Campaign Versus Adventurer

[JoeGKushner]

Over at RPG.net, there's a thread that mentioned several Paizo Adventure Paths.

I have the first two and several of the individual adventures. I've played through the old Dungeon Savage Tide, ran Shackled City.

Adventure Paths can be fun, but essentially that's it in terms of the campaign. You can hack, add, etc... but it's quite different than running adventurers that CAN be linked but have weak links to begin with.

What's your preference for an adventure? That it takes over the campaign in order to add its own touches or that it's an individual component that can be ported and played?

And let me know if you're a player or a GM.

 

[Glyfair]

What's your preference for an adventure? That it takes over the campaign in order to add its own touches or that it's an individual component that can be ported and played?

What I would like to see in a published adventure (or rather, series of adventures)....

Set up several series of adventures with some possible links. Design each series so there is "dead space" between the adventures. Maybe the first series have the first adventure run 1st-3rd level, the second adventure 8th-9th and the third adventure 15-16th. Each adventure will have some suggested side paths the PCs or NPCs might have in the "dead space" that the DM can develop on his own.

Each series is designed so that it fits in the other adventure's dead spaces. Also, each adventure series has some suggestions for links to the other paths (which can include an NPC in the various the adventures that could be one NPC or 3 NPCS). Make sure there are "enforced" dead spots for digressions, one offs, exploration of deads ends, or expansions of the adventures.

Basically, you'd have the makings of an Adventure Path, without the lack of flexibility of an Adventure Path. You also don't quite have the somewhat artificial feel of a series of adventures that all tie together. It can work for a TV series, but always seemed somewhat artificial in an RPG (except when there are assumed, but unplayed, adventures between some scenarios).

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm a GM.

I prefer that an adventure is an individual component that can be ported and played.

 

[the Jester]

I like both; however, my ideal for a long linked adventure series is more like G1-2-3 D1-2-3 Q1 than an actual Adventure Path.

I am a dm over 99% of the time.

 

[zenram]

i like more campaigns over adventure paths, however i agree with Glyfair idea, that's a good idea. XD

 

[Corathon]

I'm a DM. I prefer individual adventures.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a fan of pre-done adventure paths. I'd rather either have an open/sandbox campaign, or build my own adventure path from selected adventures.

One advantage of do-it-yourself is that it's easy to add or drop adventures as the campaign progresses, PCs make their decisions, express preferences etc.

 

[Jack7]

Set up several series of adventures with some possible links. Design each series so there is "dead space" between the adventures. Maybe the first series have the first adventure run 1st-3rd level, the second adventure 8th-9th and the third adventure 15-16th. Each adventure will have some suggested side paths the PCs or NPCs might have in the "dead space" that the DM can develop on his own.

Each series is designed so that it fits in the other adventure's dead spaces. Also, each adventure series has some suggestions for links to the other paths (which can include an NPC in the various the adventures that could be one NPC or 3 NPCS). Make sure there are "enforced" dead spots for digressions, one offs, exploration of deads ends, or expansions of the adventures.

Basically, you'd have the makings of an Adventure Path, without the lack of flexibility of an Adventure Path. You also don't quite have the somewhat artificial feel of a series of adventures that all tie together. It can work for a TV series, but always seemed somewhat artificial in an RPG (except when there are assumed, but unplayed, adventures between some scenarios).

That's an excellent set of suggestions.

Port and play for me, as I'd adapt it for my own campaign anyways. I don't think I've ever run a campaign, no matter what the game, that started outside myself.

I'm not a fan of pre-done adventure paths. I'd rather either have an open/sandbox campaign, or build my own adventure path from selected adventures.

One advantage of do-it-yourself is that it's easy to add or drop adventures as the campaign progresses, PCs make their decisions, express preferences etc.

Concur. I'm almost always a DM/GM.

 

[Imban]

Almost always a GM. Adventure paths and big dungeons are some of the only adventures I've ever been tempted to run - the former because they mean I don't have to come up with the entire plot, the latter because I suck at dungeon design.

Dropping individual adventures into my campaign has tended to meet with Fail, since they're either highly lame or make enough assumptions that I can't use them without throwing out half of the campaign or the adventure. Or both.

 

[wayne62682]

I'm a player who fancies being a DM, and I have to say that I enjoy fully encompassing APs the best; as a player there's nothing better for me then to know the theme and tone of the campaign and be able to create a character who fits it as though it was an action movie - if things can change midway through because we did X instead of Y, and now the adventures we have are in a totally different location with totally different creatures, then I feel like there isn't much of a story at all. So I personally love adventures that are very strongly tied to one another, and I strongly dislike the open or "sandbox" campaign.