Chief Technical Officer
|
We've just announced the final volume of Council of Thieves, due in January 2010: The Twice-Damned Prince, by Brian Cortijo.
The cover image is a mockup.
The cover image is a mockup.
Awww darn! 'Cause that cover is ACTIONED PACKED!
Too bad. I need a pair of pants like those.
Levels 12-14? Thats only half an adventure.
Levels 12-14? Thats only half an adventure.
True. And Kingmaker is similar… I think I'm not interested. This is not a real campaign. It is time to let my subscriptions.
Levels 12-14? Thats only half an adventure.
How so?
True. And Kingmaker is similar… I think I'm not interested. This is not a real campaign. It is time to let my subscriptions.
So, what is a "real campaign"? If you only play to level 14, it's not a real campaign? If so, I have been mistaken for decades and only recently played my first campaign.
You know, you can actually go on playing even from the end of a published AP, right?
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping?
It is clear that the next APs, and perhaps all in the future, are not suitable for me.
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping?
Two notes on this. First, the level bands listed are not set in stone, nothing in these advance solicitations are. These are what we guess they'll be, but the actual adventures haven't even begun being written yet so there's always changes, especially where hard rules elements like level come in. It's really hard for us to summarize an entire volume of Pathfinder, much less an entire campaign, in just a few lines, so always take these early descriptions with about a 5 pound bag of salt. As we narrow in, though, we'll know more and, by effect, you'll know more.
Second, while every GM has their own ideas on what comprises a complete campaign and when and where they want to stop their game, I think it would be an incredible shame for any GM who's interested in playing a series with greater flexibility, options, and scope than previous Adventure Paths to miss out on Kingmaker. We've never been 100% satisfied with how we're often forced to end APs, and from the word "go" Kingmaker has that in mind. It should also be noted that the levels suggested merely cover to core plot of this AP. As you'll be hearing more and more about in the coming weeks and months, the exploration and kingdom building elements intrinsic to this plot will allow for a far greater variety of GM control over levels and side quests than ever before. We've joked before that Pathfinder is an "Adventure Path" not an "Adventure Lots of Different Paths," this one, however, is an experiment to be both.
So just throwing that out there. But from what it sounds like you want, it really seems to me that ending your subscription now would be like leaving dinner before desert.
Levels 12-14? Thats only half an adventure.
I'm a bit confused by this. Mainly because I've never associated it in my head that the number of levels a character archives has anything to do with the quality of the adventure being run or the story being told. But perhaps that's just in my game.
As for Pathfinder, a span of three levels has worked pretty well for the majority of adventures thus far. It's usually only the first adventure and some other rarities that run more than 3 levels. I don't believe we've ever published anything that has a level band akin to 12-17, it would just include far too many encounters for the space we have.
Also of note, I think when the majority of our product announcements come out we typically list level 14 or 15 as about the end of the AP. Runelords, Curse, and Second Darkness all ended up capping out around 16, though, so that's just something to consider.
Oh, and to keep in mind, this AP - like every AP from Council of Thieves onward - makes use of Pathfinder RPG rules. While that system has similar experience rules to 3.5, there are some changes. There's also a lot more built in GM flexibility, so if you want an adventure to give our more or less XP, there's a quick, easy, and balanced way to handle that.
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping?
It is clear that the next APs, and perhaps all in the future, are not suitable for me.
Well, if playing level 14 and below does not interest you, I guess the Pathfinder APs have never been for you anyway.
I wonder how you imagine - or play - what you consider a "real campaign". Do you skip low levels and start at level 15?
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping?Two notes on this. First, the level bands listed are not set in stone, nothing in these advance solicitations are. These are what we guess they'll be, but the actual adventures haven't even begun being written yet so there's always changes, especially where hard rules elements like level come in. It's really hard for us to summarize an entire volume of Pathfinder, much less an entire campaign, in just a few lines, so always take these early descriptions with about a 5 pound bag of salt. As we narrow in, though, we'll know more and, by effect, you'll know more.
