No more 6-parts APs?

[Defiler82]

I've might have missed it, it might be general knowledge by now but I was out for a long time - and I see that there were no new 6-part APs since Blood Lord, and idk if there are any more planned... Did I missed a memo saying that Paizo is cutting down the 6-part APs to zero? I didn't mind the 3-parters at first but it felt like a much needed breather for the staff than the whole new strategy, and now I see those 6-parters were abandoned altogether. The 4-part of 'Season Of Ghosts' was such a good reminder for me that I missed those long arches, both for PCs and villains alike, and while the Sandpoint one is a good service, it's a one of thing.

So - are there NO new 6 part Adventure Paths planned for the future at all?

[PossibleCabbage]

I imagine that the AP tie-in to "War of the Immortals" is going to be a six parter. That's likely to be a big enough story to span six volumes.

[James Jacobs]

Currently, all of our announced Adventure Paths range from 1 part to 4 part campaigns, but most of them are 3-part ones. Being able to do 4 of them a year has given us the chance to tell 4 different stories and thus give you, the customers, twice as many opportunities to become interested in and want to buy an Adventure Path. Feedback so far from all sorts of angles (financials, customer feedback, internal process, ease of compilation, ease of licensing issues, etc.) has been pretty universally great for this switch, so while we won't say "we'll never do a six-part Adventure Path ever again," it's very unlikely we'll do another six-part one anytime soon.

[James Jacobs]

THAT SAID.

If the story needed it, we would do a 6 part Adventure Path again.

Currently, we're mostly focusing on stories that take 3 parts to tell (the one-part special case of #200 being an outlier, and one that caused the other outlier of Season of Ghosts to be a 4 part one so that the previous Adventure Path to #200 ended on volume #199).

[magnuskn]

As long as you guys don't skip on the high-level stuff, like Starfinder did for most of its run, this is okay. I still miss the connective tissue of a six-part adventure path, though, since many players I know want to run their characters all the way from level 1 to 20.

That you now also do 4-parters or other kinds of more experimental formats, is actually even more of a hindrance to this than doing two three parters consecutively, since that means that there is less space to connect one low-level AP to a high-level AP. If I want to run Fists of the Ruby Phoenix after running Season of Ghosts and keep the same characters, I suddenly have to account for Season of Ghosts ending at level 13 and Fists of the Ruby Phoenix starting at level 11. Its much easier to rework encounters in 2E than in 1E, but it's still a lot of work to prepare an AP in the first place, which you guys just made harder. Not to mention that it'd be quite difficult to explain to players why their characters won't level for almost a full module full of combat.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, I hope that if they're going to do 4 parters it will be a mix of "starting at 1st level" and "ending at 20th level" and "entirely in between those two extremes" sorts of stories.

Since I prefer not starting at level 1 personally, but sometimes it would be nice to start at like 5th level instead of 10th.

[Defiler82]

James Jacobs wrote:

THAT SAID.

If the story needed it, we would do a 6 part Adventure Path again.

Currently, we're mostly focusing on stories that take 3 parts to tell (the one-part special case of #200 being an outlier, and one that caused the other outlier of Season of Ghosts to be a 4 part one so that the previous Adventure Path to #200 ended on volume #199).

Good to hear that.

There's nothing wrong with the 3-parters and the 4-parters. I just miss the stories of 6 part Adventure Path. I really hope some stories will need it sooner than later, maybe not in 2025, but hopefully in 2026. I can wait.

[Kevin Mack]

Yeah have to say I think I prefer the 6 part Ap's myself (A couple of the 3 part ones have felt like they could have done being longer IMO)

[Perpdepog]

Kevin Mack wrote:

Yeah have to say I think I prefer the 6 part Ap's myself (A couple of the 3 part ones have felt like they could have done being longer IMO)

Conversely, some of the six-part APs feel like they're stretched a bit thin. The example I always think of is Extinction Curse, which could have done a lot more focusing on the circus if it were only three parts, I feel.

I love six-part APs, but I've also really come around on these three-part ones. There are lots of story ideas, anime tournament, running an opera, doing a megadungeon, that are really fun ideas, and could use a bit more room than a single module, but could struggle if they had to stretch across all twenty levels of play.

