|
Is it just me or are there others out there who think the Pathfinder Adventure Paths are becoming victims of their own success?
The current format (6 chapters, one each month) has long become impossible to keep up with from a Pathfinder AP fan perspective (our group plays each week and we have not been able to keep up, and have skipped several APs)
From a nerd / fan perspective this is annoying as I'd like to play them all.
I also find that the quality of some APs have been questionable as of late (not from bad art / bad writing perspective, but from a format / overall plot perspective). It seems that the 6 chapter format is somewhat of a shackle that ends up generating some weirdness (i.e. CoT should have ended at the end of Chapter 5, when the BBEG vamp is defeated; Second Darkness should have been split in two: AP1: Intrigue in Riddleport (3 or 4 chapters dedicated to growing a crime syndicate); AP2: Second Darkness: the 4 or 5 chapters we all know and hate that dealt with that long winded drow doomsday hack and slash)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, am happy to be unable to keep up. It means I get to choose what I AP I really want to run for my group, and spend more time customizing it to my PCs' taste. It also means that if I don't like an AP, I don't have to run it.
I still buy them all, however, because I enjoy reading them and I love reading the background articles.
I do think it would be interesting to see a couple of 3-part APs. Even if they were thematically similar, like a campaign approached from two different "ends" - at one end a "good" party, and at the other an "evil" party.
Another interesting format would be 6 parts, but there would be three complete "stories" started and finished in 2 issues each, as opposed to one long epic story line, so the same party gets to enjoy three campaigns.
CoT should have ended at the end of Chapter 5, when the BBEG vamp is defeated
Oh how I agree with you on this one. Sivanshin was much more better villain, with more foreshadowing and more backstory spread out through the chapters...
But to your original question, I don't think it was Paizo's intention that everyone can keep pace. From what I've seen and read, finishing one AP in 6 months is downright impossible. The fastest game I ran was Legacy of Fire which we finished in 10 months. Atm I'm playing in a Kingmaker campaign for near 7 months now and we're on chapter two.
So let's settle that average time was 1 AP/year, which gives you two to pick from! If there were only one AP, what would happen if players didn't like the premise? Waiting for another year seems like a bad idea.
|
|
I agree that choice is generally a good thing. I think that the comments by TheRavyn are getting close to what I was trying to get at though: 6 chapter APs are long and usually always span from level 1 to 18 or so...
Why not 2 or 3 part APs that are for different level ranges? this would please both the "choice is good" camp and "long APs suck" camps.
For instance, every time there's a new AP, one must whip up a new level 1 PC and when the AP ends, one must retire that PC even if the AP ending had some interesting leads one could have explored RP-wise.
Why not make level 1-4 APs, level 5-11 APs, level 11-14 APs, and level 14+ APs, for example? make them shorter, so you have more APs out there to choose from, and you can keep the same character from one AP to the next!
:)
EDIT: and also, 6-chapter APs are a HUGE commitment for DMs, which is why I no longer run APs (I play/run Pathfinder Society or Pathfinder Modules... CoT was the last AP I ran... 6-chapter APs are as hard if not harder than a homebrew in terms of DM burnout...)
Why not make level 1-4 APs, level 5-11 APs, level 11-14 APs, and level 14+ APs
Those are called Modules. :D
And every AP has a suggestion on what to do if you want to continue the AP. Kingmaker and Carrion Crown even more than the rest since they even give you statblocks of important NPCs.
As to why there are no high lvl APs... Well, if you look at Golarion, there aren't that many high lvl NPCs around. So, an AP that starts at lvl 11 would have to have an explanation as to why those renown adventurers are starting to work for _______ and that can't easily be adapted to work for most parties.
It's easier with lvl 1 PCs. You offer them 100 gp and they scream at the chance to earn that never-before seen amount of gold.
I think its ok for there to be more AP's then any one group could run, because it means some adventures can be more specific. Pathfinder for instance could never do skull and shackles if EVERYONE was going to play it because plenty of people wont want to be pirates. So while skull and shackles is being published a group that doesnt like pirates can play something else. If the hardcore AP fans all kept pace with releases then they would all have to be relatively generic adventures.
