fascinating. Thankyou. I can't really disagree with anything you posited here. I might make some adjustments here and there upon doing some historical research. But this looks about right to me.
I'm also interested in seeing a reply to this. Perhaps put it in a spoiler?
Previously, various different creators, designers, developers, and publishers "owned" various countries or regions of Golarion. And that area of the planet was usually left alone, unless there was consultation with that person, so that any "plans" or "canon" would not get stepped upon. Which is why you didn't really see anything in Geb, Nex and not much in the Mana Wastes. But as Publisher, Erik Mona didn't have much time to actually write material, and so nothing got done in that region. Other areas had similar fates.
My understanding, as PF2 was getting off the ground, that regions were going to be detached from specific people, so that developers could work on any region. Although, this might have changed, and out of respect, many developers might still choose to stay away from Erik's region.
Davor Firetusk wrote:
I understand the relevance of European colonization, but focusing only on that interaction to the exclusion of others is it's own form of white bias. After all most of us posting learned an Indo-European language as our first tongue and the shared cultural elements from the Yamnaya (or its close cousins from the Eurasian steppe) is very arguably way more of an impactful homogenizing event. Even less widespread conflicts are significant parts of local history. Assuming that modern European influence is the only trauma and issue needed to understand them really strips local ethnicities of agency and the importance of their own history prior to the Age of Discovery.
You could say that Genghis Khan also colonized a huge portion of the world, stretching from the China Sea, to parts of India, across Asia, and deep into Eastern Europe. While it wasn't necessarily the exact same type of colonization (in that it wasn't a rich, white man, exploiting the foreign lands for more wealth at the horrid expense of indigenous lives), it was still a conquering nation--so much so that 0.5% of the world's population (roughly 17 million) can trace their DNA to him.
Skulls & Shackles, definitely.
With all the ship travel you can do, that can take months to travel from the Shackles to Sargava, for instance, this one can take several years in game, easily. We just finished book 3, and are on campaign day 379. And if you have a crew, you have lots of item creation downtime while sailing.
Kingmaker is specifically designed to last years. Especially if you use the kingdom building and maintenance rules. The books all specifically give you space to do several months of kingdom building without adventuring or forwarding the plot. This allows for lots of item creation downtime.
Where is the best space for the discussion on paizo content being too white European focused that the OP and Zimmerwald seem to want to have ?
At this point its probably best moved to another thread. Almost everything that can be said has been said. It would be nice to see people respond with ideas for what the OP asked instead of sidetracking the conversation past the suggestion for what Zimmerwald wants to see. That's been done. No need to now hijack this thread for purposes of discussing the merits, ethics, and politics of his suggestion or what Paizo already does.
I'd like to see an AP where players create PCs on Golarion, but are very quickly whisked away to one of the other planets in Golarion's solar system, and the majority of the rest of the AP takes place on that planet. I'm not suggesting a planet-hopping AP, but more of a deep dive into another planet.
There is an AP out there where an entire book is devoted to another planet.
Other Planet AP:
Reign of Winter Book 4 goes to another planet and you spend the entire book on that planet.
I think the OP was also wanting the AP wholly set in one region/terrain/environment. In this case, an entire AP set in the arctic setting. Six books of cold adventure. I'm not sure how well that would sell regardless what environment that would be, and it does present potential issues with player engagement and sales.
One thing I've really enjoyed about the AP line, is that the APs don't stay in one type of location for the entire thing. You get to explore, at least, new types of terrain, and there is often a few dungeon crawls or castles to storm within the adventure.
Setting it all in one terrain type could leave the audience cold.
Historically, non euro-centric campaign settings have sold poorly (TSR, Wizards of the Coast, and others). With the exception of possibly Legend of the Five Rings material that is (although I'm not sure how well that actually did.) But Oriental, Arab, and Mongol settings have not traditionally sold well, which is why you usually have seen a single setting book or box based on a series of novels and then maybe a couple adventures (the Arab Setting of 2nd edition AD&D I think had 6 adventures written for it, but that was right as TSR was starting to fail, and so they ended up canceling the line) and that's it.
