The Process of Writing an AP; or, How to Build a Better Mousetrap (Maybe)


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer before we begin: the opinions in this post reflect the views of nobody but me. I don't claim to speak for a silent majority, a vocal minority, or any segment of Paizo's rabid consumer base except that segment composed of me and me alone.

With that out of the way, I have to say I think the way Paizo goes about writing APs could use some revision. As I understand it, the process goes something like this: A bunch of people at a very high level argue vociferously about what stories, settings, etc. should be used in an AP and who should write the various books. Those same people make their decision and one of them (as I understand it, James Jacobs in the past, and he and Adam Daigle going forward, but I could be completely wrong about that) supervises the project. Each of the six writer is provided direction for their book, which can range from the pretty specific to the pretty broad based on a huge number of factors including the specific AP, the specific writer, which of the six books it is, how much canon there is on the topics covered, and likely too many more to mention. Each of those six writers then goes their separate ways for a while and does a bunch of other stuff, then one day looks at the calendar, realizes the deadline is approaching, swears a lot, and gets writing. Presumably during this process there is some level of supervision from James Jacobs/other poobahs at Paizo (by the way, the Paizo Poobahs should totally be the name of the company softball team) but the six manuscripts are delivered in raw form, usually too long, sometimes off target, and occasionally not all that great, and then somebody (James Jacobs) spends long nights sweating blood trying to hammer those six pieces into a recognizable shape; since each of the six books has been written independently, that somebody has to ensure continuity between the divergent chapters, build the book-to-book segues, and make sure the whole thing hangs together as an AP.

Now, one can say, with considerable justification, that if the above process ain't broke, then it shouldn't be fixed and I ought to shut my big fat mouth. And that's perfectly fair. But I think there's room for criticism of the approach, and I point to the results as evidence. The above system (or, if I'm mistaken in my appreciation of it, whatever system they're using) has produced APs that range from brilliant (Rise of the Rune Lords) to a bunch of good adventures that don't make a good AP (Jade Regent) to wildly uneven (Council of Thieves) to frankly kinda bad (Second Darkness).

The problems in the less-than-awesome APs seems, from an outside perspective, to be at the very least exacerbated by the decentralized approach to writing. If a bad book is coming down the pipe, the poobah in charge may not know until it lands on his desk, at which point it's far too late. If the six pieces, however brilliant they might be individually, don't fit together well, the poobah won't realize it until he starts to hammer the rivets in, and again it's too late to change very much at that point with the printer deadline looming and the next AP needing work right then as well.

Is there a better way, a way that can produce a more even and coherent product?

As a humble suggestion, I submit the following. Rather than having six writers, you have three, with each getting a book in the first half and a book in the second half of the AP. For example, writer A might get books 1 and 5, writer B books 2 and 4, and writer C books 3 and 6. Then throughout the process there can be meetings (whether those meetings are in person, conference calls, wiki pages, or something else is almost irrelevant) between the three writers and the poobah-in-charge, where the writers update each other on the plots and progress of their books and advise each other of the stories they're creating. The advantages of this scheme would appear to be that writers can create subplots and storylines in the first half that they know will pay off in the second half because they'll get to pay them off; the writers can draw inspiration from and use elements of each other's work in an organic way; the poobah can have a better sense of how the pieces are going to mesh and where trouble is arising in process and can head it off in a more timely fashion; and the whole thing is more likely to produce not just good adventures but good adventures that tie into each other well and make a good AP. The main disadvantage is likely to be that it's harder for a writer to write two books than it is to write one, and this is something to consider; however, this is at least somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the writers are each writing bigger chunks of one story, rather than two wholly separate stories -- their subplots, characters, and even locations can carry over from the first half to the second half of the AP, allowing them to stretch things out more and create more sweeping, epic adventures. In addition, writing in close synergy with two other equally creative people can actually spur the creative process, and a writer might find himself getting inspired by the ideas of another and incorporating them into his own work, further decreasing the creative burden.

I'm sure there are excellent reasons why the above is really stupid and won't work and I'm a big dumb dummy who should keep his idiot opinions to himself, but I'd love to hear people on the inside of the process give their takes on it and what they feel would be the pros and cons.

Sovereign Court

Off the top of my head:

Doubling the workload for a writer while maintaining the same deadline schedule would be a serious concern.

Additionally, having a writer flake out and not complete the assignment would potentially cause the content of two books needing to be filled in house rather than one, which would be an even bigger concern.

As to how to consistently have a more cohesive and well flowing AP? I would not hazard a guess (unless the folks at Paizo will post up the full process of making a AP ... which would also make for a very enlightening Panel discussion at next year's PaizoCon ... unless it has already been done and I missed it ... in which case, do it again, pleaseohpleaseohplease).

Seriously though, the best suggestion I would be able to make would be to look at those APs that get the most positive feedback and look at what was done differently than those which did not receive as much praise. Sometimes it will be the content (pirates, more adult theme oriented than folks had been used to, etc.), sometimes it's mechanics (the caravan rules, etc.), sometimes it's production issues (like an author flaking out), sometimes it's something that folks outside of Paizo have no clue about.

Finally, I don't think there have been any of the APs that did not have some measure of detractors out there for one reason or another. That being the case, it just highlights the truth that you can never please all the people all the time. But if you please most of the people most of the time, you are definitely on the winning side of the odds and in that sense I think that Paizo is doing a pretty great job with the APs.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

21 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't normally do the "point-by-point" posting style, but this time I'll make an exception to clear up some misconceptions about how creating Adventure Paths work... it's not meant as an attack against you, Gregg, so I hope you don't take it that way! :-)

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
... I think the way Paizo goes about writing APs could use some revision. As I understand it, the process goes something like this: A bunch of people at a very high level argue vociferously about what stories, settings, etc. should be used in an AP and who should write the various books.

Nope. The Adventure Path plotlines are generally things that I and a small number of folks (generally Rob McCreary these days, but often with aid from Wes and Erik and, now that he's been hired, Adam) come up with. In many cases, I come up with the ideas myself. There's not really much arguing about it at all. The decision of who writes each installment isn't answered at this point, but when that step comes, that decision is pretty much up to the Adventure Path's SINGLE developer—aka, myself or Rob, depending on which AP it is.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Those same people make their decision and one of them (as I understand it, James Jacobs in the past, and he and Adam Daigle going forward, but I could be completely wrong about that) supervises the project.

In the end, I'm the one who makes the decision about what Adventure Path to do, based on Erik's needs as publisher, and with Rob and Wes's and a few others' advice. Increasingly, Rob McCreary is making these decisions about the February Adventure Path, while I do the August one.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Each of the six writer is provided direction for their book, which can range from the pretty specific to the pretty broad based on a huge number of factors including the specific AP, the specific writer, which of the six books it is, how much canon there is on the topics covered, and likely too many more to mention. Each of those six writers then goes their separate ways for a while and does a bunch of other stuff, then one day looks at the calendar, realizes the deadline is approaching, swears a lot, and gets writing. Presumably during this process there is some level of supervision from James Jacobs/other poobahs at Paizo (by the way, the Paizo Poobahs should totally be the name of the company softball team) but the six manuscripts are delivered in raw form, usually too long, sometimes off target, and occasionally not all that great, and then somebody (James Jacobs) spends long nights sweating blood trying to hammer those six pieces into a recognizable shape; since each of the six books has been written independently, that somebody has to ensure continuity between the divergent chapters, build the book-to-book segues, and make sure the whole thing hangs together as an AP.

