I am currently running ROTRL and one of my players is going to run the second AP. I let him read the preview that comes in book 6 (I didn't look at it cause I don't want to ruin the fun) and he said that it gives away the ending of the current AP! What the H**l! Why would they do that, can you say brain dead?
Just giving warning, the preview is NOT safe to show to a player in your current campaign even if that player is going to run the 2nd campaign.
Wise up paizo, he is very sad to have read this, it is an absolute fun ruiner and I am EXTREMELY upset!
I hope when I hand him book 7 unopened it doesnt continue to spoil more of the fun of the current AP. If it does I will cancel my subscription.
And why didn't you read it before handing it to him?
And why didn't you read it before handing it to him?
'Cause he didn't want to ruin it for himself.
Honestly, though, I can't be too shocked that they spoiled the ending for RuneLords since it was in the final book of the RuneLords series. I think there's a fair assumption that whoever is reading that book knows how it ends.
I can only imagine that he read this:
If you only gave him the back preview to read, I can't imagine that he knows that much.
I switch DMing with another guy as well, and I have to avoid spoilers as much as I can. He's running Shackled City, but it is hard for me to not stumble across a tidbit here or there. And for his part, it is hard for him not to accidentally gleen information from the covers. From the art work alone he knows that ogres, giants, and a white dragon are somewhere in his PC's future. By the title of the AP, he knows that something called a Runelord will probably surface, but I don't think this ruins the AP for him.
Wait a minute...
Despite being a subscriber I only just read it myself this morning. And when I read this post, I went back and skimmed the whole thing again, before writing this.
It says in so many words, that a Runelord attempts to come back- and is put down by stalwart adventurers. Giants, demoralized, lick their wounds. The End.
Have your player pick up the preview and actually read just the specific sentences that divulge the ending of Runelords. Because I stongly suspect that what I've written above is all it actually says.
And if that's it... if that wrecked it for him?
::Shakes Head::
That's like looking at the title of the AP and saying, "Don't spoil it for me! There might be Runelords in this AP, and I want to be surprised! Don't wreck it for me, I don't want to know if we actually have to fight these Runelords!"
I mean there is a line between what's bloody obvious and what's a spoiler.
I just skimmed the whole things again, just be sure I didn't screw myself before posting it. The spoiler is so damn vague it amounts to nothing. "PLayers defeat a Runelord." BIG ASTONISHING REVELATION THERE.
Sorry, the vitrol in the OP's post has riled me.
Come on, how idiot proof does this have to be?
Wait a minute...
Despite being a subscriber I only just read it myself this morning. And when I read this post, I went back and skimmed the whole thing again, before writing this.
It says in so many words, that a Runelord attempts to come back- and is put down by stalwart adventurers. Giants, demoralized, lick their wounds. The End.
Have your player pick up the preview and actually read just the specific sentences that divulge the ending of Runelords. Because I stongly suspect that what I've written above is all it actually says.
And if that's it... if that wrecked it for him?
::Shakes Head::
That's like looking at the title of the AP and saying, "Don't spoil it for me! There might be Runelords in this AP, and I want to be surprised! Don't wreck it for me, I don't want to know if we actually have to fight these Runelords!"
I mean there is a line between what's bloody obvious and what's a spoiler.
I just skimmed the whole things again, just be sure I didn't screw myself before posting it. The spoiler is so damn vague it amounts to nothing. "PLayers defeat a Runelord." BIG ASTONISHING REVELATION THERE.
Sorry, the vitrol in the OP's post has riled me.
Come on, how idiot proof does this have to be?
I didn't know exactly what it said until this thread. My player just mentioned it at the gaming table last night, and said he was dissapointed to know who the final villain is. He also expressed worry about learning even more as he starts reading the next AP in prep for running it.
The actual text isn't as bad as I was lead to believe, but it is still obnoxious. After reading that excerpt I don't see how that in any way is relevant toward the preview of the next AP. Can you explain to me why it is necessary to even MENTION the previous AP? It sounds like just patting their own backs for no good reason.
And the person who mentinoed that anyone reading it is already completely familiar with the current AP is obviously in error. It is a poor assumption.
Have any of you guys seen Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan?
First of all, Mogney, I owe you an apology. The sarcasm was unnecessary, and now I'll stop with the sarcasm.
But the point remains.
Your player has still made assumptions, wrong ones, and because of the circumstances (with you being the intended player next time) you're unaware of your player's assumptions. The final Runelord villain is never identified by Sin or Name.
I can't explain it to you without spoiling it for you. You're the one who could be surprised.
