RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm just curious to see if the Paizo folks have put together any kind of distribution charts to determine what percentage of GameMastery modules will be released for certain level ranges. For example, have you decided that you want a large amount of the GameMastery modules (say 30-40%) to be designed for the level 6-12 range, a moderate amount (25% or so) for the lower levels (1-5), a fair share (15-20%) of medium-high adventures (level 13-16), and a sprinkling (10% or so) of high-level (level 17+) ones? Or are you planning a pretty even distribution across all levels?
I ask this because, at least for my group, the level range we play most in is 4th-10th and I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of useable material in those ranges. I understand that every group is different but, based on your market research, is there a level range that seems to be more popular than others and, if so, are you planning your module distribution based on that data?
This is something we have talked about a few of times, but we haven't codified it nearly that precisely.
Right now, we are looking at having most of our adventures in the mid level band. 4-10 is a really good approximation actually, although if you want to narrow it down even more, its probably more like 4-8, with the understanding that if the adventure starts at 8th level, you'll probably be 10th level by the time its done.
Beyond that band, we'll have a few each year that are either low level (1-3) or "high" level (9-14 or so).
Above that, I'm not sure. It's really tricky to do a 15th or higher level adventure in a 32-page module. We'd have to get the right idea, and then some really efficient execution. And its debatable how popular they would be. Most of the success we had with high-level adventures in Dungeon came from the adventure paths. While there is a demand for stand alone, high-level adventures, my experience is that most of the people who play at that level do so during the course of long, epic campaigns that stretch out over many years, and they get their high level adventures from adventure path products, not short modules.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe adventures aren't the appropriate format for high level play. Dungeon has really moved the adventure format forward, and things like W1 or practically any Nick Logue adventure (which tend to be cinematic set pieces strung together with roleplaying goodness) deviate pretty far from the norm of adventures. Perhaps a more cook book style book would work better, laying out some uber stat blocks, some uber traps, and the overview of a plot rather than the typical if X then Y type set up of an adventure. People turn to adventures for ideas and the hard crunchy bits, so maybe the sequence of events can be sacrificed for a more tool kit some-assembly-required style product.
Just a thought.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
This is something we have talked about a few of times, but we haven't codified it nearly that precisely.
Right now, we are looking at having most of our adventures in the mid level band. 4-10 is a really good approximation actually, although if you want to narrow it down even more, its probably more like 4-8, with the understanding that if the adventure starts at 8th level, you'll probably be 10th level by the time its done.
Beyond that band, we'll have a few each year that are either low level (1-3) or "high" level (9-14 or so).
Above that, I'm not sure. It's really tricky to do a 15th or higher level adventure in a 32-page module... While there is a demand for stand alone, high-level adventures, my experience is that most of the people who play at that level do so during the course of long, epic campaigns that stretch out over many years, and they get their high level adventures from adventure path products, not short modules.
Thanks for the info. It sounds like the modules will be able to provide my group with plenty of useful stuff. I can understand that high-level adventures would be hard to fit into a 32-page module but, if I recall correctly, the Pathfinder APs are designed to be run as standalone adventures as well as parts of the greater path, correct? We'll probably be able to find our high-level stuff in there if we need it if that's the case. Thanks again!
Maybe adventures aren't the appropriate format for high level play. Dungeon has really moved the adventure format forward, and things like W1 or practically any Nick Logue adventure (which tend to be cinematic set pieces strung together with roleplaying goodness) deviate pretty far from the norm of adventures. Perhaps a more cook book style book would work better, laying out some uber stat blocks, some uber traps, and the overview of a plot rather than the typical if X then Y type set up of an adventure. People turn to adventures for ideas and the hard crunchy bits, so maybe the sequence of events can be sacrificed for a more tool kit some-assembly-required style product.
Just a thought.
I'm not really following you here Sebastian. What if D1 or W1 are radically different from a "normal" adventure, what do you consider a normal adventure? If you are looking for a set-piece fairly self contained dungeon, I'll be interested to see what you think of D3.
This "cook book" idea intrigues me. Tell me more. Are you thinking that it's a 32-page product that is mostly delve format style encounters with a little bit of plot (because, as a gamer and an editor, that does not really interest me). Or did you have something else in mind? Can you think of any examples of your idea?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not really following you here Sebastian. What if D1 or W1 are radically different from a "normal" adventure, what do you consider a normal adventure? If you are looking for a set-piece fairly self contained dungeon, I'll be interested to see what you think of D3.
