I'd like to request that an adventure path in the future place the PCs in a more active role. So much of the time, PCs are a bunch of conservatives, trying desperately to save the status quo from (catastrophic) change. Over and over again, the PCs resist change with all their might, as if Golarion could never be better. But it doesn't have to be that way. You could reverse the PC-BBEG dynamic by having the PCs trying to make the world a better place, against the resistance of the forces of evil.
I think the perfect place for such a narrative would be to have the PCs be Andoran revolutionaries in Cheliax. This setup would solve the major objection to making the PCs proactive rather than reactive. As low-level characters, they could be given missions, as in Curse of the Crimson Throne, the AP that comes closest to making the PCs fight for change. Then, in the second and third books, they progressively become more captains of their own destiny in fostering revolution, until there's a climactic battle in the final module.
I think that this would be an interesting challenge for the authors. I think this would be a novel experience for both DMs and players, which would make that AP stand out from the crowd. And I trust that Paizo could pull it off.
Or even ...
I'd like to request that an adventure path in the future place the PCs in a more active role. [...] You could reverse the PC-BBEG dynamic by having the PCs trying to make the world a better place - for themselves, against the resistance of the forces of good.
I know it is unlikely, but it would be awesome! :D
I'd like to request that an adventure path in the future place the PCs in a more active role. So much of the time, PCs are a bunch of conservatives, trying desperately to save the status quo from (catastrophic) change. Over and over again, the PCs resist change with all their might, as if Golarion could never be better. But it doesn't have to be that way. You could reverse the PC-BBEG dynamic by having the PCs trying to make the world a better place, against the resistance of the forces of evil.
I think that this is intentional. :)
Do we really want Paizo to have to "reboot" the setting every 10 years or so? (... Like what happens in another company's primary setting.)
There have been some murmurings about a future AP called "Kingmaker"; I gather the idea is to take over one of the River Kingdoms (or maybe to oust a usurper, it's not clear to me).
Is that the kind of thing you'd be interested in?
The trouble with this, as others have said, is continuity. Generally speaking, canon assumes that the PCs succeed. If the PCs are the ones trying to change the world, then canon has to assume that they fail.
The reason this would be a problem is what happens when you run the next AP? A group that played CotCT right after RotRLs can hear rumors of their(players') own past success (even though the characters are different), and know that the world hasn't been blown up, and generally feel like they made an impact on the world. But if they never ran RotRL, nothing feels out of place, either. It either never happened, or was solved by some NPC adventurers a year previous.
On the other hand, it would invalidate a LOT of the campaign setting if the PCs succceed in sealing the Worldwound, for instance. A successive campaign witht he same group now has a continuity problem: Even if canon assumes that the adventure was failed and the Worldwound persists, in their version of the world, its gone and this must be reconciled.
|
Then, in the second and third books, they progressively become more captains of their own destiny in fostering revolution, until there's a climactic battle in the final module.
The issue here becomes what's known in the gaming world outside of D&D as 'metaplot'. Taking your hypothetical Andoren revolutionaries, if they successfully foment rebellion in Cheliax, Paizo now has two options: One, they can ignore the AP entirely in all future products they ever make and the PCs can feel cheated out of their victory, or two, they can assume the PCs won, and write Cheliax as either being in the midst of a rebellion or with Thrune overthrown, leaving people who didn't play that AP, didn't LIKE even the IDEA of the AP, and don't want that AP touching on their game to suck it up and accept that the AP made changes that no other AP (including those people's favorite AP) ever had the chance to. People who buy the Guide to Cheliax will have conflicting information with things in the Campaign Setting; all books will now be Pre-AP and Post-AP and customers will complain about how this invalidates things in Book A, B, and C and how Paizo just did it to sell all new books to people who had the old ones.
It's much better for a company publishing adventures and setting material to either be upfront from the beginning about how they have a metaplot, and accept they'll only get buyers willing to accept that buy-in, or to publish only adventures that are conservative, relatively small-scale, and taking place in an eternal "right now". Pathfinder Society, especially, is going to have to face this problem lest PFS Golarion begin to wildly diverge from CS Golarion.
