|
[Beware: a slightly convoluted introduction follows before I get to the main point addressed in the thread title.]
D&D in all of its incarnations has struggled, perhaps somewhat unfairly, with the stereotype of catering to only a fairly narrow range of RPG experience – that of entering the dungeon, killing the monsters, and taking their loot. There are a myriad of ways this stereotype has been countered by D&D's fans over the years, but among the most successful ones in recent times is an extremely insightful Blog entry by James Maliszewski, who mounted the claim that contemporary D&D lost sight of its “end game” as introduced (among other places) in the Expert Set to Basic D&D in the 80s:
I'm one of those oddballs who takes seriously the notion that Dungeons & Dragons, despite its name, is actually about more than dungeon delving. After all, OD&D devotes a goodly amount of its sparse verbiage to adventuring in the wilderness -- so much so that the term "sandbox" is every bit as significant for old school play as is "megadungeon." Indeed, OD&D makes it pretty clear that, after a certain point, the focus of the game shifts away from the dungeon and toward establishing and maintaining a "barony." If you read reminiscences of the earliest campaigns in the hobby, such as Blackmoor and Greyhawk, you'll see that this was the case.
The Expert Rules present this shift in focus not as an "add-on" or accretion to the Basic Rules but as a natural development of them. Exploring and taming the wilderness, building a castle, and ruling a domain -- these aren't alien to D&D; they're a major part of what the game was intended to be about. This only makes sense, given the origins of the game in wargaming and yet they're topics that got short shrift even in AD&D, never mind later editions. In this sense, I'd say that, for all my issues with the presentation of Cook/Marsh and Mentzer, they're truer to OD&D than were their various descendants.
I can't stress this point enough, because I think it's a vital counter-balance to the tendency to see D&D, especially old school D&D, as solely about acquiring ever more power in the service of venality. Not only do I think that tendency does a disservice to D&D's origins, but I also think it exaggerates the themes of pulp fantasy to ludicrous heights. While not every Picaro will eventually settle down, many will, particularly if their players wish to continue playing that character beyond a certain point. The Expert Rules showed how to do that; they were where D&D's endgame was fleshed out and revealed it as the logical extension of all that had gone before.
This just by way of preliminary. For, while I think this blog entry quoted here merits discussion on its own terms, it sheds an interesting light on the meta-design thinking that has gone into Paizo’s Adventure Paths ever since their inception. My personal impression is that while Paizo adventures include a healthy dose of roleplaying opportunities (e.g. NPC interactions), overland travel and site exploration, not to mention some pretty experimental tasks delegated to player characters (such as, running a fortress, running a casino, infiltrating a household of an inimical exotic race, and much much more), all of these “side-tasks” are always strictly treated as subservient to one and the same overarching goal: kill a BBEG.
Once you’ve identified that meme, it actually becomes scary just how ubiquitious it is in Paizo Adventure Paths. Not only does every single Adventure Path do date focus on defeating a BBEG – with that confrontation serving as the climax of the entire Adventure Path – also, every single individual instalment of Pathfinder, right from volume #1 down to #21 which I read this morning, is shoehorned into this. The climax always has to be to defeat someone REALLY big. Everything else is treated as mostly optional and ancillary to this goal.
My question(s) is (are): why is this the case? Even if defeating the BBEG is most assuredly a core meme of the D&D experience, why repeat it so many times? Whence the homogeneity?
To conclude, I wish to forestall a potential misunderstanding. Paizo Adventure Paths have displayed and explored the limits of what can occur in a D&D adventure like no other company before. But for all its exploration of new adventuring possibilities (some of which I named above), the company sticks to the BBEG meta-plot as if there’s nothing else, no grander goal in the scheme of things D&D-wise. And that’s why James Maliszewski’s blog entry unexpectedly holds the kernel to what one may find limiting in Paizo’s current products. I mean, the creative staff is all there, so why not “unfetter” them?
Or is the heart of the matter this: (a) only by sticking to such a traditional meta-plot (per adventure path and per module) can Paizo explore new avenues? (Because if you experiment with the former, you risk alienating your customer base?) Or this: (b) the aforementioned homogeneity is only visible to (long time) subscribers, but won’t impact customer perception among those who only buy one adventure path or one Pathfinder module? (The idea being that Paizo needs to target that customer group just as much as (long time) subscribers and thus deliver “what D&D can do best”. Every. Single. Time.)
Questions, questions, questions… I look forward to reading your answers!
My two cents: It's the difference between an "Adventure Path" and an "Adventure Wilderness" (or "Adventure Sandbox", if you prefer).
Why? Because the campaign (not the game) needs to 'go somewhere'. Look at the GTA and Fallout series. They're very much sandboxes. But there is still an overarching plot to guide you through them. And at the end, you can keep playing in the sandbox, but the campaign is done.
Sandboxes are fine if that's how you want to run your game, but that's the campaign setting. The Adventure Path is supposed to be an actual campaign.
Lets say we have an AP where my goal is just to build a barony. Why should I bother? (Or need a GM?) How does it take six installments? Are we expecting to have 15 levels and 600 pages of random threats to my kingdom? When does it end?
Edit: Hogarth said this more simply than I did.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would refer you back to "Keeping the Keep" (in #3 or #4 I think) for a Paizo AP installment that deals with this issue.
I think the key point is this:
Clearing the wilderness and establishing a dominion isn't generally seen as "an adventure," one with a plot that has a beginning, middle, and end.
You are comparing a rulebook (the D&D Companion Rules were actually the ones that dealt with creating a dominion, not the Expert rules) with an adventure. There have been adventures (including some for the Companion rules) that dealt with mass combat and carving out a domain, including the legendary Bloodstone Pass... which wasn't really an adventure, so much as a series of loosely connected battle scenes that would eventually lead to the PCs liberating (and presumably taking over) a small town/valley area.
Those kinds of adventures, though, are hard to do because the act of creating a new domain is intimately campaign specific, because it has repercussions far broader than sacking a dungeon or slaying a dragon. Now you have a barony... what do you do with it? And more to the point, WHY do you create it, and what does it do when you're not there (cuz you're still off adventuring)? Also, who gets to be the king? What do you do if two (or more) characters BOTH set up dominions? Where does the focus of the adventure go?
I would also venture that they are particularly hard to fit into an Adventure Path, even granting that the "Bloodstone Pass" series was clearly an AP in its own right, but if you are going to have a series of adventures involving dominioning as a focal point, not a sidelight, then the AP becomes ALL about the dominion, squeezing out a lot of variety. "Oh we have a castle and a territory now... I bet someone tries to invade us inside a month!"