Also put me down for enjoying starting above level 1; I don't mind starting at level 1, but it's a thing I've done a lot.

[Dragonchess Player]

magnuskn wrote:

If I want to run Fists of the Ruby Phoenix after running Season of Ghosts and keep the same characters, I suddenly have to account for Season of Ghosts ending at level 13 and Fists of the Ruby Phoenix starting at level 11. Its much easier to rework encounters in 2E than in 1E, but it's still a lot of work to prepare an AP in the first place, which you guys just made harder. Not to mention that it'd be quite difficult to explain to players why their characters won't level for almost a full module full of combat.

Or, as I mentioned last month, you can just simplify/streamline the "qualifying round" to reduce the number of encounters on Danger Island before the start of day 3. Probably concentrate on fighting the other teams and skip all/most of the combats against the "native" creatures.

[magnuskn]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

If I want to run Fists of the Ruby Phoenix after running Season of Ghosts and keep the same characters, I suddenly have to account for Season of Ghosts ending at level 13 and Fists of the Ruby Phoenix starting at level 11. Its much easier to rework encounters in 2E than in 1E, but it's still a lot of work to prepare an AP in the first place, which you guys just made harder. Not to mention that it'd be quite difficult to explain to players why their characters won't level for almost a full module full of combat.

Or, as I mentioned last month, you can just simplify/streamline the "qualifying round" to reduce the number of encounters on Danger Island before the start of day 3. Probably concentrate on fighting the other teams and skip all/most of the combats against the "native" creatures.

Yeah, I really would want to not run the AP to run the AP. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Perses13]

I'm currently running Fists and actually think a higher level transition from Season of Ghosts would work better than you think.

Why:

The timeline of the level ups in the first book is 3 levels in 3 days. Starting a level or two higher and removing a few level up points might actually make the level up pacing feel more normal. In addition there's a ton of fights with enemies with the weak template or higher level enemies, so if your party is one or two levels higher you can just make them elite instead.

[Unicore]

Perses13 wrote:

I'm currently running Fists and actually think a higher level transition from Season of Ghosts would work better than you think.

** spoiler omitted **

I strongly agree with this. The party I am running is half way through book 2, and I was often struggling to throw enough xp into parts of the book before moving on to the next plot point. They had a character die and resurrection really set them back.

[magnuskn]

Alright, I'll see what I'll do when the time comes. In four years or so, when I'm done with Return of the Runelords, which I haven't even started yet, because someone else is running Strange Aeons.

What, I'm just big on planning ahead. ^^

Anyway, that doesn't change the point I made some posts ago that more experimental AP formats make getting characters from 1 to 20 harder for GM's, who already have a lot of work on their plate.

[Anguish]

magnuskn wrote:

Anyway, that doesn't change the point I made some posts ago that more experimental AP formats make getting characters from 1 to 20 harder for GM's, who already have a lot of work on their plate.

Your point is interesting but...

"Feedback so far from all sorts of angles (financials, customer feedback, internal process, ease of compilation, ease of licensing issues, etc.) has been pretty universally great for this switch."

Financials, customer feedback you're trying to disagree with, financials, financials, financials etc.

James is awesome, but he's telling you why things are the way they are. Those are the things you need to change if you want change.

[TriOmegaZero]

I mean, my biggest hurdle for getting PCs from 1 to 20 is scheduling. As long as my crew can meet up consistently and people don't have to drop out due to work/life interference, we can manage leveling.

[Anguish]

Just to be clear... I didn't mean my comment to be critical or snarky. Just literal. Sometimes tone doesn't translate well.

[willfromamerica]

I greatly prefer 6-part APs, but it’s not like I’m going to screw over the company by not buying the 3-part APs (which I still like a lot) just to send a message. Not sure how else to express my preference other than repeatedly posting about it here and leaving reviews!

[Grankless]

magnuskn wrote:

Alright, I'll see what I'll do when the time comes. In four years or so, when I'm done with Return of the Runelords, which I haven't even started yet, because someone else is running Strange Aeons.

