|
If the AP has to have an endgame and it isn't BBEG, what could it be?
Get the thing! (McGuffin)
Rescue the person! (not from a BBEG, from a hazardous place)
Prevent the doom from occuring! (not caused by a BBEG - can't be a prophecy, not in Galorian - but could be... a tomb that will open and unleash a pestilence. Begin by getting toward info. Then foil those encouraging event, then do things that forestall event).
Stop the cycle! (terrible thing x occurs endlessly, wheels need brakes applying. many little brakes add up).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Damnit.
I had an epicly long response and managed to delete it before posting.
Sigh.
Okay, shorter version.
James: I'm not asking you to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I'd just like to see some new bathwater. I acknowledge that you have gotten more experimental with Legacy of Fire, and I appreciate that. I also don't want to see you abandon your core competence because I agree, it is the bread and butter of the APs. I'd just like to see something slightly different. Something more like RHoD which gives the PCs a goal up-front and then missions to pursue to achieve that goal. Yes, it has a BBEG, but he's not nearly as secret or as conspiratorial as the BBEG in each of the APs. Sometimes it's nice to know who your facing right off the bat.
I understand and appreciate the risks and challenges that you have faced to get to this point and realize that you've had to effectively reboot due to the licensing changes. I don't want you to abandon your core competency, I'm not advocating that you do so. I'm just tired of having every AP revolve around having a single BBEG with a great conspiracy that needs to be unraveled.
You're in a much better position than me to know whether such an AP would work, but I have a hard time believing that it would be a monumental failure or impossible. I think the change in flavor is much more significant than a change in the skeleton of the plot. Assuming that you haven't seen your subscriptions drop dramatically as a result of LoF, I would suggest that indicates that your customers are willing to give you room to experiment. I find the argument that such adventures are impossible to be odd given that there are adventures like RHoD and Conquest of Bloodstone Vale that do precisely that.
Not only that, I'm sure the exact same arguments you make regarding the difficulty of such an AP were made against an AP of any type. When the first AP came out, I imagine there was a lot of worry in the Dungeon staff. Would people like it? Could the different writers be managed to produce a cohesive whole? Could the party be led from adventure to adventure without extreme railroading? Probably there was someone in each meeting who was saying "an AP just won't work, the logistics are too much, our audience might hate it and cancel their subscription, etc." And yet here it is, and I don't know how the hobby went so long without it.
Mostly though, I have a lot of confidence in Paizo, and I would hate to see you limit yourselves to only a single safe concept. You are perfecting a product type that was virtually non-existent 5 years ago. You have an awesome business model with a great way of keeping us hooked through our subscriptions. I hope that LoF bears out my feelings, and that you do have enough of a reputation for quality and loyalty from your audience that you can experiment, not just with the setting of your APs, but also with their structure. Not all the time, not even most of the time, maybe just 1 time out of 4, let yourselves go wild, throw us an AP that is at the edges of your imagination. Give us a Darksun-esque AP on the desert planet. Make the River Kingdoms all about civilizing a frontier and not just about defeating a BBEG. Don't rest on your laurels, don't quit striving to innovate.
I have confidence in Paizo, and I have confidence in your ability. I defer to you in the details because you ultimately bear the risk, and if you say that it's impossible to do an AP without a BBEG and a conspiracy, I don't have any data to suggest otherwise.
If the AP has to have an endgame and it isn't BBEG, what could it be?
Get the thing! (McGuffin)
Rescue the person! (not from a BBEG, from a hazardous place)
Prevent the doom from occuring! (not caused by a BBEG - can't be a prophecy, not in Galorian - but could be... a tomb that will open and unleash a pestilence. Begin by getting toward info. Then foil those encouraging event, then do things that forestall event).
Stop the cycle! (terrible thing x occurs endlessly, wheels need brakes applying. many little brakes add up).
All of these would work, though - if we are going to be listing off some adventure ideas, personally I'd like to see a variation on CM1 Test of the Warlords. Obviously the exact plot line does not need to be the same but using this sort of as model to provide inspiration might make a good AP. With 6 issues to deal with the material there is a lot of room to go into more detail and one can easily expose an interesting part of Galorian with such an AP.
In any case I'm pretty much in line with Sebastian. The plotline of unraveling the BBEGs nefarious plot is a good one and classic but I'd prefer to see it occasionally deviated from. Part of the problem however is that one of the things that was apparently learned from the process of making APs is that people want the plot line more closely tied together - to get that you need something at the centre of it all and that something needs to be resolved by 14th level characters at the tail end of the 6th installment of an AP.
Another significant issue is that the customer base may be getting harder to please. We've seen the basic 'trick'. We are all very impressed - but how long the customer base wants to stick with the tried and trick has significant variance and there is no clear and broad consensus about what form new and improved tricks ought to take.
|
|
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?
Thanks, that's a very constructive proposal.
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?
The assumption is correct. Where I'd start to disagree is with the extent and nature of material the revised AP would need to contain (something you wrote about in quite clear terms). Let me explain.
First, I don't think you need to detail lots of disparate locations since - just as in Ptolus or City of Brass or Masks of N. (see my earlier posts) - these locations are interconnected. The idea here (and this isn't sandbox proper but sandbox in an AP) isn't so much that players can bypass a great many of locations, but that they will come across most of them at one point. Player proactivity is encouraged by the players choosing the order in which, and pace at which, they visit (and tackle!) those locations. Sebastian has said this over and over in this thread, he even mentioned concrete examples (RHoD, Gamemastery Module D2); Jason Nelson said something along these lines too when he spoke of Liberation of Geoff. Is this anywhere near proper sandbox (JudgesGuild-Wilderlands style)? No way! But it's an interesting middle of the road to explore; and frankly, not even the boldest posts by Sebastian or me have asked for more.
