# Sept 2nd News - I wont be doing Scales of War



## Hawke (Sep 3, 2008)

> _Originally Posted by *AsmodeusLore*_
> _Can we get a copy of the Scales of War overview?_
> The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the _Path_ is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!




Weak. I was about to start a new campaign and was highly considering making it easy and using something like this. Until the group had to break up a few weeks ago, I was happily running the Star Wars Dawn of Defiance arc... but simply can't spend potentially months of gameplay only to find out that the end of the adventure is a bust or that the end goes to places I'm not particuarly interested in going for taste reasons. Sure, you could say "respec it to your needs!" but if I was going to spend time doing so I'd just do my own campaign. 

I also hate the patronizing "we're going to protect you from yourselves" tone of it. It was fine with DoD, why not with SoW? I can say that none of my players got any wind of anything, didn't read the overview, and didn't frequent the DoD subforum at wizards. 

So there you have it - no SoW for me and one less reason to get involved with DDI. 

Any other thoughts?

Edit: Link Ask Wizards: 09/03/2008


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 3, 2008)

Why is it when someone tells me - trust me, you can't see it yet, but it's there - I get visions of a sleazy used car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.  None of that reply makes logical sense.  Star Wars has an adventure path going on the Star Wars page (just a click away from the DnD page) with a complete adventure track synopsis/outline labled for GMs only.  Now, I know I don't have WoTC download statistics, but I would imagine if people had stopped downloading the Dawn of Defiance path adventures because they had revealed all of the surprises, they probably wouldn't be putting the effort into posting new ones on the site (with the latest installment being the largest at a substantial 51 page adventure).  Sorry, but no!  As Joe Pesci said, the defenses case doesn't hold water.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Sep 3, 2008)

Some reasons I see:
1) There are a lot more people playing 4E than SWSE. No, I don't have numbers to back that up, but I'm certain that's a safe statement.
2) I was downloading the DoD adventures... until I found and read the synopsis. It was great, but since I wasn't actively running the game, I didn't need anymore than the synposis. Had I not read the synopsis, there is a good likelihood that I would be downloading each scenario just to read. Reading the synopsis caused me to end my active engagement with the adventure path.
3) SoW is a big selling point for e-Dungeon. A synopsis may cause similar disengagement in some people. I'm not currently running SoW, but I would like to someday and I look forward to each month's installment since the metaplot hasn't been spoiled by a Cliff's Notes version.
4) I do see the value in being suprised by each month's installment, as the WotC answer states.
5) While I have no doubt that WotC does have the AP planned out as they state, not providing a synopsis means that they retain the flexibility to change things as the game and AP develop over the next _*16 months*_. While some people are disappointed now for not having a synopsis, there would be even more that would complain if WotC later deviated from a published synopsis.

My advice? Run it until it hits a point you don't like, and then go your own direction. Or mine it for the parts you see as gems. For example, 'Bordrin's Watch' has some great cinematic battle locations, even if you don't want the scenario itself.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2008)

Seems a little like a case of "over-protection". Won't stop me - or start me - running Scales of Wars, though. But I like the idea that there are some surprises coming the way.

We'll see who will run the adventure path in my group. So far, we're running KotS and the follow-ups, and three converted 3E campaigns, and a Torg campaign. Fitting in another campaign is basically impossible, one would have to go (with the DM staying), so it will take months or years till we can finally start playing it. :/


----------



## Wonka (Sep 3, 2008)

That answer is just down right insulting, if you ask me. They are basically telling us they know better than us how to run the story. This answer right really, really turns me off to the whole DDI thing now. Ive been behind them for the most part, but if this is the attitude of the staff behind it, why support it? It really makes me sad too, as I was looking forward to a good portion of the things to be offered with DDI. As I am just getting into DMing, I dont have years of experience to fall back on when doing adventures like this. I need these overviews to get a sense of how these are all set up. Maybe some veteran DMs could get by, but this just makes the campaign pretty much not worth running. Coupled with the complete silence on the issue of hi-res maps for the dungeon adventures (something myself who does a lot of my gaming online) just rubs me the wrong way. Just my thoughts, YMMV as always.


----------



## reveal (Sep 4, 2008)

This is why I wrote an open letter to Randy Buehler.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 4, 2008)

Now, the lack of a overview doesn make me grumpy, mainly because I thought I could use SoW for my group. Now half of e-Dungeon is effectively useless, at least until the SoW path is close to completion so I can DM it _with_ knowing what I'm doing.

Because doing something without knowing what you're actually doing isn't that great. And as a DM, I need material to work with, not random stuff (if I never now what I get next, it is for my purposes "random", even if it isn't truly random). Because I cannot judge how my adjustments on-the-fly impact the further course of the AP, I may kill off the BBEG in the first adventure without knowing. :/

Cheers, LT.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 4, 2008)

That post by Randy Buehler is one of the stupidest things I've read. As a DM, I _need_ to know the structure of any adventure path I run. Surprises are for the players, not for the DM.

But, it's par for the course with him: from the absolute failure of the Gleemax blogging system, to the non-appearance of much of the Digital Insider. 

If there's someone who more needs to be sacked at Wizards, I don't know who they are. That someone actually wonderfully competent, like Linae Foster, got the boot just shows how much a lot of the managers at Wizards have lost their way.

Very, very unimpressed.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> Some reasons I see:



  Sorry but I don't see any of these reasons as truly valid.  







Reaper Steve said:


> 1) There are a lot more people playing 4E than SWSE. No, I don't have numbers to back that up, but I'm certain that's a safe statement.



  Uhm...Paizo put out a campaign overview for their AP...and that was D&D, not Star Wars, and just for the record WotC had to approve everything they did with the mags.  So no, I'm not seeing how this is in any way relevant.  







Reaper Steve said:


> 2) I was downloading the DoD adventures... until I found and read the synopsis. It was great, but since I wasn't actively running the game, I didn't need anymore than the synposis. Had I not read the synopsis, there is a good likelihood that I would be downloading each scenario just to read. Reading the synopsis caused me to end my active engagement with the adventure path.
> So, instead of letting the AP stand on it's own as a product... it's better to trick people into jumping on for the long haul by not letting them know what they are buying into?  I'm sorry but the mega adventures you buy from WotC have a back cover blurb that gives an overview of the plot...why is this any different?
> 
> 
> ...



   So use them like any other adventure in Dungeon, totally ignoring their main selling point...Adventure Path (as in fully prepared campaign for you).  Yeah ok, why is this a feature again?