Hey, I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I think it would be more easily done as a standalone adventure than as part of an AP, and really it is the sort of thing that belongs in a sourcebook more than an adventure, that tells the DM how to set it up and keep it going if it's an avenue that players want to explore.
|
|
I would refer you back to "Keeping the Keep" (in #3 or #4 I think) for a Paizo AP installment that deals with this issue.
Yep, that's the section I had in mind when my post mentioned how Paizo products DO contain nods to such things. (It's in #3 by the way.)
Clearing the wilderness and establishing a dominion isn't generally seen as "an adventure," one with a plot that has a beginning, middle, and end.
Several points spring to mind.
1. Clearing the wilderness and establishing a dominion aren't the sole way to develop D&D's end game beyond weekly BBEG confrontations. See 3.5's Power of Faerun. (Also the Complete Set - thanks for reminding me! - which contained class-specific varieties.)2. Even if it were the sole alternative, its constraints on possible plots ("so who's invading our domain this week?") would hardly yield more unsurprising and more monotonous results than the question
"so which BBEG does my party need to kill this time round?" does. The latter being the question which accompanies my monthly Pathfinder module deliveries, and which (finally) caused me to cancel my Legacy of Fire subscription this morning. Sorry Jason, it means I miss out on your stuff, when (in fact) the main cause was reading how Greg Vaughan - my favourite Paizo writer - was shoehorned into making the City of Brass into yet one more dungeon crawl with, once more, the task of killing a BBEG. So I thought to myself, hey why not spend those dollars on Necro's CoB which actually contains a huge VARIETY in adventuring ideas? Because, I figured 3 Paizo modules = one sweet Necro box, and Amazon made that equation come true.
3. The idea of Pathfinder modules apparently needing, not just a scenario, and (not even) just a "plot (idea/outline)", but also a plot middle and a plot end is a different problem altogether (and a problem it is). I prefer to confront players with a situation and leave the task of working out potential avenues of solution to them (contrast Tammeraut's Fate with Descent into Midnight, for instance, just to see how much the design ethos has shifted over the past years). That's a different issue, and I was greatly relieved to see it momentarily relaxed when Erik Mona wrote PF #19. Seeing his name on a Pathfinder module caused me to renew my subscription back then, and I certainly don't regret that I now (with PF #19-21) have a rocksolid low-level built up for getting my players into the City of Brass (as described in the Necromancer product).
Not only does every single Adventure Path do date focus on defeating a BBEG – with that confrontation serving as the climax of the entire Adventure Path – also, every single individual instalment of Pathfinder, right from volume #1 down to #21 which I read this morning, is shoehorned into this.
Emphasis yours.
It's just not true.
Sure, there are many archvillains, because they're fun, and it's much more rewarding to end an adventure with such a climax than with "well, do another skill check and you're done. Yay. Break out the bubbly wine."
But there are several adventures without one: Edge of Anarchy ends differently, Escape from Old Korvosa could be said to end differently as well(there's a monster at the end, but he's not really a BBEG).
And there's no shoehorning going on. Going out of your way to try things differently would mean shoehorning adventures into a system they're not really suited to.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Some interesting observations, here.
As we move from AP to AP, weighing our personal thoughts against reader commentary, our take on what makes a great AP evolves.
Shackled City taught us that it's smart to have an outline ahead of time, not to leave "charming" or accidental loose ends, to run installments in consecutive months to keep people interested, not to rely overmuch on lame templated creatures like half-dragons, not to include a denouement adventure that takes place after the climax, and not to load a single dungeon with 12/13ths of the important PC-classed bad guys all at once. And probably a million other lessons.
Age of Worms taught us not to pour a ton of interesting development into a location only to force the PCs to leave almost immediately (though this is one we still occasionally mess up), to trust our own instincts over that of people who believe a campaign is merely a train of endless dungeons, that the readers and players occasionally react favorably to taking chances, that "help the sage" is a tired plot device, that having the same artist on an entire path makes it awesomer, and probably a million other lessons.
And so on.
Somewhere around Savage Tide we realized that demons and devils as BBEGs was getting a bit tired, and I think that's evolved, to some degree, to the BBEG model itself, as mentioned by James and referenced in your original post.
Though Legacy of Fire definitely features a BBEG in the form of the efreeti lord archvillain, it's less of a "work your way up the chain" fight than you may have seen in other APs (which I still think are a lot more subtle than that, in the main).
Council of Thieves is different, as well (and involves devils, alas--not all lessons are easy to remember).
And after that we've got Kingmaker. We haven't said much about this one yet, but you can infer a lot from the title of the Adventure Path and the fact that it is set in the River Kingdoms region of Golarion.
The campaign will involve the PCs carving out their own independent kingdom and defending it from rivals, rampaging monsters, and enemies from within.
You know, just like James was talking about in his essay.
I should point out that I wholeheartedly agree with James on this matter in terms of campaigns in general, though an Adventure Path and a campaign are not necessarily the same thing. Design issues aside, each installment is a product in and of itself, so each must represent a more or less complete episode, despite the fact that it is part of a larger whole at its core. That doesn't make a less conventional "plot" for an AP impossible, but it does make it a delicate task worthy of careful deliberation.
The fact that there are built in "phases" of a campaign based largely on plateaus of PC power, wealth, and influence is the core reason I'm interesting in publishing Pathfinder RPG Campaign Guide books that focus on a specific "level band" (say 1-5 or 15-20) with information, expanded rules, advice, & etc. aimed at strengthening campaigns that take place at those levels.
It's a rough idea at the moment and nothing is written in stone so far as additional Pathfinder RPG supplements are concerned. But the plans for the Pathfinder Adventure Path series are considerably more concrete, and we will be getting to the type of campaign you propose in relatively short order.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
3. The idea of Pathfinder modules apparently needing, not just a scenario, and (not even) just a "plot (idea/outline)", but also a plot middle and a plot end is a different problem altogether (and a problem it is). I prefer to confront players with a situation and leave the task of working out potential avenues of solution to them (contrast Tammeraut's Fate with Descent into Midnight, for instance, just to see how much the design ethos has shifted over the past years). That's a different issue, and I was greatly relieved to see it momentarily relaxed when Erik Mona wrote PF #19. Seeing his name on a Pathfinder module caused me to renew my subscription back then, and I certainly don't regret that I now (with PF #19-21) have a rocksolid low-level built up for getting my players into the City of Brass (as described in the Necromancer product).
You need, of course, to do what is best for your campaign and for your players, and if the Legacy of Fire endgame is not to your liking then I think you're absolutely doing the right thing by picking up a City of Brass sourcebook that better accommodates the "sandbox" style of play you seem to prefer. If you haven't already considered it, I suggest also checking out Robert J. Kuntz's "Sir Robilar's Guide to the City of Brass," which no doubt contains lots of interesting ideas. If you've got a deep collection, Wolfgang Baur's Secrets of the Lamp also has some really cool ideas in it.