Sorry, I guess I should have excluded D1 from Nick's portfolio. I'm thinking more of adventures like the prison adventure or the various eberron adventures that he has written. Their innovation (in my mind) is that they are a series of scenes (e.g., stop a runaway train, fight atop a dangerous belltower, escape from a prison) and provide the rules you need to run them (this is what happens when you fall of a train, this is what happens when you try to escape) with some strong story elements overlaying on top (this bad guy has a plan to take over the prison, this bad guy wants to manipulate the PC's into doing X). The typical plot based adventure I've encountered are much more heavily railroaded and assume that you do things a certain way.
W1 is similar. There are a bunch of lairs, a handful of encounters, and some connective tissues underneath. It's more of a GTA style sandbox adventure where the players have a lot of freedom to go where they want and the DM has enough information on the major players to wing it.
This "cook book" idea intrigues me. Tell me more. Are you thinking that it's a 32-page product that is mostly delve format style encounters with a little bit of plot (because, as a gamer and an editor, that does not really interest me). Or did you have something else in mind? Can you think of any examples of your idea?
The DMG II is probably the closest thing. It has these rules blocks for exotic locales (e.g., the ice bridge, inside the volcano) and interesting adventure set ups (e.g., the eye of mount doom) that suggest a story rather than provide a story. So, maybe the high level adventure has the villian fully fleshed out and ready to drive the story, some of his minions, brief descriptions of relevant locations at a general level, highlighting only the elements high-level PC's are likely to interact with (e.g., big traps, things that disrupt teleportation/divinations, significant guardians). So, at the end of the day, rather than having a blow by blow of the adventure set up, the DM has an adversary, the adversary's resources, and the adversary's goals and can send those against the PC's as the DM chooses.
To take W1 as a starting point, instead of being about the town and how the PC's need to protect it, the adventure would focus on the wizard in the final section, laying out the resources he has (the drakes, the barghest, his stronghold etc), the goals he is persuing (rule the valley), and a sample of a target he would choose (the village in the vale). Most adventures spend a lot of time trying to explain how the adventurers get roped into the quest. It's the piece that most DM's discard first, particularly at high levels when play is so specifically tailored, so by cutting that out and providing an adversary and some high level goals, the DM has the pieces of an adventure in a relatively small space and can arrange them to suit his players. Something halfway between the DMGII and an adventure.
I guess I thought of Nick's adventures because he does such an effective job marrying an evocative location with an interesting villian. The story surrounding these pieces is also very good, but it could probably be pared back and given at a lower level of detail and still be something that a DM could run.
Their innovation (in my mind) is that they are a series of scenes (e.g., stop a runaway train, fight atop a dangerous belltower, escape from a prison) and provide the rules you need to run them (this is what happens when you fall of a train, this is what happens when you try to escape) with some strong story elements overlaying on top (this bad guy has a plan to take over the prison, this bad guy wants to manipulate the PC's into doing X). The typical plot based adventure I've encountered are much more heavily railroaded and assume that you do things a certain way.
That's an interesting perspective. I notice that you have highlighted the episodic nature of those adventures, in that they consist of several connected, stand alone scenes where the PCs encounter the major villains. In both cases, the moments of action are fairly well detailed, with some time in between for freeform roleplaying and investigation. And, of course, a plethora of interesting NPCs, one of Nick's strengths.
It has these rules blocks for exotic locales (e.g., the ice bridge, inside the volcano) and interesting adventure set ups (e.g., the eye of mount doom) that suggest a story rather than provide a story. So, maybe the high level adventure has the villian fully fleshed out and ready to drive the story, some of his minions, brief descriptions of relevant locations at a general level, highlighting only the elements high-level PC's are likely to interact with (e.g., big traps, things that disrupt teleportation/divinations, significant guardians). So, at the end of the day, rather than having a blow by blow of the adventure set up, the DM has an adversary, the adversary's resources, and the adversary's goals and can send those against the PC's as the DM chooses.
