| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were issues with the original, the community has some workarounds to improve the AP. What happens to the AP if we replace Drow with Serpentfolk? Does it still work? Does it tell the same story or go off in a completely different direction? Do the events or insight from later APs affect it? What are your opinions?
No!
First, it doesn't fix the biggest single problem - the horrible switch in motivation between Children Of The Void and The Armageddon Echo. Until this is resolved, Second Darkness cannot be fixed.
Second, As written. the Player Characters are betrayed too often by the people they are supposed to want to help. Add to that most of the Elves being a$S#0!es again kills the Player Character motivations.
Fixing these would require a MAJOR rewrite, at which point you have a new - and different - Adventure Path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like between "Paizo won't touch the Drow in the future" and "Second Darkness is probably the consensus least popular Adventure Path" it's probably not a great choice.
It's probably better to do a new adventure around Riddleport to establish whatever needs to be established, but IIRC Second Darkness is one of those "PCs save the world, nobody knows about it since the world didn't end" sort of APs that decidedly do not need to be revisited.
Like I think we can all agree that Rise of the Runelords, and Kingmaker were much stronger APs than Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, or Council of Thieves.
It feels like between "Paizo won't touch the Drow in the future" and "Second Darkness is probably the consensus least popular Adventure Path" it's probably not a great choice.
It's probably better to do a new adventure around Riddleport to establish whatever needs to be established, but IIRC Second Darkness is one of those "PCs save the world, nobody knows about it since the world didn't end" sort of APs that decidedly do not need to be revisited.
Like I think we can all agree that Rise of the Runelords, and Kingmaker were much stronger APs than Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, or Council of Thieves.
You missed Serpent's Skull on the list of "failed" APs.
Does Return of the Runelords touch on Riddleport?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Return of the Runelords touch on Riddleport?
Return of the Runelords has one major chunk of one of the books set in Riddleport, and seems to account for a version of events from Children of the Void. However, the chunk in question really only involves one location that wasn't really used in Second Darkness, and heavily involves a character who was likely killed in most playthroughs of Second Darkness. Oh, and a part of the final book involves the Cyphergate, and it's construction.
And, to add my thoughts to the thread, I really enjoyed running most of Second Darkness, and my own group (who are/were more roll than role players) didn't even notice any 'changes' in motivations. But there weren't many parts of the story that stuck with us, and that could be divorced from the Drow/Elf connection.
However, if I were to rescue any part of the AP, it would be Children of the Void. It is the most self-contained, standalone and overall interesting part of the narrative to me, and barely involves the Drow at all.
The only other piece of the AP I would think that deserves rescue is the concept of the Armageddon Echo. I actually really liked the concept of exploring a ruined city, and then visiting what appears to be the city in its prime. It wouldn't even need to involve the Drow at all, and could easily be altered to any other group with shapeshifting or glamour magic, and that magic could then be borrowed for the infiltration of the perpetrator's home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You missed Serpent's Skull on the list of "failed" APs.
I also forgot to put Curse of the Crimson Throne on the list of "early Paizo APs that were solid hits." Their batting average got better with time, but they still had three really good ones in the first six.
It's sort of interesting to try to figure out what would be the next choice for a remastered "classic AP". Legacy of Fire, Second Darkness, and Serpent's Skull are probably not great choices (or would require extensive rewriting). Carrion Crown could be great with another pass but it has the same problem as Council of Thieves in that the PCs victory was completely undone in a future AP (but at least Tar-Baphon wasn't the *point* of that AP). Jade Regent would need a fair bit of work, while Skull & Shackles and Reign of Winter have the issue that "their successful outcome was already worked into the world state in 2nd edition."
So it might just be that they don't remaster any more APs without a compelling reason to do a specific one.
You missed Serpent's Skull on the list of "failed" APs.I also forgot to put Curse of the Crimson Throne on the list of "early Paizo APs that were solid hits." Their batting average got better with time, but they still had three really good ones in the first six.
Truth!
It's sort of interesting to try to figure out what would be the next choice for a remastered "classic AP". Legacy of Fire, Second Darkness, and Serpent's Skull are probably not great choices (or would require extensive rewriting).
Alas, I must agree. :(
Carrion Crown could be great with another pass but it has the same problem as Council of Thieves in that the PCs victory was completely undone in a future AP (but at least Tar-Baphon wasn't the *point* of that AP). Jade Regent would need a fair bit of work, while Skull & Shackles and Reign of Winter have the issue that "their successful outcome was already worked into the world state in 2nd edition."
So it might just be that they don't remaster any more APs without a compelling reason to do a specific one.
I tend to agree. A new AP that echoes similar themes or locations is more likely.
