Saturday, February 14, 2009
GenCon 2009
Tickets for GenCon 2009 go up tomorrow. At this moment, I am planning on attending, and I will be buying tickets. One of the problems with being on this side of the world is that 12noon EST is 1am here. I am not looking forard to booking hotel reservations at 1am. Brutal!
Friday, February 13, 2009
Review: Pathfinder #2 The Skinsaw Murders
Background
This is the second module in the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, and it is the best of first series. The adventure was released in October of 2007, which I think was very fitting considering the tone of the module. This module was the first Pathfinder to sell out, and Paizo did reorder this one, and I suspect it may the last time they do this, which says something about the popularity of this particular adventure. In this review I will look at it as a standalone product, and then once I have completed the reviews on the rest of the adventures in the series, I will do a final wrap up and look at the series as a whole, and offer my commentary on the entire AP.
Richard Pett
Normally I would not have a section on the author, but in this case, I feel I would not do the review justice if I did not provide at least a couple of comments on the author. To put it bluntly, he is warped, twisted and creepy..err…I mean his writing style is warped, twisted and creepy. As a big fan of Lovecraft, Ravenloft, and gothic horror, his writing style resonates well with me, and he is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. James Jacobs writes a vivid description of Rich’s writing style in the introduction that captures the essence of what his writing is about. I am hoping that the Paizo team will give him more chances at writing gothic horror.
This is the second module in the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, and it is the best of first series. The adventure was released in October of 2007, which I think was very fitting considering the tone of the module. This module was the first Pathfinder to sell out, and Paizo did reorder this one, and I suspect it may the last time they do this, which says something about the popularity of this particular adventure. In this review I will look at it as a standalone product, and then once I have completed the reviews on the rest of the adventures in the series, I will do a final wrap up and look at the series as a whole, and offer my commentary on the entire AP.
Richard Pett
Normally I would not have a section on the author, but in this case, I feel I would not do the review justice if I did not provide at least a couple of comments on the author. To put it bluntly, he is warped, twisted and creepy..err…I mean his writing style is warped, twisted and creepy. As a big fan of Lovecraft, Ravenloft, and gothic horror, his writing style resonates well with me, and he is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. James Jacobs writes a vivid description of Rich’s writing style in the introduction that captures the essence of what his writing is about. I am hoping that the Paizo team will give him more chances at writing gothic horror.
Layout
The layout is very similar to Burnt Offerings, and I am including the text here for completeness. The book comes in at hefty 96 pages not counting the covers, with the actual adventure taking up 49 of these pages, with an approximate word count of ~40,000 words. The book is divided up into several sections including the main adventure, two supporting articles (Magnimar Gazetteer and Desna), the Pathfinder Journal, bestiary (five monsters) and the pregens.
The first adventure path drew a number of critics on the font size and the ease of reading. I personally did not find it that bad, but I can see how this could be a valid criticism. There have been a number of modules created with small font, and this module is not any worse than some of the others that I have seen.
Artwork
The artwork in Pathfinder #2 is notably better than Pathfinder #1, as most of the cartoonish art has been removed. The cover is by Wayne Reynolds, and he has created a wonderfully evocative piece that really captures the spirit of the adventure, and he has included the manor in the background, which plays a prominent role. The interior is full color, and fits in with the tone and theme of the module. The cartography is excellent, and I am again reminded how far we have come with regards to the presentation of maps in adventures. They really have moved beyond simply being maps and are an integral part of the overall art scheme.
Summary
There are three main parts of this module. There is the introduction, in which the sheriff asks the characters to investigate a series of murders that are occurring in the Sandpoint area. The investigation leads up to part two which is the haunted manor. Upon completing the exploration of the manor, part three of the adventure has the characters head to Magnimar to chase down the Skinsaw cultists and ultimately confront the BBEG, which is taken from the bestiary found in the back of the book.
