| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't run an AP until I have the entire AP in hand. I plan it all out and add my personal touches and allow for change ups.
If the players manage to kill what appears to be an innocuous NPC that later turns out to be someone who is recurring that is a problem for me. On top of that I occasionally use an innocuous NPC as a recurring that wasn't intended. I have to know the whole tale.
But that being said, I love the AP setup. So long as I have the whole story in hand before I start. Having an over arching story that players have to work through with what I feel is side quests along the way is good. Even if all of the side quests don't move the main plot it is usually a way to flesh out the back drop.
Legendary Games have just recently completed a six-part adventure path for PF2 called "Aegis of Empire".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was... sorely disappointed to discover that after backing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was... sorely disappointed to discover that after backing it.
This is true, unfortunately. I didn't expect that either. The pitch sounded much different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like AP's as a concept. A multi-part story is always more satisfying than a series of loosely connected or not connected mini-stories. The Hobbit by itself is a fun fantasy book for example. It becomes much more awesome as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings. So I feel that the concept is fine.
What I'm not so keen on is Paizo's execution of them. I've recently started trying to write my own and once I looked at AP's from that dimension rather than just reading them I realised just how many unnecessary words there are in almost every product they release. This isn't just the extra articles btw - some of which are amazing and some of which aren't... I'm talking about within the ~50 pages of the AP itself. My wife is running RotRL Anniversary and turned to me today and said "I just read five pages of stuff the players will never know, but they haven't told me what the murder site looks like."
I'd say that's probably more a problem with their business model of hiring individual writers and giving them big word counts. What a GM wants is concision and all the details neatly provided with enough interesting description to fill it out for them and their players. What Paizo wants is enough material to fill 50 double columned pages. No wonder we get the background of every named NPC (and a few unnamed ones) or cool facts about an event that was the genesis for this current problem 200 years later. The writer needed to get 3000 more words in to get paid!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that's probably more a problem with their business model of hiring individual writers and giving them big word counts. What a GM wants is concision and all the details neatly provided with enough interesting description to fill it out for them and their players. What Paizo wants is enough material to fill 50 double columned pages. No wonder we get the background of every named NPC (and a few unnamed ones) or cool facts about an event that was the genesis for this current problem 200 years later. The writer needed to get 3000 more words in to get paid!
Everyone I know who has written an AP instalment has said they struggled with the need to cut bits, not that they needed to pad it out to hit the prescribed wordcount.
I think the actual problem is that Paizo write for thousands whereas you’re writing for just an audience of one.
I agree with you about NPC backgrounds as it happens - but the forums were full of congratulatory posts from grateful people when they made a feature of fleshing those out more. All those people want things I don’t - when I get what I want, they feel like they’ve missed out due to “wasted space”.
(There’s a significant number of people who buy an AP but don’t run it, for example. Although they may seem like a less important audience than those buying it to use at the table - their money is just as good as anyone else’s).
It’s a pretty tiny minority for whom the APs are perfect. They’re more a product you’re expected to get enough out of to be useful, they’re not expected to be exactly right for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone I know who has written an AP instalment has said they struggled with the need to cut bits, not that they needed to pad it out to hit the prescribed wordcount.
I think the actual problem is that Paizo write for thousands whereas you’re writing for just an audience of one.
I agree with you about NPC backgrounds as it happens - but the forums were full of congratulatory posts from grateful people when they made a feature of fleshing those out more. All those people want things I don’t - when I get what I want, they feel like they’ve missed out due to “wasted space”.
(There’s a significant number of people who buy an AP but don’t run it, for example. Although they may seem like a less important audience than those buying it to use at the table - their money is just as good as anyone else’s).
It’s a pretty tiny minority for whom the APs are perfect. They’re more a product you’re expected to get enough out of to be useful, they’re not expected to be exactly right for you.
Thanks - I don't know anyone who's actually written for Paizo so it's nice to hear from people who do. I'm in the group of people who buy AP's and don't run them and as I said, the big thing I found when I tried to write one was that a load of the stuff I read and enjoyed while I was 'just reading them' turned out to be completely unrelated to the actual running of the game. Once I'd written down all the things that were 'needed' on a mechanical level I'd come up with a fraction of the amount Paizo would produce to cover the same thing. So when I say 'unnecessary' I'm saying it with an eye to the mechanics of running the game - which is a big switch from what I used to say when I read them more as novels.
I think AP's are a great idea and Paizo do them well. It's certainly 'all things to all men/women/neutral/other' and so no-one is totally satisfied, but I'm very glad Paizo make them. It helps Pathfinder and Golarion be a much more enjoyable place to play than whatever WotC do next for DnD5. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when I say 'unnecessary' I'm saying it with an eye to the mechanics of running the game - which is a big switch from what I used to say when I read them more as novels.
Sadly I only get to play three hours a week or so nowadays. Mathematically, it’s impossible for me to run them all, but they’ve never made one I regretted buying.
I think AP's are a great idea and Paizo do them well. It's certainly 'all things to all men/women/neutral/other' and so no-one is totally satisfied, but I'm very glad Paizo make them.
For me, one of the key benefits is when they produce something I have no interest in.