Second - and here I return from sandboxey AP to sandbox proper - have a look at the free extract of Rob Conley's Points of Light. That gives you a good idea of how little information proper sandboxes actually do contain when they key adventuring possibilities to locations. The payoff isn't in the locations viewed individually, but in how they come together to create a living fabric of a dynamic game world. What the PCs do in one location has consequences in the others (e.g. when the party blows up the tower of a wizard who supplied magic gear to the soldiers responsible for guarding the King's Road against humanoid raiders). A sandboxey AP would have to tolerate a good measure of flexibility regarding such consequences. (For instance, that wizard better not be the PCs' sage ally with the one and only scroll able of beating the BBEG.) But that doesn't require that the AP in concreto details (a DM's guide of how to deal with) each of these possible consequences. However, it does require a DM who can competently deal with juggling such consequences. In that regard, observe posts like these:
Nevermind the players getting overwhelmed with options: I can't DM a sandbox because I don't improvise well.
Hey, I'm up there too. I have no idea how well I'd improvise within the constraints of a sandboxey AP (when my experience of DM winging is hitherto limited to APs based on plot-heavier modules). But I'd like to quote something Clark Peterson said re Shackled City, which he called a "DM teaching tool" as the sheer fact of running it taught DMs how to run (and design) a campaign properly:
Dungeon ought to teach us to become better DMs. I think it got an obligation to do that.
You see, Kingmaker wouldn't just be a sandboxey AP presupposing that everyone picking it up already know perfectly well how to cope with it. Rather, for many of us here - myself included - Kingmaker would be the first experience of that sort, and just trying to cope with it would be a shared learning experience of the first order, just like Shackled City was. And trust those guys at Paizo to come up with helpful advice along the way.
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?
That's what I found confusing too. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
The assumption is correct. Where I'd start to disagree is with the extent and nature of material the revised AP would need to contain (something you wrote about in quite clear terms). Let me explain.First, I don't think you need to detail lots of disparate locations since - just as in Ptolus or City of Brass or Masks of N. (see my earlier posts) - these locations are interconnected. The idea here (and this isn't sandbox proper but sandbox in an AP) isn't so much that players can bypass a great many of locations, but that they will come across most of them at one point. Player proactivity is encouraged by the players choosing the order in which, and pace at which, they visit (and tackle!) those locations. Sebastian has said this over and over in this thread, he even mentioned concrete examples (RHoD, Gamemastery Module D2); Jason Nelson said something along these lines too when he spoke of Liberation of Geoff. Is this anywhere near proper sandbox (JudgesGuild-Wilderlands style)? No way! But it's an interesting middle of the road to explore; and frankly, not even the boldest posts by Sebastian or me have asked for more.
OK, this is not quite what I was envisioning you and Sebastian were calling for. I could something along the lines of this type of hybrid being created within an AP.
The scope of the area would, of course, need to be limited, but I could see an AP with the initial start being the establishment of a foothold within the borders of the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. The area covered in the AP would be the surround area of the RotML that would impact the settlement and then a bit further out. The PCs could be sent with the larger group assigned to explore the surrounding areas, assessing the immediate dangers and determining the best course of actions to accomplish the initial goal. It would free up the PCs to take whatever actions they deem fit without following a 'set' path form start to end.
Each installment could include details on the interwoven relationships of the various groups and entities in the area, give adventure hook concepts, describe points of interest and layout minor side trek style adventures for various CR levels(man, I miss the side treks). This would give the PCs the flexibility to tackle issues in whatever order they decide. It would also provide the GM with enough pre-generated material to make their lives easier so they can track the impacts of the PCs actions and the probable reactions of those affected.
There would still be a good amount of off the cuff GMing required in such a scenario and you would most likely still have some holes information wise (though a good GM will either fill those holes prior to running the game or play it off the cuff and take notes to ensure continuity). But the holes present in this type of scenario would be somewhat less than a true sandbox.
This type of AP would not be to everyone's taste. But, as I have said before, the APs are really tools, so everyone should be able to find some aspects they would be able to incorporate into their campaigns at some point.
This would be a prime example of an AP where one would probably not want to start it until the entire AP is published to ensure you have all the information at hand.
Second - and here I return from sandboxey AP to sandbox proper - have a look at the free extract of Rob Conley's Points of Light. That gives you a good idea of how little information proper sandboxes actually do contain when they key adventuring possibilities to locations. The payoff isn't in the locations viewed individually, but in how they come together to create a living fabric of a dynamic game world. What the PCs do in one location has consequences in the others (e.g. when the party blows up the tower of a wizard who supplied magic gear to the soldiers responsible for guarding the King's Road against humanoid raiders). A sandboxey AP would have to tolerate a good measure of flexibility regarding such consequences. (For instance, that wizard better not be the PCs' sage ally with the one and only scroll able of beating the BBEG.) But that doesn't require that the AP in concreto details (a DM's guide of how to deal with) each of these possible consequences. However, it does require a DM who can competently deal with juggling such consequences.
Ah, and here is what I was thinking you were referring to all along. I personally would not call this a sandbox adventure; I would call it a campaign setting. It delves into the surrounding areas, gives social/political information and potential adventure hooks. This is something I would not expect to see in a AP; I could see separate books published that delve into the details of each country with more detailed maps, social/political notes, groups and conflicts within the borders, relationships with the surrounding nations, etc.
This is the same form all the campaigns I have designed for the players in whatever group I am gaming with has started from. It is from this border campaign framework that I develop the adventures (or use as a guide when the PCs decide they really don't need to be bothered with that burning tower they see in the distance).
