Scales of War supplement in Dragon 366.
What makes this a Scales of War supplement? Does it have any distinguishing connection? Given that they've promised such supplements, is this what we can expect -- a randomly chosen, completely-unrelated article having "Scales of War" tacked onto the first page?
The setting of the Scales of War Adventure Path is more implied than actual. That’s intentional on our part. We want you to make the world your own rather than define it for you...
And this is just plain lame.
Every great D&D campaign to date is built around a well-developed backdrop. Evidently they have no intention of letting that interfere with the fact that they just don't have the interest. Why not refuse to create monster stats and leave it to the creativity of the DM? I'm not trying to start a big argument, but I'm going to complain until they become interested in stories and background or until I lose interest :(
I'm of mixed feelings in this regard.
A part of me loves the background and the story that can surround a great adventure path. I particularly like Savage Tides background elements (especially the stuff concerning the Olman people).
On the other hand, it can be very cool to be able to craft your own story behind a given adventure. To be able to make your own back story regarding any adventure can be great, especially if you have your own story in mind and want to link several published adventures together that would otherwise not be related.
However, I will concede that not having background elements can make a module a bit bland to look at. I suppose it's also true that one could simply change an established story a module might have anyway, so I suppose there really is no reason not to have some kind of story to it.
However, I will concede that not having background elements can make a module a bit bland to look at...
It's more than that.
One of the pillars of 4e design is helping DMs do their job. And they do that brilliantly -- but only for those DMs that have the time, inclination, and creativity to take care of the background setting and personalities themselves.
This is exactly what 4e is not supposed to be -- or so they say.
...I suppose there really is no reason not to have some kind of story to it.
I can think of one -- they don't want to.
|
i think this is just an acknowlegement (in a roundabout way) that the designers at WotC are very strong when it comes to crunch and encounter design, and not so much when it comes to fluff and story.
i agree, though, with y'alls sentiments here. if i'm going to invest in a module or an AP, i want something that i can use "out of the box". if i wanted to write my own story and backround fluff, i'd write my own adventure. 4e makes the encounter building quite easy and non-time consuming, what i need in an prefab adventure for 4e is a story and setting, as, if im using a published adventure, its because i dont have the time to develope my own...
Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of 4e. I am also a big fan of 3.5. But I am an even bigger fan of Adventure Paths. I am DMing Age of Worms (which we are close to finishing) and I am a participant in Savage Tide (Level 6, so really just getting into it).
When the Scales of War came out, I admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. But I was still hopeful. It was the first step. While there was no overall story arc given that would tie all 18 parts together, they were promising companion pieces. Maybe they would offer insight into where things were going.
I cannot believe how bad this article is. Like the posters above mentioned, it seems as if they have taken a generic article and put a Scales of War cover page on it. When they first mentioned it, I was assuming that the character backgrounds were ones that would have specific ties to the overall story arc. Memberships in associations that would become prominent in the story. Backgrounds in professions that would have a vested interest in the way events were going to unfold.
Instead, we get, essentially, a random character background generator for those who don't have the time or imagination to make one up themselves.
And I am having a difficult time expressing how angry that first sentence has made me. What a cop out. "We left it vague on purpose". Whatever. How , as DMs, are we supposed to make this work when we have absolutely zero foresight on where the AP is going? Are we supposed to make up the surrounding areas, etc. and hope that the next module isn't going to contradict anything we just did? (Although, I guess if their whole plan is to leave everything as generic as it has been so far, there is little danger in that).
So...still a fan of 4e, but losing faith in WoTC's ability to create a coherent adventure path.
So...still a fan of 4e, but losing faith in WoTC's ability to create a coherent adventure path.
Same here -- both points :)
|
I haven't read it yet, but I promise I'll go off and do so right now and check it out, and edit comments at the end here.
I do think however that WotC has shown enough of their hand to say they've deliberately adopted what I call a 'minimalist' approach to adventure design, as well as the entire 4E experience.
The 4E rules books are not set to a specific setting. The campaign settings are sparce on flavor, and I get the feeling that I honestly could have taken the entire FRCS book, changed the names only, and nobody would have known it was Forgotten Realms. It feels like there's no soul left. It feels like ... work.
I'm gonna play it. I'm going to use some of the supplemental materials. I can't however say how using their stuff is supposed to make it EASIER and FASTER for me to DM knowing that I have to add ALL the spice myself.
EDIT: Okay that was a chore. I'm curious how this compares with Goodman Game's PC PEARLS. I'd imagine there's a tad more life to it. I will say, however, that for an absolute beginner who hasn't done much or any role playing it may be a decent tool for getting started.