Again and again, I’ve found myself really enjoying some AP or element that I was sure wasn’t my thing. (Serpent’s Skull being the most striking divergence from expectation to execution, in my case). Weirdly, I think I enjoy APs more than I would if they were tailored exactly to what I think I want!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone I know who has written an AP instalment has said they struggled with the need to cut bits, not that they needed to pad it out to hit the prescribed wordcount.
I think the actual problem is that Paizo write for thousands whereas you’re writing for just an audience of one.
I agree with you about NPC backgrounds as it happens - but the forums were full of congratulatory posts from grateful people when they made a feature of fleshing those out more. All those people want things I don’t - when I get what I want, they feel like they’ve missed out due to “wasted space”.
(There’s a significant number of people who buy an AP but don’t run it, for example. Although they may seem like a less important audience than those buying it to use at the table - their money is just as good as anyone else’s).
It’s a pretty tiny minority for whom the APs are perfect. They’re more a product you’re expected to get enough out of to be useful, they’re not expected to be exactly right for you.
Thanks - I don't know anyone who's actually written for Paizo so it's nice to hear from people who do. I'm in the group of people who buy AP's and don't run them and as I said, the big thing I found when I tried to write one was that a load of the stuff I read and enjoyed while I was 'just reading them' turned out to be completely unrelated to the actual running of the game. Once I'd written down all the things that were 'needed' on a mechanical level I'd come up with a fraction of the amount Paizo would produce to cover the same thing. So when I say 'unnecessary' I'm saying it with an eye to the mechanics of running the game - which is a big switch from what I used to say when I read them more as novels.
I think AP's are a great idea and Paizo do them well. It's certainly 'all things to all men/women/neutral/other' and so no-one is totally satisfied, but I'm very glad Paizo make them. It helps Pathfinder and Golarion be a much more enjoyable place to play than whatever WotC do...
THe biggest thing that is easy to forget when you homebrew encounters, is that you are the GM. The world you are playing in already exists inside your head. Major motivations for NPCs already exist for you and you picked the monsters and challenges very deliberately, so you know what function they serve in the encounter and how to best apply it.
When you are GMing a prewritten module, you don't have these things. The writers have an obligation to help GMs start to create the world around their NPCs and encounters that gives it all a sense of belonging together. The adventure writer can't know if the guard at the door is going to necessarily be a combat challenge, or possibly a social/skill challenge, and if they never give you anything to connect to most GMs will just default to treating that guard like a computer game NPC who's entire life is spent standing at that door.
A creative GM might not need more to make their NPCs come to life when the party gets creative about problem solving, but having clues that help you tie your improvisations to deeper story elements is a pretty nice way of avoiding getting repetitive. A great improviser can get by with no details, but can get by a lot easier with a little more detail.
The bigger problem I see for GMs is thinking that they have an obligation to use all of that detail, exactly the way it appears in the book, without feeling like they have the freedom to riff on it as best fits their table.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a recent example of Steve Geddes and Unicore's point about different campaigns using background information.
The hobgoblin druid Jang in Fangs of War, 2nd module of Ironfang Invasion, is one of the three NPCs important enough to have a 2-page article in the NPC Gallery describing her, even though most campaigns will find her on the 3rd floor of a tower and kill her as quickly as possible. The first page contains her character sheet and combat tactics, and the second page gives her backstory and attitude.
Does that seem like a waste of a page?
In my game session on Friday, January 15 I needed to know her attitude.
First, one of her monk bodyguards, Hessel, was surrounded by the party. Would Jang cast an area-of-effect spell that included Hessel? The text on the bodyguards said, "They initially attempted to guide Jang’s interactions with Lieutenant Eygara and the other hobgoblins, but their relations with their superior quickly soured. Offended by their intrusive meddling, Jang has as little to do with the monks as possible." Neutral Evil Jang herself is described as hating all humanoids ("-oids" not just humans). Jang centered the spell on Hessel and thus hit 6 of the 8-member party. Hessel took the poison damage hard and died a round later.
Second, when Jang and her animal companion Ruanni were the last standing and surrounded by the party themselves, she attempted to use Hydraulic Push to escape. That was under her combat tactics, "Morale Jang fights until reduced to fewer than 30 hit points, at which point she attempts to flee with Ruanni. If Ruanni is dead or trapped, Jang fights to the death." The Hydraulic Push was successful; nevertheless, the party blocked that escape.
One PC quipped, "The only escape is surrender." So Jang surrendered. She had no loyalty to the Ironfang Legion and no other escape.
Suddenly, that second page that gave her backstory and her relationship with the Ironfang Legion mattered. We spent an hour roleplaying the interrogation of Jang. The conversation opened up questions beyond the war, such as Jang justifying her part in the invasion, "You say the Chernasardo Rangers of Fangwood protected the land, but they protected only the humans. They hid behind the plants and animals of Fangwood and hunted them for food." My party views themselves as newly trained Chernasardo Rangers, but they are more druidic and helped restore the forest from war damage. These details will matter in the 6th module.
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse's comment is a perfect example of why we tend to give NPCs in our adventures detailed backgrounds. We never know which ones might end up being important in any one playthrough of any one adventure.
But another important reason why we do this is that we really try hard to make our products fun to simply read. It's been mentioned upthread a few times, but many adventures are never played by those who read them. A lot of GMs simply enjoy reading adventures—I include myself in this category.
