Creative Director
|
One of the most important services a player's guide can provide is presicely the information you're requesting we do not include. An adventure path is a significant commitment, and it's important that the players in an adventure path know what they're getting into before they start. Hiding the primary theme and plot of an adventure path from the PCs is risky, because if they don't want to play the type of campaign the GM has selected for them, you run a very real risk of having players create characters that are simply unsuited to take part in the campaign. The result is a player who has a character who isn't fun to play.
Think of an adventure path as a movie, or even better, a multi-part long-running TV series that, once you start watching, you have to watch to the end. Not every genre of entertainment is equally interesting to everyone, and if you hate westerns and the movie or long TV show you've committed yourself to watching turns out to be a western, you'll be very disappointed.
Now, if you play a type of campaign where you enjoy surprising your players with the exact plot developments, and your players trust you enough to go along with that type of game... you'll need to do some adjustments to our player's guides before you provide that information to your players, and you'll also probably want to ask your players to avoid reading any of the boards here at paizo.com or even reading about our products. Obviously, that's not the best situation for us at Paizo since we WANT our customers to be engaged with our products and our website, but it's your game in the end.
So in closing, with a campaign like Kingmaker where the major elements are SO unusual and different (exploration without a driving storyline and kingdom building) from what we've done over the past several years with our adventure paths, we simply can't afford to hide that information from potential players.
At least, that's the vibe I've been getting over the past several years of listening to feedback from players and GMs. If there's more folks out there who think our Player's Guides give away far too much, please let us know! If that's the case, it's a DRAMATIC change from the way things have been for some time, and we need to know about that change in order to keep providing products worth your money and time.
My players' characters were already told by their employers in Restov that they would be offered a chance to settle and make their own kingdom/empire/state in the Greenbelt, but only after they had dealt with the bandit problem there. This gave them a bigger reason to explore and make the area safer.
If they were just sent off just to explore and deal with a few bandits I don't think they would have accepted the first charter so easily unless there also was some sort of reward for doing so.
It should perhaps been more clear in the beginning of the AP that doing the first charter would lead to the second charter. The Swordlords of Restov probably already had plans to have the "Greenbelt group" settle when they sent them off to explore anyway. Atleast I choose to believe so.
|
My players' characters were already told by their employers in Restov that they would be offered a chance to settle and make their own kingdom/empire/state in the Greenbelt, but only after they had dealt with the bandit problem there. This gave them a bigger reason to explore and make the area safer.
If they were just sent off just to explore and deal with a few bandits I don't think they would have accepted the first charter so easily unless there also was some sort of reward for doing so.
It should perhaps been more clear in the beginning of the AP that doing the first charter would lead to the second charter. The Swordlords of Restov probably already had plans to have the "Greenbelt group" settle when they sent them off to explore anyway. Atleast I choose to believe so.
I think the Kingmaker Player's Guide did exactly what it was meant to do. Every book that Paizo or anyone should not need to state 'please' ask your GM for details. That should be a given. As GMs we tell em what's available in our game (house rules etc). The guides help the GM with background for the pcs that hopefully ties them in better with the up-coming campaign. It is still our responsibility to explain what pertains to them, and its awesome that your players are thinking ahead to when they are leaders don't penalize them use it as a 'carrot'. I'm not sure if a paladin would make a great King, but it would be fun to find out. There are so many role-playing possibilities that can and will come up-- please keep us posted and good luck.
PJ
Ps Just my 2 cents.
I think it's pretty fair to assume that the players won't be kings from the very beginning and if they assume something like that, it is easy to solve the problem. Actually, the players will already ask you about future opportunities for expansion...why should players be told to ask the GM about the game he is gonna run?
Why aren't you talking in length about what the AP is to your players? You seem to believe in the need of some GM mysticism about the content of the AP and I don't think it's a good idea when you're planning on starting a lvl 1-18 campaign.
I don't see how the Player's Guide is preventing you from doing your job as a GM. The player's guide gives a lot of answers about the kind of campaign that kingmaker is but it also raises a lot of questions and this is where you intervene.
If you have issues with the content of the player's guide and you'd rather be the one to share it with your players, just make sure that it is clear to your players? The consensus is pretty much that the KMPG is a great product. In the end, most players won't read it from cover to cover and you will still need to go back on some details with the players before the campaign starts.
Haven't read anyone mention that the KMPG took ANY fun out of their game because of information found in it.
What you are saying (if I understand correctly) is that the city/kingdom building aspect of the AP should be hidden from the players before the second book starts..? I don't get it. It is the main selling point of the AP and the players should be getting excited about that part before the first book begins.
|
Creative Director
|
That's cool and all, but most players are going to instantly go "oooh, let's figure out what kings we want to be." But, they aren't kings... yet.
