It’s Adventure (Explanation) Time!

With published adventures, a GM can not only save a lot of time in preparing for a game or a campaign, but also find inspiration in them or learn how adventures are written, both of which help a GM get better at their craft

I completely agree! And with Foundry modules the time saved is even greater, thanks Paizo!

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career. If some people think they are too long, why not build in a quick track where you level faster and have less encounters? And then have the slow track for those that like a slower build up to the end?

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career. If some people think they are too long, why not build in a quick track where you level faster and have less encounters? And then have the slow track for those that like a slower build up to the end?

I think that "rush mode" on an Adventure Path kinda removes the appeal of it being an Adventure Path, so that's not a solution I'm comfortable baking into things officially.

And a big draw for the 3 part Adventure Paths is that this gives us twice as many times in a year to tell a story, and also twice as many times in a year to appeal to a GM with that story. The 6 part ones are fun and I love creating them, but if it's one you or your group isn't interested in, you have to wait half a year for your next shot at one you might like.

And of course from the sales side... if we publish an Adventure Path that sells less than another, a 3 part one, in theory, limits that loss of revenue to only half the duration, of course... 3-part Adventure Paths are a much healthier option for Paizo in that regard.

All that said, if the timing and story are right and demand it, we'll do a 6 part 1st to 20th Adventure Path again. It just has to be the right time and the right story is all.

And THAT said, I do see a value in trying to build in stronger links for those that start not at 1st level so it does suggest a better way to use a higher-level Adventure Path to continue the story in a lower level one. Curtain Call is a great example coming soon.

CalmCyborg wrote:

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career. If some people think they are too long, why not build in a quick track where you level faster and have less encounters? And then have the slow track for those that like a slower build up to the end?

I think that "rush mode" on an Adventure Path kinda removes the appeal of it being an Adventure Path, so that's not a solution I'm comfortable baking into things officially.

And a big draw for the 3 part Adventure Paths is that this gives us twice as many times in a year to tell a story, and also twice as many times in a year to appeal to a GM with that story. The 6 part ones are fun and I love creating them, but if it's one you or your group isn't interested in, you have to wait half a year for your next shot at one you might like.

And of course from the sales side... if we publish an Adventure Path that sells less than another, a 3 part one, in theory, limits that loss of revenue to only half the duration, of course... 3-part Adventure Paths are a much healthier option for Paizo in that regard.

All that said, if the timing and story are right and demand it, we'll do a 6 part 1st to 20th Adventure Path again. It just has to be the right time and the right story is all.

And THAT said, I do see a value in trying to build in stronger links for those that start not at 1st level so it does suggest a better way to use a higher-level Adventure Path to continue the story in a lower level one. Curtain Call is a great example coming soon.

All good points, and good to know that future 1-20s aren't completely off the table! And I'll have to pay attention to Curtain Call when it comes out :) Thanks!

Malevolence (my buddy DMing) and Shadows at Sundown (me DMing) were great for our group and I think standalones are perfect for themes like horror and mystery that suffer from dragging out too long (and sometimes you just want a complete experience in 3-6 sessions).

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career.

Agreed. I'm moderately bummed that, just after designing a system that doesn't noisily soil itself at higher levels, Paizo starts shifting away from play-to-higher-level paths.

CalmCyborg wrote:

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career.

Agreed. I'm moderately bummed that, just after designing a system that doesn't noisily soil itself at higher levels, Paizo starts shifting away from play-to-higher-level paths.

Out of 16 APs released (and announced) for PF2, 8 of them ends at lvl 20. That's half of them. The rest ends between level 10 and 13, inclusively.

There's also a bunch of Standalone Adventures that are in the second half of the levels. Out of the 10 relased/announced, we have one that starts at 11, another at 16, and now Prey for Death will start at 14. That's almost 1/3rd of them being in the second half.

That's far from shifting away. Even more so that many of these were released recently or coming soon. And there's more high level adventures that have been hinted at coming... I mean, with a big event like the War off Immortals... It's bond to have some things that can only be done as high level content.

