|
The AP is seriously flawed and really needed to be rewritten. I ran it and actually down played the xenophobic parts, but the party still wanted to know why they were helping the elves.
The ELF in our party wanted to kill the elves. He pretty nearly disavowed his own race. We didn't want the drow to win, but if the game had continued, we might have gone to war against the elves, too. Annoying.
|
I like story-heavy APs for two reasons:
1. It makes for a better read.
2. It gives me a lot of background for what happens if the PC don't interfere with the storyline.
What I don't like is if the storyline forces me to force my players onto a narrowly defined railroad which is why I don't mind if the adventures are only loosely connected.
So far most of the APs have served me well in both regards and as I'm used to modify the adventures anyway I don't care if they err on the one or the other side. I probably would mind if it was everytime the same but as long as Paizo presents a good mix (as they did till now) I've nothing to complain about.
Agree 100%As for the sandboxy campaign collapse potential, I disagree to a point. It's up to the GM to personalize that type of campaign to suit his/her players playstyle. I think a GM should definitely have a chat with the group before embarking on a campaign like kingmaker or serpent skull and let them know what kind of campaign it will be, without spoilers of course.
Of course, but if I tell my players that 'They will get to be Queen and her advisers of their very own land' that is really going to appeal but the reality is they have never actually done anything like that. It sounds amazing but it has a fairly strong possibility of not actually being a style of D&D that they will enjoy - we won't really know until they are fairly deep into this...at which point if they would really be having much more fun playing a campaign style akin to Rise of the Runelords its probably best to abandon this campaign. Its not so easy to strip Kingmaker of all the NPC interactions and Kingmaking and still have a particularly good campaign.
Agree 100%As for the sandboxy campaign collapse potential, I disagree to a point. It's up to the GM to personalize that type of campaign to suit his/her players playstyle. I think a GM should definitely have a chat with the group before embarking on a campaign like kingmaker or serpent skull and let them know what kind of campaign it will be, without spoilers of course.
Of course, but if I tell my players that 'They will get to be Queen and her advisers of their very own land' that is really going to appeal but the reality is they have never actually done anything like that. It sounds amazing but it has a fairly strong possibility of not actually being a style of D&D that they will enjoy - we won't really know until they are fairly deep into this...at which point if they would really be having much more fun playing a campaign style akin to Rise of the Runelords its probably best to abandon this campaign. Its not so easy to strip Kingmaker of all the NPC interactions and Kingmaking and still have a particularly good campaign.
Well, you could either have the PCs abdicate their responsibilities to some NPCs, at which point you switch over to the "Kingdom in the Background" sidebars, or you could have the PCs retire and hire some adventurers (read: new PCs) to take over the adventuring part, as may or may not be appropriate for the game.
One of my PCs is having trouble squaring away his character and the others being rulers but still going out and adventuring. I personally don't have much of an issue with it, but he's having trouble wrapping his brain around it.
Now personally I'd love to see an AP that actually takes that one step further and straight up concedes that significant chunks of the plot are on rails and are actually about one of a small group of NPCs and their interactions with the PCs and each other. Especially if its about a great fantasy love story...a really good romance is something we have yet to see in an AP.
I believe Paizo will begin granting your wish toward the end of this year: read the summary of the Jade Regent AP. From the description of the adventures that make it up, the party will know by the end of the first module that their ultimate goal is to help Ameiko Kaijitsu claim her birthright as Empress of Minkai. To do so, they'll have to get her across the Crown of the World in one piece, then defeat the tyrannical usurper sitting on her throne.
When it comes out, I predict we'll see complaints in the message boards about how the quest is centered on an NPC's destiny instead of the PCs', and possibly also some belly-aching about the difficulties of Escort Missions -- though Ameiko (at least as written way back in "Burnt Offerings") is neither weak nor stupid. She's also a bard, meaning her natural role in a fight is to stay behind the party and buff them with her spells and bardic performance abilities.
There may not be a love story built into it, but it shouldn't be too hard for a DM who wants one to develop a romance between Ameiko and another NPC, or, perhaps, one of the PCs, if the player is so inclined. After all, one of the first duties of a ruler is to produce an heir. Ameiko was written as a potential love interest for a PC in Rise of the Runelords --
I believe Paizo will begin granting your wish toward the end of this year: read the summary of the Jade Regent AP. From the description of the adventures that make it up, the party will know by the end of the first module that their ultimate goal is to help Ameiko Kaijitsu claim her birthright as Empress of Minkai. To do so, they'll have to get her across the Crown of the World in one piece, then defeat the tyrannical usurper sitting on her throne.
When it comes out, I predict we'll see complaints in the message boards about how the quest is centered on an NPC's destiny instead of the PCs', and possibly also some belly-aching about the difficulties of Escort Missions -- though Ameiko (at least as written way back in "Burnt Offerings") is neither weak nor stupid. She's also a bard, meaning her natural role in a fight is to stay behind the party and buff them with her spells and bardic performance abilities.
According to James in this thread, you can take a trait to be a younger sibling of Ameiko, or even play as Ameiko herself!
-- though Ameiko (at least as written way back in "Burnt Offerings") is neither weak nor stupid. She's also a bard, meaning her natural role in a fight is to stay behind the party and buff them with her spells and bardic performance abilities.
Huh. I hope the writers of Jade Regent have that eventuality planned into their encounters... an NPC bard buffing up the players normally ups the threat a party poses quite substantially. And if Ameiko gets actively involved into the encounters, I can't see her not gaining some levels in the AP.
