Creative Director
|
Good post Mr. Jacobs. I'm curious, however, to know if you would call a traditional dungeon crawl an adventure or a sourcebook? A large dungeon does not need to be linear at all, yet I would hardly call it a sourcebook.
Depends what you mean by a traditional dungeon crawl. A dungeon crawl like White Plume Mountain or Gates of Firestorm Peak, in which something is bad in the dungeon and the PCs have to go in there to kill it or recover a stolen magic item or whatever is an adventure. A dungeon crawl like Undermountain that presents huge dungeon levels with dozens of different plots is a sourcebook. Something like Maure Castle falls right in between these two.
Dungeons are, though, pretty railroady. The shape of the dungeon pretty much determines the order in which you progress through the adventure.
For the record, I think that both adventrues and sourcebooks are equally valuable resources for playing the game. The best campaigns use a mix of both, presenting an adventrue with a storyline but also presenting more information than you need so that you can react in a timely manner when PCs drift away from the main plot. That's what the backdrops for Savage Tide and other adventures do, and what the back half of every Pathfinder does.
|
The whole sea voyage was one gigantic set-piece, were the we couldn´t do anything, except talk amongst ourselves, and to some NPCs. Which would be cool, if it would MEAN something and CHANGE anything. But it is IRRELEVANT.
I don't know, my players have found many ways to divert themselves during Sea Wyvern's Wake. They've changed the outcome of encounters like Rowyn's revenge and the one with the false priest. In fact, the players created a side trek adventure ending up raiding the Temple of the Hopping Frog.
I'm thinking maybe that you players need to be more creative in trying to do things, or maybe you've tried and the GM hasn't let you divert from the story...Seems like some people on the train like to stay in their seats, while others like to explore the next car or maybe step outside of the box.
|
An adventure has to present a storyline. If it doesn't, it's not an adventrue, in my opinion; it's a sourcebook.
I'm not sure I agree with this academic distinction because I don't agree that adventures have to present a storyline.
The "story" (I don't like the term since IMO the story's what's told when the game is over, not when the game itself as it occurs) springs from what the players do in the game. It isn't provided in the written adventure.
What the adventure ideally provides, that's the tools/elements that will help the DM and player live an adventure. What matters in terms of railroad is how these elements interact and are connected to each other (i.e. how the players get from point A to NPC B to point C to event D). If there's a single connection between the adventure elements, that's a railroad. If there are different possible, spelled-out connections that can be played out in a variety of ways with the least effort on the DM's part, then the adventure isn't a railroad and does a proper job, IMO.
An adventure has to present a storyline. If it doesn't, it's not an adventure, in my opinion; it's a sourcebook.
I'm not sure I agree with this academic distinction because I don't agree that adventures have to present a storyline.
You are just using the term differently from the way that Mr. Jacobs is using it. All adventures should contain the basic elements of plotting: The player characters come into conflict and need to make decisions. The conflict may be against monsters, allies, environmental factors, or even each other (Paranoia, anyone?), but the presence of a defined conflict is core.
Once you have conflict, the need to make decisions and take action, you have a story.
|
What the adventure ideally provides, that's the tools/elements that will help the DM and player live an adventure. What matters in terms of railroad is how these elements interact and are connected to each other (i.e. how the players get from point A to NPC B to point C to event D). If there's a single connection between the adventure elements, that's a railroad. If there are different possible, spelled-out connections that can be played out in a variety of ways with the least effort on the DM's part, then the adventure isn't a railroad and does a proper job, IMO.
First:
Have you ever tried writing something that way?Not for a home game, but for something to be used by someone else.
The page count quickly becomes absurd, simply because of all the options and interconnections that must be considered. Eventually you hit a point where, as James Jacobs said, you have a sourcebook and not an adventure. You have a dozen random NPCs and encounters, with general notes about what they plan to do in the future.
Second:
That is still railroading.
I have had players whose idea of connecting to an adventure hook presentation is completely non-existent. Tell them they start in a city, they leave for the country. Tell them they start in a small, isolated village, everyone wants to be of an unusual race. These people broke Planescape adventures! Once you decide that any direct relation between two events is "railroading," you effectively define any setting development as such, and condemn all published products and any attempt at preliminary development. If the DM writes down how a merchant will respond to attempts to barter, it is railroading!
That is beyond too far the other way into improvisation.
|
|
James Jacobs on railroading:
I agree completely.
I am a major user of improvisation when I DM, but an adventure, published or otherwise, must have some essential structure, including a sequence of events. I do not see how that can possibly be conflated with railroading.
Your definitions and explanation of the leap from adventure to sourcebook match mine completely. I hope you stick to that as Pathfinder continues to develop.
|
|
(Spoilers, der)
To the OP: If your players wanted to take a different route, they were more than welcome to do so. They didn't have to go through the forest and into the cave. But the wise little gnome determined that as the best path. They could have found their way south by wandering through the center of the Isle, but you would have to be ready with encounters from the other adventures, and they would have to deal with the tougher encounters there.
As for the boat trip, how can a 3000 mile line from point A to point B be anything other than a railroad? The PC's agreed to go. They didn't have to. There were events that were designed to take place along the way, and the ONLY ones I might take issue with would be the two storms at the end. But I'm going to try to play those up as well as I can to make the PC's feel that the storms arrived and they have to deal with them, allowing them enough responses to smaller challenges (like saving people who fall overboard, etc.) to get them into the moment. And hopefully aftewards, they don't say, "Well obviously that was supposed to happen", and instead say, "Well, we tried our best, but it was too much to handle."
Everyone's mileage varies, of course, as to how much something feels like a railroad. If the DM just reads the events off one after the other, then that's the way it's going to feel. But if the PC's are at point A and they say they are going to point B, how can it be anything but that? It's not like they are in a position to change the way things are going to be at the destination, or anywhere else along the way. In the case of the Isle, they were shipwrecked and they need to get to Farshore, with survivors. What choices did they want?
Just an aside, shouldn't this post be in the ST forum?
All I want to point out is that any AP, whether written as such, or put together by a DM using various modules, is a railroad.
The DM has you start at point A, and you know that you will eventually get to point Z, and the DM knows which modules you will travel through to get there from point A.
As for the Isle of Dread issue, how should it have been rewritten? The whole thing was very set up the way it was on purpose, to make it easy to run. As for things that could happen to effect real change by actions of your players, why? Why should killing this or that creature change things? What meaningful choices to change things do you think you should have been able to do?
I agree that those encounters were tedious, and were simply there to offer some cool battles,and could definitely stand to be done differently.
However, thats when the DM needs to step in and be a DM. Paizo, WOTC, and anyone else has to write a module with all the pieces in it, and they offer up a way to fit thsoe pieces together. Still many modules need a lot more help to be better, and thats where the DM makes the difference.
Take Red Hand of Doom as an example. That is nothing but a huge railroad. However many people love it. The difference is that its easier to accept the required step by step encounters to achieve the desireed end result, because they make sense, etc...
So yes, Paizo could have definitely written it better, but that still doesn't mean that it excuses your DM from failing to step up and improve how it played out.
