Haldefast's page

@Sebastian: What I wanted? To let our frustration be known. To speak to Paizo without being a regular or fanboy. On all company boards there is a natural selection, and it is mostly DMs talking.

@James Jacobs: Well, I am definitely not in the position to challenge your business decisions. And whatever sells more stuff for you, you might want to do. Actually, I was a little bit unsure about how much active decision making was involved. Because some of your very statements suggested that story == forced elements. And this is definitely not so.
My only objection that you might consider if not already done, is the possibility of collecting DMs. Honestly, I cannot really imagine how anyone gets through these APs much faster than we do.
And I wonder how many groups actually finish that stuff.

So maybe, you are forced to make business decisions that are good for you, but bad for the players. Namely, if you only sold to collectors who never actually play all this stuff. But surely, you guys were thinking this all through in a thorough manner. And what I have heard from PF, it sounds as if the problems of groups not finishing the APs has been at least recognized.

And I do think that people do what the source materiel says.

I would bet Euros to Dollars that the very same people who defended STAP would defend APXY if it was being attacked for being to free and would point out how too much story was bad. For your loyal customers, what you do is right.

Use that power for us players. They seem to buy it anyways.

At least thats my hope, that there is room for non-encount4rded gaming in the future with some mainstream appeal. Alas, maybe this is a false hope, and the encounterization is on the march. That would be the most sad outlook:

Market fractured into
Encount4arded Edition and
tactically simplistic dragon-lancey 3.Paizo

What an outlook.

Do what earns you money, I understand that.

But let us shed a tear for the complex adventure that involves a lot of tactical proactive creativity and planning within big dungeons and with many, wild
and unscripted encounters. Just like the AoW, or the SCAP.

So, as I wanted to made my voice heard, and I feel it is now understood more clearly, I thank you for your time. I am actually forbidden to enter these boards by my DM, so I wont be hanging out much more.
Thank you for your time and patience!

That is the one and the same group he is talking about.
He sits to the left of me every Wednesday evening.

Hi again!

I thought about the matter a bit more, and maybe I did communicate not in the most efficient way.

Therefore I apologize.

I apologize for mixing several things up.

Most importantly Freedom of Choice/Player Impact and Encounter Complexity.

For example, Hollows Last Hope has a lot of freedom of choice and not many forced lines of action. But it has not got as elaborate or complex encounters as, say the second installment of the Whispering Cairn, or the Free City Arena Dungeon had.

Also Tides of Dread was mostly frustrating because of the very simple problems in it. Technically, you have some more choice in ToD than in the Sea Voyage or Overland Travel adventure, that is correct.
I would argue though, that these choices are basically meaningless, as the order in which one tackles which encounter is not important, as far as I know. Contrary to what some people here said, I have never ever looked into a Dungeon Magazine numbered higher than #124. So maybe I am wrong, and there is some special interconnection and timeline. But as the Phanatons were "right about to be attacked" by the one-eyed T-Rex, we all got the feeling those things were frozen in time until we go to those places.

Alas, another point that really blew my enjoyment out of the alleged "free", "planning" and "strategy" some people seem to see in that module were the many contrivances. The most dashing example would be, when we started planning the defense, mystically all decent weapons had vanished from Farshore. No ranged weapons, no longspears.
And what a coincidence, after chopping off the head of some "random" critter in a single-room dungeon:
"Look! the Weapons that Farshorians were too stupid to bring with them! Although we saved the cargo from our and Lavinias ship!"

The timing contrivances were already mentioned, only Eyes of the Lich queen is a more serious offender in this regard.

I can understand there is resentment against harshly attacking someone elses work. But I hope I could convey the frustration and anger that built up in us, because of that work.

The weekly game, that our group keeps going can only live with campaigns like AoW or other APs. We are all working some of us have kids, and some of us have work to do even when not at work, or are on 24/7 readyness for their own international customers (our DM for example).
So there is a lot of effort involved with everyone, a lot of passion. And so far, Paizo helped our DM, and we could help him.

