| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of defeats the purpose of having 3-book AP's if you're just gonna make three more books tied to the same AP.
Loosely connected like a sequel is very very different to 1 long story. Each 3 part would be a complete story. Plenty of connected book trilogies are like this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half the appeal of the Ruby Phoenix AP to me is having a full story where your characters start off as heroic badasses; I'd be much less excited about it conceptually if you had to play a separate 1-10 that ends with an invitation to the tournament first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half the appeal of the Ruby Phoenix AP to me is having a full story where your characters start off as heroic badasses; I'd be much less excited about it conceptually if you had to play a separate 1-10 that ends with an invitation to the tournament first.
Nothing stops new players from just starting out at the sequel, its still a self contained story. You could still start out as a badass. You wouldn't have had to do the one before it, the sequel or connected idea just gives those of us that want that the option of having it.
Take Ruby Phoenix, it wouldn't matter if you started at level 11, played society or homebrew or AV before it, or another actual thematically connected AP. It changes nothing for people that want what you want (to start out as a badass level 11) while still providing room for others who like the sequel idea, thats kind of the point of it being a sequel rather than just a 6 part AP.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A sequel is not a self-contained story by definition. There's nothing stopping you from starting in part four of the six-part AP's either, it's just an obviously bad idea with so much content and context taken away from the story. I don't see how a sequel AP would be different; at best it would have to be structured in a way where the characters from the first part can't be used in the second. If you have a 3-part AP that is thematically tied to another 3-part AP where you play the same party in both, that is a 6-part AP, full stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. You can watch episode 4,5 and 6 of Star Wars without episode 1,2 and 3. The story continues but nothing says you have to watch both trilogies or just one of them to get a complete story.
Equally nothing stops you from starting a 6 part AP at the 4th book or stop a 6 part at book 3 so why even have 3 part APs by your logic. Except if I started at 4 there is a ton of direct story that lead to the next three parts and if I stopped at 3 I don't get the end of the story. My suggestion allows for both not sure why you are so strongly against it. Sequels work, they sell well, a lot of people enjoy them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Cyder, there's a substantitive difference between a second story that connects in some way to the original and one continuous story.
The Silmarilion and The Hobbit both provide context and directly connect to the Lord of the Rings, but you can do fine simply reading the latter on their own and completely ignoring the former. Whereas reading The Two Towers without looking at Fellowship first would be pretty awkward and confusing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Cyder, there's a substantitive difference between a second story that connects in some way to the original and one continuous story.
The Silmarilion and The Hobbit both provide context and directly connect to the Lord of the Rings, but you can do fine simply reading the latter on their own and completely ignoring the former. Whereas reading The Two Towers without looking at Fellowship first would be pretty awkward and confusing.
Hell, you can even get a finer split than that; The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings definitively connect in a major way!! But both function totally self-contained.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should note that in all of the examples you've brought up the second thing happens many years later and features a completely new main party; all of the Star Wars prequel PC's are either dead or evil other than Obi Wan (who is an NPC that dies early in the story), the only returning character from The Hobbit is Gandalf and he's obviously a separate thing from the rest of the cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of examples in books of sequel trilogies with the same characters.
The Elenium and the Tamuli series (Sparhawk trilogies by David Eddings).
Or if you want more connected to RPG's the Drizz't trilogies with Bruenor, Catabrie, Wulfgar etc.
Both super popular. But I am sure if I thought a bit harder I would remember dozens of others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[...] the only returning character from The Hobbit is Gandalf and he's obviously a separate thing from the rest of the cast.
Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!
[...] the only returning character from The Hobbit is Gandalf and he's obviously a separate thing from the rest of the cast.Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!
Not true. Smeagol returns, Bilbo is also in both as is Gloin and Legolas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think their experiment with Iron Gods, where they tried for 3 self contained stories loosely connected into a larger AP, may make them gun shy to try that concept again.