Unfortunately, I can see why your player jumped to an assumption, it's not completely unreasonable how they arrived at that conclusion, but it's still spot on wrong. By the time your player gets to Chapter Five or Six, he'll realize that too.
How many chapters into the Age of Worms did it take players to figure out they were going to fight
I was really smurfed off when the authors put all of that lead up information into the actual play of the game, never mind a preview section. It had my players seeing connections and quaking with fear all the way through. I have a good mind to switch out the BBEG with Kurtelmak or something just so they'll be surprised.
Can you explain to me why it is necessary to even MENTION the previous AP? It sounds like just patting their own backs for no good reason.
No, I can't explain specifically, other than they're trying to market their product in a fun and interesting way... and most of the time it stands to reason that the GM of the first AP will be the target audience of the Second AP.
What bothers me about your tone is this implication that this was really intentional, thoughtless, or self-serving on the part of Paizo. And you're literally attacking them for it.
There's no room in your perspective for this being a fluke, which I assure you it is. It's really difficult to organize every possible premutation of player and GM so that nobody gets a hint of anything- short of asking people to invest money in (6) 13.99 to 19.99 dollar books with no clue whatsoever what any of them are about, or having any small connection between them.
There's nothing obnoxious about this, and I'm sure it was unintended- and we can't even explain why or how without really spoiling it.
First of all, Mogney, I owe you an apology. The sarcasm was unnecessary, and now I'll stop with the sarcasm.
But the point remains.
Your player has still made assumptions, wrong ones, and because of the circumstances (with you being the intended player next time) you're unaware of your player's assumptions. The final Runelord villain is never identified by Sin or Name.
I can't explain it to you without spoiling it for you. You're the one who could be surprised.
Unfortunately, I can see why your player jumped to an assumption, it's not completely unreasonable how they arrived at that conclusion, but it's still spot on wrong. By the time your player gets to Chapter Five or Six, he'll realize that too.
Thats good to know, at this point my players are mid way through book 3,and I have only just started reading book 4.
nevertheless I would like to hear from Paizo that there wont be any fun shattering revelations in book 7 about ROTRL. Or if there are that they can post a nice "don't read page xxx" or something, it really can ruin the fun to know whats coming. Even just a little bit, the players I have go to great lengths to avoid spoilers of any kind. Most of them do not even know the current AP is named Rise Of The Runelords.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello, Mogney.
Of the things in RotR to be spoiled, I think the material in the preview for Curse of the Crimson Throne is fairly innocuous. Now, you yourself are going to have much more spoiled for CotCT if you read James' forward in Book 6. So, there's a warning for you.
Moreover, I have to ask: how did your player / upcoming DM put down the book aftr reading it? The cover spoils the gignormous rune giants in the snowy mountains. The title indicates that the campaign is going to end up in Xin-Shalast. The back cover reveals even more.
Honestly, it sounds like the guy is yankin' your chain.
nevertheless I would like to hear from Paizo that there wont be any fun shattering revelations in book 7 about ROTRL.
Doctor Jacobs said that there would likely be some small spoilers but that he'd try to keep them to a minimum.
I can't believe anyone is surprised by the ending... I mean come on..
Well apparently most folks feel that I am out of line expecting that paizo account for a rotating DM in a group, and folks also seem to think I am out of line for expecting paizo to try to keep a lid on spoilers.
I humbly apologize for me erroneous beliefs. I was under the impression that each AP was self contained in a shared world, maybe that is not the case, maybe the 2nd one is a continuation of the first. If that is the case then this product is probably not going to work for my group since we like to rotate DM's.
Well apparently most folks feel that I am out of line expecting that paizo account for a rotating DM in a group, and folks also seem to think I am out of line for expecting paizo to try to keep a lid on spoilers.I humbly apologize for me erroneous beliefs. I was under the impression that each AP was self contained in a shared world, maybe that is not the case, maybe the 2nd one is a continuation of the first. If that is the case then this product is probably not going to work for my group since we like to rotate DM's.
Okay.. damage control time, since the Staffers aren't around to speak for themselves.
You have to admit, the first post was pretty strong Mogney, and you drew a strong response right back. Nothing to be done about that now.
There's no reason a rotating DM system couldn't work with these AP's. Really. There are only tangential connections between them because they do, as you say, exist in the same campaign world. Your player hasn't spoiled it for himself, or for you. He only thinks he has, and maybe you're inclined to believe him and not us. We're only telling you because we can see it from higher ground, not because we're better or smarter. You can only see one side of this, and we can see both.
I humbly apologize for me erroneous beliefs.