What, I'm just big on planning ahead. ^^

Anyway, that doesn't change the point I made some posts ago that more experimental AP formats make getting characters from 1 to 20 harder for GM's, who already have a lot of work on their plate.

Why not just run the campaigns as they are and not try to stitch two different things together? Fists of the Ruby Phoenix is just as good starting at 11 as it would be if you spent 10 levels in a different campaign. Abomination Vaults still has a satisfying ending if you end it at 10. You're simply never going to get an equal amount of halves represented, so why stress about it?

[The Raven Black]

Grankless wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Alright, I'll see what I'll do when the time comes. In four years or so, when I'm done with Return of the Runelords, which I haven't even started yet, because someone else is running Strange Aeons.

What, I'm just big on planning ahead. ^^

Anyway, that doesn't change the point I made some posts ago that more experimental AP formats make getting characters from 1 to 20 harder for GM's, who already have a lot of work on their plate.

Why not just run the campaigns as they are and not try to stitch two different things together? Fists of the Ruby Phoenix is just as good starting at 11 as it would be if you spent 10 levels in a different campaign. Abomination Vaults still has a satisfying ending if you end it at 10. You're simply never going to get an equal amount of halves represented, so why stress about it?

The goal is getting characters from 1 to 20.

[The Raven Black]

Anguish wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Anyway, that doesn't change the point I made some posts ago that more experimental AP formats make getting characters from 1 to 20 harder for GM's, who already have a lot of work on their plate.

Your point is interesting but...

"Feedback so far from all sorts of angles (financials, customer feedback, internal process, ease of compilation, ease of licensing issues, etc.) has been pretty universally great for this switch."

Financials, customer feedback you're trying to disagree with, financials, financials, financials etc.

James is awesome, but he's telling you why things are the way they are. Those are the things you need to change if you want change.

With all due respect, I think magnuskn raises a relevant point that might impact sales later on. It is definitely a good feedback for experimental APs.

[Saedar]

I definitely prefer the shorter APs. The 1-20s really drag in parts and some sections feel disconnected from one another thematically. That's not to say they're bad but I prefer the tighter narrative.

[Unicore]

The only thing that I think could really be nice for the shorter APs is if GMs could get a little more guidance on how to make different APs potentially fit together, but I think the overall player community is probably a better generative source for that than any one person at Paizo needs to be. The forums are a great place for that to happen.
A lot of GMs want a 6 part level 1 to 20 adventure to reduce the planning/prep load on themselves, but still offer their players the promise that they will watch their character develop over an entire 20 levels of character arc in play. “Just make new characters for a new campaign” will be unsatisfying for those GMs and players. Higher level starting AP player’s guides haven’t dialed in “don’t feel overwhelmed making a new character for this campaign that fits in narratively with the rest of the party, has appropriate but thematically relevant equipment, and doesn’t feel generic compared to a character that went through X levels of actual play” yet. 7 dooms tries out some incredible stuff…but at a cost to Paizo that is unrealistic for every AP and not just James Jacobs special product of love.

Some things I think could help are if special uncommon and rare items, artifacts, archetypes, spells, or other special abilities from lost omen products could specifically be called out as available and encouraged in players guides, possibly offered as Deere bonus stuff. Like mostly APs that tend to offer that stuff start at level 1 thus far. (Strength of thousands, gate walkers, sky king’s tomb). Offering new Archetypes in the back matter of high level AP books, especially books 2 and 3 is really too late for players to build characters around those unique choices. I get you can’t offer all that stuff in players guides, for free, but making high level APs where players are supposed to have dark archive special powers or artifacts already will help a lot with some if that integration.

I imagine some fun, interesting stuff like this is planned with the APs that will be released post-war of the immortals, I hope we get at least 1 high level and one low level AP, if not a full 1-20 AP built around that material.

[Kavlor]

Another thing I think we're missing in the current era of AP is that stories no longer actively try to change the setting. APs of the first edition very often had a fundamental influence on the setting in their consequences. The emergence of several new nations, a change of rulers, the Fifth Crusade, the emergence of new gods, and several others.