Do we really want Paizo to have to "reboot" the setting every 10 years or so?
The beauty of doing this in Golarion is that it's organic to their world. It wouldn't be a reboot to write such an AP, or, if so, certainly no less of one than how one must take a certain race after Second Darkness or Korvosa after CotCT.
Charles, I agree with you about Curse of the Crimson Throne. That's what makes it the best of their APs to my mind. But, again, the PCs are reacting to the BBEG's actions, rather than actively trying to foster change. But, yes, this just a short step beyond the artistic innovation already begun in CotCT.
As for Second Darkness, I don't agree, as the PCs get sucked into that plot development in pursuit of a classic "Save the World" scenario. The PCs don't interact much with that group nor, frankly, with much of Elvish society. I find that example to be secondary and reactive, rather than primary and intended.
Ross and capadocius, I don't find those complaints compelling due to the prior example of canon-changing events in Curse of the Crimson Throne and Second Darkness. The history and future of an entire race changes in the latter AP and a city is changed from the very first issue of the former AP. After Second Darkness, any PC of the relevant race has had their character background and future change, and any PC from the Korvosa region from here on out has a different vibe as well.
Most importantly, a setting that doesn't change at all is a recipe for paralytic setting design and sterile writing. As soon as you allow any change to your setting, then there's the opportunity to design a progressive AP that allows people to role play what it would be like to change the world, rather than just save it.
hogarth, I have no idea what you're talking about, but, provisionally, it's an end state that I'd be interested in. But it would be important that the PCs be active and attempting to foster change the world as a primary goal rather than a plot reward for more reactive play.
|
|
Ross and capadocius, I don't find those complaints compelling due to the prior example of canon-changing events in Curse of the Crimson Throne and Second Darkness. The history and future of an entire race changes in the latter AP and a city is changed from the very first issue of the former AP.
Really? Ultimately, what changed in Second Darkness? What actual impact on the world as a whole did the PCs have (ignoring the whole stopping the killer asteroid thing. Gotta stop that because failure ends the setting)?
What contradictions between the Varisia of Second Darkness and Rise of the Runelords and the Varisia of Curse of the Crimson Throne were created in the very first issue of Curse?
Now, what changes to the setting would happen if the PCs were successful in their bid as Chelish revolutionaries or Andoren terrorists on the scale I think you're envisioning?
I totally understand your point. But you must agree that it’s a lot easier to have the PC on the reactive side of events rather than being proactive, from a narrative point of view. And from a written adventure point of view for that matter.
It’d be quite impossible to have the quality Paizo offers in term of intertwined villains, plots and events, were they to open up the loose ends to give the PCs a more proactive role.
Well… maybe not that *impossible*, but surely way more difficult. And that’s probably one of the good reasons we don’t have epic adventures. Where narrative reactive path for the PCs tend to fall into the Dragon Ball Z type of threats.
For me, proactive and truly unbounded destiny for the PCs remain in the realm of homebrewed campaigns, AND require a lot more skills from the DM in order to keep things coherent and smoothly running.
Think of it as a path stuffed with obstacles to overcome (standard AP), versus a open tree structure where every decision along the way opens up branches and new tracks. How do you plan for them all, or even remotely link several layers together ahead of time without knowing what PCs will do? It’s possible to react as a DM, patching adventures with imagination or adapting with several products hooks. But you can’t have that written down in a AP format.
Really? Ultimately, what changed in Second Darkness? What actual impact on the world as a whole did the PCs have (ignoring the whole stopping the killer asteroid thing. Gotta stop that because failure ends the setting)?
What contradictions between the Varisia of Second Darkness and Rise of the Runelords and the Varisia of Curse of the Crimson Throne were created in the very first issue of Curse?
Well, if you were from Korvosa in Rise of the Runelords, it meant that you were from that city. If you were from Korvosa in Second Darkness, then it meant that you had survived
And certainly the revelations regarding the Winter throne foundationally changes what it means to be an elf or it changes how the elven kingdom is run. I'm not entirely on board with Second Darkness along these lines, but other posters seem to believe that it's a fairly significant change to the setting.