As a GM, I found that reading adventures was a GREAT way to expand my skill as a GM, in the same way that reading a lot of fiction will make you a better fiction writer. Adventures spark the imagination and inspire creativity. If they're not fun to read, then they have a much harder time doing that.
Personally, this "not fun to read" thing is the main reason I never really enjoyed the "delve format" for adventures that D&D started developing near the end of 3rd edition. I helped write "Return to the Ruins of Greyhawk" in that format, and found that not only was it not fun to read adventures where the combat elements were separated from the flavor and lore elements, it wasn't fun to WRITE adventures in that format. Sure, the format encouraged adventure writers to build encounters to be more dynamic and complex, but not every encounter needs to have a page's worth of extra rules options. Sometimes, it's just a fight against a diamond golem, for example.
Anyway... as always, feedback on our products is always welcome! Just wanted to step in and thank Mathmuse for the example of why we view it as important to spend that extra time on NPC backgrounds, in particular.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, we don't have to assume the contents of an AP are written in stone. As I believe I mentioned previously, I considered the backstory for Hestrig Orlov, and also for Jairess Sonn. I noticed that the Captain of the Guard (Hestrig) had a key for the Aerie. I knew that Hestrig was having wavering loyalties toward the White Witches. And I noticed Jairess was resisting Radosek's efforts to seduce her.
So I decided Jairess and Hestrig were lovers. Part of the reason Hestrig was unhappy was because Radosek's attempts to seduce Jairess (and Jairess's own unhappiness with that). I also had Jairess be the one who urged Hestrig to learn more about her own past.
When the group successfully hit Hestrig with Charm Person, I had her willingly bring the group to talk to Jairess. I had Jairess then insist she had to fight for the key, but only until first blood at which point she surrendered the key. And the two of them then packed their things and left the Pale Tower.
Most of this was crafted on my own. But because of a few words about Hestrig's backstory and views (along with knowledge about Jairess), I had that option. Hestrig went from a punchclock villain to someone with a story of her own, and became an interesting element for my gaming group to enjoy.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Tale of Jang was super fun and I enjoyed reading it!
That said.... there's a lack of precision here that's a bit sad. I've clipped to try to make it clearer.
...
Approximately half the content of each AP is stuff I don't use, .... could we get adventures without all the setting "filler?"
'Setting filler'?
You mean 'world-building'?
One man's meat is another man's poison: for a lot of people, Golarion is also part of the appeal of Paizo's products. When an AP connects the adventure to the wider world, that adds verisimilitude and helps to root the adventure.
Some people got really excited about adding a Vancaskerin to the population of Trunau. I know that if I get to play Giantslayer, I will definitely stat him up as my PC.
You cut short the OP's line: "Does anyone else agree? Like could we get adventures without all the setting "filler?" Just some good, "meat and potatoes" adventuring?"
I mean, 'key information' to running the adventure should definitely be included but I think many people are making a case that the APs serve a broad audience and please a diverse array of readers enough to keep them interested.
I don't know if everyone would be as excited by a 'setting neutral' AP.
I don't know if meat and potatoes adventuring is everyone's bag.
My perception is that Paizo do excellent steak frites with a bearnaise and asparagus, maybe a cote do rhone villages to accompany it. The meat and potatoes are still there, they just elevate it with all of the extras.
You don't have to pour the bearnaise out of the little jug. You don't have to touch the asparagus. You don't have to drink the wine. The high-quality meat and potatoes is still there.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some more metaphors in the basement that I need to torture...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I...definitely like them much less than I used to. For me, they've become too much of a railroad. I've come to prefer the campaign be a little more player driven/improvisational, though I'm not sure that style is necessarily a great fit for crunchier systems.
I think the best solution I've seen for mechanically heavier systems was Dungeon magazine. Dungeon provided many short adventures -- which were relatively easy to drop into a player-driven "sandboxy" campaign -- but left the metaplot to the GM. It just felt like a really good middle ground.
I'll be picking up Abomination Vaults, though...even though I'll probably never run it as written. The three-issue format intrigues me, as does the fact that it shares the same setting as the Beginner Box *and* Troubles in Otari. The three together could form a strong foundation for a more player-driven experience.
On the other hand, I'm a hard pass on Ruby Phoenix. If I wanted an Asian-themed game, I'd run Legend of the Five Rings (which is excellent, but that's beside the point). Can't win 'em all. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't just the extra articles btw - some of which are amazing and some of which aren't... I'm talking about within the ~50 pages of the AP itself. My wife is running RotRL Anniversary and turned to me today and said "I just read five pages of stuff the players will never know, but they haven't told me what the murder site looks like."The hobgoblin druid Jang ... 2-page article ... even though most campaigns will find her on the 3rd floor of a tower and kill her as quickly as possible. The first page contains her character sheet and combat tactics, and the second page gives her backstory and attitude.
Does that seem like a waste of a page?
...that second page that gave her backstory and her relationship with the Ironfang Legion mattered. We spent an hour roleplaying the interrogation of Jang. The conversation opened up questions beyond the war, such as Jang justifying her part in the invasion,...
One person noted that 5 pages of superfluous history was presented while key information useful to running the adventure wasn't available.
