Paizo AP: adventuring pains, or how the AP killed my interest in RPing.

[oxybe]

Whelp. Looks like I'm going to be dropping from my regular group after 10 years of play.

As much as I love these guys, their constant use of Adventure Paths (and only adventure paths... anything not adventure path-like in scope died after a few sessions) has finally killed my interest in gaming with them and came to a head when the GM offered to run 2 APs concurrently. I was on the fence for but when the option presented itself my brain just kinda said "Nope, I'm done".

I could suffer through more Pathfinder with them, but these adventure paths are killing me and my interest in gaming as a whole. The linearity and lack of agency, mixed with the overall pressure to focus on the AP's goals rather then character ones (or create new goals that aren't "see the AP to it's resolution") have driven me to look for new venues of play.

I've told them that I'll be sticking around until the end of the module, but after that I'm gone.

I'd like to run something, but while doing the prepwork and trying to get something off the ground it cemented in me that I'm really bad at doing this sort of stuff as I have ideas but little framework to properly setup an ongoing campaign. I have a week of vacation starting, but my enthusiasm to put work into getting my own campaign off the ground has pretty much died.

As far as other groups are concerned, we're the only group I know of that plays at the FLGS I hang out at and no one at work I know roleplays or really has any interest in doing so (or have comparable schedules).

I tried gaming online on something like roll20 but it didn't pan out and play by post takes so long to attempt to scratch the itch, me and the itch have made peace and got a shelter dog. We named it Scruffles.

He's adorable.

I'm kinda at a loss now as to what to do. I'd like to continue gaming, but my group's heavy reliance on APs over the years (four: Savage Tide, Council of Thieves, Kingmaker and currently Hell's Rebels) has finally killed my interest in playing under them and I can't get motivated to run something after a few failed attempts.

I dunno, this is mainly a vent thread, but it's still frustrating.

[Yora]

I'd say look up on Sandboxes and old school Dungeon Crawl campaigns. I actually don't run either myself, but both concepts are on the very high end of character focus and player agency and I think there's a lot of great things to learn from them about what options you have when structuring a campaign.

The campaign I am currently preparing is going to be basically exploration dungeon crawls in which the party goes to a mid-size dungeon with lots of dangerous stuff to discover, but each adventure starts with them looking for something specific in that dungeon. A famous relic, a prisoner, the exit, or whatever. The players can at any point decide to forget about the original goal if they find something in the dungeon that they find more interesting or worthwhile to pursue. It's just so that they don't end up just going from random door to random door because there's nothing else they could be doing. Searching for clues that could help them finding the thing they are looking for should be much more focused, but still allow for a very great degree of freeform exploration and agency.

[Lorsa]

Unfortunately I think the only way to change your situation is to run a game yourself and show that it can be done differently, and more enjoyably, without the APs.

I do agree with you, reliance on pre-written modules isn't to my liking either. Every time I try to run something pre-written it turns out far worse than if I come up with the material myself.

[Rakoa]

To be honest, I don't find Adventure Paths to be so different from regular gaming. Whether the goal of the campaign is coming from a module or from the DMs head, the fact is, campaigns have a goal, and to ignore these goals is rather disruptive to the work that the DM has put in to creating the world and quest. However, I see where you're coming from, particularly on the points of linearity and lack of agency. I detest the kind of games that are run purely by railroad. I've been in games in which I'm sure if I decided to jump off a cliff, I'd either survive miraculously or be told I can't do that. In over 4 years of play, character death hasn't occurred once, for anybody.

I suspect this is because the DM has a story in mind for the game, and will manipulate all events so that they follow true to that outcome, regardless of what actions we may or may not take as characters. And that is no fun. That is linear, and without agency.

I'd suggest a middle ground. You''re not going to have any success in a game if your character isn't in line with the goals of the campaign, that's just unreasonable and ridiculous. But similarly, if the DM isn't willing to provide some consequences for your actions and allow a multitude of possible choices and outcomes in line with those actions to progress the plot, and perhaps to even include things based off your backstory plothooks, then he isn't running a game, he's telling a story to a captive audience.

As far as I'm concerned, if you left because you don't like to work towards over-arching goals, but only those of your character, that isn't fun for anyone. But if you're riding the pointless DM train to whatever outcome he has predetermined, you've done the right thing.

That's my 2cp, anyway.

