Looking for spoiler-free summaries of each Adventure Path, and their themes / etc


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi, I've recently ran through some of the Rise of the Runelords and though I greatly enjoyed it I don't want to tie in new characters after we had a major party wipe, what I'd like to do is let my players vote or choose on the next campaign but the issue I'm having is that all the descriptions for them are super spoilery, even the ones here:

http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath

Straight away the Rise of the Runelords one gives major spoilers as to what's coming, especially giving away the sin thing which I was extremely proud of my players for figuring out themselves.


There's always the Player's Guide to each Adventure Path, available as a free download right here at Paizo's website.

They're designed especially for players, so if there are spoilers they aren't game-breaking. The only downside is they're not short. You could spend an afternoon of reading each one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Frankly, I think the descriptions you linked to aren't super spoilery. Most of the spoilers you can either figure out from the covers and AP book titles, or you'll know by the end of the first book. Knowing a little about what's coming also helps you make characters that better fit the story. If you want as few spoilers as possible, though, you can just stick to themes.

  • Rise of the Runelords: Classic fantasy.
  • Curse of the Crimson Throne: Urban campaign where you learn to love the city. Resistance fighters.
  • Second Darkness: Introduction to the mysterious drow. Okay, that might be a minor spoiler, but there is a drow on four of the six covers.
  • Legacy of Fire: Arabian Nights, genies.
  • Council of Theives: Make life a little bit better in Westcrown, a once proud town in devil-worshiping Cheliax.
  • Kingmaker: Kingdom building and exploration.
  • Serpent's Skull: Think Indiana Jones.
  • Carrion Crown: A whirlwind tour of all kinds of horror.
  • Jade Regent: Travel to the part of Golarion most closely modeled on ancient Asia.
  • Shattered Star: A return to the story of Rise of the Runelords.
  • Reign of Winter: Inspired by Russian mythology. Very cold.
  • Wrath of the Righteous: Crusaders against the demon hordes of the Worldwound.
  • Mummy's Mask: Ancient Egypt. Some tomb-robbing.
  • Iron Gods: Sci-fi


I took the short descriptions from the Paizo site and deleted the spoilery bits.


I want to add onto Iron Gods that it's a mixture of sci-fi with traditional fantasy elements, rather than just pure ray guns and robots everywhere. Without spoiling anything, you're guaranteed to run into foes like orcs and run into normal, magical loot as well as technological loot.


CaelibDarkstone wrote:
Frankly, I think the descriptions you linked to aren't super spoilery. Most of the spoilers you can either figure out from the covers and AP book titles, or you'll know by the end of the first book. Knowing a little about what's coming also helps you make characters that better fit the story. If you want as few spoilers as possible, though, you can just stick to themes.

Thanks for the summaries but I would definitely disagree on the one I know at least, Rise of the Runelords there's nothing in the first book that remotely hints at giants or anything like that. Straight up saying an ancient evil is stirring is just lame in my opinion, you don't want the players to know that kind of thing you want them to conclude it.


Actually, I think it's pretty important for the players to know enough about the theme of an AP in order to build effective characters.

You don't want to bring a paladin to Skull & Shackles. You don't want to bring a druid with a bear animal companion to Council of Thieves. You don't want to bring a cavalier to Crimson Throne. You don't want to bring a drow to Second Darkness. And so on.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I will agree to disagree with you on that point, RMcD. An ancient evil stirring is a time-honored idea, and also one that should be obvious fairly early on. From my perspective, which ancient evil is stirring, how it is stirring, and why it is stirring, is the interesting part.

No, you won't be able to figure out there are giants from the first book of Rise of the Runelords, but the fourth book is called Fortress of the Stone Giants and I included the covers and titles of AP volumes in my list of things that the players can easily find out. Giants are a fairly common enemy, and rangers need some idea of good favored enemies to build interesting characters. Knowing the special powers and new types of giants you'll find in Rise of Runelords, that's what I would consider a spoiler.

How would you describe Rise of the Runelords without giving away anything you would consider a spoiler?


Haladir wrote:

Actually, I think it's pretty important for the players to know enough about the theme of an AP in order to build effective characters.

You don't want to bring a paladin to Skull & Shackles. You don't want to bring a druid with a bear animal companion to Council of Thieves. You don't want to bring a cavalier to Crimson Throne. You don't want to bring a drow to Second Darkness. And so on.

Suppose I have to disagree with you there, I definitely don't like my players designing characters around what will be effective for the campaign rather than roleplaying. I'd hate someone to play Carrion Crown as a paladin just because they think it'll be OP. I don't mind letting them know they will be in tight spaces or be very diplomatic because that doesn't give much away at all, but anything more than that.

CaelibDarkstone wrote:
I will agree to disagree with you on that point, RMcD. An ancient evil stirring is a time-honored idea, and also one that should be obvious fairly early on. From my perspective, which ancient evil is stirring, how it is stirring, and why it is stirring, is the interesting part.

For people as new to roleplay as my group (only played one homebrew 2E campaign other than mine, I have say that it totally ruins the players slowly dawning on the realization that there is more than meets the eye to this.

Quote:

No, you won't be able to figure out there are giants from the first book of Rise of the Runelords, but the fourth book is called Fortress of the Stone Giants and I included the covers and titles of AP volumes in my list of things that the players can easily find out. Giants are a fairly common enemy, and rangers need some idea of good favored enemies to build interesting characters. Knowing the special powers and new types of giants you'll find in Rise of Runelords, that's what I would consider a spoiler.

How would you describe Rise of the Runelords without giving away anything you would consider a spoiler?

I didn't let my players know the title of the chapters or books because that's super OP. "What's that DM, the next book is called Skinsaw murders, guess we know what to look out for, wonder who'll be getting murdered". Again, choosing favoured enemy because of effectiveness is something I really find iffy, would the character have hated giants if the book wasn't focussed on fighting them? It's just really lame and I don't want to see some of the great ideas for characters be squashed because they want to make sure they're hitting the hardest.

I don't know enough about the full campaign or have a history of DMing to describe it, which is why I made a thread for it. I'd probably do more about the experience, so light "dungeon raiding" with city focus or something for the first part, mentioning goblins wouldn't be an issue since that's part of common knowledge about Sandpoint (rather than you know giants!!) . Skinsaw murders is obviously just classic horror, wouldn't even mention the title though.


