In Shackles, Island of Empty Eyes is a weak link since the PCs have become Free Captains and can scoot around but instead have to go clear out an island and throw a party for other pirates so they can get on the Pirate Council I believe? But being on the council is pretty much an empty reward since they are still running around the place and the council seat does no good after they deal with the major threats since it is the end of the adventure.
|
My PCs were very happy for +2 to any stat and since helping Baba Yaga was pretty much what this campaign is about, there was no issue. Honestly the geas was more useful as a "Oh, why are we doing this? Well, we've made a deal to be geas-ed in exchange for twinking out our builds" in-game explanation as to why a bunch of jaded Neutral sellswords got along on a quest to save the universe.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, Like 75% of the time people are complaining about railroading, they are usually complaining about the GM wanting you do a thing. An actual railroad is when a GM says you cant do something for no reason, the GM saying, "The campaign needs you to be loyal agents of (insert political entity here) to function," isn't railroading, its presenting the story.
I guess our problem was that Reign of Winter didn't tell us that we better make characters that are fine chosing the lesser evil. The Players Guide instead gave us archetypes and backstories to create characters that hate witches. Then made us serve a witch. Then made us fight said witches other (sometimes unwilling) servants, resulting in player character deaths. And when we decided we needed to look for help instead of dying left and right without having any real idea what was going on, the geas started to set in.
I won't deny our GM could have done a lot to salvage the mess, but the need to do so in the first place hints at a badly written AP, which is why I listed it here. It is simply not an AP I would ever recommend to a new GM.
|
That isn't fault of the Reign of Winter though, that is fault of Reign of Winter player's guide being notoriously "What the heck" out of all player's guides :P
Like for example, it recommends winter gear, when the game starts in area without winter so only reason why party of snow experts would start in campaign is purely meta. It also recommends prestige class that is kinda useless in campaign where everything is immune to cold
In general, you are kinda making it sound like your GM messed up stuff there?
I fault our GM for running the books as written (or so I believe), even when it was obviously no fun for us. There was a glaring lack of allies who were invested into us succeeding and could give us hints or tell us what was even going on starting book 3. It felt like running into encounter after encounter and every bit of story we discovered made it only seem more erratic. "Ok, so she put another set of keys here we couldn't even reach if we hadn't found the first one. So instead of one possible point of failure there are now two. The plan of a true genius!"
But I feel like we are getting a bit too specific for a general thread. Lets just say the AP didn't work for our group for several reasons. It has some cool scenery but a weak story from my perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a good part of what can make an AP go wrong is when the players lack sufficient incentive to stay on the path and that the AP doesn't give the GM a good way to fix things if they do. Reign of Winter, for its flaws, accomplishes both.
Our Hell's Vengeance game went horrifically wrong when we all realized that everyone in the party hated Thrune more than everybody else in the narrative. I mean, the only person in the party who was willing to sign the Infernal Compact was the Nidalese Reincarnated Druid whose character concept was "sent to spy on Cheliax, and once he realized that Zon-Kuthon already owned his soul, elected to never die" so signing it away to Asmodeus too was NBD. It probably did not help that the rest of the party was not team players (being an insane solipsistic psychic, an amoral nihilist slayer, and a halfling mesmerist who hated everyone but slave holding Chelish nobles in particular). All of these people were evil, but we had to stop when we realized "we're all just working to betray our employers in as spectacular, painful, and profitable a manner as possible."
So that is an AP that can go *very badly* if people are fighting against it. On the plus side, the Glorious Reclamation is still going great on our Golarion.
But I think the particular cocktail of "you are helping the obvious villains" and "many people's conception of evil characters that would be fun to play intersects with 'disagreeable and not very reliable'" makes this one of the hardest APs to run for a group that is not 100% invested in its premise.
|
All of these people were evil, but we had to stop when we realized "we're all just working to betray our employers in as spectacular, painful, and profitable a manner as possible."
Yeah, I think players need to be clear that for the Hell's Duology, they should be thinking in political terms rather than alignment terms. I also think Paizo made a mistake in taking the opposite tack in their marketing. These APs are defined by the PCs' alignments with respect to the Thrune regime, not their general philosophical alignments (insert obvious caveat about mutual feedback between the two concepts here).