One final thing I am not sure of re: your stance here. You state that in the second option, the sandbox example, the PCs actions in one location will have consequences in another (and from this I infer that the GM will need to determine the consequences). This should be the case with any adventure, be it a true sandbox or a sequenced AP, so I'm not sure of it's significance here aside from the fact a sequenced AP has a better chance of listing more of the potential actions/consequences than a true sandbox (which would barely be able to scratch the surface of that massive list).
I am struggling to understand exactly what is proposed for the 6 adventure path documents to comply with Windjammer & Sebastians (and others request) beyond wanting the plot of the adventure path to not involve unravelling one conspiracy or to involve beating a BBEG (or 6 various BBEG's). is that all that is being requested or is there something more? I own 4 of the 5 examples put up
Masks of Nyarlothotep
W1: conquest of Bloodthorn Vale
Ptolus
Red Hand of Doom
City of Brass- dont have it.
I am not trying to be obtuse. I am not sure whether or not I agree with your point as I am not sure I have understood it. If it is merely to suggest using different climax elemenst (such as those referred to by Geraint Eberron/Jeremy Macdonald above) I have no dispute, but I think your request goes beyond this.
To help me understand are you able to come up with the adventure ideas for an AP- ie pitch an idea that encapsulates your view of the type of AP you are desiring -remembering it will be in 6 parts and over about 14 levels- so divide it into the 6 parts? Like the preview of Legacy of fire etc?
|
|
@Werecorpse
I used the examples of "Masks of Nyarlothotep" and referenced Sebastian's example of "W1: conquest of Bloodthorn Vale" (which I mistakenly referred to as "D2") not so much to exemplify radical departures from the BBEG model, but to illustrate how one can have a modicum of player proactivity even in a (comparatively) plot-heavy module.
And Ptolus (the book) isn't just a campaign setting. Have a look at chapter 33, conjoin that with Banewarrens and Night of Dissolution (as suggested by Monte Cook in the latter), and you got an adventure path stretching 15-20 levels of play that never feels heavily scripted at any single point.
One final thing I am not sure of re: your stance here. You state that in the second option, the sandbox example, the PCs actions in one location will have consequences in another (and from this I infer that the GM will need to determine the consequences). This should be the case with any adventure, be it a true sandbox or a sequenced AP, so I'm not sure of it's significance here aside from the fact a sequenced AP has a better chance of listing more of the potential actions/consequences than a true sandbox (which would barely be able to scratch the surface of that massive list).
I agree with the bolded part and (by implication) that players' actions having consequences can't by itself serve as a criterion by which to distinguish one type of AP from another. It's a feature any AP should have. The question is, how does one achieve it in a product without a massive bloat in the details. By the way, observe how a much smaller analogue of W1, D0, doesn't give a hoot about ths criterion. The players' choices about which locations to visit when doesn't make a difference to what (later) goes on in the other individual locations. "Railroading" (to use a heavy-handed term) doesn't just cover the removal of player choices - it also covers removing the impact of those choices (s.v. "hollow decisions").
|
OK so I have been thinking the last day (I know amazing in and of itself) about why a sandbox style AP is so difficult. The conclusion I have come to is that is not difficult at all.
When I write an adventure I use a flow chart for encounters. Even in the dungeon, before a map is ever drawn I use a flow chart.
Now, the way I see an AP is to start with traditional dungeon crawls and fights fo the first several levels. SOmewhere around level 7-10, the PCs are awarded a keep and lands. Big question always arises who gets to rule the keep?
Two ways to deal with that. First, the King formally ackowledges or inducts the PCs into an organization. The PCs rule the lands as a council. Second, the King awards several small parcels or land in close proximity- close enough for events to effect all PCs.
Assuming a traditional feudal scoiety, the PCs then must answer to a Duke or the King himself, so they are not given free reign over their lands and their actions.
Now, the flow chart changes from places, to events. Famine, orc invasion, Dragon attack, war. The events are woven together to form a single a larger event, just like in a regular game.
The GM, and ultimately the AP writers, are always in control of what the PCs do. They are the ones to decide what events happen and why. They have plenty of tools to use, even more so than in a traditional AP, to ensure the PCs follow the hooks.
So, let's assume our PCs have their lands. They go about improving their keeps. Then they get a message from the King. They are to mount an expidition against Cheliax. It is to be a fast moving raid aimed at plunder. However, the raid is a ruse. The King is paranoid of the powerful PCs and wishes them dead. He can't kill them outright for political reasons. So he covertly warns the Chelaxians about the raid, hoping the PCs are defeated.
The PCs, of course win. But their ships are destroyed. They begin an overland trek back home...
This stuff is right out of real life myth!
There really is no reason at all a sandbox style AP can't be done. Or for that matter, there is no reason at all a current AP cannot be altered to accomodate the sandbox style.
Hasn't the king become the BBEG?
OT: Krome,
I have thought about this thread for a couple days, and after consideration I tend to agree that variation away from the "best the BBEG" plots would be nice, but maybe for a slightly different reason.
I've played through RotR and (mostly) through CoCT, and read Savage Tide and Shackled City before that. One thing I've noticed - and this isn't all the fault of the writing, but also of how 3.5e works - is that the climactic fight against the BBEG is usually one of the less satisfying fights. It also brings the campaign to a shuddering stop as soon as the last axe-blow falls, which I find unsatisfying.
Most of the fantasy myths dispense with BBEGs, really. There's a host of plots that can dispense with "a BBEG" - now, there will always be some kind of tougher opponents in any given adventure, but the goal (or proximate means to the goal) doesn't have to be "kill a big bad."
