So, I have some thoughts on the Adventure Path in general. I'm not sure if this is the best place to put them, but here I go.I really like the concept of the Adventure Path. Overall, the adventures are very good. However, they all are related. If a DM can't use one, he likely can't use any. So, whenever an adventure path is announced, we're looking at a solid year of the magazine with the AP + 2 other adventures.
Now, the AP is designed to cover 20 levels in about 12 adventures. Assuming 13 1/3 encounters before leveling, we're looking at approximately 22 encounters per adventure. Obviously this isn't happening. What's the AP missing? Sidequests.
I don't know if each AP needs to cover 20 levels. A smaller arc might be better. 5-8 levels or so might be fine. That's be closer to 6 adventuers of the scope that have been presented so far. Spread those over the course of the year, and you're looking at only 1 AP every other issue. I'd be strongly in favor of that.
Three or so of the other issues could have a "supporting side-trek" that doesn't advance the overall plot, but fits nicely into the "region" of the AP.
Personally, I'd like to see a long break between Age of Worms and the next AP. Maybe 4 months or so. It's good, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. I'd hate to see the good idea overdone to the point where it becomes perceieved as a mistake. I don't think you're there yet, but please consider my suggestion.
I just wanted to move this topic to a more appropriate forum.
I have to agree with DeadDMWalking on this one, and would hope that the brilliant designers at Paizo will at least consider what he's saying.
The Age of Worms is one of the coolest things I have ever seen put together for D&D, and I have loved every installment, but one of the downsides to a 1-20 level AP is that it sort of has a railroading effect on PCs.
For instance, when I started my Age of Worms campaign, each of my players brought me a write-up of their character's background (some of which were very interesting). I wanted to incorporate these into the campaign since it was a reflection of the elements each player wanted to see, but ultimately, I had a difficult time finding room to "squeeze" them in.
Instead of plots revolving around what the PCs wanted, I ended up with plots playing second fiddle to the adventure path (and therefore overshadowed and seemingly less important to the people who wanted to see them the most).
Some of my players even expressed a bit of disappointment at the thought of being tied to one main story for their entire careers.
To correct these problems, I suggest that you shorten your adventure paths. Perhaps making them fit neatly into the level ranges (Low-Level, Mid-Level, and High-Level) of your current adventures. With this set-up, a DM could use a low-level adventure path to get a campaign rolling, maybe throw in some homebrew, or modules based on one-shot dungeon adventures (or PC backgrounds), and then jump right into the next mid-level adventure path (the three part Istivin series from Dungeons 117-119, for example).
Think about how cool it was to play the Temple of Elemental Evil, Scourge of the Slavelords, and Queen of Spiders as a super-campaign with the same batch of PCs!
Now imagine if you had a variety of adventure paths, set at the various level breaks! A DM could mix and match low, mid, and high level APs to create a multitude of incredible super-campaigns! In addition to this, the APs would be easier to write for the Dungeon staff, and I wouldn't be waiting on individual installments for an entire year. There is also less chance for burn-out on the part of both DM and Player.
In any case, I know you guys will keep the great adventures coming, but it is something that you may want to consider in regards to future adventure paths.
Cheers!
I would like this much better. Now, obviously, Paizo should feel free to provide references and linking information that can tie these adventure paths together for GMs that wanted to do so. But this shouldn't be as strict or as linear as in the two APs that have already been published. Separate low, mid, and high level adventure paths would be much more useful to a lot more GMs.
Even if the people at Paizo are just totally wedded to the idea of super-campaigns that run for an entire year, at the very least they could space these out - do the three separate paths this year, the next super-campaign in 2007, three more separate paths in 2008, etc.
Creative Director
|
Adventure Path 3 is a 12-part arc from 1st to 20th level, so it's too late to do anything about that (and I wouldn't want to; these full campaigns are EXTREMELY popular).
We have printed smaller "adventure paths" in the past. Generally these are 3-part adventures. We call them "campaign arcs". We've got a new one coming up near the end of the year.
As for being railroady... yeah. That's what adventures do. It's not a bad thing. If you pick a long adventure, you have to know your players. Pick one that they'll like and want to go on. PCs who resist following a long, drawn-out plot are like people who talk during movies. They'd rather be doing something else, so why are they at the movies?
Put another way, if your players are concerned about a long adventure path being "railroady," they'll probably be concerned with shorter adventure paths being railroady as well.
|
Personally, I don't really think of the adventures as "railroady", but I do have concerns.
I like to think that I'm prognosticating the future reaction of the readership. By identifying the problems early they can be prevented from becoming annoyances.
