| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else feel that APs might be a little too long? With problems like players always dropping in and out, scheduling conflicts, and the fact that most have a hard time making story connections that span more than a few sessions, I'm wondering wether the players and story wouldn't be served by cutting these APs down by half. I'm not saying that APs are never finished successfully, I'm just saying it gets very tough to keep up the momentum to a satisfactory conclusion over all.
As a personal example, I've been running RotRL and almost made it through Fort Rannick (25 game sessions to get to this point) before yet another player rotated out. I have only two players that have stuck with me from the beginning. Who knows when we'll pick it back up.
Personally, I would like to see APs down to 3 chapters. I think that's long enough to get a good story in without exhausting the players and GM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else feel that APs might be a little too long? With problems like players always dropping in and out, scheduling conflicts, and the fact that most have a hard time making story connections that span more than a few sessions, I'm wondering wether the players and story wouldn't be served by cutting these APs down by half. I'm not saying that APs are never finished successfully, I'm just saying it gets very tough to keep up the momentum to a satisfactory conclusion over all.
As a personal example, I've been running RotRL and almost made it through Fort Rannick (25 game sessions to get to this point) before yet another player rotated out. I have only two players that have stuck with me from the beginning. Who knows when we'll pick it back up.
Personally, I would like to see APs down to 3 chapters. I think that's long enough to get a good story in without exhausting the players and GM.
I've been running Kingmaker for 4 years now. A weekly game, that takes extended hiatus so the other GM in our group can run Legacy of Fire and I can avoid GM burn-out.
There is nothing wrong with putting together your own GM-Cut of an AP if you feel it drags on too long.
For example:
Logical end-points for a shortened Kingmaker:
Kingmaker e6 -
Kingmaker Kingdom Warz:
Serpent's Skull - Pulp Adventure:
Second Darkness - Elfquest:
It sounds to me like you don't want an AP. I might suggest looking into a module trilogy, or a supermodule of 100+ pages. There are plenty of good examples of both.
It actually sounds to me like the APs might be ok with you. It's the players who don't last long enough. I think a good gaming group takes a while to form. Have you considered putting up a sheet in your local game store, looking on penandpapergames.com, or looking to a site like Meet-up to find a more dedicated group that share your dedication?
It sounds to me like you don't want an AP. I might suggest looking into a module trilogy, or a supermodule of 100+ pages. There are plenty of good examples of both.
Sounds like a good idea.
I'll second the idea of modules, and add in consider modifying specific APs to fit with the issue at hand. If specific people are consistent, base the story more around them and treat the rest of the party like background characters. I don't say this in a negative way mind you. Back in the day when everything was better and the world was perfect, I was in a second edition campaign that had three constant players and a GM...we had probably a dozen other players over the three years it lasted that would show up from time to time, and everyone had an amazing time.
Try wrapping things up after each session in a place where people can freely come and go, or as close to as possible. Give the people that are less consistent things for their characters to work toward that don't directly involve them in the story. Bob the Bard's player has two kids and a job, so shows up about every other session? Maybe Bob the Bard is working on a masterpiece in honor of their father's heroic sacrifice in the last great war...so from time to time the muse is all up in his face and he's nowhere to be found (having taken room at an inn under a false name and locked himself in said room with a case of bourbon and two cases of twinkies like any self respecting writer/poet).
Most of the APs have reocurring NPCs that aren't imperative to the plot, but add a number of sidequests and interesting RP opportunities. Have sporadic players play these characters and don't feel like you have to assign each player one. In my Rise of the Runelords game I have Shalelu set up to come and go and act like a default character for new people to run. If a couple of my regular players miss, Shalelu shows up and either me or one of the players runs her...if a friend of mine has asked about roll20 and wants to try it out, I suggest they show up for my game and run an elf ranger NPC to see if they like it enough to make a character.
Are you aware of the new module format? The new longer format is essentially a mini AP. Dragons demand goes from levels 1 to level 7. There are also the linked old format modules, Crypt of the everflame and its two sequels for instance.
You also have 3rd party options. For instance, Razor Coast from Frog God games goes from levels 5-12. There are a bunch of options if you want something longer then a single module and shorter then a full 6 volume AP.
Sound like good alternatives. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Dudemaster's vein, here's how to shorten Rise of the Runelords...
1: Burnt Offerings (caps at Level 4)
2: Rise of the Skinsaw Cult (caps at Level 8)
3: Rise of the Stone Lord (caps at level 10)
4: Rise of the Stone Lords (caps at level 13)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the above posters. There are some APs that need not be completed and still provide closure.
Here's a thread I started a while back that will help you.
Happy gaming!