I guess I just don't see that as a problem. I mean... the name of the adventure path is "KINGmaker" after all. Even if the PCs don't read the player's guide, if they hear anyone mention the name of the AP they'll know something is up.
And if a player starts the campaign with a character concept that basically equals "I want to become a king," then that's just about perfect for the AP. It's more fun for a player, in my experience, if you build a character and the GM then makes sure that the campaign is a perfect one for that character concept to flourish. The best way we can make Adventure Paths work that way is by giving out the guidance we do in a Player's Guide.
And the Player's Guide IS a selling point for the AP. Not just so that folks who read it will buy the AP, though, but mostly so that folks who read it will want to PLAY the AP. It's better for Paizo if our entire customer base has an equal chance to get pumped up on an AP rather than just the GMs.
What I don't want to see are people posting things like "I didn't know this AP was going to be so undead-themed; if I'd known that I would have not made a character who's helpless against undead," or "I didn't know this AP would have so much moral gray erase, if I'd known that I would have not made a paladin," or "I didn't know this entire campaign would be set in a city in the middle of the jungle, if I'd known that I wouldn't have made a druid." All legitimate complaints from players of our early Dungeon magazine APs. APs where we didn't provide Player's Guides at all, or if we did, they didn't do a very good job at selling the AP correctly.
See, what I think you are thinking is that the Player's Guide needs to be the selling point on a campaign. However, its not the Players that need to buy the product. GMs will be purchasing your product. Players Guides, in my opinion, should be "pumping up points" for players. Put these points that exist in the Kingmaker in the Adventure Path, let the GM do their job; selling the players on the campaign.
The deal is - you assume that you, as a DM, can say to your group of players: "Guys, we're playing Kingmaker." and the players to be "Oh, ok." and express no intrest whatsoever what will campaign be like. Yes, you can say "it's an exploration-type campaign", but that's not the main idea of Kingmaker, is it?
With some groups it may work like that. With others (like mine) it doesn't and some players want to know what they are playing before we start. When Kingmaker was published and Player's Guide made available for download, I downloaded it and was at once stunned by the very idea of running a Kingdom.
Since we rotate DMs between Adventure Paths, I immediately called a friend who said he'll DM the next one (I finished DMing Savage Tide at that time) and said to him that this if freaking awesome and he has to DM it for us. He said ok.
Afterwards will split the price of the AP between us that's it.
The reason why we are all so excited at the prospect of playing is PRECISELY because we know we'll run a kingdom. If a friend came up to us "hey guys, want to play a campaign, but I can't really tell you the main idea behind it" we probably wouldn't be that excited.
YES, if we did end up playing it, and found out in game that we're supposed to be kings, some of us would probably pass out due to awesomeness of the idea, but the problem is, it would be harder to make players to play an AP which they know nothing about.
It's easier to motivate players if they know what are they getting themselves into, so it's a known fact that Savage Tide includes lots of demons, pirates and ship travel. It's a fact that Age of Worms is undead based. It's a fact that Shackled City is about protecting the PC's home town. It's a fact that Council of Thieves is an urban revolutionary campaign, etc etc.
And that helps players to decide what they want to play.
Conversely, they went the other way for Rise of the Runelords, taking great pains to conceal the main plot for... the first four issues. Running that AP, I have often had to generate new ways to drop the main plot in because the players have little or no context for it!
I guess what I'm saying is that a GM running an adventure path needs to make certain decisions as his campaign evolves. It is clear that you want a little less disclosure than the KMPG offers, which is certainly your right. You know your group better than the writers of the AP do. You're the GM.
But, in fairness to the format and the writers, you certainly have read the KMPG thoroughly before allowing your players access — even if it contained none of the spoilerage that you feel it does. It's your duty as GM to be aware of the players' knowledge base, so that you can add to or redirect it as needed.
I do sympathize with you that "the cat's out of the bag" now, and that cannot be undone. I don't think Pathfinder AP players guides should return to a rigid disclosure policy though, because they've tried that and it ends up pretty disconnected from the AP. (other than Runelords, the Legacy of Fire players guide springs to mind as an example.)
Of course...
As a GM, you can just deflect your players intentions and turn the spoiler on it's head. Maybe once the stag lord is dealt with, their patrons send in an arrogant noble to be the new boss, and they have to deal with that! :)
I somewhat agree with the OP - or more accurately I'd be annoyed if such major plot points where given to my players ahead of time. I understand why it was done however and suspect that if your the type of DM who wants to slowly build up to the epic finale in actual game then its probably incumbent on you to provide the players what they need to start running the campaign yourself and not use the Players Guide.