I think its ok for there to be more AP's then any one group could run, because it means some adventures can be more specific. Pathfinder for instance could never do skull and shackles if EVERYONE was going to play it because plenty of people wont want to be pirates. So while skull and shackles is being published a group that doesnt like pirates can play something else. If the hardcore AP fans all kept pace with releases then they would all have to be relatively generic adventures.
+1
Agreed
If you want shorter APs, you don't have to take them to the very end.
For example, you could easily skip part 6 for Kingmaker. Ok, bad example, Kingmaker is created in such a way that you could leave out any number of parts past #1.
If you think part 5 of CoT makes a great ending, go ahead and end it there.
I have no problem with Paizo producing more APs than I can run. I steal encounters, or whole segments, of APs for parts of my campaign. I still haven't actually run a real AP because the campaign I started 4 years ago before discovering Pathfinder hasn't completed yet. At this rate, we may wrap up in December.
So whenever I do run an AP, I will have plenty in my library to choose from. And that's ok, because every AP I read gives me ideas on how to run my own adventures better. They give me statblocks I can steal if my players drop by a drow city. Or the city of brass. Or the first world. Or any number of fabulous locations in Golarion.
Creative Director
|
Our Adventure Paths are currently one of the most successful aspects of the entire Paizo operation. They're what they are after nearly 10 years of adjustments and learning from previous mistakes. It's very very very very unlikely we'll ever make significantly drastic changes to the format. Any adjustments to the AP line we do make will be in the form of "baby steps," such as how we adjusted the first page of the adventure or added magic item and NPC appendices to Jade Regent.
Changing the length of an AP or starting one at anything other than 1st level, I fear, would damage the AP's success in the long run. Might even damage it in the short run.
Our Adventure Paths are currently one of the most successful aspects of the entire Paizo operation. They're what they are after nearly 10 years of adjustments and learning from previous mistakes. It's very very very very unlikely we'll ever make significantly drastic changes to the format. Any adjustments to the AP line we do make will be in the form of "baby steps," such as how we adjusted the first page of the adventure or added magic item and NPC appendices to Jade Regent.
Changing the length of an AP or starting one at anything other than 1st level, I fear, would damage the AP's success in the long run. Might even damage it in the short run.
hi, please do not change anything. thank you. change for sake of change is change that sucks. you got a good plan that working for you. please keep it going.
One thing that can be improved on his the editing it seems every adventure path has at least one error if not more. Every time it's brought up on the message boards Paizo staff makes excuses, enough with the excuses hire someone to help, change the schedule up a bit, have someone do a better job having all the differet groups communicate, whatever is needed.
My group is now on its 3rd AP we've played Rise of Runelords, we’re on the 3rd module of SS and 4th of CC, all with different DM's and while we like the idea, the story, the art, etc. We get frustrated with the errors, and if an alternative company offered something similar we would probably switch to something else. The fact that nobody else is doing this great idea is why the APs are so successful.
I don't know of an official errata website but that would be a nice thing to have so I can go to one place and get the corrections instead of having to comb through lots of messages.
One point which has been made when the suggestion of shorter APs has come up is that the first (and last, from memory) instalments of an AP require considerably more work. Thus, two 3-part APs would be considerably more work than one 6-part AP.
I think the module line, with the various mini-arcs is a good fallback solution for those looking for shorter paths. My personal preference would be for a slight increase in the number of linked modules rather than the focus on one-shots. Nonetheless, there are a few options there which are explicitly tied together and many possibilities for linking two or more modules together which aren't explicitly intended that way. It's not the same as a fully crafted series of three modules with support articles, map packs, etcetera. But it may well solve some of the problems if groups get 'character-fatigue' and like to change around relatively frequently or something.
|
|
Changing the length of an AP or starting one at anything other than 1st level, I fear, would damage the AP's success in the long run. Might even damage it in the short run.
I understand the fear of changing something that is not broken... however please be mindful that the 6-chapter formula is starting to show some signs of wear, and leading to some crappy RPing experiences... (you can have all the best writers and artists in the world, but it's for nothing if 2 or 3 adventures are just fillers...)
@Biobeast do you actually mean editing issues (typos or errors) that cause the adventures to be unplayable? Or design decisions that people disagree with?
