Hiya.
**WARNING: Long semi-rant below**
Ok. First: I'm an olde-tymer (started playing in '81; mostly DM'ing since...). So that's where this is comming from.
I really like the concept of the 'adventure path'. The way I see it, it's like an expanded "Adventure Module Series" back in the 1e days. In other words, take the "U" series for 1e: "U1: The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh", "U2: Danger at Dunwater", and "U3: Final Enemy". That was, at it's core, an "Adventure Path". The PC's start off at level 1, and by the end of the last adventure, they are probably cresting out of 5th. In those days, I'd equate that to roughly 15 to 30 8-hour weekly sessions. I guess in nowadays terms, with a 'typical' session seeming to be about 4 hours, that would double the # of sessions, leaving us with a whopping 30 to 60 sessions (or, something around half a year to a year or so). Admittedly, this is likely to be shorter by a bit, so lets round it down to the lowest; call it 6 months of play for all 3 modules at 4-hour sessions.
Anyway...my point (I do have one). Every AP I've played (admittedly only 2 and a bit) has seemed "rushed". Like it's some kind of race to get to the end. The individual adventures seem to more or less requier the PC's to be at the 'high end' of the level range for the adventure. Looking at the U series I mentioned above, the ranges are 1 - 3, 1 - 4, and 3 - 5. So, basically, it is quiet concievable to have but 3rd level characters going into the final adventure. However, looking at a PF AP, say Council of Thieves, the first 3 adventures have levels of: 1 - 3, 3 - 5, 5 - 7. In short, it requiers that the characters be of the maximum level for it's level range in order to move on with any chance of survival.
Does anyone else see this as not neccisarily a good thing? Why does one have to be 'high level' in order to 'do heroic stuff'? Is this just a younger-generation 3e thing? Honestly, I've had 1e and Basic D&D campaigns where the PC's never got past 5th to 7th level, yet they saved countries, continents, societies, even the whole world. Why the mindset that only 18th level characters can 'save the world as we know it'?
So, am I alone in wanting to see an Adventure Path spread out over 6 modules, but with a MUCH smaller range of levels total (say, 7 or 8 in stead of 14 to 20). In short, I want to stay around one area, so to speak, for most of the AP. Looking at Second Darkness...how many of you would have loved to have had the characters home base of Riddleport actually *be* a home base for the entierty of the AP? Maybe not constantly there, but at least being within reterning distance. I'm still reading up on it (my next AP is very likely going to be this one, 'converted' to PF), but it seems like the PC's just get comfy with Riddleport and it's environs only to be whisked far away. It has the feeling of "Ok, you saw it. Stop looking. No, no you can't look anymore. Go. Go! Out the door with you!" *shoved out the door* "See? ... Ok. Enough of that. Stop. Out you go. Go on! Git!"...*shoved down the road*... (rinse, repeat).
As a side note, I'd like to see some AP's developed with either the Fast or Slow XP progression. Call them "YAP" and "GAP" (Youngling AP and Grognard AP); where those who need the immediate gratification/advencement (which, not trying to point fingers, just saying, the younger folks tend to like, IME) get their fill, but the old foggies like me (again, not pointing fingers, but older folks tend to like slower advencement, IME) can enjoy. I'm *really* not looking forward to anything resembling 'high level' PF play (9th or higher as far as I'm concerned).
Ok, enough ranting on my part. I'm just getting increasingly frustrated with the current mentality of "Cool..but look at that NEXT thing over there!". Are my group and I totally alone in this?
^_^
Paul L. Ming
your not alone in this
I and my two groups would love to have the AP's go from 1 to 10 in 6 Parts
but I fear we are the minority here
Try using the E6 or E8 rule set, in which characters cannot get a level past sixth or eighth, but still advance with feats and such. You can find the set and its revisions on enworld. It's great if you feel like DnD is best at the mid levels, before teleport and raise dead complicate things.
Does anyone else see this as not neccisarily a good thing? Why does one have to be 'high level' in order to 'do heroic stuff'? Is this just a younger-generation 3e thing?
I think of the adventure paths as more similar to the Temple of Elemental Evil (levels 1-8) and/or the GDQ series (levels 8-14). That whole combo would take you from level 1-14, similar to the Pathfinder adventure paths. So it's not a "younger generation" thing.
