The first few years of PF2 will be critical for its success. They could go for rehashs to get a few more veterans over the fence, or they go for new APs, hoping to blow everyone's minds. A rehash can be as good as it wants, it will never be as exciting as good new content. It's partially about expectations: People already expect the rehash to be better than the original, so it will be hard to surprise them positively. And it's partially about the chance of introducing new stuff: You can't simply throw out all the mediocre stuff at a rehash, but at a new product you can try to make everything above average.
Now after these first few years they could do a rehash. It will be less effective to get some veterans - if they didn't switch yet, they probably never will. And the rehash will compete with all these ideas flying around in developers' brains. If you only do 2 APs per day, you really have to be picky what's it going to be.
So the odds are against a rehash. But Paizo is always good for a surprise...
Just my opinion.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have not heard a peep from the devs that they are actually planning 3 part AP's for Pathfinder 2nd Edition. As far as I am aware, this seems to be just a rumour started by players who would like to see it happen.
I heard it - specifically, that they're watching how the Starfinder APs do, and if they do well, they'll consider it as a potential option for Pathfinder Adventure Paths - spoken at a PaizoCon panel, in response to an audience member's question about the matter. You'll have to dig through Know Direction's recordings for Absolute and Definitive Proof, I'm afraid.
As for ascribing motives, I have no opinion for or against. I care whether the story is good, not how long it takes to tell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, not sure it would be good thing to adapt 1e Adventure Paths to 2e because while 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e played mechanically in similar manner, 2e sounds different enough from 1e that workload would be much more and same adventure and monsters/npcs would feel really different.
That said, I'm still sad that Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire never got updated and I would really love for them to get updated somehow :'D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems more likely that they might do a ‘thematic sequal’ To an old one.
I heard it - specifically, that they're watching how the Starfinder APs do, and if they do well, they'll consider it as a potential option for Pathfinder Adventure Paths - spoken at a PaizoCon panel, in response to an audience member's question about the matter. You'll have to dig through Know Direction's recordings for Absolute and Definitive Proof, I'm afraid.As for ascribing motives, I have no opinion for or against. I care whether the story is good, not how long it takes to tell.
Well, as I said, I'll have to cancel my suscription if they go that way, at least for the duration of those AP's. They could do them as a separate line, that would be fine.
EDIT: nope. Adam actually said that there were no current plans for a 3+3 AP in Pathfinder. He said they were watching the Starfinder experiment closely, but that Pathfinder APs are generally set for two years in advance (or so). So if they tinker with it at all, it’ll likely be after at least four complete, six-part APs are done.
Was that at the panel Kalindlara is referring to? I haven't found a recording of it online and it sounds as if you know of one. Adam hasn't said it on the boards here, just checked his posts for the last two months. :p
Nah, I don’t listen or watch stuff like that. It’s just from posts on the boards. I was kind of compiling from these posts (in January, prior to PF2’s announcement):
Any news on whether the 3-volume AP approach might be used for Pathfinder?There are no current plans to use this approach to Pathfinder Adventure Paths, but we'll see what the future brings.
Since Rob is the creative director for Starfinder, he'd be a better person for more details, but I can say that since we have a new line of Adventure Paths for a new game system, it seemed like a good time to experiment with how we present Adventure Paths. I'm curious to see how readers like or dislike this small change.... And the Adventure Paths already had a multi-year lead on the Pathfinder RPG.So, while we are all just speculating, would you tell us what is the rationale for a three part AP here?
I can’t find any “two years ahead of time” quote, but that’s pretty well established, so the idea it won’t be the first few APs (if ever) probably isn’t controversial (?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as I said, I'll have to cancel my suscription if they go that way, at least for the duration of those AP's. They could do them as a separate line, that would be fine.
I heard it - specifically, that they're watching how the Starfinder APs do, and if they do well, they'll consider it as a potential option for Pathfinder Adventure Paths - spoken at a PaizoCon panel, in response to an audience member's question about the matter. You'll have to dig through Know Direction's recordings for Absolute and Definitive Proof, I'm afraid.As for ascribing motives, I have no opinion for or against. I care whether the story is good, not how long it takes to tell.
Is a 1-10 Adventure arc followed by an 11-20 arc that different from an AP from 1-20?
Functionally, it’d be pretty much the same experience, wouldn’t it?Given the structure of most APs, with intermediate bosses, the difference in PC goals at low levels vs high levels and so forth, I doubt my players would even notice. (It might take some foreshadowing of the second BBEG in book three, but I doubt it would be difficult).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Is a 1-10 Adventure arc followed by an 11-20 arc that different from an AP from 1-20?
Functionally, it’d be pretty much the same experience, wouldn’t it?
