|
There is really nothing you can spoil in an AP, other than post statblocks or specific encounter details. They are too predictable.
Perhaps you should write your own adventures then, as others have said in both of the threads you've started.
It is obvious you aren't happy, and if you think the problem is the AP then by all means quit it.
|
|
I am running two campaigns of this AP. Are they the best campaigns I have ever run? No. But they are pretty good. I have two completely different styles of play. The first group is mostly about the numbers. How much damage can I do, deffinitely Roll players. The second group is doing more Role Play. What I notice is that the players get what they bring to the table also. I like the Ap's because I can spend the time I have to prepare the game on adjusting a story and encounters instead of imagining them all up (which I have done for most of my campaigns in the past) stat them all up, balance them for level of the party, xp and treasure then hope that it all makes sense. Here, the bulk of the work is done. I just have to adjust to my party. Toughen the encounters up for group 1. Work up gather information slips and tie encounters and scenes together for group 2.
My advice to anyone playing any adventure whether it is an AP, module or homebrew, is Don't play if you aren't having fun. Tell your group, "Call me when you get done with this one and start something else. " But, the one thing I hope you don't do, is harp about how aweful the adventure is. All that will do is bring it down for everyone. If you would rather go off and play a different game, fine but don't ruin it for everybody else. I don't ruin other folks' fun. I have several friends who play a lot of 4e turns out that game just wasn't for me. Fine, I let them go play that and I find things to do, such as collect a group who want to play CotCT.
I am happy, everyone at both my tables seems to be enjoying the campaign, perhaps for different reasons, but they brought the style and ideas of what they wanted from the game to the table and I incorporated that into the game we are playing. In some ways the games are completely different, but I am also amazed how similar they can be.
|
|
I did not say this was a problem, just stating a fact. The nature of an AP makes them predictable. There really is no way around it since this is not an open campaign. If you create a plague in an AP then of course the party knows they will be the key to solving it. By the same token if there is a group of NPCs who are supposed to be fighting the plague and they are obviously creepy then how can you think anything other than "evil baddies we will have to kill eventually". Sure its interesting in character to finally find the evidence your gut and meta thinking told you was there all along.
This scope is incredibly short sighted of the campaign. You don't seem to have enough information about what is going on to really make a judgment here.
I still find it funny that people cannot look at something objectively. There is lots of very emotional responses from people who really should have no reason to be so emotionally invested in a product they did not create.
Well, there are really two forms of objectivity being ignored here. The form you point out stems from having a game they enjoy being berated. The flip, however, is that you would like to ignore the problems you find arising that aren't caused by the AP. I wouldn't point fingers unless you were really being objective.
Is it really such a personal attack on some of these players idols to suggest that the campaign could be better by starting it with some light intown events while things are normal to create player attachment to the town in addition to their character's attachment that they have to roleplay.
I don't think anyone thought of it as a personal attack. Many of us don't think that this is the best course of action, and gave many counter examples as to what we thought would solve the problem (subjective as it is). Just because we don't buy an argument doesn't mean its a personal attack against you either. Most of us on this forum, as TigerLily has been pointing out, are GMs. As a player you are presenting us with a real series of problems in dealing with what you're asking of us.
You may want to consider this before you present more ideas for the AP here in the future. The GMs don't want to spoil your game for either you or anyone in your group, and we are trying our hardest to find a suitable middle ground.
Anyway, I've got to head to work. I'll post something else later.
Thanks,
Studpuffin
I did not say this was a problem, just stating a fact. The nature of an AP makes them predictable. There really is no way around it since this is not an open campaign. If you create a plague in an AP then of course the party knows they will be the key to solving it. By the same token if there is a group of NPCs who are supposed to be fighting the plague and they are obviously creepy then how can you think anything other than "evil baddies we will have to kill eventually". Sure its interesting in character to finally find the evidence your gut and meta thinking told you was there all along.
Beyond that we have a Chekov's Gun effect going on here. If you introduce something with any detail at all then its important to make sure that this something plays an important role in the plot line. This is important in novels, movies and plays etc. but its especially important in RPGs. Since there is a certain amount of static between what the DM is trying to convey in regards to the plot and what the players are picking up you don't want to put a lot of detail into some aspect unless you want your players to pick up on this and play off it.