Second, while every GM has their own ideas on what comprises a complete campaign and when and where they want to stop their game, I think it would be an incredible shame for any GM who's interested in playing a series with greater flexibility, options, and scope than previous Adventure Paths to miss out on Kingmaker. We've never been 100% satisfied with how we're often forced to end APs, and from the word "go" Kingmaker has that in mind. It should also be noted that the levels suggested merely cover to core plot of this AP. As you'll be hearing more and more about in the coming weeks and months, the exploration and kingdom building elements intrinsic to this plot will allow for a far greater variety of GM control over levels and side quests than ever before. We've joked before that Pathfinder is an "Adventure Path" not an "Adventure Lots of Different Paths," this one, however, is an experiment to be both.
So just throwing that out there. But from what it sounds like you want, it really seems to me that ending your subscription now would be like leaving dinner before desert.
I will see. I am not yet decided to end the subscription, but I believe that the quality of your products has fallen for some time, and since I have no interest in buying more low-level adventures, this could decide. In fact, the only thing stopping me is that I liked a lot the idea of Kingmaker. It's the kind of campaign that I love DMing (or playing). But, three modules of very low levels? No, thanks. That don’t save me work.
I hope that finally Kingmaker suits my needs. I will read your news.
Also of note, I think when the majority of our product announcements come out we typically list level 14 or 15 as about the end of the AP. Runelords, Curse, and Second Darkness all ended up capping out around 16, though, so that's just something to consider.
yes, finish around level 16 is fine. Around 14... I would prefer to start at 5 instead of 1, if space is a problem.
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping?
It is clear that the next APs, and perhaps all in the future, are not suitable for me.
Well, if playing level 14 and below does not interest you, I guess the Pathfinder APs have never been for you anyway.
I wonder how you imagine - or play - what you consider a "real campaign". Do you skip low levels and start at level 15?
I have always regretted that the APs do not begin to level 5. I never liked the first module because of its level (although in general they are well made, I have millions of low-level adventures, or I can create without effort). The first APs ended at 16. Not bad. Finish at 14 seems too low, yes. The third module of Kingmaker begins to level 5, and this implies that half of the campaign happens to levels that I am not interested in buying. As simple as that.
These are my preferences. If you're happy with low-level APs, very well. But I'm not. Respect my opinion. Your tastes are not necessarily mine.
These are my preferences. If you're happy with low-level APs, very well. But I'm not. Respect my opinion. Your tastes are not necessarily mine.
Sure, everyone plays differently, and that's good, too.
|
Creative Director
|
One thing to note:
The PFRPG rules have 3 tracks for XP. If you want your game to go to a higher level, use the fast XP track. The APs are built using the middle advancement track, so you'll need to do some adjustment to the monsters to toughen them up here and there, but there's a lot of new options for monster advancement in PFRPG (some of which are really streamlined and easy).
And finally, no one's written an AP for the PFRPG rules yet. As Wes says above, the level bands are our best guesses... but they're subject to change.
I will not play with PFRPG. I will play with 3.5. And as I suspected, it will not be compatible with the APs. Pity, though I saw it coming.
I will not play with PFRPG. I will play with 3.5. And as I suspected, it will not be compatible with the APs. Pity, though I saw it coming.
If you're running 3.5 then by default you're on the "fast" track of XP, so no adjustment needed for that.
I will not play with PFRPG. I will play with 3.5. And as I suspected, it will not be compatible with the APs. Pity, though I saw it coming.
One of the foremost goals of the Pathfinder RPG was to make it backward compatible with 3.5 and I think you'll find in August that it's shockingly successful at that. Playing a PFRPG adventure using 3.5 is easy enough that any "conversion work" - which largely boils down to matters of semantics - can be done on the fly.
James was noting that if you want to have an adventure written to span 3 levels instead span a wider range the PFRPG provides for that.
You can do this in 3.5 too, even though there's no hard fast rules for it. Just hand out more or less XP.
Levels 12-14? Thats only half an adventure [path?].How so?
To play devil's advocate, I have to admit it's a bit of a step backwards from Age of Worms or Savage Tide where the final adventure starts at level 19-20 and you end up fighting gods and demon lords. If the final adventure starts at level 12, then what do you end up fighting? A marilith? While that might be interesting, it's no Kyuss or Demogorgon...
Having said that, I'm looking forward to Kingmaker; it sounds like a different change of pace from "save the world from the BBEG...again".
To play devil's advocate, I have to admit it's a bit of a step backwards from Age of Worms or Savage Tide where the final adventure starts at level 19-20 and you end up fighting gods and demon lords. If the final adventure starts at level 12, then what do you end up fighting? A marilith? While that might be interesting, it's no Kyuss or Demogorgon...