While I do think they can pull off a Sequel AP that is connected to a previous AP using the same characters, but functions as a full story in its own right, Arachnofiend is quite correct about how difficult that is to pull off without feeling like it is one giant story. Easier in fiction, as there's no levels, but in an RPG with a distinct advancement track, that seems fraught with complications and feeling like you're missing context or conclusion in either direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Iron Gods was planned as a single AP with a break so its not really the same as in 12 months if they were to have a good idea for a follow on story for AV.
Paizo already kind of did sequels in PF1 they just started at level 1 again cause all APs when from 1 to 12. Shattered Star is a kind of follow on Rise of the Runelords, as is Return of the Runelords. You can play Shattered Star or Return of the Runelords without playing Rise of the Runelords. 3 part APs with a sequel AP could work much the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Iron Gods was planned as a single AP with a break so its not really the same as in 12 months if they were to have a good idea for a follow on story for AV.
Paizo already kind of did sequels in PF1 they just started at level 1 again cause all APs when from 1 to 12. Shattered Star is a kind of follow on Rise of the Runelords, as is Return of the Runelords. You can play Shattered Star or Return of the Runelords without playing Rise of the Runelords. 3 part APs with a sequel AP could work much the same.
In fact doesn't return of the runelords have special fun bonus aspects if there are players who have played in shattered star or rise?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, which sort of undercuts Cyder’s point. Shattered Star and Rise were arguably what he was talking about, loosely connected stories that build on one another. Return though turns both into a rather more connected trilogy; a lot of context is lost if you don’t have at least basic knowledge of those prior APs, and the events in those two lead directly to Return.
Moreover, Rise when it was written was a self contained story. Shattered built on it but didn’t truly continue it. Return did. Now to see the full story that started in Rise, Return is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, which sort of undercuts Cyder’s point. Shattered Star and Rise were arguably what he was talking about, loosely connected stories that build on one another. Return though turns both into a rather more connected trilogy; a lot of context is lost if you don’t have at least basic knowledge of those prior APs, and the events in those two lead directly to Return.
Moreover, Rise when it was written was a self contained story. Shattered built on it but didn’t truly continue it. Return did. Now to see the full story that started in Rise, Return is needed.
I feel like Rise still stands on it's own. Assuming the pc's win, they deal with all the known threats if I recall correctly.
Return I feel while benefits from the other games, I don't think it *Needs* them.
Shattered Star I haven't gotten a chance to play or look at yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, hear me out... 3x 1-20 APs with interchangeable books.
I like this idea. I also think it would be interesting to see a 3 module AP, with a closely or semi-connected "sequel" at higher levels that might come later down the line. Or even replace the final issue "continuing the campaign" sections with "Linking Campaigns" sections that would give tips for linking various short APs together into a longer campaign.
Not true. Smeagol returns, Bilbo is also in both as is Gloin and Legolas.[...] the only returning character from The Hobbit is Gandalf and he's obviously a separate thing from the rest of the cast.Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!
Correct, that's why I quoted Sméagol to say the statement I responded to was false.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Return I feel while benefits from the other games, I don't think it *Needs* them.
I disagree. The storyline, as presented, requires the other APs to have happened in order for its own to happen. Characters from the previous APs, as in YOUR character that you played through those previous works, are written into Return if that works for your table.
To be clear, you don't actually have to play the APs to play Return, but the events of those are central to the events of Return kicking off at all. Even if they never were experienced at your table, the story assumes someone completed those adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Return I feel while benefits from the other games, I don't think it *Needs* them.I disagree. The storyline, as presented, requires the other APs to have happened in order for its own to happen. Characters from the previous APs, as in YOUR character that you played through those previous works, are written into Return if that works for your table.
To be clear, you don't actually have to play the APs to play Return, but the events of those are central to the events of Return kicking off at all. Even if they never were experienced at your table, the story assumes someone completed those adventures.
I mean don't all adventures have events that they presume happen? Whats the difference between events that occur in an adventure path and in general lore events. Heck if we go that route curse of the crimson throne assumes the events of book 2 rise of the runelord happens, because those events influence each other. If the book at least properly provides the events of the previous adventures in a way that provides context I don't see how that is any different from another lore info drop or passed knowledge check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any reason we can't have both 3 book AP and 6 book APs?Well, they can't publish both at the same time, so if you like six book APs, half a year of getting two 3 book APs is not ideal as a customer.