This is an unnecessarily pessimistic and a pretty disrespectful take on the process. Out of the 63 Adventure Path installments we've published, there's been fewer cases than I can count on one hand where a writer has failed to deliver what we asked for—in those cases, Rob or I do have to go in and at the last minute write the majority of the adventure. When this happens, you'll see one or both of us take a co-author credit on the cover. It's happened maybe 3 or 4 times out of the 63 adventures, and we generally don't use those authors on Adventure Path modules again. For the other 60 adventures, our authors have done a rather excellent job at providing a great adventure. There's a certain amount of revision and rewriting that happens during development of ANY adventure—that's nothing unusual. For an Adventure Path, the primary developer (myself or Rob) writes a lengthy outline... they've been about 18,000 words or thereabouts for the most part (for those following at home, that's about the length of a 32 page module in and of itself), and there's a LOT of advice and the like in there for our six authors. The six authors then write the adventure, and as they do they know the other five adventure authors and often discuss links between the adventures with each other.

The manuscripts are not usually too long. They're rarely off target. And they're by some of the best writers in the industry, so even if they're not at the height of game design awesomeness... they're almost always a head and shoulder above other manuscripts I've seen from writers during my 5 years working on Dungeon Magazine. I generally do not spend "long nights sweating blood" trying to hammer these into shape—the reason for those long nights is almost always due to other projects encroaching upon my time (projects like the Inner Sea World Guide or the Rise of the Runelords hardcover that are "bonus" projects beyond the normal scope of our typical schedule offerings).

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Now, one can say, with considerable justification, that if the above process ain't broke, then it shouldn't be fixed and I ought to shut my big fat mouth. And that's perfectly fair.

Good, because after doing over a dozen Adventure Paths, I'm pretty confident that the method we use today to make these things happen on a monthly basis is pretty sound and has had a lot of the trouble spots worked out. Building an Adventure Path is one of the HARDEST tasks a developer of an RPG will ever need to do though, so we're constantly looking at ways to make micro-adjustments and revisions to the process.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
But I think there's room for criticism of the approach, and I point to the results as evidence.

Fair enough.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
The above system (or, if I'm mistaken in my appreciation of it, whatever system they're using) has produced APs that range from brilliant (Rise of the Rune Lords) to a bunch of good adventures that don't make a good AP (Jade Regent) to wildly uneven (Council of Thieves) to frankly kinda bad (Second Darkness).

All a matter of opinion, but also it's worth keeping in mind that there are reasons behind the complaints you note. I don't normally air these things in public, but here goes:

1) Jade Regent was an AP that was outlined by me but then developed by Rob. This was the first time we did something like this, and I agree that the results aren't perfect. Which is why going forward we've adopted a "developer of the Adventure Path also outlines the Adventure Path" approach going forward. It's worth noting that Serpent's Skull and Carrion Crown were also both developed by one person and outlined by another—the fact that Jade Regent also incorporated two entire new continents (each a campaign setting's worth of opportunity themselves) was, in my opinion, the bigger problem in pulling it off. Jade regent needed more non AP support than ANY adventure path we've done—classes from the rulebook line, monsters from the Bestiaries, world content from the Player's Companions and Campaign Setting books... it was a huge undertaking. I'm actually quite proud of the end result, warts and all.

2) Council of Thieves was indeed uneven. Two reasons come to mind—we had two authors for various reasons who were unable to deliver complete manuscripts due to reasons I'm not going to go in to here but they were good reasons, and it was an Adventure Path we had to write for a game that didn't have finalized rules yet. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Council of Thieves went on sale the same day, which meant when we were working on writing the adventures, the authors had to use the Beta rules and we had to scramble at the last minute to make sure the rules all worked out right. This, by the way, is my #1 reason for wanting to put off a Pathfinder 2nd Edition for as long as we possibly can. I'm not eager to repeat this agony.

3) Second Darkness gets a bad rap... but there's a fair amount of folks who are quite fond of it. Personally, I think it's quite cool... with three major flaws. A) We set things up in Riddleport to be too compelling—players didn't want to leave the town to go on the rest of the AP, or had characters who were too aligned with the initial flavor of Riddleport's scum-and-villiany to be able to make the transition to heroic elf-saving adventurers later on. That's a lesson we've hopefully learned. B) We miscalculated, I think, the public's desire to see stuff about drow. We were pretty pleased with how we'd managed to revitalize goblins, and drow are one of my favorite bad-guy races, and whenever we'd done drow stuff in the magazines the sales were GREAT... so we had assumed doing stuff with drow would be like printing money. Alas... people didn't want drow so much. Maybe they want player character options instead of villian options. I dunno. C) The penultimate adventure stumbles hard by being one of the most blatant railroads we've published while at the same time failing to make the elves sympathetic. This is the single adventure I've most wanted to go back in time to work with the author to revise and rewrite on my own to change it's themes to match the adventure's original intent—make friends with the elves of Kyonin, use their elfgate network to track down a conspiracy, and save them from a shadow element in their own government. Alas... somewhere along the way, the adventure lost sight of the goal to focus on making friends with the elves. AGAIN: I like to think we've learned from the errors of Second Darkness.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
The problems in the less-than-awesome APs seems, from an outside perspective, to be at the very least exacerbated by the decentralized approach to writing. If a bad book is coming down the pipe, the poobah in charge may not know until it lands on his desk, at which point it's far too late. If the six pieces, however brilliant they might be individually, don't fit together well, the poobah won't realize it until he starts to hammer the rivets in, and again it's too late to change very much at that point with the printer deadline looming and the next AP needing work right then as well.

On one level... it's important to remember that if someone does lots of something, be it stories or movies or songs or Adventure Paths... some will be better than others. It's the way it is.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Is there a better way, a way that can produce a more even and coherent product?

Perhaps.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
As a humble suggestion, I submit the following. Rather than having six writers, you have three, with each getting a book in the first half and a book in the second half of the AP.

The problem here is that it takes 3 months to write an adventure path installment. That means that the only way we can really pull off an Adventure Path that has six parts that come out in 6 consecutive months is to have authors overlapping on their writing assignments. Furthermore, it's important to remember these authors are freelancers—in most cases, that means they're writing on their spare time. It's essentially a second job for most writers, and that means that they have a limited amount of time to write.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Then throughout the process there can be meetings (whether those meetings are in person, conference calls, wiki pages, or something else is almost irrelevant) between the three writers and the poobah-in-charge, where the writers update each other on the plots and progress of their books and advise each other of the stories they're creating. The advantages of this scheme would appear to be that writers can create subplots and storylines in the first half that they know will pay off in the second half because they'll get to pay them off; the writers can draw inspiration from and use elements of each other's work in an organic way; the poobah can have a better sense of how the pieces are going to mesh and where trouble is arising in process and can head it off in a more timely fashion; and the whole thing is more likely to produce not just good adventures but good adventures that tie into each other well and make a good AP.

The "poobah" has more going on with their job than developing adventures, though, and the writers do as well. Something like this really would only work if all the writers and the poobah were in the same building for months at a time. Again, it boils down to the realities of time availalbe—getting numerous writers and a developer to meet together frequently is very difficult.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
The main disadvantage is likely to be that it's harder for a writer to write two books than it is to write one, and this is something to consider; however, this is at least somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the writers are each writing bigger chunks of one story, rather than two wholly separate stories -- their subplots, characters, and even locations can carry over from the first half to the second half of the AP, allowing them to stretch things out more and create more sweeping, epic adventures.

That's not only a main disadvantage... it's a game-ending disadvantage. Again... we have to have our authors overlap their writing schedules, since it's a 3 month process to write a 50 page adventure. It's the unfortunate reality of a monthly subscription program that prevents us from taking this route, combined with the fact that there just aren't a lot of authors out there who can take that much time out of their schedules to write.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
In addition, writing in close synergy with two other equally creative people can actually spur the creative process, and a writer might find himself getting inspired by the ideas of another and incorporating them into his own work, further decreasing the creative burden.