While we could totally go into all of the reasons of format, logistics, manpower, price, etc, etc, etc, that make Pathfinder an intrinsically different creature than Dungeon, and thus free us and shackle us to a different model of publishing, I feel like most have been readily discussed on these boards and are pretty obvious. I also understand the demand for high-level content, and I'm happy to say there's some ideas in the works to satisfy that need.
What does confuse me, though, is the idea that concluding somewhere around 14th to 16th level makes an Adventure Path incomplete. Now, I get that this is somewhat a misconception of our own creating as we pretty much defined what Adventure Paths were in Dungeon with campaigns that went up to level 20 and sometimes a good deal over (most cap out over 21 when everything's said and done). But while level 20 is often perceived as the "last level," there's readily available epic rules that take character progression up to at least level 30. Why isn't Age of Worms considered incomplete when you don't go on to eradicate every last Kyuss worm in the planes? Or Savage Tide when there's still a few thousand other demon lords to pick off? We've got the rules to do it, why end it there?
The fact is that an Adventure Path ends when the story feels like it should end or is built to end, whether that's at 6th level, 16th level, or 26th level. Sure, you can say that the higher level Adventure Paths end up feeling more epic, but compared to what? Each other? Sure. But that's relative. I don't think a group is going to feel quantifiably more successful killing Adimarchus than they do taking out Karzoug. I think a 12th-level maralith has fantastic potential to be a big bad end guy. The basic Bestiary statistics of a villain don't matter, after all, memorability and a sense of accomplishment comes from the character built around those statistics and how a story makes them into a villain worth defeating. Taking Kazoug as an example again, he's just a human after all. Heck, Kyuss is just a worm that walks, and they've got a version of those coming basic in the 4E MM now. Sure, epic-level stuff feels more... well, epic, but that's its nature, and there's no true limit to that scale. Is anything we do ever going to feel as "epic" as my high school campaign where the players picked off the all-stars of the Greek and Norse pantheons? Probably not. It's all relative, and largely, all academic, as I can't believe there's many groups weighing their feelings of accomplishment from campaign to campaign. Again, for me at least, roleplaying is about the story and the experience of playing - the CR of the big boss isn't a typical consideration when I'm in the seat of a PC.
In addition to all of this, it's my suspicion that, in a few years, more players will probably have had the experience of playing through to the end of Rise of the Runelords than folks who played through any one of Dungeon's 20-level hauls. That's not saying anything negative about either of those campaigns, but our research shows that most games don't reach high-level play - either tapering our or moving onto something new - and so we aim our resources at providing adventures for the levels played the most. This doesn't mean we're simply ignoring the higher levels and our high-level-playing readers, though. Like I said, we have ideas in the works for those fields, but those are in regions besides monthly Adventure Paths. As far as Pathfinder goes, we tend to play things safe and try to make campaigns that will be useful to the largest possible number of players.
And that goes for all matters, be it high-level play, psionics, playing evil characters, playing monsters, etc, etc. Personally I think it'd be interesting to put on the low-level progression breaks some day and do an Adventure Path that runs from 1st to 8th level, but Pathfinder, being our flagship product and aimed to appeal at the most possible number of players, is not the place to try an idea that radical (at least not anytime soon - never say never).
So, overall, Adventure Paths end when they end, and in every case we try to add suggestions on how to continue campaigns when they do. Kingmaker is going to have more details in this regard than ever before, and while I can't promise epic level content, this AP has ramifications far past its last adventure which should prove fertile ground for any GMs who want to keep going.
|
I think Wes has hit the nail on the head. For some people (and this isn't a criticism, just an observation) the advancement of the character in power is a key reason for playing. If you don't get to the reasonably-defined apogee (which is basically 20th level, where the rules in the standard game peter out) then you haven't gone the whole hog. For others, what is important is the storyline and playing that to its logical conclusion, irrespective of the level you are when you get there. I can understand both mentalities - I'd like to play a really cool storyline but, hell, I'd also like to get to level 20. For me, the former trumps the latter, but others may draw the line somewhere else. Of course, if you are more interested in the latter, then the actual storyline will be less important to some extent anyway ("I want experience and treasure!") so a Paizo AP is maybe not the way to go (though I would suggest that the low-level adventures created "without effort" are maybe not as good as the one produced with a bit of effort from the Paizo contributors).
|
Most of the games I mastered ended somewhere about 12th level, but most of those were played using 2nd Ed. rules and players were multiclassed. Back then no one wanted to play human. I've just finished mastering the game using Pathfinder Beta and Unearthed Arcana. All PC's were on the Fast Track progression and they were gestalt characters. Game ended on lvl 12. In my experience, best games are between 5th and 12th level.