When we buy modules we have to accept the fact that it isn't necessarily written the best it can be written. They put what they could in the allowed page count. Its part of the nature of writing and printing modules. Some modules end up making this more obvious than others. So part of our job as DM's is to read the module and evaluate how well they were able to present the material. Any shortcomings need to be fixed by the DM, before running it.
This ideas that modules are always to be run as written is wrong. A module is nothing more than a time saving guideline that writes up the basic plot line, the NPC's, the monsters, and draws you the maps you'll most likely need. Its up to the DM to finish it. To flesh it out where needed.
Anyone who runs a module as written is seriously doing their players, themselves, and the adventure a huge disservice. There should always be some degree of individualization. There should always be a certain amount of things that happen in game that are unique to the group playing it, not scripted in the module.
Generally the more the module goes in its own direction the more fun I and my players find it to be. However, that is something I accept as my responsibility as the DM, not something I expect a module to do for me.
So my whole point is that its my opinion that the failing of this series of modules is a failing of your DM to do his part to make the modules work for your group. Your DM made the classic mistake of thinking the module did all the work for them. No module does all the work for you. It simply does as much as it can.
Mr Greer, Sir, I must say that I've not had the chance to see any of the STAP or the SCAP. I am, however, currently playing in the AoWAP and running the Pathfinder AP, which are wonderful. That aside, all I'm really here to say is kudos to you. I'm very glad to see that someone has the ioun stones to step up and defend their work. It's refreshing, and frankly heartening, to see someone verbally fight back as you did.
As I said, I haven't had a chance to look over the STAP, but from what I saw in the Savage Tidings in Dragon, it looked very well done. I believe I may need to save up and start getting some Dungeon back issues now. To all you guys and gals at Paizo, keep up the great work. I've offically decided that if I'm going to buy a module or adventure, it'll be a Paizo product as opposed to WotC. As long as you guys don't start making crap, you've got a lifetime subscriber, and maybe a bit of a "fanboi".
And for the record, Diplomacy checks be damned. You far exceeded the Rant check DC.
Warforged, I wholeheartedly applaud your decision - the Age of Worms covers a lot of ground and is a challenge for even seasoned players. The Savage Tide, in its own way, is a similar challenge, both to GM and to play in. And best of all, as with all things D&D 'module'-wise, they can always be modified, expanded, contracted and otherwise molded to fit the group you game with session after session. With long hindsight, I regret not cueing in to a good friend's acquisition of the original magazines both Dungeon and Dragon that detailed the Age of Worms. (Kyuss? fah! ... oh, dear... how deliciously malevolent ...)
Based on the Adventure Paths done by Paizo thusfar, I believe we are in for a maturation of the many writers who contribute to the game we love if all goes well. Each AP (SC, AoW, ST and now Pathfinder) show marked improvements as a whole 'being' campaign compared to its predecessors. And, as the numerous campaign journals - both here and on other hosting forums - attest, no two campaigns play exactly the same.
The future of the game shines brightly before us all, so high in the twilight sky, and we may never witness its like again, for weal or for woe.
Just an aside, shouldn't this post be in the ST forum?
I imagine that the Post Monster will either relocate it or eliminate it in due course Elorebaen. ^_^
You know, there are people who actually like to do, like, INFLUENCE stuff? Like, making decisions that matter?
Not to be pedantic but technically Railroading is "like" making decisions that matter.
Since this seems to be what the OP wanted I am bemused as to why when, in his opinion, the adventure delivered it he is so upset.
Elcian
|
Speaking of the OP, he's been quiet on this thread for quite some time. Shame too, a lot of reasonable discussion has been since presented, and he seems to have missed it.
I would like to see his response(s) to some of what has been said here. Maybe he's been (at least in part) convinced.
I agree with a lot of what has been said here. Sea Wyvern's Wake is a railroad, but it has to be. And you (as a DM) can certainly add or subtracts parts of that to liven it up as you see fit. I certainly added a lot to it, I made the sea voyage a central part of the campaign. I also adjusted the shipwreck scene to add in a LOT of possibilities for the players to either avoid the reefs or limit the damage they'd sustain if they were able to make some rolls.
Once you arrive at Farshore, it's as wide open as an adventure path can get. You have an open ended list of options of what to do for the two months between when you arrive and the pirate fleet arrives. You as the player can choose to do as much or as little as you want with that time, including things on the "official" list, and anything else useful you can think of. As another has said, they pretty much turn you loose on the isle of dread and your interactions there may or may not help your cause at Farshore to varying degrees. If you even decide to care about Farshore and/or help defend it. The storyline encourages you to, certainly; you're supposed to respect and genuinely like Lavinia and want to see her colony prosper, which should provide the motivation required to help her defend it. But to suggest you are railroaded to do it is not true. In fact, you may not even be a follower of Lavinia at all at this point, if you chose to ally with Rowyn in the first adventure.
To throw in my two cents. I've been running STAP and we've been having a great time. Yes the SWW and Here there be monsters are a bit railroady, as is the nature of an adventure that focuses on a journey from point A to B. However they are still fun, and have lots of interesting challenges and encoutners along the way. I mean the Sargossa is awesome, and the shrine to Demogorgon is real fun as well. Later in the campaign there is a lot more opportunity for the PCs to start making their own choices and taking control of things. Tides of Dread is great for this and so are pretty much all the rest of the adventures in the campaign (especially Enemies of my Enemy and Serpents of Scuttlecove).
If you are planning to design an adventure path, a certain ammount of railroading is inevitable, but I think its a good trade off. Yes I like designing my own campaings and customizing the adventures to the goals of the PCs, but that is a huge ammount of work, and some of us have lives beyond gaming (though I have been spending way too much time on this message board lately), so an adventure path (especially a good one like AoW and STAP and RotRL) is a great time saver.
|
Creative Director
|
Personally... I think "railroading" is good for the game. I don't call it railroading, though... I call it, "The GM is organized and has a plotline for the PCs to follow." I've been in groups where the GM basically lets the PCs decide what to do, where to go, and how to do it. Those campaings aren't very fun for me, since that basically results in 4 to 6 players each wanting to do something different, lots of arguments about what to do, and lots of false starts and unfinished leads. It all basically comes down to style of play, really.
If your style of play is one where a "railroad" is a detriment to having fun, you should absolutely not run pre-written adventures. ALTERNATIVELY: You should have an extensive library of adventures to draw on at a moment's notice, so that when you find out what the PCs are up to and where they want to go, you can go to your adventure library and find one that fits. In fact, this is the better option, since it means you're buying more adventures. :-)
"Railroading" is good when the line leads where the players want to go. It's bad when the "rail job" forces them into situations that don't make sense for them.
It's the DM's job to present the plotline in an appealing way. If he gives the impression that the party has no choice but to follow the rails, they will inevitably rebel.
Conversely, it's the players' job to keep an open mind about the path they're following. If they decide to be contrary, deliberately ignoring the "plot wagon", then the DM needs to find out what they really want to do, as the planned plot obviously doesn't appeal. I've had players that refused to cooperate because they wanted to "hijack" the game into something revolving solely around their character, but most people are more reasonable than that.
|
|
I don't really consider it railroading per se, either, but there's a certain subtlety to how things are presented that can really make it feel that way to the players.
