Wik
First Post
Your DM has to be willing to adjust.p
Oh, I adjusted the hell out of the adventure.

That's going to be as true for Abyss as it is for Runelords or Worms. Some parties wind up lacking in one area, others wind up having unforeseen synergy that makes certain encounters trivial. In either case, the DM has to be able to adjust by either tweaking the party (adding an NPC to cover some healing, for example, or adding an important 'escort' NPC that the party has to worry about keeping alive.)
That's not my problem with RotRL. I dislike how insanely rail-roady it is. How most of the good stuff in the adventure is buried in location descriptions, and not in the adventure itself. How the very best things about it are when the adventure gives the PCs a chance to fail - the rest of the time, it's just kind of boring. I mean, you don't even know the name of the main villain to module, what, four? five? We played the whole thing, and the players have no real idea of what the adventure is actually about.
Some groups may have the good fortune to be able to run a series of adventures as written, but my experience has been that even the best module needs to be tweaked to suit your party.
We play in a lot of adventures completely as written. And have a blast. RotRL fails (for me) not because of the mechanics (though there are some issues) but because the story itself is flat after a few levels. And if I'm buying an adventure that big, I want it to cover a lot of ground, because if I have to do a bunch of work to to make it suit my party... I'll just write my own.
So far, wotc is batting .500 right now for their adventures. So OotA is gonna be a coin toss. Fair enough. But Paizo modules are pretty consistently not my cup of tea. Over-written NPCs, adventure sites where the PCs are expected to hit every encounter (often in order), and huge swaths of background text that has no written-in means of being relayed to the PCs. Not to mention the sheer rulesiness of their products that makes running them a headache.