What does confuse me, though, is the idea that at concluding somewhere around 14th to 16th level makes an Adventure Path incomplete.
Because there's stuff in the Player's Handbook (or PFRPG rulebook, soon) that the PCs will never get to use if they just stick to playing adventure paths.
I understand the conditions that make it unfeasible to continue the current adventure paths to level 20, of course. But there is something special about reaching level 20 (especially in the PFRPG with its new "capstone" abilities).
I will not play with PFRPG. I will play with 3.5. And as I suspected, it will not be compatible with the APs. Pity, though I saw it coming.
For about 6 months now I've been using 3.5 modules with the PFRPG beta rules, and have changed nothing. Paizo's intention from the very beginning was compatability, which my experience has borne out. I'm not sure where the "suspicion" is arising from, but I would suggest just trying them out. I, personally, do not think you will need to change anything, or if you do change something it would be no more than any DM does to accomodate their own personal campaign world tastes.
Best.
I understand the conditions that make it unfeasible to continue the current adventure paths to level 20, of course. But there is something special about reaching level 20 (especially in the PFRPG with its new "capstone" abilities).
And that makes sense too, and I'd agree with that. 20th-level is special and we'll always have that in mind. And trust me, when we do get to our high-level dealie, we want it to feel appropriately special as well.
|
Creative Director
|
Because there's stuff in the Player's Handbook (or PFRPG rulebook, soon) that the PCs will never get to use if they just stick to playing adventure paths.
I understand the conditions that make it unfeasible to continue the current adventure paths to level 20, of course. But there is something special about reaching level 20 (especially in the PFRPG with its new "capstone" abilities).
Here's another way to look at that, though...
In order to create a good adventure for a party, the GM needs access to rules that cover creating villains to challenge that party. In the case of solo fights, that essentially means that the GM needs to be able to create villains who are up to 4 or 5 levels higher than the average party level. For a 5th level party, a single 9th level wizard might be a really cool and memorable final boss for an adventure.
So, technically... this would infer that the "maximum character level" that the game supports completely is about 15th level. That gives the GM 16th–20th level to play with in creating villains and even allies for the PCs to face. That does mean that the PC won't get to use EVERYTHING in the core rules... but unless you have 11 players each playing a different class in your game, no one is going to be able to use everything. As for "missing out" on high level spells... there's always scrolls and artifacts and all that to let lower level than normal PCs play around with it.
"The Final Wish," the last adventure in Legacy of Fire, is a great example of this:
There certainly is something special about reaching 20th level, and the addition of capstone abilities supports that, but there's also something special about playing an entire campaign out from start to end that develops a story organically and comes to a satisfying conclusion. Just as there are always new action movies to watch with different characters and plots and heroes and villains, there's always new campaigns to play. Some movies are satisfying and reach logical conclusions at 90 minutes, while some do the same over the course of 240 minutes or more. To quote Roger Ebert, "No great movie is too short or too long." To extend that, you can say no great RPG campaign ends at too low or too high of a level. It goes as long as it needs to to tell its story and doesn't linger.
Shackled City is a good example of breaking this rule:
Anyway... combined with Wes's excellent post upthread, that's basically our take on why an adventure path doesn't need to cover every single possible level to be "complete."
And if you miss those capstone abilities... my suggestion is this. When you run an AP, you know what the "last level" the PCs are going to hit is going to be. Just move the capstone ability from 20th down to that level. That does mean that when the PCs hit that last level, they'll be a bit more powerful than other PCs of that level, but that doesn't matter because those other PCs are on their own paths. If you give your PCs their capstone powers early and at the last half, say, of the last adventure, that's actually a really cool way to reward them for sticking with one character through the entire thing, and a really cool final bit of fun for them to play around with as the end of their story, whatever level that might be, approaches.
|
|
And if you miss those capstone abilities... my suggestion is this. When you run an AP, you know what the "last level" the PCs are going to hit is going to be. Just move the capstone ability from 20th down to that level. That does mean that when the PCs hit that last level, they'll be a bit more powerful than other PCs of that level, but that doesn't matter because those other PCs are on their own paths. If you give your PCs their capstone powers early and at the last half of the last adventure, that's actually a really cool way to reward them for sticking with one character through the entire thing, and a really cool final bit of fun for them to play around with as the end of their story, whatever level that might be
Will you look at that; a possible house rule we were just discussing just got a benediction by Doctor Jacobs.
