... and I like it.
You asked for feedback on whether we liked the missing level and I for one do like it very much. Personally, we occasionally split DMing up and it gives me a chance to pass the torch off to our other DM for a bit and just play a character for a bit. Even if we weren't swapping duties I prefer mixing things up a touch.
it is actually fairly nice for me as well
it gives me a chance to let the players go do whatever it is they want to for a little while in Riddleport
helps tie up loose ends and make Riddleport more "alive" for them
My vote: no thank you.
While I invariably jazz up opponents, or outright add the occasional challenge, I do that sporadically and wherever I want to*. I pace XP accordingly. I don't want or need the obligation to create content at a particular plot point and PC level decided by Paizo.
I want to decide when I "go the extra mile". I run APs because I want the entire framework.
Oh, and for the record, not a fan of the set-pieces either.
*In SitS I enhanced one of the wererats to be a much more credible threat and statted him as a recurring villain. Bought Sean K. Reynolds' lycanthropy book to do it and everything. Had a plan. Then he failed his save vs sleep and was slaughtered. Shrug. THAT's the kind of thing I like to do from time to time. Not build out a level worth of encounters and plot.
My vote: no thank you.
While I invariably jazz up opponents, or outright add the occasional challenge, I do that sporadically and wherever I want to*. I pace XP accordingly. I don't want or need the obligation to create content at a particular plot point and PC level decided by Paizo.
I want to decide when I "go the extra mile". I run APs because I want the entire framework.
Oh, and for the record, not a fan of the set-pieces either.
*In SitS I enhanced one of the wererats to be a much more credible threat and statted him as a recurring villain. Bought Sean K. Reynolds' lycanthropy book to do it and everything. Had a plan. Then he failed his save vs sleep and was slaughtered. Shrug. THAT's the kind of thing I like to do from time to time. Not build out a level worth of encounters and plot.
I agree with Anguish. Specifically declaring a point at which the DM can (read: has to) write up his own material to bridge a level gap isn't flexibility for the DM. In the case of many busy DMs (like the ones who buy and run APs, instead of writing their own stuff), this is more of a hassle than it's worth.
Also, set pieces are a turn off for me. I would rather see the elements plugged into the adventure itself and then labeled as 'optional' for the overall plot. It allows more seamless integration, and I'm not likely to use these ideas anywhere else.
O
Also, set pieces are a turn off for me. I would rather see the elements plugged into the adventure itself and then labeled as 'optional' for the overall plot. It allows more seamless integration, and I'm not likely to use these ideas anywhere else.
From your perspective, how is that different from what's being done now? Compare, say, the Graul household in Hook Mountain Massacre with Teeth of Araska in Children of the Void. To me they're both pretty optional with some hooks that could easily be tweaked or omitted. In my game the Graul story hooks weren't even used:
I enjoy the set pieces, but they really don't seem that different to me from what has been done before. I also like that it eases the pressure on the writers and editors, and expect that this will drive quality.
I can see both sides to this. My wife will DM "by the book", as it were, and will never include a single random encounter, even if they're suggested in a given AP chapter. She will only use encounters explicitly detailed. I, myself, am also strapped for time, and I primarily use AP's to do the work I simply don't have time for. So, I can very much understand and sympathize with staying the way they were.
On the other hand, I love random encounters when I DM, and I enjoy tailoring adventures more appropriately to players. For Rise of the Runelords, I added an old Dungeon magazine adventure as a nice stop-over point, and I loved personalizing certain elements. As of Pathfinder #15, it's now written in to be creative. I'm looking forward to the chance when we play of putting in something I like from the Campaign Setting or other Pathfinder supplement that won't otherwise come up in the 2D AP. It will definitely give me the chance to put in something psionic.
The chance to do something else has electrified me, and I know that I can wait a few more weekends to make the time to tickle another level's worth of xp, but I can concede the point to those not having such time.
On the other hand, I am always impressed how Paizo tries new things, and I'd hate to suggest anything that would curb their zeal for growth and experimentation. I never want to see Paizo become stale and predictable.
I vote yes for the missing level and the set pieces.
Flex is good.
No problem with a single level gap, no particular need for it IMHO. However, if used, I think the following adventure can't have a "killer" encounter the likes of the end of #2 or other spots.