----------



## carmachu (Sep 4, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Why is it when someone tells me - trust me, you can't see it yet, but it's there - I get visions of a sleazy used car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.  None of that reply makes logical sense.  Star Wars has an adventure path going on the Star Wars page (just a click away from the DnD page) with a complete adventure track synopsis/outline labled for GMs only.




Actually it makes sense if you think about it in this fashion:They cant give you an overview of something they dont know where its going, nor that they havent finished.....


----------



## Festivus (Sep 4, 2008)

MerricB said:


> That post by Randy Buehler is one of the stupidest things I've read. As a DM, I _need_ to know the structure of any adventure path I run. Surprises are for the players, not for the DM.
> 
> But, it's par for the course with him: from the absolute failure of the Gleemax blogging system, to the non-appearance of much of the Digital Insider.
> 
> ...




Who are you and what have you done with the optimistic Merric?


I agree, I would want a synopsis before launching the next year or two of my game time into a adventure path.  I am not sure I need another adventure path right now anyhow, I am fine with Dungeon adventures and the RPGA stuff for now... my players aren't clamoring for a long, extended adventure path.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Hawke said:


> It was fine with DoD, why not with SoW?




Maybe the reason they elected not to do it with SoW is because of how DoD's worked out, from their perspective. If they felt it was a mistake that showed too much too early, then learning from it would be ideal.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Sep 4, 2008)

I responded in Reveal's Open Letter thread, but I'll add something here.



> Who are you and what have you done with the optimistic Merric?




I was asking myself a very similar question.

Also, just to add to what people have already said, if we don't have the information to link the adventures to each other, we're forced to invent this information, and if it turns out that the links we've created don't fit with what WotC has planned, then it'll be an even bigger mess to retro-unfit everything that the DMs will have made up to pad the adventures... (which also means that DMs will probably need to spend MORE time preparing because we don't have the overarching plot elements).

Also, "hyping" these secrets too much will only disappoint people when we finally learn them (Yes, I'm a natural pessimist).

I'm currently having fun DMing this adventure path. I hope it lasts.

AR


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2008)

Altamont Ravenard said:


> Also, just to add to what people have already said, if we don't have the information to link the adventures to each other, we're forced to invent this information, and if it turns out that the links we've created don't fit with what WotC has planned, then it'll be an even bigger mess to retro-unfit everything that the DMs will have made up to pad the adventures... (which also means that DMs will probably need to spend MORE time preparing because we don't have the overarching plot elements).



Indeed.  The whole "we want to surprise you" bit doesn't really hold together too well.  Why not just give us the adventure room by room?  That way we can be surprised several times a month without it being spoiled by having the whole adventure all at once.

Now, I know many won't care.  I know many people who enjoyed the Adventure Paths but decided to wait until all the adventures were out before running them (indeed, some were waiting for the never-to-appear hardbacks).


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 4, 2008)

Gamers, we know how to big enormous mountains of little tiny molehills!  We are even able to be "insulted" by things that are in no way insulting.  Sigh.

I have no need for a adventure path synopsis.  I wouldn't mind seeing one if they published it, but I don't miss it.  Didn't even realize they decided against doing it until this thread.

The decision to include an overall synopsis or not to include one is a decision WotC would get silly complaints over either way.  Lose-lose, in a fashion.  So they turned right instead of left, who cares?  The lack of a synopsis in no way lessens the value of Scales of War or of the "new" Dungeon Magazine.

Many DMs, like me, run things off the cuff as they come to us.  If we improvise some story arcs that don't show up in the next installment, or are changed . . . we roll with it and improvise some more!  It's so much more of a laid back style and I have so little stress from prepping for my games.

If you are the kind of DM who needs rigid maps and all the details plotted out before you start playing, a synopsis would be nice.  If you just can't live without it, keep collecting the excellent Scales of War and just don't run it until all 18 (?) episodes have been released.  In the meantime, run something else!

So much drama . . . .


----------



## Kaladhan (Sep 4, 2008)

I'm the kind of DM that puts out a campaign primer for it's player. I believe firmly that a lot of the fun is to have well-made characters that fits the campaign's concept and that has a background that will eventually be relevent to the story.

I like to know what's going to happen in advance. For example, if I know that a future adventure will present a mercenary group, I'll introduce them early. Perhaps they will meet that group in a tavern and have a fuss with them.

Foreshadowing is a great tool for DM. Not putting out a synopsis prevents me from running the kind of campaign that thrills me and my players. 

I was unsure if I should subscribe to the DDI. I guess I'll invite myself to a friend that will subscribe and ask him to print the articles that I'ld like to have.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 4, 2008)

I really wish this was surprising.

I really, really, really wish it was.

As much as I REALLY dislike what Wizards has been doing as of late, I want to see them make GOOD decisions and prove me wrong when I start to think ill of them.  Unfortuantely, I've grown very cynical, and...well, they keep proving me right.

As Merric stated, the fact that Linnae got kicked but  Buehler is still around...this says more then enough.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> hm...Paizo put out a campaign overview for their AP...and that was D&D, not Star Wars, and just for the record WotC had to approve everything they did with the mags. So no, I'm not seeing how this is in any way relevant.




Umm?  What?  When?  When did you get a campaign overview for Shackled City, Age of Worms or Savage Tide?  I know the STAP overview came in the last print issue or Dragon, after the last episode of STAP was published.  Were there earlier ones printed for AoW or SC?


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 4, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> Gamers, we know how to big enormous mountains of little tiny molehills! We are even able to be "insulted" by things that are in no way insulting. Sigh.
> 
> I have no need for a adventure path synopsis. I wouldn't mind seeing one if they published it, but I don't miss it. Didn't even realize they decided against doing it until this thread.
> 
> ...




Good for you.  I'm glad you don't need a synopsis.  However, those who do want one, and are vocal to WoTC about it, aren't overly dramatic gamers or bad DM's.  What they are is consumers providing feedback to a company that sells fan driven products.  Those that feel insulted by WoTC reply concerning that feedback, have a right to feel that way, and are not the lesser for it.

As to who cares, I would say there are quite a few people who have posted on this and similiar threads, posted on WoTC boards, and sent emails and feedback to WoTC about just this very subject.  That's probably why their dismissal of said feedback feels insulting.

I respect your opinions about a synopsis, or lack thereof and your veiws on adventure paths.  I enjoy reading them just as much as reading the opinions of those who disagree.

However, as concerns your opinions about the people who posted here, or your negative opinions and attacking of their opinions, I'd prefer you just kept those to yourself (and I'm probably not alone with that sentiment).


