|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far the hardest part in the Adventure Paths amongst my group has getting the players to have a vested interest in what's going on around them. I think it's gotten worse as the APs have come out rather than easier.
Rise of the Runelords
Curse of the Crimson Throne
Second Darkness
I know this is a cliche, but it works so I'm going to suggest it. Let's start an AP with the characters as simple residents of a small village that gets attacked by the big bad. Something that carries the characters through the whole AP. A town that represents the innocence of childhood and such. Sure it's been used a lot (Wheel of Time, Eragon, Dungeon Siege, Lord of the Rings) but it's good, and it hasn't been used in an AP.
Oh and please if you do take my suggestion, make it a town of good people. Diamond Lake and Falcon's Hollow are neat places...but gloomy.
I'm cool with it.
My group doesn't even play D&D at this stage unless we're looking for a little cliché.
Assembling a party of four or more people who then function as a family/combat unit for months at a time is a formidable obstacle in ANY campaign design, much more-so for an AP that has to function pre-packaged for a huge variety of character types.
A more original and specific background would necessarily dictate much about the characters. I think that the beginning of the APs is more like a template for a beginning campaign, but the GM must do a little extra work to integrate things early on if the players demand a certain level of motivation.
Adventure Paths being what they are, it makes little sense for players to gripe about their motivation. You either answer the call to adventure or you don't. If a PC doesn't act heroic, he doesn't deserve to be the hero.
|
I agree with the "what now?" problem of CotCT, but I never felt that sandpoint wasnt a good hometown. for that matter, a PC could easily be a native.
As for second darkness, the fact that the Drow have magitech that can bring down giant rocks should be a pretty decent motivator. Earthfall and the Age of Darkness should be pretty ingrained into the mythology of the culture, and everyone should dread Big F&ck'in Rocks more than usual. Second Darkness characters SHOULD be unscrupulous sociopaths, but even unscrupulous sociopaths (hells, especially unscrupolous sociopaths) should realize that saving the world inevitably includes the bit you happen to be standing on at the time. While the meteor strike wouldnt be a world-killer, or even an Extinctualizer, it would likely topple quite a bit of the modern civilization.
Too lazy to use the spoiler button!
Rise of the Runelords:
Got your small village right there. You can force the players to play Sandpoints citicens. That covers the first adventure, as they try to save the town from being torched by goblins. After that, you get the murders, which are further threatening Sandpoint - and there's personal involvement with at least one party member. I give you that Hook Mountin's a bit of a stretch here, but we do have greed - always a good motivator for adventurers. Things get right back on track when Sandpoint is threatened yet again in Fortress, and by then, you know that you have a bigger problem, and the rest of the campaign is spent dealing with that.
Curse of the Crimson Throne:
It's not their home village. It's their home city. Just like village, only bigger. Sure, Lamm's just an intro with little impact on the rest of the story, but by the time he's done, he did have done his job of getting them together - they'll find a reason to visit the queen, see their city in need and are able to help it, and things go from there.
Second Darkness:
Things get bigger yet: It's their home world that's threatened! It doesn't start with that - would be a weird opening to a campaign - but after they finish the whole casino business, they will have proof that strongly suggests that someone wants to bring about Armageddon.
Oh, and they will see for themselves one of the darkest (literally) secrets Golarion has (rembember - and remind your players - that just because you and I know all about drow, and have probably read a dozen novels with drow in them, including the most-copied character, and a fair share of adventures and game stuff, it doesn't mean that the characters will face them without betting an eye. If they heard about them at all, it was from nursery tales that are used to frighten children.
It's not worse than the idea of having the BBEG attack a village. That one has holes all over it, too. If that BBEG attacks a small village, why can't he just obliterate it? Those BBEG types usually are quite powerful. And even if he only, say, sends some minions, once that attack is over, what reason is there to come back? Was the first raid only a dress rehearsal? Will every adventure in the AP consist of the BBEG sending progressively more powerful waves of attackers at the village? If not, if he turns his attention elsewhere, why would the simple villagers go and stop him? Their village is safe.