The other person noted that the motivations of an NPC who, as written, tries to escape when defeated turned out to be useful to them was evidence disproving this. But they don't seem contradictory to me.
They aren't contradictory, but they have opposite priorities. The writers of the modules have to decide what material to leave out. Some reasons push for less backstory and other reasons push for more backstory.
Nikolaus de'Shade's wife is running Rise of the Runelords and mentioned murder, so let me look at The Skinsaw Murders, 2nd module of RotL, which begins with a murder investigation. My wife ran the D&D 3.5 version of that modules 10 years ago with me as a player, so my information might not match the anniversary edition.
The 1st 5 pages of The Skinsaw Murders is the editor's Foreword, which summarizes the plot and theme of the module, along with some folksy comments about writing the module. This was the 2nd module in Paizo's 1st Adventure Path, so I think James Jacobs was still trying to introduce the concept of adventure path. Theme is important to lengthy adventure paths, but new to people who played only shorter material.
The first 3 pages of the adventure The Skinsaw Murders: Rise of the Rulelords Chapter Two described 50 years of history that led up to the Skinsaw murders. It loosely ties some connections to the previous module.
In the middle of page 9 we reach Part One: Murder Most Foul. The first task for that part is the GM has to decide which party member the antagonist is going to become obsessed with. Suggestions for that take up the rest of page 9. (We had lucked out in that game, with a beautiful rogue character as the obvious choice.)
The next page and a half is the sheriff's dialog for asking the party to investigate the latest murder by an apparent serial killer. He has to give leads related to the previous murders.
Finally, on page 11 we get a description of the murder scene. Yep, that is 5 pages of material after the Foreword before the party gets to the murder scene. But the party has to roleplay the meeting with Sheriff Hemlock, right? So it is not unseen material. In the D&D 3.5 version, we have 5 pages of Foreword, 3 pages of backstory, and then the 1st active scene with Sheriff Hemlock on page 10.
Ironically, I retired my character and took over running Rise of the Runelords from my wife during the 3rd module. When the party returned to Sandpoint for the 4th module, I realized we had acquired four party members who had never seen Sandpoint before: two new players with new characters, my wife's new character, and one other player had a new character after a character death. I created an introductory side quest based on those 3 pages of backstory to show them the town, a job from the mysterious Deedee Baythorne.
Let me check Ironfang Invasion to see whether more recent modules became more brisk. The 2nd module, Fangs of War, begins with a 2-page Foreword by Crystal Frasier starting on page 2. The adventure Fangs of War begins with a 2nd Table of Contents filling a page and a half page of backstory. PART 1: Exploring the Fangwood begins in the 2nd column of page 5, but it spends that column and 80% of the next page talking about goals the party could pursue. Encounter A, the 1st scene where the PCs become active, starts on the last 20% of page 6.
The 2nd module of Iron Gods has a 2-page Foreword by James Jacobs starting on page 4, a 2nd table of contents on page 6, and 2 pages of backstory including advice for wrapping up loose ends from the 1st module to prepare for the 105 mile journey from Torch to Scrapwall. It gives way too little advice about the trip, so I count the 1st active scene as reaching a fort named Aldronard’s Grave on page 9 (Who names a fort after its greatest disgrace? I renamed it Fort Sunbury).
Paizo has tightened their modules since Rise of the Runelords, mostly by shrinking the Foreword because Adventure Paths are no longer a new concept.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that's probably more a problem with their business model of hiring individual writers and giving them big word counts. What a GM wants is concision and all the details neatly provided with enough interesting description to fill it out for them and their players. What Paizo wants is enough material to fill 50 double columned pages. No wonder we get the background of every named NPC (and a few unnamed ones) or cool facts about an event that was the genesis for this current problem 200 years later. The writer needed to get 3000 more words in to get paid!Everyone I know who has written an AP instalment has said they struggled with the need to cut bits, not that they needed to pad it out to hit the prescribed wordcount.
I think the actual problem is that Paizo write for thousands whereas you’re writing for just an audience of one.
I agree with you about NPC backgrounds as it happens - but the forums were full of congratulatory posts from grateful people when they made a feature of fleshing those out more. All those people want things I don’t - when I get what I want, they feel like they’ve missed out due to “wasted space”.
(There’s a significant number of people who buy an AP but don’t run it, for example. Although they may seem like a less important audience than those buying it to use at the table - their money is just as good as anyone else’s).
It’s a pretty tiny minority for whom the APs are perfect. They’re more a product you’re expected to get enough out of to be useful, they’re not expected to be exactly right for you.
Can confirm that lack of npc articles is my main problem with starfinder aps :P
In response to another post, I strongly disagree on Pathfinder aps being railroady. STARFINDER aps have plenty of actual railroad examples. To me railroad is saying "no matter what pcs do, do this thing to ensure plot ensues as written" which pathfinder aps don't do usually
To me railroad is saying "no matter what pcs do, do this thing to ensure plot ensues as written" which pathfinder aps don't do usually
I generally see "railroading" as meaning, "no matter what the PCs want to do, they must do X".
GM: "You arrive at the city, only to discover it is in flames. The gate guards are dead, dozens of arrows protruding from their corpses. An enormous dragon swoops by overhead."
Player: "We're too low level to help with whatever this is. We will head for the forest to hide and wait until it's safe."
