Damn.
Windjammer: I believe it catches every use of the s-word, as well as some of the more obvious dodges. You'd have to ask Gary for exactly what, though.
|
Windjammer: I believe it catches every use of the s-word, as well as some of the more obvious dodges.
Ok, so it's not a permanent thing? You know, I didn't expect it to happen, and seeing the avatar next to my post felt like this . I mean, it certainly put a humorous damper on my pontifications from on high ;)
|
[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?]
Yep ... you say smurf and badda-bing, badda-boom, you're blue and 6 inches tall.
EDIT: and, apparently, you occasionally become a cross-dressing smurf. ;)
|
|
Uh...okay. If you say so. You must know of a definition of thread-crapping with which I am totally unfamiliar.
Not so much. It was irony. Yours was the first post that tackled the issue straight on. For instance, I've got no idea where people got the idea from that if an adventure path develops its endgame into (e.g.) "defend your barony" then said adventure path would have to start out on that theme at level 1 ("wouldn't that get boring - having a whole adventure path where EVERY instalment is about...defending your barony?").
Edit. And kudos for working the BBEG theme into one instalment. That's the whole point. You can get the BBEG meme in an adventure path without needing to make it into its overarching plot line. (- Btw, I won't delete my own response so as to forestal similar misunderstandings from other readers.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Uh...okay. If you say so. You must know of a definition of thread-crapping with which I am totally unfamiliar.Not so much. It was irony. Yours was the first post that tackled the issue straight on. For instance, I've got no idea where people got the idea that if an adventure path develops its endgame into (e.g.) "defend your barony" then said adventure path would have to start out on that theme at level 1 ("wouldn't that get boring - having a whole adventure path where EVERY instalment is about...defending your barony?").
Ahhhhhh...I missed that entirely. Sorry for the b+*#~y response - I will delete it.
I must admit, I was very very confused by your response. I guess that's what I get for reading and responding before coffee...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Uh...okay. If you say so. You must know of a definition of thread-crapping with which I am totally unfamiliar.Not so much. It was irony. Yours was the first post that tackled the issue straight on. For instance, I've got no idea where people got the idea from that if an adventure path develops its endgame into (e.g.) "defend your barony" then said adventure path would have to start out on that theme at level 1 ("wouldn't that get boring - having a whole adventure path where EVERY instalment is about...defending your barony?").
Edit. And kudos for working the BBEG theme into one instalment. That's the whole point. You can get the BBEG meme in an adventure path without needing to make it into its overarching plot line. (- Btw, I won't delete my own response so as to forestal similar misunderstandings from other readers.)
No worries, and thanks for turning the other cheek and explaining the post rather than giving me the smackback that I invited.
I definitely agree that having a BBEG meme be reduced to a single arc within an adventure path would be a nice change. Each volume of an adventure path is long enough and covers enough levels that it could be built around defeating a single enemy rather than stretching that confrontation over 12+ levels. I think it's nice to be able to resolve the "get the BBEG" type plots in a much shorter timeframe. That way, you don't get all the questions of "who're we after again? What was the point of that sidequest? Oh yeah, we needed the McGuffin of Power to defeat Baddy McBad, who sent those goblins to attack the town we lived in way back when we first started playing."
Creative Director
|
I can't remember where or when it appears (I think it's in Pathfinder #22?), but I wrote a foreword to Pathfinder that talks about what an Adventure Path is and isn't. The short version is: It's not a sandbox game. It's an Adventure Path, after all, not an Adventure Lots of Different Paths.
True sandbox-style adventures are, to me, known as campaign settings or regional sourcebooks. Into the Darklands, for example, is a "sandbox adventure path," although I suspect for it to truly work in that regard, it needs to be another 300 or so pages long with lots of fully detailed locations with maps to support them.
We might try something less structured in storyline in an Adventure Path some day, but don't expect that with Council of Thieves.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's not so much a desire for a less structured adventure path or a true sandbox adventure path - it's a desire for an adventure path that does not revolve around slowly encountering and unraveling the plot of some enormous BBEG conspiracy that touches every single adventure.
I realize that there were a lot of complaints about the disconnectedness of early AoWs adventures, but I think that was much more a result of the fact that those adventures heavily implied that (a) the adventure path would be about the Rod of Seven Parts and the conflict relating to that item and (b) that the starting town (Diamond Lake?) would play a significant role in the path. Neither of those were true, and so the way they were played up in the first 1-3 adventures created a false impression of the path as a whole.
Again, this is a continuum, and no one is requesting a true sandbox adventure. What I think is being requested is having an adventure path that is built around a theme or gives the PCs a goal which they must achieve actively rather than a scheme they must thwart reactively. The sandbox argument is a distraction from the points being raised in the thread, which is simply a request for an adventure path that does not revolve around foiling a single BBEG plot as its ultimate goal.
Also, I would point to the Conquest of Bloodstone Vale again as an example of an adventure that (a) is an adventure, and not a campaign setting and (b) manages to convey much of the active PC-centric play that sandbox style games are good at delivering. This is what I would like to see more of, particularly in an adventure path, and I find the argument that it can't be done to be directed mostly at the sidepoint of some True Sandbox Adventure (whatever the heck that even means).
|
I love a good ole, on the fly, nothing prepared in advance campaign. That said, I much prefer the PF AP's for my current group of 7 players (three are noob's). A linear progression is just what we need, with adding a level here and putting a few more mooks in there. I've really enjoyed the CotCT, and i'm going to love SD.
As a busy working individual, a linear AP helps make up for the time I don't have like I used to put into a campaign. I spent 15 years putting together a game world of my own, with cities and personalities, and places of interest. I just can't do that anymore. With the PF AP's all I need to do is double check someone else's work, and maybe give it a tweak or two (like making it Pathfinder compatible). So I say "Bring me more AP's like you have in the past!" And when something else comes around, you can bet I'll get behind that too.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Red Hand of Doom is another example of something more like a sandbox than the current APs, and benefitting from not having the overarching plot/conspiracy. Yes, there's a general commanding the army who must be defeated, but it's not as if there are adventures based on finding out his one weakness/secret plan to destroy the world and the army shows up from the word go. His plan is pretty obvious - conquer everyone with his army. The PCs must foil that plan directly and actively, by taking out his leaders, disrupting his raiders, and generally taking the fight to the army. It's not all about the BBEG, it's about the goal of stopping the army/conquest of the region.