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2008)

Might as well perfect the trifecta.  Really hope they merge these threads.

There was a synopsis published for STAP in the issue before the STAP actually started.  I didn't have that issue, so, I didn't realize it was there.  My bad.

I was under the impression that the synopsis for Savage Tide came at the end.  Again, my bad.


----------



## DEP (Sep 4, 2008)

I must agre 110% with Merric on this one. WotC has very poor decision making skills.

I have been vocal with how upset I am on the Paizo boards, I believe I was the first to post this there, and I left a rather bitter comment on the WotC boards.

I have a 4e campaign up and going right now. It is a converted STAP. It had too many players for everyone's liking, which would be 10. I personally didn't mind that much. It is now down to 7. I was considering the SoWAP for a second campaign, but after this, they have lost myself and my 9 other players who looked forward to the DDI, although I lost hope a long time ago, this AP was what would make or break it for me. I hyped up a new AP and my players were happy as they all love the RHoD. After this news, their responses were pretty much this:

You mean to tell me the people who made this game won't give us an outline to help our ingame playing and our enjoyment. Nuts to this. 

So we are going to 3.5 or Pathfinder. 

Well done WotC, losing 10 people and their families.

Too bad it wasn't a shock.

As for the previews, the Shackled City did not have one, AoW did in Erik Mona's editorials he talked alot about the rough outline and such. I think Paizo put one up online also. The STAP had a full outline that was 5 pages in an issue after the AoW ended.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 4, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Umm?  What?  When?  When did you get a campaign overview for Shackled City, Age of Worms or Savage Tide?  I know the STAP overview came in the last print issue or Dragon, after the last episode of STAP was published.  Were there earlier ones printed for AoW or SC?




I don't know about Shackled City, but there was a detailed PDF from Paizo for Age of Worms called Age Of Worms Overload that in addition to giving stats for most of the NPC's in the AP gave a breakdown of each part of the AP. What I noticed was that even though some of the later chapters hadnt even been assigned writers yet the outline of the plot was still presented so that you had an idea of where the story was going.

With Savage Tide they printed the outline in the issue before the 1st part of the AP.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2008)

To be fair, Age of Worms Overload came out some time after the AP started.  Quite some time as I recall.  The Paizo site gives August 5, 2005.  Age of Worms started in Issue 124, which released July 05, so, there's a few months gap.

but, yeah, I'm totally wrong on this one.    Sorry about that.  Feel free to ignore me completely.  It usually helps.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Sep 4, 2008)

I've just started running Rescue at Rivennroar, and while I'd like an overview, I'd actually prefer there to be much more connection between RaR and Siege of Brodrin's Watch. I may just use another module like Scepter Tower of Spellguard - I quite like RaR as a starter adventure, but SoBW seems to be mainly taken up by the description of a city where the adventure does not take place. There's no more reason for me to direct the PCs of the RaR on to SoBW than to any other module. 

 Also, after playing through Age of War I'm not sure that a single 1-30 AP is that good an idea. I'd really prefer separate paths for heroic, paragon and epic tiers . If the later Scales of War modules are any good I might go back to them.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Sep 4, 2008)

The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
> Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.



Err.  There's a fair bit of a difference between reading a book, and writing the meat of each chapter of a book yourself.  An RPG adventure is pretty much just an outline that the DM and players flesh out into a full story.  And yeah, it's hard to tell a story well if you don't know where it's going (not that that will matter to every group).


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
> Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.




Only if you believe a DM is comparable with the reader of a book. I think the DM of a published module is closer to the director of a play written by someone else. And it's usually a good idea for the director to have a script when they start the first act.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 4, 2008)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, Age of Worms Overload came out some time after the AP started.  Quite some time as I recall.  The Paizo site gives August 5, 2005.  Age of Worms started in Issue 124, which released July 05, so, there's a few months gap.



I have not been following the new Dungeon adventure path in case one of our DMs wants to run it (which has been put forward as an idea) so take the following with that in mind.

I am however finishing off DMing our Age of Worms adventure path which has been lots of fun. The Age of Worms Overload document followed pretty closely from when I got the first magazine. As a fantastic tool for enthusing DMs to run it for their players, it was a pure masterstroke by Paizo. It showed they were going to go the extra mile for their readers and support their product to the hilt. This support continued with the issue downloads as well as the player support in corresponding Dragon Issues.

For Wizards to pass up the opportunity to do this when it is kind of expected from those already used to such things from Paizo's Dungeon is a shame and a lost opportunity. Maybe they are waiting for the subscriptions to start to protect DMs from nosy players. However if true, it seems kind of pointless as whole issues are available at the moment - and if a player is stupid enough to undermine their DM in such a way, they are most probably get in somehow. I think perhaps the path is incomplete (there are most likely holes here and there) and they are concerned about producing something that didn't match with the eventual product? Perhaps this is a sign that whoever is organising the path hasn't been as organised as they should be? The Age of Worms Overload outline didn't follow the eventual path precisely (it emphasised some things that didn't quite eventuate and didn't mention others that did) but even still, it was a great document for getting DMs on board and this seems what WotC should be trying to do with this new one.

Or perhaps it is as Randy says, maybe the surprises shall be worth it for players and DMs alike. Or perhaps it is another piece of lousy PR regarding WotC's handling of Dragon and Dungeon?

Time will tell... and that's a shame in itself.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
> Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.




That is, without doubt, one of the weakest arguments I have seen.

A DM is not in the same position as a book reader. A DM is responsible for guiding a group of players through an entire adventure arc. The DM is far more of a writer than a reader.

Knowledge is extremely important for a DM, especially when it comes to running NPCs, and it becomes even more important in Adventure Paths. The amount of time you will spend running them is significant, and thus your preparation must also be significant. These are Railroads, and they present significant problems for keeping players interested and in the campaign. If the campaign as a whole will not appeal to my players, I'd rather know that now rather than force it upon them.

Make no mistake: an adventure path is one of the hardest things to DM in full, and a DM needs all the help he can get.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
> Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.



I think your own postulation is flawed. The role of a DM consuming an adventure path and a reader consuming a series of books is completely different. The demands on a DM are far harsher than those on a reader. Seems like you pushed that analogy out before you sent it to the brain for processing - happens to all of us so don't worry.
However, I think the main reason for DMs perhaps feeling "owed" an outline or synopsis is because it is what has been done for the past couple of Dungeon adventure paths (so why not this one too). From experience, I can say it was a huge aid in bringing the path (Age of Worms for me) together as a whole; rather than just as a series of modules - the whole being greater than the sum of its parts kinda thing).
As for the investment of time thing, that is a serious reality - two and a half years and running for me and my group. I wouldn't get into such a path lightly and you perhaps shouldn't dismiss DMs for being careful in this regard.