Perhaps try and join another local group? You might be able to interest some friends, and if not, I'm sure people are recruiting new players all the time through Kijiji and what not. A friend of mine once formed a group of great friends from strangers he met with a flyer on a board at his college.

[Kane0]

Man, even Kingmaker was too railroady?
Ive been playing a kingmaker game for like 3 years now and theres so much not-plot going on its maddening!

Sounds like a group problem at least as much as a content problem. Have you tried something completely different, like another system? Might shake everyone up and give some perspective.

Another idea is adapting a known open-world AP. I dont know PF modules that well, but i know theres pelnty of AD&D, 3.5 and 5e ones around.

[AnBe]

I too have been a victim of Pathfinder Adventure Paths. I've been in two of them, Council of Thieves and Reign of Winter, neither of which I saw to completion. My group is not a boring group of people, the other players often find a way to make things fun but sadly, not even flamboyant personalities can save these ones. Overall I find the Adventure Paths lame and boring. Makes me feel like a walking robot, and not the fun kind of robot.

[HidesHisEyes]

I agree with Rakoa. My perfect game has freedom within limits. That is, there is a definite shared goal but how the players achieve it is up to them. It doesn't work if the players refuse to be interested in the goal and it doesn't work if the GM tries to dictate how they should go about achieving it.

One thing to bear in mind is that this kind of balance is much, much harder for a GM to create in a big long campaign than in a shorter adventure with a smaller scope. I'm pretty sure this is what drives a lot of groups to adventure paths in the first place.

[ComaVision]

I've never used a complete Paizo AP, though I've certainly used parts, but I need the pre-existing framework as I'm not very creative myself. There's a big difference between being the DM that says "the AP doesn't cover that so you can't do it" and being the DM that figures out how it can work within the constraints.

I've had a group decide in a game that the quest they were on was too difficult and they didn't care about their employer so they left the country. I rolled with it, did some travel roleplay with the group with some wilderness encounters and then wrapped up the game so I could figure out where the hell they were headed. I ended up ripping off another, totally unrelated module that seemed to agree with them better and they eventually heard rumours about the war the country they fled had lost.

Currently, I'm running a pirate setting with another group that started with a Paizo module, then I opened it up more. I had a framework with some BBEGs from published content but after a couple characters in the party died the group is now all evil characters with a lawful leaning. They want to work with the corrupt, local establishment. That's fine, no reason they can't if they're willing to prove themselves useful, I just need to rewrite parts so the group is helping the events happen rather than preventing them. Who knows, maybe they'll try to betray the BBEG at some point.

TL;DR APs shouldn't be (and I don't think are even meant to be) ran totally as written. The DM should be putting in the effort to align the AP with the party's interests. That being said, the players have some responsibility to make sure their characters are compatible with each other, so it isn't an impossible task.

[Psyren]

Railroading is a GM problem, not a module/AP problem. I find that APs give you more freedom to improvise, not less - by giving you a structure to follow for 80% of the campaign, the GM has more processing power to devote to the 20% unscripted asides. The antagonists have clear goals and timelines, and since they are generally proactive while the PCs are reactive, that means the players get structure too.

A railroady GM is going to be so whether they are running a published module or something that sprung entirely from the recesses of their imagination. Conversely, one who is good at thinking on her feet (these are a treasure, by the way!) will be capable of making the world respond believably to her players whether the storyline is laid out in a book or not.

I guess my only question would be - what did they say when you announced your intentions to abandon the playgroup? Are they going to try to accommodate you? Are they merely sorry (or not so sorry) to see you go?

[oxybe]

I guess my only question would be - what did they say when you announced your intentions to abandon the playgroup? Are they going to try to accommodate you? Are they merely sorry (or not so sorry) to see you go? I guess my only question would be - what did they say when you announced your intentions to abandon the playgroup? Are they going to try to accommodate you? Are they merely sorry (or not so sorry) to see you go?

They didn't really say anything, I made it pretty clear that the problem was me, not them and changing how the group goes about doing things just to accommodate me would not sit well with me, especially with a group as large as ours (6-7 players, then the GM). They just asked if I was sure, I said yes and that the style of play we've been doing for a while now (10 years) has finally come to a point where it's just not fun for me so I'd like to leave.


TL;DR APs shouldn't be (and I don't think are even meant to be) ran totally as written. The DM should be putting in the effort to align the AP with the party's interests. That being said, the players have some responsibility to make sure their characters are compatible with each other, so it isn't an impossible task.