Edit: I otherwise have no problem with that encounter. (of course I may change my mind after actually running it in a couple weeks).
I disapprove of the gaps, too. I feel that they dilute the adventure path concept. The point of an adventure path is an integrated series of adventures that follow on one another. Adding the gap means that I have to find something to fill it. I buy adventure paths and modules so that I don't have to spend the time making up things for the game (and, of course, to tap into imaginations much richer than mine) and leaving intentional blank areas does not serve my needs.
Perhaps the people that are happy with intentional gaps would be better served with adventure module trilogies rather than six piece adventure paths?
I too disapprove of the gap. The party is able to set the pace through large portions of Shadow in the Sky and Children of the Void. We didn't need an additional gap, and on a more direct level I'm in Pathfinder for the content. Having less content isn't a feature in my book. I'm agnostic on the value of set pieces, but they're something. It's still content. It's a tool I can use in the game, whereas the gap is the exact opposite.
I haven't run the numbers to see how much of sixth level is going to likely be missing, and my party is just at Zincher's raid on the Goblin now so it's a ways yet, but if it's a small thing that I can easily pad out with random encounters or something it's no big deal. If it's most of a level, that's a pain big pain and I'll have to do something about it unless Armageddon Echo starts off pretty soft. I've just now started reading it so I don't know yet.
|
I'm of two minds.
Right now I'm looking for 6th level stuff to beg/borrow/steal from, yet if I was running this AP, by now I'd have had about 2-3 significant brainstorms that I wanted to present of my own stuff, so all and all a missing level here or there is a good thing to me. I could prolly do it in 5-6 extra encounters along the way anyhow, which is what I usually come up with.
Maybe I should clarify that I'm not really opposed to a "loose" XP schedule that allows a DM to personalize a campaign with an encounter or two or to insert the occasional wandering monster without pushing the PCs too far ahead in level for the AP.
I just don't like that the missing level essentially tells the DM exactly when and where this personalization or these encounters must fall, but then don't give him/her anything to work with.
As I am running CotCT right now, there are plenty of opportunities for encounters and PC-specific goals that I sprinkle throughout the campaign. If I had to stick them all in at level 6 in order to get the PCs enough XP to handle the next section of the plot, they wouldn't be nearly as effective.
I suppose my ideal solution would be for the writers to leave out a certain amount of XP throughout the campaign, perhaps a %age of each level, that is up to the DM to supply with player-specific goals. I handle this by simply not giving XP (or not very much, at least) for those encounters, and the players are none the wiser.
As to the set pieces, I like them better when they are actually written into the adventure and then presented as "optional encounters" ala the Graul household, rather then written up as distinct elements that then need to be inserted. This is just personal preference, and I understand that opinions could easily differ in this regard.
O
I just don't like that the missing level essentially tells the DM exactly when and where this personalization or these encounters must fall, but then don't give him/her anything to work with.
It doesn't. You can add material pretty much anywhere in AP#14 or at the beginning of #15. As for not giving you anything to work with... you have three set piece adventures in hand, any of which can fill the gap.
I can't understand why people have such an issue with this. Filling a 1 level gap is nowhere near as challenging as running an adventure with too many or too few PCs where you are constantly battling experience point growth or dealing with a couple player deaths where they wind up losing a level due to raise dead.
I approve of gaps, and am happy to see this tried in Pathfinder.
I would like to see the execution of gaps be set for non-urgent sections of Pathfinder APs though, and I don't really think this particular gap placement is ideal for this.
While the third adventure doesn't really start until the PCs decide to leave Riddleport and make their way to the elven forest, there is likely to be a sense of urgency among the PCs after witnessing the meteor strike and results on the island. They know drow are responsible for what happened and most parties would assume haste is of the essence to intervene before something bigger is brought down.
Looking back at the first two APs Rise of the Runelords had opportunities for gaps, while Curse of the Crimson Throne may have only had such a place very early in the AP.
Hmm. Insightful, I had not really noticed this before.
I can't understand why people have such an issue with this. Filling a 1 level gap is nowhere near as challenging as running an adventure with too many or too few PCs where you are constantly battling experience point growth or dealing with a couple player deaths where they wind up losing a level due to raise dead.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm lazy. I prefer to have everything prepared for me, and all I have to do is tell my players every once in a while: "After defeating the bad guys, you gained a level." If the adventure path is missing a level, then I either have to write something myself (not my preference), or say: "After defeating the bad guys, you gained a level. Then you gain another level after that in order to start the next adventure."