CalmCyborg wrote:

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career.

Agreed. I'm moderately bummed that, just after designing a system that doesn't noisily soil itself at higher levels, Paizo starts shifting away from play-to-higher-level paths.

I do agree here, which is why I've been pushing for us at least to try to commit to 2 higher level Adventure Paths a year going forward. Also, hopefully, the standalone adventure line will provide high level content—this year we've only got Curtain Call for high level, but Prey For Death will help fill that gap.

HappyHuman wrote:

CalmCyborg wrote:

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career.

Agreed. I'm moderately bummed that, just after designing a system that doesn't noisily soil itself at higher levels, Paizo starts shifting away from play-to-higher-level paths.

I do agree here, which is why I've been pushing for us at least to try to commit to 2 higher level Adventure Paths a year going forward. Also, hopefully, the standalone adventure line will provide high level content—this year we've only got Curtain Call for high level, but Prey For Death will help fill that gap.

Do you see yourselves linking adventure paths in the future? Completely separate stories, but linked thematically in some way that the heroes for the lower level AP have a reason to continue on to the higher level one should the players and DM both desire?

Do these lengths and patterns also represent your intentions for Starfinder?

James Jacobs wrote:

HappyHuman wrote:

CalmCyborg wrote:

I like that there is the option of shorter adventure paths, but I hope we will still get 1-20 APs in the future. That's what I like to run and play in. Granted, I can always add a low and high one together, but I like the overarching for the entire 1-20 adventurer career.

Agreed. I'm moderately bummed that, just after designing a system that doesn't noisily soil itself at higher levels, Paizo starts shifting away from play-to-higher-level paths.

I do agree here, which is why I've been pushing for us at least to try to commit to 2 higher level Adventure Paths a year going forward. Also, hopefully, the standalone adventure line will provide high level content—this year we've only got Curtain Call for high level, but Prey For Death will help fill that gap.

Do you see yourselves linking adventure paths in the future? Completely separate stories, but linked thematically in some way that the heroes for the lower level AP have a reason to continue on to the higher level one should the players and DM both desire?

Yes. Not always, but sometimes. One in particular we have planned will be linked pretty strongly (but won't be released back-to-back).

And as I mentioned in the spoiler section of last Friday's Paizo Live, there's a pretty strongly linked upcoming high-level Adventure Path I'm currently outlining that will work VERY WELL to continue on from Seven Dooms for Sandpoint, so if you play that Adventure Path consider putting your 12th level PCs on ice for a bit when you're done. Will be a bit before that particular high-level Adventure Path is out (or even announced) but I wanted to start letting folks know that something along those lines in particular is in the works.

I think that "rush mode" on an Adventure Path kinda removes the appeal of it being an Adventure Path, so that's not a solution I'm comfortable baking into things officially.

I'm very glad to hear that. I fully agree.

And a big draw for the 3 part Adventure Paths is that this gives us twice as many times in a year to tell a story [...]

And of course from the sales side... if we publish an Adventure Path that sells less than another, a 3 part one, in theory, limits that loss of revenue to only half the duration[...]

All that said, if the timing and story are right and demand it, we'll do a 6 part 1st to 20th Adventure Path again.

It seems to me that there's a way to do APs that help with all of this: continue to do three-part APs, but do direct sequels (not indirect, like the Runelords APs), or (if the level numbers make it more appropriate) even direct prequels. These could be done the next year, or even longer. My group takes three full years (meeting for 20+ sessions a year, six hours per session) to do a six-part AP. We can't be too far off from the experience of most groups.

So, say in 2025 Paizo does a three-part AP called "Pipers at the Gates of Dawn," and it proves popular. In 2026 they could release, I dunno, a sequel called "Dark Side of the Moon," and then in 2027 or 2028, the conclusion called "The Division Bell." (Note: I don't recommend using these actual titles.)

All that said, I don't have any knowledge of how this would impact, or be impacted by, the editorial process. Possibly it's just not workable for pragmatic reasons. But it otherwise seems like it would be a great way to have the best of both three-part and six-part (and even nine-part!) APs.