Indeed, Hell's Vengeance *should* have been an AP that emphasized "play as a Patriot of Cheliax" in which case LN would have been a wholly valid choice. But in emphasizing "this is the one where you have to be evil" (since there were several prior APs where evil characters were fine, but not mandatory), having the events of the AP involve a lot of stuff that a non-evil Chellish Patriot would balk at, and making the antagonists LG means that LN character who loves their homeland (even to an unhealthy degree) just doesn't work.
Like our druid, who was initially open to betraying Nidal to Cheliax if the opportunity appealed, considered starting at LN and then realized "oh, good chance I slip to evil, in which case I'm not a druid anymore, so I should just do NE." Druids of the Uskwood are not exactly spoiled for alignment choice.
|
|
Yeaaah, Hell's Vengeance makes most sense as LE AP. It is true however that it does support NE and CE characters as well and gives players chance to do optionally some really abhorrent things(such as skinning a person to use their skin as a flag). That said, even for NE and CE characters it assumes they want to work with Thrune(heck CE campaign trait is basically just "You are utter madman who realized you can practice your sick desires if you just act under orders of someone else")
Another thing about Hell's Vengeance is that it is (I believe) the only AP that potentially asks you to undo the outcome of a previous AP. I mean, I think that they tell the GM to set it up so their actions in council of thieves was undone before the Glorious Reclamation shows up, but then you're just re-undoing it (since your council of thieves characters absolutely would prefer the Iomedeans to the Asmodeans).
It's fine when APs cross over, but they shouldn't also be working at cross purposes. If PF2 has a "reclaim Ravounel for Cheliax" AP or a "reopen the Worldwound AP" those wouldn't go over well even if we made it clear "this is an evil campaign" and even though the edition increment gives you more room to do that sort of thing.
|
Another thing about Hell's Vengeance is that it is (I believe) the only AP that potentially asks you to undo the outcome of a previous AP. I mean, I think that they tell the GM to set it up so their actions in council of thieves was undone before the Glorious Reclamation shows up, but then you're just re-undoing it (since your council of thieves characters absolutely would prefer the Iomedeans to the Asmodeans).
It's fine when APs cross over, but they shouldn't also be working at cross purposes. If PF2 has a "reclaim Ravounel for Cheliax" AP or a "reopen the Worldwound AP" those wouldn't go over well even if we made it clear "this is an evil campaign" and even though the edition increment gives you more room to do that sort of thing.
no. Hell's Vengeance assumes that Council of Thieves has already occurred.
It's not REALLY important to HV, but that's the baseline assumption.
But in council of thieves, you can potentially make Westcrown independent of Egorian. In HV you are explicitly taking Westcrown back for Abrogail.
So you are literally undoing perhaps the most significant thing the PCs in the previous AP did.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing about Hell's Vengeance is that it is (I believe) the only AP that potentially asks you to undo the outcome of a previous AP. I mean, I think that they tell the GM to set it up so their actions in council of thieves was undone before the Glorious Reclamation shows up, but then you're just re-undoing it (since your council of thieves characters absolutely would prefer the Iomedeans to the Asmodeans).
I remain utterly baffled that the Children of Westcrown (not the PCs; people like Arael, Janiven, etc.) were not even mentioned in Hell Comes to Westcrown.
And that per the Adventurer's Guide they have apparently been superseded by a whole new Council of Thieves - who also don't show up in Hell Comes to Westcrown!
You also mentioned Ravounel? That's not actually independent either. Neither is Isger.
Well
And my point was "undoing Hell's Rebels in a future AP would be bad form" so why is messing with an earlier, less cherished AP just NBD?
|
|
You also mentioned Ravounel? That's not actually independent either. Neither is Isger.Well
** spoiler omitted **
Undoing all that would be excellent form, actually.
Yeaaah, Hell's Vengeance makes most sense as LE AP. It is true however that it does support NE and CE characters as well and gives players chance to do optionally some really abhorrent things(such as skinning a person to use their skin as a flag). That said, even for NE and CE characters it assumes they want to work with Thrune(heck CE campaign trait is basically just "You are utter madman who realized you can practice your sick desires if you just act under orders of someone else")
Actually, I found certain parts of the AP- especially the opening adventure- the be very bad fits for ardent Lawful Evil pro-Thrunies.