Now that does not necessarily mean that every background aspect of a setting is always important. If your in the seedy part of town full of crime lords it may well not be the case that eventually you'll clean up this area and eliminate the crime lords. Could be your just passing through to get some info and then you'll be on your merry way.
In fact even extreme events are not always solved. In the adventure A Hot Day in L'Trel, there is an event that starts a fire storm through out a medieval fantasy city. Chances are the players will never get to the bottom of what actually caused the fire and its not really important - the fire serves as a background to the adventure, but its true that by and large if there is an outbreak of Lycanthropy in the village the players will probably eventually succeed in the adventure by identifying the source and putting a stop to it.
Its actually pretty important that this be the case. Players will become frustrated and loose attachment to the plot if they don't get fairly routine examples of how they have moved the story forward. A good fantasy story needs many small climaxes just as a matter of pacing to make it the best story that it can be.
Hence, the vast majority of the time, if the DM is sending you signals that all is not what it appears then probably its true and if the adventures find themselves in the thick of some plot line probably they'll be instrumental is resolving that plot line.
It seems as though you just answered your own original question. The problem lies not so much with the AP in itself, as evidenced by the numerous posters who agree that CotCT is a fine adventure. Instead, it seems as though your main problem in enjoying the adventure has more to do with your DM not being able to adjust when the players want to deviate from the railroad tracks a teensy bit.
So how can we help you with that? We can't. Not really. Unless maybe you can gently prod your woeful and inflexible DM onto these boards where he'll have a dozen Campaign Journals for CotCT to read over and access to dozens more helpful people who have DMed this path already.
Even if he never gets good at coming up with stuff off the cuff, he'll have plenty of ideas to steal from when the players don't strictly follow the path as written.
|
|
The real problem lies with a DM who refuses to think outside the box or does not have time to think outside the box. He has purchased an AP and by golly he is going to run it exactly as written with no deviation. He may be lazy, inexperienced, or not have the time to do much beyond basic game prep. Two of these reasons I cannot fault. The third suggests the DM should really be a player instead of a DM. A good DM will let some minor points become big points. Some will let them remain minor points. Variety and gentle prodding can go a long way to make things more enjoyable and less predictable.
Perhaps also the DM likes these plot points that the AP provides. I don't know the guy, obviously, but perhaps he thinks that the AP is fine as is. I wouldn't know, because you haven't said anything about what his opinion on the subject is. I would suggest discovering what it is your GM likes about the AP, why he decided he wants to run it. I bet you'll find your answer there.
|
|
I disagreed and said that would only be a problem with a DM who refused to deviate or think outside the AP. I made no comment about my current campaign at all. As would be obvious I have no idea how close to the written AP our DM is following, nor will I know until the AP is over and that is assuming I decide to read the modules.
Then how do you know the modules are so predictable?
I agree with most of your points. What I do not agree with is that everything must have meaning or it becomes frustrating. This is DnD. Between divination and player effort almost any mystery can be solved or at least enough information gathered to let a party know if they want to pursue it or not. As your example about the firestorm. It means nothing to the adventure plot wise. But a firestorm is a horribly destructive event. A good aligned cleric or paladin may want to investigate to find out why so many people died. This is only a problem if the DM is such a slave to the module that he stonewalls the players. Gaming is supposed to be about fun, if a party latches onto a minor point and it interests them all so much they turn it into a major point then by god as a decent DM you better expand on it some. Maybe the firestorm is the result of coincidences that aligned right between weather and a lightning storm, or maybe its a half insane mid-level cleric who worships the para-elemental lord of Magma and opened a small rift. Does it take that much work to create a quick villian for the party to deal with and earn a nice sense of satisfaction?
Here is an example. I was running a cleric in a Kingdom of Kalamar campaign. Throughout most of the campaign we had a reoccuring nemesis, an evil cleric, who fought us constantly and always tried to thwart our actions. By the time we finally cornered and killed him the entire party was determined to end his spree of trouble for us.
So you know where this cleric came from origionally? Me. At second level we got in a small battle and one of the foes was a no name mook cleric. Instead of dying in battle he was captured. We decided to question him to see why him and his band of orcs had attacked us. During the interrogation my cleric of vengeance was probably a bit too aggressive. After the interrogation the evil cleric was able to escape when an actual plot relevant attack happened. The evil cleric escaped and the DM instantly decided that my actions had created the perfect opportunity to create a paty nemesis. He got a pretty good laugh out of it almost a year later when the campaign ended and he told us all the full story.
