jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Drawmack said:
The War of the Burning Sky? Or life? Here's a link for the former -- if you don't know about life, I'm afraid that you're on your own
A problem with Adventure Paths/Campaign Sagas/etc...
- Thread starter Wik
- Start date
The War of the Burning Sky? Or life? Here's a link for the former -- if you don't know about life, I'm afraid that you're on your own
James Jacobs
Adventurer
We didn't settle on the 12-part adventure arc initially; Shackled City was initially only supposed to be 10, but one of the adventures was so long we had to cut it in half and ended up with 11. When we expanded it for the hardcover, it turned into 12.
Age of Worms was originally set to be a 20-part arc, with each adventure covering one character level. We chickened out though; if Age of Worms was a flop, we'd be stuck with a bunch of dead space in the magazine for nearly 2 years. We cut it nearly in half to 12 episodes, and as it turns out, that's how long a year-subscription lasts. For magazine format, a 12-part campaign is pretty much perfect.
For what it's worth, though, I sort of agree that a 12-part adventure is too long. For Age of Worms, the later installments sold less than the initial ones; I'm sure part of this reason is simply because high-level adventures aren't as popular as low and mid level ones, but my gut tells me that the main reason is that some folk just got tired of the story.
Frankly, for campaigns like this, I'm beginning to feel like the number of parts shouldn't drive the campaign. Rather, it's best to figure out the campaign's story arc and then split it up as appropriate. However many parts you get is what you get.
Age of Worms was originally set to be a 20-part arc, with each adventure covering one character level. We chickened out though; if Age of Worms was a flop, we'd be stuck with a bunch of dead space in the magazine for nearly 2 years. We cut it nearly in half to 12 episodes, and as it turns out, that's how long a year-subscription lasts. For magazine format, a 12-part campaign is pretty much perfect.
For what it's worth, though, I sort of agree that a 12-part adventure is too long. For Age of Worms, the later installments sold less than the initial ones; I'm sure part of this reason is simply because high-level adventures aren't as popular as low and mid level ones, but my gut tells me that the main reason is that some folk just got tired of the story.
Frankly, for campaigns like this, I'm beginning to feel like the number of parts shouldn't drive the campaign. Rather, it's best to figure out the campaign's story arc and then split it up as appropriate. However many parts you get is what you get.
Wik
First Post
Crothian - Yes. Yes it is.
You know, it's funny, I specifically let Paizo off the hook in my rant against 12 part paths, and here James Jacobs comes, agreeing with me! For shame, Mr. Jacobs!
For the record, I like the idea behind adventure paths, and adventure paths that go from 1-20. I'm about 25% through Savage Tide, and we're picking up speed, not slowing down. I'm just thinking that those who are making PDF's and the like (I know a lot of people want to cash in on Paizo's successes) might want to break free of the 12-part path that Paizo uses by necessity. I really think a, say, eight part path would be a lot better.
My experience with Savage Tide has been that we have fun episodes, but since each episode is one "part" of the campaign, there are parts where it's kind of jolty. As a case in point, the transition between episode 2 and episode 3 kind of comes out of the blue, with most of the group going "Hunh? We have to do *what* now?". With each episode trying to get the PCs into it's particular plot/problem, the game can become a little clunky.
I think an eight-parter (eight long adventures) would be perfect - you have the set-up, the unrelated adventure that builds NPCs, the travel adventure, the scene where the BBEG first fights the PCs, and all that jazz. I think it would probably be easier on the group - even if the AP was overall the same length in playing time as a 12-parter.
Just my 2 cents.
You know, it's funny, I specifically let Paizo off the hook in my rant against 12 part paths, and here James Jacobs comes, agreeing with me! For shame, Mr. Jacobs!
For the record, I like the idea behind adventure paths, and adventure paths that go from 1-20. I'm about 25% through Savage Tide, and we're picking up speed, not slowing down. I'm just thinking that those who are making PDF's and the like (I know a lot of people want to cash in on Paizo's successes) might want to break free of the 12-part path that Paizo uses by necessity. I really think a, say, eight part path would be a lot better.
