They've expressed what I would term "severe reluctance" to deviate from the 6/6 format each year. There are lots of reasons for why they favor it (one being that if they cover a genre you dont like, you're only facing six months of disappointment. You're more likely to stick with it over a short period and less likely to have drifted off to other things if you do go ahead and cancel for six months instead of twelve).
A central point is that the APs are very much at the heart of Paizo's ongoing success. Perhaps it's a little broader now that they have a plethora of subscriptions but the APs are still very much a cornerstone of their business model. As such there's a huge risk if experimenting with that format goes awry. No matter what arguments for or against tinkering with the 6/6 format are presented - they run into this real risk. The potential payoff has to be enormous to justify the risk to the business model.
FWIW, there has been one option mooted by the staff (though in a very loose and casual way) that I'm very much hoping for at some point. That is running a short AP and a long one - one of five instalments and one of seven. I think a little change like that would have a number of advantages over trying a twelve-issue AP:
1. It's a smaller deviation from the current with a concurrent smaller risk - if you dont like the recently announced 7 AP theme it's less of a disappointment than if you dont like the upcoming 12 issue AP.
2. It might allow them to tell slightly different stories - presumably not every plot is as easy to flesh out to exactly 6 issues. They could tell a quicker story in the 'short' AP and set aside 7 issues to tell a more complicated AP which reached higher levels.
3. It's probably less disruptive to their schedule. I suspect it's a non-negotiable that there's a fresh AP to launch at Gen Con. Deviating too far from established practise runs the risk of delays/complications where they might end up (for example) only up to issue ten in July. There's pretty much no good answer then.
I'd personally quite like to see a 12-issue AP, but I think a 7/5 split one year is probably a more achievable request as a first step.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ditch all the filler in the AP.
Make them 4 modules only
Or
The 12 May work as an extra publication, 32 page format each time
I think that the level constraints would have an effect on this decision as well.
The 5th & 6th chapters of the APs are always kinda hit and miss for me. I like to finish out the story ,but the higher level a game goes, the harder it becomes to make an engaging AP installment. High level play is just hard to manage given the widely different playstyles of players and groups. How high would a 12 parter go?
I think thats the reason that so few lvl 18-20 modules get produced.
On the flip side, Paizo has done a magnificent job with the APs, even the ones I thought I would loathe have been pretty good. The only real "Miss" for me was Carrion Crown and it had alot of elements that I actually like.
So I wouldn't chicken on a 12 parter.
That said, in my opinion the best chapters for the APs have been largely placed early. If an AP were to go to 12 issues I'd really kinda like those latter parts to be more than stat blocks. Maybe a slow exp progression AP?
I support the 5/7 and equally 4/8. A 12 parter would appeal but better as a 'special' outside the AP subscription line.
On that thought what about a six parter where there is a downtime mid 6th part and standard subscriber just finishes the AP, but has option to purchase and additional couple of seperate adventures that pick up from the downtime and extend&expand the ending. Would be non-AP subscrition modules, could remove the fluff extra(which i do like in standard AP's) and use that space for the larger stat blocks required for extending the high end content.
Last idea...where a 4/8 part format for the year is used the 4 part can have a follow on. Hell they could even offer the extensions/high level extra parts in kickstarter format...ie enough pre-orders=production.
Just some thoughts
Although i would like to see a 12 part AP, i can understand it's too much of a risk for reasons stated above, but i think that there is a work around this, as it stands now every AP volume is split in two halves, the first one is the actual adventure and the second half are articles, bestiaries, gazeteers etc.
And while i understand the importance of the articles and gazeteers in order to promote and flesh out Golarion, maybe it would be a smaller risk to make an AP that each volume is nearly filled with the actual adventure (you got to leave space for a few NPC statblocks and maybe bestiary), that way you can have an AP nearly as big as a 12 part AP but with a much smaller risk.
Another thing i really like to see is they drop the 6/6 format and instead make them into a more dynamic format, maybe 4 up to 7*, maybe even drop the "must start at level 1" thing as a requirement. In my opinion that would allow enough freedom in order to make wider range of adventure types and also allow to make some adventures better.