Do these lengths and patterns also represent your intentions for Starfinder?

No, because I have no official intentions myself for Starfinder.

Starfinder's a different game with a different creative director; you'll want to chat with Thurston Hillman for his take on Starfinder adventure plans. I hope that some of the choices we're making here will help the Starfinder team make their decisions, but Starfinder's also a smaller team with fewer releases over the year, so the choices made there need to be the right ones for that game. Which will likely be different in some ways than the right choices for Pathifnder.

James Jacobs wrote:

I think that "rush mode" on an Adventure Path kinda removes the appeal of it being an Adventure Path, so that's not a solution I'm comfortable baking into things officially.

I'm very glad to hear that. I fully agree.

Quote:

And a big draw for the 3 part Adventure Paths is that this gives us twice as many times in a year to tell a story [...]

And of course from the sales side... if we publish an Adventure Path that sells less than another, a 3 part one, in theory, limits that loss of revenue to only half the duration[...]

All that said, if the timing and story are right and demand it, we'll do a 6 part 1st to 20th Adventure Path again.

It seems to me that there's a way to do APs that help with all of this: continue to do three-part APs, but do direct sequels (not indirect, like the Runelords APs), or (if the level numbers make it more appropriate) even direct prequels. These could be done the next year, or even longer. My group takes three full years (meeting for 20+ sessions a year, six hours per session) to do a six-part AP. We can't be too far off from the experience of most groups.

So, say in 2025 Paizo does a three-part AP called "Pipers at the Gates of Dawn," and it proves popular. In 2026 they could release, I dunno, a sequel called "Dark Side of the Moon," and then in 2027 or 2028, the conclusion called "The Division Bell." (Note: I don't recommend using these actual titles.)

All that said, I don't have any knowledge of how this would impact, or be impacted by, the editorial process. Possibly it's just not workable for pragmatic reasons. But it otherwise seems like it would be a great way to have the best of both three-part and six-part (and even nine-part!) APs.

I kind of allude to this in my previous post, but yeah.

Note that one of the tricky things about doing direct sequels is that they work best if the developer for part 1 of the story is also the developer for part 2. And we developers don't tend to work on back-to-back projects; we stagger them since it takes more than 3 months to create 3 months of Adventure Paths. Which means that even if we plan to do sequels in this way, we probably won't announce them immediately if we keep to our current Adventure Path announcement schedules. Instead, we'll have to be more coy and oblique about letting you know that "once you finish this Adventure Path, set those PCs aside for maybe some day there'll be another adventure for them to go on..." like I just did for Seven Dooms for Sandpoint.

And as I mentioned in the spoiler section of last Friday's Paizo Live, there's a pretty strongly linked upcoming high-level Adventure Path I'm currently outlining that will work VERY WELL to continue on from Seven Dooms for Sandpoint, so if you play that Adventure Path consider putting your 12th level PCs on ice for a bit when you're done. Will be a bit before that particular high-level Adventure Path is out (or even announced) but I wanted to start letting folks know that something along those lines in particular is in the works.

You heard it first here kiddos- 2025 Mythic AP where we kill another Rulelord!

I really enjoyed the Kingmaker remake for 2e. Any chance we will see more like that (fingers crossed for Wrath of the Righteous)? Maybe more generally, any confirmation or denial of off-schedule adventures?

I really enjoyed the Kingmaker remake for 2e. Any chance we will see more like that (fingers crossed for Wrath of the Righteous)? Maybe more generally, any confirmation or denial of off-schedule adventures?

There's a chance, but compiling and converting a 1st edition Adventure Path into a 2nd edition Remastered hardcover book is a huge task, one that would require a lot of work and planning and scheduling that would make that sort of thing likely to happen, if it happens at all, once every several years. Which means we'd have to pick and choose which ones we choose to update very carefully, since we will never be able to update all of them.