So, no, I don't find advancing a pre-existing war between Cheliax and Andoran to be all that seismic a change... especially since they've already done a module on it.
You're confusing campaign continuity and canon continuity.
Being a Korvosan in Second Darkness may or may not mean having survived the revolution, depending on your playgroup and what the GM wants. But you don't have to play a Korvosan. And Paizo doesn't have to address the issue in printed products. They just have to know that Kyuss was defeated, the Savage Tide averted, Karzoug banished, Ileosa dethroned, or the drow contained. They don't need to mention who did it, how long it took, or what exactly happened in between.
Being an Elf before and after second darkness isn't that different: Few people, even elves, had a whole lot of insight into the anti-drow conspiracy. The biggest change is that the Drow went from a dirty, hidden secret, to a obscure, little known, secret.
PCs are allowed to change the world. However, the AP model assumes that they don't change large chunks of it. Any major changes are local(There is a reason CotCT isn't in Sandpoint, and Second Darkness isn't in Korvosa.) And any minor changes significant enough to be mentioned still aren't enough to derail another AP.
The point is that if you decided to play a Korvosan in Second Darkness, you and your GM don't need to have read and played the entire CotCT path first. Maybe in your local world it never happened at all. If you did play it, you know exactly what happened. If you didn't, you can ignore it. But it's really bad if Paizo has to publish a book telling people what the exact right way to play an AP was.
Creative Director
|
What Ross Said.
Further, while there's a chronological order implied by the adventure paths in that they come out in a one-after-the-other pattern, there's no established game world canon about that. We don't want to force players to play the Adventure Paths in the order they're published, since each new one we publish would then become more and more difficult to get into. You can play an adventure path in any order you want. Second Darkness might be the first one your group plays, followed by Rise of the Runelords and then Council of Thieves, and you might never play Curse of the Crimson Throne or Legacy of Fire at all.
We might put easter eggs in-between adventure paths now and then, but the "official order" in which they're played is left to each individual group to determine and decide.
What I would like to see is some material on the possible implications of some of the events of the AP's. And not necessarily obvious ones...
Yes, Runelords does have a Big Bad Evil Guy, and you are saving a nation from him...
But what are the global implications of finding Xin-Shalast and the Library in Chapter 4?
James Jacobs says the implications are fracking huge. Sociological, scholastic, economic, and theological. A shockwave to ripple all the way to Absalom.
Hell, if the players don't assert an influence on who takes over Fort Rannick, you have a potential power vacuum right there.
I guess my point is that even the so-called 'save the world' Adventure Paths have plotlines that are potentially enormous without relying on the central threat.
Now having said that, I'd love it if there was some published guidance on fleshing those stories out.... That is where there is room for a 'sandbox' product- in the wake of a linear adventure path.
You're confusing campaign continuity and canon continuity.
Being a Korvosan in Second Darkness may or may not mean having survived the revolution, depending on your playgroup and what the GM wants. But you don't have to play a Korvosan. And Paizo doesn't have to address the issue in printed products. They just have to know that Kyuss was defeated, the Savage Tide averted, Karzoug banished, Ileosa dethroned, or the drow contained. They don't need to mention who did it, how long it took, or what exactly happened in between.
PCs are allowed to change the world. However, the AP model assumes that they don't change large chunks of it. Any major changes are local(There is a reason CotCT isn't in Sandpoint, and Second Darkness isn't in Korvosa.) And any minor changes significant enough to be mentioned still aren't enough to derail another AP.
I see. So if the AP consisted of Andorans changing Cheliax for the better, you'd have no problem with it because the continuity change is localized to one nation. Moreover, since Cheliax is not the focus of any of the prior adventure paths, it would have no impact on any other AP in the canon.
So you should be on board with my example, then, right? It meets your criteria: localized changes that do not require a DM to run one AP before another one for continuity purposes.