Beat Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
> Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.




Can you honestly not see the difference between a book series and a campaign line you're supposed to play?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

I even think that players are owed some outline or synopsis, not going into detail, but laying out the general feeling of locations, themes and playstyle, before entering a campaign. The idea that a DM shouldn't know anything about a campaign arc before starting it sounds really weird.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Sep 4, 2008)

It sounds very much like Mr. Buehler trying to cover up for some other problem - like not enough time or funds for digesting the internal outline and producing one for the public.

While I would understand a statement like: "We would love to do an overview article for players and one for GMs, but we could not keep our schedules for other articles in Dungeon and Dragon, if we would do this. So we can't promise ayou anything along htis lines."

But to call it a knowing decision? We'll, he's reaping what he has sown.

I would stronlgy advise him to take a class in marketing...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 4, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I even think that players are owed some outline or synopsis, not going into detail, but laying out the general feeling of locations, themes and playstyle, before entering a campaign. The idea that a DM shouldn't know anything about a campaign arc before starting it sounds really weird.



Exactly. It's not only that as a DM having a clue is quite useful, especially with adventures feeling so disconnected like the first two entries...

One of my players enjoys involvement in the story a lot. I daresay that heaps of big reveals are not as enjoyable for him than being part of the story, with ties to the past of his characters. How can I accomodate him?

With this post, Buehler basically means that all D&D players have exactly the same preferences, tugging along the main plot, not being part of the plot. And STAP allowed some ties and early hints, due to the overview. And the only bad thing about STAP is that it can become a bit of a meatgrinder.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> *With this post, Buehler basically means that all D&D players have exactly the same preferences,* tugging along the main plot, not being part of the plot.




It would have been nice for those who do not mind "spoilers" to have the outline. Anyone who didn't want to have "spoilers" could have avoided them.

But apparently, no one at WotC cares anymore for those who do not share their - increasingly narrow - defintion of fun.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 4, 2008)

TBH, i kinda think starting a adventure path is kinda a bad idea without having the whole thing. A synopsis is nice, but having the actual material lets the DM adapt more tangents, hints and mysteries to fit the gaming group.


----------



## amethal (Sep 4, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> TBH, i kinda think starting a adventure path is kinda a bad idea without having the whole thing. A synopsis is nice, but having the actual material lets the DM adapt more tangents, hints and mysteries to fit the gaming group.



I sort of agree with you.

I don't think starting early is necessarily a bad idea, just that waiting for the whole thing to come out before starting, if you can,  is a better idea.

I struggled with some of the early adventures in War of the Burning Sky when the players were asking me questions I simply didn't have the answer to - and that has had a synopsis in the GM's guide from day 1. It would have been a lot worse without one at all.

However, the problem 4th edition players have is that at the moment there is a limited amount of adventures available and, if you particularly want an adventure path, as far as I am aware it is Scales of War or nothing.


----------



## GQuail (Sep 4, 2008)

Blimey, you kwow it's bad when even Merric says it's weak sauce!

As others have said, Age of Worms had something in the form of the Overload and Dungeon showed the Savage Tide Adventure Path summary before running it.  D&D campaigns being what htey are, it's very likely your players will go off-base and you might need to stall a few sessions to get them back on track - a GM really needs to have a rough idea of where the end point of the arc is.

That can be in more general details if they really want to preserve some mystery - for example, "extraplanar battles with a demon lord" or even just "evil outsider invaders using an artifact" is different from saying "Orcus is here, and he's got the Rod of Seven Parts".  But, to be honest, I don't think there should be much in the way of surprises for the GM anyway - at the very least, I wouldn't want to find an NPC bumped off several parts ago was actually the grand master of the plot and that there isn't an obvious replacement.   Any game in front of active players will end up going into divergences like this, and the GM needs to hav e the safety net of knowing what's worth railroading or fuding over.

Of course, I should add here that I'm more of a single adventure than an adventure path man as far as Dungeon was concerned: I was kinda bummed that Pathfinder was just going to be campaign arcs, although the single GamesMastery adventures made up for it.  So perhaps people who have actually ran Savage Tide or the like will have a very different opinion - perhaps it's OK as long as the adventure has appropriate sidebars and comments, or perhaps it's just a case of DM common sense to deal with these situations.

Regardless, though, Wizards answer does seem a bit uncool, and it does make me wonder if there's more to it.  I would ahev far preferred if, for example, the issue was time because of trying to get the DDI up and running that they just say so.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Sep 4, 2008)

I don't see how argument is any weaker than the 'must know it all right now' argument. You don't need anything more than what you have right now. You don't need the entire metaplot to run each scenario. You don't have to plan anything out... you finish one and move on to the next. I thought 'Bordrin's Watch' gave me enough to flow from one to the next. What happens in this month's installment? No idea, but I don't need one right now. Scenario 3 will tell me how to start where #2 left off.

If you (generic 'you') can't run the game that way, then maybe you should really wait another 16 months until you have them all and can read them all.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> I don't see how argument is any weaker than the 'must know it all right now' argument. You don't need anything more than what you have right now. You don't need the entire metaplot to run each scenario. You don't have to plan anything out... you finish one and move on to the next. I thought 'Bordrin's Watch' gave me enough to flow from one to the next. What happens in this month's installment? No idea, but I don't need one right now. Scenario 3 will tell me how to start where #2 left off.
> 
> If you (generic 'you') can't run the game that way, then maybe you should really wait another 16 months until you have them all and can read them all.




If one doesn't need the metaplot to run each adventure, then it wasn't much of a metaplot to begin with, or one had to run it by the letter, and not dare customise it even a bit, nor allow much changes by player actions.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 4, 2008)

I have to agree with the general sentiment. For me to even consider running an AP I need an outline. It doesn't have to cover all the details, just give some directions on what to expect.

Every adventure starts with a synopsis. Without a rough onverview it's simply incomplete.
If there's no outline for the AP it's no more than a series of loosely connected adventures.

When I read this reply over at WotC I immediately thought 'Wow, what a weak excuse.' What I would have expected to see is an explanation why they didn't give a synopsis right at the start of the first adventure for SoW and an assurance that it'll soon be made available. 

Expecially after the initial reactions to the first few adventures:
The two major complaints I've seen were the lack of an overview and the low-res maps.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 4, 2008)

Is Lorraine Williams back in charge over there? 