GM: "No you won't."
All non-sandbox adventures are going to be pretty railroady, but it only feels bad when the things the PCs must do in order for the adventure to continue aren't the things they want to do.
The loss of agency you get when your actions don't matter is a slightly different issue, though they're both used by adventure writers to solve the same problem.
If the verdict is Innocent, the suspect goes home. If the verdict is Guilty, the suspect escapes and goes home.
|
|
To me railroad is saying "no matter what pcs do, do this thing to ensure plot ensues as written" which pathfinder aps don't do usuallyI generally see "railroading" as meaning, "no matter what the PCs want to do, they must do X".
That definition is too strict though. By that definition "If you want to continue this AP, you have to follow leads you get on the ap instead of ignoring them" is railroad. Because again, if players don't want to play the ap, they don't have to, but saying if they want to play it that following clues is railroad is silly to me.
In case of your dragon example: Does hiding out from the dragon make it impossible to complete rest of the AP? If yes by raw players wouldn't have clues on how to continue, then adventure is incredibly linear, but I wouldn't call it railroaded unless GM forces players to continue to dragon encounter instead of adjusting things.
(though well written adventures often have alternate way for players to proceed reasonably)
To me railroading is "Even if players try to keep an eye out for spies, they won't spot the spy" where its not even about of spy having super high bonuses that make them hard to spot, but that text just says "its impossible for players to react to this thing no matter what they do or say or try to do" without book even giving gm a reason of why that is case so they could work around it if they wanted to
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has tightened their modules since Rise of the Runelords, mostly by shrinking the Foreword because Adventure Paths are no longer a new concept.I don't mean to be too disagreeable but I'm not sure why you're comparing Rise with anything? I would say that a more interesting comparison is AoA Book 1 and Gauntlight.
They're same edition, same 1 dungeon adventure, but the structure of Gauntlight book seems much tigher. Back matter is pretty concise? Someone could probably find something the quibble about (the archetype?)
I certainly hope no one is complaining about the archetype in Gauntlight. It is one of the coolest campaign centered archetypes I have ever seen. It's lore skill is genius, it uses its lore skill with its feats, and it is INCREDIBLY useful to the AP. Archetypes like this feel perfectly situated in the back mater of the AP books that they would make the most sense to adopt.
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly hope no one is complaining about the archetype in Gauntlight. It is one of the coolest campaign centered archetypes I have ever seen. It's lore skill is genius, it uses its lore skill with its feats, and it is INCREDIBLY useful to the AP. Archetypes like this feel perfectly situated in the back mater of the AP books that they would make the most sense to adopt.Paizo has tightened their modules since Rise of the Runelords, mostly by shrinking the Foreword because Adventure Paths are no longer a new concept.I don't mean to be too disagreeable but I'm not sure why you're comparing Rise with anything? I would say that a more interesting comparison is AoA Book 1 and Gauntlight.
They're same edition, same 1 dungeon adventure, but the structure of Gauntlight book seems much tigher. Back matter is pretty concise? Someone could probably find something the quibble about (the archetype?)
Aww; thanks for the kind words! It's the first archetype for 2nd edition I designed and wrote from the ground up; glad you like it! :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say I was pleasantly surprised by the start of Gauntlight (#163), which did not spend the first 2 pages repeating the NPC and town background, so maybe we're turning a corner.
I'm the opposite. I'll cope, and it doesn't detract from the overall adventure (which is pretty awesome), but that lack of a structured opening felt really weird. I kept checking to see if I was missing a sidebar or paragraph somewhere, given the emphasis the Player's Guide placed on "You know Wrin and want to help her". Help her do what though?
Not like I can't figure something out; it just felt a bit weird. 2 pages would be overkill, I agree, but perhaps a paragraph with a sidequest?
Edit: On the flipside, the gazetter in the back is absolutely perfect. I was worried about getting the 3rd look at Otari in as many months, but this is super useful.
In response to another post, I strongly disagree on Pathfinder aps being railroady. STARFINDER aps have plenty of actual railroad examples. To me railroad is saying "no matter what pcs do, do this thing to ensure plot ensues as written" which pathfinder aps don't do usually
I'm still salty all these years later that Steelwind told me to sit down and shut up when I said Dead Suns 1 was super railroady, with at least 3 parts where player actions have no affect on the outcome.
I certainly hope no one is complaining about the archetype in Gauntlight. It is one of the coolest campaign centered archetypes I have ever seen. It's lore skill is genius, it uses its lore skill with its feats, and it is INCREDIBLY useful to the AP. Archetypes like this feel perfectly situated in the back mater of the AP books that they would make the most sense to adopt.Aww; thanks for the kind words! It's the first archetype for 2nd edition I designed and wrote from the ground up; glad you like it! :-)
I cackled when I read it, because I serendipitously mirrored some of the design choices with my Medium homebrew last month. Which gives me confidence I made at least some of the correct choices there, if you independently came to similar conclusions.