Overall, Paizo has one of the best editing teams I've ever seen in the RPG industry. Especially considering the monthly schedule the APs follow.
|
Creative Director
|
I understand the fear of changing something that is not broken... however please be mindful that the 6-chapter formula is starting to show some signs of wear, and leading to some crappy RPing experiences... (you can have all the best writers and artists in the world, but it's for nothing if 2 or 3 adventures are just fillers...)
Simply saying "showing signs of wear and leading to crappy RP" doesn't help us fix anything, though. It doesn't even let us know if the problem is with the adventure or just general gaming fatigue in your particular group.
Detailed feedback (AKA: this adventure had repetitive encounters, or that adventure had too many level draining creatures, and so on) is much more helpful.
True. I admit gaming fatigue may have something to do with it... I don't think I'm the only one who's starting to yearn for some shorter, less epic gaming experiences though (especially when you're the DM...)
Isn't that what modules and scenarios are for? The APs are set up to be long and epic.
(Personally, I've been running one for over 2 years and have only started book 5. If I run one again, I'm likely to cut it short and run only 3-4 books of if, if I can condense the storyline. That's mostly due to disliking high-level play, however.)
@Biobeast do you actually mean editing issues (typos or errors) that cause the adventures to be unplayable? Or design decisions that people disagree with?
Overall, Paizo has one of the best editing teams I've ever seen in the RPG industry. Especially considering the monthly schedule the APs follow.
What I'm talking about:
CC1, trust system broken, no lamps marked on town hall map, Kendra missing a spellCC2; how 6 2nd lvl warriors subdued a berserk beast, how large creature fit into the rooms in the castle
CC3 how the huge tarantula gets into the lodge, or how they it was captured in the first place, Auren Vrood having and extra spell level.
The person DMing the SS run says the SS3 is the worst written module he's read in 20 years of gaming. He's frustrated that there are missing maps in SS2 & 3.
All of these things seem like they could be avoided with another set of eyes or better planning. Some seem like the authors didn't re-read what they were saying some look like better coordination can fix them but they seem fixable. I know there is a fixed schedule but so what, hire more people to work on the projects if all these mistakes keep happening.
My point is all I hear is excuses of why things break not what is going to be done to prevent them in the future.
And still an official errata would help, saying for example Auren Vrood is broken this is what his spells should be, etc.
|
One thing that can be improved on his the editing..
This amuses :P
On topic. Love the adventure paths, very, very rarely get to play but enjoy reading all the products. As to any problems, perceived or otherwise, that turn up I find that overall the community on these messageboards are an absolute goldmine of useful advice and ideas AND you have developers, writers, CEOs and a multitude of Paizo staff chipping in.
For shorter gaming experiences there are modules, Pathfinder Society Scenarios or stopping early in an adventure path.
|
I, for one, am happy to be unable to keep up. It means I get to choose what I AP I really want to run for my group, and spend more time customizing it to my PCs' taste. It also means that if I don't like an AP, I don't have to run it.
I still buy them all, however, because I enjoy reading them and I love reading the background articles.
+1
Hm, I see more and more complaints about CC. I made a long post in CC, but since we're discussing APs, might as well repost it here. It concerns the lack of foreshadowing of the final boss of Carrion Crown, and the introduction for 6th part of the AP where devs say they didn't use the boss that much and that DMs should incorporate him on their own, and I quote:
Overall, it’s up to the GM to establish his presence in the campaign. We should have probably pointed that out earlier, but better late than never.
Here's my grievance with this. That part wasn't deftly done. Telling the DMs who read the intro to reintroduce the main villain as they see fit isn't what I call adressing an issue. And here's why. One of the reasons lots of DMs decide to run an AP is that they simply don't have enough time or imagination (my case) to create their own campaigns. And that's why I spent (literally) hundreds of dollars on two APs I ran so far (Legacy of Fire and currently CC). I've got no problem with that, even though it's not a small sum for a college kid from Serbia. Legacy was lots of fun and Jason Nelson was more than enough helpful with his suggestions on how to tweak things and generally it was a good written AP.