For me, the big advantage of playing an adventure path is to have everything laid out for me in logical order from beginning to end.
As for not giving you anything to work with... you have three set piece adventures in hand, any of which can fill the gap.
I can't understand why people have such an issue with this.
I agree with Dennis. Please note that we're not saying that you're wrong; we're saying that we don't understand. Can someone please explain to me why the set pieces are hard to use to fill this gap?
Given an AP that runs for the course of 15-17 levels and 6 adventures, telling DMs that the missing level has to go at the end of #14 [to avoid making the final battle in 14 too easy] or the beginning of #15 is pretty limiting, IMO. As I tried to explain earlier, I would prefer for this kind of space to be spread out over the entire AP, instead of crammed into one, Paizo-dictated place.I just don't like that the missing level essentially tells the DM exactly when and where this personalization or these encounters must fall, but then don't give him/her anything to work with.It doesn't. You can add material pretty much anywhere in AP#14 or at the beginning of #15.
As for not giving you anything to work with... you have three set piece adventures in hand, any of which can fill the gap.
Which I plan to use elsewhere in the campaign, where they make more sense. I understand what you're saying ... there's a ton of material out there, Paizo and non-, that I could use to plug into the AP for 6th level. My preference, however, is that the actual authors of the AP provide this material for me, so that I, busy father, husband, and boarding-school teacher that I am, don't have to try to come up with the seamless integration that I would like. There's nothing more annoying to me than reading a text box and saying, "You swing your axe with a mighty war cry and cleave into the cultist of Bane ... er, I mean Rovagug!"
I can't understand why people have such an issue with this. Filling a 1 level gap is nowhere near as challenging as running an adventure with too many or too few PCs where you are constantly battling experience point growth or dealing with a couple player deaths where they wind up losing a level due to raise dead.
You're right, those are also challenges when trying to run a good D&D game. Since I have a 6-player group, I'd rather Paizo didn't throw another one on top of things. I'm not entirely sure why my opposition freaks you out so much, Dennis. Paizo asked for our opinions regarding this experiment ... hic id est.
O
I agree with Dennis. Please note that we're not saying that you're wrong; we're saying that we don't understand. Can someone please explain to me why the set pieces are hard to use to fill this gap?As for not giving you anything to work with... you have three set piece adventures in hand, any of which can fill the gap.
I can't understand why people have such an issue with this.
I don't have the particular issue in question: are there really three set pieces in that issue that make up a 6th level module? In that case, it wouldn't be a problem, naturally, but then it wouldn't be a "missing 6th level" (as Dennis put it).
Can someone confirm that there is a gap (i.e. a lack of encounters for getting from level 5 to 7, or whatever the supposed "gap" is)?
The three set pieces referred to are all the Second Darkness set pieces, presented in #s 13, 14, & 15, that seem to fit better in their respective adventures than they do all crammed into the space between #s 14 & 15.
There really is a "gap" in the AP. #14 ends with the PCs having just reached 6th level (or so). The encounters in #15 assume (intentionally) that the party consists of 4 7th level characters.
O
I don't have the particular issue in question: are there really three set pieces in that issue that make up a 6th level module? In that case, it wouldn't be a problem, naturally, but then it wouldn't be a "missing 6th level" (as Dennis put it).
There is a set piece in each module. The point I was making is that you can run the set pieces to keep the players level in-sync with the AP. Actually, the first Set Piece is likely not much help but the second and third could be adjusted to get the players up to level... likely the third wouldn't be needed but it's hard to say until I've run it.
Creative Director
|
The three set pieces referred to are all the Second Darkness set pieces, presented in #s 13, 14, & 15, that seem to fit better in their respective adventures than they do all crammed into the space between #s 14 & 15.
There really is a "gap" in the AP. #14 ends with the PCs having just reached 6th level (or so). The encounters in #15 assume (intentionally) that the party consists of 4 7th level characters.
