All,
Are all the APs going to be Mythic from now on? Or will some have mythic elements while others do not? Or will the APs be done in such a way that they have all the mythic and non-mythic approaches in each AP, such that you can opt-in or opt-out as desired?
I ask because I dont want to buy any Mythic APs anytime soon, but I do like Pathfinder APs.
The next two are non mythic. I suspect the answer is "some will have some mythic content, some not. We don't yet know whether there'll be another mythic AP".
When you say the next two, which do you mean? The two following Iron Gods? Or what?
I think Steve means that neither Mummy's Mask nor Iron Gods have any mythic content.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Although, I think there's a chance they'll include some elements (the odd mythic enemy, perhaps). They're not designed for mythic PCs though.
It'd be fun (and interesting) if they do include suggestions at the start of the module as to how a GM could incorporate Mythic into the game.
James may have hinted that there'll be mythic NPCs in Iron Gods. But not mythic PCs.
It'd be fun (and interesting) if they do include suggestions at the start of the module as to how a GM could incorporate Mythic into the game.Since they only release one AP at a time, I think this would be the best way to go forward, including Mythic options for non-Mythic APs and non-Mythic options for Mythic APs.
This only issue with this is it would chew up page count that they don't really have to spare. Adventure content would be shorter. Unless they only dedicate a page or two per module but if that's the case it wouldn't really end up being enough material to be worth it - most GMs can come up with a single page or two of modifications on their own.
While I think we'll always retain the prerogative to include mythic content if we think it's warranted, one of the points of Wrath of the Righteous was to be "the mythic AP." Mythic is an optional add-on system, not an edition change. Most APs going forward will continue to use the base rules, and be built for standard parties.
Creative Director
|
This only issue with this is it would chew up page count that they don't really have to spare. Adventure content would be shorter. Unless they only dedicate a page or two per module but if that's the case it wouldn't really end up being enough material to be worth it - most GMs can come up with a single page or two of modifications on their own.It'd be fun (and interesting) if they do include suggestions at the start of the module as to how a GM could incorporate Mythic into the game.Since they only release one AP at a time, I think this would be the best way to go forward, including Mythic options for non-Mythic APs and non-Mythic options for Mythic APs.
Since the Mythic Rules are going onto the PRD, we can drop in mythic content in the same way we drop in things like witches or kongomatos or anything else from the hardcover line without using much more room than normal. It'd likely just be a stat block or a superscript citation. Using mythic content in future adventures will be pretty easy, but we likely won't be doing it often, and if you don't want the PCs to fight a mythic foe or find a mythic item, it'll be easy enough to swap that out with a non-mythic version (although if it's a foe, you'll need to rebuild the stats...).
My take on this is that as long as it's the party that are opting out as opposed to the GM wanting to remove it from the monsters and NPCs too, then it's pretty easy. Just look at the (mythically adjusted) CR of the opponent and you know the level the party should be to face them, then you can just adjust the required levels for the AP up a bit to ensure the non-mythic characters are powerful enough to face mythic foes.
Since the Mythic Rules are going onto the PRD, we can drop in mythic content in the same way we drop in things like witches or kongomatos or anything else from the hardcover line without using much more room than normal. It'd likely just be a stat block or a superscript citation. Using mythic content in future adventures will be pretty easy, but we likely won't be doing it often, and if you don't want the PCs to fight a mythic foe or find a mythic item, it'll be easy enough to swap that out with a non-mythic version (although if it's a foe, you'll need to rebuild the stats...).This only issue with this is it would chew up page count that they don't really have to spare. Adventure content would be shorter. Unless they only dedicate a page or two per module but if that's the case it wouldn't really end up being enough material to be worth it - most GMs can come up with a single page or two of modifications on their own.It'd be fun (and interesting) if they do include suggestions at the start of the module as to how a GM could incorporate Mythic into the game.Since they only release one AP at a time, I think this would be the best way to go forward, including Mythic options for non-Mythic APs and non-Mythic options for Mythic APs.
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. Putting Mythic into an adventure wouldn't chew up the page count any more than using anything else published by Paizo. I was referring to the suggestion that you guys could develop your APs and include BOTH options in the adventure, devoting a section of a Mythic AP to make it not Mythic or devoting a section of a regular AP to making it Mythic - that would chew up page count.