Hmm, I'll give it a shot?

RotRL - Sort of like a Lord of the Rings epic...with Gypsies.

CotCT - Urban conflict with chaos run amok in a city filled with intrigue

SD - Dark Elves, come and get them.

Legacy of Fire - Think hot...very very hot. It's a desert adventure that deals with extraplanar foes occasionally.

Council of Theives - Dealing with evil plots in a city devoted to the worship of an evil being.

Kingmaker - Create your own kingdom.

Serpent's Skull - Treasure hunt in the wilds of Africa (well not Africa...but a place sort of like Africa).

Carrion Crown - An AP which takes all those B horror movies of the past and rolls them into one continuous adventure....

Jade Regent - Escort a local friend in a caravan across the world.

Skull and Shackles - Just need to know one thing....you are all pirates...can you deal with it?

Shattered Star - Find the treasure that you hope will prevent a catastrophe from occurring.

Reign of Winter - Russian fairy tale AP. Also...prevent the world from going cold.

Wrath of the Righteous - Be a participant in the crusades at the Worldwound.

Mummy's Mask - The Egyptian tombrunner's AP...Well...not Egypt...but Golarion's equivalent.

The one currently coming out isn't finished yet, so I'll excuse myself from that one.

Hopefully that is something that works...or not. Tried to give the essence of each AP without giving out spoilers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RMcD wrote:
Haladir wrote:

Actually, I think it's pretty important for the players to know enough about the theme of an AP in order to build effective characters.

You don't want to bring a paladin to Skull & Shackles. You don't want to bring a druid with a bear animal companion to Council of Thieves. You don't want to bring a cavalier to Crimson Throne. You don't want to bring a drow to Second Darkness. And so on.

Suppose I have to disagree with you there, I definitely don't like my players designing characters around what will be effective for the campaign rather than roleplaying. I'd hate someone to play Carrion Crown as a paladin just because they think it'll be OP. I don't mind letting them know they will be in tight spaces or be very diplomatic because that doesn't give much away at all, but anything more than that.

Do you give enough info to a ranger so they don't choose a useless favoured enemy? Do you let them know whether to expect mostly urban or mostly wilderness? Because it's easy to build a totally useless character without any info

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Teasing APs is a delicate art. It's a lot like movie trailers. You don't want to put all the best scenes in the trailer, but if you don't let people know what the movie's about, they're not going to watch it.

It's also important so that people make characters that will want to complete the AP.

As a good example of that: Second Darkness. If you don't spoil that they're going to transition from Riddleport shenanigans to saving the world, there's a good chance you end up with a bunch of characters who aren't interested past Book 2.

Giving more information is an opportunity for the players to make an informed decision and help you make the campaign work better.

Cheers!
Landon


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Again, choosing favoured enemy because of effectiveness is something I really find iffy, would the character have hated giants if the book wasn't focussed on fighting them? It's just really lame and I don't want to see some of the great ideas for characters be squashed because they want to make sure they're hitting the hardest.

I agree with you to a point, but disagree vehemently with your final conclusion. Think of it more like this:

"I'm a ranger with favored enemy aberration. I'm a hunter of the foul things that should not be. I have this amazingly thorough backstory on why I hate these abominable creatures."

<several sessions later>

"WTF? We're three chapters in and we've seen only one aberration! But there's been tons of goblins and undead and giants! Why'd you guys hire me instead of someone who's got their hate-on for goblins and undead and giants? I'm going somewhere I can hunt the things I hate. You guys should hire a giantslayer in my place. Peace out."

So instead of asking "would the character have hated giants if the book wasn't focussed [sic] on fighting them?", try asking "would a character who doesn't hate giants have any reason for sticking around?" and "If not, why not encourage the players to make characters with rivalries that will encourage them to stick with the plot?"

Informing the players of "these are a sample of the kinds of enemies you'll be facing regularly" allows them to build their backstories with the eventual encounters in mind, both so they'll be mechanically effective (because nothing annoys a ranger player more than never/rarely being able to fight their favored enemy or never/rarely being on their favored terrain) and so they can craft a backstory that meshes well with the campaign.

You are the first GM EVER who I've seen want to try to avoid having players make backstories that slot well into the campaign's expectations, and giving rangers a favored enemy that you know will show up often is one of the easiest ways of doing that. What better way to ensure a character will be invested in the plot you're running than ensuring that he'll be a lifelong nemesis of an enemy type that's guaranteed to show up regularly?

That's why the chapter titles are there, really. And the covers. Those are designed to be seen by the players. To give them something to be hyped about in the future. I've lost count of how many times my players have looked at a chapter cover and gone "Oh man, who is that guy? We're not gonna have to fight him/her, are we? Oh man, that's awesome." Or "Oh man, that's an ominous title. Wonder if that means what I think it means?"

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Informing the players of "these are a sample of the kinds of enemies you'll be facing regularly" allows them to build their backstories with the eventual encounters in mind, both so they'll be mechanically effective (because nothing annoys a ranger player more than never/rarely being able to fight their favored enemy or never/rarely being on their favored terrain) and so they can craft a backstory that meshes well with the campaign.

Yes! Yes! At thousand times yes!

Two of the most difficult areas of starting a new campaign are ...

  • characters that belong in the setting. (Sorry, but a Viking Mariner is not a good choice for The Mummy's Mask)
  • - this is important - characters that WANT to go on the adventure. This was one problem with the traits from Council of Thieves.

    ... so you want to give enough information so that the players can make good characters. If you need to "bribe" them with minor game advantages, so be it.


  • Not that there is any guarantee that a Ranger that is favored enemies with giants and goes about slaughtering giants will have any interest in the other parts of the campaign and not derail into a "I am going to go off and continue to fight these giants, you guys deal with the Sin thing. Peace out."

    Just saying... there are things that spoiler the mysterious of the campaign to make characters that are effective combat monsters against the AP in question (which is not in the spirit of the AP because Paizo assumes a standard baseline of average character and NOT overly tweaked combat effective characters) which is why there are so many complaints of the modules being to easy.