Problem is, a complete beginner isn't going to know how to get to the material in the first place.
Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I think this is just an excerpt from the PHB2 with Scales Of War added to the start.
And as much as the first sentence irked me, I find this part garners the same reaction:
One final note: You’ll notice proper names lurking
in some of the backgrounds. Feel free to run with those, and don’t be surprised if some of the places, groups, and people mentioned here appear in future steps on the Scales of War adventure path.
Please. "We threw in some proper names. We will make mention of them in future modules. Woo hoo! Continuity! Screw you and your 'story arc'!"
The 4E rules books are not set to a specific setting.
Neither were Paizo's APs (though Age of Worms was only thinly-disguised). But they should have taught everyone in the industry some lessons about good campaign construction. Those lessons has been missed, ignored, or discarded by WotC (take your pick).
BTW I'm not disagreeing -- I think we're on the same page. I'm just hammering away every time I get the urge :)
Please. "We threw in some proper names. We will make mention of them in future modules. Woo hoo! Continuity! Screw you and your 'story arc'!"
lol :)
|
|
The 4E rules books are not set to a specific setting.BTW I'm not disagreeing -- I think we're on the same page. I'm just hammering away every time I get the urge :)
Yeah - mine wasn't a defense. Mine was a 'hammer' as well, about how the books themselves have no savor, no soul to them. They're just ... books. Understand that I am not a 4E hater, but I don't see how turning my mechanical prep of an RPG session into 15 minutes is supposed to help when I need three hours of setting prep.
The character art is nice. I could see someone using the female tiefling, the Dragonborn, the smith, and the gladiator for characters or npcs
|
|
The character art is nice. I could see someone using the female tiefling, the Dragonborn, the smith, and the gladiator for characters or npcs
WotC definitely has a good art department - makes me mad when they regurgitate it, but whatever ...
I did think the dwarven female smith ... on page 2 I think ... looked a little too manly in the face, but other than that everything tends to match a style and form I like. WoC has definitely gotten better - I have a handful of L5R cards that shows he used to have a problem with proportions, but I've always liked his work regardless.
|
What do I as DM need an AP for?
- If I am looking for some filler for my homebrew campaign I do not need an AP I just need some generic adventures.
- If I was looking for some inspiration for world-building or settings I would go and buy a Setting book
So what is an AP for?
An AP provides the means for a DM to read & play. It requires far less time input from the DM than creating your own AP or string various unrelated adventures together.
An AP, as far as I understand from the APs since Shackle City provides the DM not only with plots and encounters. That do generic advntures too.
An AP does also provide the DM with an overarching theme that strings all adventures together. A theme that makes it easy for the DM to get from AP adventure 1 to AP adventure 2. Look at the Rise of the Runelords theme. The seeds of what will happen in the last adventure are already planted in the first one. Or look at Curse of the Crimson Throne. What the PCs do in the First Adventure can affect the Outcome of later adventures. In APs the PCs have a strong incentive to play along the plotlines as they are intergrated in the story and part of it.
Now compar this to the WoC AP. What are the PCs motivations to go from Adventure 1 to Adventure 2? Is there a theme for the DM to set the mood?
To me this is not an AP but just some generic adventures strung together.
To me this is not an AP but just some generic adventures strung together.
I am crossing my fingers that Wotc will roll to attack our nose hairs with a spring loaded surprise badger that will encourage the continuity of this AP.
I want this to have the same feel of Red hand of doom.
The character art is nice. I could see someone using the female tiefling, the Dragonborn, the smith, and the gladiator for characters or npcsWotC definitely has a good art department - makes me mad when they regurgitate it, but whatever ...
I did think the dwarven female smith ... on page 2 I think ... looked a little too manly in the face, but other than that everything tends to match a style and form I like. WoC has definitely gotten better - I have a handful of L5R cards that shows he used to have a problem with proportions, but I've always liked his work regardless.
She looks rather sexy to a dwarf! j/k
Sigh.
I'm angry as well. This is basically useless. I'm playing in a game with a DM that does not have the time or inclination to do major background material. Thats part of the point of doing an AP. Any setting would have been fine and a fleshed out local could probably have been dropped into most settings in any case. They don't have to tell me what the world is like - just what this particular area is like.
The whole idea of not giving us anything in order to 'help' adapt it to ones own world is bunk. If I adapt this to my campaign world it will actually be easier if I have material to work off of. I've done both and making something from scratch is a lot more taxing then adapting something to make it fit my game.