That honestly sounds more like a setting/backdrop product than an adventure. I mean, if we had done a backdrop for Bloodsworn Vale instead of an adventure, that is pretty close to the approach we would have taken. Talk about the vale and who lives there, stat out the major NPCs, villains, and monsters. Provide a random encounter table with a few maps for random encounters/monsters, and that's about it. We'd include some adventure ideas, of course, but "assist the king's workers in constructing a road through the vale" would be one of many. The only difference between what you suggested and this backdrop would be that the backdrop would likely be part of a larger setting book, and we probably would not have bothered stating out the wizard's goons (although the fire drakes, as new monsters, would have been stated out).
That's pretty radically different from an adventure though. It would have far fewer "scripted" encounters, where we give you the set up and the monster's stats and tactics. Something like that would be a lot more work before the GM could actually run it. Especially for high level. A stat block for a monster is all well and good, but one of the things that distinguishes a good adventure and a bad one is how those monsters are used. I don't think you could really label such a product an "adventure."
Obviously setting books are something we are going to do in the future, and there might be room for a product like this, but probably not in the Module line.
Sebastian's concept is very intriguing to me, and I agree that this style of adventure makes for a totally different DMing experience.
The events I run at Gencon are a lot like what Sebastian describes, as well as many of my home games. I think these are great, but very hard to capture in a module form.
That being said I think there is something in between a "module" and a "setting book" that is as of yet undiscovered. A supplement that is a lot like an adventure "cook book." In fact I pushed hard for this format in an upcoming WotC book I worked on heavily, and got my way to some extent, it helped that Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel (who is totally awesome!) agreed with me.
I am unable to say any more thanks to NDA, but I'd love to rekindle this topic when the book is announced officially or better yet when it comes out. I think you can write modules, and you can write books that detail a wild framework of adventure, and both are wildly entertaining if done well.
I do like the framework approach myself, as is probably evidenced by some of my modules (Quoth the Raven, Chimes at Midnight, Chains of Blackmaw, Voyage of the Golden Dragon...which ironically gets labeled the most funneled adventure I've done, when really my goal was the opposite! Ha, funny how perspective works sometimes!).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That honestly sounds more like a setting/backdrop product than an adventure. I mean, if we had done a backdrop for Bloodsworn Vale instead of an adventure, that is pretty close to the approach we would have taken. Talk about the vale and who lives there, stat out the major NPCs, villains, and monsters. Provide a random encounter table with a few maps for random encounters/monsters, and that's about it. We'd include some adventure ideas, of course, but "assist the king's workers in constructing a road through the vale" would be one of many. The only difference between what you suggested and this backdrop would be that the backdrop would likely be part of a larger setting book, and we probably would not have bothered stating out the wizard's goons (although the fire drakes, as new monsters, would have been stated out).
I suppose that is true, but setting/backdrop products seem to cast a wider net. I was thinking something more narrow. I wouldn't go so far as to detail the vale and who lives there in extensive detail, I would put the focus on the target (the settlement) and lay out the likely method of the wizard's assault. The focus is really on the NPC adversary, and the environment exists only to the extent necessary to frame that NPC's actions. So, if the adversary's plan requires recovery of the McGuffin +12, the adventure might include the fortified keep where the McGuffin is kept but with a focus on the big set pieces of the keep and not the minutae of what is in every last room.
Plus, backdrops bring into play a lot of helpful NPC's. High level campaigns are generally brimming with helpful NPC's and, from my experience, the first thing I do is remove the new NPC's and reseed the adventure with my existing NPC's.
That's pretty radically different from an adventure though. It would have far fewer "scripted" encounters, where we give you the set up and the monster's stats and tactics. Something like that would be a lot more work before the GM could actually run it. Especially for high level. A stat block for a monster is all well and good, but one of the things that distinguishes a good adventure and a bad one is how those monsters are used. I don't think you could really label such a product an "adventure."
Agreed. A stat block for a monster is something that can be found in any of the umpteen monster books and does not have a high value on its own. I'm thinking more of providing sufficient information to run the intersection between an interesting monster and an interesting setting, focus on the encounters where the rubber meets the road and leave dropping the breadcrumbs to the DM at a higher level.
Come to think of it, the WotC mini-adventures (vicious venues) are close to what I'm imagining. A framework for an adventure and most of the pieces you need to run it.