So, technically... this would infer that the "maximum character level" that the game supports completely is about 15th level. That gives the GM 16th–20th level to play with in creating villains and even allies for the PCs to face.
I can't speak for the PFRPG Bestiary of course, but the Monster Manual has creatures ranked up to CR 27 (not including templated creatures), none of which require special epic rules to run. So that's not much of an excuse.
I'm much more sympathetic to the previous explanation: "We can't make a business case for printing a 1-20 Adventure Path" (paraphrased).
|
Creative Director
|
So, technically... this would infer that the "maximum character level" that the game supports completely is about 15th level. That gives the GM 16th–20th level to play with in creating villains and even allies for the PCs to face.
I can't speak for the PFRPG Bestiary of course, but the Monster Manual has creatures ranked up to CR 27 (not including templated creatures), none of which require special epic rules to run. So that's not much of an excuse.
I'm much more sympathetic to the previous explanation: "We can't make a business case for printing a 1-20 Adventure Path" (paraphrased).
Actually, take a closer look at the monsters above CR 15. You'll note that the vast majority of them are dragons. And that of the non-dragon monsters, most are outsiders with a couple undead. Not a viable mix to support a lot of different adventures. We've got a better mix in the PFRPG Bestiary, but still... the majority of the book's monsters, which are picked up from the SRD, are in the CR 1–15 range.
In any case, it's just one of MANY reasons Pathfinder APs go to about 15 and not to 20. I get the fact that some folks want them to go to 20. Maybe someday we'll do an AP like that. But there's a lot more reasons to do one from 1st to 15th than there is 1st to 20th or even 6th to 20th.
I like the adventure paths as is. I would also like to see some variety thrown in later. Like the suggested level 1-8 adventure. or a 12-20th adventure.
I'm glad to hear there is some sort of planning for higher level stuff.
I can't speak for the PFRPG Bestiary of course, but the Monster Manual has creatures ranked up to CR 27 (not including templated creatures), none of which require special epic rules to run. So that's not much of an excuse.
Scooped by James and my own long windedness
Remember, we're not talking about the plausibility of creating a single adventure with 20+ monsters - I'm sure as a homebrew game or thought exercise someone could make a perfectly functional adventure with a solar, a titan, a handful of dragons, and a bunch of templates - we're talking about sustaining a repeating business model with such slim creative pickings. Again, I suspect it could be done, but it would limit the hell out of what we could do.
Say we decide to do an all underwater AP, I guess that means there's a lot of... advanced, classed krakens in the last adventure. Something based in Hell, well there's pit fiends, and... stuff in probably a dozen Open Content books we could make required to run the adventure. Or an all Darklands campaign, there's... nightshades, I guess, or below that classed aboleth.... and whatever else we come up with. That's be biggest thing, you can look at that big list in the back of the MM and see where the focus levels for most games are as those are the levels with the most monsters. Already it can be difficult to populate adventures and wandering monster lists at levels 15+. Level 20 and up means that not only do we have to do all the normal work of building an adventure, but we have to create the monsters to support it, something that even adding a few new creatures in the Bestiary wouldn't really do justice for. Not to mention space concerns when we have to reprint every non-core statblock.
Right now Pathfinder's APs wrap up before the obviously slim pickings in the MM start to show too much. And that is a concern for us. Hopefully that won't always be the case, though. There's always Pathfinder Bestiary II and III coming down the line.
...
So, technically... this would infer that the "maximum character level" that the game supports completely is about 15th level...
<grammar nazi>
Imply, not infer. Inferences are drawn by the listener.</grammar nazi>
And yeah, I'm a bitter, loveless guy who lives in mommy's basement. ;-)
And, in the interest of not being a total asshat, I thought I would contribute this to the thread: I don't mind the adventure paths ending around 14 or 15, because higher levels have always proven problematic 3.x. While Pathfinder RPG will hopefully address that to some extent, I think we should err on the side of caution for the first few APs that use the new ruleset.