No, I think this would not take any less explanation than the three APs we have so far, in addition to being a cliche.
I've felt that without player cooperation, the whole thing doesn't really work: You'll need to put such an awful amount of work into your efforts to keep the players in (including extensive railroading) that it just isn't worth it.
Personally, I tell the players that I expect a little give and take - they don't try their level best to weasel out of the adventures, and I won't try my level best to railroad their every action to fit the adventures, and recuperate their generosity with nice character creation variables.
Part of this give and take is that I usually have some character requirements that assure that I won't have to use a cattle prod to keep them adventuring.
For CotCT I said that whatever else their characters were or did, they'd have to have a vested interest in Korvosa's continued prosperity - whether they just see it as home, or feel law- or honour-bound to save it, or have family or friends there, or whatever.
In RotRL I didn't think of anything, and was awarded by one character who went mad half-way through. After one ruined weekend, I forcibly retired that character and amended my houserules that characters need to be adventurers and heroes - people that like to risk their lives fighting against powerful critters. The player chose to stop playing rather than submitting to my "fascist rules".
|
|
In RotRL I didn't think of anything, and was awarded by one character who went mad half-way through. After one ruined weekend, I forcibly retired that character and amended my houserules that characters need to be adventurers and heroes - people that like to risk their lives fighting against powerful critters. The player chose to stop playing rather than submitting to my "fascist rules".
This sounds like a story worth telling.
In regards to the other comments though I agree obviously players need to make appropriate characters. In the case of all our games though the characters WERE good for the games. Yet we still ran into those issues. The big problem is that the things that bring the groups together (particularly in CotCT and SD) end early and have little to do with the long running plot.
|
Contributor
|
In RotRL I didn't think of anything, and was awarded by one character who went mad half-way through. After one ruined weekend, I forcibly retired that character and amended my houserules that characters need to be adventurers and heroes - people that like to risk their lives fighting against powerful critters. The player chose to stop playing rather than submitting to my "fascist rules".
This sounds like a story worth telling.
In regards to the other comments though I agree obviously players need to make appropriate characters. In the case of all our games though the characters WERE good for the games. Yet we still ran into those issues. The big problem is that the things that bring the groups together (particularly in CotCT and SD) end early and have little to do with the long running plot.
Whenever I have problems getting a player involved, I add something extra to draw them in. You really need to know your players to do that, but as a GM, its your right to metagame a bit and think about what's going to get them going. One of the easiest way to get them involved is to create an arch nemesis that picks on the most aggressive player on the table (the kick in the door guy). Get that bloke interested in something and there usually pretty good at dragging others into their messes. Once they're in, switch focus to other players, so they all get invested. More importantly than running an accurate game, is running a fun game where everyone's engaged, so if you need to bend the story to make that happen.. bend it.
In fact, its almost easier for a GM to make a story appropriate to the characters than to make characters appropriate to a constantly shifting/changing story.
Anyway, that's kind of what I do.
Yes, having a Nemesis for the players to focus on does help out a little.
From where I see it, your problem is that you're trying to run a canned adventure as if it was a freeform one, which simply won't work.
Contrary to a freeform adventure where it's all about the PCs (or should be at least), a canned adventure already has a script, and the moment your gaming table agrees to play one they're making a tacit agreement of biting the hooks and following through.
The first thing to do before running such game is reading at least the first pages and, according to what the adventure is about, you tell your players the required personality profile required for their would-be characters in order to fit in better.