I would submit, however, that all of this stuff is not mutually exclusive. If you like the way Legacy of Fire gets your guys to the City of Brass, take what you want and look elsewhere for something that really grabs you. You can always leave the Legacy "plotline" threaded through your campaign as a "spine" in case your PCs want to follow up on it, but there's no reason to slavishly follow an episodic AP plotline if you and your players would rather take some time to explore a bit.
I ran my Age of Worms campaign for more than a year, but we only got about halfway through The Champion's Belt because of all the stuff I added in Diamond Lake, in the Mistmarsh, and in the City of Greyhawk. We had whole sessions go by with the PCs interacting with the background in a way that didn't touch the "spine" of the AP at all. When the PCs (and I) were ready to return to the main plotline, I grabbed the magazines and picked up largely where I left off.
Sometimes that meant pumping up a stat block here or there, or changing out some minor details to better fit my campaign, but in general the PCs didn't outstrip the assumed advancement and things were pretty simple.
Honestly, when we came up with the idea of the Adventure Path back with Shackled City, we always assumed GMs would use the APs this way, weaving in their own adventures to fill in the gaps and cater to the interests and backstories of their PCs. As it turns out some people don't have the interest or the time for that type of campaign, and they tend to run the adventures basically as scripts. In the meantime we've stopped leaving gaps in the adventure paths like that, because so many people complained. The "year off" element of Pathfinder #19 is one attempt to at least leave some time for GMs who want to take things a little slower and explore the environment.
That post above where I list the lessons learned? "Don't put a stopwatch on every adventure. Leave some time for GMs to flex their muscles and add extra stuff, if they want to" should be on that list for sure.
Anyway, my point is that I think you _should_ leave the plotline behind a bit and focus on the City of Brass if that's what you and your players would like. One of the reasons we used a location as iconic as the City of Brass was that we knew there were several products available for the iconic location that interested GMs could easily cannibalize. As the GM, you're the best judge of what is best for your campaign.
If that involves using the whole of a given adventure I'm thrilled, as it's always great to be of service to a fellow GM. If your campaign needs to take another direction, that's no skin off our back.
I hope we can get you back with a future campaign, and I appreciate your thoughtful criticism of our attempts so far.
|
|
Thanks for taking so much of your time to reply in so great detail. My head still spins from reading your responses, and I will ponder them for much time to come.
I hope we can get you back with a future campaign
You certainly will, given how you related the Kingmaker adventure path above - I'd sign up today if that was technically possible :) Incidentally, there as a Neverwinter Nights 1 expansion module by that name , which was hilarious to play because NWN module design is so tight (place a NPC in room 1 to direct you to BBEG in room 8) that some NWN players just couldn't COPE with Kingmaker's premise and execution deviating from it. You may consider that as some eeeviil foreboding of the type of customer feedback you're going to get with your own Kingmaker (with DM threads entitled "Help me!" relating play reports like this one.) ;)
I'd like to stress again (so as to put my criticism in perspective) that I'm a long time customer who basically bought EVERY single one of Paizo's Adventure Paths since Shackled City, skipping only three individual modules over the years. That may be important to remember. I've certainly appreciated what your company has been doing with the adventure path campaign model - otherwise I wouldn't have kept buying them for so long! It's just that after so many of them, a feeling of saturation (not disappointment) sets in, and the wish for novelty in the grander scheme of things.
Thanks again for taking the time. I'm always stunned when you and your colleagues do.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And after that we've got Kingmaker. We haven't said much about this one yet, but you can infer a lot from the title of the Adventure Path and the fact that it is set in the River Kingdoms region of Golarion.
The campaign will involve the PCs carving out their own independent kingdom and defending it from rivals, rampaging monsters, and enemies from within.
Sweet.
plateaus of character power
Do share!
Obviously, the gaining of benchmark spells like Fly, Raise Dead, and Teleport define this to some degree, but what else?
|
This is a great topic...
Windjammer, I would be interested in a 6 sentence outline of what you would like to see an AP try. I ask because it is pretty difficult to break the mold while maintaining a beginning, middle, and conclusion that leaves everyone with a sense of continuity, direction, and satisfaction.
|
|
One more cent's worth of opinion:
As much as it pains me to admit it, some people -- including me -- like to be led by the nose a little bit, with short-term enemies and long-term enemies. If a game is too "sandbox-y", I tend to get overwhelmed by options and I lose focus. Sad, but true.
So personally I wouldn't be as interested in a campaign that doesn't have clear short-term goals and long-term goals. Probably there's a way to still have that without the "beat 6 mini-bosses and then fight the final boss" template. Although there are already modules like "Tides of Dread" or "Prince of Redhand" that don't quite fit that pattern.
Nevermind the players getting overwhelmed with options: I can't DM a sandbox because I don't improvise well.
One of the problems with building a dominion is that it is hard for a group to do.
"Naw, one time I let a group choose their own names. Everybody wanted to be Mr. Black. Only nobody knew anybody, so nobody backed down."
If you have a group of four people where one wants to be the baron, one wants to be the vizier, one wants to be the (wo)man-at-arms, and one wants to be the religious advisor, then you're great. Yeah, there could be an intelligence officer, general, admiral, others.
My point is, usually each player wants their character to be the ruler. And having an adventure, let alone an adventure path that allows four different characters of different classes pursue nation-building sounds very unwieldly.
I did it in one campaign in FR. I'd made Sembia an oligarchy and the players eventually came to power. After all their adventuring, the citizens wanted their leadership, they didn't have to conquer. Cormry wasn't happy about it expressed their displeasure. Now, there's Semyr.
The Ranger was in charge of the forests and that was his duchy. Duchess Pinky, Master of the Four Winds, built her aerie/monastery on the mountain tops and monkishly ruled from there. Leahcim, a Selunite Silverstar, set up a theocracy in his duchy. And the wizard, well, its been years and I can't remember.
But they all came together to make decisions for the entire country. I was able to do it because I was able to alter and cater to my players as it unfolded.
A pre-written dominion building adventure would have to allow for so many variations (character concept at level one affects the type of ruler you'll be at 12th) that it might be too variegated to make an effective AP.
One of the problems with building a dominion is that it is hard for a group to do.
My point is, usually each player wants their character to be the ruler. And having an adventure, let alone an adventure path that allows four different characters of different classes pursue nation-building sounds very unwieldly.