Since the Mythic Rules are going onto the PRD, we can drop in mythic content in the same way we drop in things like witches or kongomatos or anything else from the hardcover line without using much more room than normal. It'd likely just be a stat block or a superscript citation. Using mythic content in future adventures will be pretty easy, but we likely won't be doing it often, and if you don't want the PCs to fight a mythic foe or find a mythic item, it'll be easy enough to swap that out with a non-mythic version (although if it's a foe, you'll need to rebuild the stats...).
While I know there are design considerations I can not begin to contemplate, it would seem to me providing a stat block like this one on Xanesha that has a normal and 'mythic' version side by side wouldn't complicate things that much. Then mythic and non-mythic groups are all appeased.
But as far as I can tell there are at least 13 'regular' APs that leave the players somewhere around level 17ish, with nothing else to do. Again, I don't know your demographics, but I find it hard to believe there are more people out there who want ANOTHER AP to play from 1 to 17 than there are people who want something else to do with those characters after they've saved the world.
Heck even a simple set of rules on how to bump a level 1 encounter to level 17-20 would do it. Then high level players can still experience the existing content that's already been written. I see lots of people talking about trying to put their groups through Rune Lords and Crimson Throne, or Jade Reagent as a sequel.
I know I'm having to jump through quite a few hoops to run RotRL parallel with Wrath of the Righteous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I find Mythic helps for those GMs who have skilled players who are able to easily overpower existing AP encounters. By tossing either a Mythic template on a monster or providing a regular villain with a couple Mythic Tiers, you can increase the versatility of the encounter and make the party sweat.
I do know that a Mythic half-fiend gargoyle gave my Runelords group a run for their money and that it would not have been half as nasty if the monster had just been given the Advanced Template and some extra hit dice or class levels. (Having its damage resistance ignore magic weapons was a delightful twist.) The only real problem is remembering all of the Mythic abilities so the foe is used to their full effectiveness.
If they start adding mythic to every AP, even if it is optional, to me would take away the mythicness of mythic. Right now it is new and exciting, but too much of it and it becomes the new standard.
A 6 part adventure path that runs from level 1 to 17ish is pretty darn standard, and yet we keep showing up. I don't really see how the inclusion of optional rules makes anything less exciting. If you don't want to use them, don't. Knowing there's a level 20 fight at the end of the module doesn't make the level 10 fights any less engaging; knowing there are mythic variants wouldn't, either.
The fact remains that the segment of players who want to do something other than start over again at level 1 at the end of every AP is still being undeserved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as far as I can tell there are at least 13 'regular' APs that leave the players somewhere around level 17ish, with nothing else to do. Again, I don't know your demographics, but I find it hard to believe there are more people out there who want ANOTHER AP to play from 1 to 17 than there are people who want something else to do with those characters after they've saved the world.Heck even a simple set of rules on how to bump a level 1 encounter to level 17-20 would do it. Then high level players can still experience the existing content that's already been written. I see lots of people talking about trying to put their groups through Rune Lords and Crimson Throne, or Jade Reagent as a sequel.
This is something I have a strong personal interest in seeing. I'm a big fan of ongoing campaigns with the same characters five (real life) years later. My only real minor niggling issue with the APs is that they all assume a brand new set of characters, while I'd probably rather see each one cover a different 5-level span on the equivalent of the slow XP track.
My current alternative plan is to run a bunch of APs in succession, each with a new group of characters, and then gather together a group of high-level characters from the survivors for a high-level finale game in two or three years time.
While I know there are design considerations I can not begin to contemplate, it would seem to me providing a stat block like this one on Xanesha that has a normal and 'mythic' version side by side wouldn't complicate things that much. Then mythic and non-mythic groups are all appeased.
It may not complicate things much, but it would start making stat blocks longer and over the course of an entire adventure that would chew up room.
But as far as I can tell there are at least 13 'regular' APs that leave the players somewhere around level 17ish, with nothing else to do. Again, I don't know your demographics, but I find it hard to believe there are more people out there who want ANOTHER AP to play from 1 to 17 than there are people who want something else to do with those characters after they've saved the world.