Creative Director
|
-- though Ameiko (at least as written way back in "Burnt Offerings") is neither weak nor stupid. She's also a bard, meaning her natural role in a fight is to stay behind the party and buff them with her spells and bardic performance abilities.Huh. I hope the writers of Jade Regent have that eventuality planned into their encounters... an NPC bard buffing up the players normally ups the threat a party poses quite substantially. And if Ameiko gets actively involved into the encounters, I can't see her not gaining some levels in the AP.
Turns out we have indeed planned for the fact that there's NPCs traveling with the PCs. That's kind of the whole point for the campaign—lots of recurring NPC stuff.
Turns out we have indeed planned for the fact that there's NPCs traveling with the PCs. That's kind of the whole point for the campaign—lots of recurring NPC stuff.-- though Ameiko (at least as written way back in "Burnt Offerings") is neither weak nor stupid. She's also a bard, meaning her natural role in a fight is to stay behind the party and buff them with her spells and bardic performance abilities.Huh. I hope the writers of Jade Regent have that eventuality planned into their encounters... an NPC bard buffing up the players normally ups the threat a party poses quite substantially. And if Ameiko gets actively involved into the encounters, I can't see her not gaining some levels in the AP.
Great! :) I'm very much looking forward to it, I was hoping for an especially RP heavy AP for some time and that it is Jade Regent only makes it so much better!
i just want to say that i cannot wait for the jade regent.
the very last adventure my brothers and i ran tweny years ago (in forgotten realms) was actually an epic journey starting in suzail, cormyr and went all the way to kara-tur (specifically shou tu'ling, the capitol of shou lung (think china).
it took us a year and 2 months to finish (in real time not game time).
all we had was fr gray box set, players handbook, monster manual, dungeon masters guide, monster manual 2, oriental adventures (all 1st edition) and the forgotten realms atlas (by karen wynn fonstad).
so needless to say i'm giddy with anticapation
As to the OP well I don't really see it. Legacy of Fire doesn't have anything to do with the overall plot until the very end of the 3rd book and even then it is unlikely the players will really get a clue to what is going on until the 6th book.
Okay, it took me almost 2 months to read and catch this, but as someone running Legacy of Fire right now I really disagree with that.
From a certain perspective the main story of LoF is the Nefeshti/Templars vs. Jhavul (and what the aftermath of that battle ultimately costs the Templars); you've got that from the first hour or so of the campaign.
Or it doesn't count if it's not about Jhavul? The entire plot of book 2 is about tricking the PCs into helping free him -- they may not KNOW that at the time, but that's exactly what's going on. The whole adventure takes place in his HQ, too -- where the PCs can see his wishtwisted creatures and where the PCs will ultimately return for the final showdown.
I'm not sure how much more tying in the start and end of the AP you could realistically get than that. I think there are legitimate criticisms of LoF but this just isn't one.
Turns out we have indeed planned for the fact that there's NPCs traveling with the PCs. That's kind of the whole point for the campaign—lots of recurring NPC stuff.
Minor KM and Savage Tides Spoilers
If the NPCs in Jade Regent are done half as well as Lavinia Vanderboren and the crew of the Sea Wyvern, I can't wait! The trek across the Isle of Dread in Savage Tides was one of my most enjoyable DMing experiences.(Only got about a third of the way through that AP before my group switched to 4E unfortunately... It'll probably never happen, but I'd love to see it updated to PF and collected.)
As far as the finale of KM being unrelated or out of left field, there are plenty of breadcrumbs. I can understand how a group of PCs could go through KM (or several other Paizo APs) without realizing who the real important players are, but the clues are there if the players are paying attention.
I'm honestly not surprised to see some sandbox backlash, since it does confirm my suspicion that linear adventures ARE pretty popular. After all, we were doing quite well with more linear adventures before
I'm not sure this is really a linear vs sandbox problem - I think those terms are being used poorly and imprecisely around this problem. As was pointed out by a perceptive poster, RotR suffered a little from the "BBEG only revealed way late in" problem, even though RotR is a linear/railroad adventure. We liked CoCT a lot better, it was similarly plot driven (in fact, too railroady out in Michael Cortes land) but there was a UNITY to the chapters, and you knew the general problem you were trying to solve and who in general was behind it.
This is equally possible in a sandbox campaign. All sandbox vs railroad means is whether you are strongly insisting on players going to certain places and doing certain things at certain times, or giving more flexibility to it.
Serpent's Skull could have been a sandbox with a consistent theme. But in execution it was not.
Here's an example. Sandbox AP, The Orc Hordes. The orcish hordes of Belkzen, led by some charismatic leader, invade. So all six parts of the AP are guided by the unifying plot of "stopping that." Then, the chapters themselves can be very sandboxey, choosing where to go, what to defend, what to attack.
Sound familiar? I would think so, because the Red Hand of Doom was quite popular and for good reason. It's sandboxey but with a unifying theme.
Linear "Orc Hordes" AP - you MUST go make friends with, I know it's been done, the Shoanti. Then you MUST go to some specific dungeon to get the widget to remove the orc king's demonic rider, or something. Then you MUST go do X.
Sandbox "Orc Hordes" AP - you have choices of groups to enlist or not, you can decide to meet them in the field or do surgical strikes. Sure, you have to create more "shallower" content than a couple "deep" chunks of content to support this model.
But "there's no consistent enemy" is NOT a complaint which can be addressed to the sandbox option.
So linear yay, sandbox yay, but let's not get those terms confused with the legit criticism of some of the APs. RotR, for example, had chapter-to-chapter thematic failures at times. "Welcome to Sandpoint! It's cool! Get invested! Never mind, leave never to return." And hiding the BBEG so every chapter just seemed like a completely unrelated adventure till the end. Y'all learned from that. CoCT was too sandboxey in places, but had a consistent enemy and though you left Korvosa at least you spent a lot of time there and came back to it in the end.