When they start saying things like, "Yeah, you planned this encounter, too, didn't you", then there's a railroading problem.
Well, of course you planned it. What was supposed to happen, nothing? As long as it feels like a random event, who cares if it's pre-planned? Events and encounters that occur along a line can seem perfectly random (or likely if you know you've invaded someone's territory) and be accepted that way. I think it comes down to the attitudes of the players more than anything. There's a certain amount of something that the players need to feel about the events to keep it from feeling like railroading, even though in many ways, that's exactly what it is.
That's why I want to add some events during the SWW storms to make the players feel involved with it, and make it seem like something they have to work through rather than simply be a spectator to it all, and even feel like their successes could delay the inevitable and their failures bring it on faster (although in all likelihood, it will all happen at the same time anyway).
Players that understand how adventures must have a certain structure will ultimately realize they've been railroaded, but that can't really be helped, I don't think.
Nothing new to say, others have said it, but I'll say it again, in my own words:
Adventure Paths are (in my definitions) not campagins. They are a separate entity, in which a specific beggining leads to specific events which leads to a specific climax. There is room for a great deal of variance in the areas between those plot points, some built into the AP, some crafted by the DM.
A campaign is run from a sourcebook (even a mental one in the DMs fertile mind) in which players can do what they like, as they like, and must be prepared to deal with the consequences of the actions.
Finally, railroading happens very little these days, please stop bandying the term about. Railroading is where your choices DO NOT MATTER as players. Want to leave the dungeon? You can't. Teleport out? Doesn't work. Carve your way out with an admantine axe? Bounces off the wall. That is railroading, and it is as rare as a two headed turtle. Happens, but not often.
Sea Wyvern's Wake has some ringer situations, that were very "harsh" on the PCs ability to control their destiny. But if you complain like this when you wash up into a mat of sargasso, do you whine the same when you get killed by the monster 10 CRs higher than you? Or the one your level that you natural 1'd the save against?
To be fair, in the sargasso example, a good DM will give you options. A DC 30 listen check for the person on watch to notice the sound of the water on the hull has changed. A DC 20 wisdom check for anyone with the scent ability to notice the seaweed smell becoming stronger. And if you still get stuck in it, if the druid wants to use control/diminish plants to carve a way out, let them do it. It will still take enough time with even that incredibly effective spell (happened in my game) that you will get to attack them plenty of times with sargasso monsters. Some players will try to see whats going on, and deal with the source. Others will be intimidated by the numbers of the sargasso and concerned for their non-combat compatriots on the boat. So let them seal up the boat and be effectively "Immune" to the critters at night. But let them know that food supplies are being depleted (a cleric or druid might be able to compensate for that). Give the players options. If one option is better than another, thats not railroading, its just the way it is, like real life. Starve to death hiding from seaweed monsters, or set out to try and see if they can be stopped at some source point.
Bah, rant over. Sorry for the vitrol, but the railroading nonsense is part of the reason I left the WotC boards for good. Please don't bring it with you to here.
Mr. Jacobs and Mr Greer have written fine adventures for me and my players. I have to modify them quite a bit given I run a homebrew world.
One of the coolest things happened about four months ago, one of my players asked if this was a "paizo" adventure (it was heavily modified TNIH). I stated it was and he smiled and said "cool, you are more into the game when you run those."
If you feel as if you are being railroaded then get off the train.
Mr. Jacobs? I need something similar to the Red Hand of Doom adventure fairly soon. any chance you could crank one out right quick?
Many thanks.
I'm surprised at the OP's mention of railroading in/on the Isle of Dread. Quite the opposite, I've found (especially ToD) to be quite open and encouraging of exploration. My players went out of their way to explore beyond the natural hooks of the printed material. I strongly suspect one of two things are happening in the OP's case.
1: The DM is either not encouraging--or discouraging--exploration beyond the printed material (which would appear to contrast with the OP's interests), or is making arbitrary decisions (DM fiat) that deny the players a sense of accomplishment.
2: The OP is not taking the initiative in the gameplay, and is expecting the DM just to drop the next hook in front of him, which he has to pick up, lest he interfere with the story. I've had players who metagame, and ask me "Is this plot hook a subquest, or do we really have to do it?" No other question ticks me off at the table like that one; however, it is indicative that the adventure path can be seamlessly blended into a campaign, giving a much richer gameplay experience.
As a DM of STAP, I've had instances where my players scratched their heads, wondering how they could avoid an event, if at all...
Still, "railroading" is just a dirty term for "plot". Like it or not, any good story has a good plot--a series of events which justify the actions of the characters. Stories without the focus of a good plot run a heavy risk of dissolving into a vague series of encounters without any good reason. If the Savage Tide Adventure Path left every impetus to the PCs, where would you have started? Would you continue on your trek to the Isle of Dread, or would you have abandoned the quest, to pursue something less "railroaded"? If you answer toward the latter, you should reconsider playing in an adventure path, as they do not appear to be the product you enjoy; instead, consider becoming evolved in a modular campaign, perhaps with adventures from back issues of Dungeon.
I actually like single room dungeons. I haven't played Tides of dread or Savage tide at all for that matter (just finished AoW and started Runelords, which is awesome), so I don't really know what kind of single room encounters are there. But basically I think that there's lot of options for players in a single room. There are many ways in d&d to control the battlefield. If you see a temple with a door, you don't have to just go through the door and fight the monster inside. look for alternative routes, or why the heck, lure the monster outside. Or did I take the statement too seriously that all you can choose is the initiative? But it seems that our style of play is different. Our group does'nt care if there's some railroading in dungeons, as long as they can decide what to do outside of them. BTW. Thanks to James for Burnt offerings, it's the most open ended adventure I have DM:d this far, didn't even alter it.
I have not played or DM'd Savage Tide, but have read it, and just finished DMing a very successful Age of Worms, so I feel at least vaguely qualified to chip in here...
For me, the things that did bug me about the AoW were generally the transitions between adventures and the set-ups for each adventure. Major rail-roading there, by my definition, i.e. generally some NPC spoon-feeds the PC's the information and motivation to go to the next adventure. So I fixed it (except that island, it was lame, I'd have to have totally re-written it to fix it properly even tough I did at least fix the beginning to give the PC's genuine choice with concequence on how to get there and so on). Yes, this took some time and effort, but I'd say it provided a far superior end product, where more often than not the players naturally went from one hook to the next, one adventure to the next, without ever feeling like I (through NPC's) was spoon-feeding them or restricting their options.
If I were to ask for anything from the publishers, could they go back in time, it would be to spend less of the precious word count on elaborate back-story and adventure rail-roads to get things going, and just provide a few quick ideas for hooks and then dive into the action. A good DM reads ahead on a set of linked adventures, and is always thingong of how best to hook the PC's into the next one without it ever being obvious - it can and should feel like it's totally the right thing they do and totally their own ingeneous idea based on their goals, ideals, and adventures to date. No game designer can do that for me, so save the words for the good stuff. Like the old 1st edition adventures - they were often just a little bit too light on intro and background, but they were much closer to what works best for me, i.e. they were full of materials to create adventures, not full of story (as has been said elswehere, the story is what you get when the adventurers do stuff).
