The game system prevents the type of open plan gaming being discussed on a whole adventure path level. I guess it could work for a single issue. Say when the characters start at 4th and are expected to progress to 6th but even then the balance issue make it a really tough ask.
Essentially you have to defeat A so you get enough exp to defeat B so you can defeat C etc. This precludes anything but a railroad style adventure over 12+ levels.
In curse of the crimson throne the party meets the queen at 1st level and then in the third book the scene is presented "this is the big bad but you aren't tough enough to deal with her". Unfortunately the party must then go away and gain more levels (while chasing a maguffin that is quite useful but not required)
|
Thanks for the kind words, R Chance.
If an opponent is going to face challenges other than the PCs, then I'll note that in the "What happens if the party does nothing" section. But, really, if I have them set to go after Saruman, and it turns out that Gandalf is going to waltz in and take the bad guy out anyways, then
1) that's not as dramatically convincing, and
2) it turns out that the PCs are intruding on another story.I've made that mistake often in my writing. The most interesting character in the storyline end up being an NPC. The party then just along for the ride, fighting things to clear the decks for an NPC-on-NPC confrontation.
That's the same problem some people had with The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.
Just once I'd like to Paizo print a book where the PCs meet the BBEG in the first book, get humiliated and sent running with their tails between their legs. THAT is a way to generate a desire for real revenge when you get to the last book. :)Problem is... players don't take well to being humiliated. If we did an encounter like you suggested, we'd risk having a LOT of would-be campaigns self-destruct when stubborn or foolhardy players/PCs TPK the group in that initial encounter.
It's an interesting idea to try out in a campaign, where the worst case scenario is make up new characters and start another campaign. Not so great a thing to try out when if it backfires, a tentpole product line for your company dies 1/6 of the way through its six month lifecycle...
I agree 100%. In fact, I recently played in exactly that scenario, on day one of what was supposed to be a new campaign. I was glad I'd said from the outset it would be one-shot for me. It had all the classic elements: an uber-powerful imprisoned bad guy that we couldn't possibly stop (either him or his escape), an uber-powerful NPC who was too jaded to aid us much but was always there just in time to prevent a TPK, and the complete obliteration of our hometown by the uber-powerful bad guy, another situation we were (as 0 xp level one characters) helpless to prevent.
This is how I perceive such an adventure path:
It's an adventure path where in the very first part the players run into the BBEG they're supposed to defeat (and obviously are either non-participating watchers, are lucky, are saved by someone with actual power, or they end up dead) and then must slog most of 6 adventure paths before they can finally confront and defeat the BBEG, knowing the entire time who they're trying to get?
I know I'd find that sort of thing frustrating.
I think the aps already cover a significant amount of what if style play. It gives me a framework of what should reasonably happen as well as an awesome story I would have never came up with on my own. However there are times Iagree that that the railroad scriptiness gets a bit much even for me:
** spoiler omitted **I too think that there is a certain amount of blame due to the GM on this.
** spoiler omitted **
See that would be understandable, EXCEPT one pc could already translate the journal which basically gave us directions. Two of us were well versed in geography and survival, and we got approached pretty much rigfht after we got back to town. Also we to;ld the npcs nothing, told them we killed ghouls and the person who betrayed us and then it till happened that way. Granted the DM is new to running games and had never ran an AP before, but I still think a plausible way for EVERYONE to get the info and the events to make the moves they did for the story to progress should have been in the adventure itself (some way that didnt involve us telling anyone) for people to catch on to wat we were doing so that they didnt know before we even started doing it.
See that would be understandable, EXCEPT one pc could already translate the journal which basically gave us directions. Two of us were well versed in geography and survival, and we got approached pretty much rigfht after we got back to town. Also we to;ld the npcs nothing, told them we killed ghouls and the person who betrayed us and then it till happened that way. Granted the DM is new to running games and had never ran an AP before, but I still think a plausible way for EVERYONE to get the info and the events to make the moves they did for the story to progress should have been in the adventure itself (some way that didnt involve us telling anyone) for people to catch on to wat we were doing so that they didnt know before we even started doing it.
See, Stewart, that really does sound like GM-failure. I'm not knocking your GM - it happens to the best - but really, that seems like them not putting in all the work required for an AP like SS to make sense.