    I am not arguing that purposely gimping your players is a good thing, but they don't need to be effective combat monsters (effectively giving them all the best options because they know they will be facing those opponents) to stay connected to the storyline; that is called a fallacy. That responsibility is shared by both the player and GM to connect the dots of the storyline and the character motivation. If such a state can't be achieved then creating a new character is always an option. There are other options for more advanced GMs (including running concurrent storylines with the wayward character until you can bring them back into the fold).


    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

    snip

    Do you give enough info to a ranger so they don't choose a useless favoured enemy? Do you let them know whether to expect mostly urban or mostly wilderness? Because it's easy to build a totally useless character without any info

    Rise of the Runelords is the only example I can really use, my players would know there are goblins around Sandpoint, that is common knowledge, no to be honest I wouldn't mention aberrations or giants just so a ranger could have a combat bonus against them.

    As I said my players certainly are not making broken OP characters, nor minmaxing through the roof. The first time we played Pathfinder we had a Gunslinger, Barbarian, and Magus (with the Gunslinger joining in some way into part 2), the biggest issue I had with that was that the players had rolled up evil characters which is definitely showing off my noobiness and I was finding it difficult for them to not try and switch sides or try and sabotage the town, etc. When I mentioned how multi-classing works in Pathfinder I ended up with them being like Gunslinger 1/Rogue 1/Gunslinger 2/Rogue 1, and the same with Magus and Sorceror.

    They party wiped at Thistletop (well the Magus got away) because they decided to sleep at very low HP in Thistletop, I did give them warning ("are you really sure you're going to sleep in this hostile territory" a couple of times). When they rolled up new characters I tied in the Sheriff wanting them to go find out what happened to the other ones, and then when they returned they get swept up in the murders, I wasn't even using campaign traits but didn't really find much of an issue keeping them interested in the story and wanting to continue when they weren't evil.

    Landon Winkler wrote:

    Teasing APs is a delicate art. It's a lot like movie trailers. You don't want to put all the best scenes in the trailer, but if you don't let people know what the movie's about, they're not going to watch it.

    It's also important so that people make characters that will want to complete the AP.

    As a good example of that: Second Darkness. If you don't spoil that they're going to transition from Riddleport shenanigans to saving the world, there's a good chance you end up with a bunch of characters who aren't interested past Book 2.

    Giving more information is an opportunity for the players to make an informed decision and help you make the campaign work better.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    As I say above I definitely did realise that evil characters don't work in APs which is something that I didn't know so I totally understand your point there, I do feel like it's very much on the GM to tie in the plot to the characters the players come up with. My players are used to a much more open world type of campaign than APs so I do have to throw things here and there to make sure this is waht their characters want to do.

    Orthos wrote:
    Quote:
    Again, choosing favoured enemy because of effectiveness is something I really find iffy, would the character have hated giants if the book wasn't focussed on fighting them? It's just really lame and I don't want to see some of the great ideas for characters be squashed because they want to make sure they're hitting the hardest.

    I agree with you to a point, but disagree vehemently with your final conclusion. Think of it more like this:

    "I'm a ranger with favored enemy aberration. I'm a hunter of the foul things that should not be. I have this amazingly thorough backstory on why I hate these abominable creatures."

    <several sessions later>

    "WTF? We're three chapters in and we've seen only one aberration! But there's been tons of goblins and undead and giants! Why'd you guys hire me instead of someone who's got their hate-on for goblins and undead and giants? I'm going somewhere I can hunt the things I hate. You guys should hire a giantslayer in my place. Peace out."

    So instead of asking "would the character have hated giants if the book wasn't focussed [sic] on fighting them?", try asking "would a character who doesn't hate giants have any reason for sticking around?" and "If not, why not encourage the players to make characters with rivalries that will encourage them to stick with the plot?"

    Informing the players of "these are a sample of the kinds of enemies you'll be facing regularly" allows them to build their backstories with the eventual encounters in mind, both so they'll be mechanically effective (because nothing annoys a ranger player more than never/rarely being able to fight their favored enemy or never/rarely being on their favored terrain) and so they can craft a backstory that meshes well with the campaign.

    You are the first GM EVER who I've seen want to try to avoid having players make backstories that slot well into the campaign's expectations, and giving rangers a favored enemy that you know will show up often is one of the...

    While you've raised a lot of good points that I never fully considered before, I really don't want players to be building characters with the concept of being mechanically superior. It's just not something I'm interested in facilitating. I want real characters who aren't so 1 dimensional to be only invested in a plot so they can smash giants. And considering that at least in Rise of the Runelords giants don't appear until very late then unless the hated enemy (in this example) is a consistent thing that appears all the way throughout the AP then you're always at risk of a character going "Boy we're not killing giants any more I'm done, or why am I fighting goblins in Thistletop I hate giants".

    Also I would probably never have a plot involving players only being motivated by being hired, it's a hook I guess (not a very good one) initially but it's going to be more than hating an enemy as a driving force behind their goal. I wouldn't really want a character like that in a party as it can easily become derailing (like the Rogue who only cares about money and so we all have to suspend disbelief when she isn't killing the party in their sleep and making off with the dosh). Not to say that if a player came to me and said I'm going to be all about brutally murdering rats for my new character I'd just turn them away, but I'd hope their character has more than that tying them to the story.

    Obviously I let my players read the player guide even if I disagree with some of the stuff it reveals just because the traits are a really good first chapter hook.

    This is not to say I've not had experience with a character who is not right for a plot, I've played a few in my time, and the three evil characters we had just were not meshing well with Rise of the Runelords.

    I will point out that even knowing all the way up to Thistletop when my players made new characters you just don't see metagame builds from them:

    Here are the character backstories for who they went with the 2nd time:

    http://pastebin.com/pbeY66kM Morrigan (Sorceror)

    http://pastebin.com/t4Kzhz3F (Fighter)

    http://pastebin.com/RrwSmscE (Alchemist)

    I get your point that players might feel detached from the plots in certain situations, but I don't think that encouraging them to metagame character create is the solution.