For me and my group, the Kingmaker PG was a major selling point, many of us being old Birthright fans and such. While I personally didn't find anything in the PG that I would term particularly "spoilerish," I can see as the GM several ways to easily step around players getting too much info at the start:
1) Rename the campaign. I do this with most campaigns I run anyways, as it is so much easier to distinguish my Kingmaker campaign as "Kingmaker: a Tale of Two Cities" (or just "Two Cities") from all the other Kingmaker games running out there. Shouldn't be hard to just rename it with some other appropriately thematic title ("Taming the Wilds" or something like that fits well, for instance). If you want to push concealment of the campaign identity even further, try getting or making book-covers to disguise the AP. It probably won't keep it secret forever, but may work long enough to add to the mystery of what's coming at least for a little while, and establishes from the start that the players cannot assume you are sticking to something in print, so they'd best stay on their toes.
2) Make your own campaign PG. If you selectively copy and paste, and possibly rearrange, the Kingmaker PG info into a new document in a selective way you can refocus the info your players are looking at right at the start. It's also a great way to put in your own tweaks and ideas, presuming you want to change a few things here and there. This is especially a good idea for those wanting to move the game to a different setting (such as all those who have been using Ebarron, for example). It also may be a great way to illustrate how to make use of new races or classes the core rules don't cover (such as all the new APG classes, or those from the ToS).
The AP PG is a convenience, but ultimately, like many gaming tools, completely unnecessary. I have several players who've been with me since the start of the campaign who have never read it, and have no interest in reading it. They had their ideas on a character, and preferred talking it out with me from the perspective of someone walking in with no spoilers, and it worked out just fine. For those who did read it though, the idea that they might get to be king (or courtier) was a great motivator for the long-term "build" of their character, and they had no problem rolling up their sleeves to play explorer first to get there.
|
Conversely, they went the other way for Rise of the Runelords, taking great pains to conceal the main plot for... the first four issues. Running that AP, I have often had to generate new ways to drop the main plot in because the players have little or no context for it! (snip)
I actually edited my Runelords Player's guide to omit any reference to the word Runelord so as to remove that "spoiler". I worked with my PCs to develop deeply integrated characters though.
I personally wouldn't sweat that the Players are wanting to set the kingdom up early and I would probably let them try (by asking for an expanded charter etc.). If they are thinking along these lines before the campaign starts, I would put that into their character background and into the back-story of the charter right off the top. Depending on the background, they could have been told that they are getting an exploration and pacification charter at first but that if that goes well, they would be getting resources to actually start building a colony.
Actually, there's nothing that I can see that would make it a problem for them to be starting off with building a settlement during the first adventure because it is in the sandbox style, other than interactions with NPCs (like maybe Oleg would resist being annexed until he knows that his erstwhile rulers are serious about taking care of the bandit problem).
Why aren't you talking in length about what the AP is to your players? You seem to believe in the need of some GM mysticism about the content of the AP and I don't think it's a good idea when you're planning on starting a lvl 1-18 campaign.
I have no issues with the Player's Guide. I am of the same mind that for an Adventure Path that is supposed to take you from level 1 to 18 it is best if the players have some vague idea of what the campaign is going to be about in the general sense.
Simply saying there is going to be kingdom building is going to occur up front is a non-issue to me. I've let my players know as I want them to know what to expect and for them to object to me running Kingmaker if they have zero interest in Kingdom building. While it sound fun to me, they might not want to have anything to do with it.
Even with the knowledge that they will be building kingdoms there are still a huge amount of possibilities that can occur during the campaign that I don't feel like any secrets have been let out of the bag.
Just to add my 2cp, I think the player's guide is spot on. As a player, I'd actually be upset if a major point of the campaign is to make a new country and I didn't know that beforehand (many character ideas would be terribly unsuited to it).
At this point, the GM should be listed of the information currently in the KMPG, so the GM can really do the same job that you have been attempting to accomplish, except they are getting it from the person they are interacting with (+ to Diplomacy) instead of some company (no offense, people react better with eye contact).
I think it's also important to remember that GMs aren't going to have all the answers to these "ask your GM" questions unless they start running the AP after they've received all the books. I know many people launch their campaigns within a month or two of the first book's release. If the PGs don't lay the groundwork for players to build PCs who will have close ties to or useful skills and abilities in the forthcoming adventures, how are parties who may not know that fey will play an important role or that they should have at least one "face" character expected to feel satisfied with the later half of the AP? Sure, a GM who follows all the upcoming product descriptions and chats and spoilers and such may be able to hint at this, but those who see a cool cover in their FLGS and decide to start the campaign on a whim might not. Putting all the onus on a GM to develop the campaign from start to finish is asking a lot.
I understand your point - in my opinion Cthulhu (as an example) works best if you don't even know you're playing Cthulhu. Sometimes a grand reveal can be a lot of fun, and gifting your players with a kingdom could work this way.