O
The reason there's a gap, really, is that there's just not enough encounters in "Children of the Void" to bring characters all the way to 7th level, which is where they need to be when the next adventure begins. That said... if the PCs started "Children of the Void" far into 4th level (which is VERY possible, given that there's a lot of XP to be scrounged up in the previous adventure), they could well hit 5th level by the time they arrive at Devil's Elbow and be very close to 7th by the end.
In any case, I suspect that in the future we'll be making stronger attempts to shore up adventures to avoid level gaps like this in the future, likely by incorporating the set pieces a bit more strongly into the plots, or even, sometimes, doing longer adventures as we need them. We'll see.
Until then, though... keep sending in the comments about this one!
The reason there's a gap, really, is that there's just not enough encounters in "Children of the Void" to bring characters all the way to 7th level, which is where they need to be when the next adventure begins.
For what it's worth, Children of the Void didn't feel encounter-light when I gave it the read-through.
Part of my difficulty with the gap is that addressing it in advance can be tricky. Shadow in the Sky is already fairly easy on the PCs compared to my usual (not that I'm complaining about the fact...I can be brutal), but I'm wary of sneaking the set pieces in near to the adventures they're built to compliment because if I did it right the PCs might then end up a level ahead of schedule for a good chunk of Shadow and/or Children. That's not a great situation for me because part of the fun in battles is getting the PCs a bit worried about their futures.
There's room for fights against easy mooks, and I've used them, but should most of an adventure feel that way it's just less fun for me. The party deserves some easy fights from time to time as little pieces of evidence that they've come up in the world, but they should also have some reasons to worry now and then. Front load too much to adjust for the gap and the main adventures get their difficulty watered down.
But then if it's not done suddenly there's this weird patch of potentially-directionless Riddleport Tales that can distract from the developing plot, especially if the party has gotten it into their heads that they're really interested in the A-plot with the drow and want to eagerly move ahead.
|
Maybe I have pro-active players, or I just like to expand things, but I usually find they end up ahead of the curve. Having a breathing space can get things back on track.
I've not seen this mentioned yet, but for those who subscribe (and get the pdf in multi-file format), having some elements of an AP be split into separate chapters makes it possible to build a file of generic resources, without having to remember which issue an article was in.
Locations like the Gold Goblin call out to be used again and again, even after you finish the AP (or haven't used it at all).
Regardless of whether Paizo continue to include level breaks, I hope they continue to present side-treks, recurring background NPCs and interesting locations in their own chapters, for ease of use.
I'm basically against this. If I want to expand things out I can do that whenever I want but having an AP force me to expand things out at a specific time is not really desired.
Plus if I start tacking the AP apart looking for encounters of around 6th level I'm not going to find any if you skipped sixth level.
Finally it breaks up the 'story'. I'll never run all these APs - there are to many and they come out too fast. Most of them will be read once and then never touched again. A handful that are really cool will run in their entirety (presuming the campaign does not collapse). It breaks up the story in some sense to have a part of the adventure say 'and then the adventurers went and did a bunch of stuff that the DM should make up and came back more powerful'.
Finally it breaks up the 'story'. I'll never run all these APs - there are to many and they come out too fast. Most of them will be read once and then never touched again. A handful that are really cool will run in their entirety (presuming the campaign does not collapse). It breaks up the story in some sense to have a part of the adventure say 'and then the adventurers went and did a bunch of stuff that the DM should make up and came back more powerful'.
Indeed. This morning I was imagining if the Lord of the Rings trilogy had a bit where Tolkien said: "The fellowship of the ring had some adventures between the Mines of Moria and Mount Doom. If you want, you can take some events out of The Hobbit and stick them in here with just a little bit of tweaking."
;-)
Indeed. This morning I was imagining if the Lord of the Rings trilogy had a bit where Tolkien said: "The fellowship of the ring had some adventures between the Mines of Moria and Mount Doom. If you want, you can take some events out of The Hobbit and stick them in here with just a little bit of tweaking."
Finally it breaks up the 'story'. I'll never run all these APs - there are to many and they come out too fast. Most of them will be read once and then never touched again. A handful that are really cool will run in their entirety (presuming the campaign does not collapse). It breaks up the story in some sense to have a part of the adventure say 'and then the adventurers went and did a bunch of stuff that the DM should make up and came back more powerful'.
I think ultimately it's a matter of preference. I figure I'm gonna have to tweak things regardless and like the break.