Having read Savage Tide, the first few adventures did really turn me off, in that the only good hooks seemed to be some NPC employing the PC's to do a job. As a DM, I pretty much swear to never employ this one, and as a player there's nothing that annoys me more, I find it to be very lazy DM / designer practice (like, you can't take the PC's backgrounds and future goals and work something from all that).
p.s. if anyone's interested, I've posted some of my "fixes" in the AoW threads, especially for some of the latter adventures which really suffered poor transitions and poor inflexible setups IMO.
Firstly, how about cutting down on the namecalling a little? Cos I think some of the issues you bring up with the structure of the AP are valid, but you're not going to get anything constructive done about that by rocking up here and abusing people.
I'm not a huge fan of all the the one-room dungeons myself to be honest, and I do think ToD would have been improved by cutting one out and either replacing it with something less 'samey' or else by expanding one of the remaining two. I'm not sure if this small dungeon syndrome constitutes 'railroading' in the generally used sense of the word, but it is rather suboptimal I do agree (and yes, I know there are page count and space limitations on Dungeon adventures, but it's hard not to think the pages spent on the Jaguar Temple could have been more productively used some other way).
But bear in mind the final encounter of the adventure - the attack on Farshore - is about as non-linear and non-railroady as it is possible to get. The PCs get to prepare the ground, choose the tactics, invent nasty schemes, set traps, choose where to position themselves, etc, etc, etc. And without getting into spoilers, there's plenty of tactical wriggle room in some of the later adventures too (if somewhat less strategic wriggle room, which I think is a more serious issue with the AP - but that's been discussed to death elsewhere).
But speaking as a GM, I wouldn't have run ToD the way yours seems to have run it. Three back-to-back minidungeons is far too much and would frustrate me too - I would have interspersed it with intrigue at Farshore, electioneering, planning and constructing defenses, perhaps a minor mystery or two, just to give it depth and variety. The Farshore article lays the groundwork for all that stuff pretty comprehensively, but it does need a bit of work to make it all happen.
I think the weakest parts of the STAP are due to how ambitious it is. It dumps the PCs on an uncharted island full of demons, ancient ruins and prehistoric monsters, which is a great start, but there's simply no way to cover all the possible ways the PCs can jump once they're there. Same sort of thing happens in Wells of Darkness/Enemies of my Enemy - there's a simply massive sandbox available to play in, but in an attempt to cover as much of it as possible in limited space, the various parts of the written adventure can seem rather perfunctory. STAP is exploration-based whereas AoW, for instance, tended to be very site-based. Kings of the Rift and Champion's Belt, for instance, are varied and offer a lot of options for both combat and non-combat encounters, but are geographically limited. They both take place pretty much in a single dungeon complex each. AoW is, I think, a more complete and ready-to-go campaign out of the box simply because in it the PCs can complete the AP largely by going from dungeon to dungeon with few breaks in between. In order to work, STAP requires more planning and preparation on the GM's part, to fill in the gaps between what the magazines give you. Straight out of the box, the gaps in STAP would be much more noticeable than those in AoW. Though admittedly, AoW fills in those gaps by having an archmage NPC tell the PCs where to go and what to do, and I'd find that much more annoying than the way STAP works. Still, different strokes for different folks I guess.
(FWIW, I'm GMing for a group that is two sessions into Sea Wyvern's Wake. We spent all last session dealing with Fr Feres' illness and with a series of attempts to poison the wizard. Both very small encounters in the scheme of Dungeon mag pagecount, and the poisoning business required a fair bit of fancying up around the edges, but plenty entertaining, atmospheric, and ominous...)
I think you bring up some really good points Haldefast, and I hope that your tone doesn't detract from your argument when those who matter read what you have said.
And when I suggested that you should get a new DM, I don't mean that anyone is playing wrong (I know you weren't addressing that to me), but rather that following along with published stuff is not, in my mind, really that fun. And that you guys might want to try a different approach to your campaigns than trying to follow things the way Paizo prints them. It takes a little work, but not THAT much work if you have the published stuff as a resource.
You see, I HAVE made the Isle of Dread into a site based encounter, but my players may not even travel there, so... it's ready, but it depends on what kind of decisions they make and where they want to take their stand against the f+++ed up evil I have concocted.
Why don't you try doing the DMing for a while? From your outrage, I suspect you might get some satisfaction out of doing things the way you like.
|
|
.. there are some serious issues with D&D that might lead to doom.
Yes, and they are summarized by the title 4E. ;)
I feel I have to say sorry to all of you fine Paizo messageboard members. Maybe I shouldn't have dared to disagree with him bashing Erik Mona at his very own blog (if he's the person I think he is but I'm actually willing to bet money on it) and it may be because of this disagreement that he felt compelled to post his "thoughts" on these boards. This said you shouldn't expect him to show any respect to JJ and other Paizo members (or to any other person). He is the only one to know what the "real" D&D is and quite obviously Erik Mona and James Jacobs aren't. In fact in Germany he is known to be the only person knowing what role-playing is all about. He would've invented it so to say if EGG hadn't been faster.
If you wanna know what I mean (and have some german language skills) take a look at his comments about Erik Monas "Open Letter" to the fans regarding the future of Paizo.
And Haldefast, if, by chance, you are NOT Settembrini, than take my apologies for this mistake. You're posts seem to be written in the same vein though.
I play weekly, too, Haldefast.
It ain't easy to find the time to alter the published stuff I have and it sure would be nice to see stuff that leaves more options for players.
The bonus for me is my players are green so I can use my old stuff to cover some of the paths they may choose to take. I also read really f+*!ing fast... that helps.
So without any acrimony, here's to seeing some more stuff that leaves options open.
Cheers!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
The sea voyage is a type of adventure I've never used before. Weeks on end in one location with certain things happening at certain times - I'm not sure how my group will fare yet either.
Anyway, if your whole group doesn't like the style, there's nothing to stop the DM cutting it or replacing it. You could all start the next bit with a few sentences from the DM.
I made it clear to all the players at the start of my own STAP game that there was an underlying plot progression that I intended to follow - a grand plot. I told them that their actions would be vital to the overall story, but that they were also part of a bigger whole. They were happy to go with it.
When comparing your own play style and expectations to a pre-written adventure, it's almost unavoidable to find it wanting in certain areas. In that case, it would be wiser to adapt the written source material - as you say your DM is busy doing. Reading your posts, I see some very good points, but like other posters I also see a lack of openness to any other viewpoint. With that attitude, a discussion is impossible and your frustration will not go away.
Let's have a look at this piece by piece. I do assume that you, at least at some time in your gaming career, have GM'ed
Hi there!
Interesting. First, let me state why I was attacking James Jacobs as Mr Railroad, and his Union Pacific Cronies: Just read their answers.
Instead of adressing the concrete examples I made, there is a general defense "all adventures are railroads."
Which is blatantly untrue.
Thanks for calling all dissenters liars.
Especially, since as I am sorry to say, that is a mistaken assumption. An adventure building up to a plot-linked finale needs previous plot related incidences to prepare for that. The precise placement of these is optional, their occurence usually is not.And "placement" is part of the GM's job, not the designers, since the designer cannot really foresee every possible location for the encounter - unless you are willing to pay several times the price of a normal issue of "Dungeon" just to accomodate the extra information.