My experience with Savage Tide has been that we have fun episodes, but since each episode is one "part" of the campaign, there are parts where it's kind of jolty. As a case in point, the transition between episode 2 and episode 3 kind of comes out of the blue, with most of the group going "Hunh? We have to do *what* now?". With each episode trying to get the PCs into it's particular plot/problem, the game can become a little clunky.
I think an eight-parter (eight long adventures) would be perfect - you have the set-up, the unrelated adventure that builds NPCs, the travel adventure, the scene where the BBEG first fights the PCs, and all that jazz. I think it would probably be easier on the group - even if the AP was overall the same length in playing time as a 12-parter.
Just my 2 cents.
RangerWickett
Legend
Hi. Thanks for posting a thread where I get to promote our product guilt-free.
For WotBS, I initially designed the entire storyline, then divided it into adventures. Originally it was going to be 10, but one adventure looked way too long, so I split it in two. And then I thought that one plot thread was not as well resolved as I'd like it to be, plus in a campaign with so much war it was difficult to justify tons of whacky monsters, so I killed two birds by creating another adventure. It's the 10th adventure in the series, so I'm a bit worried that, as James Jacobs said, the later adventures might not generate as much interest. But I think people will take a look at this particular adventure.
Wolfgang Baur is going to be writing it.
As for story arcs, we're arranging the campaign saga so that you can have an early climax after adventure 8 (when the party's around 13th level), but some of the coolest stuff takes place at the high levels. If you use the abridged campaign, the scope of the war is smaller, but the climax is still epic, akin to the grand battle at the end of Return of the Jedi. Ewoks are optional.
For WotBS, I initially designed the entire storyline, then divided it into adventures. Originally it was going to be 10, but one adventure looked way too long, so I split it in two. And then I thought that one plot thread was not as well resolved as I'd like it to be, plus in a campaign with so much war it was difficult to justify tons of whacky monsters, so I killed two birds by creating another adventure. It's the 10th adventure in the series, so I'm a bit worried that, as James Jacobs said, the later adventures might not generate as much interest. But I think people will take a look at this particular adventure.
Wolfgang Baur is going to be writing it.
As for story arcs, we're arranging the campaign saga so that you can have an early climax after adventure 8 (when the party's around 13th level), but some of the coolest stuff takes place at the high levels. If you use the abridged campaign, the scope of the war is smaller, but the climax is still epic, akin to the grand battle at the end of Return of the Jedi. Ewoks are optional.
Last edited:
RangerWickett
Legend
Psion said:I think jump in points would be as (or more) appropriate than jump out points.
Especially if the high level stuff is the coolest.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that specifically. I mean, it's much easier to begin in medias res than to end in it. The former gets the action off quickly, while the latter just leaves you unsatisfied.
Dang, now you've got me thinking. Starting at adventure 8 could work. You'd basically be starting in the middle of a war, undertaking a massive assault mission, and it would be easy enough to change the motivation of some of the bad guys so they don't require background.
Or you could start at adventure 4, where you're working with a nation that is coming under attack, and looking for allies. For that matter, you could end with adventure 4, though in that case you're dodging almost all of the actual warfare. Still, either could work.
Thanks, Alan. I'll make sure the writers include information on how to repurpose those scenarios.
Psion
Adventurer
RangerWickett said:
Well the thing is, I could be just getting done with another game and wondering what to do next. It might be a problem jumping into the middle of a massive war if there wasn't one before. A few hooks to either pull them to where there is one or tell them how it came about and why they weren't involved to this point might be appropriate and helpful.
Along similar lines, if you are going to "splice into" an adventure, I found the techniques employed in Banewarrens very useful. Basically, Banewarrens broke down who the major players were and how you could replace them with pre-existing entities from your own game.
Just a thought.
Drawmack
First Post
jdrakeh said:The War of the Burning Sky? Or life? Here's a link for the former -- if you don't know about life, I'm afraid that you're on your own
LIFE
Similar Threads