Incidentally the Gray Mouser books tend to jump around a lot... in fact there is a bunch of fiction where there are big skips between 'chapters' or books. Feist has big holes between some books in a series.
Incidentally the Gray Mouser books tend to jump around a lot... in fact there is a bunch of fiction where there are big skips between 'chapters' or books. Feist has big holes between some books in a series.
Exactly. I'd compare a series of loosely connected modules to a series of short stories (like stories of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or Elric of Melniboné), but I'd like an adventure path to be a self-contained epic tale (like The Lord of the Rings or The Worm Ouroboros). Just my personal preference, of course.
The gap works for me, but that's because I'm planning to expand on a couple of things in CotV. Specifically,
I'm adding a Goldhammer encounter similar to the Cryptmage encounter, but more of a survival fight against multiple waves of Akatas. There are a handful of Goldhammer's who have rigged a small stockade in the middle of the big crater. They are too wounded to make it out on their own, and elect to stay and fight until dawn.
I'm calculating the number of possible akatas based on the amount of skymetal found in various craters.
Also, I'm sketching out a big encounter with various crime bosses in riddle port for the skymetal, where the PCs get to do some diplomacy, bargaining, and affect the balance of power in riddleport before they leave (since the campaign doesn't look like it is coming back to Riddleport, I want to give the PCs an opportunity to settle loose ends and leave a big mark.) The basic idea is that they choose one crimelord to give any unused skymetal too, and deal with the rest. At least one crimelord ends up dead, with the possibility of a new overlord ascending.
I do think a small sidebar with a couple of plot hooks could be useful, tho, if a gap is left.
|
|
I want to thank Paizo for doing a great job in giving us a place to have these discussions.
I like the gap in the adventure path, but I am a GM who likes to tweak and customize adventures.
The folks behind the Pathfinder adventure paths have given us a rich and detailed world in which to play. Yes, there is a sense of urgency after Children of the Void, but I imagine in our campaign it will take some time to report back to the elves, and get a response. After all, Eviana and Kaerishiel are going to have a long argument about bringing strangers into the Drow conflict.
There is so much to do in and around Riddleport. The Golden Goblin is a great example, but also just how will the players deal with all the other Crimelords? There is so much extra material here, I will really enjoy having a chance to flesh out the city (and the world) a bit more before the players press on into the forest.
So chalk me up as another YES vote for the occasional gap. Although, I can see why some people do not like this decision, it fits so well into my GM style, I have to support it. Sometimes it is nice to be able to take an Adventure Path off the rails for a while, and let the players explore on their own for a bit.
Along the same lines, I am enjoying the set pieces VERY much. They not only allow us to have optional adventures components, but they can be dropped nicely into other campaigns. I cry heartily for more set pieces!
I was looking through some published adventures searching for some ideas to fill the gap. I found a good one that fits nicely with the feel of Second Darkness. It is written for sixth level and has a drow bad guy and an alien bad guy.
Its chapter three from Goodman Games' Dungeon Interludes, Dungeon Crawl Classics #14. Its titled The Hunter of Worlds.
A short synopsis:
As to the set pieces, I like them better when they are actually written into the adventure and then presented as "optional encounters" ala the Graul household, rather then written up as distinct elements that then need to be inserted.
O
This is basically how I feel about the Set Pieces. I have liked the Set Pieces I've seen.
In general, I would prefer that an AP provide more than less, though certainly some could be optional (ie Set Piece). Coming up with encounters and such is not a problem per say, but the two main reasons for my purchasing of the APs is quality stories and my limited time.
Best,
E
Because of the fact that we are playing 4E and that my party missed some encounters in the first adventure, they are only going to be about 4th level when they finish on Devil's Elbow. This is going to give me a lot to fill in between Children of the Void and Armeggedon Echo. I'd like them to be at least about 6th level when they start the third adventure, so I need some adventure ideas. I've got some stuff line up for them back in Riddleport, but a lot of it will probably be rping and intrigue. I'm not sure how much actual xp they'll earn from it all. I also have some plans to expand some of the stuff with Velashu tribes folk, but even with all that it will likely only get them to 5th if I'm lucky. That still gives me a whole 1-2 levels to fill in, which is quite a lot.
|
I'm not a fan of the gaps either. I can see both sides, though. My suggestion would be to have a gap, but also have a side-styled adventure set up to fill that gap for those without the time.