I think some folks are saying "well, if the linear adventure is going to do something goony like that, then i want a sandbox so I can work around it," though I'm not sure that's less work than just changing the linear adventure. I would have redone A History of Ashes so it wasn't so obviously quest-chainey.
I really wanted to like Serpent's Skull - I am already using serpentfolk, and was reading up on jungle expeditions, and the like. But I was disappointed in it, not because it's sandbox (and frankly the last chapters can only be called sandbox because they're marketed that way, not due to any reality) but because of the big change in direction.
In fact, as I medidate upon these APs... OK, I know everyone wants to have a dramatic "twist" and that's good for a story. But there's a recurring theme going on of "you go for four chapters of an AP thinking it's about one thing and then bang it's not". And that is a BAD twist. It's what is leading to the complaints about the APs, in my opinion. It's tangentially related to linearity but not really. "It's about becoming king! Oh no it's not. It's about finding a lost city! Oh no it's not." In CocT, from day one it's "depose that dumb b!&&@."
I could see an AP that was deliberately more picaresque and didn't have an overall plot. But that's not what is being done, it's a plot bait and switch on a grand scale. I (and from reading posts here many GMs) end up spending a lot of time going back and putting in foreshadowing and meshing elements together from chapters. And that's understandable, since they are being written by different people over a long amount of time. I might suggest
a) thinking about the overall plot structure/bible you are providing people and ensuring that it would feel consistent to players
b) sending proofs of earlier adventures to later authors ASAP and making sure they pay a little more attention to reusing earlier elements (ideally it would work the other way too, earlier folks could insert stuff from later ones, but I understand y'all's scheduling probably prohibits that).
(Only got about a third of the way through ["The Savage Tide"] before my group switched to 4E unfortunately... It'll probably never happen, but I'd love to see it updated to PF and collected.)
I don't think that can happen -- all three of the Dungeon adventure paths made extensive use of TSR/WotC product identity material, and "The Savage Tide" probably did it the most of all -- the ultimate opponent was Demogorgon, and most of the other demon princes originally dreamed up by Gary Gygax back in the 70's put in appearances as well. Translating it to PFRPG would require translating it from Greyhawk to Golarion, as well, and the process of filing the serial numbers of all the product identity places, creatures, and personalities would probably ruin the flavor of the AP.
I'm not sure this is really a linear vs sandbox problem - I think those terms are being used poorly and imprecisely around this problem.
...
So linear yay, sandbox yay, but let's not get those terms confused with the legit criticism of some of the APs.
...
In fact, as I medidate upon these APs... OK, I know everyone wants to have a dramatic "twist" and that's good for a story. But there's a recurring theme going on of "you go for four chapters of an AP thinking it's about one thing and then bang it's not". And that is a BAD twist. It's what is leading to the complaints about the APs, in my opinion. It's tangentially related to linearity but not really. "It's about becoming king! Oh no it's not. It's about finding a lost city! Oh no it's not." In CocT, from day one it's "depose that dumb b+#+*."I could see an AP that was deliberately more picaresque and didn't have an overall plot. But that's not what is being done, it's a plot bait and switch on a grand scale. I (and from reading posts here many GMs) end up spending a lot of time going back and putting in foreshadowing and meshing elements together from chapters. And that's understandable, since they are being written by different people over a long amount of time. I might suggest
a) thinking about the overall plot structure/bible you are providing people and ensuring that it would feel consistent to players
b) sending proofs of earlier adventures to later authors ASAP and making sure they pay a little more attention to reusing earlier elements (ideally it would work the other way too, earlier folks could insert stuff from later ones, but I understand y'all's scheduling probably prohibits that).
Oh, good lord, this. I'd quote all of Ernest's post if it weren't so long. This this this.
I think Paizo's doing a great job of mixing the various play styles. I'm having more fun running Kingmaker than anything I've been involved in running since...maybe 1990 or so. But when it comes my turn to run my next game, I am all in for a linear adventure style. Variety is not just good on the personal level, it's essential in gaining the widest customer base they can get.
And while I agree that a poorly planned change in focus can feel like a "switcheroo," the individual GM has just as much responsibility as Paizo does for what gets run at his table, and he can easily drop in hints along the way that things are not what they seem. Now that they're including the whole AP synopsis in the first book of the AP, the GM has no excuse for not doing this from the start even in APs that haven't been fully released yet.
As an example, the final twist in Kingmaker can produce whiplash if run as written, but already in book 2 I'm dropping hints that the players won't even understand the significance of until book 6 happens. It's not hard, and it's not an unreasonable demand to place on GMs. A published campaign can't anticipate the individual needs of every table, after all, and every table will be different in what it likes and expects along the line of surprise twists.
(Only got about a third of the way through ["The Savage Tide"] before my group switched to 4E unfortunately... It'll probably never happen, but I'd love to see it updated to PF and collected.)I don't think that can happen -- all three of the Dungeon adventure paths made extensive use of TSR/WotC product identity material
Not to mention that everything that was printed in Dragon and Dungeon is itself owned by WotC; they have the copyright. They're the ones who would have the capability to reprint material from those magazines, not Paizo.
As an example, the final twist in Kingmaker can produce whiplash if run as written, but already in book 2 I'm dropping hints that the players won't even understand the significance of until book 6 happens.