I know that standardization is a good thing and has many advantages and it really helps with planning and scheduling but i feel that the format of APs could benefit from a little more freedom.
*that means allowing an AP to take any number of volumes from 4 up to 7
Vic Wertz on why APs are 6 volumes and start at level 1:
First off, you should realize that doing 12 installments in the AP line per year currently uses our full capacity. (Actually, you might note that historically, it takes about 13 months of development time to do 12 AP volumes, so we're technically *over* capacity, and end up nearly killing ourselves to get caught up each Gen Con.) And this is not a problem that can be solved by throwing more people at it—it doesn't work that way. So any change we would consider needs to be something that won't increase the workload *at all*.
If we went to, say, three 4-volume APs in a year, it would take more person-hours, because creating and outlining an AP is a big job, and the amount of effort to do that is only partly related to the number of pages of content needed. So "more (but shorter) APs per year" is not feasable.
Also, higher-level adventures are harder to develop, and take longer than low- and mid-level advantures, so stretching APs further into high-level territory would increases the amount of time it takes to do one. So longer APs are not feasible; even doing an 8-volume and a 4-volume would probably take more time than two 6-volume ones. (Maybe we could fit in a 5 and a 7, but A) the 7 would be pushing it, and B) that's just weird, and I don't think it would particularly improve anything.)
And yes, we *do* have to start every one at 1st level. Low level adventures sell better. Always have, always will. There are some really good posts on the boards on that topic already, so I won't repeat them.
Bottom line here is that we have a formula that works really well, and I fail to see any real reason to screw with it.
And while i understand the importance of the articles and gazeteers in order to promote and flesh out Golarion, maybe it would be a smaller risk to make an AP that each volume is nearly filled with the actual adventure (you got to leave space for a few NPC statblocks and maybe bestiary), that way you can have an AP nearly as big as a 12 part AP but with a much smaller risk.
Paizo has indicated in the past that the adventures are about as large as they can be while still being worked on by a developer and delivered every month.
The adventure installments themselves are already pretty much as long as they can possibly physically grow, due to the realities of how much work a developer can do on a monthly schedule. So yeah, if the fiction left the product, the result would be 1 or 2 more monsters in each installment and 2 to 4 more pages (depending on the number of additional monsters) spread out among the support articles.
We would most likely not replace the fiction with a 3rd article, or simply use it to make the adventures longer. We certainly wouldn't use it to fill up with 6 more pages of maps, because that's not only not in the budget financially, it's not in the budget from a workflow perspective, especially since maps are the hardest part of an adventure to get right.
As I said in the previous post, 40 to 50 pages is more or less the physical limit to the size of an adventure path installment. If they get much longer than that with anything approaching regularity, we'd have to take the AP down from a monthly product to less frequent. And that's one of the few things I know that we'll NEVER change about the AP.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thankfully for those of us who abhor starting at level 1, it doesn't break the APs too much to start everyone at level 2 and just require them to get two levels' worth of XP before they reach 3rd (or just level up when the GM says so and not use XP at all).
I haven't played or GMed for a level-1 character in over five years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. I really enjoy first-level characters, both playing them and GMing them.
Honestly, between low-level play (1-5), mid-level play (6-11), and high-level play (12+), low-level is by far and away my favorite, and high-level is my least favorite.
But YMMV!
Personally, I'd love to see a variant AP starting at 6th or 7th level and running to level 20. They could even write up a Module that goes levels 1-6 and could count as a prequel adventure for those GMs who are interested in using it.
I'm currently running Reign of Winter with characters that started out 3rd and 4th level as I took a preexisting campaign and switched storylines (it helped that I hadn't started the main campaign yet). Sometimes GMs just want to craft their own initial story before going on into the big quest... and by starting with slightly higher-level characters instead of the traditional level 1 crew, you also can move into the main quest that much quicker. Level 1 characters won't have a chance against some grand conspiracy or the like. Level 6 however would be a viable threat and could start doing real work on that quest from the very start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, don't get me wrong, 6 part Adventure Paths are excellent, my group is having a blast going through them!
