In our last campaign, the DM dispensed with experience entirely and we all went up a level whenever we agreed it was time to do so. (Fortunately there weren't any serious munchkins in the group, so it wound up being about every four or five sessions. Seemed okay to us.)How did you guys handle spells with xp costs and the creation of magic items? That's usually the sticking point that I see with xpless games.
I just ignored these issues for RotRL. For a campaign that covers a short period of time, item creation tends to be limited by available time anyway.
For a longer campaign, I'd consider giving a certain number of item-creation points each level, and just letting the PCs spend them. I really dislike the EXP/item system anyway, as (a) it's practically impossible to apply to NPCs, (b) it occasionally gums up the game when the PCs need to do item creation at the wrong moment of their level progression, (c) you can't talk about it in-character.
We're in RotRL #6 without EXP and it doesn't seem to have done any harm. It's a lot easier for the GM. Running AoW with EXP I was constantly sweating--too few? too many? And the paths tend to break down if you aren't pretty close to the recommended number of PCs.
Mary
I really dislike the EXP/item system anyway, as (a) it's practically impossible to apply to NPCs, (b) it occasionally gums up the game when the PCs need to do item creation at the wrong moment of their level progression, (c) you can't talk about it in-character.
I don't like it, either, so I changed it:
You can either create items in the normal time with the same cost (minus the XP cost) or spend the XP (pour some of yourself into it) and speed the process up tenfold.
That allows non-adventurer artisans to create magic items and sell them without adventuring in between to get the necessary XP (and get loot that is worth ten times as much as any profit they'd generate through item creation), but allow fast creation of items if a character really needs it.
I'd also allow the seeking and using of special ingredients if they need something really bad.
If Gygax had been able to advance Mordenkainen from 1st Level to retirement in a year to 15 months, do you think anybody'd care about the character?
Of course. I doubt that the time the character was played plays that great a role to fans.
Other fantasy characters are conceived in less time than a decade's worth and are still very popular and/or deep.
I doubt that the time the character was played plays that great a role to fans.Other fantasy characters are conceived in less time than a decade's worth and are still very popular and/or deep.
No one is really going to hear about my campaigns beyond what I post here. We're playing for ourselves, not for posterity. But it's still very frustrating to have characters burn out so fast. We will have played through RotRL in 7 months, and after that, those characters will be gone--unplayably high level for us. I'm sad. I would really like to see them hunt the vampires of the Lost House in Sanos Forest (a side adventure plot thread of ours) but at 17th-18th level it's far beyond my abilities to write. And really, they are out of the interesting range for most challenges of their setting. If I could handle high-level play I could write the arc where they go looking for Alaznist to prevent her resurrection, but again, it's not within my capabilities. And in one more adventure they'd be off the end of the system completely.
Not even a year! I don't feel as though I really got to know them. (And it was less than a year for them, too: we started at the Swallowtail Festival in September and they are in Xin-Shalast in July. Their lives are basically over, poor sots. They just don't know it yet.)
Mary
|
I would like to suggest that Paizo seriously consider a line of 'optional' AP adventures. Side quests that are tied to the AP but are unnecessary, and can be used to slow advancement. It would be sort of like an additional GameMastery line that focuses strictly on expanding the AP. A great place for some 'cut' material (...)
One week without internet access and already so many new proposals in this thread!
I really like DDW's proposal. Its obvious benefit: Both groups of readers are addressed - the ones with a preference for rapid advancement and those who prefer PCs to rise on a slower pace.
What about GM modules thematically closely connected to a current AP?
Of course variety of GMM themes and places shouldn't suffer from this, but what about two thematically connected GMMs per AP?
Or *maybe* even the often requested GMM based "mini APs" could be connected to the Pathfinder APs?
Two requests could be addressed that way:
1. The complaints about "missing" material (what is the area like the PCs are travelling through between AP x and AP x+1?)
2. The wishes to slow advancement of the PCs/ prolong the AP experience for players.
I just see one issue remaining with this proposal:
Your players still had to "save the world" in the last AP issue. ;-)
@ both James and Pathfinder readers: What do you think about DDW's proposal?
Could you imagine this kind of "AP expansion"?
Cheers,
Günther
|
I'm not sure about the supporting modules; if they're too closely tied in, it might seem like anyone who's only interested in the main AP isn't getting the whole story. But if they're barely connected, then why have them at all?
I think that most of the focus should be put on having option material that can easily be expanded into side-adventures for the current AP. For example, the Korvosa Gazetteer isn't needed for CotCT, but it ought to be a big help if you want to expand things.
On the other hand, it could do well to have the occasional Gamemastery module that has a few pages devoted to how you could tie it in with the current AP. For example, "Ogre Siege on Drellin's Ferry" would technically have nothing to do with the Hook Mountain Massacre, except for the (painfully obvious) overlap. The module is stand-alone, but could allude to how the besieging ogres are related to the Kreegs, and might explain in a sidebar how Barl is involved for those running RotR.
As for the original subject: I actually like the tight plotting and scope of the campaigns, but this is largely because I mainly run PbPs nowadays. Since PbPs are glacially slow to run, a fast campaign is necessary, and it'll be years before the party has to save the world anyways.