The real problem lies with a DM who refuses to think outside the box or does not have time to think outside the box. He has purchased an AP and by golly he is going to run it exactly as written with no deviation. He may be lazy, inexperienced, or not have the time to do much beyond basic game prep. Two of these reasons I cannot fault. The third suggests the DM should really be a player instead of a DM. A good DM will let some minor points become big points. Some will let them remain minor points. Variety and gentle prodding can go a long way to make things more enjoyable and less predictable.
Well your really addressing two points here. One is player backgrounds and personal goals while the other is predictability.
Its certainly possible for the players to latch onto any specific event within a campaign and choose to follow up on that. I agree that if this plot point is not to disruptive to the overarching campaign its best if the DM runs with that and develops it. Its fairly common within RPGs for characters to have backgrounds which the DM works to integrate into the plot line.
I think most would agree with this. Thats not really a Chekov's Gun issue - there is usually enough going on that the players will potentially latch on to things that are not core to the plot in any case and the DM will hopefully be flexible enough to roll with that. For an AP the material presented - because it has limited space should all be generally important for the story. The players will still manage to find ways of latching on to things that are not the main focus all by themselves but, unless you want them bouncing off the flavour text like ping pong balls, the main story should not be cluttered with many irrelevant details.
The other aspect requires more exploration. Essentially lets consider how one makes things unpredictable for their players. So you know about the boat that sunk in the harbor. Finding that it was part of the story was no great surprise. Furthermore there may be allied NPCs introduced earlier in the campaign that are going to be relevant and enemy NPCs that will gain more focus. As a DM I can hide these things in a few ways.
I can stash them among other events - so you knew that boat was important. However if I, as a DM, had worked out a system of news in the city - I use my local newspaper for inspiration to come up with, say, a hundred stories. Everyday the players hear a new interesting story but I make sure that if they look into it then it turns into a dead end. That way the players will just hear - 'a ship sinks in the harbour' as one more of the 40 other stories that I mentioned already that are red herrings and the chances of them investigating are slim to nil.
It'd hide the important details from my players but I'm not sure it'd make for a better game. Unsure whats important and whats not the players probably won't even remember that I told them that a ship sank in the harbour since they long ago stopped listening when I gave them the news bits.
Same deal with NPCs - you can keep the players guessing as to which ones are important by mixing in a lot of irrelevant ones but its pretty questionable if this is a good plan. This is, if you think about it, what tends to plague murder mystery's in both novels and TV. Truth is once Agatha Christie used 'The Butler did it' to death there stopped being a good way to surprise the audience - introducing irrelevant characters is bad writing but the audience can usually figure out the end result if all the main characters are known. Its a problem that, by and large simply has not been overcome. Its just assumed by modern murder mystery writers that most of the audience will see the end result coming a mile away.
You can keep the players guessing in regards to who are or are not their allies by mixing up who is actually a good guy and who is a bad guy. This certainly works but needs to be used sparingly or the PCs will get to jaded. For example Jeremy's first rule of Cuthulu is after the nice old man give you the opening sequence to the adventure you get one of the other players to distract him and then you garrote him from behind - then burn the body and scatter the ashes. We all know that he's either an evil cultist trying to dupe us or a Demon thingy in which case we have the best chance of escape with surprise or some poor unwitting sap who will invariably go insane by the end of the adventure and try and kill everyone in some sort of fit of delusion...usually by touching a book (never touch the books).
Obviously you can reverse this with the bad PC that is an ally. Actually both these themes do appear in at least 60% of all Paizo APs. Might want to stay on your toes. Still this kind of thing needs to be used sparingly - to many examples of either kind of NPC damages the concept which works best when it comes up only occasionally. At the end of the day most of the time predictable is good - keeps the players focused and moves the story forward.
Oh and finally...
"If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."
— Playwright Anton Chekhov (From S. Shchukin, Memoirs. 1911.)
In modern literary theory Chekhov's Gun.
I've removed some posts (and responses to those posts.)
Just a few reminders that name calling is unacceptable, and that it is polite to use spoiler tags.
I've removed some posts (and responses to those posts.)
Just a few reminders that name calling is unacceptable, and that it is polite to use spoiler tags.
Thanks Ross!
"Evil is just plain bad. You don't cotton to it. You gotta smack it on the nose with the rolled up newspaper of goodness." - The Tick
I've removed some posts (and responses to those posts.)