Key features
There are a number of features that this module provides that I am going to list out below:
1. A gothic horror style adventure
2. The fully mapped out haunted manor
3. Haunts, which is a new look at traps.
4. The gazetteer of Magnimar.
5. The Pathfinder Journal, which has the feel of the older pulp sword and sorcery writing. This particular Journal officially starts the chronicles of Eando Kline, which is one of my favorite parts of the book, and one of the first sections that I read.
Final notes
Simply put, this adventure rocks. I really liked the mood and tone of the adventure. The haunted house is wonderfully writing and is small enough that one could easily pull it out and use it for a one day mega adventure or split it up over a couple of nights. In one of the opening side bars Rich writes the following.
It’s true—not everyone wants to run Adventure Paths. Some people don’t even want to run entire adventures. In my own campaigns, I like using elements of published adventures mingled with my own adventures. Having access to PDFs of adventures really fired my imagination—and one thing I’ve tried in “The Skinsaw Murders” is to include “mini-adventures” tied to the overall plot. You can run this adventure either as part of the whole Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path or as a standalone. You can also dip into the adventure and extract segments of it, using the Hambley Farm encounter as a one-evening side quest, for example.
I think it is this type of design philosophy, which is one of modular construction that is the real strength of the adventure. It is easily adaptable, and has the strength to stand on its own, and not have to be tied to the overall adventure path.
As a criticism, one can easily argue that the plot is too linear, and that there is a natural progression to the adventure that makes it tough to go out of sequence. I agree that his is true; however the strength of the encounters and the modular design makes this easy for me to over look.
Overall, I give this module a solid thumbs up, and it is perhaps the best of the Pathfinder books that Paizo has published thus far.
Overall, I give this module a solid thumbs up, and it is perhaps the best of the Pathfinder books that Paizo has published thus far.
Rating: 5 Dragons (on a scale of 5)
What is D&D: Sandbox v. Adventure Path (Part 2)
The sandbox design is an open area of play, with encounters anchored to locations rather than events. Some sandboxes can include entire world, and some only include a dungeon and the surrounding area. The appeal of this style of play is the free form play style, in which the players can make choices as to what they want to do, and the story line centers around these choices. The characters are the main focus of the story. What’s not to like?
Actually, there are a number of issues and challenges with sandbox adventure design and execution. In order to make a sandbox work, the GM needs to be very familiar with the area, and be ready for the unexpected. Speaking for myself, when I run sandbox adventures, I like to have the area memorized with a lot of notes so that I am ready for anything. Now I have met GM’s that can ad lib a pig farm and turn it into an exciting adventure, but that takes a special talent that not every GM has. I think it is important to recognize this, as sometimes there are assumptions that all GM’s are equally talented, and that is not quite true, as we are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses in our refereeing style.
I think the key challenges for sandbox play are as follows:
1) Lack of direction which can bog down play
2) Loss of interest, as there may not be an obvious goal to accomplish
3) Lack of coherent or organized theme through excessive use of random encounters leads to a loss of overall interest in moving forward
4) Players may outgrow their sandbox
5) Increased pressure for the GM in terms of preparation with large sandboxes and numerous player choices
6) May not be sustainable for long campaigns
One of the main advantages of this style of play is the Freedom of Choice that is inherit in this style of play. However, is this really an advantage? Do players really want choices in their adventures? On the surface, the answer is clearly yes. Everyone likes choices…to a point. I believe that too many choices actually leads to a paralysis of play, as the game reduces to discussions on what to do next, with no clear direction emerging out of the conversation. I think there is a natural tendency to withdraw rather than engage when confronted with vagueness of purpose. When this happens, it is time to regroup and start over.
When this issue pops up, I have heard GM’s complain that their players are unwilling to explore their world, and I have heard players complain that there is not enough to do to keep their interest. Both are right, it’s just the frame of reference is different, and that makes all the difference in terms of enjoyment of play. This is why I believe that the opening hook has to be a good one, as that is the first thing the players are going to focus their attention on. I believe that it is critical that a campaign get off to a good fast start, as that provides momentum for the game. This helps offset the potential for a rudderless mid game drift, which is one of the major pitfalls of the sandbox style of play.