Possibilities:
explore a new land and colonize it (Savage Tide had some of this and it was nice)
get a kingship (like upcoming river kingdoms thing)
win a war (or, bring peace)
perform legendary labors to impress someone/get a spouse/etc.
defeat some other major non-monster threat (like second darkness)
solve a mystery (hard to sustain for a whole AP)
Some of these can be hard with a group though - in a myth, one guy wants to win the princess' hand, he goes off to do the requisite daring deeds. Or one person does something their god demands - in a D&D group you'd have to have everyone serve one (or a couple related) god(s). Plots that allow for a wide diversity of player backgrounds are trickier if it's not "kill that guy!"
I'm not interested in things being too "sandboxey" - at least not in an AP. Setting material (Pathfinder Chronicles) is for sandboxes, an AP brings you a plot.
|
|
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 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.
This is a bit late, but thanks for that response Wormy. What I hadn't realized is that your take on these things perfectly captures how Paizo currently deals with diversity in DMing style. You get one DMing style more or less hardwired into the module, and then there's the support material to accomodate other styles. I'm glad there is waybackmachine which enables one to unearth enlightening posts on Paizo's forums in the past like this one:
Adventure Paths are a learning experience for us here at Paizo, no matter how many we do. For a few adventures in Savage Tide, we tried out some very story-heavy adventures; namely, Sea Wyvern's Wake and Here There Be Monsters. It would have probably been a better idea to space these two out rather than put them back to back, but at the same point, they fit so well together and advanced the storyline so well that we did it anyway.
It's certainly worth noting that despite the recent claims that these two adventures are "railroady," there's even more threads scattered throghout the boards here and on other boards that praise them for their plotlines. Namely, not every adventure can be to everyone's taste. Savage Tide (and all adventure paths we do) are in most part my attempts to bring a campaign to the reader that I like and that, based on reactions, mail, and reviews of previous adventures we've done, I suspect they'll like. It's a constantly evolving process.
But at the same time, a good chunk of the responsiblity DOES lie in the DM's hands as well. He knows his party in ways that the adventure's writers and editors cannot, and he knows what parts won't go over well with his group. I myself have cut out significant portions or changed parts of Savage Tide for my home group. A friend of mine cut out the end of Sea Wyvern and all of Here there be Monsters because he knew his group wasn't interested in a shipwreck scenario (he instead ran some other adventures until the PCs got "caught up" to Tides of Dread). In Erik Mona's Age of Worms campaign, there are entire subplots and distractions that are themselves as big as the pre-written adventures.
You have to be willing to change and adapt if you run a pre-written adventure. That's actually the major advantage tabletop RPGs have over computer RPGs, in fact—the ability to react and customize to fit the particular needs and desires of those playing the game.
That said, these threads have certainly pointed out an area of concern in adventure paths to me. In Pathfinder, the extra room and additional support material is going a LONG way toward making the adventures a lot less railroady. I actully fear that in a few places of Rise of the Runelords things are TOO open, and TOO up to the PCs to set the direction of play (as in leaving some key adventure hooks later on to the PCs to generate/discover on their own). Time will tell if they're too much or too little!
In light of that final paragraph, I'd like to take back (and apologize to those concerned regarding) my cynicism on Paizo not listening to some parts of their customer base regarding player empowerment. What I hadn't seen was Paizo's way of answering that concern back in 2007. While I still wish the reaction had been more direct - i.e. hardwired into the module (as it incidentally [?] is in PF#19) - this is a world of difference to not getting a reaction in product design at all.
|
|
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
I'm a big fan of Red Hand of Doom. One of the (many) reasons I like it is that it is much more of a sandbox than most WotC adventures.
The plot is simply "Save the Vale, however you can."
The main bad guy is a minor consideration. I can't even remember his name, and if he walks away from the adventure without a scratch on him then the PCs still win - if the Vale is safe.
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... :-PI'm a big fan of Red Hand of Doom. One of the (many) reasons I like it is that it is much more of a sandbox than most WotC adventures.
The plot is simply "Save the Vale, however you can."
The main bad guy is a minor consideration. I can't even remember his name, and if he walks away from the adventure without a scratch on him then the PCs still win - if the Vale is safe.
Hm... I think I have to read it. I bought it, after all.
I'm a big fan of Red Hand of Doom. One of the (many) reasons I like it is that it is much more of a sandbox than most WotC adventures.
The plot is simply "Save the Vale, however you can."
The main bad guy is a minor consideration. I can't even remember his name, and if he walks away from the adventure without a scratch on him then the PCs still win - if the Vale is safe.
I suspect that "Red Hand of Doom" would have looked quite different if it had to be published in 6 monthly instalments.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
When the first AP came out, I imagine there was a lot of worry in the Dungeon staff. Would people like it? Could the different writers be managed to produce a cohesive whole? Could the party be led from adventure to adventure without extreme railroading? Probably there was someone in each meeting who was saying "an AP just won't work, the logistics are too much, our audience might hate it and cancel their subscription, etc." And yet here it is, and I don't know how the hobby went so long without it.
For what it's worth, we've never done much of any nay-saying of this kind, even from day 1. Back when Chris Thomasson (now Youngs) came up with the idea, a few people raised eyebrows and wondered if it would really work, but the sort of negativity (or perhaps realism) you envision doesn't really come into play at Paizo.
We are the folks who added 1000 pages of rules hardcovers on top of an already crushing schedule this year, so "realism" isn't really our strong suit.
Mostly we forge forward, do the best that we can, and trust that our efforts will be appreciated by the audience. We're committed to learning new tricks with each project and folding that back into the process and we always hope that our next book is better than the last.
