Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="roguerouge" data-source="post: 5133484" data-attributes="member: 13855">0. I want to emphasize that I endorse your products here at the drop of a hat. This is written by an active supporter. 1. Design 1 high-level module for your system, internally play-test it, rewrite it, then release it. This is the area of PfRPG that got the least feedback and testing. And it's fairly clear that it is the area for which your editorial staff has the least interest. If you want to know how your system plays in the end game of campaigns, however, there's few better ways to find out.2. I agree with Rechan. Something's going wrong in your AP design: routinely your fans are extremely excited about the first two-three adventures then go ballistic about your fourth and fifth adventures. Examples with spoilers :[spoiler]Curse of the Crimson Throne features five awesome adventures undermined by: Skeletons of Scarwall (CotCT), great dungeon crawl but bad design--too little reward for too big a distraction from the AP's main appeal of an urban campaign. One module outside the city was fine; two meant that the PCs never got to run the resistance movement, which happened off-screen. The fact that you have three "invade the heavily guarded castle-like structures in a row over the last two installations doesn't help. The fact that the climactic battle is also not in the city that the PCs work so hard to defend is a problem as well. Second Darkness: The problems show up early this time, after two good early adventures, with the giant choo-choo train of "Armageddon Echo" to the extremely underwritten Underdark city of "Endless Night" and ending with the mass battle of a bazillion high level casters and demons in "A Memory of Darkness". The fact that the fifth installment includes a number of different NPCs so depressed that they're written to discourage interaction with the PCs doesn't help.Legacy of Fire: Absolutely stellar opening three modules followed by... consecutive modules in which the PCs are trapped on a plane and have to get out. Then everything's back on track for the last installment. Basically, it reads like the designers wanted a four installment path: 1-3, 6. Very little would be lost by saying "Time passes" and skipping two of those modules. That's a problem because you're losing the players just when the narrative climax should be approaching. Council of Thieves: Awful first adventure with unpopular map design followed by very innovative theater module. Great work! But it takes three full adventures to solve the problem of wandering monsters in the city, a problem which the opening pages of the first module points the party. And you have an adventure in Cheliax in which the Hellknights and Church of Asmodeus are tertiary figures. And, for a resistance movement, there's an awful lot of reacting going on here. Kingmaker: Everyone's very, very excited by this sandbox AP concept. We all want you to put out the 3P version of classic 1E adventures. It should be a hoot. But I worry. All I have to do is read the summaries of the last three installments to suspect that fans will go ballistic again. The fourth and fifth installment summaries seem to provide solid motivation for the PCs to travel to other lands, but when combined with the sixth module, it will become problematic. Why? Because the final adventure gives every indication of a climactic end in a different dimension. Instead of, you know, the kingdom the Kingmakers made. So, it's Curse of the Crimson Throne and Legacy of Fire all over again.[/spoiler]I can think of two solutions to the AP design problem. First, Paizo's design team has a long, long track record of promising one kind of AP experience, giving it, then delivering another one by installment 4 or 5. Embrace the fact that some APs are going to be have their fun based in providing breadth, travel and an epic scope, while other APs take one area and bring it alive. It doesn't seem like your editorial staff can quite commit to that concept that not every AP needs to shake things up. Not everything has to be Dr. Who, where every adventure's in a new land. Sometimes, Deep Space Nine or Angel is just fine. Second, where is it written that every AP has to be 6 issues long? Why can't some of them be four issues long? Why can't the material determine how long the path will be? I understand that there's probably manufacturing and business model reasons for it, but I feel like you have to start being wary of watering down the quality of your core product.3. When asked on this web site to provide recommendations to individual modules, I've not felt compelled to speak up for anything you published after the new edition was made. You need a signature module for your edition. 4. Take a sabbatical and study how successful companies adapt to rapid growth. You've added a lot on your plate, with stories, and game aids, and modules, and fan-authored short modules, and conventions, and writing an adaptation of a new edition, and managing all the hassles of a web community, and how all of that increases the complexity of management, accounting and manufacturing sides of your operation. It's no wonder that your APs are starting to miss some big picture issues: you're probably surfing from deadline to deadline, crisis to crisis. Fortunately, other companies have gone through these very same growing pains. Learn from their experiences.</blockquote>

Verification