Don't believe it if you want, but that's the case. Paizo keeps the stories fresh, the content interesting, and new players (who haven't played any of the previous APs) are joining the game all the time. If those APs weren't in demand I don't think Paizo would keep on with their current model, but they are so it's pretty obvious that people do want another AP from 1 to 17. I too wish there was more stuff for Level 16 to 20 play, but throwing Mythic into the mix isn't the answer, getting more stuff for high-level play is.
Heck even a simple set of rules on how to bump a level 1 encounter to level 17-20 would do it. Then high level players can still experience the existing content that's already been written. I see lots of people talking about trying to put their groups through Rune Lords and Crimson Throne, or Jade Reagent as a sequel.
Honestly, the best way to bump a Level 1 encounter to Level 13+ is to throw out the encounter entirely and replace it with something else. Tweaking an encounter up or down really only works within a range of 3 to 5 levels (and sometimes even then it's more appropriate to just replace the encounter entirely). Adding Mythic or some other "encounter booster" option isn't going to help at all with a level differential that large.
Don't forget, Paizo creates the six-month six-issue APs because it's a successful business plan. There have been a number of GMs who voice skepticism and dislike for the Mythic rules. These customers may very likely not purchase Mythic Adventures or the Wrath of the Righteous AP. But they may very well be interested in the NEXT AP, which involves mummies and an Egyptian-style setting. Someone who might not like Numeria and the technomagick aspects may skip the AP that will come in a year. But they may be interested in, say, a Dragon-centric AP and perhaps Paizo may run THAT in a year-and-a-half.
Paizo doesn't need to sell its product to every Pathfinder customer. Just a large majority of them. If each new product has a majority of its customers interested and they purchase it, then they will continue to make a profit.
Consider now a year-long AP that slowly advances players from level 1 to level 20. Let's say that it's concerning the devil cults and slavers in Cheliax. And let's say that 30% of the customers have zero interest in this AP. Rather than waiting half a year and then finding a new AP, they have to wait a full year. And they may very well decide NOT to wait... and change game systems. Thus it's in Paizo's best interests and business plan to NOT have a year-long AP because it risks losing customers as a result.
However, do consider this: Paizo is willing to work with outside contractors and game designers. If you truly want to try this... try crafting your own AP that runs for eight, ten, or 12 issues. Gametest it with your friends. Craft it until it works best. And then talk to Paizo and see if you can get permission to publish it with them - you'd have to get the financing for the print run (assuming you don't just sell electronic copies alone (ie, PDFs) but as it would not intrude on Paizo's actual business plan or take up the time of its employees, they might say yes.
At the very least you could create a generic AP that could be used for any game world (and provide examples of how it could be used in Golarion or Eberron) while using the Pathfinder game system; as you're not using trademarked terms, Paizo would not have a problem with this AP and would be more likely to accept it as an outside product.
Don't forget, Paizo creates the six-month six-issue APs because it's a successful business plan. There have been a number of GMs who voice skepticism and dislike for the Mythic rules. These customers may very likely not purchase Mythic Adventures or the Wrath of the Righteous AP. But they may very well be interested in the NEXT AP, which involves mummies and an Egyptian-style setting. Someone who might not like Numeria and the technomagick aspects may skip the AP that will come in a year. But they may be interested in, say, a Dragon-centric AP and perhaps Paizo may run THAT in a year-and-a-half.
Paizo doesn't need to sell its product to every Pathfinder customer. Just a large majority of them. If each new product has a majority of its customers interested and they purchase it, then they will continue to make a profit.
Consider now a year-long AP that slowly advances players from level 1 to level 20. Let's say that it's concerning the devil cults and slavers in Cheliax. And let's say that 30% of the customers have zero interest in this AP. Rather than waiting half a year and then finding a new AP, they have to wait a full year. And they may very well decide NOT to wait... and change game systems. Thus it's in Paizo's best interests and business plan to NOT have a year-long AP because it risks losing customers as a result.
However, do consider this: Paizo is willing to work with outside contractors and game designers. If you truly want to try this... try crafting your own AP that runs for eight, ten, or 12 issues. Gametest it with your friends. Craft it until it works best. And then talk to Paizo and see if you can get permission to publish it with them - you'd have to get the financing for the print run (assuming you don't just sell electronic copies alone (ie, PDFs) but as it would not intrude on Paizo's actual business plan or take up the time of its employees, they might say yes.
