|
Hey all.
Dungeon Magazine introduced the concept of the Adventure Path with Shackled City, and followed it up with the Age of Worms. Currently, a 3rd adventure path is in the works. Very little of this discussion will influence the nature and presentation of AP3. However, because the APs are a wildly popular idea, they're likely to be part of the magazine for the forseeable future. While the staff has learned a great deal from their first two experiences with the Adventure Paths, I have no doubt that the readership has learned a great deal as well.
My intention is that this thread serve as a central place to discuss the general concept of the Adventure Path concept (hereafter referred to as AP) utilizing specific examples from the already published APs as necessary. While opinions about whether the APs are good or bad are welcome, the goal here is constructive criticism. Please remember that some posters may make suggestions that you dislike. Please refrain from name-calling and simple disagreement. If you don't like a suggestion, try to tell us why you think it is bad. Why do you like the original way better?
So, here's what I think.
I like the idea of the adventure paths. To be honest, the concept is brilliant. Rather than trying to string together a couple dozen Dungeon Adventures into a cohesive campaign, we have one already put together for us. The adventures have a strong connection to the adventures that follow and those that preceeded them. They're not afraid to reuse or revisit the setting of a previous adventure. That gives great continuity to the campaign (which is exactly the point).
This also leads to my first concern. While the APs work really well as an actual campaign, my impression is that they don't work as well on their own. While each adventure is somewhat self-contained, it leads quite naturally to the next in sequence (by design of course). My personal feeling is that if the first adventure in the AP is unsuitable, future adventures in that line will likely also be unusable. Part of what makes the AP work is the similarities between the adventures. I of course understand that a DM may be able to use one or two with the "normal" amount of effort in terms of adapting it to his campaign, so they're certainly not a total waste even to the DMs not using the AP in its entirety. This issue is a result of the nature of the AP, so cannot actually be construed a problem - but it should be kept in mind for some of my later points.
Dungeon has done a good job of recognizing that a number of groups vary significantly from the "baseline" group. Some have more or fewer players, some have more or less magic, and some feature a particular campaign world over another. The adventures in Dungeon virtually always feature a way to scale the adventure and to change the location. I understand that the Age of Worms AP includes extensive notes to fit it to Faerun. Still, it seems that the AP is more difficult to use for a "non-standard" group then the other "generic" adventures that make up Dungeon magazine.
The APs also walk a line between breadth and depth, and I believe they favor depth. The AP essentially advances a single plot line to its conclusion (with forks etc) ignoring the rest of the world, (breadth) as it were. While a campaign can be concluded in 12 adventures, I'd rather take a few more. Unfortunately, adding additional adventures to the magazine will exacerbate the problem if some DMs can't use the current AP. I know I'd like to see a few small side-quests along the main AP, freeing up some pages in Dungeon for some other "massive" adventures.
While the AP is a good thing, I don't think it is the only good thing that Dungeon features. I'm concerned that the AP interferes with other features I'd like. I'd like to see some other adventures get the largest number of pages devoted to it. Now, I haven't actually gone back and counted the pages of each adventure, so I could be wrong, but it feels like the AP gets more pages than any of the other adventures each issue. Anyone know for sure?
I also have another concern. As we accumulate more APs, they might be considered less "useful" as a resource. When I have six or seven APs to choose from, will I really want another one? Is there a theoretical maximum number where they cease to be more useful than a generic adventure? Of course, as new DMs enter the hobby they may want a new AP since they won't have the back issues from the earlier APs.
So, I've already suggested what I think would be best - taking the 12 adventures of the AP and running them over 18 months. In some of the "off" months I'd like to see sidequests suitable for the AP and some other "large" adventures. I'd also prefer that any Campaign Arcs happen in non-AP issues.
So, what do you think? Do you disagree with any of my points? Personally I feel it is simply a matter of balancing everything perfectly. Please feel free to chime in and offer your suggestions for the future shape of the APs. As I'm sure you all know, what we do say here will have some influence on the future.
I enjoy the Adventure Paths but can foresee a time in the future where they could easily become "too much of a good thing". I'm glad to hear that Dungeon will be taking a few months "off" between APs. I think that is essential.