The reason the GM uses APs is that he doesn't really have time to plan stuff outside of the AP... the material is all there, he just needs to review it. If we don't bite the hook, we don't have a session and if we ignore it, then something bad will happen and we're likely going to be one step back from completing the goal.


As far as I'm concerned, if you left because you don't like to work towards over-arching goals, but only those of your character, that isn't fun for anyone. But if you're riding the pointless DM train to whatever outcome he has predetermined, you've done the right thing.

It's more like the APs feel that it gives you your over-arching goal (in Hell's Rebels this is "Kick the Thrunes from Kintargo") and if you have any goals that aren't focused on that, the constant pressure to strive towards that goal and little time between adventures to work towards anything else means you can't really develop those other goals or even get new ones other then the campaign completion. And it also doesn't help that this goal is, in real life time, about 2+ years of weekly play away and we don't really get to enjoy the payoff because once you beat the final boss, you have a little "Yay, you did the thing!" moment and then your characters get put away for the next AP... It's exhausting.

[Psyren]

They didn't really say anything, I made it pretty clear that the problem was me, not them and changing how the group goes about doing things just to accommodate me would not sit well with me, especially with a group as large as ours (6-7 players, then the GM). They just asked if I was sure, I said yes and that the style of play we've been doing for a while now (10 years) has finally come to a point where it's just not fun for me so I'd like to leave.



The reason the GM uses APs is that he doesn't really have time to plan stuff outside of the AP... the material is all there, he just needs to review it. If we don't bite the hook, we don't have a session and if we ignore it, then something bad will happen and we're likely going to be one step back from completing the goal.

Yeah, don't have a solution for you =/

Based on the above, you are fed up with pre-created modules, but it sounds like those are all your GM has time to run and if the choice is "adventure path hook or no session," he will choose no session. But really, this is the whole point of APs, they allow people to run campaigns that otherwise would not have the time, energy or direction to do so.

One final point though:


And it also doesn't help that this goal is, in real life time, about 2+ years of weekly play away and we don't really get to enjoy the payoff because once you beat the final boss, you have a little "Yay, you did the thing!" moment and then your characters get put away for the next AP... It's exhausting.

This is something that I would work on improving if I was your GM - those "in-between AP" times would be perfect for some custom content. I would flex my improv/writing skills with a few sandboxy one-shots here if I were running this campaign.

I do have to wonder though - what kind of AP takes 2+ years to get through if you're playing weekly? O_o

[kyoryu]

I'm with you. I don't really enjoy pre-plotted adventures.

Try some systems that are deliberately aimed at more open-ended games. There's also a ton of references and guides on how to do more on-the-fly GMing.

"Use an AP" and "Spend 60 hours a week in prep" are *not* the only two options.

[JeenLeen]

An in-between recommendation, and one you might like if you offer to GM a game, is to use modules as the chassis but make up your own plot.
My current DM is using parts of adventure paths and modules to chain together dungeons and NPCs, but he's making up his own plot that inter-connects them and changing things as he wishes to fit that plot. This also gives more freedom for player agency, because maybe he plans on doing Module 5 in a few games, but our actions make that nonsensical, so he finds another module that works better.

I can sympathize with the DM, if he truly doesn't have time to plan a module. It does sound a bit too restrictive for my tastes, but I might be in a similar boat if I DMed (but that's why I don't currently.)

[Garimeth]

I'm with you. I don't really enjoy pre-plotted adventures.

Try some systems that are deliberately aimed at more open-ended games. There's also a ton of references and guides on how to do more on-the-fly GMing.

"Use an AP" and "Spend 60 hours a week in prep" are *not* the only two options.

THIS. I spent a lot of time before the campaign working on building my setting and villains as well as their goals. Now I only spend maybe an hour or two of prep work a week. Sometimes not even that.

[Aotrs Commander]

I think this is basically an unavoidable problem. If you don't have a conveniantly-capable sandbox-y GM (and you aren't prepared to step up to the plate yourself), you're pretty much stuck with modules, pre-written stuff and adventure paths - or homebrew equivilent.

We now more or less exclusively run adventure paths for our weekly sessions - though, for us, the difference between "adventure path" and "campaign" has been... Basically nonexistant. As before Adventure Path were A Thing, the DMs would often use pre-written campaigns and anything we wrote ourselves (when anyone had the time to do so) was ALSO basically like a module or adventure path; and our day-quest games still are.