Yet... many times I've seen the authors trying to fit lots of interesting stuff in some adventure only to have them reduced in scope or suppressed somehow or even cut out entirely due to page count limitations. Worse, sometimes this affects the entire Adventure Plot, leading to plotholes and "weird" shortcuts.
Thus my request for a 12 part Adventure Path. Paizo has proved time and again that they can pioneer excellent innovations, the very concept of an Advenure Path being, most probably, one such (weren't the APs posted in Dungeon the very first ones ever created for D&D?).
Why not tear down one more limitation? If there's anyone out there who can actually create a beautiful, masterpiece 12 part Adventure Path, well, it's Paizo.
What do you people think?
If page count considerations were limiting content, I'd rather just see all that fluff go - I know some people read and enjoy it, or rather I know of some people who do though I've never actually met any of them, but I have to belief most if not all would rather see more gaming content. If we want to read short stories, there are plenty of better outlets for that.
Now I too would enjoy a 12-part AP, but there are still some issues there - what if its an AP or a theme I don't like? For instance, the upcoming Iron Gods AP will probably have me cancelling my subscription for its duration - I'm still on the fence - but if I knew that's all I had to look forward to for an entire year it would be a no-brainer. A 12 part, year-long AP offered as an additional option and a separate subscription, I'd be all over... certainly such product holds far more interest for me than things like the new hybrid classes or mythic rules we're seeing now. The game has more than enough pieces to make it work - stop adding cars to the train and instead let's go more places on the ride.
Another is the consideration that the AP's are meant to be a really great framework, but not the end-all be-all. In both our Skull n Shackles run and our Rise of the Runelords run, enough additional material was added in by the GM, much of it drawn from Paizo resources and inserted at appropriate places, that we got much, much more play out of the campaign than if we had just stuck to the script.
Just my 2 cents.
Huh. I really enjoy first-level characters, both playing them and GMing them.
Honestly, between low-level play (1-5), mid-level play (6-11), and high-level play (12+), low-level is by far and away my favorite, and high-level is my least favorite.
But YMMV!
Mid here, and 1st-level characters are just too darned fragile.
You can always make your own 12-part AP and sell it using the d20 system and the Pathfinder ruleset. If you sell it as PDFs then that reduces costs. And you can use your own gaming group as playtesters. It might be interesting to try this. :)
I would like to thank all of you who provided quotes, from people who work at Paizo, on the issue i wrote about, they were very informative.
And i really didn't know that low level (and especially 1st level) adventures sell that good (granted i am drawing from my own preferences and circle) i really didn't know that there were that many people that liked low level adventures, not liking really high level (14+) stuff sure, even disliking really high level... not liking nor disliking low level adventures sure... but that many people actually wanting low level stuff... that was a surprise to me.
Thankfully in most APs (at least in those i have played in) you can just skip volume 1 and start with volume 2, in fact in many cases it might be better for the story.
@Wiggz
Same here, while i would really like a 12 part AP, if it was something i didn't like i would also cancel my subscription for the duration of it (but then again i might also do it if it was a regular AP i didn't like).
It's really a pity that 90 pages long AP volumes aren't feasable.
@Tangent101
I don't think that publishing an AP (even if it is in purely electronic medium) is really that easy and without significant economic risk for an avarage person.
PS. I am not judging on anyone's playstyle and preferences, i just didn't know and was genuially surprised to know
One option would be to have a 12-parter that has a clean ending at the end of issue 6. Then level 7 could start up a thematically-related or story-related but new threat, which could go all the way to issue 12. This could appeal to a lot of people:
1) Obviously, it could be for people wanting 12 issues in an AP.
2) It's an option for those who like the current format of a complete AP in six issues.
2a) Even if they stretched a 12-issue AP to level 20, option 2 is good for people who don't enjoy the higher-level of play. I know plenty of people who would be ok with retiring a character around level 10.
3) It could be an option for those who want to start at a higher level. These people would start at issue seven.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also Leo, it needs to be said that there are some great 3rd party products out there that offer much longer AP experiences. Slumbering Tsar and Way of the Wicked come to mind.
Isn't Slumbering Tsar a megadungeon, kinda like Rapan Athank?
And isn't way of the wicked a 6 part AP?