I guess my point is that even the so-called 'save the world' Adventure Paths have plotlines that are potentially enormous without relying on the central threat.
The players are still in reactive mode, however.
There have been some murmurings about a future AP called "Kingmaker"; I gather the idea is to take over one of the River Kingdoms (or maybe to oust a usurper, it's not clear to me).
Is that the kind of thing you'd be interested in?
The campaign will involve the PCs carving out their own independent kingdom and defending it from rivals, rampaging monsters, and enemies from within.
Pretty much exactly, as it turns out. It's a step between what I'm proposing and Curse of the Crimson Throne, which would have done it had they ditched the fifth installment and had the PCs running the resistance, instead of having that handled off-screen. (This may turn out to be close to my pleas for a colonization AP, which makes me very happy.)
Although if it turns out that the PCs are shoe-horned into a single political system, I'll be quite disappointed. Pseudo-medieval serfdom as the only choice isn't natural when you've got the Andorans running around. And once you step outside that box once, every other possible approach becomes possible.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think a cool way to pull something like this off, without having any canon or campaign setting changes would be to have an AP based on the PCs leading a group of colonists to form a colony/kingdom in an untamed wilderness area. This could be similar to the middle of Savage Tide, but more focused on building and defending the colony, dealing with intelligent natives, dangerous flora and fauna, natural disasters, and relations with the political and mercantile intrigues from back home. I don't know where in Golarion this would work best, since we don't know enough about the world beyond Garund and Astivan, but maybe on the continent of Arcadia, as the New World parallel?
I see. So if the AP consisted of Andorans changing Cheliax for the better, you'd have no problem with it because the continuity change is localized to one nation. Moreover, since Cheliax is not the focus of any of the prior adventure paths, it would have no impact on any other AP in the canon.
Don't be disingenous.
Affecting a whole nation is excessive in scope, especially a nation like Cheliax which is one of the big movers and shakers in global politics. Suppose an NPC in a future AP is a priest from Cheliax. It makes a BIG difference if they're worshipping Asmodeus or Iomedae as a state religion. That means its important if the 'overthrow Cheliax' AP happened or not. Heck, the very attitude between Cheliax and Andoran would change.
One of the ways Paizo makes it so that the setting can change over time (i.e. not running a static, unchangable world) but still make the canon consistent is by moving on after running an AP in an area, so that the changes can be left behind and be 'off screen'. For instance, I'll bet you won't be seeing any Korvosan NPCs anytime soon, unless they left Korvosa so long ago as it have it not matter.
But with your plan, instead of losing a single city, they'd lose a whole nation and a PFS faction. Potentially two, depending on how you expect Andoran to react to it.
But even outside of the issue of consistent canon, there's the issue of page count and writing. When the world ACTS, and the players REACT, the action is known and can be specified, and the players get to write their own reaction. When the players ACT, and the world REACTS, all of a sudden the AP writers need to acticipate the infinite ways the players can act, and come up with the world's reaction. And somehow keep that coherent through six installments.
Affecting a whole nation is excessive in scope, especially a nation like Cheliax which is one of the big movers and shakers in global politics. Suppose an NPC in a future AP is a priest from Cheliax. It makes a BIG difference if they're worshipping Asmodeus or Iomedae as a state religion. That means its important if the 'overthrow Cheliax' AP happened or not. Heck, the very attitude between Cheliax and Andoran would change.
One of the ways Paizo makes it so that the setting can change over time (i.e. not running a static, unchangable world) but still make the canon consistent is by moving on after running an AP in an area, so that the changes can be left behind and be 'off screen'. For instance, I'll bet you won't be seeing any Korvosan NPCs anytime soon, unless they left Korvosa so long ago as it have it not matter.
But with your plan, instead of losing a single city, they'd lose a whole nation and a PFS faction. Potentially two, depending on how you expect Andoran to react to it.
I'm unconvinced of your reasoning, as they still have most of the map to fill in, including an Asian-themed land, a Viking-themed land, and an Egyptian-themed land (modules excepting), on top of the other unfilled spots on the map. And we've not hit Dwarf, Gnome, or Halfling-land in the APs. I find the resource-scarcity, we-can't-lose-Cheliax argument fairly unpersuasive.