The big difference is that progression was way, way slower in AD&D. It was a design choice to speed that up in 3E D&D. Personally, I like it; I play only sporadically in face-to-face games and play-by-post games are very slow, so I would never reach level 7, let alone level 16, without a fast progression. But some people are used to a much slower speed and/or much more frequent game sessions. YMMV.
Have you checked out the Kingmaker Adventure Path? That one is definitely not a race to the end - in fact, you're better off taking your time and really benefits from a slow-moving campaign.
I'm asking for some short APs, in addition to the long ones, perhaps.
Note that Pathfinder has some (sort of) linked series of modules; they're just not called Adventure Paths (tm).
E.g. D0, D1, D1.5 (Hollow's Last Hope + Kobold King modules) and LB1, LB2 (Tower of the Last Baron + Treasure of Chimera Cove) and Crypt of the Everflame+Masks of the Living God+City of Golden Death.
Seeing my character grow is part of the fun. I will admit it does stretch immersion for some people to go from level 1 to level 3 in only a few weeks in game time, but I don't want to stay at low levels for a long time in real life either. The other thing is that low level characters in this version of the game don't know have the resources to threaten the world. A level 7 character might harass a small city, but not too much more.
PS:Hogarth has a good point, and so Liz with Kingmaker. It is an excellent game. We are on year 13 in my game.
I'm of two minds myself.
On the one hand, I love the idea of a campaign taking years (in game terms) to complete, with deep investments in characters, plot lines, and really living out the character's lives.
On the other, I have a full time job, limited time to play, and kind of enjoy laying waste to my enemies with a few meteor swarms (or what have you.)
I don't know if the APs do a good job of balancing that out. (I'm only currently GMing Kingmaker, having had no other exposure to APs before this.) Kingmaker, at least, doesn't have the "rush to the end" feel you're talking about - so it might be your cuppa.
But from what I've seen of the APs, they provide some good, rollicking fun campaigns, with very solid advancement (by which I mean, at the end of, say, Kingmaker 1, you will be 4th level in time to start Kingmaker 2, and so on) that doesn't require much fiddling with as a time-rushed GM.
So give and takes, sure. If I had an infinite amount of time to plan and play, I'd do so infinitely. But I don't, so... I'm okay with that.
It's like the game Baldur's Gate. It's a great game. But getting from 1st to 2nd level is a freaking nightmare in that game. (I suppose, unless you play a rogue, but good luck with that.) It just takes forever. And then you don't get much higher than level 8 or so - even assuming you do absolutely everything there is to do in the game.
It, frankly, gets a little boring to me.
I think Paizo did a wonderful thing when they introduced the three different XP pacing charts. That way a GM can set his own pace. (For example, one of the two campaigns I'm running I decided to use the slow XP advancement, but I wanted to rush them past the first couple of "Oh my god, I got breathed on and will die" levels - so I awarded them double experience until they got to 3rd. That left the rest of the 17 levels for slow, lingering adventuring.) Nothing's really stopping you from doing this... well, clearly the APs aren't built right off for it, but I'm sure a clever GM can finnagle it so he doesn't have to do things this way.
As hogarth said, the linked modules sound like they are just what you guys are looking for, and don't even require changes to the AP layout.
You know, I think sometimes I myself have a disconnect between my ideal campaign and what actually works at the table and feels satisfying for everyone.
When I first saw the multiple XP tables with a "slow" advancement, I thought it would be great to regain my "old school" memories, being able to really roleplay and and enjoy levels for many, many sessions before leveling up.
But talking with most of my players, they like level based games where they are getting levels every few sessions, and don't really want to meander much at any given level.
And to be honest, given the fact that I can't run multiple sessions, and I can't run Saturday sessions for six or seven hours at a shot, like I could in my youth, I realize that I don't really want a long drawn out campaign either.
In other words, the "perfect" pace seems to be, for my group, getting a few sessions to enjoy the abilities you gained at a given level, then moving on.
This may not apply for other groups, but its an interesting realization that came to me upon discussion and reflection.
|
As hogarth said, the linked modules sound like they are just what you guys are looking for, and don't even require changes to the AP layout.
