| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 05:45:45
I would very much like to see some Forgotten Realms Adventure Paths, and A great deal more modules.
However, I am referring to *roughly* how Paizo does them (or better, how 2e FR did them), and not how WotC did modules in 4e and at the end of 3e (which was absolutely terrible). I don't want to see the module filled with dungeon tiles on every page. I don't want to be swamped with statblocks. I don't want the whole thing to be written in like size 24 font.
I want a module, with some large scale maps (and perhaps player handouts. I want creatures whose stats will be in a bestiary to just tell me which type of creature it is. For NPCs, a couple lines would be awesome. Maybe let me grab a web enhancement online with all the statblocks in a PDF. That way you can sell me modules and those modules are of use to me (and you're still getting my money) even if I don't like your current edition of the ruleset (which I might, or might not - I also like RuneQuest 6 and Pathfinder). At this point its not inconceivable that D&D fans will not be willing to play 5e. Maybe they're diehard 4e, Pathfinder, 3.x, or 2e Clone fans. Do you want their money? You should. You shouldn't screw yourself out of customers out of spite.
If they can do so without putting game mechanics in the books, and perhaps set in various time periods and locations, that would be even better.
Would anybody else like this? Anything you would suggest differently than what I would like to see happen? |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 19:16:58
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You don't mean Eric me, do you? I didn't work on those adventures.
I'd like to see Adventure *Sites* more than Adventure Paths--a place to set adventures, rather than a specific scenario. The 4e Loudwater chapter wasn't the best, but the basic structure was useful.
Cheers
Heh, I've used that place twice for starting adventures in the Realms! One with 4E written as-is and another for playtesting D&D:Next, set in 1374 DR. Then, in my Realms, the Zhentarim have been actively taking over the city as "Protectors" from the evil Goblins, Kobolds, and Orcs that still hunt in the nearby High Forest. I also like the fact that the NPCs are detailed without ANY mechanics what-so-ever. Curuvar, the Brazen is a magician/magic-user but that's as far as it goes and that's the way it should be. He could be a Wizard. He could be a Sorcerer. He could be a "witch". He could be an old Swordmage. He could be a hybrid Wizard|Psion. THAT part is left up to me as DM and that is something I want to continue with how NPCs are written in future supplements. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 19:11:44
You don't mean Eric me, do you? I didn't work on those adventures.
I'd like to see Adventure *Sites* more than Adventure Paths--a place to set adventures, rather than a specific scenario. The 4e Loudwater chapter wasn't the best, but the basic structure was useful.
Cheers |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 19:10:26
I actually liked the Cormyr-Shadowdale-Anauroch adventure path. We played through 2/3 of it and would have finished it if the Anauroch: Empire of Shade adventure were a lower price than the $55.00 it sells for online. And that's the cheapest I could find used an in OK condition.
As for D&D:Next, a multi-edition approach would be interesting but I'm a realist and I have a strong assumption that any game material produced after D&D:next will ultimately fall onto that system mechanics. For one, it would probably confuse newer players just getting into D&D:next if there were multiple "plugs" for non-D&D:next edition to get shoehorned into the adventure; and for another WotC would probably assume that experienced D&D players can make the conversion themselves. I've been doing it for the past 12 years and I haven't really run into any snags. However, for me it's easier to convert 3E to 4E than it is 2E with 3E *shrugs*.
For how the adventures are designed, I've only played in a few Pathfinder adventure paths and I find that I like them well enough. There's a good amount of 'adult' content to keep my interests piqued as well as play up unique and funny parts as well (like goblin tactics to throw PCs into molten glass).
The layout is also another concern. I know a LOT of people don't like the "Encounters" style layout where you have pages of adventure and then have to reference page. XX for the battle that might ensue. And that page has monster stats and all that stuff. It can get annoying flipping back and forth trying to juggle the battle's aspets but consistantly referring to another page for detail and content. OTOH, with out a stat-block it means the DM needs multiple books open to run adventures and that just stinks. I HATE having to reference the PHB for a bad-guys spell list, the Monster Manual for a monster's ability or HP or saves, the DMG for possible magical items they might use, AND the adventure booklet as well. 1 or 2 books maxium. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 18:49:08
Adventure paths seem to be very popular, even as the anti-'railroading' dogma persists in online discussions, but I don't think the concept fits the Realms very well. First, because its 'native' campaign style is based not on a single path but on multiple plot threads and player-driven events, as most recently expressed here, and I'd like to see adventure material tailored to that style. Also because the travelogue type of scenario tends to play down physical and cultural distance, and again, I'd rather see adventure material that focuses on rooted history and power dynamics and the concerns of local inhabitants. The Cormyr-Shadowdale-Anauroch adventures suffer from both these deficiencies (Shadowdale, thanks to Eric's efforts, much less). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 18:24:03
You mean do what paizo used to do - provide a separte, world-specific conversion for each Adventure Path?