At the very least you could create a generic AP that could be used for any game world (and provide examples of how it...
Yes, you are absolutely right; that's why the 3rd party publishers create as much Pathfinder content as they do.
Again, I don't doubt the wisdom of their business model. They have managed to survive as a pen and paper gaming company when so many have failed. We all know how much trouble a certain company has gone through to keep the 'world's oldest table top fantasy game' going.
However, I've been a business owner for nearly as long as I've been a gamer, and I can tell you that there's only three ways to grow a business: Get more customers, get existing customers to spend more money, or get them to buy more often. The most expensive of all these options is new customer acquisition, which is why the subscription options Paizo has makes so much sense. It encourages people to spend more money and buy more often.
However, in some ways the current model punishes the most loyal consumers. Consider anyone who was here for RotRL 5+ years ago. What could they possibly be doing with those same characters now? How many times have you personally played a character from 1-20? Even PFS is calibrated for games that are going to end at level 12-15ish.
I understand trying to be the Anti-3.5 by not publishing a book a month until your system is hopelessly broken. I also understand trying to be the anti-WoW where the game doesn't even begin until max level. But it seems to me that you are far more likely to lose players who's only option is starting over at level one *again* than you are to lose players who don't think any of the current or future APs seem interesting. Since, I don't think those people ever started playing in the first place.
Speaking as a GM who has run a dozen or so campaigns, some of which lasted a mere couple of games before I realized they were not viable, eventually you get tired of your characters and of the campaign. When you consider the power of a character reaching level 17... there is only really one reason to continue: to reach that capstone. And several Paizo employees have mentioned they wish they'd suggested the Capstone Level be at whichever point the GM wants it to be (and that's an easy enough thing to handwave in.)
Each AP is in effect one story. Runelords is about Karzoug... and stopping him. When the PCs do finish and defeat him. what else is there? Why continue the story? Sure, there is the Sequel... and David Edding showed that the same cast of characters can be used in two tales with both Sparhawk and with Garion. But ultimately those characters didn't reach level 17 at the end of the first adventure.
Mind you, there is a possible alternative that an inventive GM could do: slow the pace of advancement so that the players only reach level 10 at the end of the first campaign, and level 11-20 for the sequel. But to be honest, I suspect if a GM were to do this with Runelords and, say, Jade Regent, that it would work better to pause the Runelords game after defeating Nualia, focus on Ameiko and getting her onto the throne, and then and only then returning to Sandpoint to finish the Runelords campaign (as I've heard multiple complaints that Jade Regent is underpowered).
But determining which two APs to mix together and how to do so is not easy. And Paizo has little incentive to do this on their own as their employees are already hard at work with just two 1-17 APs a year... and the risk of consumer loss for a year-long AP makes it unlikely it would be acted upon.
Mind you, my knowledge of business risk and the like comes from my job as an abstractor, so your own business ownership knowledge has a more hands-on knowledge than my more esoteric literary knowledge. ^^;;
I don't think anyone is suggesting a year-long AP.
As you and I have discussed before, I'm doing Wrath and RotRL simultaneously, mostly because we were too far into RotRL when Wrath started, and we are lucky enough to play so often that there is a real risk we'd have gone through Wrath faster than the modules are being published.
I think there are two ways to look at stories: Some are like the Hobbit, with maybe Lord of the Rings as a sequel; ultimately you go there and back again. Or the Matrix; the One is chosen, saves the world, and that's that.
But then you have things like Star Trek. What was left to do after they defeated Khan? Everything else. What was left for Luke Skywalker after he defeated the Empire? Everything else. I've had campaigns in other systems that ran for years. Sure we alternated other campaigns and other games in, but we'd revisit those old friends from time to time.
As of now, Pathfinder doesn't have that. There's no mechanism for Hercules having to take his club back up after the Labors. There's no mechanism for Sauron to return, or the Dark Knight to have to come out of retirement to save the city one last time. Superheroes in comics tend not to 'level' up as such, usually their powers are relatively fixed; yet there are still decades worth of interesting stories to tell.
In the end Pathfinder has sagas, but no epics.
When you consider the power of a character reaching level 17... there is only really one reason to continue: to reach that capstone. And several Paizo employees have mentioned they wish they'd suggested the Capstone Level be at whichever point the GM wants it to be (and that's an easy enough thing to handwave in.)