I can see how it might appear that the linked modules are just what we are looking for, but to me, they are not. There is a huge difference in quality and depth of story and continuity between the modules and APs.
I know that I could spend some time and flesh out the modules farther and essentially create my own APs. But if I had the time to do that I wouldn't be subscribing to Paizo's APs in the first place.
The modules serve their role well. As do the APs.
I would really like to see a AP, with all the accompanying tie-in products, that provides the AP experience in less than 6 chapters.
Tam
As hogarth said, the linked modules sound like they are just what you guys are looking for, and don't even require changes to the AP layout.I can see how it might appear that the linked modules are just what we are looking for, but to me, they are not. There is a huge difference in quality and depth of story and continuity between the modules and APs.
I know that I could spend some time and flesh out the modules farther and essentially create my own APs. But if I had the time to do that I wouldn't be subscribing to Paizo's APs in the first place.
The modules serve their role well. As do the APs.
I would really like to see a AP, with all the accompanying tie-in products, that provides the AP experience in less than 6 chapters.
Tam
That itself i would hazard to say is almost certainly not going to happen. I have seen the paizo staff commenting on many different threads that the AP's are their flagship and the bread and butter of their market the way they are now, so they would be loathe to nuke that.
I think they've also previously noted that not all ap instalments take the same amount of time. The first and last take considerably more effort in terms of setting up and winding up the story properly. Creating two three instalment aps would be much more work than one six instalment one.
Hiya.
Thanks for the input guys n' gals. :)
A few things I want to comment on...
A shorter "Quasi-AP" might be just what I'd like. One of the things I really enjoy about 1e/Hackmaster is that I could "string together" module series. So, for example, I could start with U1-3. Then I could move on to I1-2, then follow it up with S1-4. I could tie them all together in any number of ways with minor changes. If Paizo could do some "3-part mini-AP's", with perhaps a slighly 'lighter' story hook, that'd be awesome!
As to the XP thing; I tried the Slow XP first (when we started the Council of Thieves AP). We liked it...until we realized we couldn't actually do the AP using Slow. At least not without some serious extra foot-work. Next, and currently, we are trying Fast XP. I did start them at level 4...but after two sessions they all hit 5th and are almost 6th after the thrid. The comments I heard at the table basically boiled down to "Wow...I just got this new feat/spell/ability last level and haven't even used it yet...huh...". Or, to put another way, Fast XP is too fast for us to enjoy. So, it looks like Normal XP will be what we may end up using, but I fear even that is too fast. Maybe Paizo needs a fourth option; "Logarithmic XP". So the first 2 or three levels would go by fairly quickly, then slow down around 5 to 7, and then really slow down past that. Or, in other words, more like 1e... ;)
Anyway, I just got all my Second Darkness stuff today (took advantage of the Black Friday bundle deal waaay back when...just got the package today...exactly 30 days to get here...not Paizo's fault, I blame the postal service and where I live...no worries though, at least it's here! :) ). I'm going to delve more into it and see if I can tweak it to be a MUCH more "Deeplands" oriented crawl. We'll see...
^_^
Paul L. Ming
As hogarth said, the linked modules sound like they are just what you guys are looking for, and don't even require changes to the AP layout.I can see how it might appear that the linked modules are just what we are looking for, but to me, they are not. There is a huge difference in quality and depth of story and continuity between the modules and APs.
Just curious -- what specifically didn't you like about the story from Crypt of the Everflame + Masks of the Living God + City of Golden Death, for instance?
Im like Pming in this. I enjoy slow-progression games that do not need to get 'to the top'. In fact, also as Lee Hanna said, I don't enjoy high level so much. More than that: I prefer to not go pass level 10 (at most!). And I realized that was the feeling with many of the people I RPed with. Our campaigns tended to end around 12-14 because it suddenly lost interest of the party (who would procceed to create new chars and start all over).
I'm not sure if it is simply a matter of player age, but of 'the times'. Instant gratification, or, more specifically, the concept of gaining new powers quickly, is a modern thing that many players (old and new) seem to enjoy nowadays. I see it both in pen & paper as in electronic gamining. I also see complains like ours in both. It is rather common for electronic RPGs (not only MMOs) in which you must 'kill 10 rats/wolves/etc) on earlier levels, and end up facing the BBG only weeks (months?) later. I remember one post in another forum about a guy complaining of why he couldnt be sent to kill a necromancer on level 1 because it sounded epic.
