Anyone Else Not Like the AP Format?

[vagrant-poet]

CorvusMask wrote:

I'd prefer having even number of level 1-10 and 11-20 aps though.

Like I don't really like idea that majority of adventure products HAVE to be for lower levels <_< But I guess they will end up doing what ends up being most profitable over the time

I'm not really stating my preference for level ranges, I just think low-level will sell better for a myriad of reasons.

[CorvusMask]

vagrant-poet wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I'd prefer having even number of level 1-10 and 11-20 aps though.

Like I don't really like idea that majority of adventure products HAVE to be for lower levels <_< But I guess they will end up doing what ends up being most profitable over the time

I'm not really stating my preference for level ranges, I just think low-level will sell better for a myriad of reasons.

Yeah I did understand that wasn't stating preference but how you believe it will be. I was stating my preference there because I sadly think you are likely right x'D

Like people on internet seem have this weird apprehension to "starting out adventure at higher level than 1" while at same time they state they don't have time to get involved in long adventures :'D

[vagrant-poet]

CorvusMask wrote:

vagrant-poet wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I'd prefer having even number of level 1-10 and 11-20 aps though.

Like I don't really like idea that majority of adventure products HAVE to be for lower levels <_< But I guess they will end up doing what ends up being most profitable over the time

I'm not really stating my preference for level ranges, I just think low-level will sell better for a myriad of reasons.

Yeah I did understand that wasn't stating preference but how you believe it will be. I was stating my preference there because I sadly think you are likely right x'D

Like people on internet seem have this weird apprehension to "starting out adventure at higher level than 1" while at same time they state they don't have time to get involved in long adventures :'D

It's one of those unwritten rules that permeates the broader d20 rolling ttrpg space. High level is hard and clunky, and a lot of work for the GM.

I'm not sure that's equally true of PF2e as it is of almost any other game in the space, but the concept is so pervasive that it's hard to overcome.

[mikeawmids]

Steel_Wind wrote:

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.

I don't have an issue with the curent AP format, but I do challenge this statement. An adventure path is - by design - a grand adventure developed by up to six different writers. I don't follow the logic of saying you cannot have multiple writers involved in any one book without implying the entire AP format is a train wreck. It's just a matter of scale.

[Anguish]

mikeawmids wrote:

Steel_Wind wrote:

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.

I don't have an issue with the curent AP format, but I do challenge this statement. An adventure path is - by design - a grand adventure developed by up to six different writers. I don't follow the logic of saying you cannot have multiple writers involved in any one book without implying the entire AP format is a train wreck. It's just a matter of scale.

I'm sure someone will come along and offer more insight, but what you're dealing with is a matter of terminology.

You can have many writers working on an AP. But the role of the developer - as I understand it - is the person who has an overview of the entire product to ensure (as best they can) that there is cohesion and consistency. That person understands the role of each NPC and plotline fully, so that they can catch things that two different writers understand differently, and correct that. Having two (or more) developers isn't strictly impossible... it's just impractical at this scale. For six books, having two or more developers share 100% of "the vision" is a waste of head-space.

[James Jacobs]

Correct: The developer is a single person whose whole job is to not only come up with the whole concept for the Adventure Path as well as generate its 20,000 word outline, but also to develop the text of all six volumes so that they work together with one voice and toward one goal of telling a single story rather than six. They're very much the "director" of an Adventure Path if instead of an RPG campaign it were a movie.

We've had to bring in a secondary developer before when schedules got wrecked and there was no way to keep an Adventure Path on its monthly schedule. It can be done, but it's awkward, inefficient, unpleasant, and complicated.

[mikeawmids]

Ah, I failed to make the distinction between the role of the developer and the writer. I stand both corrected and educated!

[Demonknight]

vagrant-poet wrote:

It's one of those unwritten rules that permeates the broader d20 rolling ttrpg space. High level is hard and clunky, and a lot of work for the GM.

I'm not sure that's equally true of PF2e as it is of almost any other game in the space, but the concept is so pervasive that it's hard to overcome.

As a GM when i played high level (i have done AoA all the way) it was smooth all the way, PF2 is awesome for that!

[Staffan Johansson]

I think it would be neat for 1-10 APs to leave a bunch of threads hanging. Not the main plot of course, but some side stuff.

I am reminded of a really old adventure for AD&D 2nd ed, set in the Dark Sun setting: Freedom! (yes, the exclamation point is part of the title). Over the course of this adventure, PCs would get introduced to various factions and possibly get some level of prominence with them (well, for 3rd/4th level PCs, so we're not talking leadership positions, but more "hey, that guy seems like they're going places")

This adventure was followed by Road to Urik, where the PCs' actions in Freedom! have made the city's new management take notice of them, and they are tasked with helping to recruit troops to defend the city from the army of another city who wants some conquest. This will use the same factions as in the previous adventure—so if your character has an in with the templars, they can now use that to try to get additional templars for the city's defense, and a character with connections in the Veiled Alliance can try to recruit some mages to help.

That's the kind of stuff I'd like to see, along with suggestions for how to use those factions or NPCs for higher-level games.

[Story Archer]

Harles wrote:

I realize I'm likely in the minority, but I'd prefer adventure content of a mega adventure along the lines of what is put out by other companies that focus on, well, the adventure. Approximately half the content of each AP is stuff I don't use, and I end up spending around $150 per campaign (when you can get similar material from other companies for less than half that).

Does anyone else agree? Like could we get adventures without all the setting "filler?" Just some good, "meat and potatoes" adventuring? (Especially now that Paizo seems to be the sole content creators for PF2).

The AP's are the primary reason that I stayed involved with Pathfinder, and I have them in pdf and softcover from #1 to #144 as well as hardcovers of RotRL, CotCT and Emerald Spire... but I agree that spending twice as much when half the content is pretty much unusable to me isn't ideal. With the advent of PF2 I stopped my subscription and started looking at the hardcover campaigns from that other company that give me a lot more of what I'm looking for, and for a lot less money.

[CorvusMask]

Bah, Wizards' campaign books have been disappointment for me xP

[Davor Firetusk]

I would agree with Corvus, for all the talk about so many settings and divided market. They had a really diverse set of IP to draw on for all kinds of different adventures, and the fact that most of what they have released is rehash of old modules that were already redone at least once? I'm no 2E fan, but I might consider purchasing some of the newer APs at some point because they are at least interesting.