A lot of the AP feels more like a Neutral Evil sellsword's paradise.
Another thing about Hell's Vengeance is that it is (I believe) the only AP that potentially asks you to undo the outcome of a previous AP. I mean, I think that they tell the GM to set it up so their actions in council of thieves was undone before the Glorious Reclamation shows up, but then you're just re-undoing it (since your council of thieves characters absolutely would prefer the Iomedeans to the Asmodeans).I remain utterly baffled that the Children of Westcrown (not the PCs; people like Arael, Janiven, etc.) were not even mentioned in Hell Comes to Westcrown.
And that per the Adventurer's Guide they have apparently been superseded by a whole new Council of Thieves - who also don't show up in Hell Comes to Westcrown!
What makes things kinda odder, but kinda smart in a way is that Hell Comes to Westcrown can in fact be a prequel to Council of Thieves. There are several characters who want to start up a new Council and bring back aspects that happened in CoT(The bloodplays)
So.. One might play things as Thrune making things so they flow into CoT. Such as sending down a certain vampire to take control of the streets.
|
|
I'd like to point out Council of Thieves has separately "Westcrown is autonomous" and "Westcrown is independent" ending.
Also in Hell's Rebels you can with good enough rolls make a truce that is really in favor of Ravounel :P So that would be indenpendent as well
But yeah, I agree its bizarre Children of Westcrown didn't get mentioned in either book. Its also kinda weird how Hell's Venegance assumes either the "average" ending of original AP or the autonomous one.
Its kinda mistake to say that Hell's Vengeance assumes you undo Council of Thieves because Hell's Vengeance assumed you didn't get best ending of Council of Thieves and city's status quo was preserved. It actually straight up points out that if PCs did something different(such as getting the best ending) if you want to preserve their choices you have to heavily modify the final adventure
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how many PC's making characters that dont fit actually read the players guide? A lot of those issues are handled readily (IMO) if you do your due diligence.
|
|
But in council of thieves, you can potentially make Westcrown independent of Egorian. In HV you are explicitly taking Westcrown back for Abrogail.
So you are literally undoing perhaps the most significant thing the PCs in the previous AP did.
PCs can CHOOSE to make Westcrown like... self-governing kinda. They don't fight a war of independence.
Moreover, by the time the party in HV gets to Westcrown, it's been invaded and occupied by the Glorious Revolution. Whatever political status it had between Council and HV is kinda moot, since an invading army has taken over.
|
|
Also in Hell's Rebels you can with good enough rolls make a truce that is really in favor of Ravounel :PWhat I have described above is the best ending.
Ye are are kinda ignoring a lot of things in order to argue that Ravounel isn't independent "Oh no, Thrunes didn't get a deal that 100% sucks for them" though. Like, deal is much more beneficial to Ravounel than Cheliax, only reason they agreed to it is Glorious Reclamation and because of loopholes :P
|
|
Ye are are kinda ignoring a lot of things in order to argue that Ravounel isn't independent "Oh no, Thrunes didn't get a deal that 100% sucks for them" though. Like, deal is much more beneficial to Ravounel than Cheliax, only reason they agreed to it is Glorious Reclamation and because of loopholes :PAlso in Hell's Rebels you can with good enough rolls make a truce that is really in favor of Ravounel :PWhat I have described above is the best ending.
Rather, it is you who is ignoring things in order to preserve the beautiful illusion of independence. Take for instance Ravounel's export economy. Prior to "independence," it could export wherever it liked. After, in the best-case scenario, it must divert at least 30% of its exports to Cheliax. And if the Chelish market will not bear this, there is no hint of a price support. The whole scheme operates to drain Ravounel of its national wealth, to reduce it to pauperism and dependence - in the best-case scenario!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't a significant portion of Ravounel's natural wealth in silver? Which, being literal money, seems like there's an inexhaustible demand for it.
It seems likely that Cheliax as a political entity will cease to exist long before Ravounel is poor.