And thats the big deal. If the player feels his actions matter, that they are epic and heroic, they will be, no matter if you are fighting a dragon whose stats are that of a wolf.
Now, I'm GMing for two partis made up of a mix of half old-timers (who are used to Call of Cthulhu and Vampire) and new-blood (who began at D&D 3rd edition and MMOs). We´re using slow progression and E6 rules (which didn't come to play yet). They have played 4 4-hour sessions so far, no level up, no magical item rewards. And you know what? They didn't complain of it, because they are enjoying the ride. I guess that's the difference.
Well, enough rambling! The thing is, Paizo published for the major public (as any company would do). I believe, in the end, we (who enjoy low-level, slow progression) are a niche in today's market, so not "worth" (economically speaking) of specific products. Now, there is something else Paizo is probably aware of too: 'we' are used to adapting, as the new market isn't. We are used to create and mold game elements to our needs. So it is a lot easier for 'us' (this niche market) to adapt what comes out (either APs or linked modules) to our taste.
BTW, Id also love an AP that stayed put! That was what I expected of The Crimson Throne (and the main reason why I never GMed it as written). In fact, while I took pieces of all issues into adventures of my own, I never ever took anything out of History in Ashes, which I believe was the worse issue I laid hands on (and I hate drow adventures, but any Second Darkness issue is still above History in Ashes for me).
Do most folks feel like they have to use the APs exactly as written?
or is it the fact that older gamers with work, family, etc. just don't have the time to rework APs?
I've always enjoyed putting my own twist on published material to tailor it to my party and work in some of the great older material I have in the closet. I've been playing for decades as well and remember having to create my own AP with a couple of modules and a battered map of Greyhawk. I guess I'm not really understanding why folks don't use an AP as more of an intermittent outline, run at slow progression and fill in as needed. I plan on mashing up Freeport material with Serpent's skull and throwing a bit of the Pharoah series into Legacy of Fire.
Why does one have to be 'high level' in order to 'do heroic stuff'? Is this just a younger-generation 3e thing? Honestly, I've had 1e and Basic D&D campaigns where the PC's never got past 5th to 7th level, yet they saved countries, continents, societies, even the whole world. Why the mindset that only 18th level characters can 'save the world as we know it'?
No, it is neither a "younger-generation" nor a "3e" thing. I've played lots of older edition campaigns years ago, and saved the world only at higher levels.
Your particular style turns out to be just a personal, individual thing.
As a side note, I'd like to see some AP's developed with either the Fast or Slow XP progression. Call them "YAP" and "GAP" (Youngling AP and Grognard AP); where those who need the immediate gratification/advencement (which, not trying to point fingers, just saying, the younger folks tend to like, IME) get their fill, but the old foggies like me (again, not pointing fingers, but older folks tend to like slower advencement, IME) can enjoy.
/snip & add/
As to the XP thing; I tried the Slow XP first (when we started the Council of Thieves AP). We liked it...until we realized we couldn't actually do the AP using Slow. At least not without some serious extra foot-work.
Nothing new here. Older edition players should be used to this. Actually, it should be entirely expected.
I, for one, also much prefer slower advancement (we do half XP), but I'm under no illusions that I'm going to have to actually do some "foot-work" and add side adventures. And the result? The "rushed" feeling goes away even further.
I'm *really* not looking forward to anything resembling 'high level' PF play (9th or higher as far as I'm concerned).
...
Are my group and I totally alone in this?
For the most part - yeah, pretty much.
If I want an AP, then I want an AP. If I want a bunch of strung-together adventures, I get that from the module line. I certainly don't want the AP line to be butchered and become something it's not.
|
I'm in the middle of my third AP and it seems to be a constant problem that my players fall behind in levels. I either have to give way more points for things than I want to (a precedent I'd rather not set) or add in extra adventure to get them where they need to be. (I realize that I could do away with XP as many have done, but my players love the XP system.)
One solution that I will probably implement in the future is to award XP for downtime in the story. If the PCs get a few months away from the main story instead of fitting in some mini-adventure to get them up a level, I may just assume that adventures use their downtime for more adventuring and bump them up a level and award one or two magic item upgrades; then back into the AP we go.
