So I just finished reading through all of the latest Second Darkness kickoff and was very happy with the adventure and settings. I was, however, underwhelmed by the set piece adventure that was included. To boil it down it was a location not an adventure and had a few hooks that would give you a reason to head in and start fighting. I guess I was just disappointed to see a pure dungeon crawl included.
That said, I think the idea has a LOT of potential. It would have to be played a bit differently though and the hooks used would need to be different.
First I would suggest the hooks would not be pointing to the identity of the pauper but instead would simply have him being an issue and the PCs having a reason to clean up that neighborhood.
A) (Good) The PC cleric is assigned to the mission himself. No illegal activities are seen to take place in the mission but the PC would get a good idea of things going on in the neighborhood. The PCs would then try and stop some of this activity with some success (set up a few "rescue the accosted person" and maybe a situation in which the PCs send a false shipment through the area to pull out the bandits and make an ambush for them style adventures). This brings them to the attention of the gang who starts attacking them directly (just never in the church which both the PCs and the gang are likely using as something of a base). Through clues from ambushes laid by either side for the other and any other methods that the PCs might use, they track their quary back to the church. At this point the drunkeness of the resident priest and the "blind eye" attitude of the other can be used to make it look like they might be complicit or even in charge of the whole thing (likely a ruse orchestrated by the pauper).
B) (Greedy) similar to the above, but the party is being paid by a rival gang to take over the area. The PCs then come in and have to find out who the thieves are with similar tactics as above. Another option here would be if you have a rogue PC wanting to start up his very own little thieves guild. He starts to do so and it turns into a turf war with this gang.
Anyway... just some ideas off the top of my head how this could have been a better adventure, rather than just the location that it was. I truly hope the future set-piece stuff doesn't follow this precedent. I was excited about the additional adventure that would also work well in the adventure itself, but was just disappointed with the delivery of this one compared to the quality that Paizo normally gives out.
Sean Mahoney
My expectation from the messageboards was that the set-pieces would only be a little more than a kind of random encounter except with more meat on its bones than a chart with random creatures and rolling the percentage die. So, what came out met with my understanding of set-pieces, and I thought the design was on par with the adventure.
I like the idea of the non-linear aspect to it such that I can put it almost anywhere in either this chapter of the AP, in future chapters, or any appropriate setting.
I didn't see this set-piece as a pure dungeon crawl as the OP in the sense that the PC's aren't sent to go to St. Caspian to kill everything in sight. For me, since this isn't a hack-n-slash fest, I think it's a little more.
I get your disappointment Sean, but as the above poster mentioned, I believe a "Set-piece" *is* supposed to be mostly location. One of the precepts is that it can be snookered off to use in other campaigns.
That said, it seems you came up with some truly *awesome* ideas for it - kinda did it's job to inspire you :)
A) (Good) The PC cleric is assigned to the mission himself.
While I don't agree with your disappointment, I do think this is a great idea. I've been pondering a bit on how a paladin can fit well into this campaign. This place could be a nice base for those PCs who just can't stomach being too close to Saul as the game progresses.
Creative Director
|
We're still tinkering a little with what the Set Piece adventures are, but they're supposed to be super short, and that translates directly to the plot, in most cases. Frankly, I'd kind of like to see a little bit more story in them myself... not MUCH, but that DOES mean that we need to work harder at convincing our writers to not put so many encounters in there...
I can't say that I'm disappointed that the Set Piece--meant to be largely be a drag-and-drop location that ties in with the month's adventure--sparked so much creativity. That's largely the point. The Set Piece series largely exists in response to GMs who want the room in their adventure to do their own things and have a jumping board for their own ideas without the risk of derailing an entire adventure path. Nothing ever says you HAVE to use the hooks included.
All that being said, this one was the first of a new endeavor and probably had more locations than a 5,000 article needed. Since we can't leave out the combat elements for an adventure, I can see why you might think it's skewed in that direction, though personally I'd think a little disguise and deceit would be the best way for a low-level party to find out what's going on behind the scenes at the mission.
While I don't think you'll see much of a difference in #14's Set Piece, #15's takes a more unusual slant. But also remember, these are largely meant to be one shots, side treks, useful campaign components, or just ways to get the creative juices flowing. Think it worked?
But also remember, these are largely meant to be one shots, side treks, useful campaign components, or just ways to get the creative juices flowing. Think it worked?
I think I came across as a bit more negative about it than I really feel. It is an interesting location, it did spark a lot of ideas as well... so much so that it would likely end up as more than just a one-shot thing in my campaign.
At the same time, I guess I feel like the descriptions of the various rooms didn't add all that much. Instead that space could have been used with interesting interactions.