Heh, yeah, my players today found a dead unicorn and got quite upset when they found out how it died. :p
Heh, thanks all, I posted that more than two weeks ago and figured "I must be making crazy talk, no one bothered to respond."
I love Paizo, and love the APs, and don't want the discussion on how to improve them to mistakenly blame "linear" or "sandbox" for the issues they have that are orthogonal to that.
I understand Gregg's point that GMs "can fix it." Sure, and I do. But
a) sometimes the GM running the game for me when I'm a player doesn't fix it, and it is annoying.
b) in terms of constructive criticism, if Paizo fixed this then everyone else would not have to fix it, which is clearly better and GMs can spend their time on putting in more value-add stuff and less fixing.
And Paizoites, I totally understand how challenging it is with 6 different authors and all. Sure enough. Not saying it's easy. But you are doing a great job in general, and I'm convinced that given a concise identification of the real problem you will innovate a fix.
For my and my group,
- We like sandboxey adventures
- We like linear adventures too
- We like plot twists within the frame of the story
- We don't like feeling gypped when we emotionally invest in a place, people, or character (or for the more rules oriented, a character build) based on what the story seems to be about and then having it toss all that out in favor of something else
- We don't like padded out Chapter 5's with grind for the sake of getting us to some predetermined appropriate level for the end - if Chapter 6 is level 10 appropriate great, so be it
|
For my and my group,
- We like sandboxey adventures
- We like linear adventures too
- We like plot twists within the frame of the story
- We don't like feeling gypped when we emotionally invest in a place, people, or character (or for the more rules oriented, a character build) based on what the story seems to be about and then having it toss all that out in favor of something else
- We don't like padded out Chapter 5's with grind for the sake of getting us to some predetermined appropriate level for the end - if Chapter 6 is level 10 appropriate great, so be it
I'm curious for some examples of the last two and perhaps some examples for the third one, both successes and failures to meet that criteria. I just want to get a frame of reference for what you mean by those points.
Graywulfe
|
I'm curious for some examples of the last two and perhaps some examples for the third one, both successes and failures to meet that criteria. I just want to get a frame of reference for what you mean by those points.Graywulfe
I'll guess at his meaning:
- We don't like feeling gypped when we emotionally invest in a place, people, or character (or for the more rules oriented, a character build) based on what the story seems to be about and then having it toss all that out in favor of something elseOne word: Riddleport
- We don't like padded out Chapter 5's with grind for the sake of getting us to some predetermined appropriate level for the end - if Chapter 6 is level 10 appropriate great, so be it
depending on the group, both RotRL and CotCT could feel like this, depending on how the storylines are presented to the players... Both sins and scarwall can feel like out of place dungeon crawls
For my and my group,
- We like sandboxey adventures
- We like linear adventures too
- We like plot twists within the frame of the story
- We don't like feeling gypped when we emotionally invest in a place, people, or character (or for the more rules oriented, a character build) based on what the story seems to be about and then having it toss all that out in favor of something else
- We don't like padded out Chapter 5's with grind for the sake of getting us to some predetermined appropriate level for the end - if Chapter 6 is level 10 appropriate great, so be itI'm curious for some examples of the last two and perhaps some examples for the third one, both successes and failures to meet that criteria. I just want to get a frame of reference for what you mean by those points.
Sure. For #4, I mention many of the specific bait and switches in my original post. Places: Sandpoint (and then Fort Rannek) in RotR, Riddleport in SD. Plots: Kingdom building in Kingmaker, exploration in SS. Builds: Do I invest in nautical or piratey skills based on the lead-ins of Savage Tide, Serpent's Skull, or Second Darkness? Ha ha joke's on me!
Not as bad as the bait and switch but still not optimal is the "don't bother with revealing any overarching plot or bad guy till late in the AP." Runelords, SS again.The counterexample is Curse of the Crimson Throne, where you invest heavily in Korvosa, its NPCs, and urban skills. From Chapter 1 you understand the overall goal and can concentrate on working towards it. It *almost* throws that away by doing an all-wilderness Chapter 4 and an all-undead-dungeon Chapter 5, but at least it comes on back in Chapter 6 so you can write those off as fish-out-of-water detours. Or Council of Thieves, which is all in one locale.
Padded Chapter 5's: All of them. Pretty much. Serpent's Skull was the worst about it but it seems to be a tradition to have huge dungeon or whatnot as a Chapter 5. Or sometimes they don't even pad themselves but make you do it - some of them just up and say "Oh you the DM need to put in some stuff to put a couple levels onto the PCs around here." That's the worst sentence ever written in an AP. Levels for the sake of levels are senseless. Every single AP could just have 80% of its Chapter 5 cut out and Chapter 6 deleveled about 5 levels and it would be as, if not more, satisfying.
Padded Chapter 5's: All of them. Pretty much. Serpent's Skull was the worst about it but it seems to be a tradition to have huge dungeon or whatnot as a Chapter 5. Or sometimes they don't even pad themselves but make you do it - some of them just up and say "Oh you the DM need to put in some stuff to put a couple levels onto the PCs around here." That's the worst sentence ever written in an AP. Levels for the sake of levels are senseless. Every single AP could just have 80% of its Chapter 5 cut out and Chapter 6 deleveled about 5 levels and it would be as, if not more, satisfying.
I had been agreeing with you up to this point. Here, I think you've gone too far.
For all the 3.5 APs, granted, this has been the case. But for at least RotRL and LoF, they served as a great way to flesh out the BBEG. (Both of which needed a lot more background at that point in the story.) And the SD one, well, it wasn't exactly a traditional dungeoncrawl. So only CotCT truly gets a black eye here.