    For the big bosses and stuff I really hate revealing there's a single mastermind as opposed to a group or all unique events or really treating it as a game rather than a story. I'm not a fan of movie trailers much for the same reason, obviously because people have limited time in the world we need trailers but if you say hadn't seen the Godzilla trailer then the big reveal with the flares would be way more impactful. It doesn't stop them being enjoyable but it certainly lessens it. With roleplaying games since the DM is in charge limited time isn't really as much of a factor since we're playing through it regardless of what the players think. You don't reveal the whole plot to see if players would want to play it this especially true in APs but I think it applies in homebrew as well. The biggest problem with APs which is why I wanted spoiler free summaries is that unlike open world homebrew campaigns it's a lot harder to accommodate players current desires. If they want to try and take this part half way into Book 3 via diplomacy it just might not be feasible, or if they decide the sword is the way to go during a meeting with Royalty again it can mess up the whole plot irreparably (like joining the enemy in Rise of the Runelords).

    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Orthos wrote:
    Informing the players of "these are a sample of the kinds of enemies you'll be facing regularly" allows them to build their backstories with the eventual encounters in mind, both so they'll be mechanically effective (because nothing annoys a ranger player more than never/rarely being able to fight their favored enemy or never/rarely being on their favored terrain) and so they can craft a backstory that meshes well with the campaign.

    Yes! Yes! At thousand times yes!

    Two of the most difficult areas of starting a new campaign are ...

  • characters that belong in the setting. (Sorry, but a Viking Mariner is not a good choice for The Mummy's Mask)
  • - this is important - characters that WANT to go on the adventure. This was one problem with the traits from Council of Thieves.

    ... so you want to give enough information so that the players can make good characters. If you need to "bribe" them with minor game advantages, so be it.

  • I really think the traits do all I need to do for starting a campaign, everything else is up to the GM to make it interesting.

    If my player wanted to play a Viking Mariner tomb raiding in Egypt I'm not going to say no, if he asks me some questions like "Will we be aquatic a lot" then there's nothing wrong with me letting him know that the majority of a story is in a desert country. Just letting people know the starting country and city and local knowledge (that they would have depending on traits) is enough to build a character, but if he wanted to keep playing a Viking Mariner, I'm not going to stop htem.

    Now obviously I haven't played or read every AP so I can't say if traits don't the job they need to, but since you are playing a game players are definitely willing to be malleable in their character arcs for the continuation.

    I know myself when I played roleplaying for some absolutely stupid reason I threw up a Cleric who had a problem with murdering people (part of the reason was the characters alignments were "good" and I wanted to show what good could be plenty of other dumb stuff like this), and straight away that clashes severely with the party. But that character managed to stay with the party for ages and even eventually became evil, with a DM and player working together you can change almost any character to be suitable, in this case going from a Cleric striving for Immortality and a cure to Death to abandoning her God and picked up by a God of Death.

    ---

    Maybe if I've had more experience with characters not being suitable because of something like hated enemy or the domains/God of a cleric or something, but I haven't. I've had problems with alignment that I can see straight up but apart from that I really don't want players to build a character like that.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    RMcD wrote:

    While you've raised a lot of good points that I never fully considered before, I really don't want players to be building characters with the concept of being mechanically superior. It's just not something I'm interested in facilitating. I want real characters who aren't so 1 dimensional to be only invested in a plot so they can smash giants...

    I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

    I think you're confusing optimizing/min-maxing with building an appropriate character for the campaign. There is nothing more frustrating for a player than to realize that the way-cool detailed backstory and related feats/skills/class features they picked for their character will rarely or ever come into play. That's only going to build disdain for the campaign, and animosity toward you as a GM.

    You're not exactly doing a bait-and-switch, but if your players have one idea of what the campaign is going to be, and you have something drastically different in mind, there's going to be a problem.

    Here's a (non-Pathfinder) example. Several years ago, I was invited to join a GURPS: Space Opera campaign. I asked for some details about what it would entail, and the GM said to just build a sci-fi character for GURPS: Space, at Tech Level 10. (That's roughly Star Trek level technology). I specifically asked for more information about the campaign, and again was told, "It's a space opera game. Any sci-fi character concept should do."

    So, I built a trader/smuggler character, loosely based on Han Solo. I spent a bunch of my character points for my own starship, and a whole lot of time with the ship system building the ship. My character was optimized as a ship's pilot, with lots and lots of ship-specific skills (weapon systems, starship repair, astrogation, etc.) He also had a few social skills, specifically Fast-Talk and Gambling. I figured my character would be the party's transportation to the series of space adventures that we'd go on. I would be the ship-to-ship combat specialist, and I told the other players what I was going for, so they wouldn't do the same concept. I handed the completed character to the GM a few days before the adventure, and got a "Wow! That's really detailed! Good job!"

    So, in the first session, the GM has my character dock at a particular space station, and the authorities immediately sieze my ship for no good reason ("Unpaid docking fees" or something). My character stumbles into a firefight on the station, and he meets up with the rest of the PCs-- including a retired space marine, a telepathic alien, a robotics expert, and a space treasure hunter (based on the character Vash from ST:TNG).

    So, after the firefight, we end up on the run on the space station, and use the teleporter to head down to the planet below. We then go on what was essentially a dungeon crawl, as the treasure hunter PC had the adventure hook: we met up with an archaeological expedition to the formerly-great alien civilization that once inhabited this planet.

    So, my spacer character was COMPLETELY USELESS in this adventure. He had ZERO relevant skills (with the sole exception of gunfighting, but the space marine was WAY better.) Because I'd used so many character points on my own spaceship, I was significantly weaker than the rest of the party. My role essentially became the guy who was always cracking one-liners and failing skill checks that I had no ranks in. For me, this game was a real drag.

    After a few sessions of exploring this underground complex, I asked the GM if and when we'd get to space. He said, "I'm not sure. I was planning this as an 'explore the ancient powerful civilization' game." I asked him point-blank why he hadn't warned me when I showed him my character, and he said, "Well, it was really creative, and I didn't want to spoil your fun. I also didn't want to give away what we'd be doing."

    I wasn't the only one either: This ancient technological civilization apparently didn't believe in robots, so our robot expert didn't have much to do either. We both asked the GM if we could retire our characters and replace them, but he said, "No, you're already underground in an ancient civilization, and I can't justify your leaving on your own and replacement with someone else. Let's keep going."