Uh...okay. If you say so. You must know of a definition of thread-crapping with which I am totally unfamiliar.Not so much. It was irony. Yours was the first post that tackled the issue straight on. For instance, I've got no idea where people got the idea from that if an adventure path develops its endgame into (e.g.) "defend your barony" then said adventure path would have to start out on that theme at level 1 ("wouldn't that get boring - having a whole adventure path where EVERY instalment is about...defending your barony?").
Edit. And kudos for working the BBEG theme into one instalment. That's the whole point. You can get the BBEG meme in an adventure path without needing to make it into its overarching plot line. (- Btw, I won't delete my own response so as to forestal similar misunderstandings from other readers.)
Okay, maybe I was always confused and am just now realizing it, but either way, I feel confused now, so maybe I'll try some questions:
1. Do you mind there being a plot of some form beforehand?2. Do you mind such a plot in a single session?
3. Do you mind such a plot over more than one session, short of what you would identify as an AP?
4. Do you mind a prepared plot of some kind over an AP, as long as it is not a Person vs. Person conflict type?
5. Do you equate prepared plot with less player choice?
6. What is the relationship between "endgame" and plot?
I put these out there not to drill you and force your response into a rigid form, but to make some distinctions that I hope might help me get clarity...or realize I already have clarity and just feel better. :)
PS I am glad this thread did not make the jump to the blue gnome zone, as I initially feared.
EDIT: Do you have a link to the Monte Cook quote you ref'd above?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't speak for Windjammer, but here are my thoughts on your questions.
Okay, maybe I was always confused and am just now realizing it, but either way, I feel confused now, so maybe I'll try some questions:
1. Do you mind there being a plot of some form beforehand?
I'd like a lot less plot in an AP. Not every AP, not even most APs, just in one AP. Or, to the extent there is a plot, it's not a hide-the-ball conspiracy type plot where the PCs are slowly uncovering the acts of a single BBEG. Give the PCs the ball from the word go, tell them what they are trying to achieve, and then have each adventure in the AP allow them to make progress towards that goal.
2. Do you mind such a plot in a single session?
I'd like to see an AP with a number of smaller arcs so that certain plots can be resolved in a single volume. Rather than postpone the encounter with an epic BBEG until volume 6, give the PCs a less epic BBEG that can be defeated entirely in volume 3, but that has consequences that play out in volumes 4-6.
3. Do you mind such a plot over more than one session, short of what you would identify as an AP?
I think the AP can be based around a theme and not just a plot. The theme should be something simple (e.g., civilize this frontier) and the steps taken to complete that goal would be broken down into the various AP volumes.
4. Do you mind a prepared plot of some kind over an AP, as long as it is not a Person vs. Person conflict type?
Mostly I just don't want a conspiracy that needs to be unraveled over the course of 12+ levels. I don't mind hints or foreshadowing of future encounters, but I don't want to spend 12+ levels discovering and defeating a single source of evil and its many-tenticled plot.
5. Do you equate prepared plot with less player choice?
To a certain extent, but it's more that having a long plot that meanders for 12+ levels limits PC choice by forcing them to follow a particular train all the way to the end. Giving them a goal and then providing them with (relatively) obvious methods of achieving that goal is what I'm thinking about.
6. What is the relationship between "endgame" and plot?
I think the relationship is that the endgame in the APs has driven the plot directly through the entire AP - everything builds to a climactic encounter. But, as you begin an AP, that climactic encounter is hidden behind a conspiracy that is slowly unraveled and leads directly to that endgame. I'm suggesting that you can have a climactic encounter that is foreshadowed by the earlier adventures, but isn't directly connected to them. Furthermore, the endgame should be the accomplishment of the PCs goal, not just the defeat of the BBEG.
Paizo has done a lot of this in adventure paths to date, but they've all ultimately had some BBEG conspiracy that is being unraveled all the way through. I'd just like to see that conspiracy ratched down a little for an AP.
|
|
True sandbox-style adventures are, to me, known as campaign settings or regional sourcebooks.
Like Sebastian said, this is a side topic to the thread, and I'm kind of sorry I even started it in a throw-away-response to Jason Nelson early on. I'm also grateful to Sebastian for showing, successfully, that some of the dichotomies used in this thread in that regard are unhelpful or just plain incorrect. Here's my own take - I put it in a spoiler because I don't want to threadcrap the essential line of discussion (this time using that term without irony).
That said, it depresses me when people use the term "sandbox" with a degree of understanding that is even less than my own. To begin with, a sandbox is NOT your standard campaign setting or regional sourcebook. The Pathfinder Gazetteer or Campaign Book, the Eberron or Forgotten Realms settings produced for 3E - all of these are NOT sandboxes. The only two true sandboxes published for 3E are Necromancer's Wilderlands box and the more recent Points of Light by Rob Conley (this being comparatively editions-neutral). They differ from the former type of product by having adventure possibilities keyed to given locations - and lots thereof - while leaving everything else pretty much up to the DM. For instance, such sandboxes won't have any of the vast info on regions, their people, the deities, and so on that you get in the FRCS. The FRCS, for instance, gives you vast amount of information that allow you (for instance) to convert extant setting-neutral (or foreign-setting) modules over into the FR - or to develop your own adventures set in the FR from scratch - while being extremely low on detailing actual advenure possibilities.
Viewed through this lense, Necro's City of Brass with its Appendix 7 - 101 adventuring possibilities (and no, this ain't just a list of one-liners) - is a sandbox. Or take Ptolus, given this. Unlike the Wilderlands box, these two - Ptolus and CoB - use adventuring keys that ADD up and generate their own adventure path.
In theory it's possible to utilize Paizo modules the same way, once you start to key all adventures in Varisia to their locations and let the PC decide which way to go (someone did this on the web, but Paizo shut it down because he used their copyrighted maps - it worked wonderfully, you could click your way through Varisia and ...voia-la, here's Fortress Rannick, and so on). So basically, if you own Rise of the RL, Crimson Throne, and Second Darkness, you'd have a huge sandbox with tons of adventuring possibilities. But that is MILES away from a gazetteer of Varisia, never mind how detailed that gazetteer would be.