So far it's worked out pretty well for us.
|
Creative Director
|
In light of that final paragraph, I'd like to take back (and apologize to those concerned regarding) my cynicism on Paizo not listening to some parts of their customer base regarding player empowerment. What I hadn't seen was Paizo's way of answering that concern back in 2007. While I still wish the reaction had been more direct - i.e. hardwired into the module (as it incidentally [?] is in PF#19) - this is a world of difference to not getting a reaction in product design at all.
We do try to listen to feedback and anticipate concerns, but since there's a delay of anywhere from 6 months to a year between the time something is written/designed and the point at which we hear back from customers, there's a pretty significant delay. If we print a product and the reaction from customers is positive or negative, we won't be able to act on that reaction until two adventure paths later, as a general rule. It's kinda frustrating, but it is what it is.
Well, for what it is worth, I feel like the time lag is just the way things work, and the give-and-take of the messageboards is just part of the normal struggle for parties to communicate clearly and achieve understanding over fairly complex matters. It has it's frustrating moments, but it's beneficial to me and so I hope it is for all concerned. I really appreciate how you guys take the time and expend the effort to listen and respond to your customers, and I am confident that this feeds your ongoing process in making an already excellent product even better.
|
I, for one, love the work Paizo has done with the APs thus far. The group I ran ST with thought SWW and HTbM were some of the best of series. All the changes I've made in any of the adventures were to compliment what was written, knowing that it was designed generically. The only AP that I've had no desire to run was the SDAP and it's not because I didn't think it was good, it's was because I don't care for playing out Drow story lines. I did love reading it and will more than likely use an element or two out of them to add flavor to a future campaign.
Paizo and their Adventure Paths to me are like Dream Theater's As I Am. Pure artistry.
|
|
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.
Thanks so much for that tip!!! I've just won an auction for it on Ebay today which gave it away for a petty single Euro. And I'm already drooling over previews of the cartography therein (a score on which the Necro box is admittedly a bit underwhelming). What I didn't know before checking out the item description elsewhere is that Wolfgang also wrote up a whole section on genies and wishes in that product, an updated/customized version of which I trust is in store for Legacy of Fire customers in PF #22 and 24 or so:
The magical rites of Sulesh the Great, master of seals and binder of genies, as transcribed by Wolfgang Baur and James Jacobs
Thanks again for directing me to that product - without you I wouldn't have been aware of its existence. By the way, earlier today I listened to the recent Green Ronin podcast featuring you (among other people).
I recommend that podcast to any customer interested in hearing Erik explain his - pioneering - attitude towards communicating with customers on these boards.
Thanks for posting about the podcast, Windjammer. Was it possible to make me feel even warmer and fuzzier inside? Apparently.
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.
2. The enemy GROUP, rather than BBEG. Example: Scourge of the Slavelords
3. Adventure path as THEME, rather than conspiracy. Example: Against the Giants (mostly) and Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff
I think this is all good, but what about returning to the idea stated earlier; how most of DnD is Person v. Person... what about more Person v. Idea/Ideal conflicts where there is no really right answer and the players must decide.
I try to play my games that way- base the ideas on actual human diplomatic events. I think some games touch on it in a basic way- "human village needs to expand and is chopping down dryads' trees" But I think an adventure path could really tackle this in a much more sophisticated fashion with layers upon layers.
For example:
-Seaside city
-List of Personalities and their goals; some good, some neutral, some haughty
-List of goal conflicts and desires
-Event based adventures that derive from the goals.
-Characters interact with the leaders.
ex:
-Players arrive in a seaside town that is beside a jungle.
-There is a plague going on in the lower city
-There is also a faire in the lower city
-The lower city is also the site of new development of larger docks.
-The mayor wants to knock down all of the lower city to make the development larger, but hasn't been able to get the people out of the lower city.
-At sea, Sauhagin are raiding vessels for some reason (to be revealed later)
-There is also, of course, a source of evil that may be in the interior of the continent (illithids, aboleths, etc.) that historically menaced the city once in the past with thralls, then realized the city was a tougher target and retreated.
-The jungle is dangerous with wraiths, etc. but also has sentient lizardmen and not-as-sentient kobolds who make their lives there. A few lizardmen work at the docks in the city but are reviled as subhuman and hated and believed to bring disease with them.
-The current mayor killed the previous mayor (who was a corrupt and evil creature) but the current mayor is a bit of an egomaniac and is building lots of gigantic projects to herself.
-There is a splinter religion in the city that has gained lots of new followers recently and which blames the plague on the older religions and laughs as their followers die of the plague but none of hte splinter religion die.
Scenario 1: The city wants to evacuate the lower city and burn it to the ground to stop the spread of the plague, and resettle people in the jungle outside the city walls. They are not compensating the people as much money as the people think they deserve. But the city is concerned about saving lives, they don't want to kill anyone. But the city probably will steal the land after they resettle people.
a: Join the resistance who perhaps foolishly want to remain in their homes (even though the plague really is killing lots of people)
b: Join the city guards
c: Play both against each other for some reason... I don't know why.
That is a sandbox with a multitude of possibilities and is based around Ideas rather than necessarily a good or an evil guy.
I have run it and 4 followup scenarios with two groups, both with interesting consequences.
Later adventures could examine the interior of the continent, why the sauhagin are raiding ships, why the plague was spread and who caused it, opposition to the mayor, or working with the splinter group.
If the party is weak enough, it would never make sense for them to go directly against and oppose the mayor in a take down fight. They can still be guided to a certain degree by the storyline. My first group chose option (b) and my second chose option (c). Both worked out... although option (c) in my mind was a ridiculous and pointless choice.