Well, I apologized for my sarcasm- and most of these other folks are pretty good natured too. If you're going to hold a few comments on the board against Paizo, then that is what you're going to do. Sorry to see it come to that.
I was under the impression that each AP was self contained in a shared world
It is.
maybe the 2nd one is a continuation of the first
It's not really. The Runelords, as you already know, were once a huge part of the landscape. They are not the antagonists in the Second AP. However there is something in the text that might make a player jump to a wrong conclusion.
If that is the case then this product is probably not going to work for my group since we like to rotate DM's.
I don't think that's the case at all, but you might have to take it on faith. Or wait for a Staffer to say the same thing.
Best of luck.
Creative Director
|
There will be some minor spoilers in Curse of the Crimson Throne about Rise of the Runelords (particularly for
As for the preview of Crimson Throne, I don't consider anything in there a spoiler anything more than the front covers and titles of Pathfinders 1-6; but perhaps we could have been even more careful there. When we do the preview for Second Darkness I'll make sure to do so. But really... is knowing there's a Runelord or mountains or giants in an adventure path called Rise of the Runelords that features an adventure called "Fortress of the Stone Giants" and cover art depicting mountains really a spoiler? It's more likely that your player stumbled into the foreword or another part of the book that DID contain spoilers. If he's really disappointed by what very little is revealed in the preview, though, I do apologize for that. Again, it wasn't my intention to ruin a campaign for anyone but to generate interest and excitement in the next six Pathfinders.
While each Adventure Path IS contained in the same world, they generally won't be taking place in directly overlapping areas, and while for my own sanity and internal consistency I DO assume that they take place in the order they are printed, that's more for my own ease of mind in keeping stuff organized. Now and then there WILL be minor easter eggs for those who have completed the previous adventures, but these'll be uncommon. You can certainly play the Adventure Paths in any order you want... but now and then spoilers WILL leak in. I'll do my best to keep them out... but I won't be able to stop them all. Especially in cases, now and then, where we'll use monsters or other rules elements introduced in earlier Pathfinders in later ones. And the runelords WILL play a small role in the background and "dressing" of Curse of the Crimson Throne, if only because the Adventure Path DOES take place in Varisia. That'd be like having an adventure set in Egypt that doesn't talk about the pharaohs or the Sphinx.
In fact... spoilers are sometimes very important. That's one of the ways we can hook new readers and get them to look into other adventure paths or volumes that they normally wouldn't have. Think of this as the same tactic movie studios do to promote their movies with trailers.
Rotating GMs should work fine for Pathfinder, in any event.
Might I also suggest that now's probably a good time to have a discussion amongst yourselves about the importance of "player knowledge" vs. "character knowledge"...? I know, you won't have the complete "gotcha" moment for the big reveal within the campaign...though, honestly, it doesn't sound like there's much to be taken from the CotCT preview in PF6. Most roleplayers eventually mature to a point where they can know small bits and pieces (like what's revealed in the titles, artwork, and preview sections) and still derive a significant level of enjoyment from a game anyway.
To draw upon James' analogy to movie trailers...I'm sure the trailers you saw for the Lord of the Rings trilogy in theaters...or the fact that you may have even read the books beforehand...didn't spoil the enjoyment too much for you when you saw the full movie. Most of the time, it isn't just the previews that contain the good stuff. There's a lot to be said for the actual execution of a good movie...or a good game, with all the accompanying window-dressing and styling each GM gives it.
My two-cents,
--Neil
|
I can't believe anyone is surprised by the ending... I mean come on..Well apparently most folks feel that I am out of line expecting that paizo account for a rotating DM in a group, and folks also seem to think I am out of line for expecting paizo to try to keep a lid on spoilers.
No not out of line, perhaps naive? Everything in that write is spoiled already just by looking at the covers of 1-6. There's no surprises IMHO in that write up and if you know the AP is called Rise of the Runelords then you should be able to figure out how it's going to end.
Well apparently most folks feel that I am out of line expecting that paizo account for a rotating DM in a group, and folks also seem to think I am out of line for expecting paizo to try to keep a lid on spoilers.No, those are perfectly reasonable.
All we saying is that there are no real spoilers in there.
It's called Rise of the Runelords, so it's quite obvious that some guys called Runelords will rise.
The part about that Runelord guy being defeated by some adventurers isn't much of a revelation after that, either. Sure, you can argue that it wasn't clear whether the Runelords are nice guys or bad ones, and the fact that the players took him out answers that but I don't call that much of a spoiler, either, seeing that adventures are often named after the things you kill and then loot.