(And they will be saving the world, at least in my campaign. Karzoug is only a threat to Varisia? Not the way I'm portraying him... >:) )
Creative Director
|
@ both James and Pathfinder readers: What do you think about DDW's proposal?
Could you imagine this kind of "AP expansion"?
It's an interesting idea... but I'm not sure it's a good idea. The goal of Pathfinder is to provide the complete adventure over the course of six months. Implying that you can only get the complete adventure by buying an additional number of adventures might not sit well with some of our customers.
That said, we ARE testing a little of this type of action out with the Guide to Korvosa. While Curse of the Crimson Throne will contain everything you need to run the campaign... that assumes the PCs don't get distracted by something else in Korvosa. If you have the Guide, you'll be set; if you don't, you'll need to do a lot of work or improvising to keep up with the distracted PCs. We'll see if people embrace the concept of extra supplements for an Adventure Path or if they hate them pretty soon, in any case.
ALSO: In order for a bunch of thematically connected GameMastery Modules to work... they'd have to not feel like they were tacked on. That means one of two things: either the Pathfinder team has to take these modules under their wing and do a fair amount of development on them (something we don't have the time to do, alas), or the GameMastery module team has to familiarize themselves with the current Adventure Path (itself a daunting task). And that would be in addition to keeping the other GameMastery modules running—I wouldn't want to toss out the opportunity to use these modules to visit other parts of Golarion completely.
That said... for Second Darkness, I am working on some solutions to the worries about fast advancement AND support adventures that "fill in the gaps" in the main story line. I'm not quite ready to talk more about these solutions yet, but they ARE in the works.
That said, we ARE testing a little of this type of action out with the Guide to Korvosa. While Curse of the Crimson Throne will contain everything you need to run the campaign... that assumes the PCs don't get distracted by something else in Korvosa. If you have the Guide, you'll be set; if you don't, you'll need to do a lot of work or improvising to keep up with the distracted PCs. We'll see if people embrace the concept of extra supplements for an Adventure Path or if they hate them pretty soon, in any case.
I for one think it's better that you release supplementary source books rather than supplementary modules. The source books are useful even if you don't plan on expanding the campaign with side treks, the modules are not.
I for one think it's better that you release supplementary source books rather than supplementary modules. The source books are useful even if you don't plan on expanding the campaign with side treks, the modules are not.
I agree with this statement.
|
I am just not, as a player, capable of doing a coherent character who starts as a street urchin and becomes an archmage in 6 months. I can't play the result competently, and I can't develop a meaningful personality. Lacking both of those things, I don't enjoy myself at all.I had a PC I really, really liked in SCAP. Watching him get destroyed by advancement was an awful experience.
Mary
I know where you're coming from; that's why in my RotRL Fortress of the Stone Giants will begin on the 20th anniversary of the goblin raid on Sandpoint. My group will have plenty of time to play with their keep.
We already did Seven Swords of Sin with different characters, and during this 'time skip' I'm going to have their other group show up at Fort Rannick for some fun =p.
|
|
Hi James,
Thanks for your answer. You are certainly right in that it would take too much effort to let all 'affected' authours familiarize themselves with a whole AP plot.
I agree in that a 'campaign spotlight' like the one for Korvosa will be most helpful for DMs like me. On the other hand I'd welcome modules, too, which could be easily inserted into an ongoing AP.
Right now it is rather a matter of luck whether you have suitable Dungeon/ PF adventures at your disposal or not. For that reason I'd like to see fitting GM modules and am curiously looking forward to your plans for future APs.
I disagree with some of the previous posters: No - creating GMMs which are thematically and in matters of level number compatible to an AP doesn't necessarily mean that the plot has to be a minor variation on the 'main story' in the AP. Neither does it mean that the place of action has to be the same!
E.g. Some other minor fraction following the call of some unknown guy easily replacable by Karzoug. Their approach could be considerably more/ less subtle and more/ less professionally planned/ executed. What if these ecvents took place hundreds/ thousands of miles away from the AP sites? And yet a small side column helping to adapt this apparently unrelated module to an AP could help wonders to provide new side track opportunities...
I freely admit that I DM APs due to a lack of time for developping adventures of my own. A guide to Korvosa is a welcome aid for flashing out the city and its inhabitants. It will also vastly help me to improvise when my players grow too 'inventive'. It doesn't give me the time for developping new sidetracks, though.
This is where thematically suitable and easily adaptable modules could be a great support.
Again just *my* personal point of view.
Cheers,
Guenther
I know where you're coming from; that's why in my RotRL Fortress of the Stone Giants will begin on the 20th anniversary of the goblin raid on Sandpoint. My group will have plenty of time to play with their keep.
We already did Seven Swords of Sin with different characters, and during this 'time skip' I'm going to have their other group show up at Fort Rannick for some fun =p.
Hope you don't have any half-orc or human warriors in your party. Aging penalties are the pits.
|
|
It's an interesting idea... but I'm not sure it's a good idea.
I absolutely agree that you don't want to create modules that are direct expansions of the Adventure Path.
The long and short of it is that Varisia has a lot of room for adventure that hasn't been developed in the AP. Opening Burnt Offerings to Page 33 I've got all kinds of 'adventure locations' that haven't been touched on in the module. The Tors? The Pits? Both of these are locations that are begging for a GameMastery module.