    Unfortunately, the GM just couldn't understand why we weren't having fun in this campaign, and that our asking him to let us make new characters was our way of trying to work with him. After being told, "no," both Robot Expert and I then quit the campaign, which promptly ended.

    Moral of the story: Let your players know what kind of game you're going to run, so that they can make appropriate characters for the story. Not overpowered characters. Not min/maxed characters. Not statistically optimized characters. Appropriate characters-- characters that will be fun to play in the situation.

    Your players will be happier. You'll be happier. Your campaign will have a much greater chance of running until conclusion without players quitting in frustration.


    Again I'm glad we're having this discussion as I can definitely see your point of view.

    Quote:
    So, my spacer character was COMPLETELY USELESS in this adventure. He had ZERO relevant skills (with the sole exception of gunfighting, but the space marine was WAY better.) Because I'd used so many character points on my own spaceship, I was significantly weaker than the rest of the party. My role essentially became the guy who was always cracking one-liners and failing skill checks that I had no ranks in. For me, this game was a real drag.

    Now I totally understand the feeling of being useless in a fight, my own example of pacifist Cleric turned Evil was probably even worse by comparison in your own fight, however this is the kind of thing I hope to avoid by focussing less on the mechanical aspects (a ranger being upset he doesn't get his favoured enemy bonus often enough to justify the balance of the class or whatever) or in this case you building a ship specialist and fighting on land and more about the character.

    I certainly felt that if I had been a Cleric of Evil from the get go I would have been hundreds of times more fit for combat than my other character but then I would have missed so much of the dynamism that comes from a character being placed in somewhere they're out of place. For a man whose spent his life in space being grounded on earth is something that should open a variety of roleplaying and even respeccing opportunities (like I said my DM let me switch from Cleric of Good to Cleric of Evil) that you really wouldn't have from someone who was designed to be in that situation. I didn't swap the Cleric out because I wasn't good at battles or healing (in the end she died while we were being seiged) even though I know I could have designed a character more capable of battling or gone with another Good Cleric for the healing (this was 2e by the way).

    I have to disagree completely with your DM on refusing to let you switch your character as I am all about facilitating what players want if they want to change later on, as I said I totally understand giving the players the book so they can just read through it so no one could ever feel out of pllaceomething like that if your DM is not going to work with you if you're unhappy. Certainly there's so much you can work with like a spaceship crashing into the planet, etc, and as a DM taking away your spaceship like that is just unacceptable, it's kind of like taking away a druid pet (which sure happens sometimes) or an eidolon, a wizards spells, removing a class feature for the entire game is very different from your character not being optimized.

    Quote:

    Moral of the story: Let your players know what kind of game you're going to run, so that they can make appropriate characters for the story. Not overpowered characters. Not min/maxed characters. Not statistically optimized characters. Appropriate characters-- characters that will be fun to play in the situation.

    But that's exactly why I'm here, I'm looking for spoiler free summaries exactly so I can tell my players what kind of game it's going to be.

    The Exchange

    The best advice has already been given. Down load the free players guides and let your players read them.

    However, here's something from my experiences with the ones I've read and or run.

    Legacy of fire - desert adventure with many Aladdin style themes. Some pretty big extra planar sections.

    Crimson throne - a really good urban adventure. Reminiscent of the first parts of the original Neverwinter nights game in some chapters.

    Kingmaker - sandbox game. Set in the wilderness of the river kingdoms. Very European fairy tail in a brothers Grimm kind of tale. This one really lets the players drive large parts of the story and can span years in the game world.

    Carrion crown - if you've seen the show Penny Dreadful and liked it, then this ones for you. Classic horror themes from Mary Shelley, Frankenstein and Kthulu mythos.

    Wraith of the righteous - fighting demons in a crusade to push them back from the material plane. This is zealotry vs corruption and links mythic rules in there too. Pretty bleak setting, but you get powerful characters.

    Hope that helps.

    Liberty's Edge

    Personally, I think it's a good idea to use the player's guides to have your players create their PCs, mind you that may be because I'm currently running Council of Thieves, having taken over from the GM who started the first Module. When he started the only stipulation was to make a character that you've really wanted to play. And that was it.

    So now I have evil greedy PCs and benevolent PCs, who have no reason to adventure together, whose ambitions and goals are almost completely opposite, and the only thing that works sometimes is to put their back stories aside so they can just get through adventures. This is not my idea of an effective adventuring team.

    And, don't get me wrong, they're all really well made characters with good back stories and personal motivations. But they have no reason to work together, and some have no reason to even help the main quest givers.

    All of this would have been much better if we had followed the suggestions of the player's guide and built characters who's motivations would have at least partially aligned with the story of the AP, instead of the mishmash that showed up instead.

    If that also meant that the ranger would realize that undead and evil outsiders are good choices for their character, so be it. It seems to be the implication from Paizo that players have at least enough information to make their characters fit the campaign mechanically as well as story wise. Otherwise why would they create the player's guides?


    Haladir wrote:

    Moral of the story: Let your players know what kind of game you're going to run, so that they can make appropriate characters for the story. Not overpowered characters. Not min/maxed characters. Not statistically optimized characters. Appropriate characters-- characters that will be fun to play in the situation.

    Your players will be happier. You'll be happier. Your campaign will have a much greater chance of running until conclusion without players quitting in frustration.

    Agree on all points. Good post.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:
    I have to disagree completely with your DM on refusing to let you switch your character as I am all about facilitating what players want if they want to change later on, as I said I totally understand giving the players the book so they can just read through it so no one could ever feel out of pllaceomething like that if your DM is not going to work with you if you're unhappy.

    So if you're okay with this in retrospect, after the player builds a character that doesn't fit in and is clearly unhappy, why are you not okay with giving the player the necessary information to make an effective character in the first place and avoid the unhappiness entirely?

    Because the player's replacement character is going to be coming in with just as much information available to the player from playing a bit with that other character - long enough, clearly, to discern s/he's not going to be able to contribute effectively or enjoy the plot - as they would be if given some of that information in advance and allowed to create their character with those preparations in mind. And if you try to prohibit them using that information, you're going to risk a fairly decent chance of ending up with yet ANOTHER character that can't contribute or has no reason to participate in the story or otherwise makes the player not have fun, and you'll be yet again back at square one.