I'm really sick to death with WoTC telling me how to have fun. 

I've been playing D&D for over 20 years, I have 7 dedicated players with more always trying to join, and you know what, we have TONS of fun. Editions haven't mattered.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 4, 2008)

amethal said:


> . . . I don't think starting early is necessarily a bad idea, just that waiting for the whole thing to come out before starting, if you can, is a better idea. . .




I don't completely disagree with you.  If you are willing to wait, that's cool.  I would probably assume you are getting a DDI subscription anyways (which is by no means a bad thing - I hope you find it enjoyable and worthwhile).

  Personally though, for me, I'm not willing to pay for 16 months of Dungeon (or 12-14 months of DDI sub after the free preview), sight unseen, for an adventure path that I may or may not want to run (based on whether the path features are good enough or intrigue me), before I get to see it in it's totality and decide whether it's worth it.  Dungeon and Dragon are the only reasons I would want a DDI sub.  Without an AP synopsis, I won't be getting a subscription.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 4, 2008)

Festivus said:


> Who are you and what have you done with the optimistic Merric?







			
				Merric 4E said:
			
		

> stupidest, weakest, absolute failure, lost their way, very very unimpressed…sacked…




Personally, I am liking this new Merric more and more.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> Gamers, we know how to big enormous mountains of little tiny molehills!  We are even able to be "insulted" by things that are in no way insulting.  Sigh.




Indeed. A statement that says "We don't want to tip our hand early" immediately gets recast as "They're insulting us" or "They're telling us how to have fun" or "It's like Lorraine Williams all over again." Gamers twist people's words in a way that would make politicians green with envy.

What gets me is that I don't see the same "we need an overview" outcry directed towards Paizo, as I cannot find a single overview of any of the three Pathfinder APs they've released so far (though this may be because of their site; point me to one if it exists).


----------



## Uzzy (Sep 4, 2008)

A four page overview of Curse of the Crimson Throne can be found in Pathfinder 6: Spires of Xin-Shalast. Pathfinder 13: Shadow in The Sky, has a two page overview of the Second Darkness adventure path. So the lack of nerd rage against Paizo is probably because they actually supply the goods.

Also, Rise of the Runelords has an overview in Pathfinder 1: Burnt Offerings, in the form of a series of sidebars in the Thassilon article. So, three AP's, three overviews. One more reason why Paizo make the best products in the industry.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Indeed. A statement that says "We don't want to tip our hand early" immediately gets recast as "They're insulting us" or "They're telling us how to have fun" or "It's like Lorraine Williams all over again." Gamers twist people's words in a way that would make politicians green with envy.




As the thread shows, their statement "Providing an outline would spoil the surprises, so we don't do it" is not twisted into an insult by most posters, but quite correctly interpreted as "we do not support those DMs who need/want an outline to run their game". There is no other reason not to provide a "spoiler tagged" outline.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> A four page overview of Curse of the Crimson Throne can be found in Pathfinder 6: Spires of Xin-Shalast. Pathfinder 13: Shadow in The Sky, has a two page overview of the Second Darkness adventure path. So the lack of nerd rage against Paizo is probably because they actually supply the goods.




So, to get an overview of the second AP in the series, I have to spend $14 (nearly 3 months of DDI) on the last adventure in the first path? And this doesn't even help me with an overview of the first AP (#1-#6)? And I spend more per month ($10 with subscription, as opposed to $5 with subscription on DDI) for less content (1 96-page adventure, as opposed to 2 100+ page magazines plus a rules compendium that features rules from products I don't own)?


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 4, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> A four page overview of Curse of the Crimson Throne can be found in Pathfinder 6: Spires of Xin-Shalast. Pathfinder 13: Shadow in The Sky, has a two page overview of the Second Darkness adventure path. So the lack of nerd rage against Paizo is probably because they actually supply the goods.




Also, as far as I know, Paizo has not given some lame-ass justification for the times when they didn't have plot outlines.  It's one thing to not have a plot outline because you didn't think of it, or didn't have time to write one, or want to leave yourself some wiggle room as you develop the story.  It's quite another to act like your customers' ability to get the most out of your product is less important than keeping spoilers off the Internet.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> Also, as far as I know, Paizo has not given some lame-ass justification for the times when they didn't have plot outlines.  It's one thing to not have a plot outline because you didn't think of it, or didn't have time to write one, or want to leave yourself some wiggle room as you develop the story.  It's quite another to act like your customers' ability to get the most out of your product is less important than keeping spoilers off the Internet.




Indeed. Something missing from a product is one thing, claiming the missing thing is actually a feature is another thing. And claiming that people are better off not having spoilers is claiming that they can't handle spoiler tags.

Sorry, but I take a dim view of people who try to tell me that I am better off not knowing the outline, or that I could not handle spoiler tags.


----------



## Uzzy (Sep 4, 2008)

Wait wait, I thought you were complaining about the lack of an overview from Paizo, something not true at all. If you wanted an overview of the first AP, you can find that in Pathfinder 1: Burnt Offerings. No, it is not 100% ideal that the overview for the second AP was found in the last book of the first AP. However, Paizo learnt from that, and the first book in Second Darkness has a very nice overview. It's alright to make little mistakes, just as long as people learn from them. Paizo has done. (Further, to be fair, the 4 page preview of Curse of the Crimson Throne in PF#6 is a top quality preview.)

As for cost related issues, there are a few points. Firstly, quality. Paizo's adventures are top notch, as evidenced by the 8 Ennies that were won this year. Heck, Expedition to Castle Greyhawk was written by Paizo staff! Secondly, they are actual print products, as opposed to PDF's. Thirdly, WoTC, as the market leader, have much greater economies of scale then Paizo. 

Paizo give people the overview they need for an Adventure Path. WoTC offer lame excuses.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 4, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I'm really sick to death with WoTC telling me how to have fun.



Overstate much?

I do agree that DMs should have a synopsis available. We all know players aren't a predictable lot, and the more info the DM has from the beginning, the better. Which is why I personally would never DM an adventure path without having the whole thing to begin with.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> Wait wait, I thought you were complaining about the lack of an overview from Paizo, something not true at all.




No, my complaint was that I couldn't find one, and I asked to be pointed to one if it exists. You pointed me to it, and I learned that it would cost me money to be able to see it, which is a new issue I have with it.



> It's alright to make little mistakes, just as long as people learn from them.




Agreed. And you're exactly right that going from putting the overview in the last adventure of a previous AP to putting it in the first adventure of the current AP is definitely learning and correcting.