Compared to this, the second edition stories, and especially the three-part stories, are less likely to me to look like things that can change the setting. Yes, they regularly have big stakes, but this is no longer a change from the status quo. Perhaps it would be better if three-part APs influenced subnational units? Changes in the individual city of Varsia. Or in one of the River Kingdoms?

[James Jacobs]

Kavlor wrote:

Another thing I think we're missing in the current era of AP is that stories no longer actively try to change the setting. APs of the first edition very often had a fundamental influence on the setting in their consequences. The emergence of several new nations, a change of rulers, the Fifth Crusade, the emergence of new gods, and several others.

Compared to this, the second edition stories, and especially the three-part stories, are less likely to me to look like things that can change the setting. Yes, they regularly have big stakes, but this is no longer a change from the status quo. Perhaps it would be better if three-part APs influenced subnational units? Changes in the individual city of Varsia. Or in one of the River Kingdoms?

While we certainly did err on the side of stories that don't do much to change the setting for a bit... that's not always the case, and I can confirm that the three high-level Adventure Paths I'm working on now (one going into print, one being developed, and one being outlined) very much do all change the setting. And there's more in the works. We're not as timid about changes going forward. Won't be ALL the time, but I think that by this time next year, this complaint won't be as applicable (and I suspect folks might complain that too many Adventure Paths are changing things... but that's a thing for Future James to navigate!).

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Future Jon stands by as well. But can confirm that not everything will be about maintaining the status quo.

[Mammoth Daddy]

Well. That’s not ominous ^^^

[keftiu]

I was definitely a little bummed that Outlaws of Alkenstar and Blood Lords were both largely 'status quo' APs, after how long the Impossible Lands waited for the spotlight.

Excited to see the setting get shaken up, wherever it falls!

[Mammoth Daddy]

The 6-part AP’s can be intimidating for new and returning GM’s and players.

Most of the campaigns I’ve been a part of have been too open, and too grand per people’s time constraints.

Six-part Adventures also mean that one is forced to wait longer if you don’t particularly like the fewer themes of that year’s adventure path products. I’d much rather that Paizo just follow up one less-than-six book adventure path with a sequel set of books a couple of years later. A successful card game I play does the same thing with sets now, releasing more sets with varied themes and I much prefer it to a too long of a stay.

The farthest I’ve gotten to finishing an adventure path is book 2 of CotCT. People got busy. Moved. Made other priorities.

And that’s okay.

[Kavlor]

James Jacobs wrote:

While we certainly did err on the side of stories that don't do much to change the setting for a bit... that's not always the case, and I can confirm that the three high-level Adventure Paths I'm working on now (one going into print, one being developed, and one being outlined) very much do all change the setting. And there's more in the works. We're not as timid about changes going forward. Won't be ALL the time, but I think that by this time next year, this complaint won't be as applicable (and I suspect folks might complain that too many Adventure Paths are changing things... but that's a thing for Future James to navigate!).

I understand, and I will certainly be glad to change my mind in this regard. War of the Immortals is guaranteed to change my opinion in this regard to some extent. But I would really like more changes. For me, this is, to some extent, a way of feeling the importance of my own actions as a hero. That is, the feeling that my actions literally have an impact on the world.

[magnuskn]

Anguish wrote:

Your point is interesting but...

"Feedback so far from all sorts of angles (financials, customer feedback, internal process, ease of compilation, ease of licensing issues, etc.) has been pretty universally great for this switch."

Financials, customer feedback you're trying to disagree with, financials, financials, financials etc.

James is awesome, but he's telling you why things are the way they are. Those are the things you need to change if you want change.

Anguish wrote:

Just to be clear... I didn't mean my comment to be critical or snarky. Just literal. Sometimes tone doesn't translate well.

No problems with the tone. Anyway, I can't personally change six-parters to be more successful, since I am a unit of one person who is buying those things and the rulebooks for the nine players I play with to consume. But I can still make a honest criticism that doing experimental stuff makes the 1 - 20 experience even harder on the GM's. Not impossible, of course and with the amount of work I had converting Return of the Runelords to 2E even with a conversion guide, I probably am overselling the problem in the first place.