I should also say that I just wanted to make sure I gave my feedback since I know it is listened to by Paizo (even if you don't always agree with me... like when I had that idea for you guys to do a magazine dedicated to an adventure path with supporting articles... James told me it would kill you all... ;) ) and I really appreciate that about these boards, the authors and the editors.
Anyway, thank you guys for the amazing products!
Sean Mahoney
While I don't think you'll see much of a difference in #14's Set Piece, #15's takes a more unusual slant. But also remember, these are largely meant to be one shots, side treks, useful campaign components, or just ways to get the creative juices flowing. Think it worked?
I appreciate that folk really like the adventures, but I think that the time for strong reactions isn't 2 months before anyone sees what we're doing with the new setup. If you check out Pathfinder 13 and 14 and it still feels wrong to you, let me know.
I know it's only the first one, but I don't much care for it and it looks like the second will be more of the same. I realize this is a labor saving effort for Paizo, but I find it takes away from what I like about the Pathfinder adventure paths. Can we go back to the old, larger, more detailed and cohesive adventures?
I think I came across as a bit more negative about it than I really feel. It is an interesting location, it did spark a lot of ideas as well... so much so that it would likely end up as more than just a one-shot thing in my campaign.
No worries and so noted! We will definitely be keeping an eye on this thread as we decide to do with Set Pieces in Legacy of Fire.
I know it's only the first one, but I don't much care for it and it looks like the second will be more of the same.
The second one is a Pirate Ship with notes for what happens if the PCs choose to infiltrate or commence full-scale ship to ship combat. The similarity comes in that there are a number of encounter areas with largely hostile NPCs. In that regard, I might as well say that the next one is also similar to Tomb of Horrors.
I realize this is a labor saving effort for Paizo,
It is? If there's any covert agenda behind theses it's definitely not "labor saving." Quite the opposite, in fact, as we're trying to use this a place to test out new authors with the potential to tackle modules or whole Adventure Path adventures.
but I find it takes away from what I like about the Pathfinder adventure paths.
Is this a concern of story or layout? Would this have felt considerably out of place if Saul or one of his lackeys had directly ordered the PCs to bust the knees of one of his competitors or debtors?
Can we go back to the old, larger, more detailed and cohesive adventures?
The first place we'll have another opportunity to change formats again is in Pathfinder #19. We'll definitely be paying attention to this tread and seeing how folks react, especially after there's a few out there.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Wow, I'm really surprised by this thread.
I liked St. Caspian's quite a bit.
I thought it was a nice skeletal framework that I could use in the future. It also makes for a great little side quest that you can drop into nearly any urban environment.
Especially for the first one, I was quite pleased with it. I hope to see more in the future.
YMMV of course.
No worries and so noted! We will definitely be keeping an eye on this thread as we decide to do with Set Pieces in Legacy of Fire.
Fantastic! Thank you.
For what it is worth, my advice is to keep the general idea (set location), but take out some of the static room descriptions (not all but some to free up room) and add in more story and interaction. The story and interaction were inferred in this one, but not actually there. I think that would have made it a phenominal piece for me.
Would this have felt considerably out of place if Saul or one of his lackeys had directly ordered the PCs to bust the knees of one of his competitors or debtors?
Actually I think that probably would have been better than the tie ins presented. However, I think him asking them to get the money paid by any means might be better since it wouldn't sour those goody-goody paladin types to him.
Hrmm... No that I think about it. It likely would be a good idea to have Saul start proposing job stuff one way and shift to another to tailor more and more to the PCs. This would give them even more of a clue to his nature. I will have to keep that in mind when I finally get to run this one (Approaching the end of SCAP and I still want to run all the others too... haven't decided on order to run them in though.).
Sean Mahoney
I would also like to add my voice to that of the people who were underwhelmed with the set-piece. While I liked the location very much and thought that it fit the AP's mood perfectly, I was very much disappointed that it offered so little in the way of options to "solve" the challenges posited within the adventure. Basically, what it presented was an interesting environment that the PCs - at first glance - are supposed to hack'n'slay their way through. What I missed was references to how the piece might play out with different (sneaky, social etc.) playing styles. Of course, you might argue that that's the DM's job, but having a 'complete' presentation was exactly what I loved about Pathfinder thus far.
Thus, I would suggest - if keeping the Set Pieces is what Paizo has in mind - to flesh them out a little more, e.g. give them a half-page more of space to adress different ways of using the SP inside the AP.
YMMV :).
|
Creative Director
|
Thus, I would suggest - if keeping the Set Pieces is what Paizo has in mind - to flesh them out a little more, e.g. give them a half-page more of space to adress different ways of using the SP inside the AP.
Giving them more space isn't really an option, though, since space is at a premium and the main focus of Pathfinder has to remain the main adventure. A better option, I suspect, is to just crack down on the authors of set pieces and just immediately reject any that have more than 5 or 6 encounters; this'll hopefully create a better balance between the various aspects of play that we want to see.