> Secondly, they are actual print products, as opposed to PDF's.




No, I'm talking about the PDFs that cost $14 a pop. If I was talking about the print products, the price under discussion would be $20. I chose to compare the PDF versions of the adventures to Dragon/Dungeon since DDI stuff is PDF as well.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 4, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> Paizo give people the overview they need for an Adventure Path. WoTC offer lame excuses.




I agree. And the Paizo AP overviews serve as a marketing tool for the discriminating consumer. Do I want to invest more in this AP? Does it have the potential to add to my campaign? How do I know? I read the overviews.

Of course, that comes with the possibility that I may not buy the adventure path. Is that something they're actually afraid of? Is that the real reason they aren't putting out an overview?

I'd be willing to accept an explanation that later parts of the path aren't completely nailed down. I'd accept it even more willingly if they broke up the path into 4 or 8 episode chunks and provided a synopsis of those chunks as they approached publication date and were solidified in the plans. 

It's about service to the consumers, ultimately, and their use of the materials. Good service, even if the customer doesn't buy the product, brings people back to check out other offerings. Some companies, it is clear, understand that better than others.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 4, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Overstate much?




You may have a different opinion, but I agree with Drkfathr1. All this stuff we've heard about things not being fun - having surprises potentially spoiled, certain kinds of "unfun" things that went on in previous editions of the game, etc. I'm getting pretty tired of it too.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 4, 2008)

Silly question.

Pre-Adventure path overview, how did you guys do something like Against the Giants->Descent?


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

billd91 said:


> You may have a different opinion, but I agree with Drkfathr1. All this stuff we've heard about things not being fun - having surprises potentially spoiled, certain kinds of "unfun" things that went on in previous editions of the game, etc. I'm getting pretty tired of it too.




I see absolutely nothing in his reply that goes anywhere near telling people how to have fun or saying that things from previous editions were unfun. I see him saying that certain "reveals" being spoiled ahead of time won't have the same impact, which makes sense, since surprises in storylines (like plot twists, character deaths, etc) don't have the same impact if you know about them ahead of time.

Saying "this won't have the same impact" and "this is how you have fun" are entirely different statements.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So, to get an overview of the second AP in the series, I have to spend $14 (nearly 3 months of DDI) on the last adventure in the first path? And this doesn't even help me with an overview of the first AP (#1-#6)? And I spend more per month ($10 with subscription, as opposed to $5 with subscription on DDI) for less content (1 96-page adventure, as opposed to 2 100+ page magazines plus a rules compendium that features rules from products I don't own)?



That's not good either. But just because Paizo does it wrong, it doesn't mean that WotC must make the same error, no? Plus the Paizo AP entries feel more interconnected (though this doesn't make up for the lack of a well-placed overview) than the two SoW entries so far.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> I don't see how argument is any weaker than the 'must know it all right now' argument.




I don't need to know it all. I would appreciate if they gave me some information to give me a general idea of where in Hood's name this adventure path is going, and how are the adventures interconnected.

Also, I find it unacceptable that the information is available, but that the powers that be decide for ME that this information would be more hurtful (because of the "secrets") than helpful.

Beru fend.

AR


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Altamont Ravenard said:


> Also, I find it unacceptable that the information is available, but that the powers that be decide for ME that this information would be more hurtful (because of the "secrets") than helpful.




Again, I see nothing in his post that says that. He says that the impact will be lessened if you know about surprises ahead of time, which is an accurate statement. If you knew Vader was Luke's father before watching that scene in Empire, then it wouldn't have the same impact.

There's a difference between "it won't have the same imoact we want if you know ahead of time" and "it will hurt you to know this."


----------



## yoda8myhead (Sep 4, 2008)

All things considered, I'm not surprised by either WotC's lack of providing adequate support material for GMs or the outcry that is coming from gamers as a result.  But they are right in one regard, though.  I _don't_ need an overview for SoW--Their lack of quality and support for the path is keeping me from running it.



			
				Uzzy said:
			
		

> Paizo give people the overview they need for an Adventure Path. WoTC offer lame excuses.




To add to this, each issue of Pathfinder, and numerous other Pathfinder branded books contain the supporot articles a GM needs to make a cohesive world without needing to dedicate hours upon hours each week to make it work.  With bestiaries containing ecologies for new monsters, regional gazetteers, racial and historical "fluff" articles about the setting, and GM tools like advice on running a castle or high altitude adventuring provide even more support than one gets from a simple overview (not to diminish the value of an overview).  How many articles in the two "magazines" that WotC puts out a month have provided supporting material for SoW?  There's a huge gap in that regard as well.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 4, 2008)

yoda8myhead said:


> All things considered, I'm not surprised by either WotC's lack of providing adequate support material for GMs or the outcry that is coming from gamers as a result.  But they are right in one regard, though.  I _don't_ need an overview for SoW--Their lack of quality and support for the path is keeping me from running it.
> 
> 
> 
> To add to this, each issue of Pathfinder, and numerous other Pathfinder branded books contain the supporot articles a GM needs to make a cohesive world without needing to dedicate hours upon hours each week to make it work.  With bestiaries containing ecologies for new monsters, regional gazetteers, racial and historical "fluff" articles about the setting, and GM tools like advice on running a castle or high altitude adventuring provide even more support than one gets from a simple overview (not to diminish the value of an overview).  How many articles in the two "magazines" that WotC puts out a month have provided supporting material for SoW?  There's a huge gap in that regard as well.




AP's are, afaik, what puts bread on the table at Paizo, without them, they would have nothing but a game in beta. Now, I must admit that I know little of this, but is it possible that Paizo actually spends more man-power on their AP's than WotC, since AP's are a fairly small thing for WotC? Because if that is the case, then why should we expect WotC's AP's to be better than Paizo's?

Either way, I agree with the sentiment that we should get an overview. It probably wouldn't change much for me, since the two installments that I have read so far were hardly good enough to convince me of running Scales of War. So far, it has been among the worst things they have released in eDungeon.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Sep 4, 2008)

Here's my guess on what they don't want to spoil:
With 16 more months to go, I expect that the later parts of SoW will include monsters from MM2 (and maybe 3), as well as things from other books yet to be published or even announced.

If they say, the BBEG of SoW is _____________, a 33rd level primordial (see Manual of the Planes) that rides an acient wyrm brown dragon (see Draconomicon I) and is surrounded by hordes of ___________ (see MM2)...., well, not only does that spoil the adventure path, but it also spoils parts of those products.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

Some people just don't get that we're not fans watching ESB, we're the directors shooting the movie. At least some of us want the script for the movie we are shooting, if only so we can improve on it if needed, and make it more fun.