To wrap up this point; while we all like choices, we really do not like ambiguity, and we would really rather have a bit more structure to our lives. This is definitely true in our professional lives, and this carries over to our game play. A limited set of choices is good, too many choices and we start to bog down, which ultimately effects our fun quotient. The reality is that while we may say we like choices, we may find more enjoyment with a limited set of choices, rather than an unlimited set of choices.
Conclusion
So this brings us back to the opening question, what is D&D, the sandbox or the adventure path? I am sure that there are zealous proponents of both, that can point to great games that they have had with both styles of play. But which one really captures the spirit of the game? That is a tougher question. Some critics may be comfortable stopping here, but this does not satisfy me, which is what prompted me to write the article. Leaving the discussion at this point is a bit like kicking a FG for the tie rather than go for the win, so I will press on.
Clearly D&D started with the sandbox style campaign. However there has been a certain amount of evolution in the game. While some may say that this evolution has been bad for the game, and I am not sure that we can make such a wide sweeping generalization. The popularity in the early days of plot and story, is significant, and represents a valid direction of the game. With this said, I do not think we can dismiss it out of hand.
I will offer something of a middle ground, and I think that it is a fair position to hold. I like the legacy roots of the sandbox game, but we need to recognize the limitations of this style of play. We also need to recognize the limitations of the adventure path, with extreme versions of this style being similar to reading a story of someone else’s character, which leads to a lack of accomplishment, and hinders enjoyment. I think the sandbox mini-campaign, with one or more plot arcs is probably the optimal game design that offers the best of both world, and leverages the strengths of both styles. I will go on to say that I think this was present in some of the early modules, including the classic G and D series. While the series offered a wide range of options for the players, there was a central theme that could be adjusted by the GM, and I think that it was a critical element to the success of the overall series.
Next up, I will dig more into the evolution of the mechanics of the game. I think the D&D game encourages evolution, as creativity is an important part of the fun, but is it all good?
Actually, there are a number of issues and challenges with sandbox adventure design and execution. In order to make a sandbox work, the GM needs to be very familiar with the area, and be ready for the unexpected. Speaking for myself, when I run sandbox adventures, I like to have the area memorized with a lot of notes so that I am ready for anything. Now I have met GM’s that can ad lib a pig farm and turn it into an exciting adventure, but that takes a special talent that not every GM has. I think it is important to recognize this, as sometimes there are assumptions that all GM’s are equally talented, and that is not quite true, as we are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses in our refereeing style.
I think the key challenges for sandbox play are as follows:
1) Lack of direction which can bog down play
2) Loss of interest, as there may not be an obvious goal to accomplish
3) Lack of coherent or organized theme through excessive use of random encounters leads to a loss of overall interest in moving forward
4) Players may outgrow their sandbox
5) Increased pressure for the GM in terms of preparation with large sandboxes and numerous player choices
6) May not be sustainable for long campaigns
One of the main advantages of this style of play is the Freedom of Choice that is inherit in this style of play. However, is this really an advantage? Do players really want choices in their adventures? On the surface, the answer is clearly yes. Everyone likes choices…to a point. I believe that too many choices actually leads to a paralysis of play, as the game reduces to discussions on what to do next, with no clear direction emerging out of the conversation. I think there is a natural tendency to withdraw rather than engage when confronted with vagueness of purpose. When this happens, it is time to regroup and start over.
When this issue pops up, I have heard GM’s complain that their players are unwilling to explore their world, and I have heard players complain that there is not enough to do to keep their interest. Both are right, it’s just the frame of reference is different, and that makes all the difference in terms of enjoyment of play. This is why I believe that the opening hook has to be a good one, as that is the first thing the players are going to focus their attention on. I believe that it is critical that a campaign get off to a good fast start, as that provides momentum for the game. This helps offset the potential for a rudderless mid game drift, which is one of the major pitfalls of the sandbox style of play.