Different rewards for the players exist based on each choice... The problem, which might be obvious- is if option b and c grow too distinct in path from option a... that would necessitate a lot of Adventure path writing or railroading. It would be tricky to do, but I think Paizo could manage to keep things under control.
--
I think a storyline like this, driven by player self-actualization, can offer much to DnD players in fulfillment, both literary and otherwise.
I just wanted to point out that the 6-part publishing schedule is limiting to the Sandbox concept. I'm sure that many of the subscribers run with these adventures right out of the gate, eagerly waiting for the next issue to show up in their mailbox. It seems to me that the only way to have a broadly covered sandbox adventure would be to flush it out over all 6 issues, necessitating a wait for the final issue to ship before you could really start. That wouldn't fly with many subscribers.
A question for sandbox proponents: how do you propose that situations encountered along the way are appropriate for a broad range of levels? It would seem to me that would be a major complication, given the EL/CR system inherent in the rules, and that an adventure path stretches over so many levels of play.
Light Dragon,
While those are great ideas, I have a tough time seeing how you could make a series of 6 products work like that for some of the very reasons that you mentions. I can definitely see that type of thing being a great stand alone product (like the Guide to Korvosa but with more adventure ideas and vignettes.)
what about more Person v. Idea/Ideal conflicts where there is no really right answer and the players must decide.
Thank you for posting examples. After reading this sentence all I could imagine was the PCs wandering around being all angsty about various ideas. Obviously that is not what you meant.
I wonder if you could do a three part AP in 6 parts. So using your example, after the first episode a book would come out that supported PCs who made choice A and the next book in the series would support characters who made choice B (choice C types could pull from either). Of course that means that at most a group could use around 1/2 of the books in a given AP.
Not sure I like that idea, but I thought I would throw it out there. I guess I still think this type of thing is just best when written for a stand alone product with individual DMs moving the storyline forward based on how their players interact with the sandbox.
Sean Mahoney
Picking up on Light Dragon's stuff. Sean Mahoney, save resources and start simple? You have two Sides A and B, no middle ground. The encounters are split evenly between the two in terms of aggressiveness, and are somewhat reversible. If group A needs items from X then group B's flip is either defending X or getting X before the NPC As do.
The trick, like railroading, is to do this flipping in such a way that the Players either don't notice or give the one disbelief slide (and hope you don't need another).
|
|
Hasn't the king become the BBEG?
OT: Krome,** spoiler omitted **
Oh, sorry I forgot that was still there... ummm there was a falling out from Dwarven Sweatshoppe. lol It is still running as far as I know, but I no longer have any involvement with it or its current owner. lol
oclark86@gmail.com best way to reach me...
Ten-four. Message away.
|
|
Okie dokie... this particular thread has just been on my mind a LOT lately.
So I reviewed the first three APs and looked at the newest one. And I have made a decision on my ideas. And I bet you guys are dying to know, right!
Well, the first threee APs are very classic style adventures that really do invoke some core gaming from decades gone by and present these tired old cliches in a fun new light.
I think it was important for Paizo to firmly establish themselves outside of WOTC influence with classic adventures. In fact the first three APs could almost be collected as Classic Adventures Revisited!
Now, as I look at the 4th AP, I think it still has elements of classic adventures, but is NOT what I would call a classic adventure. There were VERY few (and less good) adventures set in MidEast style lands. Some elements from Desert of Desolation come to mind, but very little otherwise.
Okay, yes, it has a BBEG. But from what I can tell, that is about all it has as far as classic adventures go. This one I think is destined to BE a classic simply for being different.
Now, I can see why Paizo, and any other publisher, would be leary of approaching an AP with a different premise. Nearly all adventures have some kind of BBEG (obviously NOT all). Honestly I thing their Pathfinder Modules is the best place to explore that option. If the formula proves successful there, THEN an AP would be advisable. I am pretty sure Paizo would not be interested in chancing 6 months income on an unproven formula.
|
|
I think it was important for Paizo to firmly establish themselves outside of WOTC influence with classic adventures. In fact the first three APs could almost be collected as Classic Adventures Revisited!
That's classic. It's also James' own take on part of Rise of the Runelords, if you look at his editorial in #4. Personally, I don't think something like Crimson Throne has been pulled off before. Ever.
Now, as I look at the 4th AP, I think it still has elements of classic adventures, but is NOT what I would call a classic adventure.
Why not call it Al-Qadim Revisited then? Reverence for older source material, coupled with a (slightly less reverent) willigness to breathe new life into that material, seems to be Paizo's tested formula. It delivers, and applies way beyond one type of module design.
I am pretty sure Paizo would not be interested in chancing 6 months income on an unproven formula.
Yes, but there's the (perhaps somewhat lesser) risk of losing customers who are saturated with too similar product (one of my initial key points in this thread, really). It's the lack of diversity in gameplay that gets people to cancel their WoW or DDI subscriptions. To overstate my case: why buy stuff you have (played) already?
A friend of mine just earlier this week explained why he quit playing World of Warcraft, that it had simply "become a grind," not of boars, but of dungeon after dungeon after dungeon. There was no "end game" beyond reaching the highest level and then still going and killing more monsters in more dungeons.We saw that development to a great extent in Third Edition D&D, and now I see it as the essence of the Fourth Edition experience. Sure, you get all these various Epic Destinies and Paragon Paths and whatnot, but all they do is give you more kewl powers to kill more monsters faster. To what end? None.
|
|
Whatever it's worth, I must say that I'm loving the 'Legacy of Fire', and I've never, EVER wanted to run a desert campaign. As we've mostly played "generic" fantasy (read: Cormyr, Dalelands, Savage Frontier and the Western Heartlands in FR), I think this one feels like a breath of fresh air.