But if we cannot rely on Paizo, we will not be able to keep up this awesome form of gaming, that we have so grown accustomed to. Again, Roleplaying can be intense and doing something once a week is like being in a sports club.

What would you say, if somebody would remove three bases from your diamond?
And then said:
"Well, it is really all about pitching & batting!"

On a related note, I think one of the things that made AoW so much more enjoyable was the way the single adventures were seperated from each other. Although it was totally not our choice to go to "Free City" or wherever we were sent by Allustan or Tenser, the adventures themselves were not as contrived as the ones in STAP. Exactly for that reason!

They were not closely tied to each other on a timing basis (at least that is what I fathom). "What happened Greyhawk, stayed in Greyhawk", so to speak. Some places would be revisited, some not, and our DM could plan months ahead and extrapolate everything from OUR actions.
But I have not read the actual adventures, but the thought occured to me.

I was writing this because I care, and because we need quality adventures for our DM, for our group. If somebody thought I was here to troll, well, that is just wring.

I was abrasive because I felt betrayed, as if I had been had, and insulted. The neutral observer may judge for himself if my and our groups feelings had any merit or not. Some of the answers in this thread (and the other thread a chap and co-Tide-Rider of mine opened), and manners of what seems to be the main Paizo audience were an eye-opener for me.

To be told that "we where thinking too much", and should just "switch off our brain, and enjoy the train ride" was, although surely well-meant, more sad than anything else.

I hope Paizo still and will produce(s), support and promote thinking guys and gals adventures.

PS: Yes, this IS acting like a drama queen. Because to me/us, being faced with the loss of our weekly D&D setup (see above) IS dramatic.

The last thing that I have to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjIoymWHvU

Haldefast wrote:

Oh, and regarding the Erik Mona vs J- Jacobs thing:

If S.G. had actually read what I wrote, he would know that I do realize my theory regarding Mona vs. Jacobs is mostly wishful thinking.

I said I WISH there was a behind the scenes conflict. Because if there is not, than everything Erik Mona said regarding 4e and old-school/Spirit of D&D is just...marketing and has nothing to do with the truth.

So tell us Haldefast, what do you think the truth is?

The truth:

Paizo is catering to an audience of reactive tactical thinkers, who let themselves be blinded by appearances without thinking too much on their own.

I WISH that Erik Mona is not on that steam-train, thusly I fantasize myself into the land of wishful thinking. I HOPE Erik does not endorse that ...style...maybe he does.

Then there is no saviour.

No one will bring back sanity to D&D.

The strongholds of goood taste will enlengthen the battle.

But if Paizo AND WotC go down that primitive "per encounter"-avenue, I won t be able nor willing to follow.

EDIT: @author of ToD

Which one would that be?

The poor Phanatons, who are attacked at the EXACT moment the group arrives at the tar pit?

Contrivance anyone?

Zozilaha?
Okay, you might not fight that one. But that would be even more railroaded and de-protagonizing.

"Do what god says!"
We do what a god says.
"Take treasure!"

Hello?!

If you want to see how to do encounters that actually lend themselves to non-sipmlistic non-combat solutions, you might want to look into the second whispering cairn, or the 2e Kingdom of the Ghouls adventure.

BUT: I am also angry at the two adventures before yours. They were railroads in the literal sense, whereas your adventure mostly lacked any intellectual, roleplayng or tactical depth, but left us the choice of the order in which we approach the sub-encounters.

Oh, and regarding the Erik Mona vs J- Jacobs thing:

If S.G. had actually read what I wrote, he would know that I do realize my theory regarding Mona vs. Jacobs is mostly wishful thinking.

I said I WISH there was a behind the scenes conflict. Because if there is not, than everything Erik Mona said regarding 4e and old-school/Spirit of D&D is just...marketing and has nothing to do with the truth.

