I've been planning on DMing SS once I finish with Carrion Crown, but recently it has come under my attention that Serpent's Skull isn't that good. Since only these two APs my group hasn't played, I can pick between them. Jade Regent is not an option since, aside from my dislike for asian culture in medieval fantasy, another friend plans to DM it. At first I dismissed CotCT because it's 3.5 and went with the assumption that newer is better, but this post by Gorbacz, made me start considering it:
City of Seven Spears is a horrible exercise in boredom and 4E-style delve hack-and-slash-and-move-to-the-next-hack-and-slash. Barely any plot or memorable situations that Paizo APs are famous for. Blergh.
Adventures 4 and 5 are also nothing special.
Overall, this AP just lacks the mojo, in my opinion. Not a trainwreck like Second Darkness, but a missed opportunity much like Council of Thieves was.
Personally, I would go for Jade Regent instead.
So, what do you guys think? Is CotCT truly better AP than SS?
|
CotCT has a stronger story, you'll have to square with yourself if you're happy with the way the story goes in chapters 4 & 5.
Ultimately no AP is perfect, and any AP will only be as good as the players and GM who participate in them.
|
I disagree with nearly everything Gorbacz said about the other APs but even then I think that CotCP is the better choice storywise. And personally I think it's second only to the Runelords AP qualitywise.
But generally speaking I'd be cautious with other people's opinion as often it's more a matter of taste than objective judgement. And critics tend to be more vocal about their opinion than those content with what they got. If they have arguments for their opinion, fine (and I in no way mean to imply that Gorbacz has no such arguments, I'm just saying he doesn't present them in your quote). But such general statements (Second Darkness a trainwreck, Council of Thieves a missed opportunity) I'd take with a grain of salt.
So if you prefer an (mostly, see DM_aka_Dudemeister) urban setting over an african flavored jungle setting, if you prefer storytelling over more freeform, sandboxy play or if you just aren't willing (or haven't the time) to put much own effort into your campaign, I'd suggest you run Crimson Throne.
And if you still have time to decide, I'd suggest you scout the respective subforums for discussions regarding the quality of those APs.
|
|
I disagree with nearly everything Gorbacz said about the other APs but even then I think that CotCP is the better choice storywise. And personally I think it's second only to the Runelords AP qualitywise.
But generally speaking I'd be cautious with other people's opinion as often it's more a matter of taste than objective judgement. And critics tend to be more vocal about their opinion than those content with what they got. If they have arguments for their opinion, fine (and I in no way mean to imply that Gorbacz has no such arguments, I'm just saying he doesn't present them in your quote). But such general statements (Second Darkness a trainwreck, Council of Thieves a missed opportunity) I'd take with a grain of salt.
So if you prefer an (mostly, see DM_aka_Dudemeister) urban setting over an african flavored jungle setting, if you prefer storytelling over more freeform, sandboxy play or if you just aren't willing (or haven't the time) to put much own effort into your campaign, I'd suggest you run Crimson Throne.
And if you still have time to decide, I'd suggest you scout the respective subforums for discussions regarding the quality of those APs.
I disagree with what Wormy says about my post and I agree with everything else he says. :)
|
I don't have direct experience with either, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I've been doing some research for a potential upcoming game, and Curse of the Crimson Throne is constantly mentioned as one of the best APs, if not the best. In this thread, for example, CotCT is in first place with something like 13 votes - Kingmaker is in second with only 4. Serpent's Skull, on the other hand, is typically ranked in the bottom three.
Well, speaking as GM for myself...
Serpent Skull has gone well enough so far, however we're in adventure 3/adventure 4 now, and, to be honest, they work much better blended together as one adventure instead of two, just so long as you know what you're doing, as a few of the encounters can (apparently) be very deadly (I've been informed by jorgenporgen, here).
