Howdy all,
This has been a topic of discussion among several groups at conventions over the past year as well as Pathfinder groups and players in my own local circle. The topic of conversation is burning out on Adventure Paths before they are through. My group has only successfully completed one entire AP out of seven played, and that was Second Darkness. The idea is everyone wouldn't mind being a pirate, but not six adventures of pirating. Everyone likes the idea of raiding a Pharaohs tomb for a couple of adventures, but after four or five of the same thing they burn out. Same with all the other themed AP's. I know we have skipped entire adventures (that we paid for) just to get on to the finale because the rest of the adventures were dragging.....
Second Darkness wasn't this way because it started as a town/city based adventure, then moved onto an island, then into the forest, then a lost city, and then the Underdark. It kept changing and therefore kept everyones interest. We really enjoyed it.
After hearing other players at conventions discuss the same issue with AP's that we were having we all agreed on the same thing: shorter Adventure Paths. A TRILOGY.
The following things discussed why it might be a better product model going forward:
A. Wait. Not having to wait half a year. (I know my group personally had no interest in the Iron Gods AP and we have to wait SIX MONTHS for another.) A trilogy would mean only a three month wait for a different 'flavor'.
B. Price. If you want to play an AP now, you have to commit to over $120 ($20 for 6 modules) A trilogy would only be $60, so people would be more willing to buy/try an AP for that price. This just makes for better business with the poor gamers such as myself.
C. Variety. Writers would have more opportunity to flesh out Golarion by having FOUR AP's a year instead of two.
What do you guys think? I understand that the current AP's must be working as a product or they wouldn't still be publishing them, but going forward what do you guys and gals think?
Does anyone elses group seem to lose interest before finishing a long Adventure Path or are you deterred from the start by the thought of having to spend over $120 for one campaign? What are your thoughts on this. just curious. Thanks.
Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with the current model for APs. I've learned that I shouldn't really play APs with my local group much (high-level play gets super sloggy with them), but they work great for my online group.
I wouldn't change a thing from what they're doing right now.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you may want to look at how Pathfinder is doing their modules now. They are multi-level campaigns that are much shorter and cheaper to get into. Usually 6-level ordeals. Give it a try. I think you'll like it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Howdy all,
This has been a topic of discussion among several groups at conventions over the past year as well as Pathfinder groups and players in my own local circle. The topic of conversation is burning out on Adventure Paths before they are through. My group has only successfully completed one entire AP out of seven played, and that was Second Darkness. The idea is everyone wouldn't mind being a pirate, but not six adventures of pirating. Everyone likes the idea of raiding a Pharaohs tomb for a couple of adventures, but after four or five of the same thing they burn out. Same with all the other themed AP's. I know we have skipped entire adventures (that we paid for) just to get on to the finale because the rest of the adventures were dragging.....
Second Darkness wasn't this way because it started as a town/city based adventure, then moved onto an island, then into the forest, then a lost city, and then the Underdark. It kept changing and therefore kept everyones interest. We really enjoyed it.
After hearing other players at conventions discuss the same issue with AP's that we were having we all agreed on the same thing: shorter Adventure Paths. A TRILOGY.
The following things discussed why it might be a better product model going forward:
A. Wait. Not having to wait half a year. (I know my group personally had no interest in the Iron Gods AP and we have to wait SIX MONTHS for another.) A trilogy would mean only a three month wait for a different 'flavor'.
B. Price. If you want to play an AP now, you have to commit to over $120 ($20 for 6 modules) A trilogy would only be $60, so people would be more willing to buy/try an AP for that price. This just makes for better business with the poor gamers such as myself.
C. Variety. Writers would have more opportunity to flesh out Golarion by having FOUR AP's a year instead of two.What do you guys think? I understand that the current AP's must be working as a product or they wouldn't still be publishing them, but going forward what do you guys and gals...
This has come up before and there are essentially two "main objections" that I recall:
First is the fact that the APs are at the heart of Paizo's ongoing success. Granted things may be changing, but for a long time the AP subscriptions were a central element to paying the bills month by month. This means there's an enormous risk in tinkering with the model. Even if there's a really good idea in the offing - changing what definitely works for something that would probably work is not something to do lightly when it's potentially the difference between paying salaries and retrenching people. To put it another way, the potential downside is devastating (however unlikely) and there's good business reasons to take risks elsewhere rather than at the heart of your business model.
The second reason is the fact that the staff are already stretched to keep up. its a sometimes overlooked fact that the first and last instalments of the APs take considerably more work than the "middle" instalments. Hence, two three part APs would be considerably more effort than one six part AP.
Personally, I'd like to see them make the change you suggested, however the above reasons are why I don't expect it to happen. One halfway house that HAS been mooted in a casual, no-plans-at-this-time-but-maybe-one-day kind of way is to try a five part and seven part AP one year. I hope they do give this a go someday - it's less of a risk (being less of a departure from the status quo) but would still enable them to tell a broader range of stories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a consumer, I really wouldn't like that set up. Not the biggest fan in quiet the variance, and I probably would never spend $200+ on a 9 Part Adventure Path. This hobby is expensive enough. I can't even imagine trying to run that. I think 4-6 is a good number honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time, though, it kind of makes it less appealing for those trying to plan for a budget. Not having a solid length of what the AP will be will make that more difficult.