Or it could backfire in any number of ways (James has given several examples). As someone who used to try and pull these kind of "spring it on the PCs it will be an awesome surprise!" kind of games, I can tell you it usually works better to give information (movie-trailer style) than to try and spring things on your players - especially for longer campaigns. Too many chances that a) your players figure out what you're up to anyway over time b) you can't pull off what you really wanted (it always works out better in your mind, no?) or c) players are disappointed because your reveal totally screwed with their plans. The last thing you need is for your grand surprise to backfire and leave a sour taste in the players' mouths. That's a deal-breaker.
If you have players that like to metagame and can't keep non-character information to themselves... well that's another issue.
Besides, players have a habit of forgetting anything useful that a GM tells them anyway... ;)
Knowing the basic premise of Kingmaker was for my group something that catapaulted it instantly to the top of "we want to play THIS". It brought to mind older campaign memories of Birthright and Bloodstone Pass, and got their minds working overtime for concepts with facets usually not steered towards in previous AP play.
I and my group of friends have NO complaints about the players guide the way it is.
|
|
I can imagine many players being annoyed if they were sold the game being all about exploring wilderness, and then it later being sprung on them that the game is in fact more about them becoming rulers of their own nascent kingdom.
“So for our exploring the wild frontier, monster killing, map-making wilderness adventure, we created a yokel ranger (dump stat: charisma), a cartography-nerd wizard (dump stat: charisma), an anti-civilisation, city-hating druid (dump stat: charisma) and a monster-slaying, killing machine barbarian (dump stat: charisma) ... and now you’re telling us we need to build a town and rule a kingdom? And the main stat you need as a leader is charisma???”
Just to add my 2cp, I think the player's guide is spot on. As a player, I'd actually be upset if a major point of the campaign is to make a new country and I didn't know that beforehand (many character ideas would be terribly unsuited to it).
This should be the main point.
If the characters aren't aware there will be kingdom building, and that their characters are expected to fill leaderships roles, there is far too much chance of creating characters that don't "play well" with the campaign.
I don't think a GM would squash player conversations of character class/roles during character creation, and I wouldn't expect a discussion about potential leadership roles to be squashed either. The only time that characters should "step on each others' toes" is when the players want it.
I understand your point - in my opinion Cthulhu (as an example) works best if you don't even know you're playing Cthulhu. Sometimes a grand reveal can be a lot of fun, and gifting your players with a kingdom could work this way.
Or it could backfire in any number of ways
Yeah, like when people suddenly find out they're playing CoC! You had them playing months and they had not chance to start the "Race to 0 SAN" until now!!! ;-)
Or maybe there's someone in the party who doesn't want to play CoC.
players are disappointed because your reveal totally screwed with their plans. The last thing you need is for your grand surprise to backfire and leave a sour taste in the players' mouths. That's a deal-breaker.
That reminds me of one of the worst GMs I played under. He was the guy who would not only put on the kid gloves, but would basically tell us that he won't kill characters.
He told me that I was not allowed to create a rogue, because I'd "overpower everything again". We knew that we'd join a thieves' guild or something at some point in the campaign, but nothing else. So I created a Ranger who wanted to become a deepwood sniper.
Then, when we joined that guild, he told us all that we had to take one level of rogue because we're now in the thieves' guild - screwing over everyone's character concept (and I don't just mean that it would delay my getting into deepwood sniper, or the necromancer and his goal to become an alienist - it didn't fit any character really to become an actual rogue.
He settled for forcing us to taking some skill ranks.
Of course, this is the worst possible situation, but still, it shows what can happen if you leave players in the dark (well, and be incompetent to boot).
Standing at the intro paragraph is enough spoiler information that makes me want to slap some writers in the face.1. You explain about the issue between the Stolen Lands and stuff, but you give the full synopsis on why they are there AND what the repercussions will be AND the homeland's motivations for doing it.
You want to become physically violent against someone for explaining the political background of the characters' home to them?
That's stuff most characters (except the oblivious and/or stupid) would know. Not giving this vital information to the players should earn your disapproving stares (not being slapped in the face, though - I mean, where are we?)
2. You give the players the first thing saying "You move in and instantly been given kingship."
Are we talking about the same player's guide? Because the one I have open right now doesn't say that at all:
"Your group of characters begins the Kingmaker Adventure Path as one of four groups sent south into the Stolen Lands to defeat bandits and, hopefully, to establish one of four new nations in the River Kingdoms. It certainly won’t be an easy task. Before any such settlement can even begin, the bandits and monsters must be dealt with."
There, it says, in so many words, that they first have to pave the way before they can play king.
Things PCs don't need to know right off the bat:1. Players are going to be building a nation upon the point they are exploring.
2. The northern kingdoms want to use this 'ancillary task force' to build a nation without changing the supplies on the northern kingdoms.
3. Players are going to expand and build. I know that by session three players are going to want the rulings for establishing rule and building upon Oleg's Trading Post.
Read the title of the document you're complaining about again! It's NOT Player Character's Guide. It's player's guide.
While the characters don't necessarily need to know of their eventual fate, it's very different for players!