I really love the AP format. It gives me maximum freedom to be creative and keeps my players absorbed. For instance, I reworked Tomb of Horrors for 5th level PCs and dropped it into Legacy of Fire after an NPC (Oxvard) located a treasure map. It gave me an excuse to use all that great artwork I had from Tomb of Horrors that none of my players had ever survived long enough to see. Great fun and it enriched the AP plotline.
Anyway, is there a problem to the AP structure? Yes, but I wouldn't want Paizo to give me everything. I want room for my own stuff to fit in, so it works very well for me.
You're not alone. I hate high level (10+) play. I'd love an AP that maxed out around 8th level. Let's have our characters save the world without lots of math!
(And no, "stopping early" isn't a solution: I want the story to go epic, just not the numbers on my sheet.)
I'd love an E6 AP. I know it'll never happen, but pming, you're not the only one that feels this way.
Hiya.
Ok, from the looks of it, I'm not alone. Yay! :)
I'm actually one of those "tweeker-style" DM's; I *love* tweeking an adventure (or outright converting it; I have the first two Age of Worms adventures converted to be set in and use the old Star Frontiers sci-fi RPG, for example).
I'm actually planning on changing much of Second Darkness to be 'underground' more (I want it to be much more of a Darklands AP). I'm also considering changing the part of it where...
Anyway, I guess I'd just like to see more condensed (level wise), more 'loose' adventure paths. *shrug* We'll see what I can do with Second Darkness. :)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I've found, personally, that our local groups don't quite want the "in depth" game that is being asked for here -- they want a bit of story, with some regular stimulus (aka combat/traps/treasure) that they have a strong role in shaping.
Now I personally have been missing the sort of long term deep game being suggested here -- but for such a game I would want many more, longer gaming sessions than I have available and most importantly a GM I know can do it right.
I feel that everything that is needed to make such a game is in the adventure paths, and if the GM is willing could be great fun -- but no matter what a company offers any such "AP" would take serious commitment and work from the GM.
That's where I see all this heading -- it is the GM's responsibility to have a game that draws you in like that and the player's responsibility to respond in kind by developing a playing a character (instead of just a sheet of paper) giving ideas and hooks to the GM to help inspire and bolster the GM.
It's kind of like the GM is writing a book -- only he doesn't control the characters -- just the setting and what goes on around them -- the characters know the GM exists to some extent and do what they can to encourage and influence him into the sort of life they want to lead with their actions, deeds, purchases, and choices.
Just my return rant :D
|
As to the XP thing; I tried the Slow XP first (when we started the Council of Thieves AP). We liked it...until we realized we couldn't actually do the AP using Slow. At least not without some serious extra foot-work. Next, and currently, we are trying Fast XP. I did start them at level 4...but after two sessions they all hit 5th and are almost 6th after the thrid. The comments I heard at the table basically boiled down to "Wow...I just got this new feat/spell/ability last level and haven't even used it yet...huh...". Or, to put another way, Fast XP is too fast for us to enjoy. So, it looks like Normal XP will be what we may end up using, but I fear even that is too fast. Maybe Paizo needs a fourth option; "Logarithmic XP". So the first 2 or three levels would go by fairly quickly, then slow down around 5 to 7, and then really slow down past that. Or, in other words, more like 1e... ;)
To comment on just this aspect. Something you could do is what I have seen some other games do. Namely older version of Spacemaster. Anyways that is at first gaming session times the xp by 5, 2nd and 3rd session by 3, 4th, 5th and 6th session by 2 and then normal. Then just use the slow advancement. What that should do is they level fast till about 5-6th level and then start to really slow down. Now keep in mind the other games where built to work that way, so it might not work as well with Pathfinder, but something like that should work.
|
|
Just curious -- what specifically didn't you like about the story from Crypt of the Everflame + Masks of the Living God + City of Golden Death, for instance?
To clarify, this has nothing to do with any dislike of the module stories. I like them very much, I just feel that they fill a different role than APs at my table.
This might be better explained by a comparison.
