I am sorry to feel the need to write this, but I am hoping that by reading these comments, you may return future AP's to the format and content that I feel made RotRL and CotCT so extraordinary.
I waited until I'd had the chance to read at least 3 of the Second Darkness modules, even though I had a bad feeling already after reading the first, and finding myself wanting much more content on the city and its NPCs than was offered.
In a nutshell, in the SD AP I miss the depth, complexity, difficulty, and engagement of the first two APs. The plot and NPC motivations are fairly flat and one-dimensional (except Saul), the opportunity for the PCs to become emotionally involved is poor, and the actions in the 2nd and 3rd module are essentially a hack&slash dungeon crawl.
I'm not saying they're bad modules. Each has some great individual ideas and events, and they are well done. But they are not exceptional as an AP with a campaign-spanning plot. There are a ton of good modules out there, and for the average of $150 I'd spend for an AP, I want something exceptional.
The stated aim to make the main module easier to create and edit may have succeeded, but it is also a lesser product as a result.
The overarcing module plot feels thin. It's a cool idea, but I think you can tell that the main plot was originally something that could have fit into perhaps 3 modules. The modules feel a bit tacked on with little depth in their connection. Riddleport promises an interesting start, but quickly becomes unimportant to the AP.
The Set Piece Adventure takes space away from the major module, and is only loosely integrated. Essentially it is a filler, which is not important enough to the plot to include. While the Set Pieces are also well written, the cost of including them (taking space from the main module) is too high.
The initial setting is interesting, but the level of detail in its description fails to approach Sandpoint or Korvosa. When I first read it, I felt like perhaps you had too much going on to give it the depth and detail that would make it excellent. There is little in terms of backstory for any of the individual NPCs, certainly none as interesting as those in the first APs.
Again, I want this to be constructive criticism. But I think the philosophy expressed in some threads on this board, which essentially boils down to simplifying the modules in terms of both volume and difficulty, would need to change for me to get my hopes up.
Seconded.
Creative Director
|
Damn. The boards ate a big lengthy post about this.
Short answer: The longer adventures were killing us. Pathfinder's a monthly product, and that means we have a fixed amount of time each month to work on it, and since it's VERY difficult and not wise to split an adventure's editing/development task into separate parts (since that would create a breeding ground for continuity errors), that means that there's a hard limit to the amount of words we can process in a month. At 40,000+, Pathfinder missed EVERY ship date to the printer but the first one, and that was with editors like me putting in 60 to 70 hour work weeks every week for a year.
Part of the problem with Second Darkness isn't its shorter adventures, but the fact that it's a transition to shorter adventures and we at Paizo didn't do a GREAT job keeping that in mind when we were conceptualizing the adventures and coming up with ideas at the start. That's something that the next Adventure Path hopefully does better (and we'll be having a few SOMEWHAT longer adventures in there too, anyway, as we can manage them...).
Anyway, this is hardly a new topic. I've prattled on at greater length HERE about it.
Well, that's understandable then.
I hear you, I understand you, I've read the other threads, but the bottom line is that the result of the changes I've seen so far is not as excellent of a product, and that is a crying shame.
Paizo has had great success with the introduction of the Pathfinder APs, and I hate to see this success dilute the product quality because of increased publication volume. I understand the business consideration of publishing at the rate and volume of materials you have expanded to, but I hope you can react to the feedback and bring the extraordinary quality back.
A suggestion might be to reduce the rate of publication for an AP to once every 2 months. You could still publish at 1 magazine per month by publishing two APs at a time, alternating months. Individual editorial staff could focus on just one AP.
|
Creative Director
|
I hear you, I understand you, I've read the other threads, but the bottom line is that the result of the changes I've seen so far is not as excellent of a product, and that is a crying shame.
Paizo has had great success with the introduction of the Pathfinder APs, and I hate to see this success dilute the product quality because of increased publication volume. I understand the business consideration of publishing at the rate and volume of materials you have expanded to, but I hope you can react to the feedback and bring the extraordinary quality back.