The major difference with adventure paths is that the are much more coherent and require slightly less effort for me to convert over to 3.Aotrs than, say Dragon Mountain (at 16th-Epic) or the Vecna Lives!/Vecna Reborn/Die Vecna Die! campaign I ran. (And, as I say, when I had the time to write full campaigns, it was basically the same.)

That is, basically the price of admission these days, in our group. There are only basically (out of a group of currently eight) only two of us prepared to run frequently games in the past several years. Recently, one of the chaps actually stepped up to the plate (he's done a few short bits before) for (what he intended was) about four weeks as a more-sandbox-y wild west game1 - which spanned out three times as long and resulted in utter failure for the party, which shows how well that sort of think fits in with the group dynamic!

But otherwise, with our group, the DM (which is, just slightly over 50% of the time, muggins) says "we're going to be doing this AP next" or "this is what the new day quest party will be" (and any players not interested in that can back out if they like), but the characters are generally created for the campaign, not the campaign for the characters, if you take my meaning. (Though I do generally make some effort to integrate the latter into the former.)

If your group has been doing adventunre paths and whatnot for a decade (mine has been doing it (since before, as I say, the term "adventure path" was invented!) for two-and-a-half), that suggests that everybody seems reasonably content with it; or at least would prefer an adventure path game to no game (or running a game). And that, is, unfortunately, sometimes the case.

You've made the decision that you don't feel you enjoy playing that anymore and am going to drop out (which is entirely reasonable and a huge whack more so than a lot of tales we hear about!) and that's fine. These things happen, unfortunately, not much you can do about it. If you aren't having fun, there's no point playing, but if no-one in the group has the time or energy to DM the sort of game you do like, there's not much you can do. (Trying to get a DM to run a game he himself doesn't enjoy is tantamount to group suicude!)



1One or two players had been nagging for ages on and off about wanting to play a Wild West game and I always said "sure, when YOU run one, because I'm not interested in the period; I'll play it if you do, but I'm certainly not going to run one," and finally one of said players actually did and fair play. (Since it gave me a break from DMing for a while.)




I do have to wonder though - what kind of AP takes 2+ years to get through if you're playing weekly? O_o

Depends how long your sessions are. It took us about six months for each of the first three parts of Rise of the Runelords (a year for the fiext two and about six months for the third) and I expect the first four chapters of Shackled City to take about the same. But we only have about 2-2.5 hour sessions per week on a Monday evening. If you play for several hours a week at the weekend, you'll probably get through one much faster.



As a final personal note to really put the cat among the pidgeons - I actually much prefer that sort of game (I can't really say adventure paths specifically, since I tend to be running them, not playing them!) to sandbox-y character motivated-y stuff... Provided that they are half-way decent, of course.

(Some modules or campaigns we've run or played have been a bit... pants. 3.5 Lost Caverns of Sojcanth was so bad even I (the DM) was bored, and the 4E campaigns the other chap who does the majority of the DMing have been rather underwhemling, especially comparted to Paizo offerings, which I think are pretty much the best I've ever encountered outside of (first edition) Warhammer FRP.)

[kyoryu]

As a final personal note to really put the cat among the pidgeons - I actually much prefer that sort of game (I can't really say adventure paths specifically, since I tend to be running them, not playing them!) to sandbox-y character motivated-y stuff... Provided that they are half-way decent, of course.

I do think that is, again, a false dichotomy. You can have "plot" and external events without having to have a pre-defined, linear setup. That's pretty much default for how I run Fate games, and PbtA games are also strongly geared towards that, as two examples.

[Aotrs Commander]

I do think that is, again, a false dichotomy. You can have "plot" and external events without having to have a pre-defined, linear setup. That's pretty much default for how I run Fate games, and PbtA games are also strongly geared towards that, as two examples.

See, neither of those systems (as far as I've never played them) appeal to me, because I don't conceptually like that sort of free-form rules set to even begin with.

So while you may be right, that doesn't change the fact that I just am not interested in that sort of game.

Let me really upset people, then, and say - as a player, I am not especially attached to player agency.