That said, Serpent Skull is very railroady, as a module. Because of player actions, I have to work very hard to come up with plausible reasons for a multitude of groups to have learned about and sought out Savinth-Yhi (and had to actually plausibly create new groups or sets to compete, as the PCs literally either absorbed or finished off all the groups mentioned in the book very rapidly, plus a few more). It can be quite difficult for a GM to reasonably explain what's happening with that one and why something occurs without outright cheating or unfair coincidence. It's not impossible, but difficult, especially dependent upon character actions.
On topic, I love the APs. I think they're great.
See that would be understandable, EXCEPT one pc could already translate the journal which basically gave us directions. Two of us were well versed in geography and survival, and we got approached pretty much rigfht after we got back to town. Also we to;ld the npcs nothing, told them we killed ghouls and the person who betrayed us and then it till happened that way. Granted the DM is new to running games and had never ran an AP before, but I still think a plausible way for EVERYONE to get the info and the events to make the moves they did for the story to progress should have been in the adventure itself (some way that didnt involve us telling anyone) for people to catch on to wat we were doing so that they didnt know before we even started doing it.
I seem to have not been clear enough in part of my explanation.
Translating old text is more than just being able to read and write the language. It is knowing the context that goes along with the words.
Without googling it or looking anything up in a book, can you translate the following:
"Light a shuck"
"Lineback Dun"
"Ditty Bag"
"Dog House"
"Drygulch"
"Necessary"
The references that your characters would need to understand the context would likely have raised interest in certain others.
You would have a similar problem with geography. What land features have changed in 10,000 years? What cities have different names? (if you take a look in Europe or the Middle East, a lot of cities have had several names over time - either destroyed and rebuilt by someone else, or conquered and the new management liked a different name)(in North America, there are addresses alongs the lines of "third house after the blue house" - after 10,000 years, how accurate would that be?). What books or sages would your characters consult to be able to figure out the current references for the directions?
Unfortunately, most of that has already been done. What the PCs get is the Snake lady's notes and translations of the carvings, so it's assumed she's already done the research.
The geography is a factor.
I am somewhat curious as to why someone spoke Aklo. A happy coincidence or was there some reason given before game start to think it would be useful?
I beg to differ, I don't think that she translated everything, and nor do I think that all of her translations would make sense, as her notes were for her, in Aklo, for someone from a different race, upbringing and outlook.
Also, my translation question above still applies, as even if the person is literate in Aklo, there will still be terms of references that a surface dweller would have problems with.
I have seen translations two languages removed from the original, and often the message is extremely garbled. One example was "Xxxx group has twenty asses" - what it should have been was "Xxxx group was vanquished" or "Xxxx group was defeated".
True to some extent, but it does remove most of the 10,000 yr problem you were objecting to, since it's assumed she's enough of an expert to figure this out. I doubt she was planning to go to another scholar to puzzle out her notes. Besides, realistic or not, it's very much in genre to find the evil scholar's notes and use them to track down the lost city.
But, I do agree about multiple translations: "This memo is still too clear. Have Hans translate it into German and Schmidt translate it back." (From the old Gurps Illuminati Sourcebook, I believe)
I would say that she would not need to put in modern references, as she already knows what old reference mean. Not only that, but it adds in an extra layer of security, in case anyone sees the notes.
But rather than argue this around and around, can we agree that there were things that the GM could have put in place to help keep the players mostly on the tracks, without bringing out the heavy GM fiat hammer?
Thanks for the kind words, R Chance.
If an opponent is going to face challenges other than the PCs, then I'll note that in the "What happens if the party does nothing" section. But, really, if I have them set to go after Saruman, and it turns out that Gandalf is going to waltz in and take the bad guy out anyways, then
1) that's not as dramatically convincing, and
2) it turns out that the PCs are intruding on another story.I've made that mistake often in my writing. The most interesting character in the storyline end up being an NPC. The party then just along for the ride, fighting things to clear the decks for an NPC-on-NPC confrontation.
I made this mistake years ago, and I caught myself doing so just recently, when a friend and I were putting together a proposal for a Pathfinder Society scenario: we had the party stumble across a young outcast from a savage tribe, and the magical widget the PCs were tracking had been stolen by another tribesmember as a weapon to use against the outcast. See the problem?
I agree. The trick is to make the NPCs interesting and relevant without overshadowing the PCs. Ideally the PCs should be equal or higher to any BBEG opponents and obviously more capable than the victims of the BBEG. Typically the PCs should be the cavalry riding to the rescue, or alternatively the NPC(s) should supplement the PCs without making them bystanders -- especially if the PCs are in over their heads. It's a balancing act. The PC / NPC interactions can make for the most interesting part of an otherwise straightforward adventure.