Any "adventure" consisting solely of fixed, non-plot-relevant encounters is nothing but a more or less well designed "roadmap", call it a 'sourcebook' if you want. It is not an adventure, which, by definition, requires some storyline.
It is either what you, James Jacobs believe, or it is what you just say to back up on your writers, which is a good move. But you should know which writers are popular and which ones may produce offensive modules. Surely you know modules from the times of 1st edition?
You say these are Sourcebooks, and cannot be replicated.
For one, JJ wrote part of the STAP himself. One of the superior parts, too. And, he is, as witnessed in the debate over the "WoD" installment, not above accepting and agreeing to valid criticism. A rare thing, and he has my due respects for that.
As for the first editions I know (that is 95% or more ), most of them were pretty inane puzzle pieces where you entered a dungeon, tried to solve its internal mechanism an killed the BBEG at the end. The great exceptions were the "I" series from, I-3 onwards, the original "Ravenloft" Module and.... no, not much.
These things neither had much of a story, nor complexity, nor a story. Just my 2 cents, YMMV. If you want to uphold these as shining beacons of "good storytelling and rousing plot-driven adventure", then someone is sadly mistaken
The carte-blanche that is issued here by defernsive posters who do not adress the issues of the actual complaints: "all story needs rr" just does not float here. We have arranged ourselves with being unable to act strategically in such an AP. We knew what to expect.
But we also expect superiour d&d experience!And to us that means a superiour DUNGEONS or equally open-ended, unstructured complex challenges. Like the two instances of the Whispering Cairn, Kongen Thulnir, Alhaster, Return to Alhaster, the Free City Arena catacombs, or even the first STAP installment of James Jacobs himself. All those had limitations as to how to get there and what happens afterward. But those where large and varied playgrounds to actually game in.
I certainly get the feeling that what you describe as the "D&D experience" is more of a very personal expectation of crawling into or through a multi-room dungeon-complex, battling ( just noting that each and every location you mention you measure in terms of "combats required inside" ) through everything living inside and finally get to the "McGuffin" or the BBEG.
I call that "Diablo feeling" or "Hack 'n Slay", but certainly neither roleplaying nor "typical D&D" (it might have been 25 years ago, well but some people grew up since ) .Again YMMV, but I intended to point that out. If you like huge dungeons full of creepiness, go check out the "Necromancer" line of modules, who tend to have a low amount of plot, and a vast amount of dark chambers with monsters.
And to us that means a superiour DUNGEONS or equally open-ended, unstructured complex challenges. Like the two instances of the Whispering Cairn, Kongen Thulnir, Alhaster, Return to Alhaster, the Free City Arena catacombs, or even the first STAP installment of James Jacobs himself. All those had limitations as to how to get there and what happens afterward. But those where large and varied playgrounds to actually game in.Not so on the isle of Dread!
Again, I would like to know,what has the person who wrote that adventure (Tides of Dread, I assume he has posted in this thread) thought of me and my buddies?
Okay, we had the fantastic choice of choosing the order in which we were allowed to fight in set-piece encounters.!
A) he probably hasn't thought of you at all. He was writing an interesting, rather free-form piece for an outdoor based campaign. One, as outlined, with a HUGE outside Dungeon, called the Isle of Dread
B) Now, please, how is that different from picking your fights in an inside dungeon complex ? Not very much at all ?It seems that to some people, fighting a monster in a single room with a niche for treasure attached is okay as long as the maps and the illustrations look awesome. But not with us, and not with many other people.
As said before, what is the bone of contention ? It's just the same in an inside dungeon. Just that everything outside the "mapped" location is wilderness (and one definitely on par in danger with any dungeon - unless your GM is skimping on his job at presenting it that way ).
Besides - are you certain that there actually is only one room ?
I think the line of defense that the author took, in attacking our DM does not help. As a writer, you have to communicate with the DM. If you think our DM is doing a bad job, then you might want to ask yourself how can you communicate better next time.
Ah.... yes.... One GM does not get the point and is unable to run things properly, and now THAT is the writer's fault ? When it works well for hundreds of others ? Lifelong experience leads me to a different conclusion...
BTW, how do you, as a player, would actually know what is written in the STAP installments anyway ? And hence could rule outw with any certainty that the GM is not to blame ?
Again, it looks as if you do not only think low of me and my co-players intelligence (ugh, just let them fight some big bad monster three times in a row. They may choose the order, yay!), but you clearly state that you think lowly of our DM. I fear I do not wish to play stuff that is written by people who think lowly of me or my DM.
Well, it might be that you, despite your opinion to the opposite, are not the target audience for the STAP perhaps ? Something your GM might have noticed when he decided to play the STAP ? And which he choose to overlook ? Or adapt his STAP to what his group actually prefered ? Or did a proper job of it ?
besides ther being no instance of the STAP group fighting the self same monsters three times in a row, unless your GM makes it so...Well - there are people who don't like Shakespear. That still does not make him a hack.
The stuff we encountered in that module were really really simplistic.A one eyed lizard = nothing but a single combat. Please compare to the complexity of the adventures I cited
Zozilaha = nothing but one room with a single combat and a treasure room
Temple = nothing but one room with a single combat and a treasure room
What one-eyed Lizard ? If you are refering to a certain T-Rex, well there is a whole social encounter and pre-plot leading up to it and also increasing the depth of that particular piece
As for the old bat-god ? Perhaps that was never meant as a "hack 'n Slay" encounter - especially at CR 14 to an assumed group level of around 10th ? And originated in a previous part of the STAP ? And involved an encounter with the Olmani tribesmen , including some combat(t)y shenanigans there ?
If you missed on all of that... the writer's fault or your GM's for playing around ? Somebody else's ?
I only remember one adventure from the AoW that was like it: The one with the "railroading druids" on the magical island. One had four encounters, and that was the whole adventure, some Titan, some Tree and some feather to be stolen.
One gets the distinct impression that to you and your group "interesting" parts of the adventure are those with combat.
Well, as a quick hint, that's not on the menu for the STAP, and perhaps, ask your GM why he is running it for you folks in the first place ?
Could it be that Paizo is not knowledgable, able or willing to tackle the step from the "Basic Set" to the "Expert Set"?Could it be, that overland adventures are poorly understood?...
Could it be that some players and groups never outgrew the kindergarden days of DnD in 1st edition ? And everyone else did ? Sorry,, that is a plainly egotist and childish comment in the vein of "please keep the world in the way I like it".
Hmm, let me put it this way - a lot of players and GMs (like the app 200+ I know and GMed for) are and have been for like the last two decades sick of huge underground structure full with monstrosities who dwell there for no good reason and without much of a motivation to antagonize the characters besides hunger and greed.
IMHO experience, the adventures and pre-generated campaigns that stood out as "masterpieces" were those, who had a dramatic, involving plotline, which at times might have included stalking through a complex architectural maze (like the "Desert of Desolation" series ), but were generally plot-driven, confronting the characters with these dungeons at dramatically opportune times aka known as "railroading", to use your terminology.