I don't agree with your idea of stretching the AP over a longer set of months. I believe they keep the number to 12 so it will fit into a single subscription - I think that is fair and best. Even though I would 99% likely renew my subscription when it expires, I would feel *forced* to do so if I had to continue buying the magazine just to complete the AP I was involved in. Also, I for one, didn't enjoy the sporadic feel of the Shackled City AP. I much prefer the continuity of the every month/new path module.
Anyway, back to my original point, right now I like the idea of Dungeon providing me with a whole campaign rather than *just* unrelated adventures that I would have to connect on my own. Still, I can see a time in the not-so-distant future where I'll be craving individual adventures to add at my leisure rather than feeling pressured to take on a whole big campaign. Maybe then the smaller 2-4 adventure campaign arcs will be the best/most popular. Right now though, the diamond hasn't lost its shine - I'm enjoying the APs and look forward to number 3.
I don't think this diamond will lose its luster. I think that the death of Adventure Path can only be the result of the death of paper and pencil Dungeons and Dragons.
A caveat: I have not ran any of the APs with a group.
I like the concept of the Adventure Paths. I think it's a useful tool for a DM, especially if you're a beginner DM and are learning the ropes, or if you're not comfortable with "winging it." Though I don't use adventures verbatim from Dungeon, I often find myself using a few interesting NPCs, plot items and plot threads in my games. I use Dungeon as a source of inspiration more than anything else. (The Deadgate from one Dungeon magazine showed up in my campaign, as did a weretiger NPC.) I think the only adventure I did run was "The Spiral of Manzessine," which my players still remember to this day.
That being said, I like the 12-month arc of a particular AP, as long as there are no breaks. I think a good three-month break between APs is a great idea, as it allows breathing room for DMs and players who may want a break from a long-running story and a little downtime to tie up loose plot threads.
I'd be interested to see a three part AP as well, but I'd want to see more adventures per issue before something like that happens.
I agree that an AP is best if it is published with no gaps. AOW has been, for me, almost like a serialized novel--I can hardly wait for the next installment every month. You lose continuity if it's just an occasional piece, although I could see taking one or two one-month breaks and stretching it out over 13 or 14 months.
I can also say that I will probably still be running AOW when the next AP starts--I'm sure I'll be interested in it, but it wouldn't bother me if they took a six-month break between APs. And I do foresee a point when I'll be saturated. (I haven't even ordered Shackled City yet, though what's up on the web looks tantalizing. I just don't see that I'll have time to run it within the next year or two).
I also like campaign arcs, which are good for running a shorter campaign or getting one off the ground. I had a great time running the Istivin arc last year--we just rolled up some 12th level characters and started it, and at some point I want to continue that campaign using some other modules published in Dungeon. Although I probably won't play the Vampires of Waterdeep as written (I'm not a big FR person), I thought it was extremely well written and had a number of innovative ideas in it that I might use. I am in favor of more of these.
One thought I have: Is there any reason why an AP has to start at 1st level and end at 20th-plus? This is not a criticism of SC or AOW, but a suggestion that something between the 3-adventure arc and the monster 12-issue AP project might be equally satisfying without putting the pressures on both DMs and editors to tackle a whole campaign that "railroads" players through from start to finish. For example, a 6-adventure mini-AP that takes PCs from 1st to 12th level would be great. The editors could builds in a few hooks that allow PCs to branch out and tackle some previously-published higher level adventures afterwards, so that DMs could turn it into a 1st-20th level campaign if they want to. Alternatively, such a mini-AP could pick up a 5th level party and get them up to 12th-14th level. DMs could use their own material or low-level adventures from Dragon to get the party put together, or could have everyone roll up 5th level characters, create backstories, and launch from that point.
As a further development of this idea, why not make a 12 adventure AP that completes one quest after 6 adventures and makes the next 6 adventures part of a discrete sequel quest. Once you've published two or three APs along this line, DMs can mix and match halves, or tack the high-level part of the AP on to a pre-existing campaign, without having to read through 6 modules and figure out what plot strands and bits of information need to be woven in ahead of time to make it work. [Edit--I'm thinking here of how nicely it worked to run the T, A, and GDQ series modules in order as a campaign, even though they were three discreet quests--but it was also easy to run them separately].
In short, while the plot continuity of AOW has been an asset, if Dungeon is enslaved to 20 levels of plot continuity for every AP, it might get into a rut--and a little discontinuity might be just what is needed to make future APs appealing to DMs.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My only fear is of an adventure path that I don't like or can't use. Suppose AP3 involves traveling to the lands of fairy and dreams to combat drow ninjas. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, and to see 12 issues worth of it would hurt.