I haven't read neither Second Darkness nor Curse of the Crimson Throne, but Rise of the Runelords clearly requires goody-two-shoes heroes, the kind of people with a penchant for sticking their nose in matters not their own for no other reward than the warm, fuzzy feeling of doing the right thing. So before trying to run Burnt Offerings you tell your players the adventure needs characters with a "hero" profile, and if any player tries to introduce a character of a "little bastard" concept you reject it then and there unless the player expressely compromises to at least do what the adventure requires of him. Now if a player says goody-two-shoes isn't his cup of tea and decides to sit this adventure out then no worries, that only means he wouldn't have worked in the adventure anyway. Just be clear with your players from the start and everything will be ok.
For my group I don't know if the cliche of "everyone is from the small town" work well either. I've found my group seems the most satisfied when they are together for a job. For example, in my longest campaign all of the PCs were members of the army. They advanced from grunts to being a special commando unit for the king.
In Rise of the Runelords, I was noticing the same thing. They didn't really seem to interested in protecting Sandpoint after a while. In fact, they wanted to leave it. Then I introduced a Pathfinder Society contact. Now, the group has a function again as a agents of the society.
For CotCT, I may suggest that they are all members of a noble house, or working for them. Or maybe members of the Korvosan Guard, or Sable Company.
For SD, I may suggest that the PCs are agents of a good church sent to investigate the gambling hall. They remain undercover and are then more inclined to be helpful against the drow.
I've felt that without player cooperation, the whole thing doesn't really work: You'll need to put such an awful amount of work into your efforts to keep the players in (including extensive railroading) that it just isn't worth it.
I agree with KaeYoss here.
I took a different more straightforward approach, and just tried to approach the situation maturely but quite firmly.
That is, I explained that this is an Adventure Path, and what that basically is... an ongoing story. That I didn't have specific alignment requirements, but I needed PCs to be able to work towards a common good goal, while allowing that they could become rich and famous along the way.
If they were the sort of characters that just don't give a damn about anything else, or would turn a blind eye to decent common folk being killed by monsters because "it's not my problem, I'm not feeling my motivation here" then to please rip up their character sheets and go home.. because there isn't going to be a game.
And then I smiled reassuringly, and pointed out that I just needed some common ground. A little help.
But seriously, as I explained to you all, and I explained to them: there has to be some player/character buy-in. If they don't want to fight monsters that are threatening civilization, then this isn't the game for them, and that we shouldn't put ourselves through the grief. No sense in the GM being frustrated and hurt, and the players be made to do things they don't want either.
Its like going to Star Wars and being angry that its not a romantic comedy. Understand what is being offered to you in this game experience, and don't try to fight against it. Don't try to derail it. They should know the deal, "we all are brought together by a common cause and we form a company, and we fight the forces of darkness." If they're expecting something else, let somebody else GM. Maybe they'll run Shadowrun, and good luck to 'em.
This is a player mental issue, not to condemn them all. The easiest way around it is to address it before the game starts, during character creation. Outline what their expectations should be, along with what you need for the cooperative story to work.
I agree with the previous post and with Kaeyoss. Moreover, you are the DM and do not have to stick to the adventure path literally. You can always make changes. I often change the beginning of an adventure or a campaign and tailor it to the characters.
I also tell my players beforehand what type of campaign they can expect, and which characters are not allowed. I also ask them beforehand what types of campaigns I have and which they prefer.
Then I wait until I have short character descriptions and histories and tailor the campaign to them. So I introduce family members, characters of the same faith as the PCs, etc. In this way I have various means to motivate the PCs during the campaign.
In fact, its almost easier for a GM to make a story appropriate to the characters than to make characters appropriate to a constantly shifting/changing story.
Good advice, but I'm sort of lazy and don't want to rewrite too large portions of modules, since I use them mainly to support my sloth.
This sounds like a story worth telling.
It's not an Ab3, but it was bad enough:
The player played an elf fighter, and like most his characters (many of which are either elves or paladins), he was prideful. He'd constantly beslamming NPCs - which he more or less always does. In moderation, it's not bad, it's even funny.
But he got worse. The rap he gave Shalelu when she couldn't hit that well (lower level combined with bad rolls) was bad. But that was nothing.