The complexes you mentioned from the AoW are actually what kept _every_ GM I know from actually running that series without heavy modifications. because they are plainly sickeningly boring to a good many people.
Oh, and has it ever occured to you, that the entire Isle of Dread is in fact a huge, open-air dungeon ? Or has the absence of walls, torchholders and doorframes distracted you from that obvious conclusion ? The few ruin encounters ( I am unaware of how far you have advanced and am not going to refer to anything beyond ToD ) are just "dungeon-parts" which are actually built up.
The rest is .... an outside dungeon
Finally - it is absolutely up to your GM to run, adapt and present any published adventure. If he cannot avoid giving you the feeling that you are being "railroaded", he is doing a shoddy job. IMHO , a very shoddy job, because, as appearant from your posts, he is unable to even improvise or adapt for a non-standard response action from the players. Like skipping, rewriting, re-timing or repositioning encounters to other places and your specific group.
Which is hardly Paizo fault now, is it (unless you got him from the Paizo online shop ) ? So, if things are "unenjoyable", perhaps look for the problems somewhere closer to home.
When my players did not want to go through the "Dark Pass" route pointed out to them by Urol (who was actually liked by some in the group ) , I placed the entire complex in some other mountanous spot on their chosen route , had them" discover" it, run through it (enjoying themselves tremendously while doing so ) and them being none the wiser afterwards.
And - in all honesty - they only would have been if the had actually read the STAP ahead and known what precisely to expect where. That's called "cheating" by some...
But yeah, right, I changed something in a pre-written adventure !!! Now, is that heresy against gaming scripture or just your duty as the GM ? I at least subscribe to the second opinion...
You still haven't explained why you feel that Tides of Dread, which is one of the most non-linear adventures ever, is rail-roading, while Age of Worms, which you so openly praise, is filled with lame railroading hooks and meat-grinding. Why didn't you and the rest of your fine group complain that every adventure started with: "In order to continue this Path, you have to consult Sage X in city Y."
You call an attack on a coastal town, where plenty of options that the players can do are detailed, railroading, while you wish there would have been more DUNGEONS? To me, Dungeons are the most cramped, sandboxed and least creative of all adventures, and therefore, to me, your logic is flawed and pointless.
|
|
"Railroading" is good when the line leads where the players want to go. It's bad when the "rail job" forces them into situations that don't make sense for them.
It's the DM's job to present the plotline in an appealing way. If he gives the impression that the party has no choice but to follow the rails, they will inevitably rebel.
Conversely, it's the players' job to keep an open mind about the path they're following. If they decide to be contrary, deliberately ignoring the "plot wagon", then the DM needs to find out what they really want to do, as the planned plot obviously doesn't appeal. I've had players that refused to cooperate because they wanted to "hijack" the game into something revolving solely around their character, but most people are more reasonable than that.
You have expressed exactly what I wanted to say. Please consider this my concurring opinion. Thanks.
I would like to think Erik brought me the AoW, whereas James forced the STAP on us.
I don't understand Haldefast??? James is forcing you and your group to play the STAP?
James stop making them play the STAP right now Mister or else!!!
It sounds as if this AP is not for you or your group or the capabilites of your DM to tailor it to your needs. If your so unhappy then perhaps oh I don't know try something else?
You still haven't explained why you feel that Tides of Dread, which is one of the most non-linear adventures ever, is rail-roading, while Age of Worms, which you so openly praise, is filled with lame railroading hooks and meat-grinding. Why didn't you and the rest of your fine group complain that every adventure started with: "In order to continue this Path, you have to consult Sage X in city Y."
You call an attack on a coastal town, where plenty of options that the players can do are detailed, railroading, while you wish there would have been more DUNGEONS? To me, Dungeons are the most cramped, sandboxed and least creative of all adventures, and therefore, to me, your logic is flawed and pointless.
I guess it's because he feels everything but bashing through a dungeon, picking doors at random or leisure is "railroading"
and I fully agree with your take on dungeons, Trellian =)
It might seem like railroading. But I think it's all in how you play it, how you run it.
It's odd to me, reading this thread, because while I'm getting all set to modify the Savage Tide Adventure Path to suit my campaign world, my players' preferences and my own, I love the inspiration of it. To me it offers a variety of settings, a really interesting concept for the Isle as a combination of Poe/Lovecraft/King Kong and has a cool combination of a town setting, wilderness settings, dungeons and oceangoing settings. How neat is that?
Also I have to say that there are throughout the AP sidebars that advise the effects of pc actions. The pcs are entirely free to abandon Lavinia's cause, side with the Kellanis, side with the Savage Pirates, or run mother naked through the isle picking berries if they want to. There are consequences but hey, that's gaming.
|
|
Railroad
You keep using that word...
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Halderfast, I think what you are really upset about is the lack of what you undestand to be a real dungeon.
If I may make a suggestion. Stop playing your current campaign and pick up something like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. If you are not having fun it becomes your fault after a while for continuing to do what you are not enjoying.
Having read Savage Tide, the first few adventures did really turn me off, in that the only good hooks seemed to be some NPC employing the PC's to do a job. As a DM, I pretty much swear to never employ this one, and as a player there's nothing that annoys me more, I find it to be very lazy DM / designer practice (like, you can't take the PC's backgrounds and future goals and work something from all that).
This criticism is pretty unfair, considering that the designer/writer has to come up with a hook without knowing anything about the backgrounds of the characters or the interests of the players. Furthermore, they need to come up with one that appeals to as wide a range of characters and players as possible AND provides a tie-in to the central story-line of the AP. Given those restrictions, there are a limited number of hooks available that are suitable for 1st level characters. NPC interaction having a greater role in ST than in AoW, using the patron hook allows the designers to come up with a way to tie the various adventures together while setting up the Savage Tide threat and emphasize the fact that the campaign will be more than "kick in the door and kill the monster."
|
|
Barring any further questions that need answer from me personally, I will retire from this thread.
I think Trellian's question deserves an answer from you personally:
You still haven't explained why you feel that Tides of Dread, which is one of the most non-linear adventures ever, is rail-roading, while Age of Worms, which you so openly praise, is filled with lame railroading hooks and meat-grinding.
In the event that you were just thread-crapping, Haldefast - which I define as taking a dump and then walking away holding your nose, instead of helping rake it into fertilizer for the community - I'll hazard a guess that players like yourself, who like big dungeons, want tactical freedom, while players who enjoyed Tides of Dread and thought it was "the perfect sandbox" want strategic freedom.
Tactical freedom: In AoW, the dungeon in Three Faces of Evil offered lots of possibilities on a 5 foot grid. You could scout ahead a dozen rooms and then devise a plan of attack, rile up the inhabitants and lead them on a chase, try to create strife between the factions, etc. Your actions mattered in the sense that your interactions with the dungeon environment determine what happened next; if you did your homework and prepared well, you'd be rewarded with victory. But there wasn't a lot of strategic freedom - viewed from a larger-scale perspective, the whole dungeon is reduced to going in, achieving a goal, and taking it to a sage to learn where to go next.