<grammar nazi>Imply, not infer. Inferences are drawn by the listener. </grammar nazi>Don't make me go flag all your posts out of spite, now!
OT
Isn't Bugley just making the word a better place? Why aren't people thanking him?
Level 20 and up means that not only do we have to do all the normal work of building an adventure, but we have to create the monsters to support it, something that even adding a few new creatures in the Bestiary wouldn't really do justice for. Not to mention space concerns when we have to reprint every non-core statblock.
I must admit I would love to see an Adventure Path that started at level 15, and went 1 level per book to end at 20. Double the size of the bestiary in the back and focus the support articles on high level play. A high-end adventure arc that is designed to be the capstone of several earlier APs would be awesome.
I understand the that high-level is logistically difficult, and I am quite happy with all of the APs I have read. Maybe someday you'll be able to do more. Here's hoping for Epic AP 8! ;)
|
Creative Director
|
I must admit I would love to see an Adventure Path that started at level 15, and went 1 level per book to end at 20. Double the size of the bestiary in the back and focus the support articles on high level play. A high-end adventure arc that is designed to be the capstone of several earlier APs would be awesome.
I understand the that high-level is logistically difficult, and I am quite happy with all of the APs I have read. Maybe someday you'll be able to do more. Here's hoping for Epic AP 8! ;)
It's not really that high-level stuff is tough to do... it's more that high-level stuff seems to sell a LOT less than low or mid-level stuff.
If I thought that doing something like this wouldn't kill Pathfinder and give us 6 months of bleeding subscribers... I'd be more gung-ho to try it. But since all of our market research and watching sales trends and everything else we've been doing for the past six years tells us that level 15+ adventure path content is the worst selling part of an adventure path, I'm hesitant to try this with Pathfinder itself.
The best solution to doing something like this is a stand-alone super-module, I think. That's how I would like to support high level play. Nothing like this is on the schedule yet, but it's something that I keep kicking around and hope to be able to do some day.
And here I thought you were just working out the big words...
Isn't Bugley just making the word a better place? Why aren't people thanking him?
Exactly!
Now if someone could just explain why I suddenly get this message everytime I log in?:
"You suck. What do you infer from that, biatch?!?
-J J"
;-)
|
While I certainly wouldn't complain if Paizo decided to do another AP that topped out at level 20 (or above), I have to say I'm really liking the Pathfinder APs so far, topping out at the 15 to 16th level type range. After not finishing Shackled City ... and not finishing Age of Worms ... and not finishing Savage Tide ... it's great to have some APs that I can actually see my group maybe (...maybe) finishing.
I don't know if this has been raised before. Could you have Pathfinder Modules that could be related to the AP (It would have to be able to stand alone as well to make it viable).
So if your AP ends at Level 15 you could have a level 18 Pathfinder Module with ideas on how to connect it to the AP.
(EDIT: James it was raised and JJ gave valid reasons for not doing it :-( bummer)
I also agree with Mothman - STAP caused serious gaming fatigue for my players.... so ending it at 15 is great for me.
I don't know if this has been raised before. Could you have Pathfinder Modules that could be related to the AP (It would have to be able to stand alone as well to make it viable).
So if your AP ends at Level 15 you could have a level 18 Pathfinder Module with ideas on how to connect it to the AP.
I also agree with Mothman - STAP caused serious gaming fatigue for my players.... so ending it at 15 is great for me.
In my own experience (and I have to say, most of the up-to-high level campaigns we ran were in oD&D and 1st ed AD&D), the higher the level the PCs reach, the more "personal" the campaign begins. As PCs become really powerful, it is quite natural that they develop their own personal agendas, plus they have the cash, magic, and political clout to carry them out. As you cannot predict PCs in a published module, that makes high-level AP sectors harder to make. The best you can aim at is to present a good campaign framework of what the antagonists' and allies' strategies are, and perhaps some script of possible locations and conflicts.
STAP is a good example: the options laid out in the last three or so installments is just one way the PCs can look for support against the Big Bad. High level PCs with particular interests could have followed other plausible options, like:
1) entice Devils into dealing Demons a big blow
2) binding genies and raising an elemental host against the demon lord
3) tough one, my players got into that from some time: use chronomancy to spoil the Big Bad's master plan in the past.
