AP Approach: A Subtle Shift


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

This thought process is focused on the approach, not the content. These thoughts have been percolating for a while, and various forum posters have helped me to bring them into focus. I encourage everyone to offer feedback.

I think the approach to APs should be more tightly focused on a specific PC approach to the AP as opposed to the idea that APs should be for "everyone." For example, SD written as if the PCs were elven and part of the secret group (don't want to spoil the name). Then, sidebars could be presented if players wanted to go a different route.

There are two main reasons for my claim: 1) the material would be more focused and rich due to laser-focus, and 2) As a GM, it is easier to come up with general ideas then the laser-focused ideas. Moreover, the focused ideas would offer plenty of material that could be poached if a different approach is taken.

Making the APs for "everyone" seems to make it so that no matter the approach of the group, the GM will end up making up a bunch of material to accommodate the specific approach of the group. Naturally, a GM will have to do that anyway to offer a unique experience, but having a really tight and specific approach by the AP authors is a real boon and GM lifesaver.

In review, a subtle shift from "everyone" to one specific approach (ie all elven party, members of a particular group, etc)

Just some thoughts.

Note, I really enjoy the APs, and if there were never any major changes I would still be happy with the quality and direction. I'm just looking at offering some alternative ideas in the fringe areas.


Personally, I think it's a bit easier to go from the general to the specific than vice versa, so I'd probably prefer them they way they are. Although having some notes on how to run the AP with an all-elf or all-cleric party (say) might be an interesting twist.

EDIT: I should note that I agree that an adventure path can go too far in terms of allowing "you're strangers who meet in a tavern" parties. For instance, I thought Council of Thieves had a particularly weak opening and Curse of the Crimson Throne had a particularly strong "specific" opening.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
hogarth wrote:

Personally, I think it's a bit easier to go from the general to the specific than vice versa, so I'd probably prefer them they way they are. Although having some notes on how to run the AP with an all-elf or all-cleric party (say) might be an interesting twist.

EDIT: I should note that I agree that an adventure path can go too far in terms of allowing "you're strangers who meet in a tavern" parties. For instance, I thought Council of Thieves had a particularly weak opening and Curse of the Crimson Throne had a particularly strong "specific" opening.

Interesting that you see it the other way. Also, just for clarification the only reason I would suggest notes on, for example, "all-elf" party, would be because that is the best way for the whole AP to flow from beginning to end.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Yes, the logic of Second Darkness would have held up MUCH better for an all (non-Forlorn) Elf party. (It might also have felt less artificially rail-roady.)


Lord Fyre wrote:
Yes, the logic of Second Darkness would have held up MUCH better for an all (non-Forlorn) Elf party. (It might also have felt less artificially rail-roady.)

No doubt. But I'm sure there are people out there who would take a look at the description and say "All elves? No thanks". Whereas if you hide an all-elf party sidebar inside the adventure, you're not instantly turning those people away.


hogarth wrote:


No doubt. But I'm sure there are people out there who would take a look at the description and say "All elves? No thanks". Whereas if you hide an all-elf party sidebar inside the adventure, you're not instantly turning those people away.

This. The APs *have* to be made for the generic party, else only a handful of people would want to play it. And Paizo wouldn't make money of it.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That particular AP doesn't just favor an all-Elf party, to my mind it doesn't *work* with the generic party. We ran it all-Elf and as a GM I would not even consider doing otherwise--if the players said "No thanks" to the Elves I would find a different AP right away. There's a reason it consistently shows up on "least favorite" lists--a generic party has very little reason to want to do it.

Some APs are naturally generic, like Rise of the Runelords. Others really are not. I think Council of Thieves is going to work massively better for local PCs than for outsiders; to a lesser extent the same is true for Crimson Throne.

We've come to accept that the first step with any AP is to analyze it and try to answer "Whose problem is this situation really?" and shape a party that is a reasonable answer to that question. But not all groups are communicative enough to do this, and it's hard for beginners to have the needed perspective. I would definitely like to see a sidebar in each first episode on "Party concepts we think would work well with this AP."

I think writing that sidebar might also be a useful reality check for the module authors. If you find yourself wanting to say "The PCs should be locals who really care about the city" that might be a hint that you shouldn't do lengthy digressions outside the city. If you find yourself wanting to say "The PCs should be interested in rebelling against the government" you could check to make sure that that's where the AP actually goes....