Now, they have nothing to do with the AP as written, anymore than Seven Swords of Sin would. The only similarity would be in the geography. Why not allow yourself to put some Gamemastery modules in the region of Golarion you're doing your AP in. They're not 'required', but I'd have a much easier time shoehorning in an adventure that is about the Pit than I would about the Bloodsworn Vale (if that is indeed the right name, since differnt Paizo staffers have called it by different names).
This isn't to say that Gazateers or other source material isn't useful to expand on the area. And if I have an idea for the Devil's Platter that is different than Paizo's, that's my right too. I'm the DM, I understand I can change things if I need to. But the whole attraction of the AP is that I don't have to spend a ton of time on it UNLESS I want to. Now, for me (and apparently others) the AP is something that will happen too quickly to really enjoy the characters. But to slow down advancement WITHIN the AP doesn't make any sense, since attacking a giant stronghold at 3rd level would be ridiculous.
All I'm saying is that I would like to run these side adventures, but I'm afraid I might not have the time. However, I do have some money sitting here that says it wants to join the rest of my money in Paizo's Account, it's just waiting for a good excuse, like this.
Hope you don't have any half-orc or human warriors in your party. Aging penalties are the pits.
And so easily ignored.
I get what Guennarr and DeadDMWalking are saying now...
They have a point. A GameMastery Module doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the "plot" of the Adventure Path for it to be incorporated, provided that it's within the same reasonable geographical area.
The Devil's Platter area(s) being a great example for the immediate Sandpoint area.
I always come across as wishwashy in this debates, but I see both points of view. I would not want modules that "tied-in" specifically to the AP, but I would like ones that were truly 'modular' and could be inserted at my discretion with minimal disruption (which travelling halfway across the world surely would be).
Of course, some GameMastery modules probably do need to be set in other places in the world to give those locales some exposure. A lot of people love Osirian just based off of Entombed with the Pharoahs..
|
|
I would not want modules that "tied-in" specifically to the AP, but I would like ones that were truly 'modular' and could be inserted at my discretion with minimal disruption (which travelling halfway across the world surely would be).
Of course, some GameMastery modules probably do need to be set in other places in the world to give those locales some exposure. A lot of people love Osirian just based off of Entombed with the Pharoahs..
That is exactly what I mean. And they certainly should be set in other places as well. I wouldn't mind seeing them double the rate of Gamemastery publications (allowing some to be set in the same geographic area as the AP), but failing that, I think that having one or two per AP in the same general area isn't a bad thing, either.
As an another idea... it would not be impossible to have Gamemastery modules set into the region that a given Pathfinder path is set in, and simply ballpark them at a level less then the starting recommended for the later issues of the path. They don't have to be linked in plot directly, but would be useful as a way to help bridge the levels entering into the next issues. (course that kinda falls apart when you have players motivated along the primary story arc that is an adventure path) We have to save the king! (random example) ooo, a haunted house!
so not perfect idea-wise, but not a bad thing to consider. i think a fair number of gm/players would find that appealing.
I'm imagining a story arc that takes just as long as an Adventure Path, but takes the characters from, say, 3rd Level all the way to 6th, rising one level every two Pathfinder episodes. It's a good, long block of the character's career, but it's not the whole thing.
Just to let the guys at Paizo hear a dissenting opinion, I would absolutely NOT buy a product like this.
Do you guys play daily or something? I play once a week at best, and if I had my group going through 2 Pathfinder books and level up once, that would be literally several months of play without my players leveling up. I am absolutely certain they would all get bored and quit on me.
So I want to go on record and say that the current rate of advancement is just right for me, and probably for most groups that play weekly.
Also, for all you people saying to cut out some of the combat and add more role-playing stuff, let me say this. Most groups I've played with typically want at least one combat per week. Since we play once a week, that means a minimum of one per session. So I need combat encounters in there.
Although you "let's slow things down" guys are quite active on the boards, I think you may actually be a vocal minority. The vast majority of people I've played with want lots of combat and action.
Just my opinion.
I agree that the current rate of advancement is nice, I only play forthnightly, but I would love to see some detailed roleplaying encounters, like in AoW's Prince of Redhand, the banquet, and the support article in Wormfood are two of my favourite articles ever but in Dungeon and Dragon, respectively, If the Paizo crew could do interesting scenarios like that with innovative systems like tha haunts I would keel over in joy. I'm talking roleplaying situatuons with XP rewards and an EL, just like in real life! :D
|
|
Buskeer, vagrant poet: Just read the rest of the thread and you will see that there is a sufficient number of fans of both positions. So no reason for feeling left out.
If you have any new proposals to contribute to this thread, feel free to do so. Otherwise I recommend the really interesting proposals made in this thread by both sides and to just wait and see what approach James will come up with in some future AP.
I am absolutely sure that he wouln't want to disappoint either side.
Cheers,
Guenther
@ both James and Pathfinder readers: What do you think about DDW's proposal?
Could you imagine this kind of "AP expansion"?
While I understand the logistical problems that James Jacobs mentioned, I'd still be all over these.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Do you guys play daily or something? I play once a week at best, and if I had my group going through 2 Pathfinder books and level up once, that would be literally several months of play without my players leveling up.
