Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5976906" data-attributes="member: 22424">Well, given how easy it is to say... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Seriously, I think a large part of Paizo's success with the format was that they had a huge amount of experience doing standalone adventures first (and, indeed, doing several standalone adventures regularly, every month). Even so, it's obvious that they've learned a lot about the process as they've gone on - &quot;Shackled City&quot; now looks really quite primitive next to something like &quot;Kingmaker&quot;.Of course, that doesn't explain the success of things like &quot;War of the Burning Sky&quot;.So, I think part of the reason that WotC went wrong when they attempted it with 4e was that they just didn't have that sort of expertise. In fact, in all the years that they've owned D&amp;D, WotC have done relatively few adventures at all, and only a handful (in print) that are actually good - mostly, they range from shockingly poor to mediocre. And of course, if you can't do a consistently good adventure, doing a good Adventure Path is that much more challenging again...(Again, if I were in charge over at WotC, I wouldn't even be considering an AP at this point. I would be looking to rehabilitate our reputation for adventures first - produce a handful of really solid in-print standalone adventures, while also getting eDungeon 'back' to doing 3 adventures per month, every month without fail. (The latter is necessary, IMO, to enforce the discipline required for an AP.) Once you've done that for a while, then it's time to consider some slightly longer series - trilogies or mini-series of adventures. And only then, when you've got the reputation, the staff, and the experience, only then do you go for a full-blown AP.)(Either that, or I'd kidnap the Paizo team... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5976906, member: 22424"] Well, given how easy it is to say... :) Seriously, I think a large part of Paizo's success with the format was that they had a huge amount of experience doing standalone adventures first (and, indeed, doing several standalone adventures regularly, every month). Even so, it's obvious that they've learned a lot about the process as they've gone on - "Shackled City" now looks really quite primitive next to something like "Kingmaker". Of course, that doesn't explain the success of things like "War of the Burning Sky". So, I think part of the reason that WotC went wrong when they attempted it with 4e was that they just didn't have that sort of expertise. In fact, in all the years that they've owned D&D, WotC have done relatively few adventures [i]at all[/i], and only a handful (in print) that are actually good - mostly, they range from shockingly poor to mediocre. And of course, if you can't do a consistently good adventure, doing a good Adventure [i]Path[/i] is that much more challenging again... (Again, if I were in charge over at WotC, I wouldn't even be considering an AP at this point. I would be looking to rehabilitate our reputation for adventures first - produce a handful of really solid in-print [i]standalone[/i] adventures, while also getting eDungeon 'back' to doing 3 adventures per month, every month without fail. (The latter is necessary, IMO, to enforce the discipline required for an AP.) Once you've done that for a while, then it's time to consider some slightly longer series - trilogies or mini-series of adventures. And only then, when you've got the reputation, the staff, and the experience, only then do you go for a full-blown AP.) (Either that, or I'd kidnap the Paizo team... :) ) [/QUOTE]

Verification