And the fact that the good guys win in the end should be no spoiler at all, because that's what players are supposed to do. It only shows that Paizo assumes that the players win. See how nice they are? Of course, if your players lose, things would be different in your world (and without spoiling too much: #6 has information about what happens if the players get stomped.)
And maybe it's just me, but a module where the players master all encounters but still lose would be a railroading piece of refuse. "Yeah! You fought the Super-Villain and mopped the floor with him. You killed all his minions. Great! Unfortunately, the evil god-beast awakes, anyway. It goes and eats the sun and everybody dies." That's awful. That sounds like what's going on with the forgotten realms.
Sorry, I was feeling a little dogpiled on because I dared voice a complaint. Thanks for the re-assurances all.
[sarcasm]I wonder if the Curse of the Crimson Throne deals with thrones and curses? If it does deal with thrones, will it have a reddish tint? I wonder how many books into the next AP before I'll figure this out? I'll be let down if this never happens, but if it DOES happen, then shame on Paizo for putting in such a spoiler in the AP title!!! I think these AP path titles should have absolutely nothing to do with the goal of the campaign so as to keep the mystery alive for the players.[/sarcasm]
Sorry, I was feeling a little dogpiled on because I dared voice a complaint. Thanks for the re-assurances all.
Just to be clear, you weren't dogpiled because you dared to voice a complaint. We actually tend to be quite tolerant of complaints around here (except maybe in the 4th Ed forums, but that while regrettable is some what understandable). No, you were dogpiled because you attacked Paizo. Or at least appeared to. Fair enough to, you were worked up and needed to let off some steam. The Paizo staffers are way to nice and professional to attack back when they are attacked, so what tends to happen is that the other posters tend to stick up for them, and maybe come off a little strong as a result.
But rest assured, if you have complaints, comments, criticisms, suggestions, questions or whatever, if you post them in a calm, measured manner, usually you will receive a calm, measured response, definently from the staff, and maybe even from the other posters.
Anyway, welcome, aboard, and please feel free to voice any other comments you have. Paizo loves to hear all feedback, especially the critical kind, as it helps them improve their products.
Contributor
|
Yeah, really, it says a runelord has risen and some giants are in disarray, that would mean nothing to my players. No more than the Age if Worms did, for sure. Anyone who knew the story was reaching too far back and those who didn't were learning new things.
With a new world, there's no way they have any real concept of what's going on anyway, so any "reveals" are entirely the DM's domain. A "runelord rising" m,eans nothing more than "god ascending" or "saviour returned" without campaign context.
[sarcasm]I wonder if the Curse of the Crimson Throne deals with thrones and curses?...[/sarcasm]
For what it's worth, my players (who are, admittedly, odd) didn't want to know that the AP was called "Rise of the Runelords". They steadfastly refuse to hear the titles of the six volumes and they've certainly never looked at the cover art.
[sarcasm]I wonder if the Curse of the Crimson Throne deals with thrones and curses? If it does deal with thrones, will it have a reddish tint? I wonder how many books into the next AP before I'll figure this out? I'll be let down if this never happens, but if it DOES happen, then shame on Paizo for putting in such a spoiler in the AP title!!! I think these AP path titles should have absolutely nothing to do with the goal of the campaign so as to keep the mystery alive for the players.[/sarcasm]
Dude! you have, like, totally ruined it for me now.
For what it's worth, my players (who are, admittedly, odd) didn't want to know that the AP was called "Rise of the Runelords". They steadfastly refuse to hear the titles of the six volumes and they've certainly never looked at the cover art.
I tried to do this, but I can't help but put out some teasers. I also have a hard time not sharing the art when it comes out.
I tried to do this, but I can't help but put out some teasers. I also have a hard time not sharing the art when it comes out.
It probably varies from group to group.
Mine don't want spoilers either, on the other hand they also want just enough of a taste to know that the AP will interest them. AFter all, it's an investment of money for me, but an investment of time for them.
But everybody's mileage on spoilers varies. Some go quite some distance with only the slightest bit, some need a bit more.
With Curse, I only need say "political, urban, factions, intrigue," and they're sold.
With Runelords.. they wanted a little more hype.
|
|
For what it's worth, I am in the same situation as the OP, with CotCT being run by my wife, who is playing in my RotRL game. After reading this thread, I asked her whether reading the Curse preview had spoiled anything for her, and she stared at me as though I had suddenly sprouted a second head.
I don't think it's an issue.