    You're so hooked up on avoiding optimization/minmaxing that you're risking hamstringing the players, then claiming that if they're unhappy with being hamstrung you'll let them redo their characters with the information that most of us would just hand to them in the first place.

    Quote:
    But that's exactly why I'm here, I'm looking for spoiler free summaries exactly so I can tell my players what kind of game it's going to be.

    The problem is your definition of a spoiler is far, far stricter than most people's. To keep pegging on the Runelords example, most people wouldn't consider it a spoiler that there are giants in the campaign, because it's right there in one of the chapter titles. You however do, and you're hiding those titles from the players trying to keep that information away. And that's where a lot of the problems in communication here are happening - completely different standards.

    Shadow Lodge

    Orthos wrote:
    To keep pegging on the Runelords example, most people wouldn't consider it a spoiler that there are giants in the campaign, because it's right there in one of the chapter titles. You however do, and you're hiding those titles from the players trying to keep that information away. And that's where a lot of the problems in communication here are happening - completely different standards.

    To keep sticking with the Runelords example, it actually isn't a spoiler by RMcD's standards to let the players know there will be giants in the campaign. See the following:

    RMcD wrote:
    Obviously I let my players read the player guide even if I disagree with some of the stuff it reveals just because the traits are a really good first chapter hook.

    The only Rise of the Runelords player's guide to actually include campaign traits is the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Player's Guide, so I'll assume that's the source we're using for this discussion. That source includes the following campaign trait:

    Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Player's Guide, page 4 wrote:
    Giant Slayer: Your family’s village was plundered by giants in the wilds of Varisia, leaving nothing but a smoldering ruin. After the destruction of your village, your family trained for combat against giants to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. Since hearing of giants mobilizing throughout the countryside, you ventured to Sandpoint to help the town prepare for a possible incursion. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Bluff, Perception, and Sense Motive checks and +1 trait bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against creatures of the giant subtype.

    Every player, including those whose characters do not take this trait, will thus have "hear[ed] of giants mobilizing throughout the countryside." According to the "Character Tips" found on page 3 of the Player's Guide, "[r]umors of giants mobilizing in the wilds of Varisia are spreading," so it is reasonable for a PC (as opposed to a player) to have heard these rumors even if they don't take the trait. The same "Character Tips" section, by the way, also contains the admonition that "A prepared character should be suited to challenge monstrous humanoids, giants, magical beasts, and undead, and even greater threats at higher levels, such as evil outsiders and dragons." References to giant settlements, giant ruins, and other giant-themed locations appear 13 times in the "Varisia, Cradle of Legends" gazetteer, and it is reasonable for PCs to have heard of at least some of these places. Finally, the back cover warns players that they'll be fighting "goblins, ghouls, and ogres...archmages, giants, and dragons," calls giants "important to the Rise of the Runelords campaign," and warns of an upcoming "brutal giant attack on Sandpoint."

    RMcD lets his players read the Player's Guides "even if [he] disagree[s] with some of the stuff [they reveal]," which I take to mean he does not censor the Player's Guides or only reveal the Campaign Traits. That means his players will be familiar with, or at least have access to, everything I just cited. Even if, in light of these revelations, he chooses to censor Player's Guides from here on out, the campaign trait alone reveals to players that there will be giants in the campaign, and provides a mechanism for PCs to know this going in.

    Oh, and by the way, RMcD is wrong when he says "there's nothing in the first book that remotely hints at giants or anything like that." Encounter E7. in Thistelop (again, this is from the Anniversary Edition) exposes the PCs to "a large coral-encrusted helmet sized for a giant" and associates that helmet, by its proximity to a mural depicting the city and by its composition of gold, with "legendary Xin-Shalast."


    Ah, fair enough. My group does not have the Anniversary Edition so I was not familiar with those things.


    well your group needs to get it then, its pretty bad ass:)


    We were running through the original =) It's on hold right now though due to the GM being burnt out on gaming, and the rest of us are playing Age of Worms instead.


    it might be awhile then, i got burnt out once, for 17 years.


    Orthos wrote:
    Quote:
    I have to disagree completely with your DM on refusing to let you switch your character as I am all about facilitating what players want if they want to change later on, as I said I totally understand giving the players the book so they can just read through it so no one could ever feel out of pllaceomething like that if your DM is not going to work with you if you're unhappy.
    So if you're okay with this in retrospect, after the player builds a character that doesn't fit in and is clearly unhappy, why are you not okay with giving the player the necessary information to make an effective character in the first place and avoid the unhappiness entirely?

    Because I'm not giving them extra information, the only thing they're getting is as if their character had already played through what they personally had played through. They aren't seeing into the future, they don't have magic knowledge of what things are going to happen in the adventure that no one could predict.

    Quote:

    Because the player's replacement character is going to be coming in with just as much information available to the player from playing a bit with that other character - long enough, clearly, to discern s/he's not going to be able to contribute effectively or enjoy the plot - as they would be if given some of that information in advance and allowed to create their character with those preparations in mind. And if you try to prohibit them using that information, you're going to risk a fairly decent chance of ending up with yet ANOTHER character that can't contribute or has no reason to participate in the story or otherwise makes the player not have fun, and you'll be yet again back at square one.

    You're so hooked up on avoiding optimization/minmaxing that you're risking hamstringing the players, then claiming that if they're unhappy with being hamstrung you'll let them redo their characters with the information that most of us would just hand to them in the first place.

    Except that getting to level 3 and knowing that you fight giants at level 12 are completely different things. I'm not talking about a character retraining or being switched out when they're 3 books in, I'm talking about happening prior to the end of book 1. I don't want a character walking into the door of the Misgivings playing a fighter and because you've got this whole expectation that characters must be appropriate for the encounters they'll walk out and be like "My fighter can't do anything here, I'm unhappy, I want to play a Cleric/Paladin instead"

    You've completely missed by point on why I'm doing this anyway, someone could minmax by accident anyway but I said originally that what I want is players to be surprised and not be like "Oh how handy I have the giant slayer trait and now we'll be fighting giants from now on", to me and to my players it completely breaks immersion. While you have said before that when you find out you'll be fighting dragons and giants it makes you excited to fight them I would much prefer if instead of being like "Oh I hope the giant is inside this dungeon because that image on the front was so cool" or whatever I want them to be like "Giants?!?!?", it should be a surprise when the captured rangers let them know. Instead of being something they expect or a ranger being like "at last".