And then comes the FINAL chapter of Carrion Crown, where designers give us a few vague paragraphs on how Adivion should be incorporated in the campaign. But by that point, it might be late for somebody who's running the campaign as chapters are published. Or simply doesn't go into in-depth reading of chapters other than that they are currently running. I was lucky enough that my campaign was only on second chapter by then, but I have already missed a few chances to introduce Adivion as some other DMs suggested. DMs, mind you, not writters of the AP. Not to mention it was kinda irresponsible not to let DMs know up front that they'll have to think of lots of foreshadowing themselves.
Like I said, some DMs aren't really up to the task. Some of them maybe don't visit the forums to rely on other, more experienced DMs to give them ideas.
IMHO, the main villain of the campaign should be just as important as the overall story and players should know whom they are facing long way before the final encounter. Example for this is Jon Irenicus from Baldur's Gate. Right off the bat he gives you a reason to hate him, has an amazing storyline and you run into him a few times during the game. Example of a memorable Paizo villain is (spoilers for Legacy of Fire):
And here we have little to NONE mention of the final boss in first FOUR chapters (seriously, his name doesn't even appear at all in second chapter, I just did a search of the PDF. In third chapter he is mentioned only in relation to another character). Not a good foreshadowing. I imagine the reaction that my PCs would have when they learn that he is the final boss would be 'Oh. Who's that?'
What I am trying to say is... Had you mentioned that we, the DMs, would have to work hard on the main villain, it might be that some of us would reconsider buying/running this campaign. As it happens, I had all the confidence in Paizo that they would offer me an Irenicus-worthy villain, so right away I subscribed to this AP and bought all the supporting products (Harrow Deck, DM Screen, Rule of Fear, Map Folio, Undead Revisited) and got an unfinished product. This was the reason I immediately unsubscribed from any further APs once I read the Intro to chapter 6.
Now, please don't take this post as an insult, I'm just trying to supply you with some constructive critisism and state my issue with it because this wasn't the standard Paizo quality that I know and love.
What I am trying to say is... Had you mentioned that we, the DMs, would have to work hard on the main villain, it might be that some of us would reconsider buying/running this campaign.
As it turns out, working the main villain for Carrion Crown into the story doesn't have to be "hard work." There's a thread in the Carrion Crown section of these forums where other GMs provide plenty of good ideas as to how you can introduce the villain sooner and have him be part of the adventure path right from kick off.
The thing is, at least as I see it, we're always going to have to do some work to make the adventure paths work. No adventure path is perfect. Paizo provides as much as they possibly can but there's always going to be a lot of variables and group preferences that means a GM has to do some leg work himself.
Frankly, I feel that the fact that Wes uses the introduction in Shadows of Gallowspire to say "hey guys, I think we may have dropped the ball somewhat with this adventure path and how we've used the main bad guy," is a testament to the top quality handling of Paizo products we've come to expect. When they make some mistakes, they aren't afraid to say so. The problem is that Wes can't go back and change things and he can't even allocate more space in the issue in which he mentions the potential error since the introduction, as I understand it, is written long after the adventure's been wrapped up. But at least he lets us know we might want to look into the issue at hand.
Adventure Paths are written by 6 different authors, all writing at the same time, iirc. The guy writing part 4 doesn't actually get to see what part 3 looks like ahead of time. For this reason alone, I would never start running an AP before I had all 6 books to flip through. It allows the DM to supply the foreshadowing and connections between the installments that can't be included due to the manner of their construction.
There's a thread in the Carrion Crown section of these forums where other GMs provide plenty of good ideas as to how you can introduce the villain sooner and have him be part of the adventure path right from kick off.
I know there is, I opened it. :P But even that was too late for some people, me included. I did it when I read the 6th chapter intro. It would have been better if I knew from the start and could plan from the beginning and use some of the suggestions for him to appear in first chapter. But, as it happens, I'm halfway through the 2nd chapter. Sure, there's still plenty of ways to introduce him, but the fact is that some other DMs have gone up to 4th chapter and for them it's gonna be a lot harder.
The thing is, at least as I see it, we're always going to have to do some work to make the adventure paths work. No adventure path is perfect. Paizo provides as much as they possibly can but there's always going to be a lot of variables and group preferences that means a GM has to do some leg work himself.
I agree that every DM has to do some work tweaking the AP to suit his needs. But in this case, I think the main villain of the AP is too important and has to be a great character and involvement in the AP and that's something that Paizo should have done. Leaving it like this feels like a half-finished product.