I would love to see a re-mastered version of Second Darkness, but I suspect that it's simply not in the cards.
If we ever did get it, then it would be for PF2 (i.e., useless for me). And in that case it would run into the conundrum that while part of SD's premise is that Drow are unknown to the surface world, they are a known quantity in the PF2's version of Golarion. (I think? I haven't kept up the newer version at all.)
|
I would love to see a re-mastered version of Second Darkness, but I suspect that it's simply not in the cards.
If we ever did get it, then it would be for PF2 (i.e., useless for me). And in that case it would run into the conundrum that while part of SD's premise is that Drow are unknown to the surface world, they are a known quantity in the PF2's version of Golarion. (I think? I haven't kept up the newer version at all.)
Drow will basically no longer exist as a faction at all in the post-remaster Golarion.
SD will likely never see a remake as a result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drow will basically no longer exist as a faction at all in the post-remaster Golarion.
Wow. That's neutered one source of bad guys/gals whom one could wholeheartedly dislike before.
Like they also did with slavers (as far as I understand).
I think that I'll stick with PF's Golarion, warts and all.
I mean, Paizo will never publish an ORC book with the word "Drow" in it for legal reasons. That doesn't mean you can't use them in your games.
I mean, Paizo will never publish an ORC book with the word "Drow" in it for legal reasons. That doesn't mean you can't use them in your games.
We even have stats for the Dark Elves. They just will be gone from the PF2E Remastered.
Drow will basically no longer exist as a faction at all in the post-remaster Golarion.
Wow. That's neutered one source of bad guys/gals whom one could wholeheartedly dislike before.
Like they also did with slavers (as far as I understand).
While I agree, all such things are about knowing your player group. As a Publisher, Paizo has to look at things from multiple perspectives.
I think that I'll stick with PF's Golarion, warts and all.
These changes are PF's Golarion. You mean you prefer PF1E's Golarion.
Once again, I agree. But, as a Cisgener, Hetero, White, Male over 58, I see the world from a position of privilege. Not everyone has the same perspective.
Paizo is improving their understanding of their customer base. They appear to be doing a pretty good job with this.
PF is the original game. PF2 is the new edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF is the original game. PF2 is the new edition.
But… because these are Paizo's boards, and Paizo has a vested interest in getting everyone to move on from PF1E, The meaning of PF has shifted to mean the Second Edition.
It pays to be as clear as possible when discussing the two.
My (unused and very dusty) copy of the PF2 CRB has "Second Edition" clearly written on the cover. Therefore it's PF2. Particularly when we're discussing SD - an AP published under the original PF ruleset. (Which had no edition number on the CRB's cover.)
If people insist on calling the earlier version of Golarion and the accompanying ruleset "PF1", that's fine. But don't expect me to call the newer version of Golarion and its ruleset anything other that what it is: "PF2".
(Heck, I even have sourcebooks for the 3.5 version of Golarion.)
(I agree that Paizo is undoubtably hoping that everyone will jump onto the PF2 bandwagon. But that's not going to happen with everyone.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like with video game consoles.
At one point the PS4 was "a next-generation console". At some point, before the PS5 was announced it stopped being a "next-generation console" since it was demonstrably "this generation". Then the PS5 was announced and that was the "next-generation console." At some point, before the PS6 is announced it will stop being that.
When someone says "Oh, I have that for Playstation" they do not usually mean "the one that came out in 1994.
From what I can glean, the consensus here is that "Pathfinder" is the brand, and the brand is more accurately represented by "what the current releases are". If you need to draw a distinction between the two editions, the convention is "PF1" and "PF2". But "Pathfinder First Edition" has no particular ability to define the brand anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know anything about remasters or appropriate edition nomenclature, but after months of prep, we're getting started on Second Darkness tonight! Very excited!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Particularly when we're discussing SD - an AP published under the original PF ruleset. (Which had no edition number on the CRB's cover.)
In the interests of accuracy...SD was not actually written for the Pathfinder RPG at all, but for 3.5. I even have articles in this forum with character conversions.
In the interests of accuracy...SD was not actually written for the Pathfinder RPG at all, but for 3.5. I even have articles in this forum with character conversions.Particularly when we're discussing SD - an AP published under the original PF ruleset. (Which had no edition number on the CRB's cover.)
True. But since Pathfinder 1E was designed to be backwards compatible with D&D 3.5, so many players have forgotten the differences.
|
|
Would be nice to have new Riddleport ap, new darklands ap and new Kyonin ap, but having second darkness remastered is bit like having legacy of fire or serpent's skull remastered at this point :'D
Like at this point SD remake might as well be "it has to be completely rewritten" so uh... I'd rather they use this chance to retcon Kyonin to have never been LN isolationist country with CG alignment?
