Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

[delericho]

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't dislike 4e's fluff on the grounds that it is different. I dislike it because it's shallow, uninteresting, and dry trash that lacks imagination.

Of course, if the existing fluff is so bad, why would you want more of it?

Arguably, the 'better' the fluff in a product is, the harder it will be for the DM to use - better fluff will tend to be much more specific, and the more specific it is the less likely it is to match exactly what you'll need. Yes, the option will always be there to simply strip it out completely... but if you're doing that anyway, what is the point in having the fluff at all?

So, to a large extent, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Rechan]

My experience with 4e modules is that many of the fights are redundant or pointless. They don't contribute to/emphasize the overall feel of the adventure, it's more like they are used to punctuate parts of the adventure. Pointless, forgettable combats if you will.

This is my experience with all adventures everywhere.

Most published adventures assume that the adventure will get you at least one level up. For 3e, that was 13 fights. For 4e that's 10.

You can't tell me that every encounter in the 3e modules contribute/emphasize the adventure's feel, and the 10 in 4e for every level doesn't?

 

[Chrono22]

This is my experience with all adventures everywhere.

Most published adventures assume that the adventure will get you at least one level up. For 3e, that was 13 fights. For 4e that's 10.

You can't tell me that every encounter in the 3e modules contribute/emphasize the adventure's feel, and the 10 in 4e for every level doesn't?

Are we talking good modules or the standard?
Good modules, yes. Standard modules in most editions don't meet my expectations.

Of course, if the existing fluff is so bad, why would you want more of it?

Bad fluff according to-? Bad fluff can be hand waved away, ignored, or replaced. Not including it doesn't really save a DM any effort. If he likes it he'd keep it. If he doesn't he won't.

Arguably, the 'better' the fluff in a product is, the harder it will be for the DM to use - better fluff will tend to be much more specific, and the more specific it is the less likely it is to match exactly what you'll need. Yes, the option will always be there to simply strip it out completely... but if you're doing that anyway, what is the point in having the fluff at all?

The same can be applied to any rule, guideline, or optional element. If you have to work to make something match your style, you do so to make it fun. The effort it takes to create fluff spontaneously is greater than the effort it takes to convert existing fluff. The converse is much harder- removing pointless time-wasting combats from the adventure changes the difficulty- less combats mean less loot and exp.

So, to a large extent, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

According to who? There is a middle ground. Now if only they'd work in it...

 

[Coldwyn]

Bedtime stories make for excellent adventures.

My experience with 4e modules is that many of the fights are redundant or pointless. They don't contribute to/emphasize the overall feel of the adventure, it's more like they are used to punctuate parts of the adventure. Pointless, forgettable combats if you will.

It's a sliding scale- for every unnecessary combat that is included, space is taken up that could be used to make the adventures more engaging, interesting, and memorable. Combat by itself is not enough to make an adventure good.

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't dislike 4e's fluff on the grounds that it is different. I dislike it because it's shallow, uninteresting, and dry trash that lacks imagination.

It all depends on who the stuff is intended for and how modifieable it is, right?

I for one really don´t care about the most elaborate monster ecology entries if I don´t use them anyways or have to modify them to fit into the adventure/plot/homebrew world.

Same holds true for the WotC Adeventures. I buy one, read it and then modify it to fit the campaign world used, the Players´Characters, earlier happenings in the campaign and so on.

Take Legacy of Fire as an example - I feel put in a straightjacket there. Too much useless DM-Information that I can either read (and forget) while taking the subway t work and which is either a pain in the ass the meaningful integrate into the story and share it with my players, or that I have to rework from scratch, while not knowing what the next issue will bring on to "ruin" my meddling with it.

If you see this as shallow, ok, that´s differences in opinion. but I see it as a functional basis to expand on without being troubling.

 

[Snoweel]

Run as-is, they're often disappointing.

This.

There's enough room in those modules to incorporate personalised hooks for your particular PCs, and really, they're the ones who drive the story. As a DM your job is to tailor the adventure to the PCs you've got. It's not hard, especially when you've got space in the module backstory to do it.

OTOH, modules with too much backstory almost ask for pregen PCs. Shoehorning existing PCs into them can feel clunky and forced.

Arguably, the 'better' the fluff in a product is, the harder it will be for the DM to use - better fluff will tend to be much more specific, and the more specific it is the less likely it is to match exactly what you'll need.

True.

