Like I will hope many others, I have received my copy of Pathfinder: Burnt Offerings, the first installment of the Rise of the Runelords Gamemastery Adventure Path. I would like to offer up some general comments and a specific suggestion. This is not intended as a review.
1) The adventure is, IMO, first rate. This is particularly so given the low levels involved. I particularly liked the quantity and quality of the maps that accompany the adventure, both the regional map and the site maps. While my subscription (my wife’s actually) is free from the conversion from Dragon/Dungeon, this is content of the sort I will happily pay for in the future.
2) Sandpoint’s description follows that of Saltmarsh, Scuttlecove, Diamond Lake, and Ahlaster in being first rate. In my mind, the detailed description of cities and towns is now a signature feature of Paizo’s products and one that I am more than happy to pay for, going forward.
3) While I am a huge admirer of Wolfgang Baur’s work, the Thassilon background is very weak, IMO. I find it entirely two-dimensional. The first full paragraph on p. 74 bespeaks of either quick or lazy design or both, IMO. It is entirely too convenient. What proceeds from there is fit for a D&D movie backstory; that is not a compliment. Thassilon comes across as a one-trick pony. That’s fine to set up the adventure path, at best. If the thought is to use Thassilon beyond the first adventure path, however, this kind of two dimensional development will not help that cause.
4) The description of the Pathfinder organization (p. 80) is everything that the Thassilon piece is not. The Pathfinder set up is rich and textured, while still delivering the necessary facts for play. This material has legs and practically screams “tell me more.” As much as I dislike the Thassilon setup, I really like the Pathfinder organization setup. What could have been just a quick and dirty framing tool for adventure generation has a (to my pleasant surprise) depth and breadth that makes me hopeful for Golarion outside of Thassilon.
5) To this point in the Gamemastery line, even beyond Pathfinder, the seven sins have appeared as a prominent theme. I think this is wonderful in theory. In practice, I have difficulty with how the theme is being delivered. I find the theme thinly and weakly developed. Considered by itself, the seven sins is archetypical of evil. When made a prominent part of the definition of a particular evil vexing a campaign, its nature is even more important. To date, looking at Seven Swords of Sin and Burnt Offerings, the seven sins are presented as rather ho-hum. I’m not scared; I’m not impressed and most troubling, I’m not fascinated. Compare D&D’s development of the demonic. Now, that’s scary, impressive and fascinating. The seven sins have the same potential but it is not being realized. I think a couple of things would help.
First, some more detail on how the seven sins impact the setting would be good. To date the grandest exposition has been via the Thassilon piece. See above. That’s not good. Some organizations dedicated to each sin, other than the Thassilonian Runelords, could be a place to start.
Second, some personification of the sins is a must. A start is made with the Sinspawn but much more along this line could, and IMO, should be done to realize the theme. More sin-type monsters is an obvious route. Some unique sin-type monsters, which might be analogized more or less closely (I can see arguments both ways) to demon princes, would go over very well, I think. The Runelords, thanks to the flat Thassilon piece, are really nonstarters beyond the immediate needs of the adventure path in this regard, IMO.
Third, the evil quotient of the sins needs to be ratcheted up quite a bit. I’m not suggesting a need for a parental advisory label, but for such archetypical and prominent evils, I think there needs to be a greater payoff. Unfortunately, the easiest way to accomplish this has been done elsewhere and doesn’t really fit the sins so much, IMO. I speak of the selling of the soul into “damnation;” devils and demons both have this as the premier exposition of their evil and archetypically so. The seven sins could “me too” on this point but even then I think they would have to work to deliver on the seven varieties of damnation. Whether “me too-ing” or presenting a unique exposition of evil (my preference), I think the writing needs to be a tad more explicit on just how evil this evil is. Devils and demons have it easy, in a way, because their evil is, after a fashion, a “given.” Not so the seven sins because, even while they are sins, they have been usually presented as paths to damnation, not end points in and of themselves. For the sins, exclusive of a “hell” or “abyss,” to pack the punch of a “hell” or “abyss,” they need more delineation in terms of the progress of their evil. To assume that, merely because they are the seven sins, says enough would be, IMO, an error.
Overall, I think the first Pathfinder installment is a good one but IMO much work needs to be done to realize the underlying theme and the backstory.