If the preview gives away the "defeat" of the Runelord, you can always have him win! My PCs are half way through HMM and, thanks to a very effective use of stealth and strategy, have managed to capture and interrogate several foes (while Zone of Truth bounces off a few NPCs, Discern Lies doesn't...good players!) and I decided to add in a few wildly threatening statements by the NPCs as to the identity of the final villian...I just watched Legend again with my son, and it really confirmed the effectiveness of the partially obscured, but still super threatenuing Big Bad. The big reveal of a mastermind only works when the mastermind is unassuming. The BBEG of RotRL isn't. He's a dark lord style figure and needs to be a looming spectre and someone the PCs already fear. In fact, PCs seem to respond best to big bads who show up earlish in a campaign, wreck the party (maybe kill a one or two characters--TPKs are no fun cause no one is left to spread the fear) and then leave, haunting the players and the characters nightmares. That is hard to pull off in published adventures, but if the PCs don't handle AP six well, and the BB walks away, I've got a back-up plan.
If the preview gives away the "defeat" of the Runelord, you can always have him win! My PCs are half way through HMM and, thanks to a very effective use of stealth and strategy, have managed to capture and interrogate several foes (while Zone of Truth bounces off a few NPCs, Discern Lies doesn't...good players!) and I decided to add in a few wildly threatening statements by the NPCs as to the identity of the final villian...I just watched Legend again with my son, and it really confirmed the effectiveness of the partially obscured, but still super threatenuing Big Bad. The big reveal of a mastermind only works when the mastermind is unassuming. The BBEG of RotRL isn't. He's a dark lord style figure and needs to be a looming spectre and someone the PCs already fear. In fact, PCs seem to respond best to big bads who show up earlish in a campaign, wreck the party (maybe kill a one or two characters--TPKs are no fun cause no one is left to spread the fear) and then leave, haunting the players and the characters nightmares. That is hard to pull off in published adventures, but if the PCs don't handle AP six well, and the BB walks away, I've got a back-up plan.
I like these insights Michael. I've been questioning how much to leak myself as we draw towards the close of Skinsaw and towards HMM.
I personally think revealing a bit more in HMM is good. I've tried running three APs now: Age of Worms transmuted into an entirely different storyline (though similar) and Savage Tide ended early on a satisfactory conclusion, but one I wrote myself. The RotRL is the first that has been working out for me, in part because the adventures have been so well done, and because work has kept me so busy (curse you, Candidacy exams!). I've been thinking about what would make APs work better, and the best idea I've had has been a brief DMs guide to the major NPCs...no stats, but a list of the major plot-related NPCs.
The list would give the DM a brief background of the NPCs, notes on appearance, behavior, etc, but most importantly motivations and details on goals and some kind of an index of loyalty. I think the hard part of the APs is the fact that the major bad guys appear, but I don't have enough sense of an NPCs motivations to run them as effectively as those that I create myself...
|
To be honest making criticisms here can be risky. I made the mistake of being one of the first to criticize and question the AP with the release of the third installment. My criticism was not emotional and was very factual. Yet I was jumped on immediately as a heretic.
While your original post was rather emotionally charged it was sad to see so many negative and sarcastic responses to a real concern someone had. If someone posts in a negative way, it in no way should give permission to repliers to be nasty and mean and bring themselves below the original post. For shame for shame.
While I personally see noting wrong with the preview, I would like to question the very need to even mention the ROTL at all. If COTHCT is not a continuation beginning at level 17 or so then it should have no direct tie with ROTRL.
Mr Jacobs suggests that it is similar to movies advertising sequels. I counter that it is appropriate for Star Wars V to mention events of Star Wars IV, but not appropriate for Star Wars VI to mention the outcome of Indiana Jones, just because the same studio, writer and an actor appear in both. I did not say you can not mention that they are in the movie, such as from the director of Star Wars and featuring Harrison Ford from Indiana Jones. I said it is inappropriate to say that following Doctor Jones' recovery of the Lost Arc, Han Solo is rescued by his friends. That is what I perceive from the preview.
If these two are entirely separate stories it would be more appropriate to mention, from the publishers of the wildly popular Rise of the RuneLords Adventure Path, comes the spectacular Curse of the Crimson Throne featuring some of your favorite authors from ROTRL.
And while I LOVE Easter Eggs I would expect they would not be spoilers at all, and not leave someone scratching their heads if they did not participate in the original story. The inside joke or event or whatever, should be a fun event for those participants, but not even be noticeable for those who did not.
Personally I give ROTRL a 9 out of 10. The highest I will award any score. Once I participate in a 10, I will quit gaming forever as all else will fall short and the game will be ruined forever. That said I think that there was room for improvement in the AP and I expect to be handing out a 9.5 sometime soon.