This is certainly true... if the writers get along. That's not always the case. And since our authors are often multiple time zones apart (we've got writers from multiple continents, remember), getting them all to work together and coordinating schedules and the like would be in and of itself a full-time-job.

And also, it's worth remembering that writers sometimes can't deliver what they promise. Be it because they have an unanticipated crisis, a conflict, or simply vanish... the more we rely on a single person to pull off an AP, the more risk there is involved. By having 6 authors, we can absorb the repercussions if one of them flakes on us. Having 1/6 of an AP go into crisis as a result of an author fail is a LOT less harrowing than having 1/3 of an AP go into crisis.

Also... not all writers are created equal. Some are really good at moody adventures but suck at comedy. Some are great at dungeon crawls but can't handle political intrigue. Some are great at doing dungeon maps and others can't draw a straight line to save their lives. Some are talented at low level but can't hack high level. By having six different authors working on an Adventure Path, it's MUCH easier to match a single author's strengths to the needs of the adventure.

And frankly, in the end? I WANT to have more authors working for us on the Adventure Paths. I WANT to broaden the writing pool. If we used half the authors we do today, then the other half of the authors we would have used don't get to take part. They don't get to add their voice to the world. They don't get freelance pay checks. They end up losing interest in writing because we don't have as many opportunities for them.

Furhtermore, going to a 3-author system would make it pretty much impossible for a new author to break into the game, because since such a system would DOUBLE the risks for each author, we would rely even more upon those authors we know could handle it. Chances for new author discoveries are already narrow enough without us artificially reducing the number of authors we use.

And finally... author burnout is a real thing. I try not to do this, because I want my great authors to keep writing for us as long as they can and want to. Doubling up on authors like this would greatly increase the amount of author burnouts we get, which would mean that we'd quickly run out of our reliable known-quantity authors and suddenly be in a very scary and undesirable place of assigning 1/3 of an entire Adventure Path to an unknown or an author we've never worked with before. Which is a great way to encourage disasters.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

My short version of my previous epic post:

Please DO keep sending us suggestions on how to improve our Adventure Paths...

... but the absolute BEST BEST BEST way to help is is instead to tell us what parts of previous Adventure Paths we've published you've loved or disliked.

Post reviews!

Chat in the threads!

Let us know what you want! It's much easier to improve things if we know what works and what doesn't work.

Sovereign Court

James Jacobs wrote:
A great breakdown of the process

Does this mean the "How to Create an AP" panel is a no go for PaizoCon 2013? ;)


James Jacobs wrote:
A bunch of awesome stuff

WOW, that's a fantastic peek behind the scenes! And of course I completely agree with my opinions on the process and the published APs being my opinions only! As for the disrespect, I certainly didn't intend it that way; I was going for irreverently amusing instead. Tone is difficult to get across in this newfangled electronic world.

As for the content of your post, you answered everything I brought up far more thoroughly and with much more effort than I really expected anyone to devote to my half-arsed musings -- far more than they deserved! But I absolutely appreciate you taking the time to pull back the curtain for an enthusiast like me who's interested in the process and the "why" of things as much as the "what." Of course your reasons are all excellent and you have obviously put several orders of magnitude more thought into this than I ever will, so...keep on with what you're doing. Nothing to see here. :-)

Again, thanks for replying in such a thorough and awesome way. That was very cool.


Gregg Helmberger wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
A bunch of awesome stuff

WOW, that's a fantastic peek behind the scenes! And of course I completely agree with my opinions on the process and the published APs being my opinions only! As for the disrespect, I certainly didn't intend it that way; I was going for irreverently amusing instead. Tone is difficult to get across in this newfangled electronic world.

As for the content of your post, you answered everything I brought up far more thoroughly and with much more effort than I really expected anyone to devote to my half-arsed musings -- far more than they deserved! But I absolutely appreciate you taking the time to pull back the curtain for an enthusiast like me who's interested in the process and the "why" of things as much as the "what." Of course your reasons are all excellent and you have obviously put several orders of magnitude more thought into this than I ever will, so...keep on with what you're doing. Nothing to see here. :-)

Again, thanks for replying in such a thorough and awesome way. That was very cool.

Gregg, I certainly didn't take your post as criticism or disrespect. I might even have been wondering the same thing once in a while, but, just like you, I absolutely appreciate James' elaborate answer. Thanks James, and keep up the good work.


Hey,
This is a really educational thread! And the fact that discussions like this happen is a big reason I like being a Paizo customer.

Here's my two cents your your APs. Your plots, pacing , characters, and maps are all great -- easily the best in the industry.

The rules subsystems you've introduced often don't work for me -- I'm thinking about Kingmaker and the magic item economy here.

Do the same people who develop the APs write the rules subsystems? Maybe there should be a division of responsibility. I like it that Paizo attempts these things and I'd hate for you guys to stop, but it might be that the kind of talent necessary to write a good story doesn't lend itself well to figuring out how to simulate an economy, caravan, or chase scene.

Ken

Liberty's Edge

James, thanks for all the insight into making the APs. There totally needs to be a paizo behind the scenes reality show

Paizo Employee Creative Director

kenmckinney wrote:

Hey,

This is a really educational thread! And the fact that discussions like this happen is a big reason I like being a Paizo customer.

Here's my two cents your your APs. Your plots, pacing , characters, and maps are all great -- easily the best in the industry.

The rules subsystems you've introduced often don't work for me -- I'm thinking about Kingmaker and the magic item economy here.

Do the same people who develop the APs write the rules subsystems? Maybe there should be a division of responsibility. I like it that Paizo attempts these things and I'd hate for you guys to stop, but it might be that the kind of talent necessary to write a good story doesn't lend itself well to figuring out how to simulate an economy, caravan, or chase scene.

Ken

The rules subsystems have mostly been written by me, and they're usually written concurrently or after the adventures are written. It's a GREAT place for us to experiment, and while I would agree that the magic item economy element of the Kingdom/City building rules was too easy for players to abuse, I think that overall those rules went over pretty well. Some went better (Haunts, chase mechanics, and the fleet battle rules look pretty good so far), some went worse (caravan rules)... ALL of them are complex, and as a result we'll be doing them less often. Especially since going forward more and more of these subrules are getting into print in the hardcovers after we've absorbed a lot of great playtest feedback.

Liberty's Edge

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
frankly kinda bad (Second Darkness)

I still can't figure this one out. I GM'd the 1st-5th chapters, and it was smooth as butter. I actually enjoyed reading the APs themselves (unlike the 1st Curse Of The Crimson Throne chapter which, even though it was a great adventure, read like a textbook), and it was much more fluid than it gets credit for. The "major issue" between the 2nd and 3rd books is easily solved with a little forward thinking by the GM.

Just my 2cp.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Austin Morgan wrote:
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
frankly kinda bad (Second Darkness)

I still can't figure this one out. I GM'd the 1st-5th chapters, and it was smooth as butter. I actually enjoyed reading the APs themselves (unlike the 1st Curse Of The Crimson Throne chapter which, even though it was a great adventure, read like a textbook), and it was much more fluid than it gets credit for. The "major issue" between the 2nd and 3rd books is easily solved with a little forward thinking by the GM.

Just my 2cp.

AM, I have had a similar feeling about SD from the beginning. There is something about it that I find really interesting (more so than some of the other, generally speaking, higher-rated APs out there), despite any issues it may have. I feel the same way about SK. There is something really compelling about these two APs that get lost in the shouting.

I really enjoyed the Paizo take on drow and serpent-folk, especially serpent-folk. I hope the negative views with regard to some of the warts, doesn't keep Paizo away from the really cool and interesting stuff they created for those two APs.

