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

[Coldwyn]

I keep seeing that meme and dont quite see it. ,amy of the U series modules fit quite well into something like Ptolus.

As for the others, I can see them fitting quite well, but takes a touch of work. The AP's on the other hand, dont really, butthen again, their AP's....

Consider that for most, APs are the core Paizo thing, the rest not even a close second. Also, speaking from what I´ve seen in some european contries, the AP mdoules are readily availlable in FLGSs, the Game Mastery modules ain´t.

 

[Mistwell]

If only WOTC outsourced modules to Morrus and EnWorld, we could have a dozen "War of the Burning Sky" type 4e modules and adventure paths that would at least be on par with Paizo.

And yes, I would rank War of the Burning Sky 4e as at least as good as anything Paizo put out as far as adventures.

 

[Dire Bare]

Did they actually create all those themselves? Or are you counting LFR and DDI?

Unless I am missing something, there just are not alof of modules outside of those areas. Maybe that is where it is at now? I don't know.

Regardless of the source: standalone adventure, Dungeon adventure (DDI), or LFR adventure . . . . yes, they do them all themselves!

I consider the LFR modules a bit obscure to the average gamer, but the DDI modules are quite easily accessible.

So, yes, WotC puts out TONS of adventures. I like many of them, dislike a few, but overall I think they do a pretty good job.

 

[MerricB]

I think if I was a big Greyhawk fan, I might have a different reaction.

No, not really. I'm a big Greyhawk fan, but Tamoachan isn't Greyhawk to me. It's too far away from the heartland of Greyhawk.

You need to be a Tamoachan fan rather than a Greyhawk fan.

Cheers!

 

[KidSnide]

And yes, I would rank War of the Burning Sky 4e as at least as good as anything Paizo put out as far as adventures.

I'm going to throw in a "me too" by saying that War of the Burning Sky looks like the most interesting adventure path I've read, whether from WotC or from Paizo. It doesn't have the polish of either company's products, but the combination of flavor and flexibility is fantastic.

As far as WotC modules go, I find the little ones useful. I'm a big fan of the Chaos Scar modules, not because the Chaos Scar is particularly compelling (it's not), but because they are little one session adventures that have just a little more going on than a totally plot-free delve. Building a campaign on a WotC adventure path seems like a lot less fun. If nothing else, WotC doesn't give you enough material up-front to help your players build characters tied closely enough to the AP so that it feels like it's their story.

I think I'd enjoy a Paizo AP, but if I'm going to spend time killing monsters I'd rather do it with the 4e combat system. (And, if I'm going to spend time converting, I'll just write my own material...)

-KS

 

[Snoweel]

Building a campaign on a WotC adventure path seems like a lot less fun. If nothing else, WotC doesn't give you enough material up-front to help your players build characters tied closely enough to the AP so that it feels like it's their story.

Why not come from the other direction then?

Tie the AP to your characters' backstories. It's bare-bones enough that it's extremely easy to do. I did it in my last campaign.

 

[SSquirrel]

Just finished page 1, but for me I wouldn't stop at saying all WotC D&D adventures have been poor. Most D&D adventures period have been poor, by and large. Yes there have been some excellent exceptions over the years, but mostly they were not enjoyable.

I think WotC has gone the route they felt was best suite to their product and Paizo does what works best for Golarion. Can't fault either really, I'll just save my cash and not buy any of the adventures

 

[Dice4Hire]

Just finished page 1, but for me I wouldn't stop at saying all WotC D&D adventures have been poor. Most D&D adventures period have been poor, by and large. Yes there have been some excellent exceptions over the years, but mostly they were not enjoyable.

I think WotC has gone the route they felt was best suite to their product and Paizo does what works best for Golarion. Can't fault either really, I'll just save my cash and not buy any of the adventures

Overall this is my feeling laso. I don't mind stealing bits form modules, but I rarely see one I want to run as-is. And even if I intend to run it as-is, I usually end up changing things in the middle to make things fit my players better.

 

[rjdafoe]

Regardless of the source: standalone adventure, Dungeon adventure (DDI), or LFR adventure . . . . yes, they do them all themselves!

I consider the LFR modules a bit obscure to the average gamer, but the DDI modules are quite easily accessible.

So, yes, WotC puts out TONS of adventures. I like many of them, dislike a few, but overall I think they do a pretty good job.

I guess I assumed modules as in what you could buy in a store. Although to be honest, I have not used most modules in a while. My group tends to do our own thing.

 

[KidSnide]

Building a campaign on a WotC adventure path seems like a lot less fun. If nothing else, WotC doesn't give you enough material up-front to help your players build characters tied closely enough to the AP so that it feels like it's their story.

Why not come from the other direction then?

Tie the AP to your characters' backstories. It's bare-bones enough that it's extremely easy to do. I did it in my last campaign.

A fair point, although I feel like it would be a lot of work to edit the current Dungeon AP if, for example, you decided to replace all the extra-planar material with something about your PCs.

It's much easier to say, "We're going to run War of the Burning Sky. Here's the PC guide. Make sure you create a character who will be motivated to (A) defend Gate Pass, (B) defeat Ragesia or (C) maintain balance in the world."

-KS