Oh, yeah. I remember campaigns where I played the same character for years. I have a trove of terrific memories of that character and that campaign. Just this week I chanced across her Charater Sheet; she ended up at 4th Level. Characters who'd been in play for a decade were about 8th Level.
This was the 1980's, and that rate of advancement was a little on the slow side, but not freakishly so.
In many of the older game systems, PCs didn't rise in power very rapidly at all. (In Traveller I don't think they rose in power at all.)
I am absolutely certain they would all get bored and quit on me.
Different people like different things. I hope your players get something fun out of the role-playing and tactical challenges of an Adventure Path while they achieve their level-advancing goals.
I think a good AP that encompassed the struggle between the Shoanti and Orcs could make for a good 6 module run. It wouldn't be a 'saving the world' type thing that's for sure. It could have a nice tribal feel to it that had everything from good old fashioned treachery, epic battles, tragedies of war, and could even end with a battle against the current orc warlord. It would stimey the orcish campaign. Bring some peace for a while, but still ultimately not change the region forever.
Kinda like the crusades! Only less holy, less knights, and 10 times more BARBARIAN RAGE.
Do you guys play daily or something? I play once a week at best, and if I had my group going through 2 Pathfinder books and level up once, that would be literally several months of play without my players leveling up. I am absolutely certain they would all get bored and quit on me.
Groups just vary a lot.
We're playing twice a week at the moment, but once a week is our standard. (The combats in Xin-Shalast take so long, if we didn't play more often there'd be nothing but this one combat for a month, and that's frustrating for us.) My college games were all once a week, and we did about 5 levels a year.
I don't ask for slower games out of a dislike for combat and action; I ask for it because I want to see PCs' abilities and personalities more clearly than I can with fast advancement. The current group of PCs went from 9th to 15th so fast, I have no clue anymore about what they can do or what would be a fun challenge for them. (I don't think more or fewer weeks real-time would matter; it's hours playing that count for me.)
I appreciate that a lot of groups feel the opposite. My husband plays with a group that has a big dose of "I've seen this race/class/prestige class/spell list/magic item for two sessions, now I want something new." Their SCAP game raced up to 17th level and then died, because there weren't any more new spells to get. They might be better off running unconnected modules, except that character generation is too timeconsuming.
I didn't think Paizo would do anything for people with my set of preferences at all, frankly, but if there are enough of them maybe a test product would be worthwhile.
Mary
Not to beat on Busker, my group isn't reflected by either of these "sides" you're referring to.. I have a mix of both.
I certainly agree, we need a couple fights per sessions. I got a couple players that live for the fight, and I got a couple could spend the whole session role-playing out what even I might find tedious. I got a couple that are tacticians, but they'd be unhappy if there wasn't a plot. I need a way to make them all happy. Pathfinder generally does that right now... But if I could tweak anything, it would be to extend the storyline, see the personal character progression mentioned by Mary, and still keep it lively with some action.
And maybe that's asking for too much from a publisher that has to sell to a general audience.
(Plus the fact, that in some cases like AP#3 Second Darkness, I actually would like to see the established progression stay just the way it is, because the theme has been suggested that it literally is about saving the world... That doesn't make it bad. If that's what it supposed to be, that should be embraced. The point is not to make every other AP just like it. May I recommend trying with AP# 4?)
A couple of you might be misunderstanding me. I don't want Paizo to cut the current amount of role-playing and plot to have more mindless combat. What I am saying is that I like the balance more-or-less where it is now. However, a couple of people seem to be suggesting to decrease the combat and add more role-playing.
I like the way it is now. I think the current balance is just right. Currently, there are lots of combat encounters included for the hack-and-slashers, and there is lots of background info for the role-players, and there are lots of little forshadowing clues for the plot-lovers. I believe that its current format has just enough for everyone.
I don't want change to Pathfinder.
Admittedly, there have been a few flaws. I think #6 did a disservice to its city, for example. (I would go into detail but can't remember if this thread is spoiler-friendly.) The second part of #2 also seems choppy (especially after the excellent first part.)
So that's the thing. I don't want changes to the format or for any radical suggestions one way or the other to be followed; I like Pathfinder the way it is. I just want the current format tightened up a bit, which I am confident will happen over time.
|
I must admit the APs (both from Dungeon and the Pathfinder) have seriously helped my ability to DM fluid campaigns. In the past I always found my self-criticism to be a little harsh.
Since using these APs I have been presented with a number of characters that I now find difficult to continue with. This is unusual because the players are enjoying the APs far more than older campaigns. They find that once one is complete they really want to continue with that character, where as before, once the campaign was concluded they couldn't wait to start a new character.
I would really like to see some "Epic" APs for Pathfinder in the future and to be honest, I think that the 15-16 level start point left over by the founding Pathfinder APs would be ideal!
As a hint are there any areas in Pathfinder that might be considered Epic locals? apart from the usual 9 levels of hell, etc. As an example Hellgate Keep or the ruins of Myth Drannor in the realms has been a site for epic level adventures in the past.
I in no way mean to diminish the opinions of others, but there does seem to be a sort of "wanting cake and eating it too" going on.