1. You have to tell people that Kingmaker isn't about rushing around in dungeons and slaying monsters. They absolutely need to know that the playing style will be different, that it will be about first exploring the area and later also about building, ruling and defending the kingdom!
If you don't tell the characters that, they might make characters that are totally unsuitable for the campaign. Unless you like to play that kind of "concept lottery" with your players, you're very wrong to keep that sort of information from them (and if you like to play concept lottery: Are your players okay with that sort of abuse?)
2. The "you're mostly on your own" theme is a big part of the path. It's important to know that they won't be mere vicegerents.
3. Actually, if they have read the player's guide, they know they first have to clear the area of bandits.
That's cool and all, but most players are going to instantly go "oooh, let's figure out what kings we want to be." But, they aren't kings... yet.
How about a safe compromise. I understand you want to let players know the commitment they are getting themselves into, how about something that would lead them to ask the DM, the actual driving force behind the game, about things. Here is a cool little blurb (needs work, but I'm not a brilliant writer like you guys (no sarcasm))
"Kingmaker is a campaign where you will explore the 'Stolen Lands,' chartered Brevian interests. Here you will adventure, gain allies (and enemies), and build your character. However, when you start out, you will be moving through and exploring your designated plot of land. Ask your GM about future opportunities for expansion."
See, what I think you are thinking is that the Player's Guide needs to be the selling point on a campaign. However, its not the Players that need to buy the product. GMs will be purchasing your product. Players Guides, in my opinion, should be "pumping up points" for players. Put these points that exist in the Kingmaker in the Adventure Path, let the GM do their job; selling the players on the campaign.
I really like the Players Guides, don't get me wrong, however, with Kingmaker, its an entirely new play style. Don't take it the wrong way, I've read the campaign up to Part 5 of the first book and it sounds amazing: you guys did a great job so far. Its also your poison. You all want to talk about it, however, as writers and "Head GM" you could let them know it is possible, but as the "first strike" you need to let them know:
1. The concepts mentioned are not available right off the bat.
2. Your GM should be asked about this.At this point, the GM should be listed of the information currently in the KMPG, so the GM can really do the same job that you have been attempting to accomplish, except they are getting it from the person they are interacting with (+ to Diplomacy) instead of some company...
The opportunity to be rulers is what hooked a lot of players. For some newer players it is a new concept, and for the old school players it has not been done in a very long time. I don't think there is anything wrong with the players knowing they will be rulers. They do need to know they will have to earn the land, and that the titles are not automatic though.
Although I'd like a little more caution in the players guides, I've learned to appreciate them for the little nudges they secretly give to the players that will benefit from different aspects of the AP. A certain recent PG that gave the option of being a wannabe actor that ~unexpectedly~ came into play a few levels later.
What did steam me just recently, though, was the in the kingdom building rules of Kingmaker itself where the writer very helpfully announced that their city would be attacked in issue 5. In what is otherwise a useful "give a copy to your players" ruleset, there's going to be a big black bar across that section.
I have to say, I missed (or forgot about) the mention of the Stag Lord in the Player's Guide. I was kind of having him be a reveal after defeating Kressel. When I mentioned the Stag Lord, one of the players said "oh, that guy" and it really threw me off. It seems like there is a little disconnect between what book 1 seems to think is known about the Stag Lord and what the Players Guide does.
Personally I think the players guide did exactly what it was supposed to do. Help players create characters that are tied to the campaign. This cant be done without at least some spoilers. But at least for me it means that you can create a character that will feel like a part of the story instead of just acting in it.
More then once I have started games with only a general idea of the starting conditions and no direction for where the story might go. And because of that I end up with a character that wouldnt actually participate in what is going on in the campaign.
En example came in a d20 modern game I played once. We were told it was going to be a crime solving drama set in new york city. So i created a tough ex cop turned private eye. When the campaign turned into a paramilitary rebellion against a corrupt US government, I realized my character, who i had grown to really like, simply wouldnt participate in this campaign further. Not only does that bring my playing to a screetching hault (and force me to create a new character), but it also means that I didnt feel a part of the story, and the loss of a primary character hurt the overall feel of the campaign.
I like what paizo has done with the players guide, and I hope they continue to do something similar in the future. Honestly if you are the kind of dm that doesnt want any spoilers at all, what is the point of a players guide in the first place?
|
I'd just like to chime in and say the Player's Guide to this AP (as well as the rest of them) are fantastic resources for both DM and Player alike.
With Kingmaker, I knew long before the books came out that I would be the optimal DM of our group, as I really enjoy the city-building, crafting a world on the go, style of play.
I was then able to say to our group: "Here's the general concept, if you'd like to play in this AP, bear these things in mind..." and hand them (or link them to download on their own, in this case) a full-color document with lots of useful information.