Because, as a DM I think those are wonderful, but as a fan of FR (or any specific setting) I have to ask, which world is it canon for?
The only way around that, I think, is to continue forward with what they were doing with the Feywild and Shadowfel (and my own Æthervale concept) - have 'dungeons' that take place in a transitive plane-like region that can be accessed from multiple worlds. They should still produce the world-specific adventures (probably just EB & FR in 5e), but 'core' adventures should all be set in one of those" right next door" planes so that the lore form them becomes self-contained, and can be canon for all worlds.
For instance, I think the entire non-setting core material and Nentir Vale stuff could all be placed in the Æthervale - a border-ethereal style plane that is like Ed and C.S. Lewis' Wood between the Worlds. Thus, if you want to adventure there, you can enter it from Faerûn, Krynn, Greyhawk, Eberron, etc... even Golarion. DM's don't have to worry about where to place it in their worlds, because it is all located 'in another dimension'. That ends the canon conundrum right there - it becomes self-contained, and yet multi-spheric all at once.
The fun part of that is that it not only works perfectly as the new D&D core setting, but it is also the 'gateway' to all other planes - you would have to cross through 'the vale' to get to Faerie (Feywild), the Shadowfel, the 'realms of the dead' (lower planes, or even upper in some cases), etc. You turn FR's concept of The Road of Stars & Shadows into the Æthervale - the portals become their own transitive plane (like 'The Ways' in the Wheel of Time novels). Something very much like this was done in the first Moonshae series - the characters cut through a section of Faerie to get somewhere else (and it also ties into Lythari lore - perhaps those elves can sense where the veil between the worlds is thinnest).
And it also works as an easy way to get your PCs to other worlds - if you want to run some of those old-school GH or DL adventures with your FR characters, just travel across 'the Vale' and you can be anywhere. It really is the perfect way to finally achieve their "One rules to rule them all" concept - don't have core D&D be a world - have it be a gateway to all worlds. Then every other company's setting becomes a part of yours.
But that doesn't mean I don't want to still see world-specific adventure paths, especially in FR.  |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 17:52:32
4e did something similar to the drop-ins with the Dungeon Delve book. Some years ago, I proposed a FR specific dungeon delve book, but no dice.
Here's what is like to see: a set of short (that is, 1-2 session) FR adventures, which have story attached that can be revamped for any setting, and several encounters (like a short dungeon or keep or ambush in the woods) which can be re-tinkered. I would absent it from the mechanics (let you pick your own) or publish them as dnd-next with the option to get previous edition mechanics online.
Cheers |
| Marc |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 17:42:24
Modules and small adventuring sites are too generic, FR adventure paths would be ideal. The lore that is campaign related a lot more useful than some random article. I'd change a few things from Paizo's format, replace the short stories for bigger bestiaries, or at least include the NPC's from the adventure in the story to show how they talk. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 21:45:06
YUP! that was it. Thanks. 
That book saved my hide a couple of times. Or rather, my bro-in-laws when his group was meeting and he had nothing prepared, and asked me to 'guest DM'.
When I read through a product like that (or just about any FR product for that matter), I always get my own ideas about where to place it, how to expand it, and how to just plain use it. I am sure everyone does that - we put our own spin on things. So when I need something quick, I can pick up a book like that, and flip through the pages and find something I once had some thoughts about and make it into something fun for a single session.
I do not prefer that type of presentation for setting lore, but as a DM, I find such resources invaluable. I suppose everything has its proper place. I probably get less mileage out of resources I enjoy, which isn't so strange when you think about it. For instance, I love any and all lore about the Shining South, yet I've never run anything there.
Go figure. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 21:22:32
Understandable. I always find it easier to re-work modules because all the hard work of flavor text, room descriptions and such are done for a person already.