If the party takes time to RP and doesn't progress further through the dungeons/encounters in a given session, can't you just not give out XP that night? If the focus is on RP, who goes "What, I don't level this week?! What a rip-off!"
This is usually the approach my group takes, and we even look forward to the occasional no-XP hang around the pub session.
In RotRL #3 for example...
Is this just distasteful to some?
These sessions can also be used to shore up characters that are low on XP (either from replacing a dead party member or from player absence) by having a short XP-worthy encounter that uses just a small subsection of the group that has lagged behind.
|
|
While this has certainly gotten a little away from the OP (and I would like to support some varieties of plot) I'd like to take a moment to further belabor my point.
I like the AP the way it is. I wouldn't change a thing. But, it goes too fast for my taste. I think that the characters are worth more mileage, and I really want to slow down the pacing. I can certainly award less XP than normal. But, in order to use the AP, I have to come up with events to fill in the dead time.
The advantage of published adventures is that they can be prepared quickly. I'm digging the high quality and the ability to spend what would be DM prep time hanging out with my family.
That said, I will try to run some 'side-adventures' during the main AP. The source of these side adventures is where things get interesting for me. I can try to convert some old Dungeon adventures (I have a lot). I could try to adapt 'Bloodsworn Vale' to work near Turtleback Ferry. Or I can beg Paizo to produce a Gamemastery module that is set in the same geographical region.
To work, it COULDN'T be a part of the AP. The AP is a complete adventure. But these would still be useful to a lot of other customers, I'd bet. If you have a character death and you need to bump people a level, having an 'extra' adventure might be a good idea. Then people who are running normal advancement still have 'extra' adventures as back ups, and people who are running slower advancement have 'extra' adventures as well.
And the best thing is that they'd want to put Gamemastery modules in the same places as the APs have been anyway. I seriously doubt that they'll be done with Varisia after Rise of the Runelords. All I'm suggesting is that it might be a good idea to give the geographic region of the AP some Gamemastery Love DURING the AP instead of after it is fully released. Of course, when they set an AP around Falcon's Hollow they're already be a number of such adventures to run (yippee!).
I'm also suggesting that if they want to publish more than 1 Gamemastery module a month, that could be cool, too. If they want to put 6 out in the six month period that don't even have a city name in common with the AP.
If the party takes time to RP and doesn't progress further through the dungeons/encounters in a given session, can't you just not give out XP that night? If the focus is on RP, who goes "What, I don't level this week?! What a rip-off!"
This is a solution to a problem that I don't have.
The problem that I do have is that I want more fights and other major events between level-up points, as the fast advancement (relative to the number of fights) ruins my grasp on the characters and gameworld. Running pub sessions doesn't give me this. Manipulating EXP doesn't give me this. The AP expects that the PCs will go up 3 levels per adventure, and to our tastes, the adventures are much, much too short for 3 levels to be reasonable. Nothing I do with EXP changes the fact that the PCs were 10th when they went into SotS and needed to be 13th coming out--and my PCs undertook a plan that meant those two points were four hours apart. To me it felt like only two fights (Xaliasa and all of Runeforge, which they did in one continuous raid).
The player flatly refused the third level, and we went into the next module down a level. But it was still a devastating advancement rate for us, especially for me.
What I really want is an AP with just as many fights and other interesting events as RotRL, but 1-9 rather than 1-17. Not less material; not more roleplaying necessarily (though fewer "shut down the roleplaying potential" devices would be nice); just slower advancement *relative to the number of fights*.
Mary
|
|
I kindly ask all of you who joined this thread recently to have a glimpse into the older postings, too (even though this means about 3 pages by now!). You will find some really neat proposals and you will be able to put your worries at rest (this isn't a 'conspiracy thread' trying to usurp PF :p).
As previously mentiioned nobody's opinion is to be diminished. Most posters in this thread clearly demonstrated this attitude in their postings. Similarly they would agree that the first AP is a delightful experience even though its parts might be differently appealing to different DMing styles and player preferences.
THE POINT IS: Some of the posters here would like to be able to enjoy their PCs for a longer time than 6 AP-parts. (High level play just isn't an option for everyone). Some people just would like to keep their 'personal iconics' longer in play.
There were already a LOT of proposals how to achieve this: Have a look into the contributions above.
WHAT IS NOT GOAL OF THIS THREAD: changing the APs in general. So don't fear (and please don't suspect - just start reading further above).
It was bad if this thread deteriorated to a dumping ground of 'quick shots'. There are enough threads for that.
Looking forward to the eventual revealing of James' turn on this topic ;-),
Guenther
|
Creative Director
|
One thing about Second Darkness... it IS the first Pathfinder Adventure Path that really has a full-on "Save the World" climax (Runelords is mostly a regional threat, and Crimson Throne's even smaller/more localized). As a result, I'm very strongly considering going back to the 1st level–15th level spread we used for the first two APs rather than picking Second Darkness to be the first 1st–12th level AP.
Just seems weird to me that after playing the first real save-the-world AP from Pathfinder that your PCs will end up lower level than in the two previous, more localized ones...