When the attack on the beginning of PF#4 came, he was slamming the townspeople so hard the map on the wall nearly started bleeding. He was going on how they were utterly worthless because they couldn't defend themselves against the attack (nevermind the CR of the critters involved and the average level of guards everywhere, or that they had sort of a hard time themselves).
And then, when Magnimar told them that they had to go to the fortress to kill the leader, he went nuts. Asked why they had to stick out their necks for worthless people, and how they had to pay them lots and lots of gold - and give him and his family noble titles and whatnot. He kept demanding, nevermind that the lives of everyone he cared about was in jeopardy along with everyone else, that they usually couldn't complain about payment, and that negotiations haven't even started.
With the madness and the hostility (I really don't like people raising voices at me, and double that when I'm the GM), I had enough.
I happened to support the group with an extra party of four - the four icomics from Runelords - since we're chronically low on players and that way, one of the iconics could help out as supportive GMNPCs and fill the role of the player that was absent that day.
They had joined the war council, and when they heard this despiccable behaviour (note that the mayor had already granted generous rewards, and they weren't enough), they jumped in and offered to help for free - and any PC that wanted to join them could happily do so.
The session was over by then, but the matter was not. Apparently another player was pissed about the situation, and after his sunday stank, too, he vented his anger at me over email, too.
He later apologised, but my weekend was ruined, too, and I decided to nip it in the bud:
The old character was convicted of ruinign the weekend for two people, and thus officially banned, and I told the player that any new character he made would have to cleave to the new restrictions: He would have to be an adventurer, someone who likes going on adventure, even if he's not paid his weight in platinum. I left the motivation open, but pure greed without at least a bit of courage and recklessness (so he would go on adventure rather than become and investment banker or something) was right out.
He told me I didn't have the right to do that, and that he'd stop playing if I didn't ease up.
I didn't (don't like players tell me I don't have a right, after they ruin my weekend), so he did.
Things are okay again between the two of us (well, mostly okay certainly), but he still doesn't play.
|
|
I think a lot of people have misunderstood what my problem is. There's already decent things to get the party together in the AP, what the issue is to me, is that those things have had NOTHING to do with the actual PLOT of the AP. Save side-quests for the set pieces. Our groups have done a great job of making players appropriate for the APs, but bringing the party together through the means presented has felt contrived.
Rise of the Runelords group
Chaotic Good Human Bard (and a Pathfinder, very Indiana Jones-esque)
Chaotic Good Halfling Favored Soul of Desna (now a Spherewalker)
Neutral Catfolk Scout (just introduced after the Spellthief and then the Warlock of this player died =p)
Curse of the Crimson Throne
CG Human Crusader/Holy Liberator who worships Cayden Cailean
N Human Cleric of Pharasma
N Elf Diviner
The two CGs love fighting against the martial law. The Crusader is Vencarlo's apprentice (and unkwnown to the Crusader, his son as well).
Second Darkness
CN Half Elf Bard/Cleric of Calistria
CN Dwarf Fighter
LG Human Swordsage
LG Human Rogue
We've had a bit of conflicts between the LGs and the CNs, but the LGs have been the ones to keep the CNs from just concentrating on gambling and money)
The Gaedran Lamm and Gold Goblin stuff were both great, but they were just way too disconnected.
I think a lot of people have misunderstood what my problem is. There's already decent things to get the party together in the AP, what the issue is to me, is that those things have had NOTHING to do with the actual PLOT of the AP. Save side-quests for the set pieces. Our groups have done a great job of making players appropriate for the APs, but bringing the party together through the means presented has felt contrived.
The Gaedran Lamm and Gold Goblin stuff were both great, but they were just way too disconnected.
This is a great thread, imo. I particularly liked the point about players in an adventure path agreeing to "bite" at any obvious hooks. I've never run protracted set campaigns before, so our group is more of the free-form type: "we'll do what we like and the DM will make things interesting for us".