Also, as an aside, I think that Seasons of Ghosts is by any account a fantastic AP, therefore hasvery good word of mouth on the forum and Reddit, and Seven Dooms for Sandpoint is module 200 and has a hardcover edition, which could skew the numbers on the commercial success a bit.

[Unicore]

My party’s issue is that only big urban campaigns we’ve gotten with PF2 are a police-ish procedural that my table will not touch, outlaws of Alkenstar, which we played and loved into the third book when we TPK’d essentially twice in the same dungeon and felt incredibly misled on what kind of Heroes to bring to the adventure, and then kind of Sky King’s Tomb, which only really feels like 1 chapter’s worth of Urban adventure. We are in book 2 of Fists of the Ruby Phoenix (which I am running) and everyone is loving that book, but again it is one book out of three that fits the vibe.

We’ll probably play 7 dooms next which might have that “one point of light that you really get to know” vibe, but my fellow players really prefer the big city over the small community.

[James Jacobs]

Unicore wrote:

My party’s issue is that only big urban campaigns we’ve gotten with PF2 are a police-ish procedural that my table will not touch, outlaws of Alkenstar, which we played and loved into the third book when we TPK’d essentially twice in the same dungeon and felt incredibly misled on what kind of Heroes to bring to the adventure, and then kind of Sky King’s Tomb, which only really feels like 1 chapter’s worth of Urban adventure. We are in book 2 of Fists of the Ruby Phoenix (which I am running) and everyone is loving that book, but again it is one book out of three that fits the vibe.

We’ll probably play 7 dooms next which might have that “one point of light that you really get to know” vibe, but my fellow players really prefer the big city over the small community.

So here's some potentially good news for you.

If you play Seven Dooms, your PCs will end that adventure at 12th level.

You can then immediately jump in to play Curtain Call, which is an adventure that takes place mostly in big cities.

While Curtain Call starts at 11th level...

Spoiler:

...the first chapter of Curtain Call's first adventure, which contains the 11th level content, is sort of about giving the players an established nemesis and helping them contextualize that villain in a way that the Adventure Path can build on. You can skip this chapter entirely in this case, since the director of the potential opera based on the PCs' previous big adventure doesn't actually contact the PCs with this opportunity until the PCs are 12th level and chapter 2 of "Stage Fright" begins.

Alternately, you could run chapter 1 as-is for your 12th level PCs and they'll have a little bit easier time of it but eventually the reduced XP they get for adventuring a level above what's expected will even out.

OR If you finish Seven Dooms and the PCs don't quite reach enough XP to hit 12th, then chapter 1 of "Stage Fright" will work well to finish things up.

One of the complaints folks have had about our higher level Adventure Paths is that they're tough to use for all of our lower level ones. Curtain Call is specifically built to be as smooth as possible a continuation of this. It WILL require more work on the GM's part to customize things, but we also offer a lot of advice in Curtain Call to the GM on this as well.

[James Jacobs]

Also... for all the higher level Adventure Paths I'm working on (which are three—Curtain Call, plus two more that aren't announced yet in the future), I'm going to be including in the Player's Guide more robust advice for how to tie those adventures in to previously published lower-level 2nd edition 3 part Adventure Paths.

For Curtain Call, this is (as mentioned in my previous post) a big part built right in to the campaign. It's not so much built in to the others I'm working on, so those ties will need to be in the Player's Guides. I'll have to figure out a way to present that information in a non-spoiler way for the GM to work with, but I can do that.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Also also. Thew thing to remember here is your OWN tables can have whatever epic changes you want. As a kitchen sink setting we DO need to have a fair number of through lines. When I first started here, I suggested sinking the entire island of Kortos as a way to shake things up, until it was (rightly) pointed out to me that destroying something so integral to the brand was a TERRIBLE idea.

[TriOmegaZero]

But did you do it in a home game yet?

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Not yet! maybe someday.

[Lord Fyre]

Jonathan Morgantini wrote:

Also also. Thew thing to remember here is your OWN tables can have whatever epic changes you want. As a kitchen sink setting we DO need to have a fair number of through lines. When I first started here, I suggested sinking the entire island of Korvosa as a way to shake things up, until it was (rightly) pointed out to me that destroying something so integral to the brand was a TERRIBLE idea.