Compiling in-edition Adventure Paths that are 3 part ones is an easier task (see what we did with Abomination Vaults and Fist of the Ruby Phoenix), but not as easy as it once was since they'd be remastered and that would require a lot of content swapping since we wouldn't be able to use OGL creatures and spells and items.

"Off-schedule" adventures like this are pretty disruptive for us to produce.

At this time, my hope is that we can continue to produce the Adventure Paths monthly, do two 128 page standalone adventures, one free RPG day adventure, and the regular schedule of quests and scenarios for Organized Play, and that might leave us with the opportunity to do one or two "off-schedule" thing in a year depending on the scope of that project. The nature of those things being off-schedule means it's irresponsible to promise them this far in advance, though, so if and when we do that sort of thing, expect the announcement of it to come far closer to it's release date, I guess, when we're sure we can actually produce it in the first place.

For ages I’ve constantly said that I’m terrible at making my own ideas but great at improving and tweaking existing ideas. It’s for that reason that I’ve always loved pre-written adventures and campaigns. I’ve never really been good at improvising and creating story beats on my own, and I wouldn’t be able to come up with good twists and turns for such story beats. Honestly, the existence of pre-written adventures is almost certainly the reason I even continued into Pathfinder.

Even nowadays I don’t really create my own adventures; I primarily use the framework presented to convert existing Adventure Paths into 2e (Here’s some shameless self-promotion) because I know that that’s how my mind works as opposed to coming up with grand tales on my own. And to be able to use pre-existing art for major characters so I’m not just shamelessly taking art off of google or whatever.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying I’m extremely grateful to Paizo for consistently putting out pre-written adventures to allow people like me to be able to fully enjoy the game without needing to slave away hours trying to come up with the “perfect” story.

(fingers crossed for Wrath of the Righteous)

If Paizo wasn’t then I was planning on doing it myself. The only current difficulty is the status of Baphomet as the demonic patron of minotaurs, because that is a VERY D&D thing, but is also extremely pertinent to the story of Wrath of the Righteous.

If Paizo wasn’t then I was planning on doing it myself. The only current difficulty is the status of Baphomet as the demonic patron of minotaurs, because that is a VERY D&D thing, but is also extremely pertinent to the story of Wrath of...

That's a great example of something we'd need to change if we did a remastered version of Wrath of the Righteous—we'd likely replace all the minotaur themed stuff in the adventure with ogres or some other form of giant or humanoid creature. A LOT of these sorts of changes would be required in any older adventure remastering... some to a greater extent than others, since not every adventure makes equal use of OGL content in that way.

THAT SAID... if you're updating Wrath of the Righteous to use 2nd edition rules at your table, then you don't have to really worry about that at all. A GM can freely mix any content in their private game that they wish. If you intend to make your game public via something like a video series or the like, things get more complex, but if you're just running Wrath of the Righteous for your home group, then you don't have to adhere to that level of strict compliance to the license. Any more than you have to worry if one of your players names their wizard Gandalf.

Love the clarification. Coming from DnD 5E (and an unpleasant experience born of incompatible people at the table) there is a lot of interest with a group of us to explore PathFinder as an alternative.

With the latest updates regarding a further step away from DnD (even if largely cosmetic) with updated core books there is more interest, but a lot of confusion regarding exactly what the differences are. Obviously the best solution to that is to simply open up the Beginners Box and play the game.

Having insight into how content is produced, and confidence that there is a clear method really helps set Paizo apart.

Thanks for the clarifications!

When will Dead God's Hand be published? This is an adventure that really needs to be released soon.

When will Dead God's Hand be published? This is an adventure that really needs to be released soon.

Eventually. We haven't announced its new publication date yet though, so stay tuned!

THAT SAID... if you're updating Wrath of the Righteous to use 2nd edition rules at your table, then you don't have to really worry about that at all. A GM can freely mix any content in their private game that they wish. If you intend to make your game public via something like a video series or the like, things get more complex, but if you're just running Wrath of the Righteous for your home group, then you don't have to adhere to that level of strict compliance to the license. Any more than you have to worry if one of your players names their wizard Gandalf.