When people complain how Paizo modules aren't enough sand-boxy, it's actually far removed from a plain request for a Wilderlands sandbox but much closer to a Ptolus one. If, say, Descent into Midnight or - apparently - Jason's new module had more than ONE way to clue the PCs into the module, and a multitude of clues on the way to allow the PCs to propel the course of the adventure, that would already be miles ahead of the current philosophy of "if the PCs don't come across point A, the whole module will pass them by". This then generates its own set of problems, with the typical NPC leading the PC by the nose which we've seen overdone in Second Darkness again and again. Appararently this is selling well for Paizo, otherwise we'd have seen a change of pace on this score. But I'm getting tired of editors and authors chiming in telling us how there is no other way, or basically, no other way without deviating from producing an adventure path module. Plainly not true, and depressing every time I read it. Not least, because it's always the same people saying these things.
|
|
Okay, maybe I was always confused and am just now realizing it, but either way, I feel confused now, so maybe I'll try some questions:
Ha! Sebastian answered them better than I could have. Seriously. The only thing I'd add is that Paizo (in effect) adopted the BBEG adventure path model from Gygax' Queen of the Spiders. That's such a watershed in D&D that you can forgive any company for (repeatedly) capitalizing on its strengths.
Do you have a link to the Monte Cook quote you ref'd above?
Wow. I think I actually agree with everything you just said, Sebastian. I was just looking for clarity, and this is what I found.
I'm still working on getting my mind around Windjammer. Edit: I'm still a bit confused about you and the sandbox, but after I posted, I see that you too agree with Sebastian. Something's about to happen...
|
|
I'm still working on getting my mind around Windjammer. Edit: I'm still a bit confused about you and the sandbox, but after I posted, I see that you too agree with Sebastian. Something's about to happen...
Ok, here's my take on "light-sandbox-ey module" vs. "plot heavy module" in a nutshell. Imagine the Call of Cthulu module The Complete Masks of Nyarlathotep being rewritten by Paizo as their next adventure path. Among several changes wraught by Paizo editors, one would be that every crime scene the investigators come across in the module contains exactly one clue,* and that every clue points in exactly one direction in the most explicit terms.
The resulting play-experience would be plot-heavy (i.e. prefabricated) at a "low close-up" level in a way the original CoC-module never was. The original had a fairly definite idea of which crime scene the PC would come across first, which scene only much later, and which crime scene would end the scenario. But how the players progressed from one scene to the next (based on which clues, at what time) was entirely up to them, and there was even some looseness if the players wanted to return to an earlier location to check for more clues.
The end result though, in terms of the adventure path's overarching theme (and even its meta-plot) would be indiscernible in these two cases (CoC and Paizo revisiting it). This is how the "101 Adventuring Ideas" gets off ground in Ptolus and City of Brass too (if my impression of the latter so far is correct - it only arrived yesterday morning!), though it's not remotely as developed as Masks beyond the initial stages.
*The Paizo shtick with most baddies carrying diaries directing the PC to the next spot are basically the type of clue that's standard diet in CoC play. It's a direction sign (for the players) to the next scene in written format.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I have been noodling around on this concept as I've read the thread and I wonder if a "solution" might be one of these kinds of models:
1. The clustered or decoupled Adventure Path. Example: Rod of Seven Parts.
Pros: You still have the basic framework of an AP, and each piece is important (though not absolutely essential), but up until a certain point in the AP you can do them in more or less any order.
Cons: Things that aren't "necessary" still cost money to write, illustrate, map, print, and ship. You end up with redundant text that enables the adventure to be played more than one way, but effectively ANY way that you play it will moot 10-20% of the adventure (don't end up needing combat stats, tactics, contingencies, etc. for the Power Group B if you side with them and attack Power Group A instead).
2. The enemy GROUP, rather than BBEG. Example: Scourge of the Slavelords
Pros: You can subcontract the evil plot, and PCs can't just gang up on the super big bad at the end, because they are up against an evil cabal, not one sooopa-bad guy.
Members of the group again can be encountered in any order or all at once, not just as a sort of "working you way up the food chain" exercise. Members of the bad group can also have differing agendas, allowing the party to divide and conquer on different paths (and some big bads will screw them over while others play it relatively straight)
Cons: Wellll... honestly it's the same thing as the BBEG plot; you've just broken the BBEG into pieces. How much that matters depends a ton on implementation
3. Adventure path as THEME, rather than conspiracy. Example: Against the Giants (mostly) and Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff
Pro: Yeah, yeah, I know, there really *IS* a conspiracy in the giant modules, and it's all the drow's fault, but really does anybody care? It's an AP about kicking giant fanny from here to the Hellfurnaces. The overarching plot of these adventures is a giantish invasion. All that deeper motivation is very after the fact.
Con: How do you make those adventures connected? In 1978 we were happy enough to have the DM say, "Here's the next adventure" or "Some nobles asked you to do it" or "Hey, there's lotsa TREASURE!" Now it's all "Excuse me, what's my motivation here?" There needs to be more of a driving thread than "There's the monsters: Go get em, boy!" Sure, they're all giants, and that's cool, but... WTF? PCs might get bored after one and so much for the adventure path.
Liberation of Geoff solves this by casting the PCs as infiltrating giant-lands after the giants have already won, having to uproot giantish rule and... well, LIBERATE the Grand Duchy of Geoff. The original three G-modules plus three more similar-sized adventures are seeded throughout the area, along with adventure-grade descriptions for a dozen other cities, towns, and key locations where giantish butts may be kicked.
This might be an adventure you wanna look up to see if it is more the kind of supermodule you might crave. If only you could go buy a PDF of it... muahahahaaaaa
The Complete Masks of Nyarlathotep is an interesting example.
First thing that springs to mind is that it doesn't matter where the PCs decide to go after the opening scene (i.e. London, Australia, China or whatever) because there is no attempt to balance the encounters at these locations with the party. That stems partly from the system itself not being as level based as is D&D and partly from the authors not really caring and perhaps relishing the idea of the party getting torn to pieces (it IS CoC after all).
If Masks was written as a Path for D&D it would likely need to be written with an assumed order of exploration in mind (kind of like it is presented in Masks) and the ELs for each of these locations being in a workable range for the party.
The alternative would be to present several versions of the encounters at each location for a range of party levels. So, encounter X for ELs 3, 7, and 12 or something similar (trying not to give away anything from Masks as a spoiler so I am not using specific examples).
The problem with that approach is regardless of finding one of the stats useful for your group when you reach the appropriate area, you are guaranteed to find 2/3's of the stats useless (and perhaps all of them if you fit at just the in between section). Now I suppose a new type of stat block could be created that shows a scaling for all encounters (similar to the presentation of scaling NPCs in the SCAP hardcover?), but I still think this isn't really a workable solution.
Another solution would be to go a bit further away from from system at all and have the story and clues and what not at each location but trust the DM to come up with stats for ALL encounters (and this way he could tailor it for his campaign), with some notes on the builds. The upside to this is that there would be more story, the downside is the product would be useful to less people.