Just a few reminders that name calling is unacceptable, and that it is polite to use spoiler tags.
Including a post where I define Chekhov's Gun? I'm baffled.
Including a post where I define Chekhov's Gun? I'm baffled.
Sorry. That one accidently was caught in the cross fire. I've restored it.
|
He may be lazy, inexperienced, or not have the time to do much beyond basic game prep. Two of these reasons I cannot fault. The third suggests the DM should really be a player instead of a DM. A good DM will let some minor points become big points. Some will let them remain minor points. Variety and gentle prodding can go a long way to make things more enjoyable and less predictable.
Interesting point....you got to be kidding if your saying that any DM that has no time to go over a "purchased" module or AP should not be a DM but a player.
I have been reading this thread for a while, staying neutral. But that just blows my top off. I have been playing (A)D&D since 1979, and started GMing in the mid 80s of the last century. If you are implying that people (GMs) who don"t have enough time to "perfect" any "GAME" because they have a full time job, kids and other commitments out here in the real world, should better not Gamemaster any Games, than here is a piece of advice to your Gamemaster: Take Money from your players for all the work you (the GM) have put into the campaign, cause it seems there are people in your group who don't seem to appreciate you, or the small amount or big amount of your spare time that you invest in your campaign so that players like Moriartty can have fun.
|
|
He may be lazy, inexperienced, or not have the time to do much beyond basic game prep. Two of these reasons I cannot fault. The third suggests the DM should really be a player instead of a DM. A good DM will let some minor points become big points. Some will let them remain minor points. Variety and gentle prodding can go a long way to make things more enjoyable and less predictable.
Interesting point....you got to be kidding if your saying that any DM that has no time to go over a "purchased" module or AP should not be a DM but a player.
I have been reading this thread for a while, staying neutral. But that just blows my top off. I have been playing (A)D&D since 1979, and started GMing in the mid 80s of the last century. If you are implying that people (GMs) who don"t have enough time to "perfect" any "GAME" because they have a full time job, kids and other commitments out here in the real world, should better not Gamemaster any Games, than here is a piece of advice to your Gamemaster: Take Money from your players for all the work you (the GM) have put into the campaign, cause it seems there are people in your group who don't seem to appreciate you, or the small amount or big amount of your spare time that you invest in your campaign so that players like Moriartty can have fun.
My bad. When I wrote that I assumed it would be obvious which ones I meant. I excuse an inexperienced or a busy DM. A LAZY DM though in my opinion should be a player and not a DM. I say this because a lazy DM probably has the wrong mindset or attitude to be a DM.
My apologies if I wrote that badly.
Well, maybe I misunderstood your meaning. Nevertheless, thanks for the clarification. (apology accepted and at the same time asked for, for misinterpreting your statement)- As for the LAZY DMs.... I am with you.
In regards to the inexperienced DMs... they should go on DMing, for only by experience one will learn!
My suggestion to any inexperienced (or unsure ones): ask feed from your players...and try taking that feedback to heart. I have not met one DM who id not have to learn from experience, nor have I met one who has been born to the task.
joerg
Interesting point....you got to be kidding if your saying that any DM that has no time to go over a "purchased" module or AP should not be a DM but a player.I have been reading this thread for a while, staying neutral. But that just blows my top off. I have been playing (A)D&D since 1979, and started GMing in the mid 80s of the last century. If you are implying that people (GMs) who don"t have enough time to "perfect" any "GAME" because they have a full time job, kids and other commitments out here in the real world, should better not Gamemaster any Games, than here is a piece of advice to your Gamemaster: Take Money from your players for all the work you (the GM) have put into the campaign, cause it seems there are people in your group who don't seem to appreciate you, or the small amount or big amount of your spare time that you invest in your campaign so that players like Moriartty can have fun.
I actually think there really is a reasonable argument to be made that a very busy DM maybe should just not be the DM at all. Obviously this is a situation that needs to be handled case by case and I think it can be a very sensitive issue, liable to lead to hurt feeling, but it is basically reasonable to expect the DM to have time to do effective prep.
Now I definitely am of the opinion that if the players don't want to step up to the plate then they don't really have the right to complain. A game thats in a bit of a straight jacket may well be better then no game at all. Even just reading the adventures probably means at least 3 extra hours of prep time per week so if no player is willing to do more then the players should be happy with what they got even if its a bit 'out of the can'.