Korvosa is an island?

It includes Endrin Isle, but that isn't the whole city or even the main part of it.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Jonathan Morgantini wrote:

Also also. Thew thing to remember here is your OWN tables can have whatever epic changes you want. As a kitchen sink setting we DO need to have a fair number of through lines. When I first started here, I suggested sinking the entire island of Korvosa as a way to shake things up, until it was (rightly) pointed out to me that destroying something so integral to the brand was a TERRIBLE idea.

Korvosa is an island?

It includes Endrin Isle, but that isn't the whole city or even the main part of it.

Thats what I get for typing distracted. I fixed it, but i MEANT Kortos.

[PossibleCabbage]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kortos.

[Mammoth Daddy]

Jonathan Morgantini wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Jonathan Morgantini wrote:

Also also. Thew thing to remember here is your OWN tables can have whatever epic changes you want. As a kitchen sink setting we DO need to have a fair number of through lines. When I first started here, I suggested sinking the entire island of Korvosa as a way to shake things up, until it was (rightly) pointed out to me that destroying something so integral to the brand was a TERRIBLE idea.

Korvosa is an island?

It includes Endrin Isle, but that isn't the whole city or even the main part of it.

Thats what I get for typing distracted. I fixed it, but i MEANT Kortos.

Poor Korvosa. Paizo is determined to keep you traumatized.

Edit: if you know, you know.

[Perpdepog]

keftiu wrote:

I was definitely a little bummed that Outlaws of Alkenstar and Blood Lords were both largely 'status quo' APs, after how long the Impossible Lands waited for the spotlight.

Excited to see the setting get shaken up, wherever it falls!

I always figured that was why they were the way they were; we needed to get introduced to the Impossible Lands in adventures before things could really shake up, otherwise it wouldn't feel as impactful. Still super hopeful those rumors of Nex's stirring are true and we get a big wizardly punch-up!

[Unicore]

James Jacobs wrote:

Unicore wrote:

My party’s issue is that only big urban campaigns we’ve gotten with PF2 are a police-ish procedural that my table will not touch, outlaws of Alkenstar, which we played and loved into the third book when we TPK’d essentially twice in the same dungeon and felt incredibly misled on what kind of Heroes to bring to the adventure, and then kind of Sky King’s Tomb, which only really feels like 1 chapter’s worth of Urban adventure. We are in book 2 of Fists of the Ruby Phoenix (which I am running) and everyone is loving that book, but again it is one book out of three that fits the vibe.

We’ll probably play 7 dooms next which might have that “one point of light that you really get to know” vibe, but my fellow players really prefer the big city over the small community.

So here's some potentially good news for you.

If you play Seven Dooms, your PCs will end that adventure at 12th level.

You can then immediately jump in to play Curtain Call, which is an adventure that takes place mostly in big cities.

While Curtain Call starts at 11th level...

** spoiler omitted **

One of the complaints folks have had about our higher...

This is amazing to hear and an idea I am very excited to consider. I am really tempted to turn the first book of Shattered Star into a one off that leads the party to plant some seeds in Magnamar, and maybe gets them exposed to some relevant runelord lore without making them just want to go on to a full on shattered stat campaign. I am trying to think of what object or artifact I could use as a wrapped up McGuffin they will be ok with leaving with the pathfinders there before coming to Sandpoint escorting a wandering cleric on a mission.

Getting back to something more OP adjacent, it is starting to feel like we are getting to a point where we are going to be able to be able to throw together some really interesting, hybrid 1-20 campaigns by mixing and matching somewhat related options for chapters.

[magnuskn]

James Jacobs wrote:

Also... for all the higher level Adventure Paths I'm working on (which are three—Curtain Call, plus two more that aren't announced yet in the future), I'm going to be including in the Player's Guide more robust advice for how to tie those adventures in to previously published lower-level 2nd edition 3 part Adventure Paths.

For Curtain Call, this is (as mentioned in my previous post) a big part built right in to the campaign. It's not so much built in to the others I'm working on, so those ties will need to be in the Player's Guides. I'll have to figure out a way to present that information in a non-spoiler way for the GM to work with, but I can do that.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was hoping for.