I look forward to running a character with that Archetype through Malevolence!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, first example of railroad in Dead Suns(though to be fair, unless players are contrarian or ultra paranoid, they are likely not going to do it), is something that wouldn't have been impossible to write around without the "he does it anyway somehow" railroad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first example was the very first scene when
There is absolutely no reason for that, and honestly several reasons why keeping him around and incapacitated would have provided a good contrasting example to play off your main contact, so as to present multiple perspectives on how Starfinder Society interacts with the world at large.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first example was the very first scene when ** spoiler omitted **
Ah true, that one does also count partially at least(in terms of how it is presented), though I don't think its that big deal/obvious one since rule wise you only get chance to save dying npcs if gm says so xD
But yeah, I do kinda feel like I should do review of each book of dead suns now that I have almost run each of them(currently in final book)
|
|
I don't think adventure toolbox format is anymore "here is background players will never hear" than 1e format was <_< And I've have brought ways to give players learn the backstory anyway x'D
Anyhoo, 2e does have monster tactics still yeah, but when it happens its in the "creatures" paragraph. Not that different from 1e aps yeah since not every encounter had tactics listed(though on sidenote, almost every encounter with tactics listed had variants on line "fights to the death" :p )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am all for back matter providing extra details, but at this point I am pretty sure that my preference is for the more structured way PF1 did back matter, with all its various changes over time, over the current arrangement of the Adventure Toolbox.
The notion that "players will never get to hear this particular bit of backstory" is something you can predict in advance really does not work with any player group I have had for any length of time; which is definitely towards the role-play heavy end of the range compared to many posters here, but I like that level of support.
I think at this point the thing I least like about the current back matter format is how many bestiary entries have very short flavour texts. The ecology information, and where you might find a creature in Golarion, are things I found both useful and very fun to read in PF1.
Also, on a related issue, I really miss getting "this individual's tactics and fight prep" boxes with stats during the adventures; because I always leaned into those for characterisation purposes, and I have always hated "every monster and NPC understands how to optimise their abilities". The goblins in Burnt Offerings who are textually cited as getting distracted mid-fight to laugh at injured colleagues or eat a tasty worm they just spotted kind of embody that philosophy for me.
I highly recommend the new Abomination vault AP if you are looking for APs including just the right amount of flavorful combat tactics and descriptions. It is full of fun stuff.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, on a related issue, I really miss getting "this individual's tactics and fight prep" boxes with stats during the adventures; because I always leaned into those for characterisation purposes, and I have always hated "every monster and NPC understands how to optimise their abilities". The goblins in Burnt Offerings who are textually cited as getting distracted mid-fight to laugh at injured colleagues or eat a tasty worm they just spotted kind of embody that philosophy for me.
We ended up cutting those from the stat block itself and moved them to the running text to help minimize the size of a stat block, and because it made it seem (in such close context to the rest of the rules for a monster) that the tactics HAD to be followed. By moving them to running text, we help make GMs feel more comfortable about adjusting them by not implying they're part of the monster's immutable rules, but also (and more important) can fit more content in each adventure since running text takes up less room than stat block text. It's not a LOT of room saved on a single stat block, but over the course of a longer adventure it can add up quickly. And also, it makes the stat blocks in an adventure format the same exact way as new monster stats, which makes it easier to go back and forth between the two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it a page-saving measure why some stat blocks appear in the adventure and some in the back of the APs?
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it a page-saving measure why some stat blocks appear in the adventure and some in the back of the APs?
Because the ones that appear in the back are NPCs who are significant and can have repercussions beyond the scope of their one encounter, or are encountered often in the adventure, or have multi-part roles to play in an Adventure Path. It's a way for us to highlight those NPCs as being more important.
|
This topic came up on reddit the other day and I wrote this:
I'd like more unique treasure and fewer unique character options. It's really hard to plan around using some of the archtypes they put in the books. If paizo put in magic items instead, I think players would enjoy finding things that can't be found anywhere else.
steelbro_300
That's fair. Why do you think the archetypes don't work for you? Is it just cause the books come out one a month so if you play as they come out you can't plan ahead? Or are they just too specific thematically? Something else?
Ace-of-Moxen
21 hours ago
Both of those are true. Golem Grafter was the subject of a discussion recently, so it's on my mind as an example. It's a "Spoiler" connected to a book that starts with the Players at level 9. So it may not be revealed until after the PCs have missed the optimal time to take the first feat. It requires expert in Arcana and crafting, but is best for a melee, who would be unlikely to take Arcana. It also requires heavy thematic concerns. If I'm grafting golem parts, maybe it's because in my backstory I lost some of my body parts? Nope, I started this adventure path at level 1 and picked this up after level 8. So I'm locked into being some weirdo who replaced functional organs with golem parts. No shot at the interesting story of a fighter who lost an arm in the war and replaced it with a golem part.Or consider staff acrobat. At least this one, I could plan on at character creation, and it ties nicely with the campaign themes. But it requires 16 dex and choosing to use a non-finesse weapon. So it's really only there to empower one very specific build, with a huge commitment. I already have plenty of ideas I can't play in PFS, if I'm playing an adventure path, I'm going to use one of those ideas, like an Everstand Champion or a sprite or Android. Putting ideas locked to specific campaigns means I'm not playing one of those options.
Something like the skill feat Juggler is great, however. One skill feat is easy to put on a character thats exploring other options, and it's given early in the campaign. The Juggler archtype is ok, but I'd rather have more space for things that are a smaller part of the character. Instead of that page, maybe they could have done a set of 6 skill feats related to the circus, so each character would have a small part of the circus with them. Or unique magic items!
