A Thing I Don't Like About Adventure Paths

[hedgeknight]

you can see there are several factions all trying to achieve a goal. and the goal is a BBEGal unto herself.

who can free her or keep her locked up or banish her or reap the rewards from selling to other sides or...

plenty, plenty of opportunities.


still i hate T1-4. it is by far the worst module TSR put out for 1edADnD. not the worst product from the day. The Shady Dragon Inn still holds that honor.

edit: the problem with T1-4 is the options. too many open ended ones. which don't play a part in the goal. meaning for the PCs to complete they need to have a strong focus from start to finish.

I am currently running ToEE for 2nd edition and am loving the flexibility within the module to tailor it as I wish. I hate being railroaded as a player and hate doing the same to my players; although we all know there is a certain amount of it in the game.
I am particularly enjoying EGG's unique descriptions and chapter introductions in the module; he lays out the adventure and let's it unravel as dictated by the players moves. As a DM, that's a challenge for me and keeps my players on their toes.

AP's in general are exciting because there is so much gaming information to either use directly or mine for your own game. What deters me from starting one is expense and the time it would take to complete it (I don't have a f2f group; all of my gaming is online these days).

 

[Chainsaw]

(I don't have a f2f group; all of my gaming is online these days).

You in Charlotte?

 

[hedgeknight]

You in Charlotte?

No, in Wilmington.
Closest gaming group (a Pathfinder Society one, I believe) is in Raleigh.

 

[Chainsaw]

No, in Wilmington.
Closest gaming group (a Pathfinder Society one, I believe) is in Raleigh.

Man, oh well. Good luck.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Shouldn't a given hero have more than one bad guy in him? Superheroes have more than one archnemesis. Granted, Luke only fought the Empire, but Kirk dealt with Klingons, Romulans and Khan.

Luke had more than one arch-nemesis. In Episode IV, the arch-nemesis was Darth Vader, one of the great villains in movie history. In Episode V, it was also Vader. However, in Episode VI, it was revealed that behind Vader was an even more powerful bad guy in Emperor Palpatine. So, even if Vader had been killed at the end of Episode V, Luke still would have had to have a showdown with the Emperor.

Granted, if you keep having new & more powerful BBEGs, then your players will likely get frustrated - imagine if behind the Emperor, there was another even more powerful Sith Lord, and then another one after that, and so on? Kind of ruins the uniqueness of Vader that way.

I don't own any complete adventure paths, but I would imagine you can tailor them enough where you can have a running main villain that is behind the scenes, or maybe too powerful to challenge at lower levels ("they say his constant bodyguard is a horned devil...") so the players know they have to gain in strength & power (PC fighter: "Wow, I just got my 2nd attack!") in order to challenge the ultimate BBEG.

 

[Morrus]

I have to disagree with the initial premise as the publisher of an adventure path with three equally main bad guys (none of whom are on the same side as each other). The players effectively pick which one they hate the most, but they have to deal with all three - and can actually ally with two of the three! It's a very grey moral area series where nobody is completely good or completely evil.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I have to disagree with the initial premise as the publisher of an adventure path with three equally main bad guys (none of whom are on the same side as each other). The players effectively pick which one they hate the most, but they have to deal with all three - and can actually ally with two of the three! It's a very grey moral area series where nobody is completely good or completely evil.

That sounds interesting - may I ask which AP that is?

 

[Jack99]

That sounds interesting - may I ask which AP that is?

War of the Burning Sky

 

[Than]

I'm playing in a home brew game where rifts are opeining across the world due the the bringing together of ancient tablets and it would seem to have more than one BBEG.....

Although as i'm not DM'in it, only time will tell.

I suppose though adventure path campaigns differ from home brew ones that can be completely open ended ?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Rather than playing an entire 20 to 30 level path that is all about one overarching plot, I prefer a campaign structured with many different unconnected adventures, even as some connect to others. Lanefan's model is pretty good, but since I've started thinking about it, I realize that I prefer something with even more different plot lines dangling around in it.

I don't mind APs focusing on the machinations of one BBEG (although I do agree multiple BBEGs liven things up), but lately I, too, have been thinking about strongly focused APs are on the central plot. I'm not sure if I need or want *every* adventure in the AP to focus on the AP's core story. I think that touching upon the central plot three to five times per tier would be enough, and it would allow DMs to develop plots outside the central plot (side quests, one-offs, etc.)

Which brings up another thing- part of the reason that I think we see more APs these days is the speed of character advancement. Back in the day, you could complete a module or two without seeing a level gain. Nowadays it is pretty standard to gain 2-3 levels in a single adventure. That's good in some ways- it gets frustrating never gaining a level- but bad in others- there isn't enough time to really develop a bunch of threats of the same few levels.

Yeah, I think the model I'm moving towards is to have PCs level up once (maybe twice) per adventure. You could do this in 4e easily enough with 6ish encounters and making up the difference with quest xp.