{. . .}
It actually has one practical advantage: Groups that like high level play but have trouble staying together long enough might find this to be a more accessible path to their high level play experience.
|
|
Yeah, I'm bit confused too that if Magnus' preference is that players can play from low level to high level, what is difference playing two aps that covers 1-20 combined and one ap that covers same level range? .-. Since judging from Starfinder, idea of aps split in two 1-3 is that you can mix and match the level ranges because next one continues from level range first one ended
Well, as I said, I'll have to cancel my suscription if they go that way, at least for the duration of those AP's. They could do them as a separate line, that would be fine.Is a 1-10 Adventure arc followed by an 11-20 arc that different from an AP from 1-20?
Functionally, it’d be pretty much the same experience, wouldn’t it?Given the structure of most APs, with intermediate bosses, the difference in PC goals at low levels vs high levels and so forth, I doubt my players would even notice. (It might take some foreshadowing of the second BBEG in book three, but I doubt it would be difficult).
If the two AP's were structured as actually one AP, with a false "finish" at the end of part three and then the AP actually continues with volume four, that would be another thing. But I imagine that would get the people who want three part AP's complaining that their story is meaningless.
OTOH, many AP's already have issues with their individual modules feeling disconnected, because they are written concurrently to each other with little communication between the writers. I fear splitting them into two parts where part three has to mark a definite end (only to just continue the story in part four) would exacerbate this problem even more.
Thanks for hunting down those quotes, Steve. I hadn't thought to check back so far, since I thought they would be from the timeframe of the playtest announcement.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the two AP's were structured as actually one AP, with a false "finish" at the end of part three and then the AP actually continues with volume four, that would be another thing. But I imagine that would get the people who want three part AP's complaining that their story is meaningless.
"False finish" might be a bit too harsh but from what I've seen of the two SF APs that are 3 parters is that while the stories are completely separate, you can easily, to the point of being encouraged, port the PCs who finish Against the Aeon Throne to Signal of Screams.
Granted there might be things in the background connecting the APs together, but until they're out we won't know.
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, not sure it would be good thing to adapt 1e Adventure Paths to 2e because while 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e played mechanically in similar manner, 2e sounds different enough from 1e that workload would be much more and same adventure and monsters/npcs would feel really different.
That said, I'm still sad that Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire never got updated and I would really love for them to get updated somehow :'D
We want 2nd edition to allow us to be able to tell the same sorts of stories we did in 1st edition Pathfinder and in 3.5 OGL. That means that, if we do our job right, ALL of the 3.5 OGL and the 1st edition products we produce could in theory be updated to 2nd edition and not feel that different from an in-world perspective.
|
Honestly, they should just sell a encounter update document for PF2. I'd buy that in a hot second. Everything else would be the same basically. Just update the mobs and maybe some skill checks.
Honestly, if they were going to revamp anything, I'd think Kingmaker or Skulls & Shackles because both have extensive sub systems that could be really great additions to 2nd edition imho.
Considering that they are considering making "Queenmaker", that sounds much more interesting than revamp of Kingmaker. Better to have new kingdom building adventure than remake of old one really
Source?
Aww, but that means I can continue living in vain hope that I will see hardcover version of Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire :'D (I really want to run them for real though)A fixed Second Darkness would make me very happy, but that one is so unpopular that that chances are way too slim. :(
I don't know if you *can* fix Second Darkness, given the huge disconnect in themes between modules 1-2 and 3-6. I can't see players who made a character for the specific theme of the first two modules being too happy about being thrown into a completely different type of story later on in the AP.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that they are considering making "Queenmaker", that sounds much more interesting than revamp of Kingmaker. Better to have new kingdom building adventure than remake of old one reallySource?
This is from the Adventure Path panel at PaizoCon, though the details are more complex than implied above. Basically, "Queenmaker" (a kingdom building AP set in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings - I think the Ironbound Archipelago?) was one of the APs the team considered for the current release before settling on War for the Crown. And it's one that I believe Crystal said (might want to check the tapes on this) they still want to do sometime.
I wouldn't mind, personally. I never liked Kingmaker all that much myself. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would require more vigorous seeding of the campaign's themes throughout Books 1 and 2, as well as changes to the character creation assumptions (as presented in a newly rewritten Player's Guide). But it could be done.
Sure, but that would mean rewriting the AP to an extend way above and beyond what they added to the RotRL and CotCT anniversary editions. I don't know if they'd want to commit to such a project.
|
|
I still think it might be honestly to split them into two different modules. Heck, you wouldn't even necessarily need to do two separate APs, you just could have riddleport portion as self contained adventure covering those levels while either making new beginning for second half or just starting it at high level <_<
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you could keep the Riddleport start in Second Darkness. Just have a warning in the Player's Guide (and publish a separate Player's Guide in the first place!) that things are going to take a drastically different turn (and even have some dreams foreshadowing it early in the Riddleport section, although I don't think that this is strictly necessary).