Isn't Slumbering Tsar a megadungeon, kinda like Rapan Athank?
And isn't way of the wicked a 6 part AP?
Slumbering Tsar shares RA's theme but not its construction, its much more of a traditional AP in arrangement.
Way of the Wicked is in 6 parts, but each part has twice the material in it as your typical Paizo AP and its designed to go up to 20th level.
I have been unimpressed in my admittedly limited exposure to Slumbering Tsar though it has received rave reviews from others and Way of the Wicked is an outstanding campaign from start to finish, though it deserves better art.
|
A full year of an AP I wasnt interested in would be a major bummer. Not end of the world or anything just a bummer. Also, I hate high level so i'd probably be out of a 12 parter anyhow. Unless you somehow fit the typical 1-15 campaign into 12 volumes. Still doesnt sound appealing to this cat though.
Some of the ap have a lot of room to add stuff without breaking the original story. King maker and skull and shackles offer alot of room for this.
However a friend of mine found when his dm slowed progression inrotrl and added extra material they became disconnected from the main story.
Slumbering Tsar shares RA's theme but not its construction, its much more of a traditional AP in arrangement.
Slumbering Tsar is nothing like a traditional AP. It's divided into 3 parts:
1) Sandbox wilderness exploration.
2) Ruined city exploration.
3) Megadungeon.
There is very little story in it (although it does have extensive background). It's mostly a setting and hundreds of encounters. GMs have a lot of work to do to really change it into a campaign.
I am very glad to hear that way of the wicked is like that but unfortunately i don't have enough players mature enough for an evil campaign.
On the issue of 3rd party APs in general, those can't be set in Golarion correct?
They won't be by default, but there's no reason you couldn't insert them somewhere.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's rather embarassing to start a discussion like this and then absolutely forgetting all about it! What can I say, I probably am on my way to Alzheimer! :)
Anyway, excellent comments above plus several ideas that I really hope Paizo would be interesting in. Let me throw one more that just came to me...
How about making a 6 part AP but ranging through less levels, e.g. instead of going from 1 to 14-15 (as in standard APs) to actually start at 1 (or 2 as lots of people seem to want) and reach only up to 9-11. This would allow Paizo to skip lots of "filler" encounters that are just meant to give more XP to the PCs and use the space for more detailed "encounters". Everything in such an AP would be much more detailed, plots and mysteries can be that much more elaborate! Plus it would still fit with Paizo's current AP schedule and not threaten any of the above mentioned concerns (page count, number of issued, etc.)
Council of Thieves finished at lower levels (12-13, Paizo standard is 16-17) and it was quite criticized for that. Most people seem to prefer having APs that allow their PCs to reach higher levels, it seems.
I'd buy it. But... I'd suggest a 12-part AP should be developed in parallel with the existing 6/6 APs, by a second team. Since there's already insufficient capacity with the existing AP team, that's the only answer.
I think some interesting things could happen with an AP that is longer. 1st-20th would be more practical, for instance. Alternatively, a more complicated design wherein two possible outcomes exist, depending on decisions made throughout. The first six or so modules would be unified, then the remaining six could contain the two distinct outcomes. Heck, you could experiment with something like that were a DM could run two different parties through the AP and unite them at the end.
Point is that such a product could exist, and could offer unique benefits. But Paizo would have to deal with their all-the-eggs-in-one-basket development team situation first. I've long worried about the everyone-is-overworked situation. Heaven forbid someone like Mr. Mona or Mr. Jacobs becomes unable to do their job... I suspect Paizo just wouldn't publish for three months while someone else tries to learn the ropes.
I'd buy it. But... I'd suggest a 12-part AP should be developed in parallel with the existing 6/6 APs, by a second team. Since there's already insufficient capacity with the existing AP team, that's the only answer.
Given their oft-stated concerns with products competing with one another, and Paizo's apparent happiness with their current size (I recall mentions elsewhere on the forums that they're extremely reluctant to expand their staff further), I'm guessing it's unlikely that will happen outside of a 3PP organizing it.