Honestly, while I think Masks is a fantastic campaign, I think it also is a good illustration of how this type of adventure would not work well in a 3.5 / OGL world that has characters moving from 1-15. Unfortunately I think that is a limitation that is artificially placed upon the stories by the mechanics of the system.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
there is no attempt to balance the encounters at these locations with the party.
This is integral to sandbox play (read the comments there too if you can spare the time).
And then, check out this. Scouting is the PCs' highroad to selecting encounters they think they are cut out for (aka "EL management by the players"). If the DM determines the ELs ahead of time AND sets in stone that the players will run into the encounters regardless of player input, then of course scouting isn't rewarded. This, too, is something that's hardwired into DM style/module design and NOT into D&D per se, though some people around here would have you believe otherwise.
Edit. To see what kind of EL management is hardwired into 3E, see this.
How many groups play an AP through with new characters each time, and how many have an ongoing campaign and adapt modules to the party?
I am currently adapting LoF for my campaign, which means I can't use most of the stats at all, since the Party is high level. Would an AP that's not meant to take a group from 1 to 15, but say from 14 to 16 sell well?
This is integral to sandbox play (read the comments there too if you can spare the time).
LoL... you keep editing your post and putting in more interesting reading!
My response to the quoted blog (good reading, btw) is a couple of things.
First, it occurs to me that requiring the PCs to do their own EL mitigation (i.e. not getting in over their heads), would require some metagame knowledge on the part of the players. For me, I would have serious problems if a PC was able to determine that a certain location had a dragon present and what the age was and then was able to quickly determine that would be too tough of an encounter for them. How the heck could a PC know how many hitpoints that creature has?!? To me that smacks too much of meta-gaming. Even assuming things like them hearing stories of other parties who had failed assumes too much comparison of gaming statics between themselves and the ones that failed.
Not having played in this type of situation, maybe I am missing something. If so, please let me know. (in the interest of full disclosure, I did play in a game that the DM would have claimed was in this style, but instead EVERYTHING was a random roll... so no looking ahead).
Next would be that this style of play seems to have concluded that it is no big deal or even fun to loose characters on their way through the game. A path though is a single story that really is more effective with a single group of characters making their way through the whole thing and this arbitrary/fair (depending on your outlook) type of thing isn't as likely to produce that coherent story.
Hrmm... interesting stuff. I will keep reading your links.
Sean Mahoney
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
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.
You know, it's possible I'm reading this wrong, but after spending as much time as I did responding to you earlier in the thread and listing all of the various ways that reader comments and criticisms have influenced Adventure Path design choices so far, I feel pretty frustrated that you would say such a thing.
Offended might be a better word, actually.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
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.
You know, it's possible I'm reading this wrong, but after spending as much time as I did responding to you earlier in the thread and listing all of the various ways that reader comments and criticisms have influenced Adventure Path design choices so far, I feel pretty frustrated that you would say such a thing.
Offended might be a better word, actually.
I think this was more directed at James and Wes than you. I am often frustrated with James's responses myself - I feel like they tend to be defensive rather than constructive and frequently dismiss suggestions out of hand rather than taking them into consideration. Your responses are engaging and show that you are interested in a dialogue. I have high hopes about the Kingmaker series, I have great confidence in Paizo's ability to make interesting APs, but I get annoyed when a thread discusses a variety of topics and playstyles and the responses back from some Paizo folks are "that's a campaign setting, not an AP" or "sandbox adventures are impossible."
I understand that not all ideas pitched by the peanut gallery are good ones, or workable, but leading off with something like "that's an interesting idea, and here's how we think we're supporting it and would like to make it work, but here are the problems that we encounter" would go a long way towards reducing that feeling of defensiveness and dismissal.
At least, those are my feelings on the topic. I appreciated your posts in the early portion of this thread and tried to explain what I was hoping for in an AP in response to your comments. I'd like to see an AP without a big conspiracy instigated by the BBEG and a bit more straight-forward hook that puts the onus on the PCs. I don't think that's outside of what works in an AP, and I doubt you do either.
|
|
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.
You know, it's possible I'm reading this wrong, but after spending as much time as I did responding to you earlier in the thread and listing all of the various ways that reader comments and criticisms have influenced Adventure Path design choices so far, I feel pretty frustrated that you would say such a thing.
Offended might be a better word, actually.
Sorry if I caused offense, but if you go back to the post you quote from you'll see quite a heavy bit of relativization around the line you quoted. I tried hard to separate two things there, really: (a) plot diversity and (b) player empowerment. I certainly did not retract the importance of your feedback re (a); and what I said re (b) is precisely that "these things" (<---restriction placed on "(b)") ARE heard, but that (my impression is that) they don't get full impact in product design.* I've certainly NOT said that customer feedback per se doesn't have any impact on product design around here.
*That impression being informed by 1. the Haldefast thread's dating in 2007, and 2. product design choices made in Paizo products 2007-2008.
Edit. Thanks to Sebastian who got this right. I'm not like Haldefast who's up to driving this imaginary wedge right into the Paizo team. But I do think you guys embody a healthy variety of play styles, and that not everyone is up there with James and Wes saying that "Remember, part of the craft of being a GM is making the PCs do exactly what YOU want while believing that they’re doing exactly what THEY want." I'm fine with Wes pursuing that style of play; it's just not my idea of empowering player choice, and that's what that fuss was all about.
How many groups play an AP through with new characters each time, and how many have an ongoing campaign and adapt modules to the party?
I have no specific stats to back me up on this, but I would guess the majority of groups that play through do so with fresh groups.
Would an AP that's not meant to take a group from 1 to 15, but say from 14 to 16 sell well?
There has been a fair bit of expressed interest in having higher level APs, however I don't know how vocal of a minority this represents. I think Paizo is a bit trepiditious of this type of thing for a couple of reasons. First, they have found that high level adventures are tougher to write and descend more into collections of stat-blocks rather than adventures. Next, they have seen that most of the sweet-spot of playability in 3.5/OGL is ending around 14-16 (some think more around level 12), many players start feeling frustration after this point with complaints like, "it is all about who wins initiative," and "it's the wizard/sorcerer show at this point... the rest of us are just here to watch."
That said, I think if they did a future AP that picked up where another AP ended that it would sell quite well.