Are you thinking of Lords of Darkness 1E? That had undead in it like Alokkair and some really good info and adventure hooks.
I think the Wizards website and possibly even DDI would be perfect for player handout type options. Any map used in an adventure should be available to download and/or print for handouts. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 20:30:27
I like both. Adventure-paths require too much tinkering to re-work them, but quick drop-ins' work for everyone. I wouldn't mind seeing them somehow bring the two together - create an adventure path where you can run each piece separately, or as a path, and where each portion can be dropped-in wherever you need to fit it. Sort of a 'Book of Lairs' idea but with a frame story to connect them. That might work.
What was the FR lair book that specialized in Undead? I no longer have it and I can't remember its name. I remember there was some great ed-lore concerning Undead in the back of that. Something along those lines could work as well - a themed BoL (and perhaps the idea I had above, of connecting them all somehow - maybe finding all the clues/parts to something?)
They could do creature-type based ones (giants, undead, aberrations, fey, etc), and they could do region-based ones (Underdark, Forest, Desert, Water, Mountains, etc). Some would be one and the same - Giants could be combined with mountains, and fey should be combined with forests.
That might even be the best way to do the old racial and environmental books over again - present rules/creatures alongside a series of adventures. Given their new modular approach in 5e, that could be pure win.
Also, splats - be they adventure, regional, racial, etc - should have a 'player's handout' available online, so that players can know whats going on without the DM handing over his books (with that silly "STOP right here and read no further!" warning that EVERYONE ignored). I understand they sell more books that way, but when players can read the same material the DM can, it kinda defeats the entire purpose of pre-fab adventures. In the long run, you sell less books when DMs get frustrated with them.
|
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 20:17:10
interesting ancient treasure maps as handouts, that is probably stuff, there can be usefull for players or all ages in a multiage support sourcebook |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 20:12:28
It was a good idea, but the execution of it didn't really impress me. I'd be more in favor of a Book of Lairs done in a style like Ed's Ironguard adventure from back in the day. Small 5 to 12 room dungeons, with maps that DM's can drop in anywhere. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 20:05:29
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm kinda torn on this. I love the way Paizo does their's....
But WotC's track-record with them is pretty abysmal. I haven't really liked any of them in 3e, including and especially the 'save the weave' one they released toward the end. Pointless (since everyone failed in the long run), and self-serving. Everything seems to have some sort of meta-game goal they need to accomplish for marketing purposes.
This, BTW, is an anti-3e thing, which was my favorite edition (mostly because I liked the 3e rules). It is NOT an anti-4e thing. From what little experience I have reading through 4e adventures, I think they were trying to get back to the "adventure just for fun's sake" paradigm. Not every scenario need to move the setting forward in a major way.
I'm pretty much good on save the world adventures too. I'd like to see more local type stories. To dethrone the local Zhent lord the heroes have to wipe out the bandits, explore the nearby ruins of an old mage tower to find some needed magic. Even small side treks that don't have anything to do with the adventure is good: Ordun's Well, long dry is rumored to have smuggler's tunnels connecting to it, etc.
Epic save the world adventures can be good, they just get over used it seems.
Ed's idea of a highly detailed campaign starter area around Eveningstar would probably be a good kick off point for an adventure path.
You know what I really loved from 1st edition (or maybe it was 2nd)? The book of lairs ideas. Short little quicky adventures you could setup and drop into another adventure. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 19:32:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm kinda torn on this. I love the way Paizo does their's....
But WotC's track-record with them is pretty abysmal. I haven't really liked any of them in 3e, including and especially the 'save the weave' one they released toward the end. Pointless (since everyone failed in the long run), and self-serving. Everything seems to have some sort of meta-game goal they need to accomplish for marketing purposes.
This, BTW, is an anti-3e thing, which was my favorite edition (mostly because I liked the 3e rules). It is NOT an anti-4e thing. From what little experience I have reading through 4e adventures, I think they were trying to get back to the "adventure just for fun's sake" paradigm. Not every scenario need to move the setting forward in a major way.
I'm pretty much good on save the world adventures too. I'd like to see more local type stories. To dethrone the local Zhent lord the heroes have to wipe out the bandits, explore the nearby ruins of an old mage tower to find some needed magic. Even small side treks that don't have anything to do with the adventure is good: Ordun's Well, long dry is rumored to have smuggler's tunnels connecting to it, etc.
