New adventure path from ENP

[Morrus]

Prevent the rise of a (new or old) evil.
Defeat an established evil.
When the world undergoes changes in some way, ensure that good, rather than evil, profits.

That assumes a Good/Evil dichotomy. What if it were more like real life and about self-interests on a national scale? And that the PCs could be on either side? What if there were no clear Good and Evil?

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Yes to a really cool Vampire Big Bad (preferably as the antagonist for Heroic tier)

Yes to good-intentioned antagonists who want to prevent the PCs from being too powerful and disturb the balance of the universe (preferably on the Epic Tier)

 

[humble minion]

That assumes a Good/Evil dichotomy. What if it were more like real life and about self-interests on a national scale? And that the PCs could be on either side? What if there were no clear Good and Evil?

The glib answer is 'evil is in the eye of the beholder'. From an in-character point of view, according to the PCs, Evil is whatever it is that they're currently fighting against. Why would they take such hideous risks to oppose it otherwise?

As for the other questions - well, I entirely agree in principle, but practically it's a bit more difficult. When you're writing a general AP for a general audience, then do you really want to limit things by deciding the PCs can only be on one side of a morally roughly equivalent conflict? Regarding PCs being on either side - does every module have to account for the possibility that the PCs may change sides at any time? Or even worse, that SOME of the PCs might change sides at any time? You'd end up writing two APs, or even more, trying to cover all the possible bases. I think James Jacobs said that for the sake of the writers' sanity an Adventure Path has to be an Adventure PATH, rather than Adventure Lots Of Little Branching Paths or an Adventure Multiple Possible Paths. How would you have gone writing WotBS if you'd had to assume that the PCs might join up with the Inquisition at any time?

Having a moral dichotomy of sorts (maybe a moral distinction is a better word) is a relatively clean way of nudging the PCs along a set of consecutive modules via their own choices. Sure, it's not how real life works, and it's not even how a good home campaign works, but a published AP doesn't have the luxury of being able to react to the PCs actions as much as a live GM does, when it comes to the overall campaign direction.

 

[pneumatik]

One thing I've noticed running WotBS via pbp is that there are some encounters that feel like they exist just to give PCs x.p. My request for the next adventure path is to write the adventures that tell the story you want to tell and then just sell it to me. If that means it starts at level 4 and ends at level 27, I'm cool with that.

 

[MrAnthropy]

First off, I wanted to say that I began running WotBS for my group last month and we have absolutely loved it so far!

In general, I agree with what others have said regarding ways that Skill Challenges could be improved over what I have seen in the Scouring of Gate Pass. I also think that some care needs to be taken to ensure that the proper tone is maintained through certain sections of each adventure. In Scouring, for instance, I tossed out the "Rescuing KiKi" thing as it just felt jarringly silly when the PCs are trying to race across a city under attack.

I think the idea of a customizable ship/base is something that my group would go for in a heart-beat.

One thing that might be neat would be to include a few (maybe only 5-6) general character backgrounds with mechanical benefits ala PHB2 tied to potential running subplots in the campaign. While these would only be (very?) roughly sketched out--leaving most of the tailoring work to the GM--each could be used to tie different themes you want to emphasize in the story to each character personally. The subplots would pop up in designated 'downtime' as seen in parts of WotBS #3. Something similar to this was used in the Player's Guide and 1st module of Paizo's Curse of the Crimson Throne and I felt that making individual hooks into the campaign part of building each player's character really tied them to the game instantly. On the downside, I can certainly see how this could entail quite a bit of work and might not see use in everyone's game...

 

[renau1g]

The glib answer is 'evil is in the eye of the beholder'. From an in-character point of view, according to the PCs, Evil is whatever it is that they're currently fighting against. Why would they take such hideous risks to oppose it otherwise?

Gold (or preferably Platinum)? Wenches? Power? Those are all things that have spurred one of my PC's on in the past.

 

[TrickyUK]

Morrus - I have both the Player's and Campaign Guide for WotBS and have found them useful. But I am still left with more questions than answers. As humble minion has mentioned, though, it would not be practicle to try and address all possible outcomes.

What I would be looking for is a clear history (something that I found through the forums) and geography - nice map and clear descriptions - ahead of running an adventure path so that I can start to picture the campaign world beyond the current adventure. This is only my preference as I don't have too much time to plan and would appreciate having more familiarity with the campaign world so that I have confidence running any adventure in it. People keep comparing to Pathfinder but PF has it's own campaign setting and while I'm not looking for a complete product of that magnitude, I think that there is still some middle ground between the AP guides for WotBS and a complete setting guide.

I like the idea of not having a clear good vs. evil but also agree that there needs to be a focus so the PCs know where they are heading.

I would also like to see the AP make use of the tier structure of 4e. Some opening heroic adventures allowing the PCs to settle into the world (with subtle hints of a future threat) and then beginning a more substantial quest through the paragon tier (with campaign specific paragon paths?) and then the big reveal, where the PC uncover the true threat and begin an epic destiny (also campaign specific?).