But the !#$!% factions... Yeah, they've invested a bit in those, so those suckers are safe forever, more's the pity. Okay, that specific example may not work then for that reason.
But even outside of the issue of consistent canon, there's the issue of page count and writing. When the world ACTS, and the players REACT, the action is known and can be specified, and the players get to write their own reaction. When the players ACT, and the world REACTS, all of a sudden the AP writers need to acticipate the infinite ways the players can act, and come up with the world's reaction. And somehow keep that coherent through six installments.
Of course, Paizo might disagree with you, given the River Kingdoms AP. Depends how they take it, of course.
And, really, the "Assigned Quest" and "Advisor suggestion" approach used in Curse of the Crimson Throne worked well enough to get the PCs committed and could be easily applied here for the same 2 modules it did last time, until the PCs have enough levels to take on higher responsibilities plausibly.
Nor do I find it convincing that they can't anticipate how a party might respond to the stimulus provided by the module, as the authors of the APs do it all the time. Heck, one entire module in the Second Darkness AP seemed to entail setting up a region, an antagonist, some minions and some goals and then letting the players run with it. If reverse dungeons can work, and they have even with Paizo products (ask tbug), then I'm going to find it hard to credit that it's impossible. It may be hard or less desirable, we can argue about.
And, even if I were to agree with you that it's hard to do rather than impossible, that should be an INCENTIVE for the fine authors at Paizo, because it's an artistic challenge for them. The more you say this is impossible, the more I want to place my bets on Paizo Publishing to pull it off. Moreover, it would provide a market advantage: buy the only AP ever made where the players drive the action, rather than the DM? I'd buy that so fast I'd give them out as gifts to my gamer friends.
Oh, and I'll appreciate it if the two of you just assume that I'm being sincere and doing the best I can to understand your position. Ross, you and I have been going fine; don't assume I'm being disingenuous; I'm not. And capadocious, whatever you mean by a face-palm is neither productive nor polite. Make an argument, not a (virtual) gesture.
I think a cool way to pull something like this off, without having any canon or campaign setting changes would be to have an AP based on the PCs leading a group of colonists to form a colony/kingdom in an untamed wilderness area. This could be similar to the middle of Savage Tide, but more focused on building and defending the colony, dealing with intelligent natives, dangerous flora and fauna, natural disasters, and relations with the political and mercantile intrigues from back home. I don't know where in Golarion this would work best, since we don't know enough about the world beyond Garund and Astivan, but maybe on the continent of Arcadia, as the New World parallel?
Well, that makes two of us, then.
Roguerogue, I'm not trying to say that it is impossible. Just that it is something that would need to be done infrequently and with great care.
Furthermore, the APs might not be the place for it. Open-ended challenges are not well-suited for a Path. They might be better for a Module or a special product.
And as far as having all the far-off lands to fill in, that's true, but you can't have every AP be in an exotic, far off land. And how long term are we talking? I'd like Golarion to still be around in 30 years without it being mined out. That'd be hard to do if you loose a country and its immediate neighbors every six months.
Out of curiosity, how does Curse of the Crimson Throne not qualify?
Out of curiosity, how does Curse of the Crimson Throne not qualify?
If someone is going to answer this question, can it please be spoilerized where appropriate? I'm enjoying this thread, but i'm also about to be a player in a CotCT game.
Out of curiosity, how does Curse of the Crimson Throne not qualify?
Without giving anything away, that adventure path places the PCs in the position of reacting to the changes initiated by the BBEG, rather than initiating changes themselves. In addition, most of figuring out how to reshape Korvosa is dealt with in the last two pages of the final installment, effectively "off-screen." Curse of the Crimson Throne would meet this criteria if the PCs were trying to change Korvosa for the better and facing opponents and challenges from within and outside the city in the meat of the AP, rather than as part of the postscript. But, yes, CotCT is closest.