The events I run at Gencon are a lot like what Sebastian describes, as well as many of my home games. I think these are great, but very hard to capture in a module form.
Well, you'll just have to run one for me so you can show me what you mean won't you? :)
Well, you'll just have to run one for me so you can show me what you mean won't you? :)
The events I run at Gencon are a lot like what Sebastian describes, as well as many of my home games. I think these are great, but very hard to capture in a module form.
Must do it!!! I had a blast playing with you last Gencon Jeremy! Ghoul Brethren forever! :-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That being said I think there is something in between a "module" and a "setting book" that is as of yet undiscovered. A supplement that is a lot like an adventure "cook book." In fact I pushed hard for this format in an upcoming WotC book I worked on heavily, and got my way to some extent, it helped that Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel (who is totally awesome!) agreed with me.
You will definitely need to follow up when you can disclose the title.
Yeah, much of this comes from my own style. I am terrible at running canned adventures - I tend to cut out various pieces that I like and ditch the rest. My campaigns tend to be full of NPC's persuing their own agendas and running afoul of those darn meddling PC's.
My campaigns tend to be full of NPC's persuing their own agendas and running afoul of those darn meddling PC's.
Sounds like a recipe for fun to me! I love this style. I use it especially in Shadowrun campaigns, though I enjoy bringing it to bear on D&D campaigns on occasion as well. Good stuff!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sounds like a recipe for fun to me! I love this style. I use it especially in Shadowrun campaigns, though I enjoy bringing it to bear on D&D campaigns on occasion as well. Good stuff!
Yeah, the D&D power curve causes some problems with the style. If the PC's postpone investigating the kobold lair until higher levels, you either need to alter it radically or deal with the resulting cakewalk. Not so much with Shadowrun where power increases much more gradually.
Yeah, the D&D power curve causes some problems with the style. If the PC's postpone investigating the kobold lair until higher levels, you either need to alter it radically or deal with the resulting cakewalk. Not so much with Shadowrun where power increases much more gradually.
Sounds like a recipe for fun to me! I love this style. I use it especially in Shadowrun campaigns, though I enjoy bringing it to bear on D&D campaigns on occasion as well. Good stuff!
Very true!
The whole low, middle, and high level issue is intriguing. I've always wondered whether it would take up too much space to incorporate into every adventure as small a conversion template to describe alternative level possibilities, sorta like how the monster manuals give thematic variations for Eberron and the Forgotten Realms.
Obviously, one could only expand the level range of an adventure so far without completely revising it, and I have no clue what that threshold might be, but it'd be a nice touch imo. To know a level 1-3 adventure could be expanded up to 4-6 via the following ways or a 6-8 level adventure could be expanded to 10-12 or reduced to 3-5 as follows, would be sweet. It definitely would diversify each and every adventure Paizo ever published. I'd even settle for a sidebar, and I'd pay more for this service via any price increase this would bring as well. :)
P.S. Yes, I know, but changing the monsters is only part of it. ;)
Above that, I'm not sure. It's really tricky to do a 15th or higher level adventure in a 32-page module. We'd have to get the right idea, and then some really efficient execution. And its debatable how popular they would be. Most of the success we had with high-level adventures in Dungeon came from the adventure paths. While there is a demand for stand alone, high-level adventures, my experience is that most of the people who play at that level do so during the course of long, epic campaigns that stretch out over many years, and they get their high level adventures from adventure path products, not short modules.
What about Diplomacy, Vlindarian's Vault, Twisted Run and Bright Mountain King? I think they all fall into the category of 15+ and max 32 pages.
What about Diplomacy, Vlindarian's Vault, Twisted Run and Bright Mountain King? I think they all fall into the category of 15+ and max 32 pages.
And would you have bought one of those adventures if it was a stand alone product sitting on the shelf next to D1 or W1?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
And would you have bought one of those adventures if it was a stand alone product sitting on the shelf next to D1 or W1?
What about Diplomacy, Vlindarian's Vault, Twisted Run and Bright Mountain King? I think they all fall into the category of 15+ and max 32 pages.
It's 12:30 PST. Why are you still awake, Jeremy? :)
That honestly sounds more like a setting/backdrop product than an adventure.