For the PF APs, this hasn't been an issue. For Kingmaker, you could argue that book 3 had a needless dungeon crawl, but book 5 did not at all. And for Serpent's Skull, there is a lot more going on in that book than just the Fortress of 1000 Fangs - and even that fortress is a pretty awesome and interesting place (I feel the dungeons in book 6 were the more pointless ones).
|
You have a good point but it's not the main issue. I'm not a fan of bait and switch but that's only a component of the larger problem, which is simply lack of a coherent whole. I'll repeat that because it's importance cannot be stressed enough most APs lack a coherent whole. That focus you're so desperately looking for.
This is a result of several issues;
1. Several authors. I have no doubt that as you start decreasing authors your overall plot tightens and you start having a more unified vision of the overall AP. Yes I know it's the editors job to meld all six parts into a seamless whole. In that case I ask, what the hell happened to Serpent's Skull? I'd go so far as to call it incredibly disjointed. Let me guess the next author in the series likely doesn't get to see the previous authors proceeding work before generating their own?
2. Time and the monthly release, aka the time crunch. Because Paizo commits to releasing APs on a fixed schedule I think content suffers. Especially when an author drops the ball or a extensive rewrite is needed. It's no coincidence that readers can tell when development issues have arisen based upon the content generated during that period. This is called, "phoning it in to meet your deadline."
I have no doubt that if APs where unshackled from a fixed schedule with more time to polish the material, quality would improve even more.
3. Fixed content. The adventure is certain amount of pages, fiction, bestiary, etc. Does the authors adventure run over word count? Cut it down till it fits even if that causes it to lose flavor or coherency.
Personally I'd lose the editorial pages and spin the fiction off into another product. I want content not filler. Yes I know subjective but I buy APs for the adventure not the accoutrements.
Now for some feedback, my opinion, YMMV, you know the usual disclaimers. I have every single AP and I've played every single AP so know this is not random hyperbole.
I don't view APs and their associated mods as complete adventures anymore. I view them as sketches. Useful sure, but complete ready to run it straight out of the box with no problems? Absolutely not.
I will not run an AP as each is released ever again. I now have to wait until at least half to not all of an AP is released, read them all, "strip out the crazy", broken, etc, and then form them into a cohesive whole. A strong uninterrupted seamless narrative with logical progression and resolution.
In short, I have to edit them. And I mean beyond just a mere adapting to my personal unconventional group. The forums here have actually made this fairly easy as it's no coincidence that what I identify as a problem other GMs have as well. Various people have commented on the appropriate mod and been nice enough to offer their own fixes.
I was burned with Second Darkness and again with Serpent's Skull. So I think linear vs nonlinear setups have little to no bearing on the matter.
Another excellent post. Fantastic stuff, Alex.
I know the excuse will be "that's just the way things are" or "have to be" for x, y, and z reasons, but at some point in the future that will no longer be an acceptable answer. As Paizo continues to release APs (sometimes faster than people can run them!) and consumers have more choice what to run, the above reasons won't fly anymore, and the APs will take a sales nosedive.
What Alex outlined above are problems and they will have to eventually be solved. If not now, then sometime in the at least semi-near future.
|
|
The thing is... Paizo are making the best adventures/campaigns I have ever seen.
I really hope that James Jacobs and co. are keeping tabs on this thread though because making the APs even better is an excellent goal.
My RotRL (third time's the charm) has an early reveal on Karzoug and a minor artefact, The Stone of Sandpoint, that returns the PCs to the stone circle in Sandpoint (usable once a week) so that they can keep the link to the awesome-fun town of sandpoint.
Otherwise the rogue might have retired to look after his wife and child (Shayliss) and the ranger might never have left after his romance with Shalelu blossomed in HMM.
That said, the best thing about Paizo's APs may well be the awesome locales: Sandpoint, Korvosa, Riddleport... a place worth fighting for, or living in, is a prize beyond jewels.
The observation that the 5th adventure is generally the weakest one in an AP is a very interesting one, in particular.
::looks up from Chapter 5 of Carrion Crown: Ashes at Dawn::
Doh! <_<
|
The observation that the 5th adventure is generally the weakest one in an AP is a very interesting one, in particular.::looks up from Chapter 5 of Carrion Crown: Ashes at Dawn::
Doh! <_<
I'm really looking forward to running Ashes at Dawn. The teaser image is now my awesome desktop. full confidence!
|
|
The thing is... Paizo are making the best adventures/campaigns I have ever seen.
I really hope that James Jacobs and co. are keeping tabs on this thread though because making the APs even better is an excellent goal.
My RotRL (third time's the charm) has an early reveal on Karzoug and a minor artefact, The Stone of Sandpoint, that returns the PCs to the stone circle in Sandpoint (usable once a week) so that they can keep the link to the awesome-fun town of sandpoint.
Otherwise the rogue might have retired to look after his wife and child (Shayliss) and the ranger might never have left after his romance with Shalelu blossomed in HMM.That said, the best thing about Paizo's APs may well be the awesome locales: Sandpoint, Korvosa, Riddleport... a place worth fighting for, or living in, is a prize beyond jewels.
Don't get me wrong I mean I'm about as core demographic for Paizo as you can get, I own 90% of everything they've ever published. Hell I even use the item cards for my game. Also I'm having a blast with Carrion Crown (even if I did have to edit out the trust mechanic }; P)
My point was to elucidate systemic weak points in the AP process and products. I want the best products that I can get and I certainly don't want Paizo to "paint themselves into a corner" as it were. I mean I know they listen to their customers which allows them to adapt their product to those same customers. That's a great quality feedback loop.