Yeah, that was about the answer I was expecting. I’d most likely just share my work on the Paizo forums through a google doc or something—not in an attempt to make money off of it, but just to share it with the world, which I BELIEVE is a lot less problematic with legal stuff.

But yeah, Baphomet was always gonna be the curveball with Remastering Wrath of the Righteous. Swapping him out with another demon lord causes too many problems with pieces of art, various creatures, and even naming conventions (“Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth”).

Making a set of campaign notes that are not bound to the confines of either the OGL or the ORC would almost certainly be the best approach beyond completely overhauling an entire book of the AP.

Yes! I'm glad Dead God's Hand hasn't been abandoned.

Yes! I'm glad Dead God's Hand hasn't been abandoned.

Yeah, especially since they're still taking pre-orders for it. They'd BETTER NOT abandon it.

One product I'd buy in a heartbeat and haven't seen done is a hardcover book of loosely connected adventures set in one location. Each one self contained, so you can play all of them as though they were an entire AP, but it's also possible to take just the level 5, 7 and 8 bits and shove them into a different campaign.

Most AP chapters don't really function as stand alone adventures unless you adapt them pretty substantially.

And as I mentioned in the spoiler section of last Friday's Paizo Live, there's a pretty strongly linked upcoming high-level Adventure Path I'm currently outlining that will work VERY WELL to continue on from Seven Dooms for Sandpoint, so if you play that Adventure Path consider putting your 12th level PCs on ice for a bit when you're done. Will be a bit before that particular high-level Adventure Path is out (or even announced) but I wanted to start letting folks know that something along those lines in particular is in the works.

Thank you so much for revealing this. I really like the idea of wardens of Wildwood but I also really like playing to level 20, so it ending at the level it does was kind of a bummer. But if there's an ap that starts at that level and goes to 20 coming out eventually than my hope for playing in it is reignited!

James Jacobs wrote:

And as I mentioned in the spoiler section of last Friday's Paizo Live, there's a pretty strongly linked upcoming high-level Adventure Path I'm currently outlining that will work VERY WELL to continue on from Seven Dooms for Sandpoint, so if you play that Adventure Path consider putting your 12th level PCs on ice for a bit when you're done. Will be a bit before that particular high-level Adventure Path is out (or even announced) but I wanted to start letting folks know that something along those lines in particular is in the works.

Thank you so much for revealing this. I really like the idea of wardens of Wildwood but I also really like playing to level 20, so it ending at the level it does was kind of a bummer. But if there's an ap that starts at that level and goes to 20 coming out eventually than my hope for playing in it is reignited!

I would assume that WoW will have an "After the Campaign" section, just like all of the 1e APs did.

Brother Fen wrote:

Yes! I'm glad Dead God's Hand hasn't been abandoned.

Yeah, especially since they're still taking pre-orders for it. They'd BETTER NOT abandon it.

One way to look at that is that since we're still taking pre-orders, we have no intentions of abandoning it and will be getting to it at some point.

One product I'd buy in a heartbeat and haven't seen done is a hardcover book of loosely connected adventures set in one location. Each one self contained, so you can play all of them as though they were an entire AP, but it's also possible to take just the level 5, 7 and 8 bits and shove them into a different campaign.

Most AP chapters don't really function as stand alone adventures unless you adapt them pretty substantially.

That's one of the things a standalone adventure could do very well that an Adventure Path would be awful at.

Gaulin wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

And as I mentioned in the spoiler section of last Friday's Paizo Live, there's a pretty strongly linked upcoming high-level Adventure Path I'm currently outlining that will work VERY WELL to continue on from Seven Dooms for Sandpoint, so if you play that Adventure Path consider putting your 12th level PCs on ice for a bit when you're done. Will be a bit before that particular high-level Adventure Path is out (or even announced) but I wanted to start letting folks know that something along those lines in particular is in the works.