First, let me say that I liked what I saw. But thats because I needed an simple, modular adventure, that I could easily add to any game (in that case, CotCT). And I found it: a location with adventure sparks. Its more than simply an adventure, as there are many possible objetives which can be tailored to my party and adventure. In that, I say it was a success.
But, still, I expected a bit more.
Anyway, with all that in mind, I agree and disagree with James in the fact that I think we need more backstory and idea sparks, but that doesn't mean limiting it to 5 areas/encounters.
What could be done is present a location and indicate who inhabits it and their routine. For example, what is done with "PC Allies during the raid" on page 33, but with the routine of all NPCs in the set-piece.
In a sense, what I also expected is a place with many plot hooks. For example, imagine the above idea plus each NPC having some sort of agenda or secret. In that way we would have a bit more about Sylee, Lil'lirt, etc.
You guys did a step towards it with Mike the Fallen, giving him a secret and a short backstory. You could expand a little bit more, including adventure or background ideas.
So, in that way, more than a modular adventure, you create a place with character and many plot hooks, be them as character backgrounds or actual quests. And we end up with a recouring location and maybe even a base of operations.
|
I just want to put it out there that I thought the set piece was great. It was what I was looking for: a short adventure that could be easily inserted into the main campaign. I also really like that it allowed a lot of freedom for the DM to place/interpret it in whatever way he wants. I'm looking forward to the second one!
|
I also have to say that the setpiece was at first glance slightly underwhelming, but now I have to say I'm looking foreward to dropping it in somewhere, though I do regret that one of my players went with Crossbow ranger instead of cleric of sarenrae, since that would have been a very, very nice hook.
I'm willing to see more setpieces in the future, but I do express hope that this modular design will allow more cohesive adventures in the future. I liked the MiniDungeon organization on CotCT alot, but I was looking foreward to longer, more involved encounters in SD. I suppose that its part of the nature of urban adventuring, and to be fair, there is a nice classic dungeon crawl at the end. I just hope that the rest of SD has less of this (perhaps reaching a happy medium between CotCT and long slogging?)
Oh I loved the setpiece.
I had my friends rolling with laughter when Badeye's morningstar missed a player and smashed through the floor and from below in that odd voice, Mika the 'fallen angel' said out loud, "Looks like someone is trying to go to heaven."
Written to avoid spoilers.
All I can think is that one of the characters in the set piece needs to say "Bugrit, millennium hand an' shrimp..."
Contributor
|
Wow, I'm really surprised by this thread.
I liked St. Caspian's quite a bit.
I thought it was a nice skeletal framework that I could use in the future. It also makes for a great little side quest that you can drop into nearly any urban environment.
Especially for the first one, I was quite pleased with it. I hope to see more in the future.
YMMV of course.
Thanks Eyebite-
That's exactly what I was shooting for.I wanted to leave enough room for the GM to use the piece in a number of ways without cluttering it with too much side plot and accidentally throwing in a red herring that might take the AP way off course, especially since I didn't read Greg's piece prior to doing the Set Piece. James of course is right, they're probably too many encounters for such a small piece, which I think translated into fighting encounters. Oddly, I didn't envision the piece as combat heavy or anything, as I tend to shy away from combat encounters in my own games.
Anyway, I think really what might help set pieces more than anything would be to have the hooks tie in more with the main AP and perhaps have the AP also make references to the set piece. If the mission were offered as a place to stay at the start of the Adventure and have developments arise later (if necessary), or perhaps even have options for PCs to hire some of the thugs for some task, or similar type of situation. In this way, it could be used as a generic piece, but also act a floating device to step in when the GM needs to give the main AP a little push.
|
Contributor
|
I understand what everyone is saying in regards to their individual expectations, but I just wanted to add in that I really enjoyed this particular Set Piece. I was privileged to see it prior to publication in order to work it into the Riddleport Gazetteer and really liked it alot. I'm sure James and Wes will make whatever changes are needed to the format to make these even better, but I really had no expectations going in and was wowed by what Tim put out. I alo have to say it is one of the few times I've seen where the original pencil and paper map was better than the final published version. Tim put a lot of little details into his that didn't translate into the final version. I think the final map is great, I just have to give kudos to Tim for what was really a phenomenal map for the little church mission.
Thanks Greg!
|
Contributor
|
I just want to put it out there that I thought the set piece was great. It was what I was looking for: a short adventure that could be easily inserted into the main campaign. I also really like that it allowed a lot of freedom for the DM to place/interpret it in whatever way he wants. I'm looking forward to the second one!
Thanks Nameless!
That's what I was shooting for. I wanted to leave the GM room to adapt the piece to where it fit their game best.