Is it because people generally want standard western euro-centric high arthurian-style fantasy? Is it because in general, the stereotypical gamer of 20 years ago was a nerdy, white, slovenly, male with poor social skills who tend to over-stereotype their characters and ignorantly use those stereotypes to create the slave who's beaten his past or the buxom horny lesbian, or whatever? The point is, whether its because the audience doesn't purchase those types of adventures or settings, the writers/authors wouldn't do such an adventure or setting justice because they have no practical experience with being of that sort of demographic, or the consumers would butcher said setting with tons of negative stereotypes, I think it would be a bad idea.
I think part of the problem with creating an AP wholly set in another culture analogue to a real world culture that has traditionally be stereotyped and beaten down, is 1) do they have the right writers (of that culture) to do that story justice without playing into the stereotypes or delving into cultural appropriation? or 2) do you honestly think that the average player would be able to play such an adventure without diving into the negative and gross stereotypes?
As a publisher, I'd want to try and stay away from either of those two things as much as possible.
Correct. Book 1 basically progresses on a day-by-day basis. Each day you proceed with all the daily rituals of making rolls to not piss off your slave masters, getting assigned work, trying to succeed at that work, feeding, grog drinking, and sleeping. You can either fully work to succeed at all these things, or you can take some time away from focusing on the work to try and befriend your fellow crewmates/slaves. And I think you go through that for 16 days at least, but may have been 23. There are 3 to 5 separate events, like a huge storm and fighting another ship, that get thrown in there to interrupt the general monotony of the daily grind. After the 4th day of the daily grind, it got a bit monotonous. Fortunately all the players bought into the concept of trying to befriend the other captives and crewmates, and the GM did a good job of roleplaying with us on all those attempts. And he did a good job of allowing us to try creative things that weren't specifically written into the rules for this interaction. But the players who were determined to play more of a lone-wolf type or a stubborn type were the ones who kept getting lashed, forced to drink grog, or sent to the bilge pumps. One of them was the weak halfling rogue who could not succeed at bilge pumping, let alone while sick from the grog and injured from the lashing. I imagine it was not super fun for that player, since they basically had several weeks of failing before the dungeon crawl and mutiny. But if you built your character to have a more fluid and improvisational outlook, instead of being stubborn to a fault, then you could really find enjoyment in this. I think my character only experienced Grog twice, rarely got caught when trying to do politics in the middle of the night, was built to be extremely good in the rigging so even when fatigued, sick, or injured still succeeded at his tasks. Plus he was a master at bluff for a 1st level character (+9 or something like that I think). So I really enjoyed this aspect, even if it did get monotonous.
My favorite part, was one of the slaves who refused to ally himself with us, and even turned one of the player characters in to the Bosun's Mate for breaking the rules, got his comeuppance during a storm. I used the storm as cover to swing on a rope into him and knock him overboard. He was never seen again.
The point is, it can be fun as long as the players buy-in with appropriate characters, and as the GM you are willing to allow creative ideas to get through it. Focus more on the building of alliances and friendships rather than the daily grind (which can easily be relegated to 5 minutes of die rolling at the start of each daily phase.) Focus on the roleplaying. And if one player seems to get constantly targeted, unless that player is completely unwilling to try something new to survive, make sure random rolls don't target them.
The swarm ability literally means they are considered flanking when in the same space as another allied creature with the swarm ability. Typically, unless you have an ability that allows you to threaten with a ranged attack (like snap shot, which must be within 5', or with Improved snap shot within 10'), swarm would not give you the ability to sneak attack with a ranged weapon.
But, if they did have improved snap shot, then they absolutely would get the sneak attack within 10' when swarming kicks in. And the sneak attack would apply for every single attack that complies with the swarming, flanking and threatening rules. This is not an instance like hiding or invisibility where only the first attack would be a sneak attack.
I wouldn't replace book 2 totally with Plunder and Peril, just the monotonous ship chasing/capturing/fighting part that goes on way too long. There are still a few set pieces in book 2 you probably should run.