I'm really confused as to why they can't figure out what was done right with Red Hand Of Doom. I'm given to understand that Red Hand of Doom was a stunningly good module and I expect it had good back ground material - why not use that material as the foundation? It just makes no sense.
Sigh.
I'm really confused as to why they can't figure out what was done right with Red Hand Of Doom. I'm given to understand that Red Hand of Doom was a stunningly good module and I expect it had good back ground material - why not use that material as the foundation? It just makes no sense.
I ran RHOD as a Horror Module. It was incredibly fun for me, but a bit hard on the pc's. It was better if the pc's were optimized for the module such as a dwarven ranger with favored enemies selected correctly.
That being said we all had fun playing it and were eager to peak at this AP.
|
I'm struck by the similarity between this presentation of "backgrounds" as little added benefits to your characters, and the character traits system we've seen in Paizo APs of late.
But the contrast remains stark: in CotCT, ALL the traits had campaign relevance. In SD, they've further codified the system into different types of traits. While many are general, the system still requires taking campaign traits - again, clearly finding ways to get characters tied into some part of the story that is about to unfold. WOTC's backgrounds are entirely generic. Which would be fine... if they weren't being sold as having some relevance to a specific campaign.
And still no preview of where the campaign is going? At all? Really?
Which would be fine... if they weren't being sold as having some relevance to a specific campaign.
Yep. While I find the article interesting and useful, the implications regarding AP support are worrisome.
And still no preview of where the campaign is going? At all? Really?
No. Nothing.
The only thing they seem to have taked from the lessons of several years of Paizo APs is the label -- "Adventure Path." I can only conclude that they think that label is all that distinguished those very successful campaigns, and that anything with those two words on the first page will be just as good, and sell just as well.
Hell, I've got a cookbook here -- just let me write "Adventure Path" on the front...
|
|
The only thing they seem to have taked from the lessons of several years of Paizo APs is the label -- "Adventure Path." I can only conclude that they think that label is all that distinguished those very successful campaigns, and that anything with those two words on the first page will be just as good, and sell just as well.
But what baffles me is, don't they have designers over there who actually worked on SCAP? Moreover, I know they honestly love gaming, and some must have been reading the more recent APs from Paizo.
I'm concerned that this is not a lack of attention or a simplistic mindset, but instead an artifact of their over-ambitious business model. Everything feels rushed out before they've had a chance to really plan and flesh it out. Heck, It looks like Dungeon is releasing three adventures within the last three days of the month (assuming the last even comes out today!). It doesn't inspire confidence. I know they'll thrive anyway. I just wish they'd thrive AND produce great stuff.
|
|
What bothers me, along with the list of grievances above, is the timing in which this "support" material is being released. I know the AP overview isn't out yet, but why isn't it/ It 'slike if you were planning on driving to Claifornia and, having never been there, didn't buy a map. How would you get there? This is an essential piece of support.
Also, the character backgrounds sucked. Why don't they have a generic setting. I am running the SoW in the FR so a little work is necessarry, but with such vagueness abounding throughout the adventures, it has turned into A LOT of work. This completely contradicts WotC's promises of easier DM-ing.
Finally, as much as the character background article sucked, why did they wait until right before releasing the 3rd module to put this out? This would have been a much more appropriate tool at the beginning of the AP, right? Would it make sense for a DM to ask his group of 23rd level PC's to pick a character background tying their characters into the story? Of course not. While I know that this example is a bit extreme, it is no less relevant to the situation at hand.
In closing, the overall problem seems to be "support" which is too generic and too late in being released.
What bothers me, along with the list of grievances above, is the timing in which this "support" material is being released. I know the AP overview isn't out yet, but why isn't it/ It 'slike if you were planning on driving to Claifornia and, having never been there, didn't buy a map. How would you get there? This is an essential piece of support.
Also, the character backgrounds sucked. Why don't they have a generic setting. I am running the SoW in the FR so a little work is necessarry, but with such vagueness abounding throughout the adventures, it has turned into A LOT of work. This completely contradicts WotC's promises of easier DM-ing.
Finally, as much as the character background article sucked, why did they wait until right before releasing the 3rd module to put this out? This would have been a much more appropriate tool at the beginning of the AP, right? Would it make sense for a DM to ask his group of 23rd level PC's to pick a character background tying their characters into the story? Of course not. While I know that this example is a bit extreme, it is no less relevant to the situation at hand.
In closing, the overall problem seems to be "support" which is too generic and too late in being released.