As far as "we want to decide on rules and jobs now" goes...that would have happened to us no matter WHAT kind of game we play. It may be an idiosyncrasy of our group, but we typically plan lots of things out from an early point, and work on achieving goals along the way.
We had manors and holdings built in Savage Tide (in Sasserine, nonetheless), political movements and plans to undertake the test of the Starstone in Curse of the Crimson Throne, and LOTS of property management in Council of Thieves. Without the heads up that certain people would have certain jobs in Kingmaker, it'd be a lot more chaotic to begin.
Long story short: keep my Player's Guides just the way they've been!
|
Creative Director
|
What did steam me just recently, though, was the in the kingdom building rules of Kingmaker itself where the writer very helpfully announced that their city would be attacked in issue 5. In what is otherwise a useful "give a copy to your players" ruleset, there's going to be a big black bar across that section.
That is indeed unfortunate. Of course, the kingdom building rules being inside of Pathfinder, we tend to relax the spoiler guard quite a bit due to the perception that GMs don't let players read Pathfinders. This is a false perception, obviously, since we often put articles in Pathfinder that ARE intended to be safe for players to read (the deity articles come to mind). We'll try to be better about the spoilers in this venue in the future.
|
Creative Director
|
I have to say, I missed (or forgot about) the mention of the Stag Lord in the Player's Guide. I was kind of having him be a reveal after defeating Kressel. When I mentioned the Stag Lord, one of the players said "oh, that guy" and it really threw me off. It seems like there is a little disconnect between what book 1 seems to think is known about the Stag Lord and what the Players Guide does.
The Stag Lord wasn't intended to be a "mystery" bad guy. We're still stinging, honestly, from complaints that we keep our bad guys secret for too long; a complaint that quite rightfully can be attributed to Age of Worms, Shackled City, Savage Tide, and Rise of the Runelords. These days, unless we REALLY need to keep a bad guy secret, it's generally though of as a good idea for the PCs to know or hear about them well in advance of actually encountering them. And this is a sound practice; really. Remember that the GM knows all about the Stag Lord and his key role because that information's all over the background material in the adventure. But when it plays out, if the first time the PCs learn about him is in his fort, or worse, in their first and last fight with him, the Stag Lord (or ANY bad guy NPC) suddenly becomes nothing more than "one more fight." He's got no more weight than a wandering monster when it comes to the storyline.
I have to say, I missed (or forgot about) the mention of the Stag Lord in the Player's Guide. I was kind of having him be a reveal after defeating Kressel. When I mentioned the Stag Lord, one of the players said "oh, that guy" and it really threw me off. It seems like there is a little disconnect between what book 1 seems to think is known about the Stag Lord and what the Players Guide does.The Stag Lord wasn't intended to be a "mystery" bad guy. We're still stinging, honestly, from complaints that we keep our bad guys secret for too long; a complaint that quite rightfully can be attributed to Age of Worms, Shackled City, Savage Tide, and Rise of the Runelords. These days, unless we REALLY need to keep a bad guy secret, it's generally though of as a good idea for the PCs to know or hear about them well in advance of actually encountering them. And this is a sound practice; really. Remember that the GM knows all about the Stag Lord and his key role because that information's all over the background material in the adventure. But when it plays out, if the first time the PCs learn about him is in his fort, or worse, in their first and last fight with him, the Stag Lord (or ANY bad guy NPC) suddenly becomes nothing more than "one more fight." He's got no more weight than a wandering monster when it comes to the storyline.
I completely agree, they should learn about foes long before they face them. That way you can build up the hatred for the final showdown. I'm just a little annoyed that I built it up so that when the players interrogated Kressel at the end of the first session and she revealed that she worked for this mysterious bandit leader called the Stag Lord one of the players said "oh, that guy." It was kind of anti-climactic and threw me for a second, but really only affected the first session a little bit.
|
Creative Director
|
Maybe as a compromise Paizo can make it easier to edit the PG's by providing them in HTML or RTF? I don't have the tools to edit a PDF and I'm not sure if you can do that legally without licensed software from Adobe.
Providing our products in a format that makes them tough to edit is a bonus for us, honestly. If we let these files out into the wild as RTF files, it'd hurt our professional reputation as a company that provides high-end, professionally presented products. It'd also make it very difficult for customers to tell apart actual Paizo-approved and Paizo-produced content from content that's been altered but then represented to the world as if it had been done by Paizo.
In short, we aren't interested in releasing HTML or RTF versions of our Player's Guides because it devalues the brand.
There's nothing preventing anyone from copying and pasting the text from a protected pdf into their own rtf or other format document in order to present their players with a redacted version. You can only use that text for your personal use, however, and not for public distribution. But it is one solution if you want to provide your players with some information from a player's guide or Pathfinder AP support article without giving them the document itself.
Thanks!
No, thank you for being so civil in expressing your opinion!