Book 1 wasn't that difficult for us actually. It was annoying after the 4th time, which is what made it monotonous. But as players we found creative ways to avoid a lot of the worst parts of the punishment and grog.
Book 3 really ramped up the storyline and I absolutely adored it. The investigative and political stuff really fit my lying Gunslinger Buccaneer perfectly.
Skulls and Shackles could also be easily done modularly. I've only experienced books 1 through 3 so far, but in 1 you basically get shanghai'd and made a slave aboard a ship and the adventure goes day-by-day with some specific events that will take place. There is a bit of ship/crew politics you need to navigate, but as long as you keep good track (on say a spreadsheet) of who you are friends/neutral/enemies with it works out fine just playing a day at a time. Book 1 ends in a big dungeon crawl, but it has 3 or 4 very specific parts which can easily be treated modularly too. Book 2 is all about taking your ship out and being pirates. This can be done modularly based on some set pieces in various ports or just modularly based on capturing ships. Book 2 again ends in a big dungeon, so that might be the only difficult part of modularness, but I think dungeons work well for short play sessions as you treat each room/encounter as that evenings module. Book 3 is more investigative, but the nature of the game is traveling around to different ports of call, so each leg of the various fetch quests and investigations can be easily done modularly as well. The biggest trouble with Book 3 is the race at the end. But there are "waypoints" within the race that could be treated like a dungeon with each waypoint being that evening's module.
looks like this thread accidentally got posted twice. So I'll include my thoughts in this one.
Well they've pretty much done every sort of region already. Lots of mountains, forests, jungles, hills, plains, rivers, lakes, oceans, underdark, etc.
I believe Jade Regent also has a fair amount of arctic stuff in book 2 and 3 I think.
One thing I'd like to see in an AP though, is focused around River Travel along trade route rivers. With expanded rules for man-powered boats (canoes, rowboats, pole boats, etc.) and river trade and travel articles.
Another would be an adventure that revolves around the actual time of discovery of a cave system. Like the PCs are the ones that fall in a hole (or have their dog/pig/giant gorilla fall in the hole) and what the discovery of this cavern system means to the local area.
As to the above conversation about thinking everything is "white-centric" I don't really want to involve myself in that conversation. But if half the character hooks are regional (regional from the AP's specific area) or non-white in nature, then it isn't the writers or publisher that's the problem, its the players and GM.
Lets also consider that a bunch of white people playing a game, could they really honestly do justice to playing the native without diving big time into cultural appropriation and stereotype tropes?
Book 3 of Kingmaker is largely a side quest insofar as the metaplot goes (which doesn't really get revealed until the end of book 5 or beginning of book 6. But it still deals with what's there when exploring new areas and claiming them for your kingdom.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
But encounters specifically written into the AP is kinda wasted wordcount if you don't at least try to tie it to the main plot. If you are going to have a mcguffin hunt, then there has to be reason the PCs actually care about doing that hunt for that NPC within the context of the AP. You can write up an article at the end that details the "world" information for the GM to add in non-plot specific things if they want to. Otherwise, why spend 1,000 words or more to write some quest or mcguffin hunt that doesn't at least indirectly work towards the end goals of the plot.
Even Kingmaker, which has a bunch of seemingly meaningless side quests, but in the context of Kingmaker, which exploring the world and claiming things for your Kingdom, that's actually quite fine. In the context of say Skulls and Shackles, if the side quest doesn't A) allow me to gain more influence toward or as being a Pirate Lord or B) directly tie into the meta plot, then it shouldn't be detailed at all in the book itself. Those sorts of side quests can be generated by the GM from the region or area article at the end of the AP. And if a GM doesn't want to design some of those things themselves, then that's on them.
Depends. Some of the early and other side plots in APs feel very small. Especially if the players have characters tailored for the adventure, where sometimes they feel really disconnected while it's fetch quests and things.