A suggestion might be to reduce the rate of publication for an AP to once every 2 months. You could still publish at 1 magazine per month by publishing two APs at a time, alternating months. Individual editorial staff could focus on just one AP.
It's not an increased publication volume, though. Pathfinder's always been a monthly product, from the start. Well... it was INTENDED to be monthly from the start, but as we saw, the huge adventures were a bit more than we could handle on a monthly schedule. Discovering the right mix of adventure to time is all part of the process.
Reducing the AP to once every 2 months is not an option. It's the cash cow of Paizo right now; the flagship product. Reducing that to a 2 month cycle would also reduce the flow of money coming into Paizo, which would have pretty catastrophic results.
Juggling two APs at once, and doing them in alternate months, is an interesting idea, but that would make folks wait 2 months to get the next installment of the campaign they're running. We tried that at the start with Dungeon's Shackled City adventure path, and that didn't turn out so well. People want them every month.
Needless to say that putting together a Pathfinder Adventure Path takes a lot of folks. Putting together two at once isn't something we have the resources for, even if they alternate months.
I'm sorry you think that the quality of the product has dropped with Second Darkness. All I can ask is for you to check out Legacy of Fire to see if we've learned from the mistakes we've made with Second Darkness. Personally, I'm really quite pleased with how Second Darkness has turned out, especially considering the difficulties this adventure path has faced in coming to press.
I'm running both Runelords and Second Darkness right now (about to hit Runelords #3, and about 1/3 into SD #2), and I can definitely note a difference between them - SD feels far more compact and fast paced.
I think part of that difference is intentional. Runelords begins in a small village, SD in a very high danger pirate town.
I will say the incredible detail that was brought to Sandpoint is what originally blew me away with Pathfinder. Of course it's just not possible to give quite that level of detail to a much larger city.
Reading through #3 this weekend it felt like it went on forever (mostly in a good way), while SD #2 felt a touch short.
All that said, I feel the player involvement (with the towns/cities) has been very high in both, with lots of good role-playing, and both games are progressing quite well. I suppose in the end my preference is not for the Set Pieces, but they do allow me to spice up the adventure when needed, rather than on a time table.
|
that would make folks wait 2 months to get the next installment of the campaign they're running. We tried that at the start with Dungeon's Shackled City adventure path, and that didn't turn out so well. People want them every month.
Oh sure it is fun to READ them every month... but if you are actually running a campaign... every 2 months is plenty of time. We started SD at the end of October and i am hoping they will get to the Foamrunner this evening! (once/week 4hrs) That being said, my players have really made themselves at home in Riddleport and are doing their dead level best for Saul... Ahhhh, sometimes i almost feel guilty ;)
This is the first AP i have run and i am for the most part very happy. Some bits could be a bit better organized, and i agree that Riddleport could have been a bit more fleshed out... but i like coloring in the empty spaces. My biggest complaint is that the adventure cards aren't out yet... hurry!!!
I understand the need for the income stream (i am a tributary to that river) and am thrilled that Paizo has the cash to be stable and continue making great products, but i would have no problem with an every 2 month schedule for AP's. If you need my $$$ every month, alternate the AP with stand alone modules, supplement material or even a second AP (although that seems a bit confusing), or hell... just charge me double ;). Whatever you do... keep doing what you are doing! If you feel a little more time will help you make a lot better product, take the time and know that i (and many others no doubt) will be happy to find other ways to support you ;)
|
It's not an increased publication volume, though. Pathfinder's always been a monthly product, from the start.
A suggestion might be to reduce the rate of publication for an AP to once every 2 months.
I think Harald may have been referring to the introduction of the other subscriptions though.
Since PF#1, Paizo's subscription output has sky-rocketed, I think he may have meant to drop a couple of those other lines, and put those staff onto the AP line....
I've said before though, I *highly* disagree and like the SD format. :)
|
Short answer: The longer adventures were killing us.
I despise your weakness.