If the campaign calls for us all to have some sort of curse that drags us along in a certain direction is we fail our will saves, I will cheerfully go along with it, (if not without some good-natured grumbling and snark (because my character isn't nessacarily so fixed) and a party running joke about going off to the Bay of Dancing Dolphins). As a player, I am quite happy to follow your adventure, knock down all the little dominoes set up for me; all I ask for is the illusion of free will and hell, I'll bend over backwards to accomodate you, DM! I am just not bothered at all in contributing to the stroke of the narrative as a player. Sure, if such a situation arise, or if asked, I might do so, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape if not. DMing is a massive effort for me due to the prep (and yes, the prep IS absolutely necessary; I have two spread sheet swith all my Pokémon across all the hand-held games and conduct analytics of the statistics of the fleets of my starships, there is no way I am going to not prep); so I am content to not have to time and effort into directing the game when I'm just a player.

[Psyren]

Depends how long your sessions are. It took us about six months for each of the first three parts of Rise of the Runelords (a year for the fiext two and about six months for the third) and I expect the first four chapters of Shackled City to take about the same. But we only have about 2-2.5 hour sessions per week on a Monday evening. If you play for several hours a week at the weekend, you'll probably get through one much faster.

Fair enough.


See, neither of those systems (as far as I've never played them) appeal to me, because I don't conceptually like that sort of free-form rules set to even begin with.

So while you may be right, that doesn't change the fact that I just am not interested in that sort of game.

Let me really upset people, then, and say - as a player, I am not especially attached to player agency.

If the campaign calls for us all to have some sort of curse that drags us along in a certain direction is we fail our will saves, I will cheerfully go along with it, (if not without some good-natured grumbling and snark (because my character isn't nessacarily so fixed) and a party running joke about going off to the Bay of Dancing Dolphins). As a player, I am quite happy to follow your adventure, knock down all the little dominoes set up for me; all I ask for is the illusion of free will and hell, I'll bend over backwards to accomodate you, DM! I am just not bothered at all in contributing to the stroke of the narrative as a player. Sure, if such a situation arise, or if asked, I might do so, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape if not. DMing is a massive effort for me due to the prep (and yes, the prep IS absolutely necessary; I have two spread sheet swith all my Pokémon across all the hand-held games and conduct analytics of the statistics of the fleets of my starships, there is no way I am going to not prep); so I am content to not have to time and effort into directing the game when I'm just a player.

Agreed - as long as the rails aren't blatant, I'm fine with there being a more or less obvious goal and steps to get there.

And yes, at least thus far, nothing about FATE and similarly less-structured games has appealed to me at all.

[Stan]

APs aren't for me either. You go and save the world in the way the book tells you to. If you don't follow more or less the laid out plot, the future portions are nearly useless. I'm not big on save the world plots either as it overrules everything else. Sure, you could go search for your lost sister, but then the world would be overrun with demons - what kind of choice is that. I'm even largely against paladins (pre-5e) as they wind up being plot devices; DM says "Your god tells you to do X." Of course the paladin does it. Then everyone follows along for little in-game reason.

Along the lines of what ComaVision said, you can treat APs as source books. Here's a list of NPCs with personalities and stats, some locations mapped out, here's a few things going on - saving a ton of time on those details. The DM can throw out the larger plot and use the APs resources for a more character driven story. But it does take work from the DM to adapt things instead of following long from A to B to C.

Try looking into some of the older setting boxed sets and books. They gave you a premade world without a forced plot. Though you would have to adapt the stats.

[kyoryu]

So while you may be right, that doesn't change the fact that I just am not interested in that sort of game.

People like different things. I'm not saying that you *should* like a particular style of game. I'm saying that "having a story" and "wander aimlessly" are not the only two options. You can have a game with a "story" that's not pre-scripted.

And you can do that in any system - I've done so in GURPS. The only real system 'requirement' is that it's a lot easier to do this in systems where you can create NPCs fairly quickly.


Let me really upset people, then, and say - as a player, I am not especially attached to player agency.

Cool. OTOH, player agency is why I play. Building characters and listening to a pre-written story doesn't do it for me.

Neither of us are 'right', except as far as our own preferences go. Neither of us are 'wrong'. We just want different things out of our gaming, and that's a perfectly fine thing.



If the campaign calls for us all to have some sort of curse that drags us along in a certain direction is we fail our will saves, I will cheerfully go along with it, (if not without some good-natured grumbling and snark (because my character isn't nessacarily so fixed) and a party running joke about going off to the Bay of Dancing Dolphins). As a player, I am quite happy to follow your adventure, knock down all the little dominoes set up for me; all I ask for is the illusion of free will and hell, I'll bend over backwards to accomodate you, DM! I am just not bothered at all in contributing to the stroke of the narrative as a player.