Sure, if all the GM does is present them as fetch quests and unnecessary side things just to get folks experience or to fill out an adventure, its no wonder why players might feel disconnected. While I would prefer the authors/developers/editors to ensure that these side quests are tied more closely to the story either as a red herring or a foreshadowing of things to come, that's not always realistic to expect. And a GM who makes the NPCs behind these quests interesting and even recurring characters (even if they are just throw-away shop keepers within the AP), then the players can feel engaged and have fun regardless of how closely tied they are to the adventure itself. Why? Because you are directly creating fun character relationships that the players get to explore and have fun with throughout the story.
I'm not going to say that all APs are flawless. They clearly aren't. But even a bad adventure can be made fun if the GM puts in the effort to do so. If the GM just runs the script, then even the most engaging and fun adventure can be a slog though.
I wonder if the best way to reword W E Ray's question, is:
"What are the easiest/hardest APs for GMs to make fun for their players?"
"Is there a common element that is the most difficult for GMs throughout the entire catalog of APs?"
"Are the most difficult elements only evident to players when GMs allow them to be evident during play?"
I'm of a mind, that if a GM has enough time, energy, and motivation, they can make any adventure fun for their players. Skill also has something to do with it, but largely I would say any GM who has players willing to consistently play at their table has enough skill to modify things as necessary. Experience, in my opinion, might be the only limiting factor as far as skill goes, for a GM effectively modifying an adventure to work best for a particular group of players.
Keep in mind I've only played through Book 5, so I don't know what happens in Book 6.
But a few things to consider:
1) Book 5 is the only book that would have you going to "Earth."
Steve Geddes wrote:
And part of appealing to a wider audience is offering that wider audience more representation within the story. As a Gen X, Cis-Het White Dude, I don't know what it feels like to never read a book, comic book, see a movie, or TV show without seeing someone that looks or feels like me. But I do know that I've heard many folks who are either POC or don't identify the same as me gender or sexuality-wise saying that they had a hard time getting into sci-fi/fantasy or comic books because they didn't see someone that represented them (side note: Its why spiderman became so ubiquitous and popular amongst the nerd culture.)
So I have no issue with Paizo choosing to show a wider representation within their published works so as to include more people who are different than me in their fandom and this hobby. One way to get sales is to also find a wider market for those sales.
What really chaps me, is the comment using "representation" as a pejorative and using "verisimilitude" as a way to justify this view. What I garner from that, is the reviewer wants to only adventure in a world that represents them. They can't conceive of a fictional world that doesn't look like the history of the real world or don't find it enjoyable to play in that fictional world. They like the idea of being misogynistic, racist, and/or homophobic, even if on a subtle, inferred, or undercurrent level, within their game. Because somehow, without the Patriarchy of heterosexuals, the world doesn't seem realistic to them.
My take, is that Paizo is trying to have a world where anyone, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, or anything else, can be a leader of people. And that's awesome!
W E Ray wrote:
I've only run* Kingmaker and Ironfang Invasion, and played* Reign of Winter and Skulls and Shackles.
*I've done bits and pieces, mostly of book 5 and 6 for PFS, of Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, Jade Regent, Iron Gods, & Giantslayer and I played through book 2 of Carrion Crown as an AP. So none of these are really APs I can speak to in regards to transition.
Kingmaker: The transition between book 1 and 2 was the most seamless. Book 2 and 3 was maybe a little jarring, since the entire book more or less had nothing to do with the overall metaplot except for I think a couple kingdom events (which were like secondary and tertiary side encounters). Book 3 to 4 also had some issues in transition and book 4 to 5 kinda did, but it actually made sense. Book 6 tied it all together so its transition was fine. But what tied it all together was doing the Kingdom Building, and as long as exploration and expansion was the focus of the adventure, then the jarring transitions were mitigated almost entirely. I can imagine if you played without that aspect and just played the story, with the kingdom stuff in the background, the GM would have had to work hard on the transitions. I did not have to work hard on them.
Skulls & Shackles: I've only played the first 3 books, and the transitions are pretty good as it follows the natural progression of shanghai'd slaves to pirate lords without missing much of a beat (at least through book 3, no idea if this trend continues.) The only issues I had were the sub-games in book 1 and 2 became monotonous. Book 3 rocked.