A lot of people in that post were complaining about "too many combat encounters and not enough talking/skill checks." I disagree. I think the balance of encounter content is fine. I hate seeing archtypes I'll never get to use.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I figure my own obscure perspective might be worthwhile: I don’t play crunchy d20 games, and so my Pathfinder purchases are driven /entirely/ by if the “filler” is interesting... which is why I pwn Tyrant’s Grasp 5 and Age of Ashes 2, for instance. My interest in Pathfinder is wholly
lore-based, and APs are where you see stuff that isn’t likely to make it into a main book.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As as a subscriber since Burnt Offerings back with Pathfinder #1, my attachment to the general format of Pathfinder Adventure Path is quite high.
That said, I was never a fan of the fiction elements in the volume and I do not miss its absence at all. I prefer different support articles, that's all.
As for support articles, they are an ongoing feature of PF AP and have been since the start. What the support articles feature varies with the AP volume and instalment, but they are all necessary.
With a new version of the game, especially after that vast plethora of options that existed in PF1, PF AP for PF2 has also presented new class archetypes and feats thematically consistent with the AP. That's fine.
Given the relative paucity of magical items in PF2 as compared to PF1, there has been more of an emphasis to include more of those in the Adv Toolbox section of PF:AP, too. It might be at some point down the road 2 or 3 years from now, that particular focus may change. By that time, there will be more of a history of publications and options to PF2, so we may not feel like we need more archetypes, feats, or magic items.
Nothing is carved in stone. The creative minds at Paizo are flexible.
That said, we have all seen posts like the OPs every year during the course of publication of PF AP. They tend to be born out of the same twin desire and misunderstanding, which boils down to this often voiced request:
"Dear Paizo,
Paizo needs to put in more "adventure content" and less "fluff articles" in each volume. If only Paizo understood that, you would surely put more of the stuff we want in those 96 pages and less of the stuff we don't want.
Sincerely,
Your Customer"
The problem is that it doesn't work that way -- and it can't for very good reasons. The adventure text length in each volume of PF AP is determined by two things:
1 - That a Single Developer needs to Develop that Adventure Text; and
2 - That there are only between 28 and 31 days in a given month of the year. And Pathfinder Adventure Path publishes monthly. No exceptions.
Accordingly, there is simply not enough time for a single developer to do more than develop that amount of adventure text in a given month. So while epic stat block lengths and a few larger art pieces can effect the exact number of adventure pages, we get between 48 and 54 pages of adventure text per issue. That's the reality imposed by time constraints.
No, you can't have two developers develop a different part of the adventure. It doesn't work. It needs to be one person. So those are the rules of the road that apply, like it or not.
The back matter in a volume is principally developed by *another* developer working on the issue of the AP. That level of familiarity with adventure text is not required to the same degree. You can put more hands on deck to contribute to the back half of the book - but on the front end? One author, one developer. That's it.
So there's not more room in 96 pages to expand the Adventure Text and remove those things you consider to be fluff, because there's not more time to create it monthly. It just looks that way from the outside.
The reason why the other game products you refer to offer more of "X" and less of "Y" is for two reasons:
1 - They are not 96 page volumes which were created at that length at a time to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the then existing magazine subscriber base out of which Paizo's entire business model and existence depended; and
2- They don't have an inflexible monthly publication schedule and a large subscriber base like Pathfinder Adv Path does.
So there are good structural and practical reasons why PF AP is the way that it is. While it changes a little over time, it isn't going to change the way you want it to for sound commercial reasons.
At least now you've got the longer explanation as to why.
Anyways...
Apart from the removal of fiction from PF AP, the largest major change to PF AP we have ever seen is about to occur in a week's time as the third -- and final -- volume of Abomination Vaults is released. The move from 6 vols to 3 vols semi-annually was something that I initially reacted to rather poorly when it started in Starfinder AP.
In retrospect, I have warmed to the idea and now think it's a good one. In fact, the only thing I could say about it is that I hope the Level 1-10 3 volume APs outweigh the level 11-20 volumes by a factor of 2:1 -- or maybe entirely. I expect there will be many who disagree with that view. I also expect that those who will agree with mine -- and vote with their dollars in support of it -- will overwhelm those who feel differently by a large margin.
My guess is that in a year's or two, Paizo won't need much persuading on this, as the sales of the lower level APs will outperform the higher level APs significantly.
In fact, the only thing I could say about it is that I hope the Level 1-10 3 volume APs outweigh the level 11-20 volumes by a factor of 2:1 -- or maybe entirely. I expect there will be many who disagree with that view. I also expect that those who will agree with mine -- and vote with their dollars in support of it -- will overwhelm those who feel differently by a large margin.
My guess is that in a year's or two, Paizo won't need much persuading on this, as the sales of the lower level APs will outperform the higher level APs significantly.
I agree. In fact, I suspect a very successful release schedule will be 3 6 parts, 2 3-parts a year. Only one of those 3-parts being Levels 11-20 out of every 4, or every second year.