Not to mention that I think the plot's really strong and interesting -- my only (minor) complaint is that there are many "unconventional" monsters from 'Tome of Horrors' and other D20 sources (some of which I don't own). I think that in some cases a template or two on a "normal" (MM I-V) monster would have worked better.
|
|
I think it was important for Paizo to firmly establish themselves outside of WOTC influence with classic adventures. In fact the first three APs could almost be collected as Classic Adventures Revisited!That's classic. It's also James' own take on part of Rise of the Runelords, if you look at his editorial in #4. Personally, I don't think something like Crimson Throne has been pulled off before. Ever.
Now, as I look at the 4th AP, I think it still has elements of classic adventures, but is NOT what I would call a classic adventure.Why not call it Al-Qadim Revisited then? Reverence for older source material, coupled with a (slightly less reverent) willigness to breathe new life into that material, seems to be Paizo's tested formula. It delivers, and applies way beyond one type of module design.
I am pretty sure Paizo would not be interested in chancing 6 months income on an unproven formula.Yes, but there's the (perhaps somewhat lesser) risk of losing customers who are saturated with too similar product (one of my initial key points in this thread, really). It's the lack of diversity in gameplay that gets people to cancel their WoW or DDI subscriptions. To overstate my case: why buy stuff you have (played) already?
[spoiler]In that line, consider..
A friend of mine just earlier this week explained why he quit playing World of Warcraft, that it had simply "become a grind," not of boars, but of dungeon after dungeon after dungeon. There was no "end game" beyond reaching the highest level and then still going and killing more monsters in more dungeons.We saw that development to a great extent in Third Edition D&D, and now I see it as the essence of the Fourth Edition experience. Sure, you get all these various Epic Destinies and Paragon Paths and whatnot, but all they do is give you more kewl powers to kill...
Well, if the only reason they are playing is for really kewl powers then that is great for them. I personally do not play for kewl powers but rather for more the ROLEplaying aspect of it. I can play a dwarven fighter in every campaign and it be different every time. The powers are the icing on the cake. It's the sweet stuff that lacks any substance.
And yeah I quit WOW because it was the same thing over and over and over. Biggest difference there, is that WOW is a computer game and not a REAL Roleplaying game.
Al-Qadim... forgot about that one. Still not many adventures from that setting really made it to be considered a Classic adventure. Did like that setting though. lol
We're on the 4th AP. I think it is WAY early to be concerned about variety.
I think that in some cases a template or two on a "normal" (MM I-V) monster would have worked better.
Only monsters from the SRD and OGL sources can be mined for use. All MMII-MMV stuff is WotC only. So it is make up something new (takes more space), keep using and using older stuff, or use 3rd party stuff.
Sean Mahoney
We're on the 4th AP. I think it is WAY early to be concerned about variety.We're on #7 if you start counting with Shackled City.
It all depends on how you start counting. Do you start with Dungeon APs? Do you reset the count for Pathfinder APs? Do you reset the count with Pathfinder RPG?
|
|
It all depends on how you start counting. Do you start with Dungeon APs? Do you reset the count for Pathfinder APs? Do you reset the count with Pathfinder RPG?We're on the 4th AP. I think it is WAY early to be concerned about variety.We're on #7 if you start counting with Shackled City.
Hint: take a look at Erik's first post on page 1 of this thread.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We're on the 4th AP. I think it is WAY early to be concerned about variety.We're on #7 if you start counting with Shackled City.
Even setting aside the issue of when to count, even though the 4th AP is being published, the 5th AP has largely been written already, and the 6th AP is probably well along in the planning stages. This ship takes a while to turn, and even if Erik and James suddenly decided that Windjammer and I were suggesting the most awesome thing in the history of gaming, the earliest we would see it probably would be the 7th AP.
Maybe this will end up like the map packs, where I b$*&&ed in multiple threads about them when they were first released and got shouted down by their supporters, only to have the issue arise 6 months to a year later and find that a majority of customers had come around to see things the same way. Maybe Windjammer and I are fatigued of BBEG/Conspiracy APs a little earlier than everyone else, maybe others will become tired of that plot line after the 5th AP or the 6th AP. Of course, by then, it'll be the 8th AP or the 9th AP before any changes can work their way through the long production schedule...
Or, maybe the BBEG/Conspiracy plot is the only one that works and will continue to enthrall gamers for generations to come. All I know is what I like, and I may well be an outlier.
|
Creative Director
|
Or, maybe the BBEG/Conspiracy plot is the only one that works and will continue to enthrall gamers for generations to come. All I know is what I like, and I may well be an outlier.
For what it's worth... Curse of the Crimson Throne pretty much laid out who the BBEG was by the 2nd adventure, and if players were paying attention to the clues along the way, they'll have a good idea of what's going on well before then. And Legacy of Fire has a BBEG but it's not a conspiracy—the PCs just don't learn about who the main bad guy is until halfway through, leaving the first third of the campaign as a fight against a "mini-boss."
Council of Thieves, though, will have conspiracy elements in it (but won't have a single BBEG). So take that as a warning, I guess.
As for BBEG/Conspiracy type adventures go, I usually blow things out of the water early in those types of adventures. I've seen enough good and bad television and movies to realize that you need to show things to your audience rather than hide them. In the case of RPGs, all the participants are the audience.