Reign of Winter: I've played through book 5, and the central conceit of the entire AP makes the transitions fine. They would be jarring if the players don't buy into this central conceit. But with buy-in to the central conceit, the transitions make perfect sense and work very well. Each book is entirely and incredibly different from the last (with the exception of book 1 & 2), and without the central conceit, they would literally be 6 separate adventures barely stitched together with any cohesion. But it actually works really well, because of the reason why they are so drastically different.
I feel like, perhaps (and I'm kinda speaking out of turn, because I'm assuming) the reason some transitions are seen as faulty, is because the developer did not devise a cool tool by which to help the GM transition from story to story smoothly.
Agreed. I'm not going to waste my time listening to someone who is full-on bigotry. Even if some of their points are valid, I tune them out entirely.
Oliver von Spreckelsen wrote:
I think we are really starting to narrow down the specific issues in transition between books that W E Ray initially spoke about, when they are written by different authors. In many cases, an author of an earlier book might make unintentional promises that never get realized because it wasn't in the outline/adventure skeleton assignments handed to the authors by the developer. This is why more comprehensive collaboration is important, in my opinion.
I mean, I agree that GM advice of "If players make a really long deduction that they are proud of, you can change things so its true so that players feel happy about being right" can be good idea, but it can also be good idea to let players sometimes just be wrong about their assumption.
I think its a long-time trope/inside joke, "Hey, don't say that, you'll give the GM ideas!"
I do, though, enjoy with player assumptions in creating encounters or side adventures that were never intended.
That being said, I do agree that in some cases, especially between books where the authors change, unintentional red herrings can be a problem for a GM in ensuring the adventure continues to move forward along the plot without railroading the players.
Davor Firetusk wrote:
Exactly! This is exactly my point.
There is one scenario I point to specifically, that while PFS was going, came out as the Season 3 special "Cyphermage Dilemma". The previous Season 2 special was pretty good, and the Season 4 special rocked. But this was just a really odd choice to make the special. It was not a very well written scenario. And yet, as a Venture-Officer at the time (the only ones allowed to run them for 1 year), I ran this one 5 or 6 times (a couple of which were at conventions.) I've had players tell me that they stuck around PFS because of that scenario. I've had brand new players signed up to play after running it for them. Why? Because I did what I could to make it fun for the players. I didn't have to rewrite or change anything. I just approached it with a good attitude and really allowed the players to succeed with nifty plans and roleplayed the badguys in a keystone cop way and it turned out to just be a ball of laughs and fun.
It can be the worst thing in the world, and if you want your players to have fun, don't tell them that during or before play.
Trail of the Hunted:
I just got done running that one last October or so. and I didn't mind it at all. The emotional impact of live flaying and torture would be enough to raise the skeletons. And since the bloody skeletons keep coming back to life until their skins at Scarvinious's camp are destroyed, its easy enough to assume this is some sort of "ghost" or haunt.
Matthew Downie wrote:
As a GM and published adventure author who does just all of that, I don't expect my GMs to do any more than I do myself.
But if they aren't prepared to run an adventure to such a degree that issues within it catch them so off guard that they take valuable play time to complain and moan about the terribleness of the adventure, then that's not a GM I want to play with.
You don't need to be a published or experienced adventure writer to figure out how you are going to handle such a poor writing situation while you run it for your players. Because presumably you spent more than 5 minutes reading that and know what the issues are, and can easily figure out what you are going to do so your players will enjoy it.
An example would be a horse stable that has several 5' x 10' stalls and the monsters inside are all large without actually enough room to all fit in that building let alone fight in the building. So as a GM you just either make the stables larger or the creatures medium-sized instead.
Another example would be if there is a huge plot hole that doesn't make much sense, and as a GM you don't have time to write the filler bit. Just don't talk about it during play. Likely the players aren't going to even catch that there is a plot hole, because there are tons of things players aren't privy to that the GM is when playing the game. So you even bringing up that there is this gaping hole is only going to bring it to the player's attention and help them not enjoy the adventure. Almost zero effort. Actually, more effort would go into complaining during play than just doing nothing about the plot hole.