Basically, I think that Ross and I are both arguing for a position along the scale of change to a setting rather than being at either extreme. Neither of us are arguing that there should be no changes as a result of an AP. Neither of us are arguing for a Living Campaign, MMORPGish, perpetual setting change machine. He seems to want change to remain very localized and doubts that it's feasible to write the PCs in the active position usually reserved for the BBEG. I don't care much about the scope of the change (world, region, nation, city, whatever) so long as the PCs are active agents for change rather than reactive agents for the status quo, the traditional "Save the ______" position. I tend to trust that the Paizo crew can pull it off, and the more difficult it's made to sound, the more appealing I think it would be as an artistic challenge and market advantage.
He's at like a 4 on the change scale and I'm asking for a 7, I think.
As far as Ross's fears about essentially strip mining Golarion, well, I understand his concern. My responses would be that there's still a lot of map to visit the first time. Paizo's rate of use is nowhere near the rate of WotC's, so far as I can tell. People ate up the sequels to Falcon's Hollow with a spoon, so it can sell. And an update 10-15 years from now is not high on my list of worries.
Thank-you. That's helpful. Assuming that there were a seventh volume of Crimson Throne that spelled out the options given in a couple of pages in volume six, where would that sit on your scale?
I'm running Crimson Throne much more the way you describe rather than the way it's written. A lot of missions in there get assigned to the PCs, and I stopped doing that ages ago. I'm finding the AP pretty easy to modify in this way, but things are spelled out for those GMs who aren't as into doing that as I am.
I'm not sure where I fit on your scale, so I'll keep asking questions. :) One thing for sure is that I'd be sad if Paizo always did exactly the same thing in their APs. Fortunately, they seem as open as they can realistically be to innovation and creativity.
Thank-you. That's helpful. Assuming that there were a seventh volume of Crimson Throne that spelled out the options given in a couple of pages in volume six, where would that sit on your scale?
I'm running Crimson Throne much more the way you describe rather than the way it's written. A lot of missions in there get assigned to the PCs, and I stopped doing that ages ago. I'm finding the AP pretty easy to modify in this way, but things are spelled out for those GMs who aren't as into doing that as I am.
I'm not sure where I fit on your scale, so I'll keep asking questions. :) One thing for sure is that I'd be sad if Paizo always did exactly the same thing in their APs. Fortunately, they seem as open as they can realistically be to innovation and creativity.
Your descriptions of your campaigns in the other threads are part of what makes me think that this approach is possible. As far as the seventh volume approach, that's even better, but I think the best would be to have the PCs be driving the action in the majority of the path.
What Ross Said.
Why not try this idea out in a module or a single issue of an AP, then? See if you can do it, see what the customers think.
I'd like to request that an adventure path in the future place the PCs in a more active role. So much of the time, PCs are a bunch of conservatives, trying desperately to save the status quo from (catastrophic) change. Over and over again, the PCs resist change with all their might, as if Golarion could never be better.
That's pretty harsh.
The change they save the world, or parts of it from, are (following: adventure path plot spoilers until they come out of your ears!)
If that's being conservative, I sure as hell don't want to be liberal any more!
I think the perfect place for such a narrative would be to have the PCs be Andoran revolutionaries in Cheliax. This setup would solve the major objection to making the PCs proactive rather than reactive. As low-level characters, they could be given missions, as in Curse of the Crimson Throne, the AP that comes closest to making the PCs fight for change. Then, in the second and third books, they progressively become more captains of their own destiny in fostering revolution, until there's a climactic battle in the final module.
To be fair, every AP so far has elements of this:
In CotCT, you can make great headway in the peace negotiations between the Shoanti nomads and the peoples from lower Varisia.
In SD, you help retake an old elven stronghold (which will strengthen their presence in Varisia) and destroy the Winter Council - which makes the Old Guard look like newblood liberals, which will probably change elven culture and make take a more active role in the world.
In Legacy of Fire, you liberate a town overrun by gnolls.
I won't mind seeing a more proactive campaign, though.