Sean Mahoney
|
Creative Director
|
Red Hand of Doom is another example of something more like a sandbox than the current APs, and benefitting from not having the overarching plot/conspiracy. Yes, there's a general commanding the army who must be defeated, but it's not as if there are adventures based on finding out his one weakness/secret plan to destroy the world and the army shows up from the word go. His plan is pretty obvious - conquer everyone with his army. The PCs must foil that plan directly and actively, by taking out his leaders, disrupting his raiders, and generally taking the fight to the army. It's not all about the BBEG, it's about the goal of stopping the army/conquest of the region.
Having written about 75% of Red Hand of Doom, I'm both pleased and confused to hear you say this, since I always assumed that it did indeed have an overarching plot and main bad guy... :-P
|
Perhaps I'm not getting this thread (to many blows to the head maybe?) but here's my take on what I think I understand (?).
Now I am pretty new to the boards and truthfully to Paizo (finally gave up on trying to get my local shop to carry you guys and just started ordering it straight from the source), But I really do think that although yes the basic premise behind the APs is the quest to save the world from the BBEG, the staff and writers have done an amazing job of giving us a little sandbox to play in. Take RoTRL Burnt Offerings, in Sandpoint (my new home) there is so much extra detail thrown in that it's easy to just go with it, my last to sessions have been freeform with asking the players what they wanted to do.So they have so far gone goblin hunting with Daviren Hosk, gone for rare herbs for Hannah, and last saturday finally got Vachedi to open up about his family,setting up a pretty intense adventure to free his wife and sons.
I guess what I'm saying is they do, IMO, give us a little sandbox, but I may be off the mark here... but it's close enough for me anyway.
P.S. thanks James for Red Hand of Doom complete sandbox filled with brocken glass and dirty needles... killed my favorite rogue. :-)
|
|
Perhaps I'm not getting this thread (to many blows to the head maybe?) but here's my take on what I think I understand (?).
Now I am pretty new to the boards and truthfully to Paizo (finally gave up on trying to get my local shop to carry you guys and just started ordering it straight from the source), But I really do think that although yes the basic premise behind the APs is the quest to save the world from the BBEG, the staff and writers have done an amazing job of giving us a little sandbox to play in. Take RoTRL Burnt Offerings, in Sandpoint (my new home) there is so much extra detail thrown in that it's easy to just go with it, my last to sessions have been freeform with asking the players what they wanted to do.So they have so far gone goblin hunting with Daviren Hosk, gone for rare herbs for Hannah, and last saturday finally got Vachedi to open up about his family,setting up a pretty intense adventure to free his wife and sons.
I guess what I'm saying is they do, IMO, give us a little sandbox, but I may be off the mark here... but it's close enough for me anyway.P.S. thanks James for Red Hand of Doom complete sandbox filled with brocken glass and dirty needles... killed my favorite rogue. :-)
Good points here. Another aspect to focus on here is if you truly want a sandbox, use part of an AP and utilize the materials outlined in there to launch off to where ever your PCs want to go.
I'm currently running the son of two of my best friends and three of his friends through RotRL (age range of 10-12). My intention is to send them through the entire AP, HOWEVER, in the first half of Burnt Offerings, the kids have explored Chopper's Isle (thinking there may be a connection between the goblin attacks and the Late Unpleasantness ... smart kids, but went after a red herring), the bard made connections with the Sandpoint Theater, they expressed interest in the Sandpoint Devil ... my point here is, if I were inclined to, I could create an entire campaign arc based solely out of Sandpoint with the goblin raids not connected to any over-arching megaplot.
Any GM worth their salt (and I do not mean to imply that anyone here is not), should be able to take any individual aspect of an AP and utilize that one part to create one HELL of a sandbox.
Paizo has not expanded on EVERY potential side trek, nor would I expect them to do so. Filling in the details is the job of the GM; the GM is the chef and the AP provides the ingredients. If you want to have your PCs have the freedom to explore freely, then you will definitely have your work cut out for you, but at least you have a solid base from the installments of an AP to start from.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Having written about 75% of Red Hand of Doom, I'm both pleased and confused to hear you say this, since I always assumed that it did indeed have an overarching plot and main bad guy... :-PRed Hand of Doom is another example of something more like a sandbox than the current APs, and benefitting from not having the overarching plot/conspiracy. Yes, there's a general commanding the army who must be defeated, but it's not as if there are adventures based on finding out his one weakness/secret plan to destroy the world and the army shows up from the word go. His plan is pretty obvious - conquer everyone with his army. The PCs must foil that plan directly and actively, by taking out his leaders, disrupting his raiders, and generally taking the fight to the army. It's not all about the BBEG, it's about the goal of stopping the army/conquest of the region.
I'm aware, and the fact that you still don't seem to understand what I've been discussing and how RHoD is different from most adventure paths leaves me frustrated and confused.
I've described in great detail in multiple posts what I would like to see in an adventure path, trying to explain what elements of a sandbox style adventure are appealing and what I have grown tired of in the current APs (including in the very post you quoted, but the substance of which you ignored entirely). I would like to think I've been relatively clear and that it would be easy for anyone, much less the author of RHoD, to identify what elements I liked in that adventure and how it is different, and discuss the substance of the comments I (and others) are actually posting, instead of the narrow arguments you seem vested in peddling.
In any event, I'm not willing to invest the energy to get yet another willfully obtuse response that misses the points I (and others) are trying to make. If you can't figure out what I'm saying, either I lack the ability to communicate it or you lack the ability to comprehend it, and at this point, I don't really care which it is.
I do think you guys embody a healthy variety of play styles, and that not everyone is up there with James and Wes saying that "Remember, part of the craft of being a GM is making the PCs do exactly what YOU want while believing that they’re doing exactly what THEY want." I'm fine with Wes pursuing that style of play; it's just not my idea of empowering player choice, and that's what that fuss was all about.
Life has to feel pretty unfair to James right about now. In another thread I just had a discussion with him where I argued that players should have to adjust to the adventures and if they are missing a component of a balanced party it is their job to make up for the shortfall. James said that he felt it was the DMs job to tailor the adventures to the group. (i.e. if there is not a cleric the DM might increase the healing items found as treasure by swapping other treasures out for them).
Here he gets accused of claiming that the job of the DM is to make the players do what the DM wants.
I think it is fair to say that neither extreme is exactly what James is saying (and I would lump Wes in there too). I guess what I am saying that the above is unfair to James as was any inferences I made in the other thread.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
In reading through this thread, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the main point being raised by Sebastian is to have a more proactive rather than reactive AP. Have the PCs take the lead and move to make changes in the world around them.