While they've got a good selection of freelancers available on the writing side (more than enough to produce an extra AP a month), I believe they've mentioned their real capacity bottleneck is in development and editing - and it appears they're dead set on keeping that bottleneck from expanding in order to ensure consistency across the range (in other words, it seems hiring a new developer and/or editor is something they're not willing to do as it would introduce too much of a split at the oversight level, with things slipping past one team which the other probably wouldn't allow.)
I'd buy it. But... I'd suggest a 12-part AP should be developed in parallel with the existing 6/6 APs, by a second team. Since there's already insufficient capacity with the existing AP team, that's the only answer.
Given their oft-stated concerns with products competing with one another, and Paizo's apparent happiness with their current size (I recall mentions elsewhere on the forums that they're extremely reluctant to expand their staff further), I'm guessing it's unlikely that will happen outside of a 3PP organizing it.
While they've got a good selection of freelancers available on the writing side (more than enough to produce an extra AP a month), I believe they've mentioned their real capacity bottleneck is in development and editing - and it appears they're dead set on keeping that bottleneck from expanding in order to ensure consistency across the range (in other words, it seems hiring a new developer and/or editor is something they're not willing to do as it would introduce too much of a split at the oversight level, with things slipping past one team which the other probably wouldn't allow.)
Got it... but...
A different product with a different product competes in the same sense that the adventure modules compete with the adventure path series. There may be more money to be had here.
Secondly, a large part of my point is concern over the existing bottleneck. It's not a healthy thing for a company to have.
While they've got a good selection of freelancers available on the writing side (more than enough to produce an extra AP a month), I believe they've mentioned their real capacity bottleneck is in development and editing - and it appears they're dead set on keeping that bottleneck from expanding in order to ensure consistency across the range (in other words, it seems hiring a new developer and/or editor is something they're not willing to do as it would introduce too much of a split at the oversight level, with things slipping past one team which the other probably wouldn't allow.)
Got it... but...
A different product with a different product competes in the same sense that the adventure modules compete with the adventure path series. There may be more money to be had here.
Secondly, a large part of my point is concern over the existing bottleneck. It's not a healthy thing for a company to have.
Controlled growth is far more important for a company to have, generally speaking, than rapid or even consistent expansion.
My personal preference within Paizo is that they spent less time on expanding rules like the new Hybrid classes or Mythic (we've seen where that's led in the past) and more on source material like the companions, AP paths, modules and super modules that can take advantage of the existing rules - but again, that's just me.
It's rather embarassing to start a discussion like this and then absolutely forgetting all about it! What can I say, I probably am on my way to Alzheimer! :)
Anyway, excellent comments above plus several ideas that I really hope Paizo would be interesting in.
Just throwing something else out there - within the framework of existing 6-volume AP's (which most groups are unable to get through from start to finish anyway), we've been able to successfully expand upon the source material by adding in side quests drawn from existing modules and homebrew material inspired by the region books. Two examples:
In addition to a number of small homebrew side-quests, in a Rise of the Runelords campaign we successfully incorporated pretty much the entirety of volume 2 of The Shattered Star (Curse of the Lady's Light) in between volumes 2 and 3 of RotRL.
In Skull n Shackles, in addition to a large number of homebrew 'piracy on the high seas' encounters, we had two massive side quests, one involving the overthrow of the ruling elite on Bag Island and one involving the Master of Gales being manipulated into destroying the Eye of Abendego by a Chellish cult meant to pave the way for invasion. Both were homebrew adventures, but both were inspired by details from the Isle of the Shackles Campaign Setting book.
Just some personal experiences...
Yeah, I imagine only a small percentage ever finish book 6....we play once a week and have just started our third book 6.....3 other AP have been abandoned and won't be completed
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for the 12-part AP crew:
Why do we need a 12-part Adventure Path? I mean, if you really want to continue to level 20, the APs offer suggestions for GMs to expand upon. You can also buy a high-level module to play for levels 17+ and "finish" the game with that.
So really, what is the point? Why should Paizo risk alienating customers who might not like the 12-part AP's storyline and opt out of buying it? After a year, why should customers return?