To wrap up this point; while we all like choices, we really do not like ambiguity, and we would really rather have a bit more structure to our lives. This is definitely true in our professional lives, and this carries over to our game play. A limited set of choices is good, too many choices and we start to bog down, which ultimately effects our fun quotient. The reality is that while we may say we like choices, we may find more enjoyment with a limited set of choices, rather than an unlimited set of choices.
Conclusion
So this brings us back to the opening question, what is D&D, the sandbox or the adventure path? I am sure that there are zealous proponents of both, that can point to great games that they have had with both styles of play. But which one really captures the spirit of the game? That is a tougher question. Some critics may be comfortable stopping here, but this does not satisfy me, which is what prompted me to write the article. Leaving the discussion at this point is a bit like kicking a FG for the tie rather than go for the win, so I will press on.
Clearly D&D started with the sandbox style campaign. However there has been a certain amount of evolution in the game. While some may say that this evolution has been bad for the game, and I am not sure that we can make such a wide sweeping generalization. The popularity in the early days of plot and story, is significant, and represents a valid direction of the game. With this said, I do not think we can dismiss it out of hand.
I will offer something of a middle ground, and I think that it is a fair position to hold. I like the legacy roots of the sandbox game, but we need to recognize the limitations of this style of play. We also need to recognize the limitations of the adventure path, with extreme versions of this style being similar to reading a story of someone else’s character, which leads to a lack of accomplishment, and hinders enjoyment. I think the sandbox mini-campaign, with one or more plot arcs is probably the optimal game design that offers the best of both world, and leverages the strengths of both styles. I will go on to say that I think this was present in some of the early modules, including the classic G and D series. While the series offered a wide range of options for the players, there was a central theme that could be adjusted by the GM, and I think that it was a critical element to the success of the overall series.
Next up, I will dig more into the evolution of the mechanics of the game. I think the D&D game encourages evolution, as creativity is an important part of the fun, but is it all good?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Knockspell issue 1
So I was all set to start writing a blog entry continuing on with my topic from yesterday, until I downloaded Knockspell. Granted it is written by the usual suspects (grin), but it is really good. Needless to say, I printed it out today and read through the entire thing. My hat is off to Matt Finch for a doing superb job in putting it together. Hopefully this will become a regularly published fan-zine.
As an aside, Jeff's maps are much neater than my scribble maps.
Monday, February 9, 2009
What is D&D: Sandbox v. Adventure Path (Part 1)
Sandbox design or Adventure Path design?
Until just recently, I had not given a lot of thought to the question. From a historical perspective, D&D started with the sandbox. Greyhawk was the early sandbox campaign, with adventures centered on exploring the old castle and the ruins below. Continuing on this theme, the campaign initially was a mega dungeon that supported several groups and then over time, the concept of campaign changed to a series of adventures (or dungeons) with one group (see blog discussion on Grognardia). This in turn has led to a change in design philosophy.
As D&D moved from the Golden Age to the Silver Age, the concept of adventure path was created, but it was a rough attempt to link already written adventures together. T1 was linked to Q1 with the A series, G series and D series in between. Extra material was written to build the bridge to otherwise separate adventures. To be fair, the G series were intended to follow each other, and the D series clearly built on information contained in earlier works. Following this, there was concentrated attempt to link modules tightly together (Desert series) and even large story arcs together through the DragonLance series. Now I would argue that DragonLance is an extreme example, as the modules tried to follow material written in the novels. This proved to be very popular, and the trend continued.
Jumping ahead to 3rd edition and Dungeon magazine, Paizo formally claimed the term adventure path with their Shacked City adventure path which first appeared in the magazine before being produced into a hardcover book. This was followed by Age of Worms and Savage Tide. With WotC pulling back the licensing agreement for Dungeon, Paizo moved forward with their Pathfinder Adventure Path series, which has thus far proved to be successful.