Strategic freedom: Tides of Dread gives you a situation, an onrushing event, and a lot of possible options you can take to change the situation and prepare for the event. It's open-ended on the large-scale perspective, because it's up to the players to choose how to prepare, both "when do we do this" and "do we want to do this or that". And your decisions matter because there's an innovative victory point mechanic that uses your success in the sub-quests to determine the outcome of the final event. But what I think you're getting at, Haldefast, when you complain about one-room dungeons is that the subquests in Tide of Dread don't offer a lot of tactical freedom - you won't be preparing a base of operations in this part of the dungeon, scouting out that part, and launching a strike into the next.
Let me know if I'm on the right track here, Haldefast; if not I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If our group does not like single rooms with a monster in them in lieu of real Dungeons, if we do not see the onstensibly unavoidable linkage of AP and RR, then we are dumb and playing wrong.
Huh. I thought that was your point - people who don't play like you are dumb and playing wrong (e.g., those who like story-heavy adventures).
Some people like more rails than others. That doesn't make the product inferior - it just means it's not to your taste. You might as well go yell at McDonald's for only serving vanilla ice cream when what you really like is chocolate.
If you don't like STAP, fine. If you want to complain that it's not open enough for your play style, knock yourself out. Just quit the whiny little passive aggressive attacks which are basically asserting that the only style of adventure that is valid is the open ended type that you like. You'll spend a lot less time flinging poo and a lot more time engaging in a worthwhile conversation.
Oh wait, you're not interested in engaging in a worthwhile conversation. You just want to fling poo. Countless posters have tried to engage you in a thoughtful conversation, but you just continue to rant about some imaginary conspiracy and complain about "Mr. Jacobs, conducter of the railroad, blah, blah, blah."
Learn to post with some humility and perspective or go away. I'm sick of hearing you whine. I speak for myself and many other players like me.
A bunch of abusive stuff...
This will be my last response to you Haldefast. Take it however you want. I'm probably wasting my breath, but, hey, I have some time.
First off, you don't really deserve any answer at all when your concerns are expressed in such a hamfisted way and couched in insults and condescendingly snide trollish sarcasm. In the future, if you continue with this approach, you won't get any and don't act all surprised and idignant about it. This is a pretty decent and respectful community and we tend to treat each other with a good bit more dignity. However, in the spirit of trying to peacefully address you in a little nicer way than the first time, here goes:
1) Whatever schizm you're inventing with regards to the Paizo staff is only in your head. Seriously. If you noticed an absence in Erik writing stuff for STAP, keep in mind that he's had other projects he's been involved in and has his hands full trying to manage the new Paizo product lines and trying to steer Paizo Publishing in a direction that will be most beneficial for them and its fans. He was also no longer the Editor-In-Chief of Dungeon at the time, thus not as involved with Dungeon as before (or so I assume).
2) Though I should really be discussing this with your DM, not you, you wanted a response so if it spoils things for you, well that's what you get for asking.
With regards to Tides of Dread, the encounters detailed in the adventure have specific repercussions and reasons why they are there.
Zotzilaha is a part the Olman pantheon and we thought it'd be very cool to include an encounter with one of his vestiges. He also played a role in connecting several different adventures through the Tooth of Ahazu and the bat idol found in The Sea Wyvern's Wake. (Did you find them?) Appeasing him also means gaining the aid of the Olman villagers to defend Farshore. As far as one room dungeons, there was a veritable maze of tunnels riddling that volcano which meant your DM could easily throw in additional material to expand on that section if he wanted. Space constraints and the fact that it had little to do with the theme of the adventure meant not detailing a bunch of extraneous chambers, but that shouldn't have stopped your DM if he wanted to add stuff.
The Temple of the Jaguar was never intended to be a sprawling dungeon complex, but it was by no means an Orc and Pie encounter area. The ruin was fairly small. You had a huge snake hidden in the jungle foliage over the temple entrance and then an open chamber with totem animals surrounding a dais which was an illusion concealing a deep pit filled with tainted water. I originally had a leech swarm from Stormwack in the water, but I think James Jacobs thought it was too deadly. A rope ladder allowed the PCs to climb halfway down the pit to a narrow ledge and a tunnel descending around the pit to a large shrine. The couatl encounter in the shrine was also one that would result in aid for Farshore. It was intended as a roleplay encounter, but it could also play out a number of other ways depending on how your DM wanted to run things.
The encounter with the grizzled old T-Rex was intended to be an ode to the old X1 cover. I had hoped people would make that connection. You obviously didn't, but that may not be your fault since you describe it only as a "one-eyed lizard". The T-Rex was horribly scarred from counless fights it had won (missing one forelimb, an eye, scars all over its body, a magical weapon wedged into its scales) and was described as the oldest of its kind on the island. It had survived on the Isle of Dread all of the years since it made its first appearance on the cover of X1.
All that aside, the T-Rex is encountered with a group of phanatons fleeing from it. This was set up as both a way to re-introduce old players and introduce new ones to this race of creatures and allow the players a chance to form an alliance with them.
Other than the opening encounter, ALL of the encounters in Tides of Dread are optional, and even the pirate encounter could be opted out if your DM didn't want to use it. You don't have to go to any of those places. The first couple pages of the adventure are full of descriptions of all kinds of interesting areas on the main island and on the smaller islands around it. The backdrop article supporting the adventure has additional adventure ideas and fleshed out NPCs to interract with. You could run an entire campaign just off of the adventure and backdrop article, which is exactly what Gary Holian and I intended. It is both a source book and an adventure roled into one. Add to that the supporting Savage Tidings article for it in Dragon and you have a wealth of material.
You can't blame me or Paizo if you missed all of that or if your DM isn't utilizing all of the material he's been provided with. Again, talk to your DM because maybe he missed it or simply decided he didn't want to use any of it because it might have "derailed" his game.
3) You have made it blatantly clear that you like hack & slash, dungeoncrawling adventures. Therefore, I suggest you and your group have a discussion to decide whether or not an AP that is most definitely not focused on dungeon crawls is really what you want to continue playing. There are a great many dungeoncrawls in Dungeon your DM can choose from and more in Goodman Games' DCC line of modules, and a whole lot of other 3rd party publishers to get material from. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits are some good long running dungeoncrawl, hack 'em up style adventures you could try and probably enjoy. Necromancer Games' Rappan Athuk Reloaded is nothing but dungeon level after dungeon level until you're ears are bleeding.
4) You've gone to great lengths to portray yourself as an old school grognard that plays "real" D&D and that somehow Paizo and us freelancers "don't get it". Fortunately the gaming material today has improved a lot since the hack n' slash days of Keep on the Borderland and the little white rule book. You may recall I6: Ravenloft. A stunning adventure that became an instant classic. Why? Because it mixed a great story with roleplaying, wilderness and urban encounters, and a sprawling dungeoncrawl. Since then, adventure writing has improved by leaps and bounds and a precendent has been set to mix all of these elements. You could point to a lot of the classics and see that most of them follow this formula.
+
This is the formula for a successful adventure/campaign that the STAP follows. Unless you're a cheater who reads the adventures you play in, you probably don't see it or realize it.