I have to say, we never did solve the "whose problem is this?" issue with Crimson Throne, and had to abandon the campaign as a result. We found it fairly easy to solve in RotRL and Kingmaker. Council of Thieves and, especially, Second Darkness required parties *very* far from generic in order to work for us.

Liberty's Edge

Second Darkness is an awful example because the player guide and first two adventures were written for a very mercenary group of Chaotic neutral-esque PCs. The third book and beyond though required an altruistic group.

I think they've been fine lately, they give the PCs some direction in character creation.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Mary Yamato wrote:
I think writing that sidebar might also be a useful reality check for the module authors. If you find yourself wanting to say "The PCs should be locals who really care about the city" that might be a hint that you shouldn't do lengthy digressions outside the city. If you find yourself wanting to say "The PCs should be interested in rebelling against the government" you could check to make sure that that's where the AP actually goes....

CoT Spoiler (and follow-up question)

Spoiler:
Do you feel that the core plot of Council of Thieves might have been better served by setting it in Mendev? (Obviously, exchaning a Demon Lord for Mammon - Pazuzu for example.) This approach means no infiltration of the Pathfinder Lodge or Murder Play, but it allows for a much more "general" party.

Another approach would have been to set the party up as Hellknight Armigers. The chase in the sewer would then be fleeing Basterds of Erubus Tieflings, with the PCs are the persuers.


Hi,

This is my first post ever. I am going to run Crimson Throne, and I came looking for advice, and I found this post very interesting.

In general, the lack of motivation for the PCs is a problem that bothers me a lot. In this particular case, the beginning is great: vengeance is a very powerful reason to bring people together.

Spoiler:

But once Lamm has been dealt with, why the heck should they start working for Cressida? I find this horribly anticlimactic: Lamm ruined their lives, and finishing him should be an extremely important moment in their lives, not just "Cool, he's dead. Look, a cool brooch! Boys, we're rich!".

I was planning to push it to the limit: all PCs were members of Lamm's band when they were children, then forsaken by him (i.e., they get arrested and sent to some re-education institution with Lamm not moving a finger to save them). They have all taken different ways in life (probably), never forgetting their heavy baggage. But one of them manages to track him down, and it's time for revenge.

I find the idea really cool, but also putting more emphasis on the revenge would make it even more anticlimactic!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Loximann wrote:

Hi,

This is my first post ever. I am going to run Crimson Throne, and I came looking for advice, and I found this post very interesting.

In general, the lack of motivation for the PCs is a problem that bothers me a lot. In this particular case, the beginning is great: vengeance is a very powerful reason to bring people together.

** spoiler omitted **

Okay, are any of them Members of the Korvosan Guard or the Sable Company? Such characters should not have any issue with working for Commander Croft (since they kind of already do).

Any Lawful characters will be strongly motivated to help restore order. Again, such characters should not have a serious problem assisting the Korvosan Guard in this matter - which will again have them working for Commander Croft.

Beyond that it REALLY helps if they have roots in the city - the deeper the better. Such characters will almost certainly have an investment in resolving the riots (... or at least profiting from them).

Spoiler:
Another idea is, rename the Necormancer Roth to "Gaedren Lamm" and change other reference to Roth.

So, when the characters get to the bottom of the fish processing plant" [I forget the actual name), have them see him, but then have him Dimension Door away rather then fight (TPK) them. (In "Pulp" fashion, assume he makes any needed saves/concentration checks at this point.)

This has them raiding "Gaedren Lamm's hideout in the Dead Warrens and then finely meeting him again under the hospice (... and this time with enough power to end him).

Sczarni

Loximann wrote:

Hi,

This is my first post ever. I am going to run Crimson Throne, and I came looking for advice, and I found this post very interesting.

In general, the lack of motivation for the PCs is a problem that bothers me a lot. In this particular case, the beginning is great: vengeance is a very powerful reason to bring people together.

