|
I know it's really early, and that we haven't even started to see the expansion decks coming out yet.
However, I'm pretty sure that Paizo must be pleased with the general response the PACG has received so far. And if they are planning a sequel, they will need to start very soon.
And the internet is exactly the place for rampant speculation.
So I was wondering what the community would like to see for a sequel.
Personally, I think Jade Regent or Skull & Shackles would be leading contenders.
1/ They each would enable the designers to use iconic characters which would be less suited to other choices (ie Haytao & Reiko for JR, Lirianne for S&S)
2/ They are both reasonably popular campaigns, yet may have adventures still available in stores (cross-promotion = good thing)
3/ Pirates!
4/ Ninjas!
One thing I would like to see rules-wise is that any characters would be playable in any set, so we could use the new ones in RotR and the old ones in the new game.
Speculate away!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh!
For those who are new to Paizo through the card game, here are the summaries of the various Adventure Paths.
|
One thing I would like to see rules-wise is that any characters would be playable in any set, so we could use the new ones in RotR and the old ones in the new game.
Not just players, but any cards. If they come out with the new adventure path set next year, and the backs of the cards are different, so it's impossible to mix the current cards with the new ones, I'll be pissed. The ability to use the existing cards to create your own custom scenarios and adventures is one of the selling points of the game, and being able to pull from ALL of the published cards for any version of the game should be a part of that.
As for the original question, I'm thinking Skull & Shackles would be cool. Pirates are always popular, and it would be so completely different from the current adventure that it would provide lots of good new stuff.
I wonder interesting kingdom building mechanics could be introduced for Kingmaker.
I for one would like Shattered Star but I also think the themes of Carrion Crown would be a great seller.
Well, if they already started any suggestions would only go for the campaign after the upcoming one. So here are mine: Curse of the Crimson Throne, Jade Regent, Shattered Star, Reign of Winter.
|
|
It could also be something original. I do not think that they need to be locked into Adventure Paths only. If it is another Adventure PAth I think Shattered Star would be a very good fit. The location and themes would mesh well with Rise of the Runelords.
I could easily see making expansion decks with themes including a new adventure and 5 scenarios. It would be cool to add other locations like Falcon's Hollow. There are plenty of defined NPCs, locations and monsters different from the base set already established.
|
Maybe later down the road, I can see them making up a fresh adventure path for the card game, but why on the second box set? You have 12 perfectly good adventures to pull tons of material and more importantly, graphics from. I have no problem with them using the adventure paths. Makes me a little nostalgic.
I do like how they used the comic book for the Peril's starting adventures. Nice tie in.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Personally, I'd like to see stand alone adventures outside of adventure paths, too. A Feast of Ravenmoor expansion pack could be awesome.
I totally agree with this. I'd love to see a Dragon's Demand module (with 5 or 6 scenarios) or something like that.
Paizo has SO MUCH material that they could work with to make new adventures or scenarios, and a smaller module (as opposed to adventure path sections) could probably have just 3 scenarios in it like the Base set, so could be a 52-card deck instead of the 110-card packs. Charge $10 for one of those, and you'd get a LOT of sales, I guarantee it. Especially if you put a new character in there too!!!
Murder's Mark could be a fun one to do...
|
|
Of course, if we start asking for modules as adventures that aren't part of an adventure path, then we start getting into questions of what power level of characters should be playing what adventures, and what cards should they be using besides those that come with these new adventures.
Right now, fan scenarios are written up with suggestions like "Play after Burnt Offerings", or "Play after Perils of the Coast, but before Burnt Offerings". It works, but we could use a simpler way to talk about this, and to decide which cards and stuff to include when playing separate adventures that aren't part of an adventure path.
I'm thinking there's one big RPG concept that wasn't included in the card game that probably needs to be added in to deal with this: character level. That way, if they publish adventures that aren't part of an adventure path, they can specify what level character it's for.
So how do you define level? And what does it affect?
My first thought was that you'd start at level 0, and advance one level for each adventure you complete. This means that your level is the same as the adventure path part number that you're currently playing if you stick to the adventure path. Works fine, if you're only playing the adventure from the starter box and the adventure path, but thinking about it more, I think this falls apart if you insert too many side quests into the mix.
Now I'm thinking a level scale of 0-6 is probably best, with the level representing what cards you can play with in your current adventure. So level 0 characters only use the base box, level 1 characters can include cards with a 1 on them when playing any level 1 adventure (such as Burnt Offerings). Even if you insert additional adventures, by limiting the banes and boons to those at the current level of the characters, you should avoid giving them game breaking loot or too-tough challenges.
This also lets them publish adventures, or fans to create their own scenarios or adventures, that can be played in and around adventure path sections using many of the same cards. So for instance, in this thread, we've already suggested Murder's Mark and Feast of Ravenmoor as possible modules to be published as adventure expansion packs. I'd say MM would be a level 0 adventure, while Ravenmoor would be level 1. So Murder's Mark would be played with cards from the base set and character add-on (B or C), along with it's own cards (which would say "Murder's Mark" instead of "Rise of the Runelords" on the card, with a "0" instead of the B or C). Feast of Ravensmoor would similarly say "Feast of Ravenmoor" and "1" on the cards, and be played with all "B", "C", and "1" cards.