One thing about Second Darkness... it IS the first Pathfinder Adventure Path that really has a full-on "Save the World" climax (Runelords is mostly a regional threat, and Crimson Throne's even smaller/more localized). As a result, I'm very strongly considering going back to the 1st level–15th level spread we used for the first two APs rather than picking Second Darkness to be the first 1st–12th level AP.
Just seems weird to me that after playing the first real save-the-world AP from Pathfinder that your PCs will end up lower level than in the two previous, more localized ones...
I am heartily relieved. *sigh*
Having said that.... I respectfully return to the topic per Guennarr's request...
What I really want is an AP with just as many fights and other interesting events as RotRL, but 1-9 rather than 1-17. Not less material; not more roleplaying necessarily (though fewer "shut down the roleplaying potential" devices would be nice); just slower advancement *relative to the number of fights*.
I'm for trying that idea (after AP#3!), but here's my question towards that end.. can it be done without rewriting the rules? Or having 'house rules for this specific AP'? Because that seems like it would be a stumbling block, not for you, me or other interested folks, but specifically Paizo itself. I am under the impression that they like the product to be 100% offical rule content for whatever edition they might be using. Can this be done without a special house rule?
Another part of the discussion, I am really liking D.D.W's idea of having GameMastery modules set in the same region as the AP, to provide optional side adventures. Perhaps out of the 6-month lifecycle of an AP, have at LEAST one of those six GameMastery Modules in the same region.
I am not sure increasing the number of modules per month is feasible however. I'd surely designate at least one of the six to be geographically close though!
How about an AP where the characters can eventually become the rulers of their own kingdom? Similar to the old Bloodstone Pass series of modules.
I played in a campaign where we were part of an elite mercenary company. The company was predominately good aligned and had a history of helping the weaker nations fend off invasions from stronger nations that invaded them.
In the beginning we were just a part of larger battles, then we become an elite strike force team, and after that we were assigned to the defending nations royal court directly. I must say it was one of the better campaigns I've played in so far.
I think it would be cool to be involved in a campaign like that again.
The problem that I do have is that I want more fights and other major events between level-up points, as the fast advancement (relative to the number of fights) ruins my grasp on the characters and gameworld. Running pub sessions doesn't give me this. Manipulating EXP doesn't give me this. The AP expects that the PCs will go up 3 levels per adventure, and to our tastes, the adventures are much, much too short for 3 levels to be reasonable. Nothing I do with EXP changes the fact that the PCs were 10th when they went into SotS and needed to be 13th coming out--and my PCs undertook a plan that meant those two points were four hours apart. To me it felt like only two fights (Xaliasa and all of Runeforge, which they did in one continuous raid).
Is this a problem with Pathfinder or with just 3.5 mechanics in general?
D&D 3.5 expects 13.33 encounters at or around average party level will level the party.
This means about 40 encounters per adventure. I don't have a Pathfinder handy, but that seems about right given the way the adventures are broken down into sections.
I understand how skipping a whole dungeon level or encounter section would leave the party light going into the next section, but unless they're drastically underpowerered, this should sort of correct itself by granting more XP for the subsequent encounters.
I didn't mean to solve a problem you didn't have, but I thought the primary complaint was that there wasn't enough real-world time to develop a character's personality.
Given the encounter skipping you describe above, it looks like you should have a few encounters set up on the side just to throw in their way at some point. If they won't go to the fight, perhaps you can bring the fight to them?
D&D 3.5 expects 13.33 encounters at or around average party level will level the party. This means about 40 encounters per adventure. I don't have a Pathfinder handy, but that seems about right given the way the adventures are broken down into sections.
My initial reaction was "No way." So I counted them, and you're approximately correct: the low is SotS with about 21, and the high (if haunts count) is Skinsaw with about 42.
But I just can't convince myself that if the PCs make a noise in the courtyard of Fort Rannick, and the ogres come from five directions to see what it is, that's five fights. Or that if the PCs wait until Ironbriar and his men are all together, that's five fights. In practice I found the first 2 modules to have about 20 fights each, and every subsequent one has had fewer. My PCs did all but one of the sections of Runeforge, but they did them *all at once* in a single continuous action scene. I don't know how many fights that would be, but it didn't feel good to go up 2 levels in the middle of it.
For me, character development comes most easily if the characters are doing things. There's a certain comfortable amount of "things for characters to do" in each of the modules before I have to work so hard that I'm basically writing new modules. That amount of stuff is maybe 1 level worth for us; not 3 levels.
My GM for CotCT plans to handle this by inserting a full sized adventure between each AP module, starting the PCs at 4th level, and having 1 level of advancement per adventure. This still doesn't quite make the endgame work out, but it's maybe workable. You can see, though, that it's a lot more than "write a few side combats." Frankly it's more work than I'd be willing to do, though I'm really happy that he's agreed to it.
Mary
I too like the idea of having some of the GM Modules based in the area of the AP adventure.
I would also like to suggest a possible way to keep both the slow advancement group and the regular advancement group happy.
Would it be possible for the writers/Paizo to offer a section of suggestions for possible side adventures. Perhaps one liners, like the ideas for 100 adventures in some source books.
Examples: AP#2: while the characters are looking into the murders.
-Run across an arsonist group, track them down and deal with them -use Thug#4, with a changed description as the villain.
-A witness is only willing to tell them what they saw, if the group does...