So Paizo has society adventures which are short 4 hour mods for any level. They've also got standalone Modules which are the 32 page adventures. And then there's the APs which are 1-13 or reach 15th level. What's missing?
I'd like to see mini-campaigns similar to some of the old Necromancer books. Say 1-6, 6-12, and 12-18th level by single established authors that I can slot in before or after APs, or throw in the middle of an AP with a slow XP track for a change of pace, or to replace a module I'm not entirely happy with.
I think the old Ravenloft module was a good example of this. I could slip that fine piece of work into the middle of Carrion Crown, and tweak the XP and levels without breaking a sweat. Sure I could take a gamemastery mod but it would need extensive padding, it's far easier to remove or not use content then add it. Also I've done them all, especially since most of them are society legal now.
Note that I didn't say I agree with that observation! :)
Nor do I.
Ashes at Dawn is going to rock on toast, people! On. Toast! Toast, I say!
I really hope that James Jacobs and co. are keeping tabs on this thread though because making the APs even better is an excellent goal.Of course we are! :-)
The observation that the 5th adventure is generally the weakest one in an AP is a very interesting one, in particular.
I think part of it is that by the 5th book, we're high level, and dungeon crawls means lots of combat, and high level combat is icky. Also, things just get wonky in a dungeon at high level. In the Foreward to LoF#2, you addressed this issue, so we're at least on similar pages.
I feel like adventurers that are high level should have better things to do than wade through a dungeon. They should, I dunno, be going to war! (Yes, KM#5 hit the theme right on the head) Dungeons work best thematically and mechanically at slightly lower level (like was done in LoF#2).
- my 2 cents
I really hope that James Jacobs and co. are keeping tabs on this thread though because making the APs even better is an excellent goal.Of course we are! :-)
The observation that the 5th adventure is generally the weakest one in an AP is a very interesting one, in particular.
That isn't universally accepted though; In my opinion Sins of the Saviors and Skeletons of Scarwall are both excellent adventures :)
Although for Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, and Kingmaker it may be true. For LoF, I liked the adventure itself, but not the two-trapped-on-a-plane adventures in a row. Kingmaker doesn't really count, since all 6 adventures are very good; one simply has to be least awesome :)
I think part of the problem with #5s is that the PCs are chasing after a McGuffin that will help with part #6.
We've played through 4 or 5 adventure paths so far and the best #5 was in KM. It seemed to wrap up the storyline quite well. Playing part 6 has been fun since its been an endless stream of cool boss fights but it seems a bit tacked on since we didn't really have any foreshadowing about the end boss.
I've found that the early parts of the AP tend to be strongest. There are a few exceptions but I have found that Parts 1 and/or 2 of each path have been the most fun. There seems to be more roleplaying and interaction with NPCs and less endless streams of fighting.
Don't get me wrong. The battles are my favorite part but it gets a bit old if that's all you are doing.
|
|
I really hope that James Jacobs and co. are keeping tabs on this thread though because making the APs even better is an excellent goal.Of course we are! :-)
The observation that the 5th adventure is generally the weakest one in an AP is a very interesting one, in particular.
That isn't universally accepted though; In my opinion Sins of the Saviors and Skeletons of Scarwall are both excellent adventures :)
Scarwall is one of my favorites ever and has my fav monster in it. So I didn't really notice the #5 problem there. Also there was quite a bit of variety in the monsters and I didn't notice any long drawn out or string of endless combats.
I've found that the early parts of the AP tend to be strongest. There are a few exceptions but I have found that Parts 1 and/or 2 of each path have been the most fun. There seems to be more roleplaying and interaction with NPCs and less endless streams of fighting.
This is true and not surprising. Part one is generally where you introduce the setting, backstory, the characters, and the premise. All fertile ground for roleplaying and interaction. Coincidentally part #6 would seem easy to construct as well since you know who the big bad is and how the story will likely end. Most of the page count seems devoted to the last battle, the boss, and whatever artifact widget he's got.
It's the in between parts that are hit or miss.
I think Vaellen is right in that most of the time #5 devolves into, "fight to obtain McGuffin for part #6".
|
|
Hmmmm, where to start...
First of all, I love the APs for their quality, style, and artwork (BIG fan of artwork!) I have personally run Age of Worms, Second Darkness (2nd and 6th chapters), Curse of the Crimson Throne, and am half-way through Kingmaker. I have played in Savage Tide, Second Darkness (other 4 chapters), Legacy of Fire, and the beginning of Council of Thieves.
Now it's interesting that you all are talking about chapter 5 when I feel there is more of an issue with chapter 6. Chapter 5 still seems dynamic in most of the APs; Kingmaker's war, CotCT's Scarwall, even Second Darkness' Thorn's Edge and Kyonin (even if we too hated the elves by this point and were wondering why we bothered). There tends to be a lot more going on in those chapters than just beating up bad guys. Chapter 6 however pretty much follows the same overall formula every time - let's string together a bunch of powerful enemies to fight one after the other (or sometimes at the same time if we screw up). Now, I realize, that the PC's need the chance to throw around the might that they have fought so hard for, and that by this point they should have solved most of the mysteries to have a solid idea about what their goals are BUT.....while this formula works sometimes, a variety of challenges other than fights would be welcome change at other times. There are some attempts at this in the last chapters of some of the APs but they are to few, far between, and little more than window dressing most of the time.