There are a couple problems I have with this style. First, if you are going to run a completely PC driven campaign, detailed design is pretty much out the window. There is no way to detail every option the PCs have available to them. Even if you have a "tame the wilderness" campaign concept to start from, if the PCs are the driving force, and not the underlying plot, then the GM had either better not have a day job so he can dedicate all his free time to trying to outline all possible options (which he won't be able to do anyway), or he better be stellar at running a game off the cuff. Either way, such a design model is not practical for a commercial endeavor.
Second, if you do run with a sandbox campaign, you run a serious risk of having any major sense of accomplishment through the campaign. Sure you may start with a "tame the wilderness" concept, but if the PCs tire of it, they may just move to the city. They get tired of the city, they move on to another country. They get tired of that country, the go to another. Etc Etc Etc. The possibility of having any truly heroic events diminishes with each story changing turn the PCs make. Again, the randomness that can come from this prohibits producing a detailed product that most gamers have come to expect.
Third, in the role of the GM, you are supposed to create some conflict for the PCs. After all, the players control their individual PCs while YOU control the rest of the multiverse. In creating the conflicts, you have, by definition put the PCs into a reactionary position; they are presented with a conflict and must react to it.
All things considered, I've been exceedingly happy with the APs that have come out so far. The can be run as a whole or run piecemeal to fit into a personalized campaign. These are tools, after all, and as such can be modified as needed.
Just my 2cp on the subject.
As a side, perhaps the best model for what you are looking for is an AP that gives a direction to the PCs, but success could be gained by numerous means, not necessarily solely by kicking the BBEG's butt. Such as was the case with the module River Into Darkness. The PCs had a job, could complete it as expected, abandon it, change sides for moral/ethical concerns, out everyone, or some other option the PCs come up with.
Grumpy pony want a carrot?
|
|
Erik,
There are a couple problems I have with this style. First, if you are going to run a completely PC driven campaign, detailed design is pretty much out the window. ... All things considered, I've been exceedingly happy with the APs that have come out so far.
it's reactions like these which have prompted my cynical response you took offense to - and which, just to repeat, wasn't directed at you of all people.
I'm fully aware that the style of play (and campaign design) Sebastian and I have been explaining isn't everyone's cup of tea. In fact, few people seem to care for it or understand it. I don't begrudge them for that, there being plenty of things in my life I don't get or care for.
Thing only is, Sebastian and I are in a complete minority on wanting such a playstyle being encouraged in an adventure path. That minority is visible in this thread and (I surmise) in Paizo's customer base at large. That's why I don't see a change on this score anytime soon. You guys at Paizo listen to your customer base. Because you do, you won't favour minorities over what most of your customers want. Why should you? You'd risk alienating a large part of your customers, and it's much harder to get them to renew their subscriptions later on than to keep them in the first place. This, too, was an integral observation of the Haldefast thread mentioned above.
As zylphryx says, he's exactly happy with how things are now, not least because he can't envisage how things done differently could be pulled off successfully. Because that sentiment is so widespread among customers and editors, I inserted the Monte Cook quote in that same post. People don't want change around here - at least as far as some things are concerned. Whether that causes them to not get people wanting such changes or the causal chain runs the other way round - that doesn't make a difference to the net result. Some customers' preferences don't make it into product design. By definition, not every customers' can. End of story.
|
|
Life has to feel pretty unfair to James right about now. In another thread I just had a discussion with him where I argued that players should have to adjust to the adventures and if they are missing a component of a balanced party it is their job to make up for the shortfall. James said that he felt it was the DMs job to tailor the adventures to the group. (i.e. if there is not a cleric the DM might increase the healing items found as treasure by swapping other treasures out for them).
Here he gets accused of claiming that the job of the DM is to make the players do what the DM wants.
I think it is fair to say that neither extreme is exactly what James is saying (and I would lump Wes in there too). I guess what I am saying that the above is unfair to James as was any inferences I made in the other thread.
Sean Mahoney
Thanks for pointing that out. I would have to reread this thread carefully, but I had more than one time the impression that at least some of the things Windjammer and Sebastian would like to see in the APs actually are already there.
Just to give a short example: Sebastian said that he'd prefer an AP with a lot less plot. We actually already had this with Rise of the Runelords (and there have beem enough complaints about how disconnected the adventures feel in the AP) and in fact I'd claim that it's rather easy with CotCT and SD to ignore the given plot and do with the given material just what you would prefer to do.
I remember Wes writing a long post in another thread on how you could use the article about Zirnakaynin and expand on this article if you didn't want to follow the adventure as written or if you wanted to adapt the adventure to your players' taste. This is quite the opposite to "make your players do what you want them to do".
This said I wouldn't mind an AP without "the one and only BBEG" either. That's why I really anticipate Kingsmaker from what I hear so far. And let's not forget that this AP is forged by the same people which brought to us the other APs.
|
|
@Wormys_Queue
1. Telling me that my default style of play is just as much supported in Paizo product as those of DMs preferring to hand the plots to their players strikes me as bizarre. Of all people here, you personally know best just how much work I had to put into Second Darkness to make it work at my table for the last months.
2. Here's what Wes said in the post you mention.
Let the PCs have all the adventures you want in Zirnakaynin, that's awesome - you've got 10 pages and 3 huge maps to play with after all.
And here is what Wes wrote in the module (beware spoilers!). "Gadak", for those who don't know, is one of several NPCs in Second Darkness who picks up the PC at (or near) the module's entry point and then lead them by their nose through the remainder of the module.
Gadak loves to talk and eagerly goes on about each district and landmark at length, relating wellknown facts, tall tales, and personal reminisces. In short, during the several hours it takes to navigate the city, Gadak can provide the PCs with almost all of the information provided in the “Zirnakaynin” article on page 48.
Compare and contrast. We're looking at two different styles of play here. On is actively supported in the module, and one isn't.
A notable exception being PF #19. Can you imagine my relief that Dashki wasn't made into one of those Jiminy Crickets?
|
|
Erik,
There are a couple problems I have with this style. First, if you are going to run a completely PC driven campaign, detailed design is pretty much out the window. ... All things considered, I've been exceedingly happy with the APs that have come out so far.As zylphryx says, he's exactly happy with how things are now, not least because he can't envisage how things done differently could be pulled off successfully.
Really? I said I can't envision how things done differently could be pulled off successfully? Really? Wow, I must have missed that somewhere in my OP.