Also the AP literally says that the price Cheliax will pay for exports was fixed in the agreement, with yearly negotiated renewals. I mean, one of the main reasons we set the "rebellion against Cheliax" AP in Kintargo instead of Pezzack is that Kintargo is fabulously wealthy as well as geographically isolated.
|
|
I mean, it could be that writer doesn't know how economy works, but its still better than 70% they wanted originally :p
Like its pretty clear that part of negotiation was about Chelish trying to control Ravounel's economy completely, so having 70% of exports free to go elsewhere could work assuming Ravounel has resources other countries want. I don't really care to check whether Ravounel was noted to be resource rich area or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather, it is you who is ignoring things in order to preserve the beautiful illusion of independence. Take for instance Ravounel's export economy. Prior to "independence," it could export wherever it liked. After, in the best-case scenario, it must divert at least 30% of its exports to Cheliax. And if the Chelish market will not bear this, there is no hint of a price support. The whole scheme operates to drain Ravounel of its national wealth, to reduce it to pauperism and dependence - in the best-case scenario!
...
You appear to presume that Ravounel had a thriving export market to other nations prior to the events of Hell's Rebels and got to keep the proceeds thereof.
A lot of textual evidence (such as opening treaty demands with a requirement of 70% of the exports- at a point when independence is on the table, and Cheliax has already tipped its hand into regarding the concept of political independence as a semi-tolerable outcome) indicates that didn't export much- a lot of their surplus would have gone to Cheliax.
Being able to ship 70% of their material surplus to anyone they damn well please for any price they can get is a huge step up from, "sorry, Abrogail wants a silver-plated torture chamber for recalcitrant devils, so we're taking it all at the price we feel like setting."
Moreover, Ravounel can set its own import and export duties on any and all exports- including the 30% earmarked for their former primary market. If the Chelish markets won't pay or sustain suitable prices, there is nothing in the agreement keeping Ravounel from charging duties sufficient to make it pay off. Moreover, with Cheliax demanding 70% at the outset, it's likely that the markets will support the 30% demand until Cheliax can locate another source that won't charge them as much- and any supplier doing so will most likely be shortchanging someone else, who Ravounel can then swoop in to give a better deal.
Your Opium War example is also misleading, because one of the central pillars of the treaty is that Cheliax doesn't just get to stomp in and enforce its demands at swordpoint.
No, it's not the most glorious curbstomping of the evil empire possible, but nor is it a slavish colonial dependency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, IIRC, if Cheliax orders literally one Chelaxian soldier over the border without being explicitly invited to cross, they are in violation of the Kintargo Compact and very undesirable things will happen (for Thrune if not Cheliax itself.)
Which is not to say they can not or will not use proxies insofar as they can, but this really does limit Cheliax's ability to bully Kintargo.
But being able to literally not use their military in an official capacity is going to put Ravounel extremely low on the list of "Former parts of the empire to reclaim." But since Cheliax is clearly a crumbling empire held together by the increasingly shaky illusion of an omnipresent authority, it's unlikely Cheliax will ever be able to retake any of its former land.
Like if Cheliax actually had its act together, they wouldn't need to rely on 3-5 randos who are most likely disturbed reprobates for the one AP featuring them in which they do not take the L.
But in council of thieves, you can potentially make Westcrown independent of Egorian. In HV you are explicitly taking Westcrown back for Abrogail.
So you are literally undoing perhaps the most significant thing the PCs in the previous AP did.
PCs can CHOOSE to make Westcrown like... self-governing kinda. They don't fight a war of independence.
Moreover, by the time the party in HV gets to Westcrown, it's been invaded and occupied by the Glorious Revolution. Whatever political status it had between Council and HV is kinda moot, since an invading army has taken over.
Reminds me of something, it might actually be less frustrating for a player to skip making halfling PCs for CoT. Since no doubt a major goal of the pcs is to is free slaves/end slavery, they are bound to be disappointed when they still have to bow their heads or get kicked in the face by loyal Thrunies.
They would also be missing out lots of Rp in book 2 since no way they would be able to sit at the Mayor's table.
|
|
I mean, IIRC, if Cheliax orders literally one Chelaxian soldier over the border without being explicitly invited to cross, they are in violation of the Kintargo Compact and very undesirable things will happen (for Thrune if not Cheliax itself.)