I'm not familiar with the later Adventure Paths, being a relative new comer to Paizo's products. I picked up the Rise of the Rune Lords AP and the Golarion Campaign Setting at a local shop. Upon my first read through, I decided the way to go was to make up index card character sheets for some townsfolk in Sandpoint and run through a few flash back scenarios where the players play some pregen townsfolk. Some will get killed by Stoot, others will be the midwives that dispose of Nualia's miscarried bestial child.
Interspersed at dramatic moments will be similar scenes showing the use of the soul lense and the like.
|
|
I think that in some cases a template or two on a "normal" (MM I-V) monster would have worked better.Only monsters from the SRD and OGL sources can be mined for use. All MMII-MMV stuff is WotC only. So it is make up something new (takes more space), keep using and using older stuff, or use 3rd party stuff.
Sean Mahoney
Oh, yes... you're entirely correct. Although some monsters (Peryton, for example) have been published by WoTC as well (Peryton was in Monsters of Faerun).
I wish they'll eventually update Tome of Horrors and Advanced Bestiary to PF RPG, because there's a lot of good stuff in them.
I wish they'll eventually update Tome of Horrors and Advanced Bestiary to PF RPG, because there's a lot of good stuff in them.
One of the projects listed on the Pathfinder Compatibility License is for a Pathfinder Tome of Horrors from Necromancer. FYI. :P
Yes. And the day that was posted was the day you might have heard me singing in the distance.
Although some monsters (Peryton, for example) have been published by WoTC as well (Peryton was in Monsters of Faerun).
True. The Peryton, and several other monsters that you will see Paizo do, are creatures from mythology and not creations of WotC. As a result Paizo can use them and create stats for them, they just can't be based on the previous ones from WotC.
You'll see this same type of thing with demon lords... those that are from mythology are usable in Golarion, but those that are made for D&D (even those made by the people who are now staff with Paizo) can not be used.
Sean Mahoney
Oh, yes... you're entirely correct. Although some monsters (Peryton, for example) have been published by WoTC as well (Peryton was in Monsters of Faerun).
I wish they'll eventually update Tome of Horrors and Advanced Bestiary to PF RPG, because there's a lot of good stuff in them.
Actually, Perytons go back even further in D&D -- first edition MM :)
-snip-True. The Peryton, and several other monsters that you will see Paizo do, are creatures from mythology and not creations of WotC.
Sean Mahoney
-snip-Actually, Perytons go back even further in D&D -- first edition MM :)
Emphasis mine.
I just liked seeing these together: the 1st ed MM is older than we all thought! Anyone care to give the true history of the Monster Manual and its mythological origins? I imagine Gygax came after Prometheus, but before the universal flood. How did he acquire and codify his knowledge of monstrous kind and give it to mankind? Anybody think they have the true story?
-snip-True. The Peryton, and several other monsters that you will see Paizo do, are creatures from mythology and not creations of WotC.
Sean Mahoney-snip-Actually, Perytons go back even further in D&D -- first edition MM :)Emphasis mine.
I just liked seeing these together: the 1st ed MM is older than we all thought! Anyone care to give the true history of the Monster Manual and its mythological origins? I imagine Gygax came after Prometheus, but before the universal flood. How did he acquire and codify his knowledge of monstrous kind and give it to mankind? Anybody think they have the true story?
;ppppppp LOL! Note I did say in D&D I'd have to really go digging to find the mythological roots of the Peryton, but I was finding it amusing when folks talk about the monsters and only go back to 3.0 or so on where they "first" appeared :) But then, I have far too many game books on my shelves!
Hey, it's too late to mess up my juxtaposition! Now you've got to take the ball and run with it!
Undoubtedly, it has multiple world implications that will also give us insight into the misty origins of the Pathfinder society in Golarion.
|
|
Although some monsters (Peryton, for example) have been published by WoTC as well (Peryton was in Monsters of Faerun).True. The Peryton, and several other monsters that you will see Paizo do, are creatures from mythology and not creations of WotC. As a result Paizo can use them and create stats for them, they just can't be based on the previous ones from WotC.
You'll see this same type of thing with demon lords... those that are from mythology are usable in Golarion, but those that are made for D&D (even those made by the people who are now staff with Paizo) can not be used.
Sean Mahoney
Hmmm... The Peryton in 'Howl of the Carrion King' actually has almost identical stats to the 3E FR version -- it may be due to those abilities being part of the original myth (I have to check that). Anyway, as a big fan of the Peryton ever since AD&D, I'm glad they also exist in Golarion. :)
|
|
;ppppppp LOL! Note I did say in D&D I'd have to really go digging to find the mythological roots of the Peryton, but I was finding it amusing when folks talk about the monsters and only go back to 3.0 or so on where they "first" appeared :) But then, I have far too many game books on my shelves!-snip-True. The Peryton, and several other monsters that you will see Paizo do, are creatures from mythology and not creations of WotC.
Sean Mahoney-snip-Actually, Perytons go back even further in D&D -- first edition MM :)Emphasis mine.
I just liked seeing these together: the 1st ed MM is older than we all thought! Anyone care to give the true history of the Monster Manual and its mythological origins? I imagine Gygax came after Prometheus, but before the universal flood. How did he acquire and codify his knowledge of monstrous kind and give it to mankind? Anybody think they have the true story?
Actually, you misunderstood me -- as I noted above, I've used them for quite some time, and I've been well aware of their mythological roots. However, since PF RPG is based on 3E under OGL I referred to their 3E stats which were published in 'Monsters of Faerun' -- we don't need to worry about the 1E or 2E stats but rather about which monsters are OGL and which are not (it seems that the abilities of the Peryton are part of the myth, so the version in 'Legacy of Fire' is perfectly "legal").
Is anything in Monsters of Faerun OGL? I'd be surprised.
Weren't perytons in Tome of Horrors?