Thanks for truly showing your colours.
Thank you for proving what you guys think of old-school D&D.
Thank you for showing how much you respect your audience.

Thank you for showing your complete misuderstanding of what is Hack& Slash, and what is not.

Because I have never ever had this much hack & slash as in STAP and especially Tides of Dread.

All that characters can do in those STAP-Adventures I spoke of is only validated if it is sealed with encounter blood.

Can you form an alliance with phanatons? ONLY if you kill a monster. Not by being smart, charming or having a great plan.
No, go kill a monster.

How to get weapons for the defense?
Go, kill a monster.

How to get the Olmani on our sides?
Go, kill a monster.

This is the stupidmost and primitive kind of D&D I ever had. You do not find that kind of stuff in old modules you guys so unknowingly mock.

Also thank you all for showing and proving my theory regarding Paizos mindset.

Thank you again, for proving that none of you understands what a strategic challenge is and can be in a D&D environment.

Instead of mocking old modules, you might want to take a look at them.
Lets say the Companion modules for BECMI. That might give you a head start on strategic level playing, and concise writing.

There is more Roleplaying, Strategy and Story in the "Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor" than in the whole STAP up to level 10.

Thanks also for making clear of what you think of Paizos new businesspartners: NG.

There is no strategic freedom in Tides of Dread.

All you can ever hope for is tactical freedom in an AP.

There might be illsuion of strategic freedom in Tides of Dread. This does not equal strategic freedom.

Do you know the Wilderlands of High Fantasy?
Or Ptolus?
Or Traveller?

THAT is strategic freedom, never to be attained in an AP. That we already knew.

So what is left is tactical freedom.

Not so in the last three adventures we played.

Everything clear?

I can point out the lack of strategic freedom in ToD if really necessary.

And how does this change in any way the points I made here?
You might want to adress them.

If you read the thread, there are several other people who feel like we, our group, does.

So I cannot see the point in your post that would be relevant to the discussion.

And I think it is valuable to voice these concerns. I wouldn´t be voicing them, if I did not care.

Paizo has given a heart and soul to 3.5, for the better and the worse.

Regarding my blog entry, for those not in the know, I was suspecting that Erik Mona is playing a double game in the recent "4.0. Stil undecided"-threads.

On one hand he stylizes himself as the guy who is like us, who loves D&D.
But on the other hand he participates in the publication of railroady-stuff that would bring Dragonlance fans to tears.

Adventures like "Tides of Dread" and the Sea Voyage run counter to everything that the game that Erik Mona claims to love so much is all about.

So I am raising the question: Is there an internal conflict?

I do not know. Maybe it is wishful thinking. But just maybe, Erik and James ARE in disagreement about some of that stuff. I would like it to be so, because I would like to think Erik brought me the AoW, whereas James forced the STAP on us. It is most likely wishful thinking, and both are shovelling the coal in perfect unity.

I only know for sure that AoW was one of the greatest experiences I had, and I thank whoever is responsible for that.
And I know that STAP has big problems.

Maybe the problem is that we game weekly.
We actually play all that stuff as it comes out. How many groups have actually finished AoW, and have reached level 10 already in STAP?

Therefore I thank my splendid group and my hard-working DM. We all are bending over backwards to make it to the weekly games, to make everything work.
We invest a lot of time and effort into those APs. And our DM a lot of money and brainwork.

But right now, Paizos adventures are the biggest problem in having fun.

And this is frustrating as we all know you can do it better.

Barring any further questions that need answer from me personally, I will retire from this thread. I voiced my opinion and frustration that was build up since starting the sea voyage.

I can only say, that the replies by James Jacobs and the author of Tide of Dread have totally confirmed my resolution to be very suspicious of Paizo products in the future. I will have to search out the author of the adventures I liked and only participate in those.
Because James Jacobs (or who actually makes the decision) is not willing to enforce certain standards of Player involvement and freedom, I cannot trust the brand any more.