I see your problem. My suggestion would be to tweak the given motivations. In CotCT, for example, perhaps Gaedran Lamm is in fact an unsavory agent of the Queen - that's why the guards have been somewhat reluctant to bring him to justice. Allow the players to discover this fact later, once the true nature of the plot becomes uncovered and it may boost their motivation to act against the real baddie.
I also think it's worth stressing to the players not to hang their entire backstory on him. He's a recent irritation not a driving force behind their character's motivations. If they plan to devote their lives to bringing him to justice it's going to be somewhat of an anticlimax when it happens so rapidly.
I so want a sloth!
Then go get one. Just pluck it off the tree. It won't run away. It won't bother to bite. It takes its name seriously.
Disclaimer: I won't take any responsibility for sloth-related injuries.
I think a lot of people have misunderstood what my problem is. There's already decent things to get the party together in the AP, what the issue is to me, is that those things have had NOTHING to do with the actual PLOT of the AP. Save side-quests for the set pieces. Our groups have done a great job of making players appropriate for the APs, but bringing the party together through the means presented has felt contrived.
Okay, I take your point. In review, I guess we didn't specifically answer your concern.
This in no way detracts from your point, but I haven't had it be an actual problem. In practical experience with Runelords, I haven't had anybody complain about it... or even notice it.
And, there is a case to be made concerning Runelords.
While Chapter One doesn't seem to have much to do with the over-arching plot.. I see a pretty strong connection, really. Nualia is financed by the Brotherhood of the Seven and/or Xanesha. That is not spelled out terribly explicitedly, but its there. Honest. I think the facts are little muddled because what Runelords was being rushed out the door there were still some plot elements being put in place, but the connection is there.
Nualia goes nuts. She goes to Magnimar and tracks down the man who got her pregnant and she kills him. There she meets up with the Brotherhood of the Seven (or the Skinsaw Men as they might be referred to as), and they provide her with resources.
So all the platinum she has in order to hire Lyrie, and Orik.. as well as the already dead Shonti (who died in the cage trap on Level 3 of Thistletop) is all trickling down indirectly from Xanesha, and ultimately from Mokmurian.
Need more proof? Nualia knows the general properties of the Minor Runewell, per her diary. Knows it better than Elyrium that's for sure. Who told her? The folks in Magnimar, and I'm betting more on Xanesha than Ironbriar.
The Path doesn't underscore all of this terribly well, and there is some question of why Nualia is financed to feed the minor Wrath Runewell (and not promote the collection of Greed Soul-Energy).. but there is a connection to the main plot.
Its kinda tricky, I imagine, of involving the central main plot right there at first level, for fear of overwelming or overpowering the PCs. Not that it can't be done, but there are some issues inherent to that.
|
|
I think a lot of people have misunderstood what my problem is. There's already decent things to get the party together in the AP, what the issue is to me, is that those things have had NOTHING to do with the actual PLOT of the AP. Save side-quests for the set pieces. Our groups have done a great job of making players appropriate for the APs, but bringing the party together through the means presented has felt contrived.
i understand you, but at least my feeling is that not everything can be part of the plot, but it can be part of the scenario
having all tied to a plot... actually makes me dislike an adventure... it feels unreal when everything is connected, so even the gnoll you killed 3 months ago was a secret agent of the decadent cult you have been hunting...
plot stories are good, but side adventures, five realism tot he game... why? because the world keeps moving beyond both the plot and the characters, and that is right in my book.
for me an AP or an Adventure or Society Scenario are nothing but templates and ideas... i rarelly use them (maybe i will begin doing it a bit more often) but when i do the author and players who read or played them would be lucky to recognice them... i use characters, and maps... but usually adapt the story to the characters, and knowing my players... they take actions and routes than an AP or even myself would think before, and i need to think on the march, but its ok, its what is fun of DMs for me.