Oh yea, thanks for the insight, JJ :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In interest of full disclosure, part of my dislike for SD is the drow. I hate 'em. And not in a "love to hate 'em" kind of way, but in a "sick of 'em and never want to see 'em again" kind of way. So any AP featuring them was going to be problematic for me from the get-go, not to mention the fact that I dislike elves and wouldn't be all that motivated by saving their arrogant butts.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gregg Helmberger wrote:

In interest of full disclosure, part of my dislike for SD is the drow. I hate 'em. And not in a "love to hate 'em" kind of way, but in a "sick of 'em and never want to see 'em again" kind of way. So any AP featuring them was going to be problematic for me from the get-go, not to mention the fact that I dislike elves and wouldn't be all that motivated by saving their arrogant butts.

And that's part of my main problem with how the 5th adventure came off... Golarion elves aren't really SUPPOSED to be arrogant.

Scarab Sages

Should there ever be a Second Darkness revision (and I like that campaign despite the fifth book) I could easily see the fifth adevnture almost completey canned without losing much to the overall plot and immersion of the characters.
Instead the fourth adventure/darklands sandbox could be expanded and the meeting with the elves (and possibly the big revelation about the drow) made a much smaller part of the fifth or the sixth adventure.


feytharn wrote:

Should there ever be a Second Darkness revision (and I like that campaign despite the fifth book) I could easily see the fifth adevnture almost completey canned without losing much to the overall plot and immersion of the characters.

Instead the fourth adventure/darklands sandbox could be expanded and the meeting with the elves (and possibly the big revelation about the drow) made a much smaller part of the fifth or the sixth adventure.

And that's where different tastes will be very hard to serve.

I'd replace the entire 4th adventure with a more sandboxy approach that

Second Darkness spoilers:
does not require the PCs to spend days/weeks/months living as the enemy.

For parts 5 and 6, I'd consider re-ordering them. Introduce elven society more, and give the PCs two sets of handlers.. one that works for the Winter Council, and one that is more friendly (maybe relatives of Shalelu or the others in Crying Leaf). Put a couple of statues or paintings of Allevrah around Kyonin and let the PCs notice the "resemblance" once they meet Allevrah. Put the whole of chapter 6 in between the friendly arrival at Kyonin, and on the characters' return, the colder greeting and treatment as written in chapter 5. Once the PCs are aware of the secret of normal elves turning into Drow, the tensions with the Winter Council (and the PCs' handlers serving the council) make more sense. Also, the transformation of Hialin becomes a "not again!" moment, and perhaps a better segue into the "continuing the campaign" issues for Kyonin.

Scarab Sages

The problem would probably be to present this approach as an adventure. I could see it either turn into a lot of storytelling without many options for the players or as a catalogue of elven npcs with their agendas, neither of which makes for a good AP entry.

Either way, of course the different tastes will be hard to serve, but as I read the AP, I would see its focus on the drown ot on the surface elves, but MMV and I might have missed a point by looking at it this way.


James Jacobs wrote:

And that's part of my main problem with how the 5th adventure came off... Golarion elves aren't really SUPPOSED to be arrogant.

Oooh, now this is very interesting to me, because I keep seeing references in other campaign setting books about elves being arrogant, or at least as other races perceiving them as such. Is that a matter of other races not understanding the elves, or different writers with different visions, or a little from column A and a little from column B?


I know elves being aloof and arrogant is about as old and stereotypical as dwarves being gruff and drunk.

I remember one friend joking around, saying all dwarves are tsundere. Was good for laughs.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

And that's part of my main problem with how the 5th adventure came off... Golarion elves aren't really SUPPOSED to be arrogant.

Oooh, now this is very interesting to me, because I keep seeing references in other campaign setting books about elves being arrogant, or at least as other races perceiving them as such. Is that a matter of other races not understanding the elves, or different writers with different visions, or a little from column A and a little from column B?

Elves being aloof has been in the game forever (thanks, Tolkien! grrr) and as such it's really REALLY hard to expunge. We're trying though.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't think SD was bad, but it was the worst AP to date IMHO. For me the two major problems was.

1) Riddlepoint was great and people wanted to keep connections to it like they did with Sandpoint in RotRL. Which doesn't happen and is a bit of a shift from fitting in Riddlepoint to being great hero's.

2) By far the bigger one I think was how the elves was done. I know when I played it, the players often joked they liked the drow more, at least they was honest about being ba$tards. They would joke about joining and helping the drow take out the elves, or taking them both out.

Of course those are just my personal opinions on it.

@James, question how long does it take from the point a AP outline is made (and any special rules like haunts etc are known to be needed) and before the AP's are started writting?

A do have a second suggestion/idea, you have a players guide which is nice. But have you considered doing a GM's guide? A short book with any optional rules like haunts in it, plus suggestions on how to handle running things. With pointers on things the GM's might want to play up or handle horror themes etc. I know sometimes things are brought up or pointed out on the forums that make the AP better if you emphases them or what ever. I was thinking if you assigned a writer to just write something like that, it might allow you to still do some custom rules for AP's and give more chances for new authors. Anyways just a idea.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Dark_Mistress wrote:

@James, question how long does it take from the point a AP outline is made (and any special rules like haunts etc are known to be needed) and before the AP's are started writting?

A do have a second suggestion/idea, you have a players guide which is nice. But have you considered doing a GM's guide? A short book with any optional rules like haunts in it, plus suggestions on how to handle running things. With pointers on things the GM's might want to play up or handle horror themes etc. I know sometimes things are brought up or pointed out on the forums that make the AP better if you emphases them or what ever. I was thinking if you assigned a writer to just write something like that, it might allow you to still do some custom rules for AP's and give more chances for new authors. Anyways just a idea.

Well... I'm working on getting the outline started for the Adventure Path that starts next Gen Con after Reign of Winter. Started tinkering with it about a month ago, in fact. I'll probably start working on it for real next week, and the first adventure'll be assigned around the end of Autumn.

So... generally we start working on an AP about 4 months before the first adventure is assigned. If we can. Now that we're finally fully staffed we can afford that luxury for the first time in a looooong time.

We actually HAVE considered doing a GM's guide... but what we usually do instead is have a 64 page Campaign Setting tied somehow to the Adventure Path that does that job.

But a book that introduces all the optional rules? That's tricky, since often (as in the case with haunts and chases) I don't realize we need those new rules until I'm developing the adventure and realize that the adventure would benefit from their appearance.

Getting those rules done before the AP begins is really REALLY time consuming and tough, though. We'll probably continue avoiding them for a year or so more at least... with the bulk of the new rules we need being developed in the rulebook line instead.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

Well... I'm working on getting the outline started for the Adventure Path that starts next Gen Con after Reign of Winter. Started tinkering with it about a month ago, in fact. I'll probably start working on it for real next week, and the first adventure'll be assigned around the end of Autumn.

So... generally we start working on an AP about 4 months before the first adventure is assigned. If we can. Now that we're finally fully staffed we can afford that luxury for the first time in a looooong time.

We actually HAVE considered doing a GM's guide... but what we usually do instead is have a 64 page Campaign Setting tied somehow to the Adventure Path that does that job.

But a book that introduces all the optional rules? That's tricky, since often (as in the case with haunts and chases) I don't realize we need those new rules until I'm developing the adventure and realize that the adventure would benefit from their appearance.

Getting those rules done before the AP begins is really REALLY time consuming and tough, though. We'll probably continue avoiding them for a year or so more at least... with the bulk of the new rules we need being developed in the rulebook line...

Ok then about what i was thinking on how far before the first AP adventure is started. I was thinking 3 months.