Is there an reason other than 'Spoilers are bad for you' arrogancd for not providing us a spoiler tagged outline?

Is there any reason even to defend their mistake?


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Is there an reason other than 'Spoilers are bad for you' arrogancd for not providing us a spoiler tagged outline?




Not wanting to tip your hand is neither arrogance nor saying "spoilers are bad for you." Please stop assigning an intent or motivation to his post that is not in the text.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> Here's my guess on what they don't want to spoil:
> With 16 more months to go, I expect that the later parts of SoW will include monsters from MM2 (and maybe 3), as well as things from other books yet to be published or even announced.
> 
> If they say, the BBEG of SoW is _____________, a 33rd level primordial (see Manual of the Planes) that rides an acient wyrm brown dragon (see Draconomicon I) and is surrounded by hordes of ___________ (see MM2)...., well, not only does that spoil the adventure path, but it also spoils parts of those products.




Why would they say that?  I don't need the BBEG's exact stats, or what book he's going to be in.  The players aren't going to fight him for another 25 levels.  I just need to know _who he is and what he's doing_.



The Little Raven said:


> Not wanting to tip your hand is neither arrogance nor saying "spoilers are bad for you." Please stop assigning an intent or motivation to his post that is not in the text.




What he said wasn't exactly the same as "spoilers are bad for you," but that was what it came down to - they don't want to reveal the plot because then spoilers would exist.  And it _is_ arrogant to say:



> I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!



These are subjective judgements he's making on our behalf.  Who is he to tell us whether we'll find his archvillain compelling, or his structure logically complete, or his plot hook "real?"

Just because he likes his archvillain doesn't mean I will.  Just because he thinks his structure is logical and complete doesn't mean I won't see great gaping holes in it.   And just because he thinks he's got a good plot hook doesn't mean my players will give a damn about it.  I want to judge for myself before I embark on a years-long campaign.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 4, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Silly question.
> 
> Pre-Adventure path overview, how did you guys do something like Against the Giants->Descent?



Buy the adventures, read them, and run them?  Or, read the blurbs on the cover of the adventures, decide that some or all of it was not to your taste, and buy/run none or some of it?  I don't get what you're asking here, not many people were actually in a position to run these without having the later chapters already available - the entire series was published in 1978, except for Q1 which came out in 1980.

But aside from that, the old school modules were very bare-bones, without the intricate plots that we see nowadays.  A group playing D3 and jumping through the portal to Lolth's realm back in 1978 would have had no problems or qualms with making up what happened after on their own, as there was no supplied plot to begin with.  I doubt that the very free-form D3 would even be recognized as an actual adventure these days - the standards are very different now (maybe as a location sourcebook).



The Little Raven said:


> I see him saying that certain "reveals" being spoiled ahead of time won't have the same impact, which makes sense, since surprises in storylines (like plot twists, character deaths, etc) don't have the same impact if you know about them ahead of time.



The DM has to know them ahead of time in order to run the game.  I don't know about you, but I don't have any positive play experiences that involve the DM reading the adventure as we're playing through it at the table, but that would be the only way for the DM to shield himself from spoilers.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Not wanting to tip your hand is neither arrogance nor saying "spoilers are bad for you." Please stop assigning an intent or motivation to his post that is not in the text.




You don't get it. Time to add another name to my ignore list.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You don't get it.




Yeah, I don't get why people take something someone says and twist it to say something entirely different, to the extent where they try and squeeze some kind of implied insult out of it.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 4, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Overstate much?




No, I state my opinion. 

Try to start arguments much?


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> And it _is_ arrogant to say:




Okay, so any writer or person associated with a project saying "Hey, we've got a plan, even if you can't see it yetl" is just being arrogant.



> These are subjective judgements he's making on our behalf.  Who is he to tell us whether we'll find his archvillain compelling, or his structure logically complete, or his plot hook "real?"




Now you're just actively trying to take offense from his words. Of course it's all his opinion, just like Ari saying the Advanced Player's Guide is good is his opinion. That doesn't mean that Ari is being presumptive and arrogant by stating such, merely that it's his opinion that the product is good, and only someone actively looking to get upset over nothing would claim that such a statement is someone trying to force their opinion on others.

I mean, should we all call Paizo arrogant for saying that Pathfinder is a great product? Or how about saying White Wolf is trying to force their opinion on us because they think that the Exalted setting is well-written and cohesive, with compelling villains and plot hooks?

Christ, it's getting to the point where noone from WotC can say anything positive about anything that comes out of WotC, because it's suddenly arrogant or insulting or forcing their opinion on somebody.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Now you're just actively trying to take offense from his words. Of course it's all his opinion, just like Ari saying the Advanced Player's Guide is good is his opinion. That doesn't mean that Ari is being presumptive and arrogant by stating such, merely that it's his opinion that the product is good, and only someone actively looking to get upset over nothing would claim that such a statement is someone trying to force their opinion on others.




It's not arrogant to say his project is good.  It _is_ arrogant to say that simply because he thinks it's good, we should just "wait and see" - and, of course, spend the next several months playing through the first adventures of the AP, waiting for the Big Reveal when we find out if his team is actually going to deliver on their promises.

If Ari tells me I should buy his Advanced Player's Guide because it's the best thing ever, my reaction is going to be, "Well, what's in it?"  If his response is, "Well, I can't give you all the specifics, but here's a general overview," that's perfectly reasonable; he's piquing my interest by saying it's the best thing ever, then giving me the information I need to decide whether I agree with him (or at least, whether I think there's a reasonable chance of it; I still have to guess whether his execution will live up to his ambition, but I can look at his other work to get an idea of that).

But if his response is, "Just wait and see," that's arrogant, because now he's acting as if I should accept his opinion without question.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If you knew Vader was Luke's father before watching that scene in Empire, then it wouldn't have the same impact.




This is missing the point. If you are watching the movie, yes it will make a difference. However the DM isnt a "viewer" in this case, they would be the director. Randy is telling the directors they dont need to see the script of the movie, because it would ruin the surprise. You just go ahead and direct and when the next section of the script is ready you can use it. The AP synopsis is for the DMs, not the players. 

Also, about the Paizo point. No, you dont have to pay 20 dollars for the synopsis. You can goto your FLGS, pick up the print module that has the synopis for the AP and give it a quick glance, then decide if you like it. Now if your local FLGS doesnt carry paizo producs, then yes it can be an issue. However, the point still remains that they are at least OFFERING a synopsis to the DMs. WoTC wont even tell us where this AP is going, and they just expect us to doll out the cash for the magazines every month because "Trust us! Its great! We dont want to spoil it!"