I fell that most of the adventure paths that I have seen so far have similar timing/support problems. A DM who waits for the whole set to come out will be much better prepared than one who runs it as soon as each part is made available. Examples that I can think of off the top of my head include stuff like the write up for Lamashtu being in Pathfinder 2
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I think this is just an excerpt from the PHB2 with Scales Of War added to the start.
And as much as the first sentence irked me, I find this part garners the same reaction:
One final note: You’ll notice proper names lurking
in some of the backgrounds. Feel free to run with those, and don’t be surprised if some of the places, groups, and people mentioned here appear in future steps on the Scales of War adventure path.Please. "We threw in some proper names. We will make mention of them in future modules. Woo hoo! Continuity! Screw you and your 'story arc'!"
The problem with this is that, depending how you use them in your home game, and how future developers use the same NPCs, DM's could run into some huge continuity inconsistencies. If the path designers plan to use stuff in the future, they should plant the seeds of foreshadowing, not just for the PCs, but for DMs so that they have an idea of how to use the material the AP presents.
I think this is less a deliberate step toward minimalism, and just a laziness/naiveté that is rearing its ugly head rather early in the 18-part AP. I think the kind (and experienced) folks here at Paizo mentioned that these pitfalls were sure to present themselves at some point, and that they were curious is WotC was up to the task. I think we all have our answer.
Yoda you are right...
Although I think that 4th is awesome, the path is below average at best..
|
Creative Director
|
Neither were Paizo's APs (though Age of Worms was only thinly-disguised)...
Actually... with the exception of Shackled City's first incarnation in the magazine, we DID take great pains to root each adventure path in a specific world—Greyhawk. We just didn't make that big of a deal about it. But for both Age of Worms and Savage Tide, long-time Greyhawk fans could find plenty of in-continuity Easter Eggs (even with a few lame name-changes we had to do for Age of Worms) within. More to the point, by using Greyhawk as a frame, we kept the adventure internally logical with itself, even if that framework was largely invisible or behind the scenes. Frankly, the idea of building an adventure path without an implied world framework behind it freaks me out and makes me have panic attacks! :)
Neither were Paizo's APs (though Age of Worms was only thinly-disguised)...
Actually... with the exception of Shackled City's first incarnation in the magazine, we DID take great pains to root each adventure path in a specific world—Greyhawk...
For which I am eternally grateful. For me, Greyhawk will always be the One True Setting :)
Frankly, the idea of building an adventure path without an implied world framework behind it freaks me out and makes me have panic attacks! :)
Me too!
Their is a very big implied world behind the dnd line now, just not an explict one. I love how the complaints run in depending on how the wind blows...
I don't agree. In fact, I think the opposite is quite true.
People are not demanding a default world, nor have they done so in the past. Rather, we (well, most of us) want some depth and detail to the cities and villages our characters visit, and to the personalities of the NPCs and villains our characters meet (and occasionally kill).
And WotC's failures are one of the few things upon which there is consensus.
|
|
Some of us like that jibber jabber. Ancient Thassilon is really cool jibber jabber. Eberron is cool jibber jabber, too (don't you think?). But, that's besides the main point.
I think the chief complaint is the lack of sense of a unified focus that, in my experience, has defined an adventure path. Not about backdrop even, but plot! Where's the story arc going? Why should we (the DMs) care, and about what points should we care? We need to know so we can make the players care. What parts of the story should we highlight, and in what fashion? In a prewritten campaign, it's nice to know what you're building the players up to.
People are not demanding a default world, nor have they done so in the past.
I am. I love the implied PoL setting as I read it in the advanced preview books. Those little snippets about the Primordial/God war and the dwarves being slaves to giants and the civilization-crushing war between the Tiefling and Dragonborn empires and Orcus' hunt for the Raven Queen and all the other stuff sounded so neat. Honestly, it's that background that first inspired me to follow up on 4e when it came out.
I was quite a bit bummed that little of that made it into the rulebooks themselves. There've been some hints and continuations of it in a few Dragon articles, but not enough to satisfy me.
I honesly don't think that their adventuer path is gonna fall off the face of the world because they didn't explicitly say that the ground was there, or that dwarves are some kind of nefarious otherwoldly entity becuase they didn't want to link the adventure paths in the greater context of dwarvish magical prowress and city state supremacy. The assumptions of what a dnd game is still there, the adventuers are there, and quite frankly the less jibber jabber they write about ancient empires, neighboring city states, and the cycles of the moon, the better for me , at least.
They don't need to tell me anything about the World. But it'd be nice if they told me something about this vale or, you know, the point of these adventures or why we are here and what we are doing - or really any friggen thing at all beyond - "Here are some monsters, now get out there and kill them! Don't forget to take their stuff" (OK I'm off on a rant now).