Here's the thing - my preference for capstone is around L30-40 :)
I currently deal with that by requiring multiclassing to go past L20, but in doing so I'm also entering a very unsupported area.
I acknowledge, of course, that there's very little interest in that area, and thus not much incentive for anyone to support it.
It would be very nice however if there were a very easy "magic method" to scale APs (or any encounter, really) to work at other levels, without having to do it by hand. That way you never have to produce content for the people insane enough to keep on going past L20 anyway :)
Still. If I ever figure that method out, I'll be sure to share it!
It would be very nice however if there were a very easy "magic method" to scale APs (or any encounter, really) to work at other levels, without having to do it by hand. That way you never have to produce content for the people insane enough to keep on going past L20 anyway :)
+1.
I'm about to start another thread about how to do such a thing; I'm just doing a bit of research first.
Personally, as one who frequently scales encounters for one reason or another, I would much rather have additional adventure content and perform said scaling myself, than to have even a small portion of the adventure content replaced by suggestions for scaling that still probably wouldn't suit my needs.
Dungeon Magazine some times included sidebars with suggestions for scaling an adventure up or down by a few levels. In my opinion, even when I did need such scaling, those sidebards weren't particularly useful. I didn't mind them much, though, since they only took up a few sentences (but I'm still happy that they weren't ported over to Pathfinder APs/Modules).
I assume that suggestions for scaling an adventure to/from mythic would require both more space and more development work than those sidebars, which is space and time I'd prefer the adventure itself would receive.
OK I made a post about how to scale APs for higher levels, or what to do after level 17 so I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who wants to weigh in, thanks!
|
Personally I hope they do make more mythic. I really hate products that are not supported and i think not using mythic for APs is a weasel of the material. I would like to see a second AP of the scale at wrath. As gas been stated APs come out every 6 months and realistically certainly don't need for everyone. There will be people uninterested in the iron kings, some in skull and shackles, others in reign. I've seen criticism and a never do that again or I'll leave for kingmaker - another AP style I'd like to see done again.
Actually, Mythic will be supported in future games. It's just that it's the foes that will be Mythic.
That said, I'd not mind seeing a Mythic campaign where the players only get three or four Mythic Tiers (much like how I'm planning current AP modifications). You don't NEED a Mythic campaign to have the players become demigods at the end!
Whether or not we ever get another Mythic AP I am sure will depend upon how well Wrath of the Righteous does. That said, there are a lot of campaigns that would be fun but don't really require mythic. Personally I would rather save mythic heavy campaigns for certain topics. Fighting Tar-Baphon...definitely mythic. Revolution in Galt or Taldor intrigue...not so much.
In the campaigns we play now since mythic adventures we always add mythic tiers to players. So I hope it will be included in most AP's so we don't have to modify all the adventures so much in the future.
|
I need to sit down and look at what would be involved in a mythic conversion of Legacy of Fire - and then try to develop a high-level, mid-tier follow on. LoF is the shortest AP in terms of level range, and has lots and lots of mythic resonance... I keep thinking the ingredients are there, I just need to try baking them in.
Or to put it another way, Wrath of the Righteous has information on how to use non-Mythic characters in it. That sounds like "opting out" to me.
Unless said person wants to "opt out" by having a completely non-Mythic version of modules with absolutely no Mythic content (for monsters and PCs). In which case... you weren't able to "opt out" of the Cavalier, Witch, or other non-core classes in the APs. Why would Mythic be any different?
|
Whether or not we ever get another Mythic AP I am sure will depend upon how well Wrath of the Righteous does. That said, there are a lot of campaigns that would be fun but don't really require mythic. Personally I would rather save mythic heavy campaigns for certain topics. Fighting Tar-Baphon...definitely mythic. Revolution in Galt or Taldor intrigue...not so much.
I'm actually running a group through the Crypt of the Everflame series, and if they survive City of Golden Death they're going to hit Mythic (with the golden gem losing it's other powers to become their Dependent flaw). One of them is a Paladin and I want to see how they handle Tar-Baphon being the source of their Mythic. Either the Paladin will eventually fall because Tar-Baphon wants them to free him, or they'll search out someone/thing else to lock their Mythic for them so they can eventually go kill him.