Except for GMs who are happy with both and that doing both in a year allows them to cater to both crowds rather than to only one.
I mean don't all adventures have events that they presume happen? Whats the difference between events that occur in an adventure path and in general lore events.
I’m going to sound sarcastic, but this is really a genuine answer: you can play through events that happen in an adventure path. That’s the difference between an adventure that builds on existing lore and a sequel adventure.
You're right that all adventures have lore they build on, but a sequel has specific written adventures they build on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean don't all adventures have events that they presume happen? Whats the difference between events that occur in an adventure path and in general lore events.I’m going to sound sarcastic, but this is really a genuine answer: you can play through events that happen in an adventure path. That’s the difference between an adventure that builds on existing lore and a sequel adventure.
You're right that all adventures have lore they build on, but a sequel has specific written adventures they build on.
Yes I understand that. I am saying in the context of Return of the Runelords, playing Shattered Star and Rise of the Runelords enhances the experience. But if you are playing Return of the Runelords you can effectively treat the relevant information as Lore, because thats what the players and DM want to play. It absolutely is a sequel and it can absolutely stand on it's own as an adventure. Both can be true is my point.
Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but that point is irrelevant to the point I was making. When I say Rise and Shattered need to have happened for Return to happen, I'm not talking about play experience, I'm talking about the storyline of one AP concluding in a different AP. Which is specifically what happens with Shattered Star/Rise of the Runelords and Return of the Runelords. Previously, while the events of the previous APs are generally assumed to have happened, they're not necessary and can be pretty easily worked around. It's not too hard to play them out of order with some rather light editing of the timeline in fact. With Return, they did a true sequel, which they talk about in AP 133:
In the very first Pathfinder Adventure Path campaign, we wanted to showcase not a fiendish monster or a marauding god but a human wizard as the campaign's primary villain. The result was Runelord Karzoug, ruler of an ancient nation that was part of a long-lost empire called Thassilon. But in building his backstory, we revealed additional information about the runelords who ruled Thassilon's other nations. Since the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, we've teased bits and pieces of the other runelords, and fully detailed a few in the course of other storylines. It was all leading to this, though--the final installment of a trilogy of campaigns.
Edit: to address an earlier point you made, I'm also not talking about play experience when I said Rise was no longer a self contained story now that Return is out. They specifically decided to continue the story of Karzoug and the heroes of that AP in Return.
And I think that might be what happens with a sequel AP to AV. Not necessarily; as I said, they've done spiritual sequels rather than direct ones, but I think even if they don't write it as a direct sequel, it will be percieved as one. Which brings it around to Archnofiend's point, which IS about play experience; there's going to be little difference for players that go through from AV to the sequel between that experience and just having a 6 part AP, even if the tone shifts at the halfway point and the halves are separated by a year or more of real time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I don't see that as a detriment? I can understand why people would and so I won't say it isn't something to consider. But I think at the end of the day play experience is what would be the deciding factor, can a story hold its own at a table whether or not it is connected to others.
I also think it's important to note that if I am recalling the conversation correctly, Cypher initially simply suggested an adventure path that could more easily bridge the gap not necessarily a sequel. It evolved to talking about sequels over the course of the conversation.
I personally don't mind making new characters for each and that's what I would do, but even the players guide suggest coming up with characters or ways to bridge abomination vault and fists of the ruby phoenix.
But one is a spooky dungeon crawl on one side of the world and the other is a high action fighting tournament on the other side of the world.
If we take the initial concept of what Cypher said, it could simply be a new story in the same area of the world, or a massive dungeon crawl on the other side of the world. Or something else. And that doesn't even have to be the case for all 3 part adventures, but the idea of them more easily woven together isn't that far fetched given that there is a small note in the players guide that suggest that is a possibility. I also wouldn't want this to come at the cost of the adventure path writers feeling constrained about needing to connect narratives or themes, because I think that's one of the strengths of the 3 part adventures. But if they are inspired or feel like it's a good idea then I don't think it should be off the table.