But, like I said, the gist of the issue is that even if they left up to the individual DMs to sort it out themselves, they should have said so in the introduction of the first chapter, not the last.
It would have been better if I knew from the start and could plan from the beginning and use some of the suggestions for him to appear in first chapter.
Of course it would. I'm not saying it wouldn't. Paizo made a mistake with this one. Mistakes happen, even for Paizo.
The thing is, if they'd known by the first installment that they'd made a mistake, they would've changed it then (or in the second installment). This is a hindsight issue. We've all made design mistakes that we don't really see while we're in the middle of it all. If you haven't, Paizo needs to hire you this second! It's a shame it happened but I really don't think it's a sign of the deterioration of the product line as a whole. Your mileage may vary, of course. :)
Oh, and cool deal opening that thread! That's helped a lot in my own game. :)
If you're on these boards and running an AP, you're really robbing yourself by not reading through the subforum for that AP. Not only are they full of helpful clarifications, they also help you be prepared for any issues that might come up with the plot, instead of being stuck trying to deal with problem spots with on the fly.
Oh, and cool deal opening that thread! That's helped a lot in my own game. :)
You're welcome. :) I did that as soon as I read the intro. For the best introduction of the finall boss I missed my chance, but at least saved someone from that predicament. It saddened me when I read about one DM who's halfway through the 4th chapter and can't put him in now that easily.
If you're on these boards and running an AP, you're really robbing yourself by not reading through the subforum for that AP.
I agree, but I think if it was possible to run the numbers, it would turn out that there are vastly more people who just buy APs (whether in stores or through other sites) than there are those who frequent the forums. Which unfortunately means that there are more of those who won't properly introduce him sometimes earlier in the campaign and campaign would suffer for it.
The thing is, if they'd known by the first installment that they'd made a mistake, they would've changed it then (or in the second installment). This is a hindsight issue.
Of course, but it's too of a big mistake that it can be easily ignored, that's what bothers me. It's not like some less important NPC who died earlier in the AP, appears again in the later parts. That would be a slight oversight, and could easily be replaced. But main villain has to have a presence. Otherwise it's just 6 random modules stappled together.
|
But main villain has to have a presence. Otherwise it's just 6 random modules stappled together.
I agree that you need a uniting theme but I don't thing that this necessarily has to be the main villain in person especially as the danger of introducing the main villain too soon as depictedby Wes in the intro of CC6 is a real one. See Rise of the Runelords where we didn't learn about Karzoug before the end of the 4th adventure but had the Sihedron as uniting element before. And I seem to remember quite some threads about the problem that the players tended to got directly after Karzoug not even bothering about visiting the Runeforge before.
Now in this case, where you have such an interesting villain I agree that it would be a pity not to use his potential by introducing him before the great finale. So yes, Paizo could have handled that better. On the other hand you have the Whispering Way as the uniting element so even without the BBEG you have more than "just 6 random modules".
As far as the topic is concerned I totally share Purple Dragon Knight's annoyance from a nerd standpoint. But I also don't mind the format of the AP's because I really enjoy reading them even knowing that I'll probably never run them.
Besides, I seem to have a habit of heavily adapting the APs for use in other settings which includes rewriting a big part of the background and reducing the AP's plot to it's core elements. Which basically means replacing any editorial mistakes and other weirdnesses by my own :D
So on the one hand, I wouldn't and don't mind Paizo to experiment with the format, but on the other hand I don't deem it necessary to change it if that would hurt sales.
I have to say I would never run an AP until I had read all 6 volumes. I mean, I know the current one always sounds exciting. But as GM you can always add more depth when you know what is coming. You can add links or increase NPC presences or whatever else that helps tie the AP volumes together better. Paizo does a remarkable job, but the way they are produced (6 different authors with outlines, not finished modules, to work with) there will always be improvements that can be made using hindsight.
With 8 completed APs already out there, there has to be a good one to pick that you haven't played through. Only the most hardcore will have done them all. Or even half of them.
|
APs are supposed to be the place for epic long stories that take months or years to complete. For shorter, less time intensive adventures or campaigns people should look to the modules line.
Also while it is tragic that there's not enough time in a lifetime to run every AP, there's more than enough time to READ every AP, and that's what I intend to do. I like reading adventures and I like mining them for ideas.