Well, here's what I like about Sebastian's idea. The delve format is interesting for a few cinematic fights. At high level, there don't need to be many. But consider these two examples I liked: The fight at Skull Gorge bridge in Red Hand of Doom, and the encounter in the dead beholder room in Barrow of the Forgotten King. Damage taken when falling, climb, tumble, search DCs, suggested ways of destroying the bridge (including a list of the various stone related spells and the damage they did)... Excellent stuff that saves me a lot of time. I think that goes beyond setting/backdrop.
To take that to a new level: The wizard X lives in his tower at X, managed to steal item X from ruler of demiplane X, framing cult X in city X, etc. -- plain plot exposition. Maybe three pages.
A map of his tower, the setup for a fight, his magical defenses, why teleport won't work, what scrying will discover, knowledge checks, spot checks, handle many of the things high-level players will do with ready-made answers. Use this for three combat encounters (the band of high-powered assassin demons sent after the party, the falsely accused cult headquarter), each four pages including stats for unusual terrain, monsters, spells, or tactics.
This is the part that most resembles the delve format.
Total pages used: 15 pages. Add four maps, gives us 17 pages.
That leaves another 15 pages for intrigue and diplomacy. Use twelve pages for major NPC, and how they react to the situation. Noble hears of the stolen X from his seer, discovers clues leading him to the framed cult, sends militia, they will be defeated by cultists, cultists slay merchant prince in revenge to stir up a rebellion, noble calls mercenary witch hunters, rebellion supported by neighboring city state X, etc. Don't provide stats for all of these. In terms of the high-level party, these are all non-combat encounters. If the party wants to kill them all, they can. All we care about is the politics of X.
This is the part where this format diverges from regular adventure material, because we're not statting this out as combat encounters, and we're not really developing a flow-chart of events based on party actions. Instead, this is the raw material needing some improvisation by the DM if the players interfere. I think we can pull it off because this is a high level adventure. Combat is easy, but will result in non-optimal outcomes. The only important fights are handled in the delve section.
That leaves us three pages for resolution: Describe various endings. Cult got erradicated, wizard X gets to keep item X. Party defended cult and got blamed for stealing item X. Either they discover and defeat the wizard taking item X, or they defeat the original owners, fighting on wizard X's side. Provide some inspiration for the DM preparing the session as to how many ways of ending the adventure there are.
Well, here's what I like about Sebastian's idea. The delve format is interesting for a few cinematic fights. At high level, there don't need to be many.—snip—
You have some interesting points there, but I still think it sounds more like a setting product with a few detailed "sample encounters" if you will. Maybe its more of a perception thing than anything else, but you would still be talking about an "adventure" with only 4 detailed combat encounters. Now you can do a lot with for encounters, sure, and they would be very cool, but I don't think that's enough to build a full adventure around, not even at high level. At least, not an adventure of the scope and quality of the current Modules line. And I'm not sure how many high level side treks we could sell. :)
And on top of that, the rest of the material would look much more like a setting book, as I already pointed out. Just giving background material on a location, villain, organization, or kingdom has a place in what we are going to do, but not really as a module.
This sounds more and more like a "high-level campaign sourcebook" where we could cover several areas of our campaign world like this. Give some powerful villains/organizations/allies for each one. Include some stuff about their lair and 1 or 2 sample encounters, and cover maybe 3 or 4 regions in the sourcebook.
But even so, I still am not convinced there would be much of a market for that book, not when just about every high-level campaign I have seen is running an Adventure Path anyway.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And on top of that, the rest of the material would look much more like a setting book, as I already pointed out. Just giving background material on a location, villain, organization, or kingdom has a place in what we are going to do, but not really as a module.This sounds more and more like a "high-level campaign sourcebook" where we could cover several areas of our campaign world like this. Give some powerful villains/organizations/allies for each one. Include some stuff about their lair and 1 or 2 sample encounters, and cover maybe 3 or 4 regions in the sourcebook.
At what point does an adventure become a sourcebook? I'm curious as to your thoughts. Is the issue that people who buy sourcebooks don't want adventures and vice versa, so if you sold an adventure that was more like a sourcebook, they would be unhappy? It would be interesting to know how well the various WotC books of enemies/traps sold, since they are of a similar bent.