Is there any reason we can't have both 3 book AP and 6 book APs?Well, they can't publish both at the same time, so if you like six book APs, half a year of getting two 3 book APs is not ideal as a customer.
I prefer the six book APs. The continuous plot is what interests me, as a consumer. The transition from the first half of the AP to the back half is always fascinating to me and some Adventures do it better than others.
The three book APs are...fine, but if I wanted a campaign to continue after Abomination Vaults right now I have to contrive a reason to have the PCs participate in the Ruby Phoenix tournament or start making my own stuff--which is the thing I buy Paizo products to avoid.
This will be less of a problem if the three part APs continue to release in the 1-10, and then 11-20 range so you can have more pick and choose, but I haven't seen that commitment yet.
Or you could find a higher level stand-alone adventure. Or run the second half of another AP.
But really, how many 6-volume APs can you finish in a year?
In practice, I have never completed a single 6-part AP. And where do we stop? Usually just after Book 3. I can't imagine I'm alone in this. It seems to make good financial sense to focus on releasing the stuff more people are playing.
I've finished Age of Ashes, and ran through 5/6 of Agents of Edgewatch - we would've finished AoE but I got married/moved which shorted me about two months of playtime. It just depends on the players' focus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found this discussion to be super interesting, especially since as I converted from 5e to 2e, the level 1-20 Adventure Paths were selling points for me as the GM.
Regarding the conversation, I think that when you're playing with the 3 book APs one thing that hasn't been discussed much is the player perspective. I'm currently running Carrion Crown, Kingmaker, and Agents of Edgewatch. I'm also a player in Age of Ashes. When asking groups of players which module we want to play in, the two most important aspects I've seemingly noticed is theme (I can't wait to play Ruby Phoenix!) and level count. The groups I play in LOVE the long journey from 1-20 and feeling the heroic transition from being a small-fry to a level 20 badass in a continuous story.
I know that everyone's group is different and things can derail a long-running game, but just my anecdote.
I know from a business perspective Paizo gets more of my money from the 1-20 APs, obviously. I also know that if the next two years were interchangeable 1-11/11-20 3 Book APs my players would probably keep asking me to convert 1e modules (UNLESS the theme was as great as the Ruby Phoenix, or so on).
I love reading everyone's opinion on this, because isn't the next AP in 2022 another 3 book AP?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My argument for the three-parters is for increased variety; more themes and more parts of the setting hit mean more chances for something really awesome to happen. That, plus my group and most of those I know couldn’t realistically finish six books.
|
I run six part ap in under a year(so bit over a year in practice because there are breaks since we aren't able to play literally every week). Six part starfinder ap takes under half a year ;p
Anyway, I do think actualy benefits of 3 part aps is "We can do smaller scale stories without having to include part for epic level 11-20 stuff" and "we can do epic scale stories without having to have 1-10 level up session to get to epic part" since I don't think paizo would have done realm of mammoth lord story that is level 1-20 anytime soon.(ruby phoenix tounament they could have done as module, but 11-20 is super cool) So 3 part aps do mean we get to see more of the world than we would otherwise.
I prefer six part aps, but I'm fine with 3 part aps as long they are always paired with level 11-20 ap. If it turns out that paizo wants to do "one 1-20 ap and two 1-10 aps" a year I'll be really annoyed :p
(I also would prefer it that 6 part aps would be overally more common)
I also think it's important to note that if I am recalling the conversation correctly, Cypher initially simply suggested an adventure path that could more easily bridge the gap not necessarily a sequel. It evolved to talking about sequels over the course of the conversation.
I agree it is important to note what was said. So this is Cyder's first post in this thread:
I happy for the flexibility of having both.
I would like to see more sequel APs and adventures so I did a 3 part AP that was a complete story with an ending but then a year later or something a thematically connected or possibly directly connected AP was released for higher level play that was its own contained story (perhaps set a couple of years later) came out. Groups could continue with the same characters or bring in new ones.