Not sure why you acted all offended by that comment.
W E Ray wrote:
GM Tangent Answer:
Oh, I don't mind after the session if we discuss metagame stuff or if you ask me if I liked XYZ or what I liked, didn't like, thought you could improve, etc. I also don't mind you discussing issues you've run into with the scenario and things you did to help it flow better or fix it.
What I have had happen, is in the middle of the adventure, a GM start complaining about the writing, the author, how messed up the encounter is, how incompetent the publisher/author/developer is, etc. When I'm in the middle of playing, I don't give two figs about that, just make it so I can enjoy it and we an discuss that later.
I've had experiences where amazing GMs have made subpar adventures some of my favorite, because they were amazing GMs. And I've had poor GMs make some amazing adventures feel like an annoying waste of my time because they were poor GMs (or had a really poor attitude that day).
Sure, I just threw that stuff off the top of my head in the time it took me to type the post. I'm under no illusions that such an idea couldn't be shredded apart by rules people.
But the point is, something creative needs to be done with firearms that aren't just a) making them more powerful than an archer or b) making them useless in only be able to shoot once every 2 or 3 rounds. How do you give them something to do every round that isn't, "I continue reloading" and yet makes the guns mean something different than just a powerful bow.
I'm not super up on 2E rules, so I'm sure there are ways it could be done under that chassis that would be more elegant than coming up with a fiddly way to do it considering 1E rules. But those ways need to be explored.
There should be a different mechanic for guns than standard rate of fire and damage that makes them both more powerful/deadly, but doesn't overwhelm the game and make other classes obsolete.
Something like avoiding a certain amount of AC for light and medium armors. I've seen an actual musketball bounce off of full plate armor.
Or actually make muzzle loaders one shot weapons (1 round or longer to load) during actual close-quarters combat like they were in the 17 & 1800's. But when they hit, they do huge damage and can naturally avoid certain amounts of DR/Hardness. Sort of like a built in Vital Strike tree, that at each range (or every other) you lose a level of Vital Strike for the weapon.
W E Ray wrote:
I'd argue that in some cases, the complaint of lack of internal consistency, cohesion, and transition may be due to a couple factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the AP itself.
1) Some GMs are more skilled than others in telling a story and making sure players understand the internal consistency of the plot.
I've seen reviews of adventures before, where the player really tore the adventure apart quite angrily, and I'm thinking inside, "But that was not how the adventure was written." After some careful probing within that conversation, it comes to light that the GM totally screwed up or actively made changes for the worse. Adventures often get unfairly judged by a myriad of things that have nothing to do with how well the adventure was written, and so you have to take that into account.
That being said, some Adventure Paths require a LOT more work by a GM to ensure everything is being accounted for. If it weren't for my friend creating his online app for the kingdom building, I doubt the players would have put up with that aspect of Kingmaker for very long after Book 2. Some APs that have a lot of political stuff going on, with the GM needing to keep track of several to tens (or hundreds?) of relationships NPCs have to eachother and to each PC based on PC actions is a TON of work to do, and someone who doesn't or can't take that time can make that AP feel very disjointed and generic.
Another thing, as a GM, you can do is write a character creation document that includes the preferred (or limited to) list of books that actually fit the theme of the region/AP. Of course player buy-in for such a limitation would have to be there, otherwise you don't have a happy group. I did this when running Ironfang Invasion. I listed out probably 15 different books that fit the theme of not just the AP, but the region of Nirmathas and the Fangwood Forest. I also allowed any of the list of suggested character options that weren't necessarily in my list of books, that showed up in the Player's Guide to II. Then I let them pick one book that was not on the list to round out their character.
If you get buy-in from the players, and you do the research, you can almost make sure the characters actually fit in the adventure you are about to run. In the case of II, I had the players create children that were all from the village and were friends with one another. I ran a prequel adventure of my own design with them as NPC classes before I started the adventure. Giving them all relationships with all the main NPCs in the village and having their relatives living in the village really immersed the players in the adventure and gave them real angst about what was going on and made them earnest to really figure out how to solve their problems.