5) Last comment. Your DM AND you and the other players share an equal protion of blame for not enjoying the STAP. If you aren't having fun with a particular adventure or campaign, well then you end it and start another that you DO enjoy. All of Paizo's adventures are at least fair, but usually they are very good. This means that your DM can mine the products for ideas if they aren't completely up to his standards, but have a few cool ideas, monsters, or NPCs he wants to use or run them out of the box if he likes the whole adventure.
What I'm saying is that we writers can only provide your DM with the tools to run his games. It's up to him to use those tools to craft something completely awesome that his players will talk about for years to come or he can put the minimal effort required to run the adventures and based on his expertise the result is either going to be bland, great, or somewhere in between. Again, take it up with your DM or just find a different style of adventures to play in. Coming here and slamming us writers and the publisher, calling us names, and acting like a total tool is just going to earn the collective enmity of this community, lose any credibility you may think you have, and most likely get you banned if you continue in this manner.
Good luck with everything.
I've been following this thread loosely, but Haldefast's last post seemed odd to me. Haldefast, you note several products as supporting freedom of choice. However...
Wilderlands: campaign setting
Ptolus: campaign setting
Traveller: campaign setting
X1 was the first D&D I ever played, so yes I know what it's like. It was not an adventure, but a campaign setting with some hooks in it. I've also gotten the "new" Isle of Dread info from Dragon and Dungeon (both in the AP and outside). I don't like some of the material, as it ties the isle to Greyhawk and everybody knows it's properly set in Mystara... ;^)
But other than that, the material is in the spirit I expected for the IoD. I agree with others that if you're looking for the AP to be like the original IoD, then your mixing apples and oranges. For the AP, I was absolutely thrilled that the IoD-related adventures left the boringness of dungeon crawling largely out of the picture--I abhor dungeon crawls, so much so that in the first two magazine entries for the AP I heavily modified the adventures to minimize character time in the dungeons (e.g. the Lotus Dragon hideout got cut down to about 10 specific encounter areas and the rest was chucked out the window).
So, if you're looking for a dungeon crawl, then true these modules weren't for you. But as a DM that's got a group going through the IoD right now I can tell you there's plenty in there to keep from railroading. Heck, there's enough to run a whole campaign if I wanted to, and I consider that a bonus since this is supposed to be an adventure and not a campaign setting...
|
|
. And how does this change in any way the points I made here?
You might want to adress them.
My answer doesn't change your points in any way but your behavior changes the way I answer them. You're totally entitled to have your own opinion and if you don't like how things get handled at Paizo you're in your rights to voice your concerns. As you said there are some others who partly agree with what you say (as far as the railroading thing is concerned) but none of them ever said (on these boards) that his different view makes JJ (or Steve Greer) a bad designer.
But then comes you calling Erik Mona a liar, James Jacobs et.al. bad designers with no respect for the Game, and us stupid idiots solely based on the fact that we actually like what Paizo does and you don't. So it is probably a waste of time to answer your "points" cause nothing we say will change your opinion anyway.But ok, I'll adress some of your points:
1. Based on the examples of good adventure design you gave us and the examples of what you consider to be shoddy adventures I assume that you don't like an adventure to tell a good story. You think this to be railroading and you have no use for it as it constricts the player's options to do what they want.
You're wrong.
The story is just another option for those DMs (and players) without the time to create their own stories. As you can omit any location and any encounter you consider to be boring, you can simply ignore the presented story if it is not to your likings. And if you have not the time to do so, sorry, but in this case the respective adventure (path) may not be the right thing for you and your group.
But the latter doesn't necessarily means that the adventure (path) is bad. "The Prince of Redhand" and "Sea Wyvern's Wake" are two of my favorite adventures from AoW and STAP. No big dungeon but a good and compelling story with a lot of social encounters. Both written by Richard Pett whom I consider to be one of the greatest talents in the industry (sorry Nick, But I just had to say it). And as my players have a heart for good story-telling I'm quite sure they will love these adventures without me changing anything.
What my player's don't like so much are hack-and-slay dungeons as presented in "There be no honor" or "Three faces of evil. This does not mean that those dungeons are poorly designed (in fact, I would love to run them through TFOE as is), it just means that those locations do not meet my player's taste. Those old adventures you hold in so high esteem (and rightly so) would annoy most of my players so much that they'd leave the table in an instant.
2. James "Railroading" Jacobs: So let us take "There be no honor" as an example. What do you consider rail-roading with this adventure? The Adventure hook? You can change it in five minute's time if you want to. The flow of the adventure? Why would that be? There has to be one because, as others have remarked, without it isn't an adventure but a sourcebook. The overarching storyline? You don't have to use it. You don't have to go to parrot's islands and you don't have to fight through the sewers and it doesn't matter too much if the adventure's BBEG dies or survives. So where's the railroading? You can basically use what you want and your player can do what they want.
And while we are at it, let us have a look at the Pathfinder Series. In "Burnt Offerings" there is basically one thing you could call railroading and that's the starting event which triggers the adventure and gets the PC involved into the campaign. Apart from this, there is nothing which you have to use. All events "can" be omitted, their order (in time) can be changed to the story's development, so you can exactly do what you want: let your players make the decision. The same with "Skinsaw Murders". Apart from the need to give the players the necessary clues to get them traveling to Magnimar, you're free to run the adventure as you like it. I'm not sure if you would like the haunt mechanics, since haunts replace quite some combat encounters. but even those can be replaced back though this would heavily change the adventure's creepy atmosphere (as I assume). So once again the question: Where's the railroading? If you don't like the overarching story, you don't have to use it. Replace it by your own inventions (which is the same thing you had to do for those old, story-light adventures anyway).
3. Erik Mona: I'm reading (and occasionally actively partaking) through these boards for quite some time now. And in all these times I've never found Erik (or any other Paizo employee) other than friendly, helpful, honest and open to us customers. You know, as far as I am concerned they are part of our community, they belong to us. And while we all know that Paizo is a business and has to be successful, we have never seen them sneaky, scheming or untruthful. So while I surely cannot prove it, I'm absolutely convinced that your assumptions about Erik's intentions with respect to the "Paizo still undecided"-thread are no more than a conspiracy theory. Which was basically my reason to chime in in your blog cause I won't held my mouth shut if I feel that someone I regard to be a good friend much more than a business partner is insulted for no reason.
Let me repeat once again: You don't have to like what those guys are doing. But as other members on these boards have proven it is possible to voice criticism in a respectful tone and manner. It is possible that Paizo won't change things to your likings. But at least they'll try to explain their reasons and play with open cards. Which is more as you can say about other parts of the RPG-industry.
|
3) You have made it blatantly clear that you like hack & slash, dungeoncrawling adventures. Therefore, I suggest you and your group have a discussion to decide whether or not an AP that is most definitely not focused on dungeon crawls is really what you want to continue playing.
3 cheers for Greer!
Hip Hip Horray! Hip Hip Horray! Hip Hip Horray!I mean depending on what group I am in one of the groups I have DMed STAP for has been a lot of RPers... they spent two sessions in one tavern flirting and meeting each other after Parrot Island. The other group is more like the OP's and very hack 'n slash or as they describe it "don't give Arnold too many lines because he doesn't sound like Conan anyway" style.