Now, as for that: yeah, it can totally become monotonous. I like Serpent Skull, so far, but it can easily slip into monotony. One thing I really regret not doing was my homework. I think I could have made the overland travel route much more interesting by evoking the scenes more vividly, if only I'd looked up more information on what jungles, savannahs, and so on are actually like. I realize, coming back to it recently, that I really haven't been evocative enough. And that's what SS thrives on. It's not the AP itself - it's kind of meh, and possibly forgettable - but what really stands out, to me, is the brilliant view of a long, arduous journey, the long, grueling trek across a country so untamed it's on the verge of shattering, and finally coming across ruins so famed that they were a legend in their own time, much less now - in an era now called the Age of Legends.
This is the stuff that epic adventures are made of. But the journey... had I been better about it, I'm sure I could have made it more interesting. Instead, I went with - occasionally memorable - (mostly) random encounters (totally guilty of the fifteen minute adventuring day here) that were often bland without the feeling of life while we sat in an air-conditioned environment. Speaking only for myself, Serpent Skull was a lost opportunity... for me. That said, I now have the chance to do better, and I'm hoping it will work out well.
One other thing I've noticed - in the APs, around adventure 4 (either three-and-four, or four-and-five, so far) it drags and gets kind of weird. While avoiding the spoiler above, that would fit with what DM_aka_Dudemeister mentioned above, about CotCT. Again, not saying those are bad adventures, by any means, but rather it can drag if your not careful, as for whatever reason that fourth-adventure-oddity seems fairly common. It's like somewhere around the fourth adventure the story just kind of... peters... out... but... then picks right back up again to zomigOSH IT'S !!!1!!!one!!!1!!!*
So, you know, YMMV.
As for CotCT - can't say I've played it, I'm afraid.
*This is not set in stone - it's just a tendency I've noticed.
|
[...]
So, what do you guys think? Is CotCT truly better AP than SS?
I'll try saying something new, or at least something mentioned less often.
First, a common strength to the two APs. Both of them have a decent supporting cast of NPCs that can recur throughout the campaign. Overall, the descriptions of who they are and (more importantly) what sort of things they get up to when not interacting with PCs is better in Curse. However, played poorly, they can make Curse seem like a series of fetching errands for the PCs. Also, NPCs who could be neutral or of malleable allegiance are fewer in Curse. SS has more NPC supporting cast that can fit the frenemy role better, or who might change over time. If your DM style is such that you want to offer a lot of interactions, there are more NPCs to work with in SS than CotCT. You'll still need to do some work fleshing those NPCs out in either case, but there is more variety in the stated-up backup cast of SS by far. In Curse, if the PCs don't hit it off well with the NPCs for whatever reason, you will have more work as part of your DM prep. There are some NPCs without much screen time that you could flesh out and replace the given NPCs with, but they don't come with stats provided. In SS, there's usually at least two NPCs you have to motivate the PCs to do something (one or more who will actively encourage the party to do the quest by offering carrots, and one or more who the party might do the quest in order to oppose.) If you were satisfied with how CC NPCs such as Kendra Lorrimor and Judge Daramid are used, CotCT is closer to that than SS. If you as a DM would have preferred to have the folks like Abrun Chalest known and available earlier in the campaign, the NPC style in SS may be closer to what you like.
It also depends on your players. If they are the sorts who want all the characters in the campaign to pick a white or black hat by the end, Curse will be more their speed than Skull. Curse lends itself much more to this high contrast style, because the sorts of NPCs who might otherwise choose some shade of grey can more easily be faded into obscurity and left off stage by you. Also, in Curse, the NPCs usually have to make this choice fairly early in their interactions with the party. Your players may find settling up with each NPC rewarding. This sort of play style in Skull can lead to a lot of grinding, because when everyone gets to the big goal, the players might decide to play king of the hill / Highlander until all potential neutrals are eliminated or assimilated.
You've been running CC, which is very much a chase type of AP. If your players are really into that, they might not be up for an AP largely set in one place their characters should worry and care about. SS ends up in a single place, and it's more of a resource to be plumbed and exploited, rather than tended. I think a big reason why Curse is so popular is that it does many of the things that Shackled City did, but better, without as many weaknesses, and not in Greyhawk but in a setting with much less written about it. Since shackled city came out first, people who liked it but found some parts annoying may have found that Curse addressed their feedback. Which is not to say that Skull is flawless; the flaws that people point out really are there.