[Kavlor]

I decided to think about what adventures we had without changes, and where, on the contrary, these changes were present. Here's what I picked up.

Age of Ashes - from my point of view, this is a story with quite significant changes, since our ruling regime in one of the nations collapsed.
Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch and Abomination Vaults are adventures on the main island of the setting, and the first two have extremely significant stakes. But I don't remember any of them having long lasting effects.
Fists of the Ruby Phoenix is also far from the most important. We saved the tournament, but we hardly changed the world.
Strength of Thousands - Quite important in my opinion, considering the person who returned to Golarion at the end of this story. This changes the entire balance of power in the region.
Quest for the Frozen Flame - I honestly don't see how this will change the fate of the region.
Outlaws of Alkenstar - The very purpose of the adventure here is to maintain the status quo.
Blood Lords - this could potentially make a huge difference. Geb is more of a reactive person than a proactive one, and a change in chancellor would make a huge difference. But he is replaced by players, and the story avoids specifying the personalities of the players. So I don't think there will be much change here.
Gatewalkers and Stolen Fate are extremely high stakes, but again the same problem. We maintain the status quo rather than change the world. More precisely, in the case of the second AP, serious changes can be made, but they are too invisible.
Sky King's Tomb - yes, definitely an extremely significant change in dwarven culture
Season of Ghosts and Seven Dooms for Sandpoint are, unfortunately, still stories of individual small settlements. In both cases there is a huge threat, but little change in the world.

[W E Ray]

Kavlor wrote:

Another thing I think we're missing in the current era of AP is that stories no longer actively try to change the setting. APs of the first edition very often had a fundamental influence on the setting in their consequences. The emergence of several new nations, a change of rulers, the Fifth Crusade, the emergence of new gods, and several others.

.

I assume I am in the minority here, among customers -- but I really, really don't like how *often* Campaign-Setting-Evolutions occurred in the APs.

I can support major campaign setting evolution in the published material from time to time, but it seemed like every third (or so) AP back in the day was dramatically changing the setting.

When the Gold Box came out in 1983 we had a good decade to really play Greyhawk games. It wasn't until the early '90s when Carl Sargent designed the Greyhawk Wars that the Flanaess really changed. (And even then many Grognards didn't like it. But it had been a decade and 2nd Edition was introduced. It made sense to me -- and Sargent's work was brilliant like Paizo's usually is.)

The transition from the Forgotten Realms of Greenwood in the Dragon Magazine articles also got a major change from the 80s to the 90s, becoming the Bob Salvatore setting. And again, some players still played in Dale Reckoning before 1358.

But I can get behind making some big changes once a decade or so with an Edition change or something equally tremendous: Such as when Erik Mona, Holian and Reynolds did the LGG early in 3.0 or the FRCS came out a year or so later bumping DR to 1374 (or something).

.

{ AP SPOILERS ahead: }

.

But I felt uncomfortable with Paizo's 'frequent'(?) changes. Once The Worldwound closes it's no longer the same setting. There was still SOOO much that could have been done there. Moreso with Cheliax losing Ravounel, Taldor losing Stavian, Runelords successfully returning, etc. Once Ravounel is its own country, the campaign setting is no longer Cheliax. Or Varisia. Or the Worldwound. Or Taldor.

These things should ONLY happen when players have played enough in the setting that they're ready to change it. And for me, at least, it should be player-driven and not Publisher-driven. In other words, it should be 100% up to individual groups if A) They've played in Korvosa enough that they're ready to change it forever and King Eodred and Queen Ileosa are killed off, and B) The players play out the game and decide what Korvosa looks like now that it's not really Korvosa anymore:
(I can only use Shadows at Sundown as a resource for some additional info on a few locations or NPCs in Korvosa. Because Queen Ileosa was Resurrected, AND reinstated as Queen after the facts of her possession by Kazavon was made public AND Sorshen is a LE Runelord who is still asleep or (when I get to DM it eventually) waking up and 'The Players' will drive what happens to happen.)
(It's the same thing with the amazing volume 200! I can use it to add some details of NPCs and such in Sandpoint -- but I had a group several years ago kill off some Ghouls that were tunnelling around underneath the cemetery, digging underneath caskets for food and treasure. James Jacobs introduced that idea as a possible adventure hook in the Sandpoint book several years ago and we actually played it. So chapter 1 of the Amazing vol 200 is only usable for me as in introduces a cool Undead Goblin. But for my table, heck, Nualia is still alive! We haven't played nearly enough in Sandpoint to so drastically change the setting that there's no more Sandpoint Devil or Red Bishop! Once the Sandpoint Devil is destroyed, I would posit, it's not really Sandpoint anymore. The players really gotta be okay with that.)