Bridging the thematic gap between AV and Ruby Phoenix just seems to vast to me. I appreciate both but would love a 'sequel' to AV later.
I'll just reiterate that your posts and Cyder's sound like what you really want is just another 6 part AP, because effectively that's what a sequel or prequel AP would turn the previous 3 part AP into. Note: I am not claiming to be able to read your minds, I'm just saying what your posts sound like to me. And if the response to 3 part APs is largely "it is too discordant to meld two unrelated APs together, we want them to at least somewhat tie into each other", then I'd rather they spend their development time on 6 part APs, and save the smaller ideas for the adventure line.
Not necessarily carry the same story through the whole 6 parts, but have smaller stories connected by theme, tone, or setting. Loosely connected mini-aps didn't seem to go over well in Iron Gods, but perhaps it'll go better in Troubles in Otari, which might allow them to experiment further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure how harsh I sound here, so I want to also reemphasize that I have no opinion on what anyone else would like to see, and if it sounds like I am judging anyone else, then I apologize. I personally don’t mind wildly unconnected stories, but if that is a problem for most tables, and previous experiences and comments in this thread suggest that is the case, then they may be better off with a 6 part Anthology rather than completely unconnected APs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think it's important to note that if I am recalling the conversation correctly, Cypher initially simply suggested an adventure path that could more easily bridge the gap not necessarily a sequel. It evolved to talking about sequels over the course of the conversation.I agree it is important to note what was said. So this is Cyder's first post in this thread:
I happy for the flexibility of having both.
I would like to see more sequel APs and adventures so I did a 3 part AP that was a complete story with an ending but then a year later or something a thematically connected or possibly directly connected AP was released for higher level play that was its own contained story (perhaps set a couple of years later) came out. Groups could continue with the same characters or bring in new ones.
Bridging the thematic gap between AV and Ruby Phoenix just seems to vast to me. I appreciate both but would love a 'sequel' to AV later.
I'll just reiterate that your posts and Cyder's sound like what you really want is just another 6 part AP, because effectively that's what a sequel or prequel AP would turn the previous 3 part AP into. Note: I am not claiming to be able to read your minds, I'm just saying what your posts sound like to me. And if the response to 3 part APs is largely "it is too discordant to meld two unrelated APs together, we want them to at least somewhat tie into each other", then I'd rather they spend their development time on 6 part APs, and save the smaller ideas for the adventure line.
Not necessarily carry the same story through the whole 6 parts, but have smaller stories connected by theme, tone, or setting. Loosely connected mini-aps didn't seem to go over well in Iron Gods, but perhaps it'll go better in Troubles in Otari, which might allow them to experiment further.
I don't think you are being too harsh. That being said you are wrong in what I want. Ruby phoenix tournament was the first AP I was excited for, and the 3 part format and starting later really appealed to me. Abomination vault seemed okay at first but I wasn't gunning for it but i've heard amazing things. In general I like the versatility 3 parts bring, and I believe the versatility includes sequels or narratives that can bridge or connect.( heck a 3 part adventure that connects or is a sequel to a 6 part adventure sounds fun) btw when i think of sequels i also consider jade regent to be a sequel to Rise so that may help your understanding of my view about the narratives of adventure paths and what can and cannot count as as a sequel.
I also think Iron Gods was all called Iron Gods, maybe it doing well was because they expected a stronger connection because they were under one banner. That expectation can change perspective quite a bit.
edit: basically i like both 6 part and 3 parts and I want to see the potential in them continue to grow.
A thread full of awesome points
A-freaking-men!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I’m concerned Ruby Phoenix won’t get a fair shake as far as word of mouth goes, since it all came together and all eyes are turning to the next adventure path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The experience with the groups I interact with has been the opposite, AP. The fact that it all came together is what I've seen draw a lot of attention to Ruby Phoenix.
I've seen a lot of people gripe about fatiguing out of an AP not because of the length of the adventure itself but just from waiting for the next volume to come out if they end up completing one too quickly.