NPCs that are cardboard cutouts with no background or history existing in places that also have no back ground or history in order to service adventurers who's only reason to adventure is to kill things and take their stuff is not some kind of a goal to be strived for - no matter how much WotC seems to believe it is.
APs are - or at least should be, epic stories. Epic stories are built on well realized fantasy locales. Thats why we got in depth looks at the locale in APs like Age of Worms and Savage Tide (and every other AP Paizo has made). This stuff is not just filler - its an important part of the process. It should strive to entrance us - to fill us with wonder and to make us care, otherwise whats the point?
Like you I would not run an AP in Greyhawk or POL or Golorian myself, I'd run it in my own homebrewed campaign and I'd adapt the material, but Its a hell of a lot harder to create a fully realized vale from complete scratch then it is to adapt one from another fantasy world.
Worse yet APs have a design goal of providing a good story for harried DMs AND 4E is supposed to be a good game for a new DM. So now I have a harried neophyte DM who has no background at all to fall back on. They're spectacularly failing to provide him with the kind of support that he needs to make this a great experience for everyone at the table. Under the best of circumstances this would really annoy me, but to do that in the same issues as they put out articles on how great it is to be a neophyte DM in 4E is stupid on a whole new level.
So sure, if your an experience DM ready and willing to fully flesh this all out in your campaign of choice the AP would, eventually, work fine. They've made you do work you normally should not have had to do by failing to provide any kind of town or much background for anyone in the town but it'd be possible. With a harried neophyte DM however its been a lot less cool then it could have been and me and the other players have had to work over time to develop any kind of connection at all to this world - and currently its really pretty thin - and thats the APs fault.
|
|
I am. I love the implied PoL setting as I read it in the advanced preview books. Those little snippets about the Primordial/God war and the dwarves being slaves to giants and the civilization-crushing war between the Tiefling and Dragonborn empires and Orcus' hunt for the Raven Queen and all the other stuff sounded so neat. Honestly, it's that background that first inspired me to follow up on 4e when it came out.
Yeah - I liked a lot of that too. Like I've said, its like the material actually published has no soul. Had I not read the Worlds... and Races... books I'd doubt I'd really know this stuff right now.
Like I've said, its like the material actually published has no soul. Had I not read the Worlds... and Races... books I'd doubt I'd really know this stuff right now.
Which is why I'm so bummed that their lack of world detail is intentional.
"We think it's in your own best interest that we don't provide any details outside of the strict script of the quest." - BAH!
In fact, I think I'm going to go post my thoughts at the WotC forum where they might be read by someone involved...
Like I've said, its like the material actually published has no soul. Had I not read the Worlds... and Races... books I'd doubt I'd really know this stuff right now.
Which is why I'm so bummed that their lack of world detail is intentional.
"We think it's in your own best interest that we don't provide any details outside of the strict script of the quest." - BAH!
In fact, I think I'm going to go post my thoughts at the WotC forum where they might be read by someone involved...
If you do post a link. Despite my ranting on this topic I think there are some very valid points that could be raised regarding this.
In particular I just can't see how their current design decisions can be seen to be helpful for a DM with many real world commitments who is also a neophyte. The only possible explanation is that the AP is aimed at highly experienced DMs with lots of free time on their hands so they can create a background that suites their campaign world of choice and I don't believe that is the goal.
In particular I just can't see how their current design decisions can be seen to be helpful for a DM with many real world commitments who is also a neophyte. The only possible explanation is that the AP is aimed at highly experienced DMs with lots of free time on their hands so they can create a background that suites their campaign world of choice and I don't believe that is the goal.
I think it's the opposite--they don't expect you to spend much time on the story elements at all. The 4e WotC regime does not believe in the need for "fluff." They play lunch-hour "campaigns" that consist of unconnected dungeons--and consider that a exemplary model of play.
The RPGA's Dungeon Delves with their string of encounters and one-sentence "plots" are 4e in its purest "Platonic" form---that's what I think and I believe it's what they think as well.
If you do post a link. Despite my ranting on this topic I think there are some very valid points that could be raised regarding this.
I went to make my post but chickened out. As I was writing it, I realized I've only read the first adventure so far and didn't want to be arguing something based only on what others have said about it.
Once I've finished reading Siege, I'll feel more comfortable critiquing their approach to the AP.
As I started writing the post, I realized we've been getting a lot of information about the 'Middle World' in various Dragon articles. So while their minimalistic approach to the AP is disappointing, they haven't been completely silent on the development of the assumed setting.