-Red Herring : Group ends up on the trail of a assassin, not related to teh skinshaw group.
In AP#4: While tracking the giants.
-Run across a large Orc raid, caused by the marauding giants (either taking advantage of the situation, or part of a forced relocation due to the giants taking their territory).
As for NPCs, they can easily be dressed up differently (thug in one side adventure has wpn specialization in Longsword, in second one it is in Longbow, rather than a dandy, is a hard used loner).
This idea will still take a bit of work from GMs, even the pressed for time ones, but has the possibility of retaining the flavor of the AP.
Mistwalker
I get what Guennarr and DeadDMWalking are saying now...
They have a point. A GameMastery Module doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the "plot" of the Adventure Path for it to be incorporated, provided that it's within the same reasonable geographical area.
The Devil's Platter area(s) being a great example for the immediate Sandpoint area.
I always come across as wishwashy in this debates, but I see both points of view. I would not want modules that "tied-in" specifically to the AP, but I would like ones that were truly 'modular' and could be inserted at my discretion with minimal disruption (which travelling halfway across the world surely would be).
Of course, some GameMastery modules probably do need to be set in other places in the world to give those locales some exposure. A lot of people love Osirian just based off of Entombed with the Pharoahs..
Well I got no issue with the idea of making 'modular' Game Mastery modules of about the right level as parts of the AP and locating them in area so that a DM can fairly easily tie them into the AP if they want. As long as it does not feel as though part of the story is some how missing if you do that.
Is this a problem with Pathfinder or with just 3.5 mechanics in general?D&D 3.5 expects 13.33 encounters at or around average party level will level the party.
This means about 40 encounters per adventure. I don't have a Pathfinder handy, but that seems about right given the way the adventures are broken down into sections.
They might be statted out in 40 different places but nobody does 13.3 individual encounters per level.
That means a 4th level group is engaged by a single CR 4 creature or 2 CR 2 creatures.
If your playing core rules only with a strict 25 point buy then that might be challenging to fairly new players but not likely that tough even for them. After all this amounts to a fighter, a rogue a cleric and a mage, all of 4th level meet a single 4th level fighter ... Can they beat it? The answer is of course they can, they have the bad guy outgunned 4-1, even pretty much neophyte players should have no real trouble here.
Hence, in general, these days most encounters have an EL probably of about party level +2, even this amounts to a party of a fighter, mage, rogue and cleric of 4th level come upon a fighter and a rogue of 4th level and battle ensues - which the PCs should surely win having a large advantage. That knocks the 13.3 encounter thing down to something more like 7 encounters and I suspect that this is about what one really sees in terms of actual engagements.
I think the poster above is correct that this is an issue with 3.5 in general rather than Pathfinder specifically. However, I think they are hoping that their opinion can sway Pathfinder into being a solution to that issue.
I for one wouldn't mind slower advancement but when I look at adjusting adventures to fit the 1/2 XP advancement rate I get boggled by the amount of work it will take to do this.
1/2 XP means that you need to give out 1/2 the gp value of treasure as well. And this is where I decide that since I am using published adventures to save time that this would be a huge increase in the time needed to prepare.
I will be interested to see what James comes up with for the future, but I don't see myself being willing to make the adjustements to make this work even if Paizo did come out with a bunch of new GMMs that were in the same local and same rough level to use. If I used them as written I would just out level the AP... and that doesn't work for me.
On the other hand, I am not sure my whole group would be happy if we slowed the level progression. Some of them seem to want to move on to other characters fairly often and slowing things down wouldn't be meeting their needs... for lack of a better solution I think the progression as is meets the most needs.
Additionally I think it is hard to script out much of the RP that takes place in an adventure... it depends so much on what the players decide to grab onto and that varies drastically from group to group. One might take 10 mins rping something from a mag and another 2 hours... just depends on the players and their mood at the time.
Sean Mahoney
|
Creative Director
|
Would it be possible for the writers/Paizo to offer a section of suggestions for possible side adventures. Perhaps one liners, like the ideas for 100 adventures in some source books.
We'll be trying something out starting in Second Darkness that looks into a way of presenting side quests, in the form of having an 8 page or so additional adventure in each Pathfinder that's tied tangentially to the main adventure (usually by virtue of taking place in the same location). Additionally, each installment of Second Darkness will include a gazetteer of some sort that gives LOTS of additional adventure hooks for the region (just by virtue of it being a gazetteer).
This should give GMs a bit more material to build off of when running the campaign.
I know that a lot of people hate them, but I've found that level adjustments help with this a lot. Give the PCs a template or an alternate race and suddenly it takes more encounters to gain the next hit die and they're gaining less experience points per encounter because of their higher ECL plus they have nifty toys courtesy of whatever gave them their level adjustment.
|
Creative Director
|
Slowing level progression is certainly an option. But the weird thing is... that really depends on your group. In my experience, slower level progression would appeal to some players and enrage others. The difference? The players who it would appeal to are also GMs.
I've heard a theory once: That theory is that GMs are interested in playing the game to expand the story of the world, while players could care less about the story and only want to get new powers and magic for their characters. I think that theory's not quite right... I think that some players DO care about the game world, but again in my experience, most of those players are also GMs, so they're not really approaching the game experience solely as a player.