Now we know that's not true. Cheliax in any scenario had the right to station forces in Menador Keep. Vyre and Deepmar can also host Chelish fleets and armies with impunity. And really, "using proxies" is no concern whatsoever. Nidal outweighs Ravounel by a factor of five if not ten. Even Cheliax-aligned Korvosa has about as big a population. The realities are what they are. Slavish colonial dependence is all an "independent" Ravounel can hope for. Such is the fate of small nations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, IIRC, if Cheliax orders literally one Chelaxian soldier over the border without being explicitly invited to cross, they are in violation of the Kintargo Compact and very undesirable things will happen (for Thrune if not Cheliax itself.)Now we know that's not true. Cheliax in any scenario had the right to station forces in Menador Keep. Vyre and Deepmar can also host Chelish fleets and armies with impunity. And really, "using proxies" is no concern whatsoever. Nidal outweighs Ravounel by a factor of five if not ten. Even Cheliax-aligned Korvosa has about as big a population. The realities are what they are. Slavish colonial dependence is all an "independent" Ravounel can hope for. Such is the fate of small nations.
Actually, depending on the outcome of Curse of the Crimson Throne, how Cheliax aligned Korvosa is, might be in question.
Also, Cheliax has had bad luck trying to keep its own possessions as it is. Sargavia, Molthune, Nirmathas, and Andoran seem to be quite independent.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, they might play nicer with Ravounel than their other former territories just so they actually still get something from a population they no longer govern, as opposed to the outright privateering they face from Andoran, por ejemplo.
Also worth noting-
Ravounel has:
1. The Song of Silver (Bad News for a devil-reliant force prohibited by a magically binding contract from deploying troops across the border)
2. In-house face-stompers well above the global average (the PCs- whose magical and martial capabilities outstrip physical reality on several levels- and the NPC Silver Ravens)
3. An alliance with what amounts to airborne infantry that give regular Chelish troops the willies
4. A lot of goodwill from anyone who wants to see Thrune get a black eye and full diplomatic freedom to make nice with any such entity they please.
5. Short interior lines of communication.
6. The aforementioned magically binding contract which does their only outright hostile neighbor no favors.
7. Only one land border that actually needs to be secured- a relatively short, mountainous border with Nidal, a nation less known for its standing armies and more for being a creepy insular shadowland- their only noteworthy military successes to date have been when they have played defense.
Meanwhile, Cheliax has:
1. Just had to deal with an insurrection that outright conquered vast swathes of real estate, and, while it was defeated, certainly put them on notice.
2. Outright hostile relations with many former provinces, including Andoran.
3. A navy constrained by the fact that Sargava allied with the pirates of the Shackles to see it off, opposition by the Andoren navy, and which cannot attack Ravounel with impunity due the aforementioned magical contract.
4. A quasi-occupation in Isger propping up that shattered hulk of a nation-state.
5. An internal power struggle between the Church of Asmodeus and House Thrune that absolutely must be papered over whenever possible.
Cheliax isn't a paper tiger, but it's definitely got its hands full.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus I mean given that Cheliax is fundamentally lawful they probably respect Ravounel's argument of "technically we were never part of Cheliax to begin with" much more than, say, Andoran's "People's Revolt" which wasn't based on anything even remotely contractual.
It probably plays better in Cheliax to play off Kintargo's sudden political autonomy as something that Cheliax's bureaucrats discovered when poring through various documents, and since they put so much stock into official contracts then Ravouneli self-direction was *their* idea. In order to keep up this story, they would *need* to play nice.
Internally it makes sense for Cheliax to see their relationship with Ravounel as similar to its relationship with Nidal- this is a nominal ally, which poses zero risk of military aggression, but annexing them through military force is essentially impossible, and neither is to be trusted. Big difference? Kintargo probably exports more things that Cheliax has use of than Nidal, and is much more welcoming to tourists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus I mean given that Cheliax is fundamentally lawful they probably respect Ravounel's argument of "technically we were never part of Cheliax to begin with"Don't be completely absurd.