One of the point I was making was that for a commercially produced product, having a PC-driven, sandbox AP would be next to impossible to produce because:
a) you would not have the level of detail that customers have come to expect from the product line because in order to have a sandbox to play in you need to have information on more aspects of the area that the PCs will be adventuring within. This translates to lesser detail to fit more aspects of the surrounding area within the space limitation of the AP installments.
b) if a campaign is PC-driven instead of plot driven, you run the risk of not having a major climax to the developing story. If the PCs run from point to point with no connecting thread (which PCs who are driving the story can turn towards in the name of 'finding something new and exciting' or 'ooo that's a neat name on the map, let's go there'), there is a disjointed sequence of events rather than the stuff of legend.
c) such an AP concept would have to be extremely fluid and the GM would have to be practiced at running part of or entire sessions off the cuff because the PCs moved on to something that was not covered in the 90 some odd pages each installment is limited to.
Additionally, the full quote about being happy with the product line:
All things considered, I've been exceedingly happy with the APs that have come out so far. The can be run as a whole or run piecemeal to fit into a personalized campaign. These are tools, after all, and as such can be modified as needed.
Hmmm, seems the reason I am exceedingly (NOT 'exactly' as you stated when you paraphrased my response) happy with the APs so far is that one can use them as a tool and run them piecemeal as filler for, oh, I don't know, a custom built sandbox perchance? Do you think that having sources at hand that you can pick elements out of an run as individual adventure pieces is a bad thing? Hell, pretty much EVERY piece of the RotRL could be pulled out and run as it's own stand alone if you wanted to do so. If you want to run a sandbox campaign, the APs become exceedingly valuable tools because you have elements ready to go that you can throw in with minimal modification.
I've been playing RPGs since 1977 and have run both 'traditional' and 'sandbox' campaigns over the last 30 years. Over that time, I have found the 'sandbox' campaign requires a hell of a lot more write up than a 'traditional' campaign and even with that you have to be willing to run it off the cuff more often than not. This is not something many GMs are able to do well, especially new GMs. This is why I keep harping on the 'tools' concept. APs, modules, side treks, etc all are tools to help the GM make a more enjoyable gaming experience for everyone by reducing the amount of time they need to spend in set up and allowing them to focus on other aspects of the gaming experience.
One last thing, Windjammer, if you intend to quote someone, you really should do it in context and not pick and choose snippets to make it look like the quoted text helps to defend your stance of "see, see, these are the people who made me respond like a cynical ..."
|
|
Guys, let's please try to be civil to each other.
Windjammer, I have a better idea of where you're coming from and I appreciate your clarification (and your enjoyment of PF #19!).
Sorry Erik, having what I write or say clipped to change the meaning of what I had originally written or said is a pet peeve.
Windjammer, no offense intended.
|
|
Really? I said I can't envision how things done differently could be pulled off successfully? Really? Wow, I must have missed that somewhere in my OP.
One of the points I was making was that for a commercially produced product, having a PC-driven, sandbox AP would be next to impossible to produce because ....
I'm sorry you felt I misrepresented what you said. For the record, I didn't intend to do so. And reading these very lines here, let me confess I don't see how "cannot be pulled off successfully" is misrepresentative of "cannot be pulled off in a manner that's conceptually and/or commercially viable without it any longer being an adventure path". I realize you didn't say that last bit either, but this is how I understand (and understood) what you're saying. Before I say something more, please let me know if that is misrepresentative of your position too. Thank you.
Erik, thanks for those kind words, and more generally for your patience in staying in a discussion that was likely to get heated given the complexity of the issues (and the personal stakes) involved. Like someone else said upthread, I'm positively surprised we didn't hit "blue gnome zone"* yet :)
* thanks for the tip on how to get round the s-word!
|
|
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.
I second that motion. Something with a lot of humor, or something heroic, as per the good old days' / early 90's NES video game themes (i.e. king asks the party to save his daughter; knights in shining armor; or the simple pleasure of chasing giant ants and ankhegs out of a farmer's field or halfling/gnome burrows...)
Other classic fantasy themes: arctic expedition, volcano exploration, airships, and underwater campaign (i.e. underwater campaign would really, really make rangers and druids shine... here's my killer whale animal companion... YIKES!!!)
Also, more Golarion specific: something to do with Hermea (that utopia nation led by that gold dragon); something with that magic-less land full of sawed-off shotguns; and something with Taldor. Yes, Taldor. Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase Taldor! :)
EDIT: I can't stop thinking about a knight in shining armor campaign; it would be cool if it would be set mainly in rolling grass plains and other areas where mounted combat (horsmanship or flying mounts) offers a clear advantage (think Rohan)
Just more coppers from me: When the words "humor" and "light-hearted" appear, I am seized with fear.
But definitely, more power to Taldor and Osirion, my two favorite factions!
|
|
I'm sorry you felt I misrepresented what you said. For the record, I didn't intend to do so. And reading these very lines here, let me confess I don't see how "cannot be pulled off successfully" is misrepresentative of "cannot be pulled off in a manner that's conceptually and/or commercially viable without it any longer being an adventure path". I realize you didn't say that last bit either, but this is how I understand (and understood) what you're saying.
I'm not saying it would not be possible, but to pull it off well in the space constraints of an AP would be extremely difficult.
What say we take this step by step and dissect it so we have a clear understanding of each others conceptualization of what is required? If you are up for that, then I suppose the first step would be to ensure that I'm on the same page as to what the basic issue is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are advocating would be a more open AP where the AP is not driven by the BBEG or the over arcing plot, but by the courses the PCs decided to take. This is viewed as being proactive (the PCs determining how and where they will interact with the world around them and then changing that world to some extent). Am I correct in this assumption?
|
MMMmmmm interesting topic here. I find the criticism of the original post interesting as well.
First of all, anyone see the movie Beowolf? Sandbox adventure. Perfect for an AP in fact. How would Rise of the Runelords have been different of the PCs had been made Lords over Kaer Maga permanently? A small village was attached and had to be protected, and still the Runelord had to be defeated? Just an interesting twist I think.
Now I understand what the purpose of an AP is. Makes perfect sense. But it also makes sense to keep open minds to new ways of doing an AP. Kingmaker sounds very interesting and sounds like it could be exactly what the OP was describing. So why later follow up with posts saying "We don't do sandbox adventures," after already saying we have a sandbox adventure path coming?
And for such an amazing group of people as we have on these boards, I am disappointed at the lack of imagination and willingness to try something different. Now I can see Paizo deciding a sandbox adventure is not right for them (even though they have said earlier that Kingmaker will be more of a sandbox AP), but I really expected to see users on here endors the idea and build upon the OP post on how it could be done in various APs.