    In fact the only reason my players know any information at all about the campaign is because they make their own characters and the value of them making their own characters is more than what they lose out on in terms of approaching the adventure blind. Otherwise I could make and give them their own characters (but that's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons).

    There are upsides to knowing about a campaign before hand "Oh I've heard about this invisible demon apparently hate her", but the way I like running mine is with the players in the dark. I just don't think that one: the chances of a player being unhappy and two: the effectiveness lost, from players not giving enemy information outweighs the gain from playing through the campaign like a story.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    But that's exactly why I'm here, I'm looking for spoiler free summaries exactly so I can tell my players what kind of game it's going to be.
    The problem is your definition of a spoiler is far, far stricter than most people's. To keep pegging on the Runelords example, most people wouldn't consider it a spoiler that there are giants in the...

    I mean, that's definitely a spoiler, it's just that you don't care if people know that. It's revealing information from later on in the campaign that you wouldn't know at the start of the campaign. I'm totally okay (well minus what I said earlier) with spoiling things like the type of campaign (horror/adventure/etc) as I've asked for people to help with, but I'm not okay with letting people know the composition of enemies later on so that they can choose classes so they don't feel less effective than they could be.

    zimmerwald1915 wrote:
    Orthos wrote:
    To keep pegging on the Runelords example, most people wouldn't consider it a spoiler that there are giants in the campaign, because it's right there in one of the chapter titles. You however do, and you're hiding those titles from the players trying to keep that information away. And that's where a lot of the problems in communication here are happening - completely different standards.

    To keep sticking with the Runelords example, it actually isn't a spoiler by RMcD's standards to let the players know there will be giants in the campaign. See the following:

    RMcD wrote:
    Obviously I let my players read the player guide even if I disagree with some of the stuff it reveals just because the traits are a really good first chapter hook.

    The only Rise of the Runelords player's guide to actually include campaign traits is the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Player's Guide, so I'll assume that's the source we're using for this discussion. That source includes the following campaign trait:

    Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Player's Guide, page 4 wrote:
    Giant Slayer: Your family’s village was plundered by giants in the wilds of Varisia, leaving nothing but a smoldering ruin. After the destruction of your village, your family trained for combat against giants to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. Since hearing of giants mobilizing throughout the countryside, you ventured to Sandpoint to help the town prepare for a possible incursion. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Bluff, Perception, and Sense Motive checks and +1 trait bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against creatures of the giant subtype.
    Every player, including those whose characters do not take this trait, will thus have "hear[ed] of giants mobilizing throughout the countryside." According to the "Character Tips" found on page 3 of the Player's Guide, "[r]umors of giants mobilizing in the wilds of Varisia are spreading," so it is reasonable...

    The giants thing is just an example but as I say in the quote the players traits are so good at tying in the most random of characters to the story that I let them have the guide, I will in fact speak to the fact that I was playing (me with two characters and just one other as DM) through Shattered Star today and my friend and during the very first section with the box, I immediately knew what was happening because of the picture in the player's guide. It totally ruined for me any kind of shock I would have gotten. If I had the time or inclination I would have sorted through the traits or created my own, I mean look at things like Monster Hunter, "Oh sorry guys, can't be going to Magnimar I'm off to be finding some magical beasts"

    I would vouch that the Anniversary edition is very good.

    Edit: Also something like favoured enemy is something a DM could easily work with a player to retrain.

    Shadow Lodge

    RMcD wrote:
    The giants thing is just an example but as I say in the quote the players traits are so good at tying in the most random of characters to the story that I let them have the guide, I will in fact speak to the fact that I was playing (me with two characters and just one other as DM) through Shattered Star today and my friend and during the very first section with the box, I immediately knew what was happening because of the picture in the player's guide. It totally ruined for me any kind of shock I would have gotten. If I had the time or inclination I would have sorted through the traits or created my own, I mean look at things like Monster Hunter, "Oh sorry guys, can't be going to Magnimar I'm off to be finding some magical beasts"

    There are two important questions here. The first is, to what extent should characters be shocked by the events of the campaign, given the assumptions of the setting? The second is, what is the value added to the game experience by shocking a player?

    Every indication given by the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide says that it's more or less common knowledge that giants exist in Varisia. Information about specific peoples, their customs and locations, their internal and external politics, their history, that's specialized knowledge, absolutely. But if you know anything about Varisia, you know giants live there, much like if you know anything about the Lands of the Linnorm Kings you know linnorms live there and if you know anything about Kyonin you know elves live there. So adventurers adventuring in Varisia should, paraphrasing the Player's Guide, be prepared to challenge giants at some point. This is true even of adventurers not involved in Rise of the Runelords. Characters traveling from Korvosa to the Cinderlands to meet with the Shoanti, or characters traveling from Riddleport to Crying Leaf to meet with the elves, should at least be prepared to encounter giants if not investing their resources primarily to that end. The surprising thing is not the existence of giants, but their actions and motivations. A character should be surprised to learn that the Kreegs and Mokmurian's giants are acting up, and they should be intrigued to find out why. What shocks the characters should not be "oh hey, giants where giants live," it should be "oh crap, we've got an ancient evil on our hands, that doesn't happen every day!" Because of course it doesn't. It merely happens every six months.