While I personally see noting wrong with the preview, I would like to question the very need to even mention the ROTL at all. If COTHCT is not a continuation beginning at level 17 or so then it should have no direct tie with ROTRL.
Mr Jacobs suggests that it is similar to movies advertising sequels. I counter that it is appropriate for Star Wars V to mention events of Star Wars IV, but not appropriate for Star Wars VI to mention the outcome of Indiana Jones, just because the same studio, writer and an actor appear in both. I did not say you can not mention that they are in the movie, such as from the director of Star Wars and featuring Harrison Ford from Indiana Jones. I said it is inappropriate to say that following Doctor Jones' recovery of the Lost Arc, Han Solo is rescued by his friends. That is what I perceive from the preview.
Instead of movie sequels think of it as TV show spin-offs (All in the Family > The Jeffersons, Different Strokes > Facts of Life, The Cosby Show > A Different World, Cheers > Frasier, etc.). They may share some of the same characters and actions in one can influence what happens in the other.
To be honest making criticisms here can be risky. I made the mistake of being one of the first to criticize and question the AP with the release of the third installment. My criticism was not emotional and was very factual. Yet I was jumped on immediately as a heretic.
While your original post was rather emotionally charged it was sad to see so many negative and sarcastic responses to a real concern someone had. If someone posts in a negative way, it in no way should give permission to repliers to be nasty and mean and bring themselves below the original post. For shame for shame.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. As the first person to get sarcastic, let me assure you, no one regrets it more than I do. If I made a mistake and spoke out of turn, I would want someone to allow me the opportunity to back up from it. That's the first thought that made me regret my tone. Also, I don't like what it says about my character that I got unpleasant without thinking.
Unfortunately for me, I have to take responsibility for that, try to do better, and move on.
Respectfully Krome, you're projecting what happened to you on to this situation, and they're not the same. I don't recall what was said to you in the HMM discussions, but if you were treated unfairly it shouldn't have happened.
To say Moglyn was 'emotionally charged' is a bit of a whitewash, like saying they were merely 'aggression challenged'. Their comment towards Paizo, "can you say brain dead" for all practical purposes is not far step from saying "Hey, what are ya, f-ckin' stupid?" Then came statements about the reference to RothRL being obnoxious, and self-aggrandizement.
Wrong for wrong doesn't make right, but there is proportion and shared responsibility to consider as well.
For my part, I apologized quickly, and didn't do it again. When the original poster apologized, it didn't feel particular genuine.. but I tried to take it at face value. We all, every one of us, do what we can. I'm sure we all regret losing our tempers.
|
Creative Director
|
While I personally see noting wrong with the preview, I would like to question the very need to even mention the ROTL at all. If COTHCT is not a continuation beginning at level 17 or so then it should have no direct tie with ROTRL.
Curse of the Crimson Throne is not a direct continuation of Rise of the Runelords, but it IS the next Adventure Path in Pathfinder. We need to do everything we can to keep readers of Pathfinder just that—readers. That includes having some sort of "bridge" between Adventure Paths. Normally, during an AP, that bridge is nothing more than a half-page of previews. With Pathfinder 6, we wanted to start building excitement about Curse of the Crimson Throne by including a detailed outline.
The Star Wars/Indiana Jones analogy isn't exactly correct. If the Indiana Jones movies were directed by the same director as all the Star Wars movies AND they were all set in the same universe, the analogy would work.
In any event... this is the first time that Pathfinder's switching gears to an entirely new Adventure Path, and we need to keep as many of our subscribers and readers as we can. THAT'S the main reason we put the 4-page preview in Pathfinder 6.
|
The Star Wars/Indiana Jones analogy isn't exactly correct. If the Indiana Jones movies were directed by the same director as all the Star Wars movies AND they were all set in the same universe, the analogy would work.
well... the board ate my first response, but I consider "A New Hope"/"Revenge of the Sith" more of a analogy to the pathfinders.
Obi-Wan Telling Luke the way his father died "from a certain point of view" brings to mind what these outlines do. They tell what is supposed to happen from a certain point of view - that point of view is the editor (possibly even before the adventures have been passed back, so they arn't even sure if they will be following these steps completely). your party's story vs the outline could vary dramatically.
|
|
To be honest making criticisms here can be risky. I made the mistake of being one of the first to criticize and question the AP with the release of the third installment. My criticism was not emotional and was very factual. Yet I was jumped on immediately as a heretic.