Cool. Sounds like APs are pretty well perfectly designed for you. And, apparently, lots of other people as well.

Anyone saying you're "doing it wrong" if that's what you enjoy should be thoroughly mocked.

[Aotrs Commander]

Cool. OTOH, player agency is why I play. Building characters and listening to a pre-written story doesn't do it for me.

Neither of us are 'right', except as far as our own preferences go. Neither of us are 'wrong'. We just want different things out of our gaming, and that's a perfectly fine thing.

Cool. Sounds like APs are pretty well perfectly designed for you. And, apparently, lots of other people as well.

Anyone saying you're "doing it wrong" if that's what you enjoy should be thoroughly mocked.

Aboslutely.

This really just proves just underlines that RPGs - rather like wargaming - are not really a single cohensive thing, because they cater to wide (and often mutually exclusive) preferences... Which is why finding a group that fits in with your own preferences is important to do; and why sometimes, you have have the unfortunate case of the OP in having to decide between playing a game that is not really for them, trying to find a new group (if there even is one, though I believe the UK's population density (and greater eccentiries...?) gives us a bit of an advantage in that regard) or no game at all.

[icefractal]

My issue with APs has been less that there is an overarching goal, and more that usually you have little choice about how you accomplish that goal. With a proactive GM that's willing to rewrite as needed, you can, but that does waste a lot of the content you paid for and adds more prep time, so not everyone will.

Secondly, I realized I don't like the way the level curve goes in the Paizo APs. It's a steady ramp from 1st up to the end-point (somewhere 15-18 usually), and then it stops. I like more of a "punctuated equilibrium" approach, where you get to enjoy being Xth level for a while before rushing past.

Like for me, the ideal (for a 1-20 game) would be something like:
* Go through the first few levels pretty quickly
* Sit around 6-7th for a while, to get a feel for that
* Go through 7-11 at a medium rate
* Sit around 11-12th for a while
* Go through 13-16 at a medium rate
* Finish anything mandatory at 16th, sit around for a while wrapping up loose ends and pursuing personal goals, maybe slowly going up the last few levels during the process.

Also I'd rather start at 3rd than 1st for something that goes up to the double digits. The first couple levels are their own different experience, and while 1-6 works, I find 1-17 has some disconnects. For that matter I'm not sold that a campaign covering the entire level range is ideal, but that's just personal taste.

[Darth Ultron]

Let me really upset people, then, and say - as a player, I am not especially attached to player agency.

If the campaign calls for us all to have some sort of curse that drags us along in a certain direction is we fail our will saves, I will cheerfully go along with it, (if not without some good-natured grumbling and snark (because my character isn't nessacarily so fixed) and a party running joke about going off to the Bay of Dancing Dolphins). As a player, I am quite happy to follow your adventure, knock down all the little dominoes set up for me; all I ask for is the illusion of free will and hell, I'll bend over backwards to accomodate you, DM!

You sound like a great player to me.

I see people really just use ''player agency'' as a word to mean ''I play the game differently''. And that sounds great, but what does it mean? In any game except the most random free-form sandbox, a player won't have any agency. But they can have an illusion of it.

[Efrate]

I haven't ran any Paizo AP, but played rise of the runelords (first section) several times, so I cannot speak to them, but as far as the 3.X APs, I never had an issue. Of my 2 groups right now, one which was mostly new players is running sunless citadel with tweaks and its working fine. In my full on 5-year plus campaign which is dissolving cause life happens was set in Forgotten Realms because magic and dieties were much more omnipresent.

I find in my homebrew things get a LOT more railroady as you get higher level. Your characters make choices, and the consequences of those choices affect your options. You didn't go around lvl 8 to free that city under the heel of slavers, so that place and its allies are either not around or not wanting you, and your options there are much more limited. If there are multiple factions and you align with one, you alienate others; or your enemies align with those factions so you cannot then go and join/help them. As the story evolved my group seemed more and more pigeonholed into having very limited options to pursue. That makes sense narratively, but it could have been any of the original options. Your overarching goals may remain the same but your path to them is forced at least in part by your actions. The higher level you get the more this seems to be the case. Maybe its just my particular game and story. r

Contrast to my sunless citadel game, where though the path is very linear, module to module to module, it seems the angles of approach to most things are quite a bit more diverse, but there is level disparity yet between the games so maybe in that gap will close.