Curse of the Crimson Throne can end with PCs being knighed, made Lords, Barons, what ever, awarded land nearby or even in town. Rise of the Runelords could splinter off the "spine" of the AP in Kaer Maga for a while as the PCs become Lords of a keep and rebuild and defend it. Later can reclaim the keep and build a town around it.
It was not unusual for Hero-Kings to leave their lands and castles to go adventuring. The Greek and Norse Hero-Kings did it all the time. Yes there were risks to leaving, but that is part of the adventure.
The biggest problem I have with D&D (not just APs) is that by the end the PCs are powerful, sure, but usually there is little real tangible change for them. They have some money (nearly all of which is in their gear), they are known around town or the kingdom, but they are no where near the heros of legend. Usually.
I think it would be fun for an AP to design the players becoming rulers of keeps, lands, or cities. They can still go adventuring (The Illiad anyone).
Yep, requires a WHOLE lot more work. Requires a WHOLE lot more imagination. But face it, IF a company can pull it off, it is Paizo.
|
|
1. Telling me that my default style of play is just as much supported in Paizo product as those of DMs preferring to hand the plots to their players strikes me as bizarre.
I didn't mean to say that (and actually I think I didn't ^^). What I tried to convey was that all those nifty details and plot elements don't place any restrictions on your (or mine or anyone else's style of play) and if you don't like those elements, there's nothing as easy as to replace them by something that is more to your likings.
Sure, that's a lot of work and I don't deny that (quite the opposite); but at the moment, I fail to see how a "variation on theme" would necessarily lessen that work for you (or me, or anyone else). And as I stated above, in the course of this thread, I sometimes had the impression, that some(!) of your wishes are already fulfilled (depending on the angle from which you look at it).
Now you mention a discrepancy between something, Wes said here on these boards and a sentence he wrote in the adventure. Now I'll give you that this one sentence is quite clearly directed at other DM-styles, so you (and me, btw) will have to look for other possibilities to include the information contained in the article. Nonetheless, the article is there and nothing, what Wes wrote in the adventure, would have made it more or less valuable for the majority of readers, including you and me. So the one thing we could complain about is that all this information isn't hardwired into the adventure. But that's something originating form the AP's format and as far as I'm concerned it's more important that this information is here than that the author makes suggestions how to use it.
And all these things have nothing to do with the question you posed in the first post. Which Kingmaker "might" be the answer to.
|
Creative Director
|
I think this was more directed at James and Wes than you. I am often frustrated with James's responses myself - I feel like they tend to be defensive rather than constructive and frequently dismiss suggestions out of hand rather than taking them into consideration.
Sorry I didn't reply in more to your posts, but adding 600 pages to an already overwhelmed schedule doesn't leave me much time to keep up with complex messageboard posts. I do try to be constructive, but for whatever reason, I slip into "defensive mode" in replying to your posts, Sebastian, because to me, your posts tend to come across as impassioned and aggressive. You may not see them that way when you write them, but I certainly do when I read them, and as a result whenever I reply to your posts, I start out predisposed on the defensive. Is that better than ignoring your posts completely? I'm not sure.
I would LOVE to do some "experimental" adventure paths, including ones that have less of a focus on plot/story, use psionics, are set in exotic locations, etc. But the problem is that every time our adventure path delivery product gets to a point where it's established what it is, the rug gets ripped out from under my feet. You'll note that both Savage Tide and Legacy of Fire start to get "experimental" by doing things like an entire adventure on a sea voyage, skewing toward mature topics, or taking place in exotic locations that aren't "bread and butter D&D style locations." Had things remained stable after Savage Tide, we would have grown even more experimental after that (the Legacy of Fire seeds were in planning for the 4th Dungeon AP, actually), but we lost the license and had to "restart" the whole thing with a brand new product line, which meant that the first Pathfinder AP had to be "safe" and "familiar." Which is why Runelords is about fighting giants and an evil wizard; it's about as classic (some would say cliched) as a campaign gets, to be honest. By the time we felt comfortable enough with Pathfinder to start stretching our wings and abandoning the familiar eurocentric flavor of Varisia and were ready to start getting experimental again with Legacy of Fire, though, the rug got yanked out again with the edition change and Paizo's decision to launch a new RPG. As a result, the next AP is going back to familiar grounds (fight thieves in a eurocentric region).
Now, we do our best to make those familiar themes fun and fresh, but they're certainly not something that abandons the classic Adventure Path formula of having a big boss and a tightly scripted plot. That formula's done VERY well for Paizo, and it's success and popularity is probably the main reason Paizo's still in the RPG Publishing business today, so you can see why we'd be hesitant to tinker with that formula.
Going forward, though, hopefully things will stabilize for Paizo and we'll have some time to build up speed and momentum for more than a year, without losing licenses or switching editions. I'm really excited about that, in fact, and being able to stretch the wings of what an Adventure Path is should be a LOT of fun. Getting to that point, though, has not been easy or simple or relaxing.
As for your comments about "Red Hand of Doom" and your frustrations that there aren't more elements in that than there are in Pathfinder, let me point out that there's a pretty big difference between writing an adventure and developing/editing one. "Burnt Offerings," in PF #1, was the most recent adventure I wrote—while I revise and rework EVERY adventure in Pathifnder, I try hard to retain the author's voice and ideas and work, and that means that in many cases, an author might not tackle something the way I would have if I wrote the adventure. Personally, Red Hand of Doom is very much the type of adventure I would like to run for my home group (along with Burnt Offerings); lots of choices, lots of NPCs, lots of interwoven plots and different ways to handle things.
I'm not sure if any of what I just wrote explains anything or answers your concerns, Sebastian, but there's a LOT of reasons why Pathfinder is what it is, and why the adventure paths follow the formulas and traditions they do. In the end, if those formulas and traditions were not financially and critically successful for the most part, the concept of an Adventure Path would have changed or vanished entirely long ago. As it stands, we're about to start work on our 8th one, so we must be doing something right. Does that mean we'll continue to follow those traditions and formulas? Absolutely not. But when you find something that works as well as this, you don't abandon it to try out something new. You have to take it carefully and ease into the new stuff... and that's difficult with licenses and editions changing every year, especially for a product that takes close to a year to produce and print and play.
And now, I'll have to bail on this thread for a while. We just shipped the Pathfinder RPG, so that's 574 pages off my back, but the Bestiary's got its 320 pages ready and waiting for me to manage. Oh, and finish one Adventure Path and launch another.