If you want a 12-part AP, look to a secondary publisher for that, or make one yourself and sell it according to Paizo's terms as PDF files.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for the 12-part AP crew:
Why do we need a 12-part Adventure Path?
Why do we need a 6-part Adventure Path? Why do we need an Adventure Path at all? Why do we need dice?
We don't. We (for some values of "we") want one. Totally different thing.
I mean, if you really want to continue to level 20, the APs offer suggestions for GMs to expand upon.
Great. So the market (DMs who don't feel like designing the bulk of their adventure set) can just... design the bulk of their adventure set. Problem solved, I guess. The whole point behind running pre-written adventures is to reduce the work that a DM has to do. A 3-part AP that goes from 1st to 7th would be... incomplete. It might be cool, but it would be of reduced utility compared to the current APs. So too a more complete AP would be less incomplete. In the sense that the current APs are "better" than a short 3-part AP might be, a 12-part AP might be more-better.
You can also buy a high-level module to play for levels 17+ and "finish" the game with that.
Well, what you're saying here is that I can buy one of the something like... three... existing high-level modules and run one of them once the actual mega-plot has just... stopped.
Availability of high-level material is sparse. Very sparse. Worse, the idea behind an AP isn't to have a series of adventures that are just concatenated. The idea is a long-running plot that slowly becomes revealed to the PCs, and culminates in a cohesive finish. Neither the DIY or the "run an adventure" in any way resembles that.
Also, one high-level module (32 pages) works out to something like four or five more sessions. Meh.
So really, what is the point?
To provide a product that is unique and not otherwise available.
Why should Paizo risk alienating customers who might not like the 12-part AP's storyline and opt out of buying it? After a year, why should customers return?
Like I said, personally I would envision this as another product line. The modules line, the AP line, and the career campaign, if you will. Not everyone subscribes to the AP line, but nobody suggests that the AP line existing somehow shouldn't exist because smaller products exist. I am saying that I think an additional product would attract additional interest. I know I'd buy it as well as my current modules and AP subscription.
If you want a 12-part AP, look to a secondary publisher for that, or make one yourself and sell it according to Paizo's terms as PDF files.
I mean this in the most respectful yet whimsical way possible but what you just said...
"If you want a 12-part AP, go buy one of the zero that exist."
Also...
"I don't get it that APs are for DMs who don't have the time, inclination, or skill to create their own campaign."
Also...
"Products that don't interest me should not exist."
I want to take a quick moment here to underline that last bit. You won't find me anywhere in any post being critical of Paizo's choice to produce either Mummy's Mask or Iron Gods. I haven't dropped my subscription, and I haven't threatened to. That said, I have no interest in those two APs. There's a year worth of product, something like $300 of my cash, that's just a waste for me. But I support the idea that other people might like this kind of material, and I encourage Paizo to try new and different things. And that's with regards to a product I DO buy, which could have been interesting to me but isn't. What I'm proposing is a separate product line that you could just ignore. It's like being a Pathfinder Battles subscriber and not being worried that the pawns product exists. For some people that's the right/better product. For some people more is better and they buy both.
So hey. Don't feel threatened by the idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. What I'm saying is that Paizo, a company that is in competition with whoever currently owns TSR/WotC, has to utilize its resources effectively and efficiently. Hiring several more people to write/edit a 12-issue AP cuts into the bottom line. So does printing that beast. And you may end up having it not be a seller - and then you either have to cut your losses and alienate the few players who liked it, or stick through it and risk losing the customers who said "I don't like it."
You are saying "I'm the customer, I'm right." But the customer is not always right. In fact, frequently the customer can be wrong as far too many people who work in IT, advertising, and a multitude of other service-oriented industries can attest.
Paizo's CEO has chosen not to do a 12-issue AP. She decided it was not a cost-effective idea. Now if you still WANT a 12-issue AP, rather than complaining about how Paizo isn't listening, you can always craft your own. This is called entrepreneurship. You see a market niche and can step into it and might find it works. And if you created a 12-issue AP that sold via PDFs and it was popular and a big hit, you would make money off of it... and Paizo might go "hey, this IS cost effective after all" and might try it themselves.
Complaining and beating your chest and claiming you are persecuted does nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If you want a 12-part AP, go buy one of the zero that exist."