While your original post was rather emotionally charged it was sad to see so many negative and sarcastic responses to a real concern someone had. If someone posts in a negative way, it in no way should give permission to repliers to be nasty and mean and bring themselves below the original post. For shame for shame.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. As the first person to get sarcastic, let me assure you, no one regrets it more than I do. If I made a mistake and spoke out of turn, I would want someone to allow me the opportunity to back up from it. That's the first thought that made me regret my tone. Also, I don't like what it says about my character that I got unpleasant without thinking.
Unfortunately for me, I have to take responsibility for that, try to do better, and move on.
Respectfully Krome, you're projecting what happened to you on to this situation, and they're not the same. I don't recall what was said to you in the HMM discussions, but if you were treated unfairly it shouldn't have happened.
To say Moglyn was 'emotionally charged' is a bit of a whitewash, like saying they were merely 'aggression challenged'. Their comment towards Paizo, "can you say brain dead" for all practical purposes is not far step from saying "Hey, what are ya, f-ckin' stupid?" Then came statements about the reference to RothRL being obnoxious, and self-aggrandizement.
Wrong for wrong doesn't make right, but there is proportion and shared responsibility to consider as well.
For my part, I apologized quickly, and didn't do it again. When the original poster apologized, it didn't feel particular genuine.. but I tried to take it at face value. We all, every one of us, do what we can. I'm sure we all...
Nope wasn't projecting at all. I just dislike it when people get rude when they could easily take the high ground. That's all. :) But you know I have to respect you a lot. You said "Also, I don't like what it says about my character that I got unpleasant without thinking." Dude that is the sign of a real gentleman. We all get rude sometimes. Me included :) It takes a big man and a big heart to say what you did.
And Mr Jacobs. I personally don't care how you guys do the advertising and such (as long as it is good which I expect it will be). It was just that the OP had a complaint and was jumped on pretty bad. I could see his concerns and wanted to try and clarify my interpretation of them so they might actually be addressed without rude attacks. That's all. I'm good at Devil's Advocate :)
Nope wasn't projecting at all. I just dislike it when people get rude when they could easily take the high ground. That's all. :) But you know I have to respect you a lot. You said "Also, I don't like what it says about my character that I got unpleasant without thinking." Dude that is the sign of a real gentleman. We all get rude sometimes. Me included :) It takes a big man and a big heart to say what you did.
Well thanks. :)
I won't post on this topic again, but one other concern.. that should be brought to "defenders" attention (which includes me), is that by not letting Paizo mitigate these things themsleves, we run the risk losing them a customer, even out of our good intentions.
James came on and did a good job smoothing things over. Had we let him do that, Moglyn might have become an even more loyal customer. Instead, we have to wonder if Moglyn won't hold the dogpile against them. Maybe they won't, maybe they will.... we'll probably never know.
Anyway.. mea culpa..
I think its very important that the APs have links and easter eggs. One of the most powerful ways of connecting players into ones world is to remind the players of the current campaign about events that took place in prevous campaigns. While the players characters don't necessarily know that much about those events the players themselves do and are reminded strongly that the world is meant to be a interconnected environment. Its fun for the players and also emotionally powerful.
Probably the best way to avoid having any danger of this ruining the suspense in a rotating DM type situation is to simply not do the prep until the original campaign is nearly complete. So in this case there is some danger due to the fact that the prospective DM is reading the next AP while only being a little more then halfway through the current AP. If one just holds off reading the next AP until half way through installment #6 of the current AP there should be no real danger of spoilers ruining anything since the final goals etc. of the original AP should already be clear.
Essentially it should be up to the current DM to give the OK to the prospective DM on when they can start reading the next AP with the idea that the the prospective DM might read material that gives away all the secrets of the current AP. Once there are no more secrets worth hiding the current DM gives the green flag to the prospective DM and s/he's off to the races prepping the next campaign.
The only real downside to this approach is some danger that the prospective DM won't have that much time to prep but I would not think this is a real problem. In most cases even with the PCs halfway through the last installment of the current AP there are probably still a couple of sessions left (those big campaign ending boss fights can take a long time at the table) and, usually, the first session of a new campaign is spent making characters with maybe a few initial encounters. So there should be two, maybe three weeks for the prospective DM to prep even if they didn't start reading the new AP until their almost finished playing through the last one.
Done this way the APs can be spoiler city and there is no danger of those spoilers ruining the suspense for anyone involved.
|
|
There was a Runelord in Rise of the Runelords? And he Rose? Wow. Didn't see that coming.
And in Return of the King, I hear there was a King. He might have Returned, as well. I guess it could have been spoilery-er, they could have named it, "Frodo Destroys the Ring."