After all, what kind of adventurers can't adapt to an unexpected change of situation?
|
Creative Director
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if you *can* fix Second Darkness, given the huge disconnect in themes between modules 1-2 and 3-6. I can't see players who made a character for the specific theme of the first two modules being too happy about being thrown into a completely different type of story later on in the AP.Aww, but that means I can continue living in vain hope that I will see hardcover version of Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire :'D (I really want to run them for real though)A fixed Second Darkness would make me very happy, but that one is so unpopular that that chances are way too slim. :(
I've been thinking about it for about a decade now and I'm 100% confident I can fix that problem. The question isn't how. The question is when, and so far, the "when" is not now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about it for about a decade now and I'm 100% confident I can fix that problem. The question isn't how. The question is when, and so far, the "when" is not now.I don't know if you *can* fix Second Darkness, given the huge disconnect in themes between modules 1-2 and 3-6. I can't see players who made a character for the specific theme of the first two modules being too happy about being thrown into a completely different type of story later on in the AP.Aww, but that means I can continue living in vain hope that I will see hardcover version of Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire :'D (I really want to run them for real though)A fixed Second Darkness would make me very happy, but that one is so unpopular that that chances are way too slim. :(
Oh. Wow! That would be great! My cold empty heart is now filled with hope and joy! (ok ok, maybe not that dramatic...)
Thanks for sharing!
Could the "when" be shortly after the release of the production version of Pathfinder 2nd Edition?
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could the "when" be shortly after the release of the production version of Pathfinder 2nd Edition?
Alas, it's FAR more likely that the "when" will be never. We simply cannot compile every Adventure Path we've done into a hardcover edition. We've done 3 so far, counting Shackled City, for the duration that Paizo's been a thing, and we've done a LOT more Adventure Paths than that and are doing 4 or more a year now (counting Starfinder). If we do another one, chances of it being Second Darkness are, frankly, minuscule. I wouldn't say it's the LEAST likely one to be done, but it's far from, say, the top five.
As much as I'd like to revise it, the Office of Expectation Management suggests you don't hold your breath for this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any chance youd give us the rough top 5?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about it for about a decade now and I'm 100% confident I can fix that problem. The question isn't how. The question is when, and so far, the "when" is not now.I don't know if you *can* fix Second Darkness, given the huge disconnect in themes between modules 1-2 and 3-6. I can't see players who made a character for the specific theme of the first two modules being too happy about being thrown into a completely different type of story later on in the AP.Aww, but that means I can continue living in vain hope that I will see hardcover version of Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire :'D (I really want to run them for real though)A fixed Second Darkness would make me very happy, but that one is so unpopular that that chances are way too slim. :(
Then best of luck to you that it will happen rather sooner than later. Great to hear that you've found a solution. :)
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any chance youd give us the rough top 5?
Nope, because there's no way I can post a list like that and not set false expectations. Especially since, given we've only done 3 in about a decade, chances of doing 5 more in the next 20 years is pretty minimal.
Could the "when" be shortly after the release of the production version of Pathfinder 2nd Edition?
Alas, it's FAR more likely that the "when" will be never. We simply cannot compile every Adventure Path we've done into a hardcover edition. We've done 3 so far, counting Shackled City, for the duration that Paizo's been a thing, and we've done a LOT more Adventure Paths than that and are doing 4 or more a year now (counting Starfinder). If we do another one, chances of it being Second Darkness are, frankly, minuscule. I wouldn't say it's the LEAST likely one to be done, but it's far from, say, the top five.
As much as I'd like to revise it, the Office of Expectation Management suggests you don't hold your breath for this one.
I've always considered it a shame that neither Paizo nor Wizards was able to do a hardcover for Age of Worms, although I don't know the legal and copywrite complications of it all. It's just such an iconic adventure path.
Although, for my money, my favorite of the three Dungeon APs was Savage Tide. Age of worms was cool, and as I said iconic, but that one was awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about it for about a decade now and I'm 100% confident I can fix that problem. The question isn't how. The question is when, and so far, the "when" is not now.I don't know if you *can* fix Second Darkness, given the huge disconnect in themes between modules 1-2 and 3-6. I can't see players who made a character for the specific theme of the first two modules being too happy about being thrown into a completely different type of story later on in the AP.Aww, but that means I can continue living in vain hope that I will see hardcover version of Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire :'D (I really want to run them for real though)A fixed Second Darkness would make me very happy, but that one is so unpopular that that chances are way too slim. :(
Great! I have always felt like SD was a great story with a lot of cool unique elements and it would be a shame not to give it some extra love.
Any chance youd give us the rough top 5?Nope, because there's no way I can post a list like that and not set false expectations. Especially since, given we've only done 3 in about a decade, chances of doing 5 more in the next 20 years is pretty minimal.
I figured that was the answer but you never know.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always considered it a shame that neither Paizo nor Wizards was able to do a hardcover for Age of Worms, although I don't know the legal and copywrite complications of it all.
No legal complexity at all: Wizards of the Coast owns the copyrights to all of the Dungeon Adventure Path content, so it's theirs to use (or not) as they please.