You can forget about the Cheliax thing. You'll never pull it off as an official campaign. It would basically mean that all the cool Diabolic Empire vibe would be gone.
Plus, unless this one is epic, the characters have no chance at all at liberating Cheliax.
And that's a problem with the type of campaign you're suggesting: You can't go for something too big. First, this would change the campaign too much if done, and Adventure Paths are at least somewher near canon.
But, maybe more importantly: You'll have to fight the system. And the system is big. Fighting a archmage or high priestess and their retinue is one thing - taking on a whole country, maybe one with infernal legions at their beck and call (and that includes stuff like pit fiends...), not to mention actual armies, is a lot harder.
What Ross Said.
Further, while there's a chronological order implied by the adventure paths in that they come out in a one-after-the-other pattern, there's no established game world canon about that...
We might put easter eggs in-between adventure paths now and then, but the "official order" in which they're played is left to each individual group to determine and decide.
Thank you. That's the way it should be. I'm a firm believer of keeping rules, settings, adventures and stories (novels) fairly independent from one another.
One of the things that bothered me about RIFTS back when I collected just about every book was the setting and rule books slowly became more and more of an integrated story. Books became increasingly dependent on one another and there was little separation of setting material and adventure material. If you're campaign didn't happen to follow the particular story, later books were mostly worthless or required shoehorning to work.
If I want a long ranging story, I'll buy some novels. If I want an campaign, I'll purchase an adventure path or some modules. And so on. I like to think that it's my responsibility as DM to tie those adventures and modules together into a unique world and history for my campaign.
And finally, there's nothing wrong with dropping continuity between adventure paths or campaigns. It's a game. It's not like you have to start a game of Monopoly based on how the last one ended.
Lots of spoilered stuff...
Keyword: "preventing". Having the PCs be the active drivers of the plot, rather than reactively preventing things, is the essential element of what I'm proposing. And conservative is meant more literally than its current use in American politics; literally, those examples all have the PCs fighting to prevent change.
Although, yes, I'd prefer it if the AP in which the PCs were world-builders (on a national or local scale) did not assume they were trying to re-institute the golden age of the Pharaohs, bring back the monarchy to Andora or have the PCs be assumed to be evil tyrants-to-be. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with those plots in a context that provided balance, namely other APs in which the PCs actively tried to make the world a better place.
literally, those examples all have the PCs fighting to prevent change.
Yeah, because that change was bad. I can grant you that it was always the same, but you sounded a lot like "change is good, embrace it" - even if change means existence changes into oblivion.
Although, yes, I'd prefer it if the AP in which the PCs were world-builders (on a national or local scale) did not assume they were trying to re-institute the golden age of the Pharaohs, bring back the monarchy to Andora or have the PCs be assumed to be evil tyrants-to-be. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with those plots in a context that provided balance, namely other APs in which the PCs actively tried to make the world a better place.
An AP doesn't work there if you ask me. So they build something. But what? How will the second installment work? What would even be in there?
Yeah, because that change was bad. I can grant you that it was always the same, but you sounded a lot like "change is good, embrace it" - even if change means existence changes into oblivion.
My operating assumption was that the PCs WOULD be trying to change the world for the better, yes. Hence the anti-Cheliax example.
Although, yes, I'd prefer it if the AP in which the PCs were world-builders (on a national or local scale) did not assume they were trying to re-institute the golden age of the Pharaohs, bring back the monarchy to Andora or have the PCs be assumed to be evil tyrants-to-be. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with those plots in a context that provided balance, namely other APs in which the PCs actively tried to make the world a better place.
An AP doesn't work there if you ask me. So they build something. But what? How will the second installment work? What would even be in there?
There's tons of films and television serials that feature a protagonist's rise through the ranks to achieve power and influence for authors to draw inspiration from. It could easily follow the general AP path of the PCs being granted increasingly important tasks. As they rock the boat, they gain the attention of antagonists drawn from those who benefit by the status quo or those who wish to push too fast. Those antagonists increasingly test them or attempt to co-opt them. I'm sure there'd be some outside forces that threaten what's been gained (marauding ____ raiders, fanatical cultists, etc.) Then there's your final showdown.