A pre-written dominion building adventure would have to allow for so many variations (character concept at level one affects the type of ruler you'll be at 12th) that it might be too variegated to make an effective AP.
I was going to mention the same thing. In any of the games I've run or played in, almost none of the characters ever had similar personal goals. It would be great if the entire party were a band of dwarves trying to reclaim their ancestral home (ala The Hobbit), but what do you do when the DM is herding cats?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would refer you back to "Keeping the Keep" (in #3 or #4 I think) for a Paizo AP installment that deals with this issue.
Yep, that's the section I had in mind when my post mentioned how Paizo products DO contain nods to such things. (It's in #3 by the way.)
Clearing the wilderness and establishing a dominion isn't generally seen as "an adventure," one with a plot that has a beginning, middle, and end.Several points spring to mind.
1. Clearing the wilderness and establishing a dominion aren't the sole way to develop D&D's end game beyond weekly BBEG confrontations. See 3.5's Power of Faerun. (Also the Complete Set - thanks for reminding me! - which contained class-specific varieties.)
It's a neat and tidy progression:
Basic (dungeon)
Expert (wilderness)
Companion (rulership)
Master (the planes)
Immortals (duh)
But as for the other means of kingdom building other than hacking bad guys to bits and taking their stuff... I've learned in adventure writing and from esteemed pros like Wolfgang Baur that social/political "adventures" are incredibly hard to write without having them feel contrived and forced. Maybe it's because it's a style many players aren't used to playing, so they struggle with finding and following the hooks and leads. Maybe it's because the balance of things fitting together is just harder to manage as both a DM running the adventure and a writer trying to plan for every political contingency.
Combat challenges = fight or don't fight
Social/political challenges = very open-ended solutions
Having written several adventures with investigations and information-gathering segments, even those can create problems.
All that said, just because something is hard doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done... and as Erik has said Paizo is taking its stab at it coming up with Kingmaker. So there ya go! :)
2. Even if it were the sole alternative, its constraints on possible plots ("so who's invading our domain this week?") would hardly yield more unsurprising and more monotonous results than the question
"so which BBEG does my party need to kill this time round?" does. The latter being the question which accompanies my monthly Pathfinder module deliveries, and which (finally) caused me to cancel my Legacy of Fire subscription this morning. Sorry Jason, it means I miss out on your stuff, when (in fact) the main cause was reading how Greg Vaughan - my favourite Paizo writer - was shoehorned into making the City of Brass into yet one more dungeon crawl with, once more, the task of killing a BBEG. So I thought to myself, hey why not spend those dollars on Necro's CoB which actually contains a huge VARIETY in adventuring ideas? Because, I figured 3 Paizo modules = one sweet Necro box, and Amazon made that equation come true.
Alas for you, since my adventure really doesn't have a BBEG! It is super sandboxy, in fact, though the edited version I think is a little less so than my original turnover. Still, you can go several directions with the adventure.
3. The idea of Pathfinder modules apparently needing, not just a scenario, and (not even) just a "plot (idea/outline)", but also a plot middle and a plot end is a different problem altogether (and a problem it is).
Well, that part is certainly true. There has been a massive evolution in what constitutes an "adventure" since I started playing D&D in 1981. The entire concept of adventures that have a plot or story was really considered anathema back then ("Those bastards are trying to tell me how to run MY game!!!"), but now it's the norm and older adventures seem very thin, very unfocused, or both by comparison.
Which you like is up to you. I just finished running selected parts of the old 1st Ed Secret of Bone Hill "adventure" (really a mini-campaign sandbox with no plot whatsoever) updated for 4th Ed... but I rejiggered it to fit into the ongoing story/plot of the larger campaign.
To me, this breaks out along the lines of narrative theory. There are four basic kinds of conflict. (Back to the Middle School, everyone!)
1. Person vs. Person
2. Person vs. Self
3. Person vs. Society
4. Person vs. Environment (would include Person vs. Nature or Person vs. Technology)
The point about Paizo's APs perpetuating the same kind of scenario boils down to their having Person vs. Person conflicts: the party eventually faces off against an BBEG. What are their other options?
For a Person vs. Self conflict to work well in most cases, I bet that you are going to have to be running a solo game. Otherwise, Person vs. Self will be an interesting subplot to the main conflict. (Sure, the party may enjoy the cleric's ongoing struggle with her lycanthropy, but it will only be equally enjoyed by the whole party as the main conflict if it is externalized into the werewolf lord that they can all go and help her destory.)
For a Person vs. Society conflict to work, you're going to have to struggle to keep the society from reducing to a climatic confrontation with their leader, which might be difficult, but doable. But how then does one construct the climax?
I take sandbox or setting-focused play to be a plea for Person vs. the Environment. It looks like to me that Paizo is turning their direction this way for the River Kingdom AP, and I'm glad. But I wonder if the preference of APs follows the preference of most stories? Don't most stories get down to a main villain/antagonist? Is this because of an inante preference that people have for personal vs. impersonal stories, or is it just because the former are easier to write?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not sure this needs to be said, but just in case, I think the best solution is a variety of AP styles. I'm not a huge fan of the current AP because I don't really dig on the setting, but I appreciate the fact that Paizo is willing to go out on a limb and try something new. I think the OP makes a good point about the similarity of the adventure paths to date involving disrupting the BBEG's plan, and it would be nice to see an adventure path that is more sandbox-ish (and the River Kings AP sounds like just the ticket).
I don't think Paizo should ever quit doing what they do best, which is the massive BBEG inspired plots, but I also don't want to see them stuck in that particular rut. It sounds like they've got a similar view and that they are actively preparing an adventure path that is more sandboxish.
Hopefully, the subscribers are sticking around even when an adventure path may not be their cup of tea and Paizo is realizing the amount of freedom they have to push the envelope. Paizo has a lot of talent, and from what Erik has said and from what I have witnessed, I hope they continue to let that talent push the envelope and explore everything the game is capable of simulating.
So, with all that buttering up in place, how about you give us the space-based spelljammer-esque adventure path that all of your subscribers secretly crave.*
*And don't go posting about how you don't secretly crave it. We all know that's an elaborate ruse.
|
|
it would be nice to see an adventure path that is more sandbox-ish (and the River Kings AP sounds like just the ticket).
I'm very interested in seeing how Kingmaker plays out because you definitionally cannot have a SANDBOX that has a PLOT/PATH. Kingmaker may very well be a toolkit/campaign setting more than an AP if it's a true sandbox, or it could just be a series of Event/Site Based adventures relating to becoming or making a King, leaving a lot of disappointed fanboys come Christmas. I'm interested either way, just because even the illusion of a sandbox can soothe cranky players.