Plus, if it's an AP you don't like, you'd have to wait almost a year to resubscribe to grab something you might like. That's a long time to wait for an AP you want. I couldn't imagine how much that would affect sales when people unsubscribe for an extra three months.
Plus, I'd imagine that writing up 6 would be a handful already. But a nine-parter? Especially trying to keep up with it during the Con Crunch? I think JJ would be able to shed more light on this.
I mean, I think splitting the APs into three 4 parters would be interesting. But I don't think I can get behind varying the APs to such a degree. Feeling unstable and the consumer in me like stability. Sorry.
why break something that doesnt need to be fixed?
I think you may want to look at how Pathfinder is doing their modules now. They are multi-level campaigns that are much shorter and cheaper to get into. Usually 6-level ordeals. Give it a try. I think you'll like it.
I think this is what you are looking for. The APs are designed to be in-depth campaigns with an overarching theme and story. Are they formulaic? Yes, but they also have many surprises GMs can exploit to make them memorable. Are they for everyone? Maybe not, but if you can't get a homebrew campaign up and running, APs are where it's at.
Odraude has a great suggestion. APs are not going to move from the current schedule or format.
Alternately, you can divide an AP and play either the first or last half.
why break something that doesnt need to be fixed?Why fly in an airplane when you could just walk?
i dont fly, i did once never again:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why break something that doesnt need to be fixed?Why fly in an airplane when you could just walk?
Because having to drive out to the airport, fly a plane to the opposite side of town, and parachute jump out, while possible, both takes longer and is much less practical than simply walking there.
That's the whole "Modules that work together" vs. "Adventure Paths" distinction, in a way. An Adventure Path is like an airplane; it's useful if you want to go from Berlin to NYC, but less useful and more hassle if you want to go from Madison to Milwaukee. Modules are like a car; it's easier to go from Madison to Milwaukee in one, even if you do have to make a couple decisions about what your exact route is going to be, but it's incredibly impractical if you want to go NYC to Berlin in one.
So what would be the train? I just want the trifecta of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles :D
I think the six adventures in an AP is great but I thought maybe if you ran two APs simultaneously it may help. What I mean is January AP 1 book 1 and February AP 2 book 1, March AP 1 book 2 and on, which I think may make the stories a bit more cohesive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the six adventures in an AP is great but I thought maybe if you ran two APs simultaneously it may help. What I mean is January AP 1 book 1 and February AP 2 book 1, March AP 1 book 2 and on, which I think may make the stories a bit more cohesive.
I suspect this would make the subscription model rather complicated.
I think the six adventures in an AP is great but I thought maybe if you ran two APs simultaneously it may help. What I mean is January AP 1 book 1 and February AP 2 book 1, March AP 1 book 2 and on, which I think may make the stories a bit more cohesive.
The problem is here getting freelancers that they trust to do them, and managing both AP's. They already push the deadline just focusing on one AP.
This also makes people wait a month before getting the next book. Even with the current format and playing every other weekend I can finish a book in one month.
There is also the problem of remembering what happened in the story if you wait that long to play again.
So what would be the train? I just want the trifecta of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles :D
...Trains are developing your own campaign out of Campaign Setting & Player Companion books, I guess. A less-thought-of mode of transportation, probably a bit more work actually getting in there and limited destinations as compared to a car (or a plane; there are US cities that have airports but don't have inter-city railway stations), but the scenery is breathtaking an they provide a couple little extras (since being up so high in the air mucks about with your sense of taste and it's a lot easier to eat while you're riding on a train than while you're driving a car).
That, or trains are modules and cars are making your own from Campaign Setting & Player Companion.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the six adventures in an AP is great but I thought maybe if you ran two APs simultaneously it may help. What I mean is January AP 1 book 1 and February AP 2 book 1, March AP 1 book 2 and on, which I think may make the stories a bit more cohesive.
Not only would that make the subscription model break... it'd make us developers break.
What I'm saying is that the story would determine the length of the AP, instead of beating the story into a 6- part template.
I can see your point, but to me, that sort of determination falls more along the lines of "what makes an AP and what makes a module?" IE, if they have settled on a concept to an AP, then they sure ought to have a really good idea before committing the resources as to what the makeup of the 6 parts will consist of. And if they don't think they have the material to constitute an entire 6 parts, then they either are going to pass on the idea or make it into a module (one reason, IMO, they changed their model of the module line is to encompass larger storylines like you suggest that might essentially otherwise be longer but not a full AP- ie, Dragon's Demand- or be able to fill several smaller adventures into a module- like the new Pirate module coming out soon).
While I suppose it can be argued that some of the APs that have come out didn't appear to have enough "meat" for an entire 6 parts, I think it is also more than likely (at least in what are the more notable likely examples) that the problem was one that arose due to unforeseen circumstances involving freelancer turnarounds and things, rather than them not putting forth the appropriate pre-planning.