Since they'd be limited to boon cards that are appropriate for their level, characters shouldn't become too powerful for the next section of the adventure path, even if they do play additional adventures outside the AP. The one limitation here is that you'd have to avoid feats as rewards for side adventures, so they can't enter an AP section with more feats than expected for that level of the AP.
Thinking about it, some of this seems pretty obvious, from a game design perspective. I just hope Paizo will consider stuff like this, rather than just putting out one adventure path per year, with no side material.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Of course, if we start asking for modules as adventures that aren't part of an adventure path, then we start getting into questions of what power level of characters should be playing what adventures, and what cards should they be using besides those that come with these new adventures.
Right now, fan scenarios are written up with suggestions like "Play after Burnt Offerings", or "Play after Perils of the Coast, but before Burnt Offerings". It works, but we could use a simpler way to talk about this, and to decide which cards and stuff to include when playing separate adventures that aren't part of an adventure path.
I'm thinking there's one big RPG concept that wasn't included in the card game that probably needs to be added in to deal with this: character level. That way, if they publish adventures that aren't part of an adventure path, they can specify what level character it's for.
So how do you define level? And what does it affect?
My first thought was that you'd start at level 0, and advance one level for each adventure you complete. This means that your level is the same as the adventure path part number that you're currently playing if you stick to the adventure path. Works fine, if you're only playing the adventure from the starter box and the adventure path, but thinking about it more, I think this falls apart if you insert too many side quests into the mix.
Now I'm thinking a level scale of 0-6 is probably best, with the level representing what cards you can play with in your current adventure. So level 0 characters only use the base box, level 1 characters can include cards with a 1 on them when playing any level 1 adventure (such as Burnt Offerings). Even if you insert additional adventures, by limiting the banes and boons to those at the current level of the characters, you should avoid giving them game breaking loot or too-tough challenges.
This also lets them publish adventures, or fans to create their own scenarios or adventures, that can be played in and around adventure...
I think that the "level" of the character is best based off of the number of feats that the character has. You can luck out and get super powerful weapons and spells right away, but your number of feats are specifically based on the adventure path.
This way, you could say "this scenario is appropriate for characters with between 4-6 feats" and you'd know where you can insert the scenario within the adventure path to represent a "side quest".
|
|
I think that the level of the scenario is more a factor of the villian and henchmen to be faced. The other decks sort of scale as the sets increment. I would suggest that if you have villans/hemchmen that increased by some factor of the highest expansion set included in the box that you could play most adventures at any "level". Some monster already include this scaling method.
One off scenarios and adventures would need to be constructed carefully and be conservative about the rewards granted. The power of the characters is really determined by the number of feats that they have.
I'm thinking there's one big RPG concept that wasn't included in the card game that probably needs to be added in to deal with this: character level. That way, if they publish adventures that aren't part of an adventure path, they can specify what level character it's for.
I have always felt the level method of differentiating power felt artificial. On the other hand, I really love the way it was implemented currently in the PAGC, feels a lot more naturalistic. So I hope we won't see levels anytime soon in this game.
I think that the "level" of the character is best based off of the number of feats that the character has.I just recently convinced Mike that that's the case. :-)
Uh-huh. Now I just have to figure out what that means.
|
|
I would love to see someone take a stab and some home brew versions of Pathfinder Society adventures....
I was thinking the same thing already. Once I get more familiar with the cards in the game, I'll think about which ones match up well with PFS scenarios. Any suggestions for PFS scenarios you think might already have the right types of monsters and locations available in the card game?
Ok, now I'm thinking of an adventure module expansion deck for the Blackros Museum, featuring all of the Museum-based adventures in one expansion pack. :)
|
|
I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner, but how about a whole base set and campaign based on Pathfinder Society instead of an adventure path. They could use past PFS scenarios as the adventures and scenarios for this new campaign.
The only question is what to do with the Venture Captains. Are they allies or barriers? LOL
|
|
Actually, now that I'm thinking about trying to do a custom scenario, I'm thinking they should skip the specific adventures and give us a base set of just "generic" cards. Generic wilderness and city locations, the entire Bestiary in monsters, etc. Maybe it doesn't have to be a base set, just an expansion, and it could include a series of relatively generic adventures, but it would be the cards we need to make custom adventures, in much the same way that the Bestiary provides tools to make custom RPG adventures.
|
I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner, but how about a whole base set and campaign based on Pathfinder Society instead of an adventure path. They could use past PFS scenarios as the adventures and scenarios for this new campaign.
The only question is what to do with the Venture Captains. Are they allies or barriers? LOL
Heh. I've been slowly building a plan to make a bunch of fan-made PFS adventures. I've got God's Market Gamble in the planning stages.