For example, the Pathfinder stuff. I've tried to use it in my homebrew, but it's so integrated, so well tied together, so setting specific that I just can't use it other than as-is. And I don't want to run the entire AP, and I don't want to run my game in Golarion, as excellent as I think it is.

Those serial numbers aren't just engraved on; they're stamped all the way through the barrel. No amount of filing will get them off.

Makes nice reading material though.

The effort it takes to create fluff spontaneously is greater than the effort it takes to convert existing fluff.

So not true.

Not for me at least, and clearly not for many other posters here.

MY PCs already have their own stories going on, and in a backstory-heavy module, the assumption is that the PCs have nothing else happening.

I think people who want fluffier adventures really want a campaign setting, which I guess is what Paizo's APs are.

 

[delericho]

Bad fluff according to-?

Um, according to you, in the post I quoted.

Take Legacy of Fire as an example - I feel put in a straightjacket there. Too much useless DM-Information that I can either read (and forget) while taking the subway t work and which is either a pain in the ass the meaningful integrate into the story and share it with my players, or that I have to rework from scratch, while not knowing what the next issue will bring on to "ruin" my meddling with it.

I certainly felt with "Legacy of Fire" (and also "Second Darkness") that I would either run the campaign as-is, essentially as a 'campaign in a box', or not at all. There would be no adapting it to fit my world or my style - if it was good enough to run I would, otherwise I would leave it.

Which I think is a fair enough approach, actually. In fact, I might be interested in even more "out there" Adventure Path products of that type - if I'm running it as-is then it doesn't matter to me if the setting is a generic fantasy world, or a jungle world filled with blue-skinned aliens, or a land of floating islands in space, or... As long as I have everything I need to run the game included in "the box", and as long as the path itself is compelling enough, I'm happy.

 

[Dannager]

Bedtime stories make for excellent adventures.

My experience with 4e modules is that many of the fights are redundant or pointless. They don't contribute to/emphasize the overall feel of the adventure, it's more like they are used to punctuate parts of the adventure. Pointless, forgettable combats if you will.

It's a sliding scale- for every unnecessary combat that is included, space is taken up that could be used to make the adventures more engaging, interesting, and memorable. Combat by itself is not enough to make an adventure good.

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't dislike 4e's fluff on the grounds that it is different. I dislike it because it's shallow, uninteresting, and dry trash that lacks imagination.

You clearly see combat as a means to illustrating the story, and little more. While combat can be part of the illustration of the story, that's not all it's there for. Combat for its own sake is a huge part of the game.

And really, you would be hard-pressed to find an adventure that didn't contain combat encounters that were either redundant or non-essential to the story. Speaking as someone who actively converts Paizo adventure paths - which are often cited as spectacular examples of quality adventures - I can rattle off two dozen encounters off the top of my head that do little or nothing to help move the story along. Everyone does it, because combat encounters are more than story devices. Combat is designed to be fun for its own sake.

 

[Coldwyn]

I certainly felt with "Legacy of Fire" (and also "Second Darkness") that I would either run the campaign as-is, essentially as a 'campaign in a box', or not at all. There would be no adapting it to fit my world or my style - if it was good enough to run I would, otherwise I would leave it.

Which I think is a fair enough approach, actually. In fact, I might be interested in even more "out there" Adventure Path products of that type - if I'm running it as-is then it doesn't matter to me if the setting is a generic fantasy world, or a jungle world filled with blue-skinned aliens, or a land of floating islands in space, or... As long as I have everything I need to run the game included in "the box", and as long as the path itself is compelling enough, I'm happy.

I wouldn´t refer to it as a "campaign-in-a-box" (see below why). Inclusing Snoweels response concerning pregen characters, I´d rather compare Pathfinder stuff to japanese console rpgs like final fantasy. It´s a nice and polished rollercoaster ride but player creativity and interaction spoil the scenery.

An Out-of-the-box campaign with a sandbox feeling to it, on the other hand, can be a great experience, if done right. We had a great time with Boxes like Star Wars´s Dark Stryder Campaign or the Night Below.

Ultimately it can stiffle the actual role playing by being spponfed with fluff, no matetr how good it is when it doesn´t integrate players wishes and ambitions.

 

[Snoweel]

Combat is designed to be fun for its own sake.

I'm continually amazed at how many D&D players seem to miss this point. As though the PCs only get into a fight because they didn't roleplay properly.

Combat is great fun, and I think combat in 4e is the most fun of any edition.

 

[Rechan]

For me, modules are for tearing apart and using the pieces you like. I've not met a module I didn't need to overhaul in some fashion.