I buy Dungeon magazine mostly because I'd like to have adventures that I can run for my players. After AP 3 is complete, I'll have three complete campaigns to run for my players. Do I need a 4th? Will I use it?
I'd like to think that I will. The magazine is better for me when I can use more of it. But if it is presented in the way of the first two APs, (and presumably the third) I find it unlikely. It isn't that the campaign is too long - I don't feel that way at all.
But, I would like "change of pace" adventures that might tie into the plots without advancing the further plot of the campaign. That's difficult to do with only 12 adventures. I, as a DM, am forced to come up with sidequests on my own. I'd rather the adventure path included some of these diversions. But, I also recognize that the Campaign Path is taking up a huge amount of the magazine. The adventures on the AP are meaty adventures - but I want something else that's meaty. If an AP gets started that I don't like, I'm looking at a full year that has the lion's share going to an adventure I'm not going to use.
Now, so far I've liked the APs. However, I have no doubt that there are readers that haven't liked them. The more there are, however, the more likely one will not appeal to the readership. I can only imagine what would happen if a massive Adventure Path were going to be situated strongly in Faerun or Eberron. It might make the "Failed Wil Save" thread look like a walk in the park.
So, although I like it and want the APs, I'm concerned about the amount of space they get in the course of the year. This is a tricky problem. They're good, they require a lot of space, and they take a long time to publish. Changing anything exacerbates one problem or another.
Publishing a 12 part series over 18 months does make it take longer overall, which some might find a problem, but that would give us some issues that have other things that the readership might like as well or more. One of my favorite issues is the "Isle of Dread" with the wondeful backdrop on a 1st edition adventure. I recognize those kinds of extras are impossible with the AP getting so much space.
I'm hoping that the break that I get between AP 2 and AP 3 will give me some of these other things that I've been missing. I'm not sure if it will, but I'm hoping that it will.
So, what I think is the absolute best solution to the potential problems is to spread the 12 part series over 18 months, and in some of those "off" months include a smaller AP adventure that doesn't advance the plot, but does develop some aspect of one of the other adventures more fully, or ties up a loose end or two. Then the larger amount of space can be given over to a non-AP feature. Something like the Isle of Dread issue.
|
...As for being railroady... yeah. That's what adventures do. It's not a bad thing. If you pick a long adventure, you have to know your players. Pick one that they'll like and want to go on. PCs who resist following a long, drawn-out plot are like people who talk during movies. They'd rather be doing something else, so why are they at the movies?....
I know what you mean; despite playing for a quarter century, I have very few memories of campaigns that ran to a satisfying end; often, the DM would get persuaded to take a break "just for a few weeks", while we tried out another adventure/campaign setting/game system, and the dangling plot would never get resolved.
We also had our fair share of problem players, who would go to any lengths to scupper the storyline, fight the patron, hide the clues, wander off on their own, alerting guards.... anything to prove a point, namely that their character was "in control", and the DM was "not the boss".
It wasn't easy to get rid of such spanners in the works, and if you asked them why they were trying to ruin the game for everybody else, you'd get a smart-alec answer like "my character wouldn't want to go on this adventure". To which the only relevant reply should be "Fine, **** off then! Retire the character, and create one who does!".
I am currently playing Shackled City, in a group aged mostly 30+; all veteran gamers, apart from the DMs wife, who has about 6 months experience. The DM disbanded his previous group, and handpicked us all because of our reputation for "playing well with others", and I am glad he did; if he had attempted to run for the previous group, it would have been an absolute waste of time.
Playing a campaign that you know will take months requires give and take on the part of both players and DM; I accidentally started to read Life's Bazaar before realising his intention to run it, so I was aware of the existence of the Last Laugh guild. I used that to enhance my character background; creating a wizard's apprentice whose job was to replace the alarm spells on his masters property (the constant attacks by thieves had left him a twitching mess of vigilante rage). The first sessions we spent taking down the Last Laughers, trying to find the mysterious Jill. When the action changed to Jzadirune, I took the bait, assuming I would find the guild HQ. When this proved not to be the case, I didn't whinge or moan or try to derail the adventure; I took the prescence of the skulks as proof of Suloise treachery (my character being Baklunish), and promptly found myself another set of foes to wreak havok on. I'm now chasing a gaseous fleeing vampire thrall through a goblin lair; I don't care, it's all experience, and gets me closer to my goal of earning my freedom from my master, membership of Bluewater Academy, and the mysteries of the Sevenfold Veil...let all freakish albino subhuman Suloise who would attempt to insult my people suffer my Rainbow of Colorful Fire!!!!
You can always just run just a segment of the adventure path.