In effect, it'd be the same amount of work that you're used to, but it could be taken out of the adventure without any loss of overall plot. For instance, have one of the central NPCs task a PC out with a quest a few cities away that just happens to have the amount of XP needed to fill the gap. In a normal (non-gapped) AP you'd fill the same pages with material anyway.
How about split the difference with the set-piece adventure idea ?
Have the "optional encounter"/ set piece adventure be designed to specifically fill the gap ... those requriing a gap can skip it, those that want it keep it.
Might require a bit of work from the dungeon setters to make sure its close to one levels worth of experience of course.
Thats only throwing out an idea though. Personally I lean towards a "no gap, no setpiece " preference, in the "I buy adventures so I don't have to write them myself" camp ...**buuuutttt** I'm not massively pro/anti on either debate.
I vote against the level gap. As others have suggested up thread, I run adventure paths to save myself the hassle of designing my own adventures.
I decided that I'm going to try running Last Breaths of Ashenport to fill in my level gap. I had to lower the level of it slightly, but the PCs are currently in Roderick's Cove and heading back along the coast in the direction of Riddleport. I think that Ashenport will fit in well part way between Riddleport and Roderick's Cove.
|
Since everyone is voting... i'll cast mine
I like the gap in levels.
I understand the arguments made against and see the validity of them. I like the suggestion that the set piece be designed to fit in the event someone does not want to create an adventure. I also think that GM's who are worried can just award exp slightly more generously and solve the problem that way.
Here is why i like the gap:
* I'm learning to GM and it is less threatening to me to write a small side quest, then to create a campaign - these gaps let me try my hand while having the AP safety net to land back in
* My players never follow the bouncing ball anyway... I have a cleric of Kurgess, who intends to volunteer for combat in Zincher's Arena... this should be entertaining
* Good roleplaying characters will have their own agendas... having a little wiggle room lets me indulge the individual party members
* I don't want to have to feel like when they stray from the path i need to immediately push them back onto the tracks... let them wander and they'll find their way back
Just my 2 cents... probably worth only half that
A
|
Perhaps the people that are happy with intentional gaps would be better served with adventure module trilogies rather than six piece adventure paths?
<RANT>
rant scrubbed, move along, nothing to see.</RANT>
On topic, I don't particularly mind the level gap, though I wold not like to see it become a common occurrence. I certainly have no issues finding something to fill in that missing level, but its not a habit Id like to get used to in an AP.
think of all those random encounter tables with neat monsters and encounters that make the DM in you salivate
then try to squeeze some of them into the module while running it? without the level gaps my players almost always end up right where they should be and any additional encounters would put them over the top and force an adjustment of your later encounters
the level gap really lets you put more interesting encounters of your own design and/or flesh out any details that the PCs want to pursue in the campaign.
If your players aren't big RPers with goals of their own then they can bash on some cool monsters that they have never seen before and gain some loot and exp.
whats not to like about flexibility?
whats not to like about flexibility?
I can appreciate where you're coming from ...but with gaps and random monster tables, to be its like having several loosely linked scenarios of which there are umpteen other products on the market... which, I might add, I don't buy. Ever.
<I already have huge numbers of those sort of products from 1st and 2nd ed, let alone 3rd...>
I buy pathfinder to have a campaign, not loosely linked fill-in-the-gaps adventures. Product differentiation and all that !!
I can appreciate where you're coming from ...but with gaps and random monster tables, to be its like having several loosely linked scenarios of which there are umpteen other products on the market... which, I might add, I don't buy. Ever.
<I already have huge numbers of those sort of products from 1st and 2nd ed, let alone 3rd...>
I buy pathfinder to have a campaign, not loosely linked fill-in-the-gaps adventures. Product differentiation and all that !!
you dont have to make the encounters random
have set encounters involving the cool monsters that you really want the party to see. For example I am making up a set encounter where the party rescues a dwarf/maybe dwarves from some of the islands denizens of my choosing. This way the level gap gets filled, the Gas Forges reward-for- rescuing-dwarves-from-the-island-plot-hole is filled and the party gets a chance to act like hero's and secure some valuable allies.