[wild-eyed ranting tangent] And the end of Passion of the Christ was such a downer! I was waiting for him to go into some Matrix-fu stance and start whaling on those Romans with that big cross thingie. He coulda done some damage, like in the scene where all the Smiths attack Neo, and he's got this flagpole thing he's using like a quarterstaff, with the slow-mo and surround-cam and Romans flying all over the place, all battered armor and broken weapons! Chuck Norris wouldna put up with that, he'd have been all, 'Yo, Judas, get your punk-*** over here, traitor! I'm gonna tear you up, holmes!'
Meh. The book was better.
[Disclaimer; none of that happened. Hope I didn't spoil it for anyone.] [/end tangent]
And the end of Passion of the Christ was such a downer! I was waiting for him to go into some Matrix-fu stance and start whaling on those Romans with that big cross thingie. He coulda done some damage, like in the scene where all the Smiths attack Neo, and he's got this flagpole thing he's using like a quarterstaff, with the slow-mo and surround-cam and Romans flying all over the place, all battered armor and broken weapons! Chuck Norris wouldna put up with that, he'd have been all, 'Yo, Judas, get your punk-*** over here, traitor! I'm gonna tear you up, holmes!'
Yeah, I know if I were a demigod, there'd be some serious buttkicking going around, and people better started praying right away.
Probably one of the reasons my chances for getting endowed with anything approaching god-like power is slim to none.
There will be some minor spoilers in Curse of the Crimson Throne about Rise of the Runelords (particularly for ** spoiler omitted **
Now and then there WILL be minor easter eggs for those who have completed the previous adventures, but these'll be uncommon. You can certainly play the Adventure Paths in any order you want... but now and then spoilers WILL leak in. I'll do my best to keep them out... but I won't be able to stop them all. Especially in cases, now and then, where we'll use monsters or other rules elements introduced in earlier Pathfinders in later ones. And the runelords WILL play a small role in the background and "dressing" of Curse of the Crimson Throne, if only because the Adventure Path DOES take place in Varisia. That'd be like having an adventure set in Egypt that doesn't talk...
I actually am hoping for the opposite, I would like lots of easter eggs and nods back to the last adventure path.
It gives the world a bit more history, colour and believability.
I don't know what percentage of groups rotate DMs and are planning on doing this for each adventure path, but if this is common, then maybe you could put all the spoilers (or links back to a previous adventure paths) in side bars, boxed off and colour coded to warn the DM who is playing in the previous adventure path not to read them until the adventure path is finished?
I would certainly welcome more nods and links to the previous AP, while keeping the balance that it is playable as a stand alone adventure path. I remember that towards the end of the Dungeons magazine run, Several adventures gave nods to previous adventures in the DM write up. In particular one adventure had a list of previous adventures that were events foretold to lead up to an important moment (I forget the details), but I liked it a lot.
I actually am hoping for the opposite, I would like lots of easter eggs and nods back to the last adventure path.It gives the world a bit more history, colour and believability.
I don't know what percentage of groups rotate DMs and are planning on doing this for each adventure path, but if this is common, then maybe you could put all the spoilers (or links back to a previous adventure paths) in side bars, boxed off and colour coded to warn the DM who is playing in the previous adventure path not to read them until the adventure path is finished?
I would certainly welcome more nods and links to the previous AP, while keeping the balance that it is playable as a stand alone adventure path. I remember that towards the end of the Dungeons magazine run, Several adventures gave nods to previous adventures in the DM write up. In particular one adventure had a list of previous adventures that were events foretold to lead up to an important moment (I forget the details), but I liked it a lot.
I second this. I was really hoping for future adventure paths to referance past ones. Or even better the events of past ones causing things to happen in new ones.
And Mr Jacobs. I personally don't care how you guys do the advertising and such (as long as it is good which I expect it will be). It was just that the OP had a complaint and was jumped on pretty bad. I could see his concerns and wanted to try and clarify my interpretation of them so they might actually be addressed without rude attacks. That's all. I'm good at Devil's Advocate :)
Honestly, it deserved a rude attack. He started the post rude about something he hadn't read and didn't know what was in it.
People shouldn't be rude in either respects but when you start with a rude attack and uninformed information, what else do you think is going to happen? Had he come up asking what was in it, how bad it revealed things etc. it may not have gotten as many attacks. Heck the back of the book and front cover gives as much info.
Now in the HMM you read the book and had complaints. I dont remember you starting with "brain dead" and "wise up". I think the dogpile there was a very diffrent situation.
Like I said rude is bad no matter what, but when you start that way thats how people will respond.