Oh, so this doesn't exist ... Zeitgeist
nor this... War of the Burning Sky
Hmmm... :/
Personally I like the idea of a 6 part AP, with something from the module line that can fit easily in between several of the AP's in a 3 chapter format. So you can play the 6 part AP with 3 optional plug in's that can be added allowing both the module and the AP to be run independently if desired.
Legendary games has been putting out stuff that works like this and it's awesome. But, they also have copyright issues & have to wait to see what is published so there is a long delay before the plugins come out. I don't see why Paizo itself can't do this and more closely tie the release date of the plugin modules with the AP.
It would be really nice to have one of the chapters in the 3 part module be a plug in for a campaign extension after AP book 6.
"If you want a 12-part AP, go buy one of the zero that exist."Oh, so this doesn't exist ... Zeitgeist
nor this... War of the Burning Sky
Hmmm... :/
The first one is still being written but yes it's an option, the second one isn't PF, it's 3.5.
And there are several Pathfinder APs that are 3.5 - hell, the original Runelords is 3.5 - and there are plenty of people who adapt them to Pathfinder. I would be willing to bet the second one has been adapted at least once somewhere.
EN is actually in the middle of updating WOBS right now, as part of their Kickstarter from last year.
|
|
6 Part APs are long enough for me. Sometimes too long.
I've expanded Kingmaker by a lot. So far I've been running that campaign for 5 years. FIVE. YEARS.
If it was a 12-part AP, I would be dead before we finished it.
As for 12-part APs being a separate product. Paizo already explained their workload bottleneck. They are at capacity. That's just not a feasible solution.
I've expanded Kingmaker by a lot. So far I've been running that campaign for 5 years. FIVE. YEARS.
So you're writing to us from the future of 2015?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've expanded Kingmaker by a lot. So far I've been running that campaign for 5 years. FIVE. YEARS.So you're writing to us from the future of 2015?
YES. The future is fine once we accepted the ants as our new masters. They are pretty generous leaders, but learning to communicate through scents was the trick part.
Also everyone wears silver jumpsuits.
|
Technically TSR was using the phrase Adventure Path long before Paizo existed. That is why Paizo dropped their trademark on the phrase Adventure Path, it was in use long before them.
If you look at the earliest AP from Paizo the have the ™ symbol by the phrase Adventure Path. They later dropped the ™ when they realized it had a firm back history within the industry and they would have large legal costs trying to defend that trademark.
The term Adventure Path is generic.
|
|
Technically TSR was using the phrase Adventure Path long before Paizo existed. That is why Paizo dropped their trademark on the phrase Adventure Path, it was in use long before them.
If you look at the earliest AP from Paizo the have the ™ symbol by the phrase Adventure Path. They later dropped the ™ when they realized it had a firm back history within the industry and they would have large legal costs trying to defend that trademark.
The term Adventure Path is generic.
The APs still have (TM) next to the phrase Pathfinder Adventure Path.
The difference is that early APs designated 'Adventure Path' as the trademark while the recent ones designate 'Pathfinder Adventure Path' as the trademark.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically TSR was using the phrase Adventure Path long before Paizo existed. That is why Paizo dropped their trademark on the phrase Adventure Path, it was in use long before them.
If you look at the earliest AP from Paizo the have the ™ symbol by the phrase Adventure Path. They later dropped the ™ when they realized it had a firm back history within the industry and they would have large legal costs trying to defend that trademark.
The term Adventure Path is generic.
Not quite true.
The first time "Adventure Path" was used was by Wizards of the Coast as an in-house term for their first 3rd edition series of adventures. It wasn't used publicly until we did Shackled City in Dungeon Magazine.
It was never a term used by TSR.
We dropped the TM for the term "Adventure Path" because while we felt we DID have a shot at keeping it as a Paizo trademark, it would have required some work to defend... but more to the point, it's such a useful term for a type of gaming product we decided to not pursue it specifically because by not trademarking it, it could be used by other companies and would therefore strengthen the industry as a whole. And now we're seeing Adventure Paths put out by numerous companies... which is good on all sorts of fronts!