** spoiler omitted **

Remember, the traits in the player's guide if you are using it (its a free download) affect how the PCs know Lamm - which helps when they meet him

Spoiler:
Its easier to insult 4 individuals differently when they know you for different reasons. That's where the fortune Teller comes in to get them to meet each other. I've run this twice, and both times Lamm was captured and brought to Kroft - and it was she who recognized the broach. One of them already distrusts the queen, so they used the broach as a way to get into the castle to try to scout around. Make sure to play up the mobs and mayhem and the people calling the queen names... depending on your players they may go to join the uprising and scout the castle for later, or go to help the queen cull the unwilling subjects
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cpt_kirstov wrote:
Loximann wrote:

Hi,

This is my first post ever. I am going to run Crimson Throne, and I came looking for advice, and I found this post very interesting.

In general, the lack of motivation for the PCs is a problem that bothers me a lot. In this particular case, the beginning is great: vengeance is a very powerful reason to bring people together.

** spoiler omitted **

Remember, the traits in the player's guide if you are using it (its a free download) affect how the PCs know Lamm - which helps when they meet him** spoiler omitted **

OMG I Wish I would have thought of that when running this, that is an awesome idea!


I guess I will keep everything as spoiler...:

The thing is that I would like to push the "Sleepers" idea. Therefore, people will have taken very different life paths since they left Lamm's band. Some of them would not mind giving a hand, but probably a few would be f*-ups by now.

One thing I considered was that when Lamm is killed, he reveals that he bought the PCs from an orphanage. If whoever was the ultimate responsible of the orphanage is an important antagonist, it would suffice. I would like to keep vengeance as motto (even if only one of them) during the whole campaign. But I will need to read the whole campaign in detail I am afraid.

I thought about using other ways to push the PCs: for instance, it would be interesting if the guard finds out they have the brooch and the PCs are arrested, and then they have the chance to explain. Later, the Queen could suggest that not helping with the riot means supporting the riot. This two things should be enough to paint a tyrannic picture of the Queen (though still it should look like she has good reasons to behave this way).

Thanks a lot for the suggestions though!


Elorebaen wrote:
In review, a subtle shift from "everyone" to one specific approach (ie all elven party, members of a particular group, etc)

While I think there's definitely value to having at least a "reasonably" (heh, vague) focused group, I don't think it would be good if it were too extreme.

All being members of a specific group = seems fine, at first blush.
All elven party = way too far.

Sczarni

Loximann:

Spoiler:
at the begining of the first AP, she's not supposed to look tyrannical though, it's not until you catch the painter that The PCs should think that anything if wrong other than the normal naysayers when a monarch dies, just that she has a greater number of naysayer than past examples.. that is how she gets them to work for her (through the guard). Once they figure out that it was really her, and not the painter, and are ready to act upon this, they should be to the [in]famous second cutscene with the bolt and sable company leader. At this point they should feel totally betrayed and be back on the vengeance trail


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Mary Yamato wrote:

We've come to accept that the first step with any AP is to analyze it and try to answer "Whose problem is this situation really?" and shape a party that is a reasonable answer to that question. But not all groups are communicative enough to do this, and it's hard for beginners to have the needed perspective. I would definitely like to see a sidebar in each first episode on "Party concepts we think would work well with this AP."

I think writing that sidebar might also be a useful reality check for the module authors. If you find yourself wanting to say "The PCs should be locals who really care about the city" that might be a hint that you shouldn't do lengthy digressions outside the city. If you find yourself wanting to say "The PCs should be interested in rebelling against the government" you could check to make sure that that's where the AP actually goes....

Aye, this would be a great step. I think this idea should be more integrated into the player guides for the AP.


Thanks for suggestions. I guess I have hijacked enough this thread; I will soon start a new one under Curse of the Crimson Throne.

Back to the main topic, I think that given the kind of people that play Adventure Path, what you are suggesting would be a good idea: that a preferred PC group type is encouraged. I believe that certain stories cannot be told with whatever characters. And if someone actually prefers whatever type of group, then probably that person won't be so much against railroading the PCs.

In this line, one thing that I both love and hate are campaign traits. It is great to provide PCs with an initial motivation, but I detest that they provide bonuses. This may encourage players into picking a trait for the bonus instead of the concept. Plus sometimes the bonus is not very obviously related to the trait itself... Something that I might do is letting people pick a different bonus, as long as they find a plausible explanation.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / AP Approach: A Subtle Shift All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.