Thank you so much for revealing this. I really like the idea of wardens of Wildwood but I also really like playing to level 20, so it ending at the level it does was kind of a bummer. But if there's an ap that starts at that level and goes to 20 coming out eventually than my hope for playing in it is reignited!

I would assume that WoW will have an "After the Campaign" section, just like all of the 1e APs did.

We try to include this sort of thing in all of our Adventure Paths, but it's not guarenteed. Sometimes the rest of the volume's contents simply need the space and we don't have room for a "Beyond the Campaign" type article.

Quote:

With published adventures, a GM can not only save a lot of time in preparing for a game or a campaign, but also find inspiration in them or learn how adventures are written, both of which help a GM get better at their craft

I completely agree! And with Foundry modules the time saved is even greater, thanks Paizo!

Yes, I unfortunately do not have the capacity right now to create a home brew campaign or adventures. I tell people, "I run pre-written content for a reason!"

And I am so grateful for it, as well as the premium online content (because otherwise creating tables to my satisfaction becomes the limiting factor in the online games I can run). I can say with certainty, without published adventures I would not be able to GM, and...I do love GMing!

And just a note on the business of it, though it's not my area of expertise: I would imagine that more people actually playing the games means more players buying stuff...So yeah, seems smart to me...

we will never be able to update all of them.

<Imagines a 95 year old JJ working desperately to finish converting Return of the Runelords to Pathfinder version 6 before finally retiring from Paizo.>

:-)

...why not build in a quick track where you level faster and have less encounters? And then have the slow track for those that like a slower build up to the end?

Sooooo, I did this for my Frozen Flame group! The experiment isn't quite done yet, but so far, it's worked fairly well! For the long version, I blogged about it here: https://katieplaysgames.wordpress.com/2023/01/09/quest-for-the-frozen-flame -book-1/

The Method: For each book, the players are the max level for that book. So kicking off book 1, they're level 4, starting book 2 they're level 7, and they'll be level 11 at the start of book 3. The reason I did this was because this is a monthly game with a short session time, so I wanted to play through the content a bit more quickly.

The result has been that the players plow through early content fast, but by the end of the book, they're going at the right speed. I haven't had to cut anything for time, and for a few scenarios, they came up with novel solutions that could only happen because they were higher level. However, the level cap DOES keep them from skipping to the next book.

I don't think this would work for every AP. For example, AV works best with regular levels, and AoE would be a mess if players could figure out things sooner than they should. But I could see it working for any AP where the PCs are separated from the end goal in some way until it's time for them to encounter it.

With published adventures, a GM can not only save a lot of time in preparing for a game or a campaign

Actually, I end up with roughly the same prep time for both homebrew and published adventures. The latter mean little time spent on content and artwork. But they also mean spending time into understanding foreign stories as best as possible, as well as dealing with mechanics you probably wouldn't bother with otherwise. Adventure specific subsystems are the worst offenders - you have to understand them, consider and research whether they are worth the trouble, and (if yes) find a way to squeeze them into your notes.

To be fair, published adventures have other benefits, too. They save you from writer's block, and they help you to provide your players with something innovative, something you wouldn't have come up yourself.

And when you don’t have a group to game with, even the simple act of reading a published adventure can help you feel that you’re still connected to your hobby until you find a new group to game with.

That's true and really helps to make the adventures worthwhile. Thing is: If books are made for both GMs and normal readers, a few compromises are necessary. "Adventure backgrounds" that span more than an entire page and very detailed NPC stories are nice for a reader, but have limited use for a GM. On the other hand, full stat blocks are rather material for GMs, not for readers.

YES!

100% agree that adventures are worth it.

I am a GM regularly, so I buy them, but if I'm playing with someone else who is going to GM, I'll it for them!

KingTreyIII wrote:

If Paizo wasn’t then I was planning on doing it myself. The only current difficulty is the status of Baphomet as the demonic patron of minotaurs, because that is a VERY D&D thing, but is also extremely pertinent to the story of Wrath of...