That said the DMs chair is a seductive mistress. My feeling is that a lot of people that really don't have the time to be a good DM choose to do so even when it would probably be best for everyone involved if they just stepped aside and let some one with more time run the game.
None of this is to say that the players don't owe it to the DM to cut him or her some slack. A busy month is a busy month and it happens but if the DM has a high powered career and a family life that keeps him or her very busy then maybe another player is the better choice for DM (presuming that another player is willing to put in time and effort that the busy DM just does not have).
My suggestion to any inexperienced (or unsure ones): ask feed from your players...and try taking that feedback to heart. I have not met one DM who id not have to learn from experience, nor have I met one who has been born to the task.
Its not a bad sentiment but I've found that this step faces two hurdles that are hard to get around.
One is that people generally don't want to offend other people. A lot of the time the players just don't give good feedback for poor areas of the game. Much of the time just keeping an eye on your players will give you the best feedback your likely to get. If they are into whats going on your doing good - if they are irritable and distracted then you need to work on whatever it is your doing. One major caveat is that player mood plays a huge role here - if they are tired then pretty good sessions can seem weak and if many of them are really on the ball then sometimes the players are carrying the weight of the game and turning something thats not very good into something that is lots of fun. So don't place too much stock in isolated cases. Its repeated examples of the above that tell you areas that need in[improvement.
The other problem with player feedback is that its often somewhat offbase. Essentially good DMing is often a matter of figuring out what your best at in terms of DMing and emphasizing that while de-emphasizing the parts of DMing that you suck at. Often the players don''t have any real clue as to these strengths and weaknesses and may demand something that the DM just can't deliver on or that, if s/he delivers in this area it'll actually hurt the game.
For example a DM might be terrible at reading out loud. You counter that by making sure that your descriptions are brief and easily dealt with by playing off the cuff or ad libbing. A player that then demands that the world be given more depth and detail is actually asking the DM to focus on an aspect of the game that is weak for this DM. The DM is actually probably better off getting past the descriptions as quickly as possible in order to get to areas of strength - such as zipping quickly over the descriptions so as to get to the NPCs, where an amazing talent with voices is always a big hit at the table.
My feeling is that soliciting feedback is tricky and often leads a DM down a blind alley. More often then not if a player wants a DM to improve in a certain area of the game a better answer is for the DM to try and avoid having that weak area come up or try and gloss over it real quick in order to get things to the part of the game where s/he shines.
Hence I think often a DM should try and be aware of his or her own strengths and weaknesses and make an effort to be introspective as this will probably pay bigger dividends at the table then player feedback.
I once changed "There is No Honour" the first adventure in the STAP into an Eberron investigation (the PCs were members of the Watch). The trick is to pull each section of the adventure apart and see if you can have a common thread.
Then add a corpse with clues that the PCs could interpret as being part of different locations.
Now the PCs are investigating this murder and showing up in all sorts of crazy places.
This really works as well - though, in the end, you'd probably find that what your looking for is a mix of clues leading to the next scene or clues leading to an NPC that can be interrogated to lead you to the next scene.
In the end these are still basically Fed Ex Quests but there is something about the PCs proactively going to find the NPC that makes it much more palatable. While it seems tired and boring to have the NPC approach you at the bar and get you to go on the quest it never really gets boring cornering some NPC down a dark alley and intimidating him into sending you on your Fed Ex quest. They are the same thing from an adventure design (or adventure structure maybe) standpoint but players much prefer the proactive version. Thing is it also requires them to be paying much better attention. If your sent by a friendly NPC to do something you can always go get more info (well usually anyway). If you track down the petty crook and force him to divulge secrets with the threat of violence its not so easy to go back if your forgot to ask a key question.
DM aka Dudemeister -> Better late than never.... +1
Jeremy -> I agree also...
I Think it's a great idea to take it from being the chain of Zelda quests to making it like a Private Investigator because it puts the players more in charge of their quest. By giving them a role in investigating and solving things it takes the bitter I'm listening to my GM ramble a lot while 'I pick up these boxes and drop off more while doing nothing'.
I just picked up the entire adventure path (my players paid for half) and I was looking for ideasand critique on this thread. From what I've gathered I'm going to try to run this . Anyone else read this? I appreciated all the relavent posts that were made too BTW... ofto look at more threads...