Hmmmmm, now the hard part....what takes the place of dozens of rolls and decisions that make up a nail-biting combat and is just as rewarding? Is it just a weakness of the high-level system? Could we maybe develop some skill challenge system of our own. Possibly have PC decisions that have greater impacts on the outcome of the campaign as a whole instead of just a win or lose scenario. Sacrifices that PC's have choices to make (slowly sacrificing a PC's life-force to protect the innocent from the BBEG, of course the old standby of magic items, maybe the mage has the choice to make himself permanently (or less so) part of and control a powerful construct at the cost of his arcane powers, etc...) Those are just a few poor examples off the top of my head but you get the idea, I hope.
I guess to summarize giving the PC a few other ways to feel powerful and useful other than killing stuff in chapter 6. I personally don't have to much of an issue because I add this to my games anyway but felt, perhaps, I could add some hopefully constructive criticism and would love to see what Paizo had to add in this area.
You have a good point but it's not the main issue. I'm not a fan of bait and switch but that's only a component of the larger problem, which is simply lack of a coherent whole. I'll repeat that because it's importance cannot be stressed enough most APs lack a coherent whole. That focus you're so desperately looking for.
Totally agree with everything you said. You are right that the bait and switch is only a subset of lack of overall plot coherency. (And that of course there are good reasons it's hard to get that coherency - multiple authors, etc.) I too have started taking the APs as sketches. I wait till they're all in hand and then have to put substantial recrafting time in. Which is fine but I'd rather do less than that - and frankly our other group's GM is lazier and tends to run things as written, so I get to experience the WTF as a player.
Maybe something like a private forum where all the authors in an AP can be posting their drafts and whatnot so they can try to tighten up cross-chapter threads might help.
On the "Chapter 5" problem, Kingmaker Chapter 5 avoids this problem because it's really the Chapter 6. KM 1-5 is the complete campaign, and #6 is a random addon adventure. Maybe 6 chapters is just slightly too much to sustain an AP and 5 would keep momentum better.
I don't see the argument about needing to give more BBEG characterization in RotR and LoF Chapter 5's as having validity - while true, it's only true because previous chapters did an awful job of doing the same thing.
|
|
My group just finished Scarwall tonight. It was awful, we all despised it and can't wait to get back to Korvosa. Thematically inappropriate, overpowered monsters (especially the Danse Macabre), just not fun.
I wholeheartedly agree about the APs not having a coherent story (to the player's pov) and it has lead me to rewriting Rise of the Runelords, completely ditching books 2 and 3.
I think honestly the best solution is for Paizo to get ahead of schedule; it'll make for a pain in the ass 4 or 5 months but once they're two or three months ahead of schedule I think it would relieve an enormous pressure and allow them to sit on some of their releases and fine tune until print date. If I were them author assignments for the AP after Jade Regent would be going out now with a deadline of 4 months from now.
|
|
My group just finished Scarwall tonight. It was awful, we all despised it and can't wait to get back to Korvosa. Thematically inappropriate, overpowered monsters (especially the Danse Macabre), just not fun.
It's funny you mention that because that's my favorite monster in all of Pathfinder, the Danse Macabre. Overpowered? Absolutely, we almost TPK'd but it's unique and flavorful.
Here's my rant. Serpent's Skull and CotCT spoilers abound.
The only thing I don't like about adventure paths are "filler" encounters taking up page space.
I and my group personally loved Scarwall. My group did it in three sessions. Why did we like it so much? Almost every encounter was meaningful. There were a lot of skeletons and lesser undead, but they weren't in the book taking up page space unless they were cool, since most of them were CR 1/3 or CR 1/2 anyways. Scarwall was small, compact, punchy and to the point. The PCs had to explore the entire dungeon and cleanse it, and by doing so, they met all of the awesome fights and really enjoyed it. The number of boring encounters was very small-- the minotaur skeletons in the watchhouse, the ghouls in the oven (the haunt was cool; the monsters were not), the orc barbarians in the opening and the ghostly priests in the donjon.
My group hated Fortress of a Thousand Fangs. We did it in three sessions. Why didn't we like it at all? Almost none of the encounters were meaningful. There were a ton of serpentfolk taking up page space-- the book tells you that there are about 100 CR 9+ serpentfolk in the area, but in the book you only encounter 50 degenerate serpentfolk fighters over 12 encounters, assuming you don't run into any patrols before entering the fortress. If you do, you could hit as many as 60. (For people in groups where six-on-four/five combat could take about an hour, who play five/six hour sessions, you're looking at spending about two whole sessions of your game fighting nothing but level five degenerate serpentfolk fighters.) With about six cool encounters (urdefhan, succubus, ghost, duelist, wizard, great cyclops) spread out over a nearly 50 room dungeon. Fo1kF was enormous, expansive and meandering. The PCs had to explore the entire dungeon to maybe stumble across the door to where they were planning on going to-- so, instead of playing out three weeks of on-and-off fighting degenerate serpentfolk while wondering why the bad guys wouldn't just see that we were human and from the pathfinders and execute Eando Kline, we skipped right to the awesome fights, did them, got to the point and wrapped up the module.
(As an aside, I hate the Serpentfolk. SR, telepathy, dominate as a spell-like, massive stat boosts and five full-bab D10 hit dice so they can't use strong treasure unless the devs want to overpower encounters, so the PCs can't ever get scavenge good treasure-- I mean, for god's sake, one of the final encounters of the AP is with a serpentfolk with 11 class levels who's using a +1 weapon, no enhancement belt, and has a +25 to hit. It just makes them... very powerful, and boring. Since they're telepathic, it means they would never speak out loud to their allies, which I don't know why but it just makes me feel like they would never waste time threatening the PCs when they could be shouting orders and updates to each other over their telepathic network.)