That's a great example of something we'd need to change if we did a remastered version of Wrath of the Righteous—we'd likely replace all the minotaur themed stuff in the adventure with ogres or some other form of giant or humanoid creature. A LOT of these sorts of changes would be required in any older adventure remastering... some to a greater extent than others, since not every adventure makes equal use of OGL content in that way.

THAT SAID... if you're updating Wrath of the Righteous to use 2nd edition rules at your table, then you don't have to really worry about that at all. A GM can freely mix any content in their private game that they wish. If you intend to make your game public via something like a video series or the like, things get more complex, but if you're just running Wrath of the Righteous for your home group, then you don't have to adhere to that level of strict compliance to the license. Any more than you have to worry if one of your players names their wizard Gandalf.

How are minotaurs a D& D thing? They are from Greek mythology and are already associated with mazes.

James Jacobs wrote:

KingTreyIII wrote:

If Paizo wasn’t then I was planning on doing it myself. The only current difficulty is the status of Baphomet as the demonic patron of minotaurs, because that is a VERY D&D thing, but is also extremely pertinent to the story of Wrath of...

That's a great example of something we'd need to change if we did a remastered version of Wrath of the Righteous—we'd likely replace all the minotaur themed stuff in the adventure with ogres or some other form of giant or humanoid creature. A LOT of these sorts of changes would be required in any older adventure remastering... some to a greater extent than others, since not every adventure makes equal use of OGL content in that way.

THAT SAID... if you're updating Wrath of the Righteous to use 2nd edition rules at your table, then you don't have to really worry about that at all. A GM can freely mix any content in their private game that they wish. If you intend to make your game public via something like a video series or the like, things get more complex, but if you're just running Wrath of the Righteous for your home group, then you don't have to adhere to that level of strict compliance to the license. Any more than you have to worry if one of your players names their wizard Gandalf.

How are minotaurs a D& D thing? They are from Greek mythology and are already associated with mazes.

It's not that minotaurs are a D&D thing... it's that Baphomet as a demon lord of minotaurs is a D&D thing. The mythological Baphomet from real-world history has no association with minotaurs at all, and indeed that's the look we mostly went with for the Pathfinder version of him—as something more akin to a goat-headed person. Still, at the time, we were pretty deeply associated with OGL content, and so we chose to retain the minotaur link in Baphomet, an option we could do because the minotaur-associated verison of Baphomet was published in the Tome of Horrors as OGL content.

The remastered rules can't use any of that Tome of Horrors OGL content, any more than it can use official D&D stuff like owlbears or gelatinous cubes. And so the element of Baphomet being a demon lord of minotaurs is no longer an option for us.

But fortunately, we've built up a lot of lore about him associating with prisons and the corruption of crusaders and the like that we can shift away from minotaur themes and instead of having him be associated with mazes, have him associated with complex prisons and dungeons, and he pretty much remains unchanged in Pathfinder. Other than that his minions are no longer overwhelmingly minotaur-themed. (We'll likely need to adjust his holy symbol as well, come to think of it, to make it look more like a goat head than a bull head.)

To be fair, published adventures have other benefits, too. They save you from writer's block, and they help you to provide your players with something innovative, something you wouldn't have come up yourself.

To me, one of the greatest benefits published adventures gave me was education. By reading and studying published adventures from a wide range of games and rules over the decades, I bolstered and improved my own ability to write adventures, in the same way a great writer can become a better writer by reading a lot. And now that I'm in the position of being a professional adventure writer and developer, I feel that it's important to pay it forward to the next few generations of adventure writers by both creating adventures that are inspiring and challenging and present new ways to do things but also to help give out advice in places like this.

Until "RPG Adventure Writing" becomes a widely supported area of study in college courses (which, admittedly, is much more of a thing today than it was when I was in college back in the early 90s), published adventures are the closest things folks can get to textbooks for those who want to become professional adventure writers themselves (also admittedly not the most financially rewarding profession one could go into, so keep that in mind!).

I do miss the One-shot format. My table still fondly talks about the finale encounter of Lionlodge. But I'm glad that the pfs scenarios and Bounties aren't going anywhere.