Cheliax being lawful means that they will probably respect the treaty they were FORCED to make to stave off the Glorious Revolution.
Cheliax being lawful means that they will probably respect the treaty they were FORCED to make to stave off the Glorious Revolution.
It seems extremely likely that after this new AP, Cheliax's eye will be turned northwards since things look to go bad in Lastwall and Nirmathas is not much of a buffer at all.
If that one goes the way it looks to, Cheliax will be acutely aware that they are vulnerable to invasion, a real bad one is in the foreseeable future, and they don't really have friends. Expansionism is not in the forecast there.
|
|
Plus I mean given that Cheliax is fundamentally lawful they probably respect Ravounel's argument of "technically we were never part of Cheliax to begin with"Don't be completely absurd.Cheliax being lawful means that they will probably respect the treaty they were FORCED to make to stave off the Glorious Revolution.
Where did you get that from? Ravounel isn't even in a position to aid Pezzack, never mind the GR. Which it never, ever, not even once did during the course of the AP.
Where did you get that from? Ravounel isn't even in a position to aid Pezzack, never mind the GR. Which it never, ever, not even once did during the course of the AP.
...
It has very little to do with Ravounel doing anything. The point was that the GR was a handful all by itself, so Cheliax was (and remains) stretched kinda thin.
|
|
Where did you get that from? Ravounel isn't even in a position to aid Pezzack, never mind the GR. Which it never, ever, not even once did during the course of the AP....
It has very little to do with Ravounel doing anything. The point was that the GR was a handful all by itself, so Cheliax was (and remains) stretched kinda thin.
Seen another way, it has managed to defeat one of its enemies in detail and to box another quite well in.
|
|
Umm, how they can box in enemy that isn't interested in expansion, didn't exist previously and which took several areas that previously belonged to Cheliax with them?
It's the easiest thing in the world to box in an enemy that doesn't even push against your cordon, and if you think Cheliax actually gives a fig about the marginal areas that make up Ravounel, which have no strategic value to speak of, you have another think coming. Cheliax was simply not damaged. It will reclaim its marginal territories in the fullness of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple observations:
1) it's interesting that a thread about the Worst AP's has devolved into a discussion about the end of one of the best (Hell's Rebels.)
2) Using a spoiler tag since my comment reveals much about the HR AP.
The discussion above assumes the pc's/Ravounel accept the ridiculous terms initially offered by Abrogail II/Cheliax, which range from horrible for Ravounel to not good for Ravounel. I expect some (most?) pc's would tell Abrogail to farq off. That most players go along is testament to the metagame/railroad of participation that AP's create by their very nature. The only outcome of failed negotiations is that the BBEG of Book 6 becomes more powerful - except the pc's have no way of knowing that and even if they did, would probably say "Bring it on!" given it's exactly the type of challenge they are best suited to address.
But even more broadly, regardless of the outcome of negotiations between proto-Ravounel and Cheliax, House Thrune is grievously wounded by the Kintargo Contract. Every enemy of Thrune or devil-bound Cheliax has been searching for a way to end the Cheliax Covenant since the day it was created/signed. Now they have one. A method, as Odexidie and Mephistopheles make clear in the AP, that was either deliberately engineered or tacitly accepted by Asmodeus. Meaning, HE thinks there is a reasonable chance the hidden clause will be invoked. Every tom, dick and harry with a grievance against House Thrune will be looking for a way to put Abrogail II into breach of it.
If the Kintargo Contract is breached, the consequences for Cheliax might be severe, but for House Thrune it would be lethal. "I move that we all work together to make Thrune extinct, and then have our civil war. All in favor?"
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
No it doesn't. As I've said numerous times, it assumes the best of the negotiation outcomes presented in the AP. The point being to criticize the AP for stumbling into presenting putatively desirable outcomes that are nevertheless tilted against the PCs and toward their adversaries.
If the real best option for PCs is to fail the task set for them by the AP, then the AP is not doing its job.
An aside: I wonder what the designers think of Brexit.
In any event, there is no practical way to force a breach of the Kintargo Contract on the Chelaxian side. The only way that happens is if someone in House Thrune decides to commit deliberate political suicide in the most over-the-top manner possible; this is not a likely outcome.