Pathfinder's a monthly product, and that means we have a fixed amount of time each month to work on it, and since it's VERY difficult and not wise to split an adventure's editing/development task into separate parts (since that would create a breeding ground for continuity errors), that means that there's a hard limit to the amount of words we can process in a month. At 40,000+, Pathfinder missed EVERY ship date to the printer but the first one, and that was with editors like me putting in 60 to 70 hour work weeks every week for a year.
Part of the problem with Second Darkness isn't its shorter adventures, but the fact that it's a transition to shorter adventures and we at Paizo didn't do a GREAT job keeping that in mind when we were conceptualizing the adventures and coming up with ideas at the start. That's something that the next Adventure Path hopefully does better (and we'll be having a few SOMEWHAT longer adventures in there too, anyway, as we can manage them...).
Personally I miss the longer the modules, and don't find the side modules very useful. Though I understand the logistical problems. <sigh> Longer modules v editorial breakdown - how to chose, how to chose.....
Though it is true - I would be surprised if many gamers would get through more than one instalment every two months.
|
that would make folks wait 2 months to get the next installment of the campaign they're running. We tried that at the start with Dungeon's Shackled City adventure path, and that didn't turn out so well. People want them every month.Oh sure it is fun to READ them every month... but if you are actually running a campaign... every 2 months is plenty of time. We started SD at the end of October and i am hoping they will get to the Foamrunner this evening! (once/week 4hrs) That being said, my players have really made themselves at home in Riddleport and are doing their dead level best for Saul... Ahhhh, sometimes i almost feel guilty ;)
This is not always true, it depends on your amount of play time and your group. It took one of my groups 2 weekly sessions to get through Burnt Offerings, and then less than one session to get through Skinsaw... but we also have marathon 8 hour sessions, which I realize isn't the norm.
This is not always true, it depends on your amount of play time and your group. It took one of my groups 2 weekly sessions to get through Burnt Offerings, and then less than one session to get through Skinsaw... but we also have marathon 8 hour sessions, which I realize isn't the norm.
And then you have the flip side with my group, just finishing Skinsaw after 15 months of almost bi-weekly 7 hour sessions. :)
The other major reason I see *not* to alternate AP's or even just spread one out to a year is that things like the item cards and map folio's would have to wait an extra 4-6 months or so. They can't be prepared until the art is done for the final adventure.
Honestly I was hesitant at first to do SD, I missed out on Rise and Curse but picked up back issues at my FLGS and found the work to be amazing. As I had also tracked down all of Savage tide except the first issue through a freind who subscribed to Dungeon and then bought the pdf of the first installment, again I was extremely happy with the product. SD being my first subrscription was shaky as they were trying the set pieces, which are hit and miss at best, and the big bad guys being as they are and being as "unknown" as they are its hard to kind of get the players to bite. But the point of this lengthy and confusing post is in the end my group has loved SD, and a longtime player/dm has commented that it has been the most fun he has ever had as a player. My only complaint is basically the one I had in Savage Tide, and thats you ditch the city that seems so central to the plot so quickly and you never fully go back.... Thats what tempts me to get the Shackled city HC....
|
My group has been playing RotR for over a year. Usually we meet once a month for at least 12 hours. We are in Xin-Shalast and the group could take 1 to 4 more sessions to finish the AP. It has been a great ride and we have enjoyed it.
When it comes to the length of the APs and the set pieces I preferred the length of the first two but totally understand the editorial issues involved and remember that first year and the struggles Paizo had getting things out.
I have just started SD and used the first set piece. I made a mistake in the hook I used for the group and should have used one of the others. It made things a bit weird and the group had an existential alignment crisis and it was basically my fault with a little help from my roleplayers...
I will probably use most of the set pieces as I go through the AP unless they continue to be a bit wierd but I hope I have learned from the first one. I will know more after running a couple of more.
My suggestion though is that some or most of the Pathfinder Modules support the APs. A module in Xin-Shalast at the appropriate level to put in the middle of their exploration of the city or after they have stopped the BBEG. These would not have to be done at the same time so the authors could read the APs and know the continuity issues that could come up. I would like this even better than set pieces but I think their is room for both.