With that short history recap, this brings us up to the present, but what does it really mean? I think we have to go back to the definition of campaign. In the early days, there was not a lot of material available. Dungeons had to be big by default, as demand was high, but the supply of adventures was very low. Gary did not start with a full line of adventures already produced; rather he started with Greyhawk, and expanded it to meet the demand of his players. I also suspect that as he became busy with TRS, it was easier to expand something that he already had, rather can continually created brand new material.
As the game became more popular, and the experience of players grew, the natural result was a sense of pride and accomplishment with what they created with their characters. When a player starts a new character in a long term campaign, there is the expectation that this character could reach the high levels. To be honest, I do not think this is a bad thing, and I think this is fundamental to the enjoyment of the game. Part of the joy of the game includes telling bardic stories of heroic feats of valor, from a character perspective. Not to be under estimated, GM’s enjoy recounting the games in which their players did noteworthy things. I will call this the Valhalla experience, as the tales become a thing of legend through their continual retelling over food and drink.
One could argue that the adventure path is the natural progression of the game. I will say that in any game that continues to have support material created, evolution will occur. As experience in game play is gained, trends will develop. In this case, I will hypothesis that adventure paths are the Darwinian result of game evolution.
But is that good or bad? Do players, and I am thinking of both GM’s and players, find adventure paths more enjoyable than the old sandbox campaign? One thing that I have noticed is that everyone plays the game slightly differently. Now clearly this does not help to answer the question, but I think we can still make some generalizations that give deeper insight into the question.
I am convinced that no player likes extreme railroading on a rigid, predetermined story arc. There is not the same level of accomplishment that exists with this style of play. One could just read a book and cross of the main character’s name and substitute a player’s name. This is not very fulfilling. What is fulfilling is carving out a legacy that included risk and reward. I am going to go on a tangent here for a moment, and compare D&D to gambling. One of the reasons that there is an attraction to gambling is that the outcome is unknown. There is risk in terms of money loss, and there is reward, which could be several times the amount wagered. While I agree that no one likes losing, it is this risk of losing that makes winning extremely satisfying, and keeps one coming back. This is why we enjoy sports, we feel for the underdog, and we revel in the upset. The longer the odds, the sweeter the taste of victory. All of us feel this way to some extent, and we can recognize this trait in our human make up. I hesitate to call it apart of our DNA, but I do believe it is in there somewhere.
The folks that play D&D feel this to some extent. We play to see our characters advance, and to have that shared experience of accomplishment. An adventure path done right plays right into this concept. It provides a series of scenarios that offer the possibility of character growth to a given level. The reward of advancement is built into the adventure design. I think this is the core of the argument for the adventure path as the natural evolution of D&D.
So where does this leave the sandbox, and why does the old guard hold on to this design philosophy? Part of the answer is in rebellion to the forced story arcs in which the risk has been watered down to a point, where the reward does not feel satisfying. The old guard wants the higher risk of advancement that comes with no guarantees of success. Finally, there is also the desire for choice and accomplishment.
This brings us to Freedom of Choice in the D&D game. We talk a lot about it, but do we really want it? In part 2 on this topic, I will dig a bit more in the sandbox design, and discuss a more about Choice.
Until just recently, I had not given a lot of thought to the question. From a historical perspective, D&D started with the sandbox. Greyhawk was the early sandbox campaign, with adventures centered on exploring the old castle and the ruins below. Continuing on this theme, the campaign initially was a mega dungeon that supported several groups and then over time, the concept of campaign changed to a series of adventures (or dungeons) with one group (see blog discussion on Grognardia). This in turn has led to a change in design philosophy.