I think that's exactly the conclusion we've all drawn from this thread: different people want different levels of disclosure from the APPGs. Future GMs should take note! Read the APPG first before you run the AP and be sure that you're okay with the level of disclosure!
Perhaps it would be wise to include a little advice for GMs on these topics somewhere, either in Part 1 of a given AP or in the APPGs themselves? Not unlike the way APs now have leveling guidelines...
Good luck, Imper1um!
Maybe as a compromise Paizo can make it easier to edit the PG's by providing them in HTML or RTF? I don't have the tools to edit a PDF and I'm not sure if you can do that legally without licensed software from Adobe.
Well, there are several tools on the market for extracting text from PDFs, converting them to Word and other Office formats and so on. The one I'm using is PDF Transformer from Abbyy, and I use it to extract the text from the PDFs and then republish it on a private website that's only accessable to me and my players. The advantage for us is that I can vet the material before publishing it for my players and remove potential spoilers (like the one in the mass combat chapter).
So, by letting players know that they will rule the kingdom on the first page, they will build rulers. But, in the beginning, they don't need to be rulers yet; they need to be explorers, and mappers and...clearers.
Well, in this AP it is more important than it has been in previous ones that the players plan ahead for the next phase, that is the kingdom building one. If there's no one in the party that is suitable as a ruler the party will surely enjoy that part of the campaign less, and that part makes up the majority of the AP. Now, just because they are planning for the kingdom building part this doesn't prevent them from making good explorers as well. If you notice that they are focusing too little on the exploring part it's is your job as a GM to nudge them in the right direction, just as it's your job to make sure that they have suitable character for the next part of the campaign as well.
|
Well, the issue I have isn't with the Stag Lord. You can know all you want to know about it. It represents something people have to accomplish in the first place.
As a GM, I just have the opinion that players should learn things as they need them. In my experience, players will work towards a problem as soon as they know about it. By letting players know of something that they need to fix, they will fix it.
So, by letting players know that they will rule the kingdom on the first page, they will build rulers. But, in the beginning, they don't need to be rulers yet; they need to be explorers, and mappers and...clearers. They don't own anything yet.
My grumble in this player guide is that it presents an issue that the players have to deal with in something beyond Book 1. In the previous Player's Guides, I've read them, and I don't see too much of that stuff happening. Concepts are kept to Book 1 only for the PG, which is nice. It means I just have to go: "Download the PG Free on Paizo.com!" However, this one, I have to say, "You can download it, but ignore this section, that section and this section, because it's not something you have to deal with yet."
Now, I will say this as a closing argument, since my players have been exposed to this, as a GM, it's a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because now players are going to build towards Rulers over Explorers making it that much harder to get through Book 1. It's a curse because now I also have to "pull my punches." As I have said before, I'm a vocal minority. I don't like it because it's my play style as a GM. Everyone else may have a different play style, but this one is mine.
Thanks!
KaeYoss said this above, but it seems like you must have missed it or something. The Player's Guide says: "Your group of characters begins the Kingmaker Adventure Path as one of four groups sent south into the Stolen Lands to defeat bandits and, hopefully, to establish one of four new nations in the River Kingdoms. It certainly won’t be an easy task. Before any such settlement can even begin, the bandits and monsters must be dealt with."
Isn't that pretty much saying that, although they will *eventually* be rulers, they do need to be capable of fighting bandits and monsters beforehand? In short, doesn't that one paragraph cover your worries?
My grumble in this player guide is that it presents an issue that the players have to deal with in something beyond Book 1. In the previous Player's Guides, I've read them, and I don't see too much of that stuff happening. Concepts are kept to Book 1 only for the PG, which is nice. It means I just have to go: "Download the PG Free on Paizo.com!" However, this one, I have to say, "You can download it, but ignore this section, that section and this section, because it's not something you have to deal with yet."Now, I will say this as a closing argument, since my players have been exposed to this, as a GM, it's a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because now players are going to build towards Rulers over Explorers making it that much harder to get through Book 1. It's a curse because now I also have to "pull my punches." As I have said before, I'm a vocal minority. I don't like it because it's my play style as a GM. Everyone else may have a different play style, but this one is mine.
Well, did you want them to play explorers that were totally unsuitable for ruling? That would have meant that you would have had to pull punches for the other 6 books.
Plus, the PG still says that you need to explore first. If they want to "overlook" that part to make squeamish, soft ruler types, it's their problem really.
I see the players guide akin to a movie trailer, where you give them enough hints to wet the appetite, maybe name some of the major villians or characters, and provide some mechanics to further that point on what may be expected. 99 percent of the time, everyone is good, but there will always be special cases. If players discuss who wants to be a leader, be happy, as that will lead to the appropriate classes and skill sets to make the experience more enjoyable. But also explain if everyone is a leader, other parts of the team may be missed.