I have to say I would never run an AP until I had read all 6 volumes.
Agreed. I'll wait for the next one to be published fully before I dabble with it, to avoid these situations.
With 8 completed APs already out there, there has to be a good one to pick that you haven't played through. Only the most hardcore will have done them all. Or even half of them.
My group of people with whom I play with is actually about 12 people split into few intermingling, smaller groups and we play about 3 campaigns at the same time (usually everyone plays in two, or DMs one and plays in another) and between us, we have played everything except from Curse of the Crimson Throne and Serpent's Skull. Currently there are two Kingmaker campaigns playing, one Second Darkness and one Carrion Crown. Due to the laziness of the DM, Kingmaker is likely to fall apart, but I guess we'll just convince another DM to pick-up where he left of.
With 8 completed APs already out there, there has to be a good one to pick that you haven't played through. Only the most hardcore will have done them all. Or even half of them.My group of people with whom I play with is actually about 12 people split into few intermingling, smaller groups and we play about 3 campaigns at the same time (usually everyone plays in two, or DMs one and plays in another) and between us, we have played everything except from Curse of the Crimson Throne and Serpent's Skull. Currently there are two Kingmaker campaigns playing, one Second Darkness and one Carrion Crown. Due to the laziness of the DM, Kingmaker is likely to fall apart, but I guess we'll just convince another DM to pick-up where he left of.
Playing in 3 Adventure Paths at once = hardcore. You get to be a statistical anomaly. I would guess that 90% of Paizo's customers have not played through 4 APs, let alone 6 of them.
For you my only suggestion is to take a break from Paizo APs. Try DungeonADay.com or Frog God's AP or Ptolus or Enworld's campaign. Give Paizo a chance to produce some more APs and then come back.
I have to say I would never run an AP until I had read all 6 volumes.Agreed. I'll wait for the next one to be published fully before I dabble with it, to avoid these situations.
I fully agree with this. I've been sitting on my desire to run Carrion Crown since the first book came out and it wasn't until recently that I got a chance to start it. Book one as is, is likely the most horrifying experience in the memory of my players outside of the old horror movies we all grew up watching.
But as I just picked up book two, I greatly wish I had purchased all of the books prior to running and set aside a notebook or two to be filled with notes and tag all the plot hooks.
With 8 completed APs already out there, there has to be a good one to pick that you haven't played through. Only the most hardcore will have done them all. Or even half of them.My group of people with whom I play with is actually about 12 people split into few intermingling, smaller groups and we play about 3 campaigns at the same time (usually everyone plays in two, or DMs one and plays in another) and between us, we have played everything except from Curse of the Crimson Throne and Serpent's Skull. Currently there are two Kingmaker campaigns playing, one Second Darkness and one Carrion Crown. Due to the laziness of the DM, Kingmaker is likely to fall apart, but I guess we'll just convince another DM to pick-up where he left of.Playing in 3 Adventure Paths at once = hardcore. You get to be a statistical anomaly. I would guess that 90% of Paizo's customers have not played through 4 APs, let alone 6 of them.
For you my only suggestion is to take a break from Paizo APs. Try DungeonADay.com or Frog God's AP or Ptolus or Enworld's campaign. Give Paizo a chance to produce some more APs and then come back.
You didn't understand me quite well. English isn't my native language, so I'll do my best. Like I said, there are 12 of us and there and there are currently 4 campaigns playing among us. Two Kingmaker APs (8 different people), one Second Darkness and one Carrion Crown. And out of all those 12 people, only one guy is actually playing two APs and DMing one. Some of them are playing one. But most of those 12 guys, just play 2 APs. I play in Kingmaker (but we play only twice a month) and DM Carrion Crown.
We would love to play ALL APs (among us, not neccessarily that everyone plays every AP), but when we started playing APs, Council of Thieves was the newest, so we had lot of catching up to do. Although we did play Shackled City and Savage Tide before that.