As for the GM guide I was more thinking something tightly focused on just the AP and maybe something short like 15-20 pages or less. Even leaving optional rules aside. Have a overview draft of the whole AP, perhaps highlighting a few parts the GM might want to pay special attention to and giving the GM a fleshed out rough guide to how the AP was meant to work.

Lets take the Carrion Crown as a option, you could have had a few pages devoted to advice on how to play up gothic horror. A page or two of listing mood music and perhaps (this part would have to be done late in the process) suggested music for key scenes in the AP's. Perhaps a section talking about the Whisper Way, there methods, ideology etc, anything that might help a GM play them up more.

Or a Jade Regent example would be arctic survival article about the dangers of the environment, with out a worry about page count in the AP. Perhaps reprint relevant info from the core and GM guide books and then expanding on it all in one place as a quick reference for the GM.

I just chose the examples above to make a point, even if some stuff like that is in the AP's already they could be moved to a GM guide. Free up a few pages in the AP for something specific to just that AP adventure or let some of the other secondary articles run a bit bigger. This would also let the things in the GM guide be as long as they need to be with out space worries for the AP's they would normal be in. Plus it would be a one stop go to for the GM to check that stuff. Could also throw the pregens back in if you so desired.

I thought of it because I tend to make my own in a doc file. Then when I am done with the little guide I print it out and take it with me as a quick reference tool, with some of the stuff I listed above in it. I just find it very helpful.

Anyways was just thinking I would find it handy and since this thread seemed like a good place to offer suggestions I am doing so. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:


Elves being aloof has been in the game forever (thanks, Tolkien! grrr) and as such it's really REALLY hard to expunge. We're trying though.

Neat, that is awesome! A fresh take on elves was long overdue. That can join with the very cool gnomes you've made.

Now, all we need is a dwarf-centric AP to give that race a brand-new look! :-D


Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Now, all we need is a dwarf-centric AP to give that race a brand-new look! :-D

Complete with Mining Rules!

I kid, of course.


I thoroughly enjoyed the response to the OP. It may not have deserved a response (sorry Gregg) but it's really fascinating to get some behind the scenes information about the process. Love it and thank you.

Grand Lodge

Thanks for taking the time to post some insights into Paizo's AP-production process, James. It's very interesting.

I'm really impressed how you all at Paizo are involved with your players and readers. Kudos!

Sczarni

Thanks for the insight, James!

In addition to just liking some chapters more than others, here's a few recurring little things that I feel could be a bit more well done in the APs:

1. Consistency and re-use of NPCs. It seems to me that there's a recurring issue of certain NPCs that don't seem to be very consistent across AP chapters. For example, in Skull & Shackles right now, there's a bit of an issue with Captain Harrigan and the Wormwood officers turning out to be pretty different in Book 5 than they seemed to be set up for in Book 1.

That said, a bigger issue is NPCs seeming to come out of nowhere when the plot demands them, or having backstories that the PCs couldn't possibly ever discover.

Maybe this could be improved by giving authors a more specific idea of how particular NPCs should be written, what their eventual fates are going to be, and who's going to be important in later books. That way the earlier authors can work in some more effective foreshadowing.

2. Connectivity between each chapter and the next. Carrion Crown in particular has the feel of six distinct adventures, and the transitions between them are very sketchy as-written.

I think it would be more effective if there were more detailed instructions at the end and beginning of each chapter to help a GM tie them together.

3. General interconnectedness of the entire AP, especially with the early chapters to the late chapters. For example, in Carrion Crown, the BBEG could have been introduced much earlier to great effect. Kingmaker could also have used more foreshadowing of the final chapter.

I don't think this would be too hard; it could be something as simple as a matter of a few little details that the PCs realize are pointing toward something in the future: a letter from an unknown "benefactor"; a strange tattoo on a mook; a few unusual animal remains. Just some strange things, with the promise that they'll be explained further on down the road.

All of these things are ways that can help each AP feel like more of a coherent whole, and decrease the likelihood of players losing interest between chapters. I think there would be a lot more incentive to play the AP to completion if there were more overt attempts to connect the early chapters to the end game, so it could be good for business.

I would say that I think Skull & Shackles is improving in this regard, with the early omens of the later main conflict and with the inclusion of late-game NPCs in the first chapter.

Liberty's Edge

Second Darkness needs to be examined more carefully in some cases. When I read it as a whole I wasn't impressed only because it would not mesh with the way my groups play and so I never ran it, like a couple others.

However, unlike other AP's I've not run at all, I've actualy wound up running 4 of the 6 Second Darkness books on their own as part of another campaign and they worked GREAT! It was the first time I kept in mind they don't always have to be used together.

Oh, great thread by the way.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A note on Second Darkness AP...

While the AP does suffer from the problems mentioned by James, none of these issues are terminal. There is a lot to like about Second Darkness. While there are problems, they are fixable by most GMs. The same can be said for Legacy of Fire, Council of Thieves, Serpent's Skull and Carrion Crown. The good bits vastly outnumber the bad parts. It's easy to renovate most of these issues. So if you are deterred from buying Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, Council of Thieves, or Serpent's Skull -- all of which are on sale right now -- don't be. $30 for a complete AP is a frikkin NO BRAINER. Buy it!

I think the main trouble with Jade relates to the eastern theme which sits well with some players and not for others. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about that, but there are not that many problems with that AP as a whole. I thought Vol. 3 of Jade Regent was particularly strong, too, and deserves a shout out in support and admiration for it. Great adventure, great maps, great artwork... just a great effort, overall.

Thanks to James Jacobs for a great post which I am sure took him a few hours to write in response to what devs at most other game companies would have not bothered to answer at all -- let alone answer in as fulsome and honest a manner as JJ did. You ROCK sir.


Steel_Wind wrote:

A note on Second Darkness AP...

While the AP does suffer from the problems mentioned by James, none of these issues are terminal. There is a lot to like about Second Darkness. While there are problems, they are fixable by most GMs. The same can be said for Legacy of Fire, Council of Thieves, Serpent's Skull and Carrion Crown. The good bits vastly outnumber the bad parts. It's easy to renovate most of these issues. So if you are deterred from buying Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, Council of Thieves, or Serpent's Skull -- all of which are on sale right now -- don't be. $30 for a complete AP is a frikkin NO BRAINER. Buy it!

I think the main trouble with Jade relates to the eastern theme which sits well with some players and not for others. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about that, but there are not that many problems with that AP as a whole. I thought Vol. 3 of Jade Regent was particularly strong, too, and deserves a shout out in support and admiration for it. Great adventure, great maps, great artwork... just a great effort, overall.

Thanks to James Jacobs for a great post which I am sure took him a few hours to write in response to what devs at most other game companies would have not bothered to answer at all -- let alone answer in as fulsome and honest a manner as JJ did. You ROCK sir.

You sir, are a credit to humanity:), i rather like serpent's skull. while book 3 requires some work i found it fun and in the end feel like i was able to make my mark on saventh-yhi.

i also find Jade Regent to be one of my favorite adventure paths (not as good as kingmaker but close).


I wish I could comment more fully on Serpent Skull, but I'm a player in it and, since we're switching off between that and my Kingmaker campaign, we've only just finished the second book. So far I'm loving it, but then anything set in ruined cities in the jungle screams ADVENTURE!!!! to me, so I'm a sucker for it.

I do concur with Trinite that the connections in Carrion Crown felt tenuous, and sometimes it felt like "You go to this other place because that's where the next book is set," rather than having an organic flow.

With Kingmaker I'd even go stronger and say that the 6th book is feels completely random, almost as though it was parachuted in from another AP. I do understand that the objective was to have the PCs have to deal with a major disaster, and almost by definition those are unexpected, so pretty much anything Paizo could have done there would have felt much the same to me.