Isn't "sandbox" a matter of degree, not of kind? Is there any GM out there is who truly going to let ANYTHING happen in the game, or is it merely a matter of the players getting to decide the action they will take and the denouement that they are aiming for? Because the success of the action will still be at least partially determined by the DM. How does this make "sandbox" something utterly different from plotted AP? Don't you just put more hooks into a sandbox and sit more loosely as GM? In an AP, they could include more options, more setting material, more potential storylines, without organizing it around one outcome that is met or failed. It could be theme-based, for example, in addition to setting: deception, acquisition, loyalty, freedom, courage...
I don't know; the more I think about it, the more "path" implies "plot," leading back to your point, but they could introduce multiple choices for main plots instead of one. This would feel more "sandboxy," or they could make the antagonist impersonal, which would switch to a plot of a different kind, perhaps giving a greater prominence to setting. But again, it turns on how you define sandbox play. If it is defined as "carve out a kingdom for yourself," you have in fact made a plot choice. If it is let players do what they will in some absolute sense, you want Chronicles, not Adventure Paths.
So, with all that buttering up in place, how about you give us the space-based spelljammer-esque adventure path that all of your subscribers secretly crave.
Hey, there's nothing secret about me craving that!
Seriously, I'm in. Can I just give Paizo my money for this one now?
|
(...) Age of Worms taught us not to pour a ton of interesting development into a location only to force the PCs to leave almost immediately (though this is one we still occasionally mess up)(...)
Well, I just think the other way around. The more detail you put into the start of the campaign (Sandpoint, Diamond Lake, etc.) the more involved the pcs get. My players loved the amount of detail I was able to provide them with for the town of Sandpoint. It doesn't matter if they have to leave shortly after campaign-start, because Sandpoint will always be in their memory, and when they will learn, that giants are going to invade it next session, they will hurry to help the people of Sandpoint!
With Diamond Lake the pcs where forced to leave quite early, but it will always have a place in the memoires of my players and their pcs.The more detail we get, the easier it is to improvise and develop own stuff, to make Golarion truly oue own world!
|
|
I've always thought of the AP as a television series or a movie franchise. There's a great issue of Dragon that touches on that ("Krusk's Creek" illo had me in fits BTW).
Each module is either an episode (Dungeon AP's, which are shorter), or possibly an entire season (in the case of the new PF AP's). There need to be a series of acts, plots, subplots, climaxes and epilogues to keep the story flowing and the viewers satisfied. These sort of AP's are relatively linear and there is a sense of dramatic tension that builds as the stakes get higher. They are also relatively easy to write since they have a definite script.
So-called "sandbox" type campaigns are more open-ended. I find that these sorts of games require huge amounts of background detail since you never truly know what the PC's are going to do next. I've played several Harnmaster campaigns like this, and I find that they tend to fizzle due to lack of focus or divergeing PC goals.
Just my 2d
PS I'd like to see a more light-hearted AP that's not so dark as the last few. A change of pace episode in an AP would be a nice second place.
And after that we've got Kingmaker. We haven't said much about this one yet, but you can infer a lot from the title of the Adventure Path and the fact that it is set in the River Kingdoms region of Golarion.
The campaign will involve the PCs carving out their own independent kingdom and defending it from rivals, rampaging monsters, and enemies from within.
You know, just like James was talking about in his essay.
Really? I can't wait to see this. It sounds very much more like the style of play which i personally enjoy.
The fact that there are built in "phases" of a campaign based largely on plateaus of PC power, wealth, and influence is the core reason I'm interesting in publishing Pathfinder RPG Campaign Guide books that focus on a specific "level band" (say 1-5 or 15-20) with information, expanded rules, advice, & etc. aimed at strengthening campaigns that take place at those levels.
It's a rough idea at the moment and nothing is written in stone so far as additional Pathfinder RPG supplements are concerned. But the plans for the Pathfinder Adventure Path series are considerably more concrete, and we will be getting to the type of campaign you propose in relatively short order.
This also sounds very interesting, I really hope that it will include material that will help you to explore more character driven and political styles of gaming, to add even more breadth to the range of PRPG.
Great thread.
Overall, I'm with Windjammer (and James M.), though not to quite so much of a degree - as Paizo has kept me satisfied with the APs so far thanks to the varying settings (notably the superior CotCT and LoF paths).
With that said, Erik's post(s) above have certainly helped maintain my confidence in Paizo and their future APs - his 'lessons learned' post was especially comforting (though as an aside, I'm apparently playing Shackled City as intended based on Erik's post - no wonder we're all enjoying it so much!).
Kingmaker does indeed sound very intriguing - I'm very interested in seeing how the actual product turns out. (And it sounds like an especially good fit for the Border Kingdoms region of [pre-4e] FR. Good stuff!)
YIKES! This is long! I hope you like it.
It's a neat and tidy progression:
Basic (dungeon)
Expert (wilderness)
Companion (rulership)
Master (the planes)
Immortals (duh)
OD&D started down the path of immortality around level 36 iirc. Or that was where levels capped . . . unless you were demi-human in which case you had ranks A - F (I think) that I never really understood. But I digress.
My point (yeah, I actually have one) is that OD&D had that neat and tidy progression based on almost twice as many levels as currently exist. 3.x, for all intents and purposes, caps at level 20. The ELH, well, it doesn't even have as sweet a cover as the Immortal Box set. I mean, I haven't met anyone (guy or gal) who's seen it who didn't want to be that dude, or at least be able to have the swirly energy ray. I also liked the metaphorical imagery of "leaving even dragons behind." Let us not even discuss what lies between the pages of the ELH.
Back to my point (really, I'm serious this time). 3.x has only 20 levels to work with and doesn't have "time" to get to the rest. Yeah, name rank was reached at 10th level, so it seems like 3.x could get to nation-building. Except that one also automatically started attracting followers at that level too (now you have to purchase the leadership feat).
But if I were to do a dominioning AP, I’d lay it out like so:
Levels 1 – 5: Dungeons. Unrelated adventures. Some threatening the community, some pc's hired by wealthy merchant/lord etc. to get booty, some looking for lost child/friend/lover. But at this point there shouldn’t be common thread. The group is a bunch of young adventurers out to have fun. There are monsters squatting here with no attention to ecology. There’s no BBEG running the show. Along the way they should find a ring (that comes into play later). Heraldry yields nothing (its too old to be recognized). The group can even sell it if they want (just make it memorable).