So... Among the 12 (3 DMs at the same time, but 5 in total) of us there has been (chronoligically):
1 Shackled City (ended it on 10th chapter)
1 Savage Tide
2 Rise of the Runelords
2 Second Darkness (one is currently played)
1 Legacy of Fire
1 Council of Thieves (ended it on 5th chapter)
2 Kingmaker (both are currently played)
1 Carrion Crown (currently played)
After Carrion Crown I'll DM either Serpent's Skull or Curse of the Crimson Throne. Another one will DM Jade Regent when/if he finishes Jade Regent, and the third one will DM Skulls and Shackles.
It comes down to 1.5 half sessions a week for most people, I really don't see that as hardcore.
It comes down to 1.5 half sessions a week for most people, I really don't see that as hardcore.
Ok, that makes more sense. You as a group are collectively seeing more APs than any particular individual. That still puts your group in a unique situation.
You can probably get more plays through from some of the APs, pick someone who played as GM, and round up those that didn't play. That way you can pick the ones others have really enjoyed for a second play through. I still suggest you add some non-Paizo campaign material into the mix. I really like anything from Open Design or Rite Publishing. I hear good things about Frog God's adventures, and I'm sure others here have good suggestions.
With some of the APs, we're doing just that. Some of the campaigns have been played twice (or in the case of Shackled City/Savage Tide there have been 6 players in each), but it's not as easy as it sounds. Out of those 12 people, not everyone gets along perfectly with everyone else, so you can't just pick random 4 people for every campaign. My personal opinion is that it's better to play ALL of the APs among us 12 than for everyone to play everything. Us being a group, there are of course much talk about current campaigns, so inevitably someone is going to hear some spoilers etc etc. Then, there is the problem that some DMs are lazier than others and sometimes don't finish the campaigns they started. As you can see, CoT basically failed, so did Shackled City, and Kingmaker will probably too. First attempt of Legacy of Fire also failed, but I picked up the pieces and finished it. I imagine the same thing will be with Kingmaker, but I hope I won't have to DM this time, because every campaign that has failed, I was the player, and all of the campaigns that I DMed, we played till the end.
It's really bothersome for me, because I never get to finish an AP as a player. :/
It's really bothersome for me, because I never get to finish an AP as a player. :/
I never even get to play. :P I own several that I haven't read specifically for that purpose, but I don't know if I'll ever convince someone to run one for me.
At least you have a fairly active group, so you get to play quite a bit.
I know, it's just frustrating when you make a character, invest a lot of time into writing his background, creating his intrests and the likes, building him from scratch, playing him... And then all that goes to garbage because DM gets bored with DMing at lvl 7.
|
|
I know, it's just frustrating when you make a character, invest a lot of time into writing his background, creating his intrests and the likes, building him from scratch, playing him... And then all that goes to garbage because DM gets bored with DMing at lvl 7.
GM burnout can be a huge game-killer, lord knows I have never finished any campaign, and half the time that was because I would get bored with running the game.
There's no simple solution for GM burn out, except perhaps to agree to run half an AP, and switch so that another player can run the other half. That way it doesn't seem like such a long slog.
GM burnout can be a huge game-killer, lord knows I have never finished any campaign, and half the time that was because I would get bored with running the game.
There's no simple solution for GM burn out, except perhaps to agree to run half an AP, and switch so that another player can run the other half. That way it doesn't seem like such a long slog.
I think you're either a GM or you're not, personally. I've been running games for over 16 years now, and I've never stopped loving it. I've played in numerous games, as well, though I've never played in a single game that's finished. On the other hand, I've successfully completed five campaigns (and am currently running three). As much as I enjoy playing a character (and I do!), I've found that I don't feel fulfilled if I'm not behind the screen for something. I'm a storyteller, first and foremost, and I thoroughly enjoy it when my players are having a blast. Honestly, it's because my players seem to have such a good time when I'm behind the screen that makes it so rewarding, and my campaigns are time-consuming! I've had one that went nearly 9 years (Ravenloft: 1890's) and another that went almost six years (Forgotten Realms).
If storytelling is your where you find enjoyment, burnout certainly isn't a problem! =) It sounds like you've got yourself a group full of folk who would rather live the story than tell one!
I know, it's just frustrating when you make a character, invest a lot of time into writing his background, creating his intrests and the likes, building him from scratch, playing him... And then all that goes to garbage because DM gets bored with DMing at lvl 7.GM burnout can be a huge game-killer, lord knows I have never finished any campaign, and half the time that was because I would get bored with running the game.
