Age of Worms thoughts?

[Herremann the Wise]

To further the OP's question, I wanted to run this for my group in the future, but Shackled City and Red Hand of Doom there were time constraints and deadlines which meant shuffling the party from one section to the next with no breather time to explore their PCs. Does AoW play out silimarly to this or is it more relaxed? they adored SC and RHoD by the way, but did express concerns with the above. Thanks!

-DM Jeff

It depends.

As written, it is reasonably hectic during each module with breathing space in between modules. The trick is to examine all twelve and the connections between them, and work out where extra time can be readily inserted. In addition, you can find places where the urgency can be taken out of a particular scenario to give breathing space for additional roleplaying or scenarios that your players may prefer.

It's possible but it will take you a bit of work and preparation to get to the speed you're after.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Wolfwood2]

Classic D&D adventures don't get much more classic than AoW. I would also ad to the chorus telling you to cover all four of the basics if you expect to survive to the end.

Since we only have four players, that doesn't give a lot of wriggle room. For instance, it doesn't look like we're going to have a straight-out rogue. A bard can sub in for the more social side of a rogue's skill set, but that still means no Trapfinding.

Do we need to depend mostly on found treasure? I'm considering doing a Paladin 3/FighterX type, but I always get scared at the thought of taking all those Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Focus/etc. feats and ending up having to bypass great magical weapons because they aren't my focus.

Then again, I guess the DM could adjust for things like that.

 

[takasi]

It took our group exactly 240 hours to complete this campaign. 60 sessions at 4 hours each.

I would give you a link to our site, but it is filled with spoilers.

 

[wayne62682]

One problem that I have noticed with AoW and Savage Tide as well is that the adventures do seem to be geared towards a "balanced" group, yet are meant for a party of 4. Now it might just be me, but I'm not one to say "This campaign requires a balanced group" and force the players to have one of each major class (I'm of the mindset to let them play what they want)... but the APs seem to punish groups that do not do this. They also seem to encourage optimization since their on the very high end of the "power scale" and a lot of the encounters are super-difficult in context of what the typical party will be.

 

[phindar]

From my experience (I was a player), my group played through about the first 25-30% of AoW. It was around here we found the dungeons were kind of a grind, and we drifted on to other things. This is not to take anything away from those who enjoyed AoW, it just wasn't a good match for our group.

 

[Crust]

I started Age of Worms in the Forgotten Realms setting last April. We play roughly twice a month, and I'm only now starting the second half of the fourth module, "Hall of Harsh Reflections," Dungeon #127. Granted, I threw in a few side quests in there (including Dymrak Dread and Sons of Gruumsh), so we're taking the long road, if you will.

The first five modules are excellent. I'm making some changes to the middle three, and I'm very excited to run the last four.

Age of Worms is great. Enjoy.

 

[James Jacobs]

One problem that I have noticed with AoW and Savage Tide as well is that the adventures do seem to be geared towards a "balanced" group, yet are meant for a party of 4. Now it might just be me, but I'm not one to say "This campaign requires a balanced group" and force the players to have one of each major class (I'm of the mindset to let them play what they want)... but the APs seem to punish groups that do not do this. They also seem to encourage optimization since their on the very high end of the "power scale" and a lot of the encounters are super-difficult in context of what the typical party will be.

One of the man reasons we skew the Adventure Paths to the tough end is that most D&D groups allow more than just the core rues for players, whereas we primarilly draw upon only the core rules for the adventures (with the exception of monsters, which come from all over the place). A character built using more than the core rules will be more specialized and thus better at what he does than one who uses the core rules only. Basically, we're aiming for some magical niche of balance between "right out of the box PCs" and "super-optimized power PCs." Individual DMs should absolutely tweak and modify and adjust the AP (or any published adventure, for that matter) so that it's better suited for his group.

Plus, there's the theory that people remember the tough adventures more fondly than the simple ones. Everyone who's played Tomb of Horrors has stories to tell about that one, for example.

 

[Emirikol]

Late to the party I know, but one of my gaming groups is getting back together after a year apart, and our DM wants to run Age of Worms from start to finish. Without any spoilers, how does it play out? Is it pretty good? How many gaming sessions will it take to get through the whole thing, assuming 4 to 5 hours a session? Also, what kind of party balance does it demand? So far we're looking at psion/bard/cleric/fighter type (possibly paladin). That's pretty up in the air, though.

We're up to the 15th level adventures. We've been running it low magic without difficulty. A balance of palyers is necessary, but because it's about 85% dungeon crawl TANKS and healing are about the only thing you need. The 15% that is "role playing" is not very exciting time-wasting-reporting-to-useless-DMPC's. It has some really cool elements though and your group may begin to like it.

I would advise you, if the DM, to have a recurring villain from the start.

If your group loves dungeon crawls, they're in for a hackfest.

BTW, it takes about 4 hour sessions per adventure. It's pretty much fight/heal/fight/heal/fight/heal/report-to-DMPC.


jh



..

 

[DragonLancer]

One of the man reasons we skew the Adventure Paths to the tough end is that most D&D groups allow more than just the core rues for players, whereas we primarilly draw upon only the core rules for the adventures (with the exception of monsters, which come from all over the place). A character built using more than the core rules will be more specialized and thus better at what he does than one who uses the core rules only. Basically, we're aiming for some magical niche of balance between "right out of the box PCs" and "super-optimized power PCs." Individual DMs should absolutely tweak and modify and adjust the AP (or any published adventure, for that matter) so that it's better suited for his group.

Plus, there's the theory that people remember the tough adventures more fondly than the simple ones. Everyone who's played Tomb of Horrors has stories to tell about that one, for example.

I'm running AoW at the moment, and the party is about two thirds of the way through chapter 2. AoW is a lot tougher than SC was but my guys are enjoying more because of that, so yesh, I have to agree.

 

[Imhotepthewise]

When I play again it will be with a new group. As much as I really like the AoW, it is really gross. It may turn off new players. ST is shaping up to be a much more palatable adventure path.