You could also use the Tier structure to target the AP to certain players - I've heard some voices hinting that a full level 1-30 AP can be a little overwhelming or drawn out.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I like how the Eladrin in WotBS aren't on the good-guy-side to begin with. You can try to make them your allies, but they aren't yours by default.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The glib answer is 'evil is in the eye of the beholder'. From an in-character point of view, according to the PCs, Evil is whatever it is that they're currently fighting against. Why would they take such hideous risks to oppose it otherwise?

As for the other questions - well, I entirely agree in principle, but practically it's a bit more difficult. When you're writing a general AP for a general audience, then do you really want to limit things by deciding the PCs can only be on one side of a morally roughly equivalent conflict? Regarding PCs being on either side - does every module have to account for the possibility that the PCs may change sides at any time? Or even worse, that SOME of the PCs might change sides at any time? You'd end up writing two APs, or even more, trying to cover all the possible bases. I think James Jacobs said that for the sake of the writers' sanity an Adventure Path has to be an Adventure PATH, rather than Adventure Lots Of Little Branching Paths or an Adventure Multiple Possible Paths. How would you have gone writing WotBS if you'd had to assume that the PCs might join up with the Inquisition at any time?

Having a moral dichotomy of sorts (maybe a moral distinction is a better word) is a relatively clean way of nudging the PCs along a set of consecutive modules via their own choices. Sure, it's not how real life works, and it's not even how a good home campaign works, but a published AP doesn't have the luxury of being able to react to the PCs actions as much as a live GM does, when it comes to the overall campaign direction.

I think there are some branching opportunities that can get less complicated. Maybe 2 groups are competing over a specific area (say, a kind of treasure hunt) - it doesn't matter which side you on, you will still have to engage the same puzzles and monsters guarding that treasure. The bigger variation points are your motivation and your possible reward - and maybe a few encounters where you fight the other side's team. (Which could actually be the same in either scenario, actually, assuming they are just hired help.)

Possible setup:
- A dungeon with two entrances on opposing sides. The dungeon houses an McGuffin sought by two factions.
- Faction A is aware of one possible entrance, maybe posessing a password to convince the guardian there to let the players through.
- Faction B has found the sigil sequence of a portal inside the dungeon.
- Faction A offers the PCs the loot they get and a good reputation, possibly to get aid at a later time. The McGuffin in their hands could end an internal conflict and avert a Civil War.
- Faction B offers the PCs lots of money (plus the loot) and a valuable information. They need the McGuffin for magical research to cure a painful disease that has afflicted the Faction's leader.
- The two factions are not necessarily directly opposed normally, but the McGuffin can be used by only one. (Or can it? Maybe the PCs can figure out something better, a third way?)

The choices of the PCs could be reflected over the course of the adventure path. The aid of Faction A might help them solve a conflict. The information from Faction B might give them easier access to a particular area. Not helping Faction A might lead to a nation being in disarray and giving a villain additional resources in a particular scenario. Not helping Faction B might be leading to someone with a grudge against the PCs that will come back to haunt them later.

 

[KidSnide]

Tricky, what do you think of as 4e's strengths?

This was directed at Tricky, but I'll jump in to say that - at least for me - the strengths of 4e are:

* Interesting set piece battles. I'm not opposed to having one or two regular fights per level, just to make sure there is enough action and so that the PCs get to use all their powers. But, mostly, each fight should be to accomplish a purpose and should involve some sort of interesting opponent, terrain or situation.

* Fun powers. The PCs get a lot of fun powers as they level up. There should be feats, prestige classes and maybe some special powers to tie the game world into the characters. (Also, as I noted above, there needs to be enough combat that the PCs get a chance to use their combat powers.)

* Flexible adventuring days. Because 4e can better handle a large or small number of encounters per day, the AP can focus on story / world concerns more than resource management.

* Skill Challenges. OK, as published by WotC, skill challenges are a poor mechanic, but there is a lot to be said for a mechanism to handle non-combat encounters with more than a single die roll. I've had a lot of fun with the Gate Pass skill challenges (OK, with some editing... and my players skipped Kiki). I found the key is to have enough information in the skill challenge about what is going on in-game so that the players can engage the in-game problem that their character's are working rather than the out-of-game problem of just getting the right skills in play. I'm not sure I have the math right, but I tend to use +/- 5 or 10 modifiers for particularly good or bad ideas. Yes, the modifiers are huge, but you want identifying a great in-game solution to be the optimal way to solve the challenge.

...and, of course, there are also WotBS's strengths: meaningful decisions, interesting NPCs, shades-of-gray morality, flavorful world, non-dungeon-crawl. It would be nice to better use the strengths of 4e, but don't lose what makes WotBS great!

-KS