Now that won't necessarily work for every group of players, as sometimes a group just wants to play a gaggle of crazy characters. Which is perfectly fine if that's what that group enjoys. Just means the GM has to work harder to try and tie the character back-stories into the AP story. One way to do this, is to require every character to choose a campaign trait as one of their two traits (most GMs and myself give the players an extra trait slot to do this) and write how that campaign trait makes sense to their character backstory.
James Jacobs wrote:
THIS! I think one of the reasons my players enjoy my running of Kingmaker as much as they do, is because I've done my best to adapt the story to not just the characters, but also the players. It also doesn't help that they love resource management (which surprised me). So much so, that one player who's a coder created a pretty complicated online app (with a hex map and everything) to track all the kingdom building stuff.
Also, I wanted to comment one one of W E Ray's comments about Kingmaker.
That the BBEG isn't even known to the players until the end of book 5 or book 6. There are nuggets from book 2 on that give a taste of what Nyrissa is up to. I'd actually say that Book 3 is probably the only one that doesn't have any of Nyrissa's interference directly written into it (other than Book 1). And once the players find out about Nyrissa and presumably have befriended Evindra, you can actually reveal all of these nuggets to them! My players really loved the fact that I was able to keep that plot point secret from them until the big reveal. That lots of the obstacles and rabble rousers were because of Nyrissa.
I think one thing that would be helpful (and probably happened more to a certain extent on the APs that have the best transitions), is to ensure that your authors collaborate with one another. I seem to recall Thursty holding court at Paizo Con many times talking about collaborating with other authors and making sure something he wanted to do would fit with what the other author was doing (or seeing if that other author could add a paragraph or two) so his thing would make more cohesive sense.
When writing in a shared world, writing in isolation is likely to ensure the most difficult of transitions from one adventure to another. I imagine though, different authors, with the infinite number of writing methodology they use, it may be more or less difficult to quickly and comprehensively collaborate with one another.
But if I had one bit of advice for Paizo, it would be to ensure that their authors do more collaboration on a distinctly comprehensive level to ensure that the story threads remain cohesive.
thanks all for the thoughtful suggestions. I don't think I'm worried as much about the tiny mechanics like the harrow readings or tracking sin points. More the large games like Skulls and Shackles, Kingmaker and Ironfang Invasion.
I think Return of the Runelords might be what we go with. Does anyone know if Rise should be familiar to the players first, or will Return play well all on its own?
Does anyone have a handy list of Adventure Paths that DO NOT have any of the sub games? (e.g. Kingmaker Kingdom Building and Mass Combat, Ironfang Invasion Militia, etc.) I am in a group where one of the members will be taking over as GM and we'd like to play and Adventure Path, but we don't want to bog him down with any of the subgames. We just want an adventure.
I know that most of these have sidebars for what to do if the players don't want to play the subgames, but any adventures where that extra work isn't necessary would be best.
Thanks for anyone who responds.
SRM Answered this on the Facebook PF2 playtest forum.
Hardness blocks damage to the wielder, not the shield.
Any single damage blow equal to the hardness or greater gives the shield 1 dent.
I believe if the damage blow is double the shield's hardness, the shield takes 2 dents.
Regardless of how you calculate whether the shield takes a dent or not, all damage over the shield's hardness applies to the wielder.
Ferious Thune wrote:
This seems to be the best solution to me.
I disagree. And its ok that we disagree on this. But honestly, this is a fantasy world with actual real deities that physically, mentally, psychologically, and magically impact the world. In front of their followers. In front of their enemies.
Requesting that your real world areligious choice be included in the game world doesn't make sense to me.
Because the game world, there is no real atheism. That's a rule of the world. A world in which any of the various archangels, prophets, or deities could jump down and thump you. In our world, its not likely that any religious figure or deity is going to physically manifest and thump you. And as far as actual proof, it just doesn't happen in our world. So being an atheist when there is no empirical proof of a deity makes a lot of actual sense. Being a true atheist (not the Rahadoumi version--where they just deny they are worthy of worship) in Golarian is insanity.