This discussion has made me think about campaign settings as well. I suppose to me, the distinguishing feature of a campaign setting is a whole lot of fluff/adventure hooks designed for use by any level of play and supporting a wide variety of campaigns. The various sourcebooks I've purchased (which is somewhat scant) are good to read, but very rarely have enough oomph in them to warrant a purchase. I guess what I wondering is if campaign settings would not be better served by having a more narrow focus, e.g., a band of playable levels or such. Maybe that's my own idiosyncratic preference, but I wonder what goes into a campaign setting sourcebook and if that cannot be improved upon.
But even so, I still am not convinced there would be much of a market for that book, not when just about every high-level campaign I have seen is running an Adventure Path anyway.
And maybe that's the ultimate rub - high level adventures aren't worth writing unless they are part of a campaign designed to take characters to those high levels. I can't imagine that I would ever be in the market for such a product but for my subscription to the gamemastery line/pathfinder given the rarity of play above levels 10.
And would you have bought one of those adventures if it was a stand alone product sitting on the shelf next to D1 or W1?
What about Diplomacy, Vlindarian's Vault, Twisted Run and Bright Mountain King? I think they all fall into the category of 15+ and max 32 pages.
I would have, to be honest.
However, I'll cede the point that I make up a minority of players/module purchasers, in that I enjoy high-level play. There's been plenty of anecdotal evidence that most players like the mid-level adventures best. I wouldn't want Paizo to put out a product that sold poorly just b/c there weren't enough people like me in the paying audience. How's that for unselfish :)
At what point does an adventure become a sourcebook and why is that an issue?
Complex question. I'll try and sum up my thoughts as best I can.
An adventure is written to provide the DM with everything he needs to run a successful and fun session (or several of them). That is not limited to just encounters and monsters, but also includes background, hooks. In addition to that, it is not sufficient for the encounters to simply stand on their own. They must make sense in the context of both the adventure and the setting, and they must provide enough information to the players that they can find their way to the next encounter (although it may take them some "off screen" investigation/roleplaying before they can actually find it).
A campaign sourcebook is written to help the DM design and run his own adventures. Instead of focusing on pulling the players through the story, and fleshing out fully the locations where the encounters take place, a sourcebook covers a much broader area. It lays out several interesting NPCs, locations, and so on, any combination of which might be employed to create a new adventure himself. In addition, it often covers the stuff that takes place "between" adventures, shopping, meeting new NPCs, managing property, crafting new gear, etc.
So in a sense, the two products are similar in that they both help the DM run his game. But while the adventure tries to give the DM a "ready to go out of the box" product, a sourcebook is more like a toolbox and some lumber.
You might almost fall back on the classic metaphor: an adventure is a fish, cooked and ready to consume, a sourcebook is a fishing pole, some lines, and a lure. But of course, not everyone has time to actually go fishing, some people just want to eat :)
As for why it makes a difference: I wouldn't want to put out a product that called itself an adventure that still had a lot of holes the DM had to fill in. I realize that this has been done in the past (Undermountain comes to mind), but I think it's a mistake, can be misleading, and often lets to frustrated DMs who just want to play.
Now there might be something in between the two (to extend the metaphor, a raw fish you have to cook yourself), and I know that some people really liked Undermountain, and wanted the room to express their own creativity inside the structure of the module. But I still wouldn't want to call it an adventure, it would be something new.
The thing is, I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be better to simply finish the thing off and present it as an adventure. I'm concerned that a lot of people who buy adventures wouldn't like the fact that they had to do a lot of extra work to prepare it. And I'm not convinced that the people who like to do things themselves wouldn't simply take what they like out of the finished adventure and create their own take on it, just like they do now. And because it would have a narrower scope, I think it would actually be less useful to those people than a full on sourcebook.
Of course, the format would allow us to cover high-level plots and themes without having to actually do stats for everything, which would let us do them in much less space. But how many people: 1. Play high-level D&D 2. Also play published adventures 3. Are comfortable filling in the missing high-level stat blocks (cause we wouldn't be able to do them all) and 4. Are actually in the market for a stand-alone adventure that isn't part of an adventure path?
I'm curious as to your thoughts. Is the issue that people who buy sourcebooks don't want adventures and vice versa?