Lets take Crypt of the Everflame, Masks of the Living God, and City of Golden Death and compare them to three chapters of an AP, say the first three chapters of Serpent's Skull; Souls for Smuggler's Shiv, Racing to Ruin, and City of Seven Spears.
The module adventures average about 28 pages in length compared to about 56 for the AP adventures. I am not saying this speaks to quality, but it does speak to the fact that a module adventure cannot simply replace an AP adventure. And it also waves the 'breadth' flag high. I will be the first to admit though, that if Paizo put out a series of 6 modules that got my group to 10th level, I would be much more satisfied with that as a substitute.
The three module adventures seem to top out around 6th, maybe 7th level. The three AP chapters are expected to take characters to about 10th level. Not a huge difference here, but the AP chapters do get me to my favored sweet spot for ending adventuring careers.
The real kicker for me is the additional support material included with the APs. Between the three module adventures there is a total of 11 pages (and this is being generous) of support material to help me flesh out the story and the world around the PCs. And some of this material doesn't even fill that role, the best of what does is the 4.5 page description of the town of Kassen. In each AP chapter, on the other hand, I have no less than 32 pages of material that is flavored specifically to assist me in making that chapter's story even better. In Souls for Smuggler's shiv for example, I am given additional threats and and an encounter table specifically flavored for this adventure and environment. There is also an article on being shipwrecked and fellow castaways, as well as one detailing the ecology of one of the APs primary adversaries. I am also given some non-fiction that is not only fun to read but, again, mirrors the environment and to some extent the flavor of the adventure.
I still haven't taken into account the support that APs sometimes get in the other product lines. Examples include Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to the River Kingdoms, Heart of the Jungle, Dark Markets: A Guide to Katapesh, and the Guide to Korvosa. Or Pathfinder Companions like; Cheliax: Empire of Devils and Sargava: The Lost Colony. Then there are also the player's guides.
In short, I would like to see a short AP. Not a short series of modules. They are distinctly different.
I would love to see a shorter AP, 1-10th or 1-8th level. 3 chapters maybe. But definitely given the AP treatment, not the module treatment.
Tam
Let me add my voice to say that a full AP going up to only 10th level would be just fine by me. After 10th level, the game breaks down in a lot of ways that I don't like to see as a player or as a DM.
I want to temper the enthusiasm of those in our camp, though, with harsh reality. It isn't going to happen. The APs are Paizo's flagship products, and they experimented with lowering the final level to 12th or so (Council of Thieves) and raising the final level to 18th or so (Kingmaker). Kingmaker has been one of their best-selling APs, and CoT one of their worst-selling. So I think it's not unreasonable for Paizo to feel that they made a "mistake" in producing a low-level campaign, and they aren't going to endanger their key product by doing it again.
Here's what I plan to do, if I run an AP again: nearly all of the APs seem to have a large section about the 60 percent mark (sometimes a whole issue) that seems to be "filler material". That is, it can be cut down to only a couple of encounters and not impact the story. I would edit out the "filler material" and then revise the rest of the adventure path down in difficulty. This should make a 1st-10th AP pretty handily. I may even use E8 rules for it, if I can convince my players.
I think if they shortened up the APs any more I would consider canceling my AP Subscription
Creating adventues 1-10 is alot easier then creating the high level stuff thats part of the appeal of APs it does the work for us. So I like the high level adventures in my AP I personally perfer the old Dungeon ones that went through 20th
|
|
I want to temper the enthusiasm of those in our camp, though, with harsh reality. It isn't going to happen.
I do really understand this. And I also understand in the end I will have to follow a similar path as the one you outlined to get the product I want. But as a long time, dedicated, Paizo supporter, I am comfortable in the knowledge that even though their ideal product might not reflect some of my own preferences, they will continue to earn my loyalty with the products they do release and the level of service they provide.
Tam
|
|
I think if they shortened up the APs any more I would consider canceling my AP Subscription
Creating adventues 1-10 is alot easier then creating the high level stuff thats part of the appeal of APs it does the work for us. So I like the high level adventures in my AP I personally perfer the old Dungeon ones that went through 20th
For the record, I was not asking that they shorten all the APs. Just looking for a few, rare, shorter ones.