CotCT and Kingmaker-- whose "5th book," as accurately pointed out above, is actually its 6th-- both had, in my opinion, great encounters laced together in a dungeon infrastructure. The PCs weren't forced to, but encouraged or motivated strongly to explore the entirety of the complex. Each monster had a cool backstory, unique combat effects, were interesting in their own right (Dragon/dragon/dragon for each module, respectively) or were just fun to fight. Many of the "treasure rooms" in these modules are disguised and integrate naturally. On that, CoT's "treasure room" was the coolest I've ever seen in a module, and to me as a player it was very memorable and thoroughly integrated.
LoF, I've not read the 5th book of; RotRL I've not run the 5th book; and the way I ran Second Darkness was nothing like the book.
All my group wants are monsters that are fun and interesting, treasure that is wicked cool and a strong tone in encounter design throughout. I just hate feeling like I'm running on a treadmill. Feeling is the operative word, there-- if you're going to "pad" levels, make it good, and make us not feel like we're just grinding mobs for xp.
EDIT: I also realized when writing this that me and my PCs both enjoy "MMO"-esque design in magic item acquisition. When the PCs have a hard fight, they should be able to find a good item in return, which mirrors the raid structure of MMOs wherein boss monsters drop high quality loot on death. Inbetween hard fights are the "trash mobs," which usually don't drop good loot-- just "greys", low quality equipment and items meant to sell, and gold. When a tough fight has no treasure in return, I'm surprised, and I think my surprise comes out of my expectation that a boss fight should drop epic loot.
My group just finished Scarwall tonight. It was awful, we all despised it and can't wait to get back to Korvosa. Thematically inappropriate, overpowered monsters (especially the Danse Macabre), just not fun.It's funny you mention that because that's my favorite monster in all of Pathfinder, the Danse Macabre. Overpowered? Absolutely, we almost TPK'd but it's unique and flavorful.
I loved it. I made the drain into damage so the PCs wouldn't just teleport out of the dungeon, upped the DC, and had him lay into the PCs. They were fine-- but it's still memorable as the one time our Witch/Fighter/Eldritch Knight was able to bust out his max ranks in Perform: Dance as he was irresistible danced around the ballroom floor.
My group just finished Scarwall tonight. It was awful, we all despised it and can't wait to get back to Korvosa. Thematically inappropriate, overpowered monsters (especially the Danse Macabre), just not fun.It's funny you mention that because that's my favorite monster in all of Pathfinder, the Danse Macabre. Overpowered? Absolutely, we almost TPK'd but it's unique and flavorful.
I guess I did something wrong or my group did something right, because they laughed off the saves and ripped it to shreds.
|
Creative Director
|
On the "Chapter 5" problem, Kingmaker Chapter 5 avoids this problem because it's really the Chapter 6. KM 1-5 is the complete campaign, and #6 is a random addon adventure. Maybe 6 chapters is just slightly too much to sustain an AP and 5 would keep momentum better.
I've seen a fair amount of people saying this, so I guess the intent was too subtle. Lesson learned.
In any case... part 6 of Kingmaker isn't random. It's the culmination of a kingdom building adventure that followed six key elements, each designed to provide a different experience to the rulers of the kingdom (the PCs):
1: Explore and conquer your new land.
2: Establish your nation.
3: Expand your nation into new realms.
4: Defend your nation from a neighbor.
5: Conquer an enemy nation.
6: Save your kingdom from a magical disaster.
We certainly COULD have set up Kingmaker to end exactly as the PCs finally complete their kingdom, but I felt that would have been disappointing. It'd be like the adventures where the whole plot is to recover the awesome magic weapon, and you only get the weapon as the treasure for the last adventure. It sucks to play an entire campaign to recover a powerful weapon only to never be able to use it because the game's over once you reach your goal. Likewise, we didn't want to end Kingmaker with the PCs finally claiming the Stolen Lands and getting their own kingdom. We wanted to give them some time to USE their entire kingdom; in this case, to defend it from a powerful enemy.
|
|
I loved it. I made the drain into damage so the PCs wouldn't just teleport out of the dungeon, upped the DC, and had him lay into the PCs. They were fine-- but it's still memorable as the one time our Witch/Fighter/Eldritch Knight was able to bust out his max ranks in Perform: Dance as he was irresistible danced around the ballroom floor.My group just finished Scarwall tonight. It was awful, we all despised it and can't wait to get back to Korvosa. Thematically inappropriate, overpowered monsters (especially the Danse Macabre), just not fun.It's funny you mention that because that's my favorite monster in all of Pathfinder, the Danse Macabre. Overpowered? Absolutely, we almost TPK'd but it's unique and flavorful.
I haven't got my copy in front of me but I seem to recall you can't teleport around Scarwall, or go ethereal either. Something about the stones being infused with the dead as I recall. But I might be mistaken as it was years ago.
Half my party got nailed on that save, I remember my gunslinger (Ya I played one back then, I was that far ahead of the curve.) dancing with her nightmare cohort. That was terribly amusing for me.
I haven't got my copy in front of me but I seem to recall you can't teleport around Scarwall, or go ethereal either. Something about the stones being infused with the dead as I recall. But I might be mistaken as it was years ago.Half my party got nailed on that save, I remember my gunslinger (Ya I played one back then, I was that far ahead of the curve.) dancing with her nightmare cohort. That was terribly amusing for me.
You're right, there, but the only thing keeping the PCs from going outside and teleporting away anyways was Belshallam. And they could've just snuck under his eye.
I don't know why but I've just got you and a flaming horse hoof in hand doing a waltz with roses in your teeth. I suppose the party was never the same after that incident.