I'm personally very excited for Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, but I suspect a lot of people will avoid it, because not a lot of people ever get to double digits levels organically, and those people won't want to jump to high levels, and many will be wary of high level adventures from years of D&D and Pathfinder really struggling at those levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not disagreeing with you, I agree that the level 1 to 10 adventures would probably be a lot more popular. But this part of what you said seems to be the major draw for high level adventures. Since not many get to that point normally, they might find it appealing to start halfway there and thus actually get to experience that part of the game. The real thing that pushes people away in my opinion is that then the game starts out extremely complex, without the background of having grown with the character from level 1 slowly adding complexity along the way.
... because not a lot of people ever get to double digits levels organically, and those people won't want to jump to high levels...
I think it will be interesting to see just how easy it is to jump into higher level adventures and APs. On the one hand, higher level PF2 play is less complicated than it was in PF1, for sure, but one thing I have noticed about PF2 is that players familiar with PF1 struggle a lot more making effective characters at higher level in PF2 because they are stuck in a mindset of overspecialization that places too much value on getting innate/static +1s from items and attributes and not enough on easily making sure the party can pick up +1 and +2 circumstance and status bonuses, and they end up struggling even more against higher level opposition because they haven't given their PCs diverse enough resources to exploit enemy weaknesses, which is really the most efficient way to overcome enemies.
For example, the party that I was homebrewing for the first 5 levels and then moved on to tackle the slithering is doing exceptionally well at handling the difficulty of the module (from what I hear from tables that made characters just for it), even when I am dialing it up for 5 players, because they have been playing together for 5 levels and know each others characters pretty well. The 5th member of the team, who had to sit out for a couple of months, and the player that joined us at level 3 struggle a lot more than the 3 that have been in the game since the beginning, usually because they get caught in situations where they don't have means of dealing alternative damage types and don't tend to wait to try to recall knowledge on the monsters.
APs that start at higher level are going to need a little more guidance to help avoid trying to sink all their wealth in buying one super charged weapon with a specific element rune and have nothing worth using as a back up, and probably even more direction about what lore skills and knowledge skills are going to help them succeed against the kinds of threats they will be facing, but if the advice is there in the player's guide, I think a lot of players could enjoy getting to jump in with more powerful PCs.
|
|
I agree. In fact, I suspect a very successful release schedule will be 3 6 parts, 2 3-parts a year. Only one of those 3-parts being Levels 11-20 out of every 4, or every second year.
I'm not sure this came out the way you intended it to, but it sounds like you believe that the 3 parters will be skewed to level 1-10 over time. I agree.
There will still be a higher level 3 parter, and the "back-nine" of any 6 volume AP is already a high level AP as well. So it's not as if this aspect of the market will be dramatically underserved.
As for Ruby Phoenix? Well, I'm a subscriber, so I'll get it no matter what. I have every copy of Dungeon (except for one) and all of PF AP to date. I'm not stopping now!
But no, I can't say as I am at all interested in it. I ran the PF1 Ruby Phoenix Tournament module as part of a PFS 2 (was it 3? I forget) multi-slot event at a con some years ago and I was underwhelmed. Never mind about the specifics of the fights and encounters, the underlying premise was not to my liking. Add on the higher level aspect to it? Chance that I will run it as an AP are low. Chances that I will play it are even lower.
I'll get it for sure and may even read it. If there is a nice set piece or map in there? Perhaps I'll pilfer it for another use. That's as far as it will likely go.
The nice part is that I still have ... 12 x PF1 APs and 3 (about to be 2) PF2 APs I have never run or played. So it's not as if I don't have other material to "fill the void". And that's before we get to Starfinder or 3pp APs! Right now? I already have so much in my gaming stuff hoard that SABLE limits have been reached (Stuff Acquired Beyond Life Expectancy).
Stop collecting? Never! It just means I'm a little choosier on what I play and run. I don't envision Ruby Phoenix being one of those, but who knows? Maybe? *shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, higher level PF2 play is less complicated than it was in PF1, for sure, but one thing I have noticed about PF2 is that players familiar with PF1 struggle a lot more making effective characters at higher level in PF2 because they are stuck in a mindset of overspecialization that places too much value on getting innate/static +1s from items and attributes and not enough on easily making sure the party can pick up +1 and +2 circumstance and status bonuses, and they end up struggling even more against higher level opposition because they haven't given their PCs diverse enough resources to exploit enemy weaknesses, which is really the most efficient way to overcome enemies.
I have also noticed this. I'd love to see the player's guide for Fist of the Ruby Phoenix be a bit larger, and help players follow a checklist of things a high level party kind of needs, that isn't just bigger numbers.
Players learn to deal with resistances, incorporeal, flying, etc, by play as they level up from 1 organically, so I think it would be very beneficial to have stuff in a player's guide to help people cover that stuff with the more artificial characters that start at level 11.
A really good guide would give a lot more people a better experience in an 11-20 campaign, but player's guides are free products and I'm not sure we'll get much more than the kind of info we already get. (Which is generally great, but maybe more is needed to start at 11th).
I'm not sure this came out the way you intended it to, but it sounds like you believe that the 3 parters will be skewed to level 1-10 over time. I agree.
Yes. That is my belief.
Spring AP1 = 1-10 AP
Spring AP2 = 1-10 AP / 11-20 AP (Taking turns every year)
Summer, Autumn, Winter APs = 1-20 AP
^ That's roughly what I imagine, and suspect it would both sell well and cover plenty of bases.