Can't really say... When I run a game, I finish it, simple as that. Not because I find great enjoyment in being a storyteller like Sub-Creator (of course, it goes without saying that it warms my heart to see players enjoy, but I still like to be a player better), but because I don't believe in half measures. Also I don't want to be remembered as 'The DM who ruined ______ (insert random AP name)'. Unfortunately, other DMs don't have that problem.
|
|
If storytelling is your where you find enjoyment, burnout certainly isn't a problem!
From my own experience I'd say you can enjoy storytelling too much, and that can lead to GM burnout as well. Did in my case as I tried to run too many APs simultaneously (most of them as PBP) which resulted in me going into hiatus for over a year.
|
|
If storytelling is your where you find enjoyment, burnout certainly isn't a problem!From my own experience I'd say you can enjoy storytelling too much, and that can lead to GM burnout as well. Did in my case as I tried to run too many APs simultaneously (most of them as PBP) which resulted in me going into hiatus for over a year.
This.
Also, sometimes you just want to start telling a different story. RPGs take up a significantly larger chunk of time than any other gaming medium. So the level of commitment is quite huge. Sometimes you get bored of the massive novel and just want to go and tell a fun short story without the baggage and having to remember loads and loads of details.
|
|
4. Product creep. ST referenced almost nothing except the 3.5 core stuff and certainly did not require anything but a PH, DMG, and MM to run start to finish. RotRL was about the same except having some Golarian world type books added nice flavor if you wanted it. CotCT was about the same except that having the Korvosa guide was at least very helpful but probably required. With CC I am noticing a huge leap in required ancillary material. It is PFRPG based so it requires the core rule book and the bestiary, no problem there. Having the Ustalav book looks very necessary. Many NPCs use stuff from the APG and (from what I have read to date) it doesn't look like the new abilities are fully flesh out in the stat blocks. Later in the AP many creatures from the Bestiary 2 show up (which is great for variety) with no stat blocks (bad for required books). I also see several references to the GMG as well. Yes I know much of this stuff is online for free, cost is not the concern, it's the research, time investment, and sometimes unwanted game complication (like with npcs that are a class I don't know anything about) that is.Me, I like the product creep. One of the flaws of 3e stuff was that you had all these supplements adding coolness, but it never got used in modules or other supplements - it all became stuff for the players, not the DM unless he went to a lot of work to incorporate it all. As long as it's kept within reason, and things outside of a predefined core is described, I'm totally OK with it.
As an aside, the reason earlier APs didn't reference anything other than the PHB, DMG and MM was that they were limited by the OGL - Rise of the Rune Lords couldn't use things from Complete Arcane because Complete Arcane was not open content. But now Paizo has built up their own body of supplements that they are free to reference.
I have to agree to a point. One of the things that bugged me about splat books(for lack of a better term) is they was typical one and done and you never seen follow up rules or any other book or adventure use them. That is one thing I am glad paizo is doing different both supporting the books with future ones with more options but also using them in adventures and what not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our Adventure Paths are currently one of the most successful aspects of the entire Paizo operation. They're what they are after nearly 10 years of adjustments and learning from previous mistakes. It's very very very very unlikely we'll ever make significantly drastic changes to the format. Any adjustments to the AP line we do make will be in the form of "baby steps," such as how we adjusted the first page of the adventure or added magic item and NPC appendices to Jade Regent.
Changing the length of an AP or starting one at anything other than 1st level, I fear, would damage the AP's success in the long run. Might even damage it in the short run.
I like the AP's as they are and don't want them changed, with that said though...
Maybe it is time to consider the mini AP. As something above and beyond. I know things are stretched but if new hires go out, then a possible option would be the 3 book mini AP. Perhaps done every other month like adventures. A bonus with them is they could be set at different levels sorta a cross between a adventure series and a AP.
Maybe it is time to consider the mini AP. As something above and beyond. I know things are stretched but if new hires go out, then a possible option would be the 3 book mini AP. Perhaps done every other month like adventures. A bonus with them is they could be set at different levels sorta a cross between a adventure series and a AP.
Except I believe they tried something like that with the modules line (series of three linked adventures) and I don't think it did all that well. Not poorly, just not well enough for them to want to do it again.