With WotC sailing into directions that Erik Mona already painted in suspicous colours, I can only hope for the Necro/Paizo team-up to work out. Otherwise D&D might be just not be for me anymore.

A sad outlook, as I and the group I am honoured to be a part of are both fine people and really invested in making it work. But we cannot make it work against the owners of the company or the authors of the adventures.

But Paizo is not selling products to players. Maybe that ispart of the problem.

In parting: My utmost respect for what Paizo did with Dungeon and Dragon Magazines, how they pulled off the fantastic AoW and how they maintain a superb online store and for some very smart and friendly alliances with smaller venues.

To put all the defensive posts in a nutshell:

If our group does not like single rooms with a monster in them in lieu of real Dungeons, if we do not see the onstensibly unavoidable linkage of AP and RR, then we are dumb and playing wrong.

So the people who are satisfied with the most primitive of Dungeons, and who let themselves be marginalized by J. Jacobs and the Union Pacific, those are the smart people and customers Paizo wants?

Sorry, could somebody explain to me ANYTHING that is good about those three encounters?

Explain to me, what are the players allowed to do there?
What is the challenge?
What is the interesting stuff?

Again, we had great fun with former Paizo modules, so don´t give me the " AP = RR, so tough luck" statement.

EDIT: I think it is telling that Erik Mona has made some ambigous comments regarding STAP on a recent podcast. Has he written an adventure for the STAP?
The very low Greyhawk content supposes otherwise.
I also do not see him in this thread.

So maybe it is all an internal PAIZO thing, maybe J.Jacobs and Erik are at oddds about this very issue. Or I am just imagining things. But it would soothe my soulf, if ANYBODY at Paizo would know in their heart, that some of the stuff they put out is just glorified !"$!".
As long as it is a Lazzaretti map and WAR illustrations, it is allright, yes?
Boy, I so HOPE that there is at least some controversy behnd the scenes about advneutres like the Tides of Dread. If not there are some serious issues with D&D that might lead to doom.

Hi there!

Interesting. First, let me state why I was attacking James Jacobs as Mr Railroad, and his Union Pacific Cronies: Just read their answers.

Instead of adressing the concrete examples I made, there is a general defense "all adventures are railroads."

Which is blatantly untrue.

It is either what you, James Jacobs believe, or it is what you just say to back up on your writers, which is a good move. But you should know which writers are popular and which ones may produce offensive modules. Surely you know modules from the times of 1st edition?
You say these are Sourcebooks, and cannot be replicated.

Interesting, that the main defense aside from the general exempt James Jacobs issued is that the Isle of Dread is described so well in multiple magazine issues.

So it is quite contradictory.

Again, one just has to take a look at 3.x adventures such as Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor for a totally open, old-school experience, that still involves story and plot and fits into a greater campaign.
Tegel Manor will be just like it I assume, and J. Jacobs, you must surely know this module by now.

And, as I made blatantly clear, our group was very happy with a lot of Paizo AP adventures in the past!

The carte-blanche that is issued here by defernsive posters who do not adress the issues of the actual complaints: "all story needs rr" just does not float here. We have arranged ourselves with being unable to act strategically in such an AP. We knew what to expect.
But we also expect superiour d&d experience!

And to us that means a superiour DUNGEONS or equally open-ended, unstructured complex challenges. Like the two instances of the Whispering Cairn, Kongen Thulnir, Alhaster, Return to Alhaster, the Free City Arena catacombs, or even the first STAP installment of James Jacobs himself. All those had limitations as to how to get there and what happens afterward. But those where large and varied playgrounds to actually game in.

Not so on the isle of Dread!

Again, I would like to know, what has the person who wrote that adventure (Tides of Dread, I assume he has posted in this thread) thought of me and my buddies?
Okay, we had the fantastic choice of choosing the order in which we were allowed to fight in set-piece encounters.