That said would be nice to see Winter Council adventure on what they were doing and how they were defeated in some form...
Would be nice to have new Riddleport ap, new darklands ap and new Kyonin ap, but having second darkness remastered is bit like having legacy of fire or serpent's skull remastered at this point :'D
I don't get why people are dunking on Legacy of Fire. It was a great AP when I played through it.
And, I'm very sad that Serpent's Skull just didn't work. It had so much potential! :( I would LOVE to see a redo!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I've always wanted 3.5 legacy of fire updated to 1e, but updating it to 2e is kinda like saying that all 1e aps need to be updated to 2e. And there is nothing grievously wrong about legacy of fire that needs fixed(nor was it one of beloved classics), so if SD never got 1e update, then legacy of fire didn't have "all other 3.5 aps were updated!" excuse
Serpent's Skull is good example of ap that deserves remake to fix the rough parts to bring out full potential yeah
Unfortunately, we will most likely have to make do with the GM threads in the AP-specific sub-forums to fix any rough spots/transitions in the older Paizo APs (3.5 or PF1).
I was disappointed with the KM update (despite promises to do so, they didn't do enough to make it backwards compatible with PF1). So I'm not inclined to support any crowd-funding again for other AP updates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, we will most likely have to make do with the GM threads in the AP-specific sub-forums to fix any rough spots/transitions in the older Paizo APs (3.5 or PF1).
Yes. As I noted before, Paizo considers all the PF 1E effectively dead, to the point that they are willing to make major changes to the Golarion (Slavery, Dark Elves, etc.) setting without bothering to explain what happened.
And, for the most part, the bulk Pathfinder Community has also moved on.
I was disappointed with the KM update (despite promises to do so, they didn't do enough to make it backwards compatible with PF1). So I'm not inclined to support any crowd-funding again for other AP updates.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, OGL thing kinda forced their hand with drow, either rewrite drow so much they don't feel like drow or retcon them entirely and they went with latter. There is no explanation for it because its straight up retcon.
Anyway, I would prefer it if every 1e thread didn't devolve into edition warring more or less
I mean, OGL thing kinda forced their hand with drow, either rewrite drow so much they don't feel like drow or retcon them entirely and they went with latter. There is no explanation for it because its straight up retcon.
Of all the PF 1E Adventure Paths, this one is most impacted by the loss of the OGL. Norse Dökkálfar are completely different from D&D Dark Elves (being closer to Dwarves), and are hardly the villains that the Drow are.
Anyway, I would prefer it if every 1e thread didn't devolve into edition warring more or less
So would Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As was mentioned already, the biggest problem with this AP isn't that it has Drow in it: it's fundamental writing issues in the AP itself. The Players Guide and Book 1 set up one type of adventure, and then from book 3 on that's all abandoned in favor of a totally different adventure with a totally different tone and in which characters built for the first one may not really work motivation wise.
Then there's the issue of the Elves spending most of this adventure being wholly unlikable despite the fact they're the ones that we are supposed to want to help. Frankly, they suck and it's hard to get motivated to want to help them. This reaches extreme levels in book 5, and that whole book basically needs a total rewrite due to it railroading players massively with super unlikable characters (except the demon that inevitably betrays you) and the players being along for the ride more than being actively pushing the plot. None of those problems have anything to do with Drow at all and still exist with Serpentfolk.
Book 4 does need major rewrites to change Drow to Serpentfolk, and if you were publishing it today some of what goes on in this would need changing as well.
Some stuff does change by changing Drow to Serpfentfolk in every book, but book 4 is the only one where you actually deal with Drow in any real capacity other than fighting them, and of course the "Elves transform into Drow" thing would make no real sense with Serpentfolk... but later APs and Paizo largely abandoned that anyway even before the OGL problems.
If you really wanted to, you could do the swap and have that part of it be workable by changing the relevant plot points. The other problems all remain, though, so an actual remaster of this is more like a total rewrite and there's no real chance that happens unless some fans do it.
Other than "you get to go to the Darklands" is there anything in Second Darkness that would be worth revisiting in a spiritual sequel? Like I know there are things in Serpent's Skull that would be interesting if done better (Jungle exploration/survival, the whole "Snakefolk want to resurrect their god" plot) but I haven't heard much positive about Second Darkness other than "it's the one with the Drow" and "it's got major writing problems."