Again, I think I'm in the minority, but I don't like campaign-setting-evolutions except very infrequently.

[Deriven Firelion]

Are they still doing high level APs? I don't mind using two APs, but I do like the high level game. Stopping at 10th to 12th is pretty boring. Run your character to midlevel, then never see what they can do at higher level? That's not particularly fun. You toss your character away and start a new AP? I don't like that.

[Unicore]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Are they still doing high level APs? I don't mind using two APs, but I do like the high level game. Stopping at 10th to 12th is pretty boring. Run your character to midlevel, then never see what they can do at higher level? That's not particularly fun. You toss your character away and start a new AP? I don't like that.

Curtain Call (the one after wardens of wildwood) is a 11 to 20 AP, and James Jacobs hinted that there are 2 more 11-20 APs in development. I am almost certain one of those coincides with the mythic content coming in war of the immortals.

[zimmerwald1915]

Unicore wrote:

Curtain Call (the one after wardens of wildwood) is a 11 to 20 AP

And moreover, it is ostensibly designed to fit after any lower-level AP or set of Adventures or Modules that ended around level 10 -- though the art direction assumes its PCs played through Abomination Vaults.

It would be nice if more high-level APs took the tack of explicitly following-on from earlier sets of APs, Adventures, or Modules, despite being produced months or years later. The vision of the six-part APs was to tell a cohesive story following the same characters from first to high level, even though the method of production (which prioritized cutting company overhead and especially management costs as much as possible) meant they necessarily all failed at it. Splitting the production timeline so that later-volume writers actually know the given circumstances they're working with could help.

[The Raven Black]

W E Ray wrote:

Kavlor wrote:

Another thing I think we're missing in the current era of AP is that stories no longer actively try to change the setting. APs of the first edition very often had a fundamental influence on the setting in their consequences. The emergence of several new nations, a change of rulers, the Fifth Crusade, the emergence of new gods, and several others.

.

I assume I am in the minority here, among customers -- but I really, really don't like how *often* Campaign-Setting-Evolutions occurred in the APs.

I can support major campaign setting evolution in the published material from time to time, but it seemed like every third (or so) AP back in the day was dramatically changing the setting.

When the Gold Box came out in 1983 we had a good decade to really play Greyhawk games. It wasn't until the early '90s when Carl Sargent designed the Greyhawk Wars that the Flanaess really changed. (And even then many Grognards didn't like it. But it had been a decade and 2nd Edition was introduced. It made sense to me -- and Sargent's work was brilliant like Paizo's usually is.)

The transition from the Forgotten Realms of Greenwood in the Dragon Magazine articles also got a major change from the 80s to the 90s, becoming the Bob Salvatore setting. And again, some players still played in Dale Reckoning before 1358.

But I can get behind making some big changes once a decade or so with an Edition change or something equally tremendous: Such as when Erik Mona, Holian and Reynolds did the LGG early in 3.0 or the FRCS came out a year or so later bumping DR to 1374 (or something).

.

{ AP SPOILERS ahead: }

.

But I felt uncomfortable with Paizo's 'frequent'(?) changes. Once The Worldwound closes it's no longer the same setting. There was still SOOO much that could have been done there. Moreso with Cheliax losing Ravounel, Taldor losing Stavian, Runelords successfully returning, etc. Once Ravounel is its own country, the campaign setting is...

There is actually advice in the PF2 setting rules to adapt the events to fit what happened at your table.

Obviously, Paizo cannot adapt the setting to what will happen in every game out there.