I don't think that's the issue so much. But there are people who prefer to run adventures "as written" for the most part, and buy sorcebooks to modify the adventure or expand it to match their own PCs. For these people, having finished adventures is key. There is also a group of people that creates their own adventures based on stat-blocks, encounters, and ideas drawn from a wide variety of sources, including both sourcebooks and adventures. For these people, the fact that an adventure is completely finished matters less.
This discussion has made me think about campaign settings as well. I suppose to me, the distinguishing feature of a campaign setting is a whole lot of fluff/adventure hooks designed for use by any level of play and supporting a wide variety of campaigns. The various sourcebooks I've purchased (which is somewhat scant) are good to read, but very rarely have enough oomph in them to warrant a purchase. I guess what I wondering is if campaign settings would not be better served by having a more narrow focus, e.g., a band of playable levels or such. Maybe that's my own idiosyncratic preference, but I wonder what goes into a campaign setting sourcebook and if that cannot be improved upon.
That is an excellent point, and something to keep in mind as we move forward into doing Campaign Setting books. How much breadth are we willing to trade off in exchange for depth?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks for the response Jeremy.
That is an excellent point, and something to keep in mind as we move forward into doing Campaign Setting books. How much breadth are we willing to trade off in exchange for depth?
I'm sure you'll get a hundred different answers for this question, but I guess the greatest utility would come from either (i) a low-level generic setting seeded heavily with lairs/adventure hooks/contacts or (ii) a niche setting for a mid-level band.
The idea with (i) is to provide the DM with a ready made campaign setting for easy spontanous play. Campaign settings don't go far enough in this regard and, as mentioned, tend to cast too wide a net. If the setting focused on an area of size similar to Red Hand of Doom but provided a cluster of opponents at a finer level of detail than a typical sourcebook, that would generally be useful. The first third of the 2e Night Below would be another example. The idea would be to give the DM enough concrete tools to run a campaign on the scale at which campaigns are actually run instead of giving a whole truckload of ideas from which only a few will be utilized and developed.
The idea with (ii) is to provide the DM with a fully realized exotic locale. I don't own a copy, but I imagine that ptolous is like this in that it is an urban campaign setting with all the tools necessary to run such a campaign out of the box. Another analogue might be a ravenloft-esque horror setting, populated with gothic horror type monsters and the plots among them. The value of such a product would be in providing the DM with the background work for a particular niche and tying that background into specific, concrete adventures. I suppose the various WotC environmental products are fairly similar to what I'm talking about, though I would probably place the emphasis more on the setting and less on the rules.
But in any event, the key would be to target the encounters and the resources to the level of the characters for which it is designed.
So, in terms of depth v. breadth, I'd prefer a smaller level-appropriate area detailed heavily with the more remote areas described more generally. My experience with the current style of setting books is that they provide the equivalent of a country/state, and I am thinking more along the lines of a city/valley.
And would you have bought one of those adventures if it was a stand alone product sitting on the shelf next to D1 or W1?
What about Diplomacy, Vlindarian's Vault, Twisted Run and Bright Mountain King? I think they all fall into the category of 15+ and max 32 pages.
Diplomacy over D1... yes.. the others.. probably not. I just felt that your points were that high-level adventures couldn't fit into 32 pages. I've never played above 15th level myself, and I really doubt I will.
|
I'd like 15th level+ adventures myself, but I'd rather they were build-offs of previous modules. My group is right now playing the modules and such as they come out. We're going to avoid creating characters as much as is possible (D0-D1-E1 will all be the same characters)
A 15th+ gamemastery could be a great module to run veteran characters from RotRL through (just gotta do it before the jump to 4e)
To take that to a new level: The wizard X lives in his tower at X, managed to steal item X from ruler of demiplane X, framing cult X in city X, etc. -- plain plot exposition. Maybe three pages.
Totally off topic, but this sentence read very oddly to me, thanks to too much algebra. Obviously the X's are various nouns, but all of them being Xs, they all read as the same noun to me.
An example, using the noun "Chicago" in place of the Xs:
The wizard Chicago lives in his tower at Chicago, managed to steal item Chicago from the ruler of demiplane Chicago, framing cult Chicago in city Chicago...
Yeah. Too much algebra.
Interesting thread. As for depth vs breadth in a campaign setting...it's got to be depth. Always. A broad overview seems to inevitably lead to a generic feel. It's the telling detail that makes the setting come alive.