Basically, it doesn't seem more difficult than running a reverse dungeon.
At the end of the day, the basic approach is still going to be placing a variety of increasingly difficult obstacles in front of the party and giving the DM advice on how to handle likely PC responses to that stimulus. The major difference is that instead of the PCs being united trying to stop something, the PCs are united in trying to start something.
There's tons of films and television serials that
all have a script and screenplay. If you want the players to be active rather than reactive, they'll have to take initiative.
And it's quite hard to do that and then plan on what they'll do.
Let's say the AP is about liberating Cheliax. What will the players do? They might ask nations like Andoran for help. They might locate other cells of resistance to coordinate everything. They might try to destroy hellgates to cut off the fiendish reinforcements. They might try to assassinate key figures.
And you'd have to be ready for everything, for if you just say "you must now kill the mayor" or "now, the hellgate must be destroyed", it's really just the same old thing in disguise - they react to what you say must be done.
It would not be that hard to create an AP where you rise inside a system.
First issue has the heroes do some remarkable deed, and as a reward they get enobled/granted some town/land etc. that's currently in a lot of trouble or unclaimed.
Second issue has the PCs dealing with their new land's troubles - lots of different issues, from diplomacy to monster killing.
Third issue has the PCs debut at the court, and deal with a conspiracy and the different power factions at the court.
Fourth issue has civil war or a large feud break out, and the PCs can pick a side, building on the events and choices in issue three. Could be they topple the king, or support a settlement, or ruthlessly crush the quarelling factions for the king, but it leaves the country torn up a bit.
Fifth issue there's a threat from a neighboring country that wants to take advantage of the weakened state after the civil war, and has to be beaten back.
Final issue is dealing with the supposed or actual return of the true/legendary heir of the crown, and offers a lot of options for the DM to to pick from (conspiracy, real heir, prophecy, angel/demon struggle, etc.), and lots of options for the PCs to choose, ranging from following the heir to duping him, and so on.
The trick is to have the actions of the PCs change the coutnry, but have some fixed outside threats/influences appear as a rough guideline. The actions influence the specific situations and threats, but not to the point of invalidating them at all since they are not connected to one source (BBEG) which could be dispatched early already, or has to be protected till then. Sort of a limited sandbox.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
What if this is approached similar to how some computer games handle things (I'm thinking in particular of Fallout 1 & 2, with a variety of endings based on how the player resolved certain situations.) While the main plot would still be relatively static, if each chapter in the AP had 2 or more ways to potentially handle some parts, then they could influence later parts of the story and/or the ending. For instance In part 1 of CotCT:
Going all the way back to roguerouge's original posting on this subject ...
I'd like to request that an adventure path in the future place the PCs in a more active role. So much of the time, PCs are a bunch of conservatives, trying desperately to save the status quo from (catastrophic) change. Over and over again, the PCs resist change with all their might, as if Golarion could never be better. But it doesn't have to be that way. You could reverse the PC-BBEG dynamic by having the PCs trying to make the world a better place, against the resistance of the forces of evil.
A publishing house, like Paizo, WoTC, Green Ronin, etc., has to make their setting so that they can continue to publish adventures in it. So it is not that helpful to have everything that makes the setting "special" be changed when the "One Ring" is destroyed by a couple of Halflings, or when the Galactic Emperor is thrown down a reactor shaft by this apprentice.
Where as an individual Game Master only has the ability to create a more limited setting, he/she also enjoys the freedom of not actually "needing" to do multiple stories in that campaign world (of course he/she may want to ...), this allows him/her to create an extended story (like an AP) that has the player characters defeat the "Big Bad" or "Conquer the Kingdom" or "Discover the New Continent" or ... etc.
I think that roguerouge points out why "homebrew" settings will never completely die out (a.k.a., "Adopting the PathfinderRPG without adopting the Pathfinder Campaign Setting).
If I understand what he is asking about, then this might be the right way for him to go.