I also second Steel's enthusiasm for book 3 of Jade Regent -- it was freakin' awesome. However, pretty much all the adventures there felt great as individual adventures and left me enthusiastic to run them -- book 4 had me giddy for days after I read it. I just didn't feel the whole was greater than the sum of its parts, which is what you look for (well, what I look for) in a full campaign. I was really hoping the four main NPCs played big roles in the crescendo and climax of the AP to pay off their being so important in the setup, but instead they sort of faded away. That left a sour taste in my mouth, which was a shame because the individual adventures (I guess with the exception of book 6) were fantastic, fantastic stuff. I mean, book 1 was a semi-sequel to We Be Goblins for crying out loud, so you can't get much more awesome than that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
I also second Steel's enthusiasm for book 3 of Jade Regent -- it was freakin' awesome. However, pretty much all the adventures there felt great as individual adventures and left me enthusiastic to run them -- book 4 had me giddy for days after I read it. I just didn't feel the whole was greater than the sum of its parts, which is what you look for (well, what I look for) in a full campaign. I was really hoping the four main NPCs played big roles in the crescendo and climax of the AP to pay off their being so important in the setup, but instead they sort of faded away. That left a sour taste in my mouth, which was a shame because the individual adventures (I guess with the exception of book 6) were fantastic, fantastic stuff. I mean, book 1 was a semi-sequel to We Be Goblins for crying out loud, so you can't get much more awesome than that.

While I am not saying you need to be pleased with the directon of the published versions -- unless you are only buying these products to read them, then this isn't literature. It's a RPG campaign module. The longer that ANY Adv Path runs, the more it goes off script. That's the just the nature of role-playing games. Indeed, when it DOES NOT go off script, that's when you should start to worry.

If enhancing the role of the Caravan NPCs is something you think it important to your Jade campaign (and to your players) -- then that's the way you should run it. I promise you the Pathfinder podcast police aren't going to show up at your door and no Pathfinder Society VC saboteurs will go to work on your car over night, either. Paizo will still respect you in the morning, too. It's the players' opinions that should matter most (albiet, GMs need to enjoy themselves, too).

When it comes to trying out new innovations during an AP, Paizo tends to cover its bets and rearely goes all-in. The ongoing NPCs and relationships one could forge with them was a new innovation to Jade. Usually, Paizo does not make a new and untested feature central to an AP if that can be avoided. They are wise enough to know that something new might not appeal to every customer. They leave themselves some wiggle room. Enhancing the end-game role of the NPCs in the way that seems best to you would be an "all-in" bet. Paizo's more sonervative than that with their APs.

Similar to your concern with Jade, I loved the first three installments of Kingmaker. Books 4 through 6? Nope. Nowhere NEAR as much (and book 6, not at all). What worked in Kingmaker Vols. 1 through 3 just did not work for me at all in the later half of the series. Like you, despite the foreshadowing, I felt Book 6 was bolted on from some other campaign. I must confess that I am hating Thousand Screams as a consequence. Still, there are others who enjoy it immensely though. Different strokes for differnt folks.

Ultimately, ALL of these issues are fixable, it is just that some issues are simply easier to fix than others. While it is great that we have pro developers and RPG superstar freelancers to write APs and modules for us -- that does not mean that any published product from Paizo (or anybody else) runs best without customizing it to the needs of your own table.

The reading experience provided by an AP is 100% Paizo's responsibility and you won't see any Paizo staffer suggest otherwise. The play experience, however, is ultimately the GM's responsibiity. That's true whether an individual is running Gygax's GDQ 1-7 or JJ's Shattered Star Adventure Path - or any other adventure campaign or module released at any point in time between those two (current) "book-ends" of the hobby.


Steel_Wind wrote:
A bunch of good stuff

As per usual, you make excellent points. And it's certainly true that depending on PCs to keep any particular NPC alive for a 1-17 level (or whatever) campaign is resting your campaign on the slimmest of reeds. I was just hoping there would be a little more provided for them.

In my Kingmaker game I'm actually completely discarding books 4-6 (well, almost -- I'm keeping one encounter from the big dungeon in book 4 and some elements of book 5). My players have seized upon certain things I introduced as throwaway elements very early on, so I'm going to play on that enthusiasm and come up with a vastly different storyline. Fortunately the first three books in the AP provide an excellent foundation for improvisation later on.

Sczarni

I agree completely with Steel.

So I guess the question is, is there anything Paizo could be doing differently to make this customization easier for GMs?

I could see them maybe including more narrative options for GMs to pursue, especially in later books, or suggestions for alternative ways to use the written material.

They're already doing this a bit with the side-quest hooks written in the inside covers and the random encounter tables (and there are some good ship encounters included in S&S Book 1). Maybe they could include a couple of simple "plug-in anywhere" encounters in an appendix? Or maybe sample encounters for the Bestiary monsters that don't get used in the adventure?

Or maybe that's just what third-party publishers are for? :)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Trinite wrote:
Or maybe that's just what third-party publishers are for? :)

Maybe so. If only there were a 3PP who specialized in Adventure Path Plug-Ins... ;-)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Neil Spicer wrote:
Trinite wrote:
Or maybe that's just what third-party publishers are for? :)
Maybe so. If only there were a 3PP who specialized in Adventure Path Plug-Ins... ;-)

Yeah it would be nice, especially if they gave us dozens of gothic horror goodness. :)


James Jacobs wrote:
Nope. The Adventure Path plotlines are generally things that I and a small number of folks (generally Rob McCreary these days, but often with aid from Wes and Erik and, now that he's been hired, Adam) come up with. In many cases, I come up with the ideas myself. There's not really much arguing about it at all.

Interesting. I had also gotten the idea that topics for adventure paths were bandied about more. I thought I read a post that read along the lines of: "We try to pick themes for adventure paths that our authors will like writing about, and after discussing it with them our authors aren't that interested in X" (where X is "dragons" or "outer space" or whatever).


I’ve posted various comments all over the boards on what I feel would make the APs better but this seems like a good time and place to revisit some of my comments due to the (great!) discussion going on. The APs are the best overall RPG products I have run but after running 4 of them back to back I’m beginning to..well…you know what familiarity can breed…

Big things:
- Make the Part 6’s the best. The group (which includes the hard working GM) that makes it to part 6 of the AP should be rewarded with the best adventure yet and it should be a product of the previous 5. I think any pretense of part 6 being a stand-alone adventure should be abandoned in favor of rewarding the group and GM for getting to the end of the AP. If you pick up a part 6 and want to run it stand-alone you should expect to do lots of ad-hoc work. However, if you get to part 6 after running parts 1-5 you should be rewarded with a cohesive, complete, and climactic adventure that can be run right off the page. In fact, I would suggest writing and developing part 6 first and let the other volumes of the AP organically flow from what all the authors already know happens in part 6. I know the “continuing the story” pieces that get put into every part 6 now are popular but for me they are a complete waste. I would much rather have those pages used for content in this adventure -the one I just bought and am playing right now- than tips on the next one that I have to write on my own (which I never do).
- Hype the end of the AP more than the beginning. I know this is probably counter to the typical sales strategy but, to me, it seems the end of the APs get the short stick on official support and discussion in lieu of the beginning. This is unfortunate because the end of the APs is where I think most GMs could use the extra support. I also think the focus on the start of the APs is what contributes to the decline in popularity of the end. I think the two feed each other, and this needs to be reversed.
- Save something cool for the players to do for the end. In the 3 Paizo APs I have run to completion (I don’t count Savage Tide in this) the end-game is for the most part identical: an assault on the final lair of a high CR creature. The adventure leading up to this assault never really seems to take advantage of what the (now) high level players can do. Rise, Curse, Carrion Crown all follow an almost identical formula. The part 6’s of these APs never seem to acknowledge the PCs power level except to ramp up the CRs of the creatures they face. Otherwise each of these adventures could be run by 3rd level PCs if you simply dropped the CR of all the encounters to match. To me the part 6 should be an adventure that only high level PCs could hope to go on and it should not be possible to complete it without going through parts 1-5. Carrion Crown makes a valiant attempt to do this but isn't quite there yet. If the Dark Tapestry stuff would have been used in part 6 (instead of part 4) it would have been much better and better suited for high level adventure. I really think the Dark Tapestry material in Golarian was diminished by being published in a mid-level AP volume. To me Dark Tapestry content belongs in the high levels.