The Dungeon adventures took a likely path of action and developed it. At low-mid levels, PCs depend on ally NPCs for their resources, so you can control some of their big choices via political and religious leaders, high level mages, economic sponsors and so on. When hitting 18th level or so, PCs are as powerful as those guys (and likely also richer), so their freedom of action is total unless you railroad them with extra-game actions.
I also find that a single storyline, even if it's epic, like an AP, should not sum up all of a character's adventuring life. I am more into the "seasons" TV-like feeling (though one later season can bring bag the resolution of a previous one). I could actually do with APs going to 12th-16th level (starting from 1), get a feeling of time passing and characters aging and maturing (in this sense, the 1-year gap between LoF 1 and 2 is great). At the same time, some high-level support from continuing the campaign beyond a given AP would be welcome.
Perhaps those high-level adventures would do better without a detailed "super AP" publishing pattern. I could see, though, "sandbox scenarios", with a high-level plot, and good documentation on NPCs, key locations and possible developments.
I think I've said it before, but Price of Courage (DL 3.5, levels 14-21 or so) is a good example of a mix of scripts, sandbox elements and free-interaction campaign tools to challenge PCs supposed to be the most powerful heroes of their continent. The last installment of MGP's Drow War was also OK (levels 21-30), it relied heavily on the planes (which is not everybody's cup ot tea), but provided good sandbox tool for a personalized ultra-high level run.
Actually, take a closer look at the monsters above CR 15. You'll note that the vast majority of them are dragons. And that of the non-dragon monsters, most are outsiders with a couple undead. Not a viable mix to support a lot of different adventures. We've got a better mix in the PFRPG Bestiary, but still... the majority of the book's monsters, which are picked up from the SRD, are in the CR 1–15 range.
Guys, I'm with you 100% on your decision not to write high level adventures. You have me convinced with your two killer arguments:
- "We don't think that we'd get a good return on investment."
- "We've got lots of low-to-mid-level stories to tell at the moment, and not as many high-level stories."
You really can't argue with that. Case closed.
But I honestly don't think you're doing yourself any favours when you suggest that the core rulebook and the bestiary make it very difficult for you to create high-level challenges. You guys wrote the rulebook and the bestiary! You can create all the high-level challenges you want! And I know you have experience doing it, because you proved it with the excellent Age of Worms and Savage Tide campaigns.
But I honestly don't think you're doing yourself any favours when you suggest that the core rulebook and the bestiary make it very difficult for you to create high-level challenges. You guys wrote the rulebook and the bestiary!
I know we're to the point of talking semantics with folks agreeing with us - especially you Hogarth, our most outspoken and unreasonable critic :P - but I just wanted to note that both the PFRPG Core Rulebook and Bestiary bear some similarities to the PH and MM. While the Core Rulebook gives you everything you need - and way more - to handle adventures of every level, the Bestiary does something similar to the MM and focuses on the levels of the game that get the most play. This isn't an error, it's just a fact of the game. Way more parties fight goblins and orcs then will ever even have the opportunity to fight pit fiends and titans. So the first Bestiary is loaded toward those levels that see the most play similarly to the MM - especially as it also includes all the stuff you need for animal companions and familiars and mounts and what not. As an adventure designer, more monsters means more flexibility means more variety of encounters means a better range of adventures. The Dungeon APs were aided in their high-level efforts as there were at least 4 hardcover bestiaries that could be drawn off. We haven't had that with Pathfinder yet, and still won't for a while. Though that time is coming.
Could you have Pathfinder Modules that could be related to the AP (It would have to be able to stand alone as well to make it viable).
So if your AP ends at Level 15 you could have a level 18 Pathfinder Module with ideas on how to connect it to the AP.
(EDIT: James it was raised and JJ gave valid reasons for not doing it :-( bummer)
Sorry, I missed the thread where these valid reasons were presented, so I may be treading well-worn ground here, but I think high-level mega-adventure sequels to established APs could be a grand idea ... not something that happens directly after the curtain drops, but maybe several (or more) years later. There would be a delicate balance to strike between making the sequel feel baked-into the plot of the original, and making those who purchased the original feel ripped off for not getting the full story; however the results could be quite rewarding.
... there's a certain charm to the idea of retired or just otherwise occupied heros being called back to old haunts, Dark Knight Returns style, to deal with menaces they may have helped create :).