Other than "you get to go to the Darklands" is there anything in Second Darkness that would be worth revisiting in a spiritual sequel? Like I know there are things in Serpent's Skull that would be interesting if done better (Jungle exploration/survival, the whole "Snakefolk want to resurrect their god" plot) but I haven't heard much positive about Second Darkness other than "it's the one with the Drow" and "it's got major writing problems."
I'm going to say no.
* - Tridus is entirely correct. The real problem with this AP is the extreme change in tone and expectations.* - When James Jacobs conceptualized the AP, it never occurred to him that players would LOVE the "Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy." He really thought that players would want to leave as fast as possible. (The silver lining is that it led to "Skull & Shackles".)
* - The elven secrecy on Book three doesn't make sense if there is no reason for the elves to be "ashamed" of the Drow.
So, what's left?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than "you get to go to the Darklands" is there anything in Second Darkness that would be worth revisiting in a spiritual sequel? Like I know there are things in Serpent's Skull that would be interesting if done better (Jungle exploration/survival, the whole "Snakefolk want to resurrect their god" plot) but I haven't heard much positive about Second Darkness other than "it's the one with the Drow" and "it's got major writing problems."
I mean... the Riddleport part, maybe? In the game I was in there was players definitely interested in exploring Riddleport and trying to climb the ladder in it. I don't know if you could make a full AP of that without it getting tiresome, but the players that enjoyed it definitely hadn't gotten tired of it before the AP abandoned it. But in a sequel you'd need to swap this out entirely for something that is more connected to the rest of the AP to fix the problem of it feeling so disjointed and having the tone shift completely.
The book 3-6 parts... yeah it's pretty much "you get to explore the Darklands" and "the Armageddon Echo is a really cool idea". The rest of it did nothing for me and I consider book 5 the worst Paizo content I've ever played. So I don't really see what you'd use for a sequel, spiritual or otherwise.
Conceptually, the whole Elven part of this just didn't work for me. Like, the Drow are cartoon villains and not actually that interesting. "Elves turn into Drow if they get really angry" was less shocking and more "huh?". The entire Elven nation came across in this as both arrogant and somehow really incompetent. Like, the Queen can't run her government because of a shadow government, but that shadow government has been crippled for years because of an internal dispute, is trapped in its own base, and can't even arrange a freaking meeting without PC help.
Throw in how severe the railroading is in this, and no, I don't really think there's much here worth saving. A better "explore the darklands" adventure is probably easier to write than fixing this is.
Other than "you get to go to the Darklands" is there anything in Second Darkness that would be worth revisiting in a spiritual sequel? Like I know there are things in Serpent's Skull that would be interesting if done better (Jungle exploration/survival, the whole "Snakefolk want to resurrect their god" plot) but I haven't heard much positive about Second Darkness other than "it's the one with the Drow" and "it's got major writing problems."I mean... the Riddleport part, maybe? In the game I was in there was players definitely interested in exploring Riddleport and trying to climb the ladder in it. I don't know if you could make a full AP of that without it getting tiresome, but the players that enjoyed it definitely hadn't gotten tired of it before the AP abandoned it.
I think that is Skull & Shackles. But, that is more about the nautical aspects then a Riddleport centric political game.
The book 3-6 parts... yeah it's pretty much "you get to explore the Darklands" and "the Armageddon Echo is a really cool idea". The rest of it did nothing for me and I consider book 5 the worst Paizo content I've ever played. So I don't really see what you'd use for a sequel, spiritual or otherwise.
I'm at a loss about why slaughtering the entire Winter Council wouldn't solve the problem in a more effective manner.
Throw in how severe the railroading is in this, and no, I don't really think there's much here worth saving. A better "explore the darklands" adventure is...
The Sky King's Tomb?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though considering the new trend with less than six part aps, I actually think second darkness COULD be salvaged.
Like you could turn riddleport crimelord part into separate two or three part ap while the kyonin/winter council conspiracy/darkland adventure could be 4 part ap.
When asked, my advice for running SD has always been to treat it as two different APs. The first one is Riddleport-centric (books 1-2) and the second one is elf-centric (books 3-6). Players should make new, level 7 characters for the "second AP", ones with different motivations than the campaign traits found in the DS Player's Guide. In my opinion, that should get rid of most of the cognitive dissonance between those two sections.
As for the plot/railroad in the "second AP" ... that requires both some GM re-writing and some knowledge of what one's players are ready to accept. It can be done, but it will take some work.
SD also suffers from being one of the APs where Paizo experimented with not including enough XP in the main adventure. They did include small side-treks in the "back matter", but it is annoying to deal with nonetheless.
This does make me wonder if there is a suitable stand-alone adventure which could be substituted for the worst parts of book 5 ... I must go looking through my shelf of modules ...