for example we run last weekend the 2nd part of the society scenario: "Slave's Pits of Golarion"... counting they were 2 sesions in different weekends.. it lasted as long as 11 or 12 hours, ok take 1 or maybe 2 hours in distractions, rules consulting, people eating (its online) or me walking my dog... still we hace 10 hours worth of play... and the Society Scenario is made with 4 hours in mind, and its not because my players are slow... but because they do things differently, ask question, involve other NPCs, investigate ramifications and all in all get into their own troubles, many times PC - PC
for me its fun, i think so its or them so i keep playing like that.
interesting Watcher, veryInteresting
|
|
Shackled City, while not have any methods really of getting the group together, did a good job of having the first adventure tied to the plot
I haven't had as much of a problem with it in Runelords, probably BECAUSE there was no method of bringing the group together. So you had to use the plot of the adventure to do it. With CotCT and SD though, there are methods of doing it, but have little to no connection with the plot. Even if it's minor or unnoticeable at first (IE Chasing Nualia, to Xanesha, to Lucrecia, to Mokmurian to Karzoug) at least when you look back you can see how it all ties together. When you look back at Lamm or the Gold Goblin it's harder to see it as part of the big picture. I like my APs to be epics, like Star Wars. You don't really know at first why Senator Leia is running, but by the end of the movie you realize it was because they were carrying the Death Star schematics.
|
For each AP you need to find its operatic core and build upon it so your campaign feels more inspired and less episodic. The downside of multiple writers is they tend to lose the thread of the story, the "why are we doing this?” for the sake of groovy encapsulated encounters. They start off with great hooks and then lose steam on the way to the big bad guy.
SPOILERS
I'm halfway through Rise of the Runelords, and I've just realized what this story is about: slavery and the struggle against it. Some of the characters (Varisians and Shoanti) and the sympathetic antagonists (Stone Giants) share a heritage of enslavement to ancient overlords who, should they ever reawaken, will bind the world to their will. The story opens with a celebration to Desna, goddess of freedom, and degrades into an exploration of creatures who have suffered millennia of entrapment and debasement. The Virtue/Vice stuff is interesting, but it's not the heart of the story imho.
If you're looking for a high fantasy thread in AP #1,it helps to see it as a struggle between Desna and Karzoug, freedom vs magical slavery. With a little tweaking it could almost have First Testament overtones in the later adventures.
For AP #2 I suggest making it a struggle between seditionists who love their city and fascists. Secret meetings, underground 'newspapers', failed demonstrations, arrested preachers, etc. Like China Mieville's Iron Council or Perdido street station.
I haven't read AP #3 yet, but if it truly is 'Casino Owners vs The Drow', well...hmm.
I'm halfway through Rise of the Runelords
Don't judge a book by its covers. And with book I mean adventure paths, and with covers, Runelords.
RotRL was slow in getting the real action started, with the first three adventures having very little to do with the action. But you gotta cut them some slack, since it was the first PF AP, and they had to do a thousand things at once.
In Curse of the Crimson Throne, you have a pretty good idea about the villain by the end of the first adventure, and virtually all doubts disappear after part two. In Second Darkness, you meet the Villain at the end of the first adventure (well, after a fashion - you meet one of the villain's kind, find out about that kind, and find out that, and how, they want to blow up the world.
They got a lot better at this.
and I've just realized what this story is about: slavery and the struggle against it.
You could say that, but I wouldn't quite say it that way.
|
|
The thing with adventure paths is they are built around the notion that a certain type of character will be doing it (since they cant cover every possible motivation or char type in existence)so sometimes you have to tweak things so that they will work. Looking at curse of the crimson thone when I ran it one of the char a Shontai (adopted) catfolk barbarian had taken the unhappy childhood trait. Now I realised that if it were just Lann that was his motivation after he was killed there would be no reason for him to go on so I altered it so that Lann was only one of two people involved One (Lann) Pretty much became a nobody whilst the other (Dilandau a long running Villain NPC from my setting) Moved on to greater things finally cultivating in him working for the queen.