spell--especially a creature which has *charm monster*--it would be helpful to tell us what the release conditions are.
My PCs had a nice chat with the monster in question, it charmed one of them, I made a snap decision about what it needed to get out, and they are now hunting down, as they think, Karzoug's modern-day cultists trying to get the necessary item. I don't think that the on-stage appearance of Karzoug will seem disconnected at all.
Mary
|
Creative Director
|
Mr. Jacobs: Who is the Iuz of Golarion? Or the Sauron? Or the Zhentarim? Who are the epic villains that everyone in Sandpoint despises?
Sandpoint's a backwater ho-hum town. The people who live there are pretty laid back and don't get too worked up about things. They live in a pretty remote part of the world; their Big Bad Guys are things like the Sandpoint Devil and Old Murdermaw... but the BIG bad guy of late (before Runelords starts) is Chopper. This is all by design, since we were introducing Golarion at the same time. By making Sandpoint relatively distant from the "core" of the world, we didn't have to build up everything about the world at once.
We have a few "Big Bad Guys" in the works, of course. Some of them are by design, and some of them are emerging as they become popular in adventures. I suspect the Runelords will become a pretty big bad guy organization eventually.
As for who the Iuz, Sauron, and Zhentarim are of Golarion... ask again in half a year. Hopefuly, by then, that question won't HAVE to be asked, of course, 'cause the gazetteer should be out.
|
Creative Director
|
One thing that could help a lot: please, please, module-authors, when you include mysterious ancient inscriptions *tell us what they say!* All five of my PCs speak Thessalonian, just for this purpose, and I'm having to improvise like crazy. Also, when you bind an ancient monster with a *binding* spell--especially a creature which has *charm monster*--it would be helpful to tell us what the release...
Way ahead of you, sort of, on the ancient inscription thing. We're making sure that when these show up, we reveal, if not what they say, at least what they're about.
As for the ancient monster in question that was imprisoned by binding... that particular binding didn't have a release condition worked into it. The poor guy was pretty much stuck there forever—the ones who bound him there didn't really have an interest in him ever getting out.