Levels 6 – 10: Wilderness. Having come to the attention of a noble as people who can “get the job done,” he/she/it hires them to scout out the untamed wilderness that’s just been granted and clear it out of undesireables. Now we get ecologies. There are tribes and nomads with chiefs/elders/shamans etc. in charge of their little parcel of land. But they’re on the baron's land before he got there, so they gotta go. Why? The land belonged to the kingdom in days beyond recall and its time to get it back. At least convince them that they stand in the way of progress and get them to move on.
Levels 11 – 15: Rulership. The ancient kings walk again! Their ancient, and forgotten, tombs have been disturbed and so they have decreed that the regents left behind to rule until the coming of the next king have failed. A new king, with the ancient signet ring, and of the royal bloodline must rise and retake the throne to appease the mummy lords or vampires or liches (or whatever the ancient kings are). Upon investigation, having been recalled by their benefactor to the “heartlands,” the group finds their lord dead, his manor burned to the ground. All that is found, in a very hot metal strongbox is a letter to one of the group informing them that they are the rightful heir and a description of the signet ring (which is that ring from levels 1 – 5). If they sold it, it still sits in the shop window, collecting dust, unpurchased for all these months (years?). The letter also informs the group that the ancient kings have been animated by scheming lords who seek to usurp the regent and place themselves back in power. The mummies/vamps/liches may not even be the bodies of the ancient kings; just those made to look like them. All the other lords are suspect, but the letter doesn’t name names. The letter intimates that the lord feels he’s been compromised by someone in his own manor and feels the enemy closing in. “I pray the gods deliver this letter to you and that you may find the ring before our adversaries do. For they do consort with a cabal of evil wizards/clerics who summon the dead back to do their bidding.” But to which party member is it addressed? That part, of course, is destroyed beyond reconstruction (that’s necessary so that divinations don’t reveal it; it should help prod the players to work together to regain the throne because the don’t know which of them it is). All the while trying to find out which nobles can be trusted and ferret out this cabal of evil casters. No BBEG, but a major brawl at the end that would need Battle System rules to hash out.
Levels 16 – 20: Planes. All that was just the machinations of some planar creature (how about an Ultraloth? Yugoloths get short-shrift; its always demons or devils) who is trying to control that nation because the castle treasury was originally built to contain some power/device/creature that was too strong to ultimately destroy. The pc’s have thwarted its plan to gain control of the nation (they themselves now run it), but the Ultraloth, in all the confusion, has managed to make off with the dingus. But it must be bathed in the Waters of X, forged in the Fires of Y, cooled in the Icy Winds of Z and the race across the planes is on. Some will stand in the pc’s way because they’ve been paid, some because they don’t like trespassers, but some will be old villains (loose ends) that have come to get their revenge. Every group acquires them, DM has to keep track, pump them up, get them together and confront the group with this opposition group that has banded together in common hatred for the group (even though they might otherwise not care about one another).
Levels 21+: Immortal. Ultraloth (who are uber-mercs, basically) was working for some trapped BBEG (Levistus/Adimarchus-type). They see the thwarted Ultraloth as just one agent attempting just one way of freeing this BBEG. The group starts to see a much larger picture and has to find a way to rid the multiverse of this heinous evil. But in order to do that, their poor mortal frames will have to undergo a change to become something else, something greater (“better, stronger, faster”) that can contain the awesome cosmic power necessary to defeat BBEG once and for all. Now, all that’s need is a quick bath in the Pool of Radiance, the last of the ancient primordial chaos/nothing left over from when Lord Ao created, well, everything.
|
I ran my Age of Worms campaign for more than a year, but we only got about halfway through The Champion's Belt because of all the stuff I added in Diamond Lake, in the Mistmarsh, and in the City of Greyhawk. We had whole sessions go by with the PCs interacting with the background in a way that didn't touch the "spine" of the AP at all. When the PCs (and I) were ready to return to the main plotline, I grabbed the magazines and picked up largely where I left off.
This happens to me more often than not when I run any sort of book adventure. It sparks so many ideas and the players themselves spark so many ideas that I branch off all over the place. The adventure ends up being just one layer in what has become the entire campaign. I don't mind it at all, and in fact, I have happier players when I just run with things that trigger my imagination.
I had a player in a game I was running who's goal, and sole purpose for adventuring, was to save up enough money to open a tavern in Greyhawk. Now really, what kind of game would that be? Waiting on tables? Washing dishes? Paying taxes? Dealing with rude customers? That's not D&D, that's real life!
Virtually every classic fantasy book and/or movie since the beginning of time has featured a BBEG. Since these serve as inspiration for most D&D games, it's only logical that published adventures follow the same pattern (same for video game RPGs).
|
|
There is one other aspect that I have not seen addressed in this thread. If you are going to run an AP that includes the PCs securing lands and building their holdings, the threats the PCs then face turn from the threats on the individual PCs (unless you go the route of courtly politics and backstabbing underlings looking for their own power grabs) to threats on the PCs lands and the people who look to them for protection/governance.
This translates to maintaining an army. While the 12th+ level PCs could go out and slay that pesky dragon (hey, it's good PR), they would have a harder, if not impossible, time facing off against that 500+ orcish force swooping down from the badlands without the back up of their own army. This in turn requires large scale combat system (LSCS) rules, which do not yet exist for the PFRPG. And if your lands are on the coast, better get a standing navy as well.
I'm all for large scale combat rules and have used the old Battlesystem rules years ago for a 3.5 campaign. While those rules worked, they still did have problems and the meshing of PCs into the LSCS was less than perfect, but it worked at the time, with the addition of house rules.
I could see an AP that comes back to Varisia, gets the PCs a holding by part 4, requires them to investigate some border issue in part 5 and integrates the LSCS as their forces have to repel an invasion force (Chelaxian or Orcish ... or both) in part 6 as the culminating event.
Or perhaps an unexplored are of the world where there is an ongoing conflict. Each AP installment has the adventure for the PCs and a series of battle scenarios for the players to run through to get accustomed to the LSCS. Once they have proven themselves to whatever controlling powers that be, they are given title and rights to an area of land and then follow up with parts 5 and 6 as above (but with some other type of invader).
There is a good amount of potential for this type of layout, but you wouldn't want it to be a constant. It's not for everyone. You really have to enjoy strategy games for the LSCS type scenarios and those are not everyone's cup of tea. Couple with that the DM's need to take events from the grander scale and determine the future paths based off those events and it can get downright challenging at times.
But to do a single AP in order to introduce the LSCS would be something I would look forward to immensely.
Now really, what kind of game would that be? Waiting on tables? Washing dishes? Paying taxes? Dealing with rude customers? That's not D&D, that's real life!
whoa...what are you talking about? This is the ultimate form of fantasy. Instead of sheepishly getting verbaly molested by the rude customer because the ale is too watered down, being forced to relinquish your full name and the 1-800-corporate complaint line, you can shank the customer, steal their money and dump the body in the river out back. The best form of fantasy for sure.