Fabian
Yeah they are a long term commitment, I have been running S&S since it came out and my players are at the end of book 3. I try to have breaks every now and again as I don't want to suffer from GM burnout. Sometimes its hard to carry on for week after week and the prep does get too much sometimes. I tend to stop when I either get to the end of a book or at a logical stopping point then let another GM take over, we tend then to run another system. But then again to re-start it is just has much hard work as by then everyone has forgotten what happend and needs a week to get back in to character.
I'm finding though that the biggest challenge are the players and the actual story in the longterm. Unless you intend to railroad them they will no doubt do things that will alter the story (for the better most of the time) so the rigid format of the books kind of become more of a frame work to work with in the later books (which then becomes more prep work as things change).
Nothing wrong with this at all though but it does mean longer breaks for me as I work the new threads in.
I too think that the APs can be a little much. At least for my group that meets irregularly for a couple of hours each week. I think if you have the type of group that meets consistently for 6-8 hours on a weekend, they probably would be fine.
I think after my group wraps up our current AP (Council of Thieves, we are on book 6 so we are so close to finishing), I will take a break and do a bunch of modules instead of an AP.
I do like the ideas of what APs can be broken up into smaller portions and played as a module. For example, books 2 and 4 of Council of Thieves (The Sixfold Trial and The Infernal Syndrome) can be run independent of the AP with very minor tweaks.
Most of them ar too short since they end before Level 20 :-(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your not having an Adventure Path problem. Your having a player retention issue.
That is not the fault of the AP designers.
As folks have pointed out there are tons of product of various lengths available on the market. AP's are purposefully meant to be entire campaigns and thus are long by intent. If they are too long for your group then choose shorter products.
Adventure Paths are not the only things out there you know.
Or make up your own adventures.
|
I used to run for a group that had attention spans shorter than APs. It was really frustrating because I wanted to do bigger, more epic plots, but they got bored and wanted to do other things after a little while. I ended up making and running smaller plots for them.
I suggest the new modules as an alternative. You can play a story that covers a few levels and still get a sense of completion. Dragon's Demand is a damn solid start to such a campaign.
|
|
There are a lot of awesome ideas to shorten some of the APs, and the advice to use modules is great, too.
However, sometimes (especially with the new modules), I think a shorter AP would be awesome. Instead of doing two APs a year, doing three would be an idea to try out. Having one big AP spanning 6 parts, and two shorter APs, running 3 parts each.
I would love to see that!
I'm still holding out hope they experiment in one year and try out a 5-issue AP together with a 7-issue AP.
Although I'm sure two radical experiments in one year would be too much, I think it would be great to play the 5-issue one on slow advancement and the 7-issue one using the fast experience track. It would be interesting to have at least one module around built on the assumption players had their capstone abilities for the majority of the book.
I htink Council of Thieves would work just fine if centered around just the Shadowcurse. Kind of apropriate in a way, the group wants to make things better but doesn't want to really rebel against Cheliax. So ending the curse and then melting back into normal life fits.
I find that most of the adventure paths can be adapted to fit a shorter campaign pretty easily. For example, you could make Rise of the Runelords a local threat to Sandpoint and end right after book 1 if desired. Similarly, Council of Thieves could cap off after The Infernal Syndrome with some adaptation.
If you want to get through the plot as written, kicking advancement up to the fast track and then cutting some encounters would be fairly easy. While I love the adventure paths, I find that there are always some grindy parts that seem to be placed there just to get the PCs enough XP to level up and continue the story.
Agreed. As they are so formulaic, sone take forever to achieve a story, some may seem short.
Personally I'm beginning to find them to drag, with too many side gubbins. I'd like a trilogy AP. It seems classic way to do things.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal preference on AP Length would be one complete six book run and two three part AP each year.
Having run two APs. I ran carrion crown halfway through book 4 and I am currently running Reign of Winter. Just completed book 3 last week and prepping for book 4.
The sweet spot for me would be a three book run ending around 9th or 10th level.
|
|
As people have suggested up thread, there are Modules. If you are looking for something with only a session by session commitment, you might want to try Pathfinder Society organized play Scenarios. They are short adventures that are designed to be played in one evening.
They also have linked scenarios that have three parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS isn't the way forward. They are even more formulaic.
3 part AP covering ten levels , not necessary 1-10, would be sweet. I doubt even 50pc of groups get to book 4?
Creative Director
|
Were I in charge of things, the number of AP volumes for an individual AP would vary to meet the needs of the adventure, rather than the adventure varying to meet the needs of six AP volumes.
Maybe.
Turns out, there are a LOT of reasons why a 6 part Adventure Path is more or less the perfect option for pleasing most of the folks most of the time.
We didn't "accidentally" settle on this formula, in other words.
As a personal example, I've been running RotRL and almost made it through Fort Rannick (25 game sessions to get to this point) before yet another player rotated out. I have only two players that have stuck with me from the beginning. Who knows when we'll pick it back up.
I cycled through all players except one, twice over, while running Rise of the Runelords. I'd never give up that total experience - completely worth it.