Anyway, we are looking into the whole thing for Pathfinder and trying to figure out how to handle it. Keep posting! Every bit of input helps!
The easiest solution to too fast advancement is to insert side trek adventures into the main storyline. (From either Dungeon, Gamemastery, etc). My group did this with TC1:Into the Haunted Forest. Instead of Aldern Foxglove taking the PCs on a Boar hunt, he recruited the PCs to take him into the Forest to recover the Panoply of Narven. (I know the Geography doesn't fit "canon" but Its my world, and the Parzo Police aren't going to come around and kick my door in.) It worked really well for building the relationship with Aldern, and setting him up as an incompetent noble, I can't wait for the reaction when they find out what becomes of him. (I changed a few things, you can read about it here)
I think however, that as the AP goes on, this gets harder and harder to do, because the later adventure seem to basically be one big dungeon each (especially 4 and 5). And this ties into what I think is my biggest issue with the AP so far, the dungeons are just too big. If the dungeons were a bit smaller (preferably able to be "cleared" in a single sweep, ie no resting during the dungeon), it should be pretty easy to slow the story line down so you can insert side treks into the main plotline not only between between adventures, but also during them. As they are, it is very difficult to insert sidetreks into the adventures, I would prefer more like Burnt Offereings (although thistletop was too big as well), and less like Sins of the Saviours (which although it was cool, was basically one big dungeon).
I don't buy Paizo APs for dungeons. If I want dungeons I'll steal a map and fill it myself, or buy some Dungeon Crawl Classics modules. I want plot, and a fleshed out world and interesting NPCs from my Paizo APs. Plot hooks I can hang adventures off, interesting unique dungeons. Not massive sprawling complexes that sees PCs gain 2 levels before the next see the light of day.
Spires of Xin-Shalast was a perfect example of this. A great, well, fleshed out city. A number of different unique and interesting encounters. And plent yof opportunity for sidetreks, roleplaying, whatever you want to do in the city of Xin-Shalast, and no over arching time press to restrict the PCs. I would not be surprised if my Pcs end up spending 4 - 6 levels or so in Xin Shalast, such is the opportunity for side treks. This is exactly what I would like to see more of in Pathfinder, and less mega dungeon ala Sins of the Saviours.
Slowing level progression is certainly an option. But the weird thing is... that really depends on your group. In my experience, slower level progression would appeal to some players and enrage others. The difference? The players who it would appeal to are also GMs.
I've heard a theory once: That theory is that GMs are interested in playing the game to expand the story of the world, while players could care less about the story and only want to get new powers and magic for their characters. I think that theory's not quite right... I think that some players DO care about the game world, but again in my experience, most of those players are also GMs, so they're not really approaching the game experience solely as a player.
Anyway, we are looking into the whole thing for Pathfinder and trying to figure out how to handle it. Keep posting! Every bit of input helps!
One of the benefits of leveling up fairly commonly is that its fun to work on your character. This can tie in with the aging demographic as well. Family responsibilities might mean that you can't play all that often but every month or so you can 'play' a bit by leveling up your character after the spouse and ankle biters have gone to sleep.
One of the benefits of leveling up fairly commonly is that its fun to work on your character. This can tie in with the aging demographic as well. Family responsibilities might mean that you can't play all that often but every month or so you can 'play' a bit by leveling up your character after the spouse and ankle biters have gone to sleep.
Conversely, my husband and I play from modules because there's no time (we're in that demographic too) and keeping the levels low and advancement slow allows us to spend more time playing and less time doing number-crunching. I find that the older I get, the more I resent being asked to spend my gaming time doing bookkeeping.
Mary
I've heard a theory once: That theory is that GMs are interested in playing the game to expand the story of the world, while players could care less about the story and only want to get new powers and magic for their characters. I think that theory's not quite right... I think that some players DO care about the game world, but again in my experience, most of those players are also GMs, so they're not really approaching the game experience solely as a player.
I'm not clear on how having been a GM in the past means "not really approaching the game experience solely as a player." My experience with the APs has been rather the opposite. I deal with the (for us) too-fast advancement better as a GM than as a player. The place were it really kills me is where I indulge my desire to have a party NPC (the apprentice wizard in AoW, the half-ghoul fighter in RotRL) and I find out yet again that I can't handle the advancement and maintain characterization. This is a player-level problem; it crops up when I GM specifically because I (maybe inappropriately) am trying to enjoy bits of the game the way a player might.
Players are players. They like different things. I don't think it helps to label one group "not really players."
But sure, I realize that I'm one end of a big continuum of tastes. I just can't help drooling at the thought of getting an AP that would work for us. They've got so much good material, it's perennially frustrating that they don't quite work (though RotRL came closer than any of the previous ones).
Mary
I find that the older I get, the more I resent being asked to spend my gaming time doing bookkeeping.
Then I think D&D really isn't for you. ;P I don't think that the number crunching in D&D will become less, ever. Too many fans would go ballistic, since they love it.
Without wanting to sound as if I want to get you gone from D&D, I find that characters in the (New) World of Darkness are very low maintenance. A "level up" consists of filling out a dot or two on your sheet, and maybe updating one of (usually) less than 10 derived values you write out on the sheet.