Again I can't speak for Paizo stuff, and I improvise a lot of stuff, especially random town d'jour where the adventurers want to go, get drunk, have a tournament, get that flirty barmaid in the sack, or whatever. I try to at least integrate PC motivations, backstory and hooks as things to do between sacking dungeon X and Y but don't take much real world time to do, so you can do 2 or 3 in a session easily even with short meeting times.

[Starbuck_II]

Whelp. Looks like I'm going to be dropping from my regular group after 10 years of play.

As much as I love these guys, their constant use of Adventure Paths (and only adventure paths... anything not adventure path-like in scope died after a few sessions) has finally killed my interest in gaming with them and came to a head when the GM offered to run 2 APs concurrently. I was on the fence for but when the option presented itself my brain just kinda said "Nope, I'm done".

I could suffer through more Pathfinder with them, but these adventure paths are killing me and my interest in gaming as a whole. The linearity and lack of agency, mixed with the overall pressure to focus on the AP's goals rather then character ones (or create new goals that aren't "see the AP to it's resolution") have driven me to look for new venues of play.

I've told them that I'll be sticking around until the end of the module, but after that I'm gone.

I'd like to run something, but while doing the prepwork and trying to get something off the ground it cemented in me that I'm really bad at doing this sort of stuff as I have ideas but little framework to properly setup an ongoing campaign. I have a week of vacation starting, but my enthusiasm to put work into getting my own campaign off the ground has pretty much died.

As far as other groups are concerned, we're the only group I know of that plays at the FLGS I hang out at and no one at work I know roleplays or really has any interest in doing so (or have comparable schedules).

I tried gaming online on something like roll20 but it didn't pan out and play by post takes so long to attempt to scratch the itch, me and the itch have made peace and got a shelter dog. We named it Scruffles.

He's adorable.

I'm kinda at a loss now as to what to do. I'd like to continue gaming, but my group's heavy reliance on APs over the years (four: Savage Tide, Council of Thieves, Kingmaker and currently Hell's Rebels) has finally killed my interest in playing under them and I can't get motivated to run something after a few failed attempts.

I dunno, this is mainly a vent thread, but it's still frustrating.

Have you tried 3.5 modules? They aren't hard to convert to Pathfinder.

The beginner box quests are good as well: Blackfang's dungeon leads to Ruins if Raven Watch (someday I'll run them rather than just write out the adventures).

Or take cues from the comics of Pathfinder.

Heck, convert 4E AP's to Pathfinder and see how it goes.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Google: Lamentations of the Flame Princess.
Take what you find to your group. Let them see how the other other half games.

[Ravens_cry]

I too have been a victim of Pathfinder Adventure Paths. I've been in two of them, Council of Thieves and Reign of Winter, neither of which I saw to completion. My group is not a boring group of people, the other players often find a way to make things fun but sadly, not even flamboyant personalities can save these ones. Overall I find the Adventure Paths lame and boring. Makes me feel like a walking robot, and not the fun kind of robot.

I did like some of the Adventure Paths, but Council of Thieves, though it had a couple of great moments, the play comes to mind, really felt different than what I was hoping for.
From the way it sounded, it would be a game of political intrigue and subterfuge.
Sadly, what we got was . .. dungeon crawling in people's basements.

[Calthropstu]

My players for jade regent seem to feel the same, so I am strongly modding the campaign.

I have tons of mental notes and ideas on how to add stuff into the campaign. As it is, these modules are fight fight fight, down time, fight fight fight.

It takes a lot of creative gming to do both the adventure path AND do the character play that my pcs expect.

But I will get it.

[Corsair14]

Not a fan of established long term campaigns myself when playing or DMing. Very boring and theme parky to me. I much prefer walled sandboxes. As a DM I can make it so players need to do something so I will maneuver things in that directions. But I will let PCs go about their own goals and do mini-adventures especially if they talk to me about their characters goals and motivations on the side. Thankfully in the days of texting, that's easy to do out of game.

As for established stuff, I rarely use commercial modules unless they are easy one shotters like the old days where I can just slot it into the campaign seamlessly. Usually I will change a few things to make it fit in better or provide some clues to the over-all campaign.