Little Things
- Drop the age template for creatures in the APs. Why do I need to see “middle aged human” or “old dwarf” in a stat block? Age templates are so arbitrary in this game that they become meaningless. When do you apply an age template? Why are there no “middle age dragons” but I see “old ghosts”? Why is the human captain “middle aged” but his wizened (obviously old) half-orc companion has no age template at all? Just drop them completely and leave the age up to the GM, or in the NPC description, or actually list the age numerically if you really want me to know it for every creature.
- Name as many magic items as possible. I know this happens in some cases already but I would like it to become the standard as much as possible. I love seeing “Longtooth (+1 dagger)” in the stat-blocks. I don’t know why.
- Come up with a small combat stat-block that just lists what a creature does in combat and all the info I need to run it as GM. I’d like to see a stat-block that allows the GM to run the first 3 or so rounds of combat without leaving the page. It doesn’t need to be optimal tactics or anything, just concise and convenient, especially with spells and spell like abilities.

As always, feel free to ignore any of this. I don’t write APs for a living after all and I would be hard-pressed to come up with any of the worst things Paizo has done on my own. Thanks Paizo!

Steel_Wind wrote:

So if you are deterred from buying Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, Council of Thieves, or Serpent's Skull -- all of which are on sale right now -- don't be. $30 for a complete AP is a frikkin NO BRAINER. Buy it!

Yup. I think SS specifically is underappreciated. I'm not sure why SS gets a bad rap yet RotRL is beloved. RotRL had some great moments, don't get me wrong, but start to finish I think SS is a much better campaign.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

- Name as many magic items as possible. I know this happens in some cases already but I would like it to become the standard as much as possible. I love seeing “Longtooth (+1 dagger)” in the stat-blocks. I don’t know why.

This part I completely agree with.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Naming things is actually really really hard. I usually have to name about half the NPCs in any given adventure since authors are pretty good at either not naming NPCs or naming them inappropriately.

Naming every magic item in the adventure is not possible, given a monthly timeline to develop these things. In other words... what you're seeing in the adventure paths as they stand IS us naming as many magic items as possible.

As for the "age template," aging effects only really apply to humanoids for the most part. We want to include older characters in our adventures often, in the same way we want to include different sexualities or different genders or different ethnicities... it's more diverse (and thus more realistic) to include middle-age, old, and venerable characters. As a result, I strongly disagree that ages are meaningless in the game.

Whether or not our authors (and by extension our developers) remember that if we put an elderly NPC in the adventure he or she needs the age adjustments to the stats is in the same category as whether we remember to give human NPCs their bonus feat and +2 to an ability score. If you see an NPC who's described as being old but that NPC's stats aren't adjusted for age... that's an error as surely as forgetting to list a fighter's melee attack is an error.

When it comes to monsters, they're just monsters and for the most part, they're not "on screen" for any other purpose than a fight.

And as for dragons, you don't see aging effects applied to dragons because they have their own unique rules for aging.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, to add my take on what could be done better in APs:

- Test thoroughly if any new introduced subsystems actually function and are fun to play. Too many of them lately had bugs which made them easy to be exploited by players ( city building in Kingmaker ) or made them not work at all ( caravan combat in Jade Regent ). That sucks for us GMs, because we need to houserule them extensively and even that may not be enough to make them worthwhile.

- More character development for NPCs. Yeah, I know that it is difficult to coordinate over different modules, but while player characters drive the plot, NPCs add about one fourth of the flavor to it ( the other three quarters coming from PCs, the settign and the plot ). Carrion Crown had some great NPCs, but as written they were just setting dressing in separate vignettes. Recurring NPCs should be used and they should have some advancing plot on their own.

That does run into the problem that players are unpredictable and can drive off or kill the NPC in question, but giving advancing plots can still be done in an expedient matter, without taking up too much space.

- More continuity overall. Again, it is difficult to coordinate, but too many of the APs have felt very disjointed between modules and this significantly lowers their value as an actual epic story for my taste.

Communication between writers cannot be *that* difficult to achieve nowadays. TeamSpeak, Skype or other aides like that should help to make it affordable without having to meet in person.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

Naming things is actually really really hard. I usually have to name about half the NPCs in any given adventure since authors are pretty good at either not naming NPCs or naming them inappropriately.

Naming every magic item in the adventure is not possible, given a monthly timeline to develop these things. In other words... what you're seeing in the adventure paths as they stand IS us naming as many magic items as possible.

As for the "age template," aging effects only really apply to humanoids for the most part. We want to include older characters in our adventures often, in the same way we want to include different sexualities or different genders or different ethnicities... it's more diverse (and thus more realistic) to include middle-age, old, and venerable characters. As a result, I strongly disagree that ages are meaningless in the game.

Whether or not our authors (and by extension our developers) remember that if we put an elderly NPC in the adventure he or she needs the age adjustments to the stats is in the same category as whether we remember to give human NPCs their bonus feat and +2 to an ability score. If you see an NPC who's described as being old but that NPC's stats aren't adjusted for age... that's an error as surely as forgetting to list a fighter's melee attack is an error.

When it comes to monsters, they're just monsters and for the most part, they're not "on screen" for any other purpose than a fight.

And as for dragons, you don't see aging effects applied to dragons because they have their own unique rules for aging.

Oh I totally get why you guys don't name them all. But I do agree i love it when i do see it. But I try to make all magic items seem a bit more magical in my games. Like a example of the magic item above.

Longtooth = +1 Dagger: It looks like a long tooth from a sabre tooth cat that has been sharpened along one edge and at the tip. When ever the dagger hits someone it lets out a loud snarling growl.

Now I know it would be hard to do that for every magic item in a AP, but when it happens I love stuff like that. It stops just being a +1 dagger and becomes so much more, even though mechanically it is still just a +1 dagger. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

magnuskn wrote:

- More continuity overall. Again, it is difficult to coordinate, but too many of the APs have felt very disjointed between modules and this significantly lowers their value as an actual epic story for my taste.

Communication between writers cannot be *that* difficult to achieve nowadays. TeamSpeak, Skype or other aides like that should help to make it affordable without having to meet in person.

This isn't really a factor of communication. It's us trying to keep a little bit of "stands alone" factor in each Adventure Path installment. We do hope that folks buy all six parts of any one Adventure Path, but we also know that folks sometimes buy only one or two and as a result we try to limit the cross-volume requirements.

Could we push a little further into the "we assume you have all six books" side of things? Perhaps...

As for recurring NPCs... that is indeed a tricky thing to pull off. One thing I've learned is that if you ARE going to do this, the developer (NOT the authors) needs to be the same one who outlines and develops the entire adventure path. That's what happened with Jade Regent (I outlined it and Rob developed it) and with Skull & Shackles (I developed the penultimate adventure, which is why there's some thematic disconnects with the bad guy and earlier adventures).

Now that we've got Adam Daigle on "Team Adventure Path," hopefully we'll be able to do some recurring NPC stuff... but that also requires us to actually build an Adventure Path where something like that is a built-in aspect.