I work in automotive repair...I've developed a whole campaign around a group of player characters who run their own wagon and coach repair shop. We raise our copper per hour repair rate on a whim, rip off women because they know nothing about coach repair, paint old wagon axles and pass them off as original equipment parts, and the PC's wave their weapons whenever a customer demands priority selfishly placed on their own wagon. Good fun....
The best form of campaign in my opinion is one where the long term goal is not defeating a BBEG but achieving player driven goals. Sure there is some form of BBEG lurking and hampering the players but instead of constantly responding to the machinations of the BBEG, the BBEG is responding to the plans of the player characters.
...what do you do when the DM is herding cats?
You must be spying on every game I've ever run.
As much as it pains me to admit it, some people -- including me -- like to be led by the nose a little bit, with short-term enemies and long-term enemies. If a game is too "sandbox-y", I tend to get overwhelmed by options and I lose focus. Sad, but true.
I don't see how a Sandbox Adventure Path could work. Sandbox campaigns need GMs that can be really flexible, winging adventures or entire campaigns.
How can you write up a sandbox in advance? You have no idea what the players want to do. You'd need to limit options to even have a continent to work in, and then you'd already be limiting options.
So you make a sandbox AP set in Korvosa? The players get bored by the stuck-up wannabe-chalaxians and decide to go to Kaer Maga and BAM! Everything (or nearly everything) you have come up with is useless.
One way to run sandboxes with some plot is to prepare the enemies, their means, and their goals in advance, and give guidelines on how they react to disturbances.
One could also stipulate (player DM; not in character) that the PCs won't leave the area in question to the wolves, like "everyone of you has to come up with a reason why your PC cares about this land".
|
One of the problems with building a dominion is that it is hard for a group to do.
"Naw, one time I let a group choose their own names. Everybody wanted to be Mr. Black. Only nobody knew anybody, so nobody backed down."
If you have a group of four people where one wants to be the baron, one wants to be the vizier, one wants to be the (wo)man-at-arms, and one wants to be the religious advisor, then you're great. Yeah, there could be an intelligence officer, general, admiral, others.
My point is, usually each player wants their character to be the ruler. And having an adventure, let alone an adventure path that allows four different characters of different classes pursue nation-building sounds very unwieldly.
That is the real problem. You can’t make your players powerful as to own kingdoms and then have them adventure together. I agree here. The D&D Model breaks down.
I did it in one campaign in FR. I'd made Sembia an oligarchy and the players eventually came to power. After all their adventuring, the citizens wanted their leadership, they didn't have to conquer. Cormry wasn't happy about it expressed their displeasure. Now, there's Semyr.The Ranger was in charge of the forests and that was his duchy. Duchess Pinky, Master of the Four Winds, built her aerie/monastery on the mountain tops and monkishly ruled from there. Leahcim, a Selunite Silverstar, set up a theocracy in his duchy. And the wizard, well, its been years and I can't remember.
But they all came together to make decisions for the entire country. I was able to do it because I was able to alter and cater to my players as it unfolded.
Yep. You gave them equal stakes in their power niches. Your idea was a novel solution. They became mythic protectors of the realm.
A pre-written dominion building adventure would have to allow for so many variations (character concept at level one affects the type of ruler you'll be at 12th) that it might be too variegated to make an effective AP.
Yes, the difficulty lies in simplicity and interchangeable “hook-ups” to an epic players world. Who are we to say that every warrior will have a castle and warriors? Perhaps retiring in the local bar and becoming an alcoholic is the full extent of a 20th level fighter’s ambition. “It’s not about you! Its ‘Nam man! Now leave me alone.”
Anyway, the idea that Adventure Paths need new goals sounds rather novel, and I am sure the guys at Paizo will trip this one up. However, I think an AP that is leading one down a Campaign Path (so to speak), has merit. The APs finish out with the Adventurers usually reaching a fairly high level. One could say that the APs are Campaigns. What are you really left with after a Paizo Adventure Path? Answer: pretty much, unplayable characters. They have run their course. They are too powerful for the majority of what Paizo prints. Where do you go from there? Campaign over? Oops, I mean Adventure Path. That is what the original poster wants addressed. Adventure Paths are more akin to Campaigns because of the level advancement. At the end of that path, there is nothing to build off of other than the previous deeds of killing the BBEG. The APs are a quick elevator to the real sore side of the game, high level/epic level play.
A Campaign Guide would be nice. What would be nicer? A Campaign Guide that continues the journeys after these APs, something to explain what the game is changing into.
You know, that moment that you step into the flying saucer and think, “Where the hell am I going from here? Can someone explain to me what I am doing here?”
That is the feeling one has when they are out of avenues to proceed in building their epic character.
As much as it pains me to admit it, some people -- including me -- like to be led by the nose a little bit, with short-term enemies and long-term enemies. If a game is too "sandbox-y", I tend to get overwhelmed by options and I lose focus. Sad, but true.I don't see how a Sandbox Adventure Path could work. Sandbox campaigns need GMs that can be really flexible, winging adventures or entire campaigns.
How can you write up a sandbox in advance? You have no idea what the players want to do. You'd need to limit options to even have a continent to work in, and then you'd already be limiting options.
Not all sandboxes are the same size, of course. I suspect that one or more of the Kingmaker adventures will be like "Foundations of Flame" or "Tides of Dread", where there are a number of location-based encounters set up and the plot moves on based on which and/or how many of the encounters are resolved. Maybe that's not what you think of when you hear "sandbox", but it's less linear than saying "The adventurers will go to these locations in this order, culminating in fighting this bad guy".
But I agree -- when I hear "sandbox", I think "campaign setting boxed set" more than "adventure path".
To give you an idea of how hard it is to write a "sandbox" adventure, I can point towards Curse of the Crimson Throne, Edge of Anarchy.
It wasn't until afterwards that our GM admitted he had to wing about half the "book." I use the word book lightly because we stepped right off the prepared path.
Using the least amount of details possible, the GM admitted that Nick Logue (plus editors) did a fine job of detailing how to handle any choice the party makes involving Trania Sabor <sp?> - except the one our party took.
And that part wasn't even meant to be really sandboxy.
I can't imagine a whole path like that. Not to mention the real lack of GMs that can handle that.
But I agree -- when I hear "sandbox", I think "campaign setting boxed set" more than "adventure path".
This is exactly the topic of Pathfinder #22's Foreword, quoting from which says, "That’s why we call them “Adventure Paths” and not “Adventure Lots of Different Paths.” (We have a different name for those—Campaign Setting Sourcebook.)"