It seems that to some people, fighting a monster in a single room with a niche for treasure attached is okay as long as the maps and the illustrations look awesome. But not with us, and not with many other people.

I think the line of defense that the author took, in attacking our DM does not help. As a writer, you have to communicate with the DM. If you think our DM is doing a bad job, then you might want to ask yourself how can you communicate better next time.

Again, it looks as if you do not only think low of me and my co-players intelligence (ugh, just let them fight some big bad monster three times in a row. They may choose the order, yay!), but you clearly state that you think lowly of our DM. I fear I do not wish to play stuff that is written by people who think lowly of me or my DM.

What is time consuming to design?
Challenges, Dungeons, Encounters.

But if you draw just one encounter map, that is not a dungeon.
The stuff we encountered in that module were really really simplistic.

A one eyed lizard = nothing but a single combat. Please compare to the complexity of the adventures I cited

Zozilaha = nothing but one room with a single combat and a treasure room

Temple = nothing but one room with a single combat and a treasure room

There were other instances in the two adventures that came before, but those were better disguised, frustrating as they were. The frustration peaked when we played these three elements.

I only remember one adventure from the AoW that was like it: The one with the "railroading druids" on the magical island. One had four encounters, and that was the whole adventure, some Titan, some Tree and some feather to be stolen.

Could it be that Paizo is not knowledgable, able or willing to tackle the step from the "Basic Set" to the "Expert Set"?

Could it be, that overland adventures are poorly understood?

Huh? I was trying to be aggressive aggressive, because James "Railroad" Jacobs and his Union Pacific co-workers are insulting me and my buddies. Nothing passive going on.

And you do realize, that My questions "What have you been thinking?!" are an attack, a rhetorical question, that needs not be answered.

Okay, I let off what bugged me, and I think there are more people like me, who just turn away and don´t speak out.
So that´s what I wanted to say, make out of that what you will.

Alas, our DM is splendid. He does all you say, and more.

But he cannot make the one-room-lamer-srcipted encounters go away. There is nothing to be done there that would honour our groups skills, time, investment and intellect.

Please, tell me redeeming features of the "Tides of Dread" adventure, for example.

EDIT: @overland adventures. There´s tons of old modules that do it without railroading. And they had a very low pagecount. If you don´t know how to design an open overland module, you better stop talking about the spirit of D&D. Isle of Dread is one example.

Thanks for the vocabulary-help!

Apart from that, I am not here to start a big flamefest, and I am not trying to convince anybody, that what he likes is bad.

I came here as a Player who feels betrayed and insulted by (at the very least) three installments of STAP.

And I voiced pretty detailed concerns about the problems we had.

I would appreciate if someone from the officials would tell me what he was thinking when they okayed these three "adventures".

Do you think all players are stupid and lethargic?
Or boozed up?

I cannot understand how the same company that brought us Whispering Cairn, the Return to Whispering Cairn, Three faces of Evil, Kongen Thulnir or even the first Adventuere in Sasserine, how can the same company produce such offensive adventures?

And no, it is not the DM. He is a very good DM, but in a weekly game, he can only change so much. So if the Dungeons are only one-room affairs, he cannot draw a new dungeon map himself and stat and stock it. If he had the time, he would not need to be playing an AP.

Again, please keep up you rlove for Paizo. This is mostly an open letter to the publishers.
To let them know that their railroady ways have been noticed and have offended several players. Me included.

And the Hollows Last Hope adventure really was the death blow for any interest in Pathfinder. I know it is not Pathfinder, but it is related, and we have lost the faith in Paizo adventures.

I think this is valuable customer information.
And I was very concerned that there is so much praise, although there are some serious issues with the APs.

First, do you guys know the Isle of Dread? The real one?
Please compare. Older Editions are FULL of non-railroady modules. THere are even some done by Paizo for the late D&D, and some revamped ones from JG or Retro-ones like Goodman. Saying all adventures MUST involve RR is just revisionist history and actually tellingof a serious lack of D&D-lore.