As D&D moved from the Golden Age to the Silver Age, the concept of adventure path was created, but it was a rough attempt to link already written adventures together. T1 was linked to Q1 with the A series, G series and D series in between. Extra material was written to build the bridge to otherwise separate adventures. To be fair, the G series were intended to follow each other, and the D series clearly built on information contained in earlier works. Following this, there was concentrated attempt to link modules tightly together (Desert series) and even large story arcs together through the DragonLance series. Now I would argue that DragonLance is an extreme example, as the modules tried to follow material written in the novels. This proved to be very popular, and the trend continued.
Jumping ahead to 3rd edition and Dungeon magazine, Paizo formally claimed the term adventure path with their Shacked City adventure path which first appeared in the magazine before being produced into a hardcover book. This was followed by Age of Worms and Savage Tide. With WotC pulling back the licensing agreement for Dungeon, Paizo moved forward with their Pathfinder Adventure Path series, which has thus far proved to be successful.
With that short history recap, this brings us up to the present, but what does it really mean? I think we have to go back to the definition of campaign. In the early days, there was not a lot of material available. Dungeons had to be big by default, as demand was high, but the supply of adventures was very low. Gary did not start with a full line of adventures already produced; rather he started with Greyhawk, and expanded it to meet the demand of his players. I also suspect that as he became busy with TRS, it was easier to expand something that he already had, rather can continually created brand new material.
As the game became more popular, and the experience of players grew, the natural result was a sense of pride and accomplishment with what they created with their characters. When a player starts a new character in a long term campaign, there is the expectation that this character could reach the high levels. To be honest, I do not think this is a bad thing, and I think this is fundamental to the enjoyment of the game. Part of the joy of the game includes telling bardic stories of heroic feats of valor, from a character perspective. Not to be under estimated, GM’s enjoy recounting the games in which their players did noteworthy things. I will call this the Valhalla experience, as the tales become a thing of legend through their continual retelling over food and drink.
One could argue that the adventure path is the natural progression of the game. I will say that in any game that continues to have support material created, evolution will occur. As experience in game play is gained, trends will develop. In this case, I will hypothesis that adventure paths are the Darwinian result of game evolution.
But is that good or bad? Do players, and I am thinking of both GM’s and players, find adventure paths more enjoyable than the old sandbox campaign? One thing that I have noticed is that everyone plays the game slightly differently. Now clearly this does not help to answer the question, but I think we can still make some generalizations that give deeper insight into the question.
I am convinced that no player likes extreme railroading on a rigid, predetermined story arc. There is not the same level of accomplishment that exists with this style of play. One could just read a book and cross of the main character’s name and substitute a player’s name. This is not very fulfilling. What is fulfilling is carving out a legacy that included risk and reward. I am going to go on a tangent here for a moment, and compare D&D to gambling. One of the reasons that there is an attraction to gambling is that the outcome is unknown. There is risk in terms of money loss, and there is reward, which could be several times the amount wagered. While I agree that no one likes losing, it is this risk of losing that makes winning extremely satisfying, and keeps one coming back. This is why we enjoy sports, we feel for the underdog, and we revel in the upset. The longer the odds, the sweeter the taste of victory. All of us feel this way to some extent, and we can recognize this trait in our human make up. I hesitate to call it apart of our DNA, but I do believe it is in there somewhere.
The folks that play D&D feel this to some extent. We play to see our characters advance, and to have that shared experience of accomplishment. An adventure path done right plays right into this concept. It provides a series of scenarios that offer the possibility of character growth to a given level. The reward of advancement is built into the adventure design. I think this is the core of the argument for the adventure path as the natural evolution of D&D.
So where does this leave the sandbox, and why does the old guard hold on to this design philosophy? Part of the answer is in rebellion to the forced story arcs in which the risk has been watered down to a point, where the reward does not feel satisfying. The old guard wants the higher risk of advancement that comes with no guarantees of success. Finally, there is also the desire for choice and accomplishment.
This brings us to Freedom of Choice in the D&D game. We talk a lot about it, but do we really want it? In part 2 on this topic, I will dig a bit more in the sandbox design, and discuss a more about Choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)