    One of the biggest provokers of shock in players is the plot twist; what looked like one thing is actually something else. Another is the shift in tone; up is down, black is white, cats and dogs start living together. A third is the revelation of a secret; there is something going on you've just discovered. Let's have a look at Second Darkness for a moment, an Adventure Path structured around plot twists, tone shifts, and revelations. There's a major revelation at the end of Book 1, a major plot twist, revelation, and shift in tone between Book 2 and Book 3, and another major shift in tone in Book 5, culminating in yet another revelation. The near-universal reaction to these plot twists was derision and disappointment. Players went into the Adventure Path expecting to be able to do one thing and getting something entirely different, to the point where the common advice at this point has become "play elves for this AP, seriously guys." There is no question that these events were shocking, but shock itself adds nothing but a visceral hormonal response to the experience. If you're looking for something more than a visceral hormonal response, you need something more. You need fully-realized NPCs behaving in believable ways in the circumstances you imagine for them. The more you rely on those, the less you'll need to rely on the crutch that is shock value. It's more satisfying for a player to engage in some sort of relationship, extended or abridged, violent or convival, than just to see something new.


    Personally I feel player creation should be done organically. I don't really try to stop specific class choices but I do feel their growth should be in response to what they encounter not what they expect to encounter except in a genreal sense. For this question I'd consider the following as suitable criteria for character creation (AP specific here).

    First what is common
    That is in the area where the campaign is taking place what kind of threats, beings, atmosphere is in place. Take Ustalev and Osirion for example the culture, threats and thematically appropriate PC's are severely different. Sure you can always play an exception but letting the players know their creating character for that type of setting is fine. I wonder expect to find a vampire hunter in Osirion for example. Sure a player can make one but they would be making one in the knowledge their class probably isn't going to have a lot of application and will need a strong reason to be there in the first place (say after the last hunt they wanted to get as far away from vampire territory as possible).

    Second why are they here.
    This deals with how the adventure starts are you actually starting off with a specific goal in mind. For example rise of the runelords your there for a festival and get caught up in events. So I wouldn't expect the initial players to have a ranger customized to fighting giants but I would expect them to be whatever they want. On the other hand if you start the AP like mummies mask signing up for a tomb robbing tournament then I'd expect the PC's to design their characters with traps, undead and other parties in mind. Because that is the type of person who would sign up for this unless their desperate.

    Rise of the runelords for example there is no reason in my opinion to let players know they'll be facing giants, what the evil is or even frankly who the first opponents will be. The party members are there to attend a village festival and I would expect them to build their characters around that then as the path goes on and they learn more about what's happening they can find out more and start to study/learn new techniques to deal with it. This one in my opinion has a lot of room given its more general nature for any class/race combo to be viable while other ones don't.

    For skulls and shackles on the other hand even though the parties initial involvement is rather forced I'd feel the players deserve to be told up front to expect a lot of water, ship and island based combat in a criminal environment. So while honor amongst thieves and water based choices are fine paladins or cavaliers would be poor choices. Not because of what they're going to face but because even at the start they start off on an island port in the middle of an ocean.

    For non-spoilery information available to PC's I'd give the following types of descriptions.

    Rise of the runelords
    General Description
    An ancient evil is stirring and you need to stop it, classic fantasy tropes abound.
    PC creation
    Whatever you want, no specifics, your in a small village to attend a celebratory festival.

    Curse of the crimson throne
    General Description
    A city suffering under an evil monarch and you are trying to get by, urban fantasy.
    PC creation
    Whatever you want, no specifics, your in a city being oppressed by an evil monarch expect lots of urban scenarios.

    Second darkness
    General Description
    An expedition is being mounted to retrieve fallen meteorites and your hired to get there first.
    PC creation
    Whatever you want, expect to face opposing factions and have limited resources available, you'll be starting off hired/forced to retrieve materials from an island.

    and so on. I'd avoid anything past the intial books as frankly the players don't need to know that kind of thing. Just provide them with an initial blurb outling the type of story their going to be involved in e.g. urban fantasy, indiana jones, pirates on the high seas and then a more detailed description of their starting situation.

    Where are they, why are they there, what can they expect to start the adventure with, who are they (class/race/alignment restrictions) and what kind of stuff can someone in that situation expect to know.


    This thread is a perfect example of "Different styles of play" clearly it works for his group. I like discussions, but that wasn't the intention of this thread.

    Personally I am of the same mind as those advocating limited knowledge of the adventure... and yes I have ran into the problem of having characters set up for a specific style of adventure being out of place (Example an Urban Fantasy Batman in Kingmaker #1) but I work with them if they want to change. There are infinite ways to bring in and out characters with the right creativity.

    This is why i advocate "well-rounded adventurers" instead of mechanical superior "niche characters" but that is just my opinion. I recognize all styles of play as valid.


    Thanks Liam, your points on the ways character would get knowledge due to the hook that brought them into Sandpoint/[appropriate starting location] is something I certainly find useful when giving my players background info.

    DundjinnMasta wrote:

    This thread is a perfect example of "Different styles of play" clearly it works for his group. I like discussions, but that wasn't the intention of this thread.

    Personally I am of the same mind as those advocating limited knowledge of the adventure... and yes I have ran into the problem of having characters set up for a specific style of adventure being out of place (Example an Urban Fantasy Batman in Kingmaker #1) but I work with them if they want to change. There are infinite ways to bring in and out characters with the right creativity.

    This is why i advocate "well-rounded adventurers" instead of mechanical superior "niche characters" but that is just my opinion. I recognize all styles of play as valid.

    Yeah at this point when I'm scrolling through the thread I'm realising we've been far too caught up in arguing whether or not my players should be told spoilers rather than getting the descriptions I was looking for, I think we should move that discussion somewhere else or discontinue it for now in any case.

    I'd be honest here and after the party wipe at RotRL my players wanted to go make their new characters before even knowing anything at all


    DundjinnMasta wrote:
    This thread is a perfect example of "Different styles of play" clearly it works for his group.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    Sorry RMcD, but your explanations make zero sense/logic to me and I think I'm just gonna bow out and save myself further headache. Good luck getting whatever it is you're looking for, I guess.


    Orthos wrote:
    DundjinnMasta wrote:
    This thread is a perfect example of "Different styles of play" clearly it works for his group.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    Sorry RMcD, but your explanations make zero sense/logic to me and I think I'm just gonna bow out and save myself further headache. Good luck getting whatever it is you're looking for, I guess.

    Agreed with you, Orthos.

    RMcD: Best of luck to you and your players!

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / Looking for spoiler-free summaries of each Adventure Path, and their themes / etc All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in General Discussion