Secondly, as I said, we are okay to be railroaded between the adventures. That´s part of the drill when you are playing an AP.

BUT: The last three adventures, the ones to and on the Isle are terrible!

Follow path-meet monster-slay-monster-follow path to next monster.

Not: Delve into one Dungeon, have lots of decisions and problem solving, have roleplaying encounters, have different factions in the dungeon, explore new stuff, finish dungeon, follow path, delve into the next dungeon or complex situation.

One-Room encounters! Pre-scripted! Insulting it is.

Namely: Zozilaha(sp?), The one-eyed-T-Rex, the one-room, one secret door to basement Temple all were very simplistic and lame.
The whole sea voyage was one gigantic set-piece, were the we couldn´t do anything, except talk amongst ourselves, and to some NPCs. Which would be cool, if it would MEAN something and CHANGE anything. But it is IRRELEVANT. All player input is invalidated by the high suckage of the way Savage Tide seems to be structured.

The same with the totally pre-set path along the Cliffs after the Ship wrecked (as was scripted, thusly totally invalidating the whole travel adventure). Don´t get me started about the Gargoyle encounter...

Well, my critique is pretty much targeted on the last three "adventures" we played through. And they were a mockery of all things good about the Isle of Dread and D&D.

The Age of Worms was indead a fruitful amalgam of the new and the old.
And it had large, intricate, meaningful and choiceful dungeons. And a lot of dragons. You know, like in Dungeons & Dragons. But I´m getting silly.

I also have been a player in "Hollow´s Last Hope" and that wasn´t very open-ended and choiceful either.

Let´s be honest: There´s no structural difference between the three adventures I´m talking about, and the abominations that are the ultra-railroady-combat-encounter-chains of WotCs delve format.

Like in Eyes of the Lich Queen. Awful!

And totally not in the spirit of D&D, neither of them.

Again, I have not red the "adventures" I´m talking about the player perspective.

Hi there! I am an avid player of the Age of Worms AP.

But the recent Savage Tide AP has really turned our group down. The "adventures" in which we travelled to the so-called Isle of Dread, and the travels on that Isle wer insulting to us as players.

Three adventures full of a totally strict railroad. Now, we do not mind being railroaded between the dungeon entrances. That is cool with us, as it was in the AoWAP. As long as there is a large, intrigueing, diverse dungeon full of options and decisions.

But the last three "adventures" consisted of strings of single encounters, which were totally scripted, unavoidable and thusly un-fun and insulting to our planning efforts and intellect.
Especially the One-Room-"Dungeons" rose our ire. Even more ridiculous was the "timely" arrival at Farshore right at the moment of being under attack. That totally blew any suspension of disbelief that might have existed.

Okay, we are not allowed to decide which route we follow. But then, we are spoon-fed a single room "dungeon"?
Hello?

Which decisions is Mr. Jacobs and his Union-Pacific cronies willing to let me make, pretty please?
Could you explain me, what my character and moreso I as a player was able to actually do and influence? Oh, yes: I was allowed to barely beat the opposition in a set-piece encounter. I was allowed to prove that the balancing works, that the encounter that was designed to be beaten got beaten. You know, there are people who actually like to do, like, INFLUENCE stuff? Like, making decisions that matter?

STAP adventures on the Isle are the reverse of what the Isle of Dread stands for.

I speak from a players perspective, and I can tell you: There are lots of people out there who feel insulted by Paizo for treating us like idiots.

We are so angry at the last three "adventures" (we are preparing for the defense of Farshore right now), that no one of us was willing to give Pathfinder a chance as a player.
So, if you keep treating the players like idiots, you´ll build up a fanbase of drooling DM-Fanboiz, without a group.

If that makes you money, go ahead. But do not pretend you care for the PLAYERS or for the Spirit of D&D.