I recently read the players guide for Kingmaker and found nothing wrong with it. had the information in question be omitted I think it would have detracted from the guide. The point about having characters appropriate to the campaign is also very important. I think most of us who have been playing for a long time have dealt with characters built in ways not conducive to a campaign (such as a ranger specialized in desert melee combat finding himself in an ocean going adventure with lots of ranged combat)
I think there is some confusion here. I agree that there is too much information in the PG but it's not the information about the chance to become rulers that bothers me. It's the information about the political intrigue that leads up to the charter being issued. The PG should only contain details that the the PC's should know. Simply because in my experience the most common form of metagaming is accidental. Once a bit of information is out there it starts to influence actions and once that has happened it seems wrong to erase/rewind. So in true tyrannical fashion I'm going to redact a few lines on the first page.
I went the exact opposite dirrection with it and gave my players loads more information than the players guide had in it. I felt that information was some of the most important, because it allowed players to build the intrigue into their backstory, which gives me ties back to Brevoy for enhancing the politics later in the AP. Players should know about what is going on in the regions they are from, otherwise they can only create cookie cutter characters.
Besides, all of that knowledge is pretty much public anyway. There is a reason Brevoy is heading straight towards civil war.
|
I have to say, I missed (or forgot about) the mention of the Stag Lord in the Player's Guide. I was kind of having him be a reveal after defeating Kressel. When I mentioned the Stag Lord, one of the players said "oh, that guy" and it really threw me off. It seems like there is a little disconnect between what book 1 seems to think is known about the Stag Lord and what the Players Guide does.The Stag Lord wasn't intended to be a "mystery" bad guy. We're still stinging, honestly, from complaints that we keep our bad guys secret for too long; a complaint that quite rightfully can be attributed to Age of Worms, Shackled City, Savage Tide, and Rise of the Runelords. These days, unless we REALLY need to keep a bad guy secret, it's generally though of as a good idea for the PCs to know or hear about them well in advance of actually encountering them. And this is a sound practice; really. Remember that the GM knows all about the Stag Lord and his key role because that information's all over the background material in the adventure. But when it plays out, if the first time the PCs learn about him is in his fort, or worse, in their first and last fight with him, the Stag Lord (or ANY bad guy NPC) suddenly becomes nothing more than "one more fight." He's got no more weight than a wandering monster when it comes to the storyline.
This almost happened to my players. They ran through the first bandit camp, slaughtering everything including Kressle without any asking questions first. They did encounter Davik Nettles, who happened to mention some guy called the Stag Lord, so he wasn't a complete mystery when they did enter the fort - one player decided to infiltrate it first and discovered everything that way and reported back to the rest of the group (managed to sway a couple of bandits against Dovan while there). End the end, they didn't realize that the Stag Lord was the BBEG of the whole mod though. But i'm happy that his was the one name they remembered still....they aren't very good at remembering NPC names that sound 'fantasyish' Stag Lord is easier to remember vs. Akiros or Bhekken for them apparently. It's 'the ex-paladin guy' or 'the berry man.'
Though, and it's my bad I missed it, the writer did indeed put in the Stag Lord's quest block near the end of the book that the first time the PC's come back to Oleg's after clearing out Kressle's camp, that a representative from Brevoy arrived with a second charter for the PCs to find and kill the Stag Lord.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is some confusion here. I agree that there is too much information in the PG but it's not the information about the chance to become rulers that bothers me. It's the information about the political intrigue that leads up to the charter being issued. The PG should only contain details that the the PC's should know. Simply because in my experience the most common form of metagaming is accidental. Once a bit of information is out there it starts to influence actions and once that has happened it seems wrong to erase/rewind. So in true tyrannical fashion I'm going to redact a few lines on the first page.
The problem is, if you exclude all that information, then the players (yes the players not the characters) have no idea what is going on untill the half way through the AP. Look at shackled city. My group was like 15 sessions into the game and we literally had no idea what the plot was, why were were doing what we were doing and who the actual villans were. It felt like a string of modules. Allow the players to put a few of the pieces together early and they will feel more a part of the story, and can better get into the meat of it. Keep them completely in the dark, and it feels superficial, and shallow, because they arent aware of all the depth that is going on behind the scenes.
I think there is some confusion here. I agree that there is too much information in the PG but it's not the information about the chance to become rulers that bothers me. It's the information about the political intrigue that leads up to the charter being issued.
I agree, reservedly. I don't mind having the information about the intrigue. It could be very relevant to some characters.
But the display of the information is a bit too much tell over show. It goes beyond suggesting facts about the macro political outlook, it goes out and tells the players just where they fit within it. I don't think it really needed to be that overt, and it somewhat stands out when it's followed by a "traditional" game open for The Stolen Land. There's a bit of a disharmony there.
But, frankly, it's such an easily fixable quibble that I'm readily willing to write it off to gamestyle.