Epic save the world adventures can be good, they just get over used it seems.
Ed's idea of a highly detailed campaign starter area around Eveningstar would probably be a good kick off point for an adventure path. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 19:01:12
I'm kinda torn on this. I love the way Paizo does their's....
But WotC's track-record with them is pretty abysmal. I haven't really liked any of them in 3e, including and especially the 'save the weave' one they released toward the end. Pointless (since everyone failed in the long run), and self-serving. Everything seems to have some sort of meta-game goal they need to accomplish for marketing purposes.
This, BTW, is an anti-3e thing, which was my favorite edition (mostly because I liked the 3e rules). It is NOT an anti-4e thing. From what little experience I have reading through 4e adventures, I think they were trying to get back to the "adventure just for fun's sake" paradigm. Not every scenario need to move the setting forward in a major way. |
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 18:47:35
well, personally do I seriously doubt I will buy 5e D&D since I like 3.5e and pathfinder.
no reason to discard that investment in time and money when it works well for me and it is that kind of games I am looking for, but it also means, that modules with 5e stats has limited value for me and that modules competely without stats would have a higher value compared to modules vasting pages on 5e rule stats for npc's and monsters |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 18:13:41
The adventure path's should probably support or be written with the 5E rule set. I'd hate to see a quarter of such a book dedicated to instructions on how to handle it if 4e or 3e etc is also used. 5E will be the current edition and that's what they outta support. Rules don't matter much to me, I can always go back in and modify if I have to for using 2E or whatever. It's all the sweet goodness that goes in besides monster stats that I love about adventure paths and I'd hate to see that messed up.
I don't think adventures will be edition neutral, I'm guessing they will match whatever rule set is out at the time. It would be interesting to see if they could pull off an edition neutral one though. It may not be bad if all you had to do was crack open the monster manual to page X to run an encounter, in whatever edition or even game rules you choose. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 17:48:55
quote:
Originally posted by Gustaveren
There is actually an easy fix if you are selling adventure paths online since you can then make them modular
The basic adventure is the same, but you could then in the pdf place a checkmark in the box
Use 3.5 rules or
use 4e rules or
use 5e rules or
Do not include any stats that is, just give me the basic adventure version
So, what you're saying is make multiple versions of the AP and sell them by version? You still run into the issues I mentioned of having to do the balance work that changes between versions. However, you're right, if you're not doing all the heavy work and focusing more on the story it makes it that much easier. Of course, you've got to watch for schticks that change between editions. Maybe a monster loses a spell, or a spell changes between editions. Any tactics you write up would have to take into account. Please understand here, I'm somewhat playing Devil's Advocate, because I'd like to see HOW this edition neutrality thing would play out. |
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 16:46:04
There is actually an easy fix if you are selling adventure paths online since you can then make them modular
The basic adventure is the same, but you could then in the pdf place a checkmark in the box
Use 3.5 rules or
use 4e rules or
use 5e rules or
Do not include any stats that is, just give me the basic adventure version
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 16:17:02
Conceptually, I like the idea you're talking about. Realistically, the problem becomes the creature may not exist from one version to another. Realistically, the power level of the creature may be vastly different from one version to another (giants are a good example here, as are outsiders). Therefore, while you might be able to lay out an adventure plot, there would need to be some notes of adventurer level that might need to change from one edition to another... some notes of "swap this creature out for X if playing in 2nd edition rules or Y in 1st edition rules".... and also, whereas I'll agree I may be willing to give up stat blocks for the basic creatures to allow for edition neutrality..... for any major foe, I'd really like the work to already be done, including things like defenses, tactics, etc.... |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 08:34:29
I would also love to see 6 issue APs for the major cities.
Perhaps the occasional 8 issue AP (1-20).
But yeah. Basically yank the entire format. Ideally, use less stat blocks. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 17 Oct 2012 : 05:55:59
Definitely yes. I've voiced this before too. In fact, Wizards should take the entire Adventure Path format and simply insert Realms adventures. Adventures, bestiaries, backdrops all in one book would be gold. Imagine a 6 part campaign centered in the Dales, another in the North, Cormyr, Sembia etc etc. |
|
|