That said, you can rest assured that if you feel, in the future, that an AP does not meet your standards, and decide to unsubscribe for it's duration, I will happily maintain my subscription so that Paizo can continue to publish them in hopes of producing one that brings you back.
I have an unsaid, until now, agreement with Paizo (though there is a small chance that this agreement exists only in my head). I will support them as they shepherd my hobby, through the thick and thin. I may never actually run Second Darkness for a group of players. But I bought it, because I don't just support the books, or the game, I support Paizo to preserve my hobby. And this support is fully capable of weathering the occasional disagreement.
That counts as a weird tangent right? Perhaps I am feeling sentimental in the New Year.
Tam
|
|
For me the current pace is perfect, my only complain is the lack of downtime in most sdventure paths, as it is most adventure paths take 1 year to 2 years and a half to complete, thats a huge time investment,so slowing the pace dont seem like a great idea, making the adventures end at lower levels doesnt seem very clever either, business wise, given the complains at the APs wich have ended at lower levels and the cries for higher level AP.
|
|
What if, XP was slower, and Paizo put out a 12 chapter AP that made it to 15th level?
Part of my reasoning is that level ups have really sped up under 3.5 and Pathfinder. I get that that was a design feature of the D20 system. It just seems that players barely have time to experience their characters at a certain level before they are on to the next one.
How long does it take to play through an AP chapter? 4 4 hour sessions? If that is the case, and I am not absolutely certain that it is, and some AP adventures expect PCs to gain 3 levels over the course of the chapter, then the average PC is spending 4 hours play time at a given level.
That just seems crazy to me.
Tam
What if, XP was slower, and Paizo put out a 12 chapter AP that made it to 15th level?
Part of my reasoning is that level ups have really sped up under 3.5 and Pathfinder. I get that that was a design feature of the D20 system. It just seems that players barely have time to experience their characters at a certain level before they are on to the next one.
How long does it take to play through an AP chapter? 4 4 hour sessions? If that is the case, and I am not absolutely certain that it is, and some AP adventures expect PCs to gain 3 levels over the course of the chapter, then the average PC is spending 4 hours play time at a given level.
That just seems crazy to me.
Tam
It seems to be about 4 to 6 hours per level for my group. They have already said they won't mess with the 6 month AP format for various reasons. This was within the past year when a push was being made for a 20 level adventure. There seems to be more people that want more than those that want less so you will get the opposite of what you want if anything ever does change.
I'm a fan of how the current APs work out, and I probably lean more toward an AP that stretches to 20 levels.
However, I did try to run the LoF AP on a slow XP rate to have a slower progression and add more encounters.
However, even this became a bit tedious for someone who doesn't have time to write up their own stuff anymore. Doesn't it seem like there may be a niche for a 3rd party publisher to create supplemental material for APs? The Slow Path, perhaps? Just a thought.
I will throw my 2 coppers into this thread. .
I also like the idea of an AP only going until level 10-12. I would also like to see Paizo to publish AP using the slow Exp chart. Therefore, if the AP uses the slow chart it would cut the ending levels a couple levels, but still kept the content.
I doubt Paizo will make any changes to their AP line. It is way to successful as is. Taking AP's from 1 - 20 would probably require at least one additional book which would make two AP per year very difficult and this seems to be the standard Paizo has set.
I have DM'd Shackled City and that took 3 years (playing one evening a week for 4 - 6 hours), I played in Second Darkness (same time rate) and that took 1 year, and am currently playing in the final 1/4 of STAP which when finished will be about 2 years at the same play rate. So for my groups style and frequencey of play (which I think is average for the primary age demigraphic Paizo targets)the 6 volume, 1st to 14th or so level AP is spot on. We get to change up DM/PC/story often enough to keep everyone fresh but still allow for good story development and a sense of fullfillment both of story and PC when the AP finishes.
Three possible exceptions for AP's that I would like to see are
a) Starting an AP at 3-5th level then ending at 20th. This could be accomplished easily by using a sequence of two or three moduals as a spring board to an AP allowing PC's to reach 20th or beyond.
b) Two parting an AP - This would seem to me to be the least favorable option as a 12 volume AP would be a massive undertaking.
or
c) Sequaling an AP
I like sequaling an AP best. This could be done using the Module line either as a single stand alone or a sequence of two or three modules. The opposite of option A above.