At this point, the earliest we'll have a chance to try again on that front is probably the Adventure Path after Reign of Winter. Shattered Star is more about the classic dungeon crawl stuff (there are cool NPCs but not many overarching NPCs), while Reign of Winter jumps around too much to really give us a chance to have some recurring NPCs...


James Jacobs wrote:

Naming things is actually really really hard. I usually have to name about half the NPCs in any given adventure since authors are pretty good at either not naming NPCs or naming them inappropriately.

Naming every magic item in the adventure is not possible, given a monthly timeline to develop these things. In other words... what you're seeing in the adventure paths as they stand IS us naming as many magic items as possible.

Yeah, I figured that, just thought I'd let you know I do like it and wouldn't mind seeing more of it.

James Jacobs wrote:


As for the "age template," aging effects only really apply to humanoids for the most part. We want to include older characters in our adventures often, in the same way we want to include different sexualities or different genders or different ethnicities... it's more diverse (and thus more realistic) to include middle-age, old, and venerable characters. As a result, I strongly disagree that ages are meaningless in the game.

Whether or not our authors (and by extension our developers) remember that if we put an elderly NPC in the adventure he or she needs the age adjustments to the stats is in the same category as whether we remember to give human NPCs their bonus feat and +2 to an ability score. If you see an NPC who's described as being old but that NPC's stats aren't adjusted for age... that's an error as surely as forgetting to list a fighter's melee attack is an error.

When it comes to monsters, they're just monsters and for the most part, they're not "on screen" for any other purpose than a fight.

And as for dragons, you don't see aging effects applied to dragons because they have their own unique rules for aging.

Hmm. Well the Splatter Man in CC#1 is an "old ghost" just off the top of my head. I don't know how age can be applied meaningfully to any undead at all. If the Splatter Man is an example wouldn’t most of the vampires in CC be “old vampire” as well?

It seems to me age templates are meant for humans as that is where I see the vast majority of them show up. I can’t remember ever seeing a middle-aged kobold or an old troglodyte (both humanoids), could be wrong though {cue someone pointing out a middle aged svirfneblin}. Come to think of it I think many of the werewolves in CC had very long and storied histories that covered many decades but none of them were “middle-age” let alone “old”. So, this is probably nitpicky, but the age template thing seems like a special rule that is only meaningful for humans the PCs are expected to interact with which I think could be covered in the text instead of the already crowded stat block. If you want an old NPC to have more wisdom and less strength, just make it that way, no need for the template cluttering things up as well.

Contributor

cibet44 wrote:
If you want an old NPC to have more wisdom and less strength, just make it that way, no need for the {age} template cluttering things up as well.

As one of the writers who loves putting the age template to good use, I'll toss out a reminder that other than cinematic matching-up with descriptions, that all NPCs are built on the same point buy, and we don't just get to tack on arbitrary ability score bonuses as we please. And since it's already built in, I don't see it as a clutter issue.

Besides, when I've got some wizened old bad m*fo I want to throw out there to beat up on PCs, slapping the appropriate age template to buff up those mental abilities scores (and subsequent spell DCs)is an awesome tool! =-)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

I completely agree with Brandon (and James). Age templates make for a very useful design tool when you want to tweak the baseline elite array into something different.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
cibet44 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Naming things is actually really really hard. I usually have to name about half the NPCs in any given adventure since authors are pretty good at either not naming NPCs or naming them inappropriately.

Naming every magic item in the adventure is not possible, given a monthly timeline to develop these things. In other words... what you're seeing in the adventure paths as they stand IS us naming as many magic items as possible.

Yeah, I figured that, just thought I'd let you know I do like it and wouldn't mind seeing more of it.

James Jacobs wrote:


As for the "age template," aging effects only really apply to humanoids for the most part. We want to include older characters in our adventures often, in the same way we want to include different sexualities or different genders or different ethnicities... it's more diverse (and thus more realistic) to include middle-age, old, and venerable characters. As a result, I strongly disagree that ages are meaningless in the game.

Whether or not our authors (and by extension our developers) remember that if we put an elderly NPC in the adventure he or she needs the age adjustments to the stats is in the same category as whether we remember to give human NPCs their bonus feat and +2 to an ability score. If you see an NPC who's described as being old but that NPC's stats aren't adjusted for age... that's an error as surely as forgetting to list a fighter's melee attack is an error.

When it comes to monsters, they're just monsters and for the most part, they're not "on screen" for any other purpose than a fight.

And as for dragons, you don't see aging effects applied to dragons because they have their own unique rules for aging.

Hmm. Well the Splatter Man in CC#1 is an "old ghost" just off the top of my head. I don't know how age can be applied meaningfully to any undead at all. If the Splatter Man is an example wouldn’t most of the vampires in CC be “old vampire” as well?

It seems to me age templates are meant for...

The Splatter man was an Old Human before he became a Ghost, which will be where it is linked in. Ghost is an unusual tempate in general

Paizo Employee Creative Director

cibet44 wrote:

Hmm. Well the Splatter Man in CC#1 is an "old ghost" just off the top of my head. I don't know how age can be applied meaningfully to any undead at all. If the Splatter Man is an example wouldn’t most of the vampires in CC be “old vampire” as well?

It seems to me age templates are meant for humans as that is where I see the vast majority of them show up. I can’t remember ever seeing a middle-aged kobold or an old troglodyte (both humanoids), could be wrong though {cue someone pointing out a middle aged svirfneblin}. Come to think of it I think many of the werewolves in CC had very long and storied histories that covered many decades but none of them were “middle-age” let alone “old”. So, this is probably nitpicky, but the age template thing seems like a special rule that is only meaningful for humans the PCs are expected to interact with which I think could be covered in the text instead of the already crowded stat block. If you want an old NPC to have more wisdom and less strength, just make it that way, no need for the template cluttering things up as well.

The Splatter Man was an old man when he died. Hence, he kept his old man ability modifiers when he became a ghost. Once he's a ghost, he can of course exist forever, but he also doesn't have the ability to learn or decline as a result of the aging.

My assumption is that the vast majority of undead become undead BEFORE they hit middle age, and so therefore most undead don't carry over those adjustments into their unlife.

It's certainly something that's a bit haphazardly applied in adventures, made moreso by the fact that we don't supply aging rules for anything other than PC races.

In the end, those adjustments for age are ONLY applied when, due to the needs of the story, we want to feature an older character.

And due to the nature of the rules themselves, we can't just hand-wave things and arbitrarily assign bonuses and penalties to characters. The underlying rules of the game assume a baseline of balance, more or less, that means the difficulty of any one encounter is the same regardless of who's playing the game. The type of arbitrary adjustments you suggest are best left in the hands of GMs who know their specific group and their capabilities MUCH better than we ever could.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
At this point, the earliest we'll have a chance to try again on that front is probably the Adventure Path after Reign of Winter. Shattered Star is more about the classic dungeon crawl stuff (there are cool NPCs but not many overarching NPCs), while Reign of Winter jumps around too much to really give us a chance to have some recurring NPCs...

First off, many thanks for the answer. I always appreciate it very much if you ( and the other writers ) take your time to have a conversation with us normal shlepps. But I want to point out that a recurring NPC doesn't need to be someone who fills a combat role, but can also be someone who tags along with the party and stays behind during the actual dangerous dungeon delves. Like, say, an old cranky sage who is needed to identify a very particular set of ancient information, to name just one example.

I think recurring NPCs are a very good way to invest players into the story. I definitely felt that my players were much more into the story of CotCT, where they even started relationships with long-standing NPCs like Cressida and Trinia, than Carrion Crown, where I awkwardly had to insert Adivion Adrissant and Kendra into the plot at times when they shouldn't have appeared, if I had just kept the original outline of the AP.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / The Process of Writing an AP; or, How to Build a Better Mousetrap (Maybe) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.