I'm running an AP now, but given my group's schedule, it is likely to go on for quite some time. I think in the future, I'll be sticking to the smaller/shorter adventure content. I am very thankful that these product lines will continue, and I encourage you to explore even more with starting levels.

Would one-shot adventures also be a more appropriate forum for visiting/fleshing out any parts of the setting that isn’t/hasn’t been featured for a while?

I’m thinking Crown of the World, Casmaron, Arcadia, Vudra, the Darklands. Obviously you can’t share anything that would spoil future content but there’s a lot of places without much worldbuilding on em.

Would one-shot adventures also be a more appropriate forum for visiting/fleshing out any parts of the setting that isn’t/hasn’t been featured for a while?

I’m thinking Crown of the World, Casmaron, Arcadia, Vudra, the Darklands. Obviously you can’t share anything that would spoil future content but there’s a lot of places without much worldbuilding on em.

Standalone adventures, absolutely. One-shots, no. One-shot adventures are too short to do much other than do a few encounters.

{. . .} if you're updating Wrath of the Righteous to use 2nd edition rules at your table, then you don't have to really worry about that at all. A GM can freely mix any content in their private game that they wish. If you intend to make your game public via something like a video series or the like, things get more complex, but if you're just running Wrath of the Righteous for your home group, then you don't have to adhere to that level of strict compliance to the license. Any more than you have to worry if one of your players names their wizard Gandalf.

Helpful tip: If somebody gives you trouble about a wizard named Gandalf, tell them that you're a complete computer nerd (hey, it might even be true!) and that you've named this wizard in memory of the defunct modem and terminal adapter company.

James Jacobs wrote:

{. . .} if you're updating Wrath of the Righteous to use 2nd edition rules at your table, then you don't have to really worry about that at all. A GM can freely mix any content in their private game that they wish. If you intend to make your game public via something like a video series or the like, things get more complex, but if you're just running Wrath of the Righteous for your home group, then you don't have to adhere to that level of strict compliance to the license. Any more than you have to worry if one of your players names their wizard Gandalf.

Helpful tip: If somebody gives you trouble about a wizard named Gandalf, tell them that you're a complete computer nerd (hey, it might even be true!) and that you've named this wizard in memory of the defunct modem and terminal adapter company.

A name which I'm sure had nothing to do with a certain Istari.

James Jacobs wrote:

we will never be able to update all of them.

<Imagines a 95 year old JJ working desperately to finish converting Return of the Runelords to Pathfinder version 6 before finally retiring from Paizo.>

:-)

Lichdom FTW.

Are there any plans to offer a Special Edition Standalone Adventure subscription? I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Are there any plans to offer a Special Edition Standalone Adventure subscription? I would appreciate it. Thank you.

No plans as far as I know, nor are there plans (again, as far as I know) to do special editions of standalone adventures in the first place.

I'd appreciate if you expanded kingmaker, like creating expansions to play in different areas of Golarion or for kingdom expansion in general (providing hexed map with resources, strength of existing kingdom (how many soldiers/units, elite troops, etc), kingdom intrigues (diplomatic dispositions of other kingdoms, state of affairs, integrating the upcoming classes, etc).

Mr.Beefhead wrote:

Are there any plans to offer a Special Edition Standalone Adventure subscription? I would appreciate it. Thank you.

No plans as far as I know, nor are there plans (again, as far as I know) to do special editions of standalone adventures in the first place.

Paizo is offering a special edition of the Prey for Death standalone for preorder on the site right now, which is why I asked.

James Jacobs wrote:

Mr.Beefhead wrote:

Are there any plans to offer a Special Edition Standalone Adventure subscription? I would appreciate it. Thank you.

No plans as far as I know, nor are there plans (again, as far as I know) to do special editions of standalone adventures in the first place.

Paizo is offering a special edition of the Prey for Death standalone for preorder on the site right now, which is why I asked.

Ah; fair enough. Still no plans as far as I know but I don't know what I don't know.