Nonetheless, Paizo has caught lightning twice, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on doing it a third time...
My only fear is of an adventure path that I don't like or can't use. Suppose AP3 involves traveling to the lands of fairy and dreams to combat drow ninjas. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, and to see 12 issues worth of it would hurt.Nonetheless, Paizo has caught lightning twice, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on doing it a third time...
Ditto;
While I have found a lot of adventures published that I've found to be pulp dungeoneering and only good for a particular encounter, item or NPC here and there, the Paizo folk have done well by building a larger plot that takes several adventures to resolve - it harkens back to the old G1-3/D1-3/Q1 super-series that has the gravity of plot to change the campaign-world history for future publications.
Of course, if I don't like an AP in the future, I'm out of luck for some time until the next, but since they're 2 for 2 right now, we can hope that the trend continues.
M
Creative Director
|
Believe me, we're very much aware of the footprint the Adventure Paths have in the magazine. The adventure paths do take up more words than most adventures; an average Adventure Path adventure is around 20,000 to 25,000 words, and since we've got about 45,000 to 50,000 words per issue to use on adventures... yes. The Adventure Path adventures get the lion's share of that space.
Because they're that popular.
Once we sense that the popularity of the adventure path starts to lag, we'll move to a different model. I like the idea of Mini Paths that take you through a dozen levels or so. For now, though, we're locked in on a 12 part Adventure Path 3 that takes you from 1st to 20th level.
Why do a 12-part adventure over 12 consecutive issues? First of all, this lets someone subscribe to the first one and then get all 12; if they take longer than 12 issues, then you'll need two subscriptions. Of course, we hope you're getting multiple year subscriptions anyway, but to spread out an Adventure Path seems to me kind of cheesy.
Second: We DID run the Shackled City adventure path over multiple issues; we started with issue #97 and ended on issue #116; that's a spread of 19 issues, and we had a lot of complaints from fans who were impatient (and rightly so!) for the next installment. A lot of readers run the campaign as it releases, and by spreading out the adventures we do a disservice to those readers.
Finally: By doing this 12 part adventure in 12 issues, we can finish sooner. It's a big risk to dedicate 1/3 of your magazine for an entire year on something that people might hate. Spreading that out to 18 months is worse.
Some more of my thoughts on APs in general:
APs offer a style of play that appeals to certain gamers, myself included: Being part of a story. Running an AP as a DM, or participating as a player, I feel the same excitement as I do when I'm reading a great book for the first time... what's in the next chapter? How's this going to end?
I accept that when I'm going to be part of an AP, my options are limited to those that progress the story. Some call it "railroading," which is true by the most common definition, but not bad to the game, and actually has its roots in the history of D&D.
People still talk about their times in the Temple of Elemental Evil, their attempts to liberate Geoff in Against the Giants, and how it led them to the underdark. Both of these great examples are the cornerstone of "railroading." But, as a DM and as players of an AP, you consent to see the story through.
The APs also allow players who are unfamiliar with the DM's setting, whether it's Greyhawk, Dark Sun, or a homebrew, to participate in that world without having to understand the intricate interaction of factions, nations, royalty, or whatnot.
The seasoned Greyhawk fan will understand the implications of a trade war with the Sea Barons and the Lendore Isles, and the players will want to join the side of their choice, not follow an AP to determine the outcome.
But the thousands of gamers that grew up with the Realms will be lost. The AP allows them to create a character and develop it in the setting as the story unfolds, each chapter bringing depth to the setting and their character.
And some thoughts on the SCAP and AoWAP:
I like that the APs offer variety, yet keep on track. I like the dungeon delving and planar travel in SCAP, and I like the swamp encounters and big city intrigue in AoWAP. I think that the variety increases the appeal across the broad spectrum of D&D play, and decreases the possiblity that DMs across the world will discard the AP en masse as "not interesting."
I liked that the SCAP offered room for each writer to progress subplots as they liked, but I didn't like the time it took for the adventures to be published, with each writer waiting for the previous writer to finish.
I like that the AoWAP is being published monthly, with lots of downloadable goodies and extra crunch and fluff in both Dungeon and Dragon magazines. But, I wonder if the more-structured outline limited writer embelishment.
And, I can't wait until next month, to find out the first tidbits of AP3.