"That’s why we call them “Adventure Paths” and not “Adventure Lots of Different Paths.” (We have a different name for those—Campaign Setting Sourcebook.)"
Gee...that's too bad...cuz "Adventure Lots of Different Paths" is so catchy.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
But I agree -- when I hear "sandbox", I think "campaign setting boxed set" more than "adventure path".This is exactly the topic of Pathfinder #22's Foreword, quoting from which says, "That’s why we call them “Adventure Paths” and not “Adventure Lots of Different Paths.” (We have a different name for those—Campaign Setting Sourcebook.)"
It's true. And PF #22 has the almost paradoxical situation of being internally sandboxy, and yet depending absolutely on PCs making a specific choice to ever even occur. If the PCs do not choose or cannot be inveigled into doing that... they never end up going into adventure #22 at all.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sandbox adventures are really a matter of degree. A good example of a sandbox adventure is the module where the PCs need to help secure a fort in a remote mountain valley (I'm blanking on the name). There isn't a set goal or BBEG to defeat; there are a bunch of minor adventures and enemies to defeat which result in accomplishing the goal of the adventure. When I talk about a more sandbox-ish adventure, that's what I'm talking about.
Also, the last adventure paths have been ones in which the PCs stumble upon some enormous BBEG conspiracy early on, slowly unravel it, and then defeat the BBEG. That's a good, solid plot, but it's not the only way to run an adventure path. The path could be built around a theme or a goal for the PCs other than "stop the BBEG." Hopefully, that's what the Kingmaker adventure path will be like. The goal could be "civilize this frontier," and the first adventure in the path could be dealing with the local goblin tribe, the second about unraveling and dealing with a minor BBEG, the third about dealing with trade relations/rivals, etc. I realize that's not a true sandbox adventure, but it shifts the PCs from being reactive forces to active forces, which to me is the heart of a sandbox adventure.
Again, it's about variety. The BBEG plot is a good one, it's the easiest to run, the easiest to write. But, I expect Paizo to be able to experiment with something other than the BBEG plot.
|
|
A good example of a sandbox adventure is the module where the PCs need to help secure a fort in a remote mountain valley (I'm blanking on the name). There isn't a set goal or BBEG to defeat; there are a bunch of minor adventures and enemies to defeat which result in accomplishing the goal of the adventure.
Are you seriously blanking on the name of Keep on the Borderlands?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A good example of a sandbox adventure is the module where the PCs need to help secure a fort in a remote mountain valley (I'm blanking on the name). There isn't a set goal or BBEG to defeat; there are a bunch of minor adventures and enemies to defeat which result in accomplishing the goal of the adventure.Are you seriously blanking on the name of Keep on the Borderlands?
I'm actually thinking of a Paizo adventure from early in the line, not KotB. KotB is a bit less structured than I would like, but it is definitely in the same vein.
Edit: Conquest of Bloodstone Vale is what I'm thinking of.
Sandbox adventures are really a matter of degree.
Come on, Sebastian...it's not hard to say. "Mairkurion was ri-ri...ri-ri..."
Heh-heh. It's more than I could have hoped for. ;)
But ya know, so many of the others fit too...
All these observations have me convinced more and more that the ideal is for the GM to wait, read the AP through in its entirety when it's finished, know her player's well, and be willing to work both from the end of her players and their characters (to sculpt fit between them and the AP) and from the end of eliciting buy-in to whatever she deems necessary to running the AP for them. And this is obviously what Paizo can't do for you.
All these observations have me convinced more and more that the ideal is for the GM to wait, read the AP through in its entirety when it's finished, know her player's well, and be willing to work both from the end of her players and their characters (to sculpt fit between them and the AP) and from the end of eliciting buy-in to whatever she deems necessary to running the AP for them. And this is obviously what Paizo can't do for you.
This is pretty much what a GM should do with any published adventure, IMO. In fact, many of the first adventure modules basically said "This is just an overview; it's up to the GM to alter, expand, and fill in the details to match his/her setting and adapt this adventure to the needs of the campaign and the players." The 1st Ed AD&D module U1 The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (and the sequels U2 Danger at Dunwater and U3 The Final Enemy), for example, explicitly told the DM to create a fishing community of about 2,000 people.
As a GM, I usually appreciate the stronger storylines and details given in Adventure Paths, since it frees up more of my time to work on interweaving PC subplots and expanding the campaign around the central adventure arc. The central story also makes it easier to decide whether or not a particular group will be appropriate for that Path.
As a player, I appreciate the ability to create and mold my character to fit the central storyline, giving definite and relevant goals to choose from. Having a main plot also tends to keep the entire party more or less on the same page, instead of each PC pursuing widely divergent (or even conflicting) goals.
This is pretty much what a GM should do with any published adventure, IMO.
I agree, but I think that an AP ups the ante. If you begin a module, and then either sandbox away from it or railroad through it, the cost isn't as high in terms of investment or frustration. But when you multiple by six, and then factor in the fact that Paizo's products are going to be more developed and hence take more work to digest, prepare, and adapt for (assuming no railroad), to the kind of high level that you and I want to hold the game to, then it seems all the more important to me. (Never mind the rabbit hole factor -- how much or little time the GM takes to do.)
|
|
Also, the last adventure paths have been ones in which the PCs stumble upon some enormous BBEG conspiracy early on, slowly unravel it, and then defeat the BBEG. That's a good, solid plot, but it's not the only way to run an adventure path. The path could be built around a theme or a goal for the PCs other than "stop the BBEG." Hopefully, that's what the Kingmaker adventure path will be like. The goal could be "civilize this frontier," and the first adventure in the path could be dealing with the local goblin tribe, the second about unraveling and dealing with a minor BBEG, the third about dealing with trade relations/rivals, etc.
Blatant thread-crapping.
it shifts the PCs from being reactive forces to active forces
Ain't going to happen. Plot diversity, perhaps, but empowerment of player choice? No way. You know, once a month I re-read the Haldefast flamefest that was started on these boards re "Tides of Dread" (contains a brilliant analysis by Jeremy McDonald worth chasing up, drowned in tons of smurfing). Puts a nice time perspective on how idle it is to complain about these things around here. It's not that these things aren't heard (they obviously are); it's just that they embody a minority view with little impact on product design.
So, just reading this thread now reminds me of what Monte Cook said about the Pathfinder RPG last year - and I'm so going to copy it into my front page of the first River King instalment:
"Paizo is in an interesting dilemma. How do you sell change to people who don't want any?"
----------
[Edit. Please somebody explain to me why my avatar changed into a smurf? Does it happen everytime somebody uses the word smurf in a post, or how?]