----------



## Uzzy (Sep 4, 2008)

If you want a free overview for the forthcoming Paizo Adventure Paths, you can also look here. It's not as good as the ones you pay for, but still, better then the complete lack of offering given by WoTC.

Now, if Paizo products are too expensive for you, I'd suggest taking out a subscription. You get a whole 30% off, which is great.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> Here's my guess on what they don't want to spoil:
> With 16 more months to go, I expect that the later parts of SoW will include monsters from MM2 (and maybe 3), as well as things from other books yet to be published or even announced.
> 
> If they say, the BBEG of SoW is _____________, a 33rd level primordial (see Manual of the Planes) that rides an acient wyrm brown dragon (see Draconomicon I) and is surrounded by hordes of ___________ (see MM2)...., well, not only does that spoil the adventure path, but it also spoils parts of those products.




Personally, I think you might be on the right track (although nobody outside of WoTC, the Dungeon magazine staff, or anyone with the name Randy Buehler can really know for sure).  Some people jumped on this as being silly about needing to know exact stats and such, but I understand the concept you were getting at.  WoTC may be afraid of releasing spoilers of, not just the Adventure Path, but their future products.

But it seems to me, with the talent they are supposed to have, and the foreknowledge of what products they are developing, they should be able to give us a minimal overview without violating the secrecy of in-development products.

I'm not saying that our group here at ENWorld necessarily drives WoTC sales, but I seem to be seeing enough negative feedback from prospective DM's of this path here on ENWorld, on other boards, and from the emails myself and others have sent WoTC, that should have WoTC saying "Maybe we should be listening to this" insted of just saying "Trust Us".


----------



## Vanuslux (Sep 4, 2008)

Wonka said:


> This is missing the point. If you are watching the movie, yes it will make a difference. However the DM isnt a "viewer" in this case, they would be the director. Randy is telling the directors they dont need to see the script of the movie, because it would ruin the surprise. You just go ahead and direct and when the next section of the script is ready you can use it. The AP synopsis is for the DMs, not the players.
> 
> Also, about the Paizo point. No, you dont have to pay 20 dollars for the synopsis. You can goto your FLGS, pick up the print module that has the synopis for the AP and give it a quick glance, then decide if you like it. Now if your local FLGS doesnt carry paizo producs, then yes it can be an issue. However, the point still remains that they are at least OFFERING a synopsis to the DMs. WoTC wont even tell us where this AP is going, and they just expect us to doll out the cash for the magazines every month because "Trust us! Its great! We dont want to spoil it!"




There also exists the option of asking someone who does own the module to summarize it for you.  

Personally, I'm not going to be using the path because there was no attempt to fix any of the glaring errors in Rescue at Rivenroar when it was compiled into the whole issue.  It doesn't matter how great the story is if the quality control sucks.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 4, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> If they say, the BBEG of SoW is _____________, a 33rd level primordial (see Manual of the Planes) that rides an acient wyrm brown dragon (see Draconomicon I) and is surrounded by hordes of ___________ (see MM2)...., well, not only does that spoil the adventure path, but it also spoils parts of those products.



Nothing of this is what I would want to see in an overview. Neither would you see anything like this in an adventure synopsis. If that is really (part of) the reason why they don't want to give us an outline, they are even more clueless than I would have thought possible.


----------



## cangrejoide (Sep 4, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You don't get it. Time to add another name to my ignore list.




Might as well add me too, because I don't get it either.

WOTC can never win apparently.


----------



## James Jacobs (Sep 5, 2008)

After working on, writing for, editing, developing, and connecting Adventure Paths for pretty much the last five years or so, I suspect that I'm one of the ones who knows the most about what works and what doesn't work for Adventure Paths. They're really, REALLY complicated to create, and even now, going into the seventh one I've helped create, I'm still learning how to do it.

But one of the first things I learned was how important those campaign summaries are.

They're vital. They not only let the GM feel like he or she is an organic and valuable part of the thing (which they are!), but they also serve the same role that a movie trailer does; they get folk excited about the coming campaign. If they don't get folk excited and drive them off... that's a failure of the Adventure Path itself, NOT a failure of the campaign overview.

As for how to get them out there for GMs to check out... that's a little more complicated. Do you put them in the first volume of the AP? Do you preview them in the volume just before? Do you put them online? Do you do all three? Will readers get angry that you're "robbing potential content" from a volume because 2 or 4 pages are "wasted?" All important questions.

This thread's actually VERY educational to me, and the main thing I'm taking away from it is confirmation that AP outlines are indispensable to an Adventure Path, and that the best place to print them is alongside the first installment of the first adventure. We did this with "Rise of the Runelords," but in a weird format. With "Second Darkness," I think we've finally hit on the best way to do them; a two-page outline that appears at the back of the product alongside the first adventure. I suspect it's probably also not a bad idea to throw the thing up online somewhere too, so that prospective GMs can check out the upcoming AP without having to shell out 20 bucks or whatever for the outline. That said, chat rooms and mesageboards and blogs and product briefs are also all great ways to get the information out there—we use all four of them for Pathfinder, and despite the fact that we've revealed major spoilers in so doing, sales of Adventure Path products have only increased.

Don't keep secrets from the GM is the moral of the story, I guess!


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 5, 2008)

James Jacobs said:


> . . . Don't keep secrets from the GM is the moral of the story, I guess!




From your lips (or fingers) to WoTC's ears (I hope).


----------



## Wonka (Sep 5, 2008)

James Jacobs said:


> After working on, writing for, editing, developing, and connecting Adventure Paths for pretty much the last five years or so, I suspect that I'm one of the ones who knows the most about what works and what doesn't work for Adventure Paths. They're really, REALLY complicated to create, and even now, going into the seventh one I've helped create, I'm still learning how to do it.
> 
> But one of the first things I learned was how important those campaign summaries are.
> 
> ...




This post here! I think James hits the nail on the head here, and this is coming from a man, as he says, with experience writing these. Hopefully someone from WoTC takes note  

For what its worth, I really like how Paizo decided to toss the overview in the back of the first module of the AP. I think that works best. You can flip to it while browsing the product at your FLGS, but you might consider putting the same overview online as you mentioned. That way it could be made available for potential DMs who might be interested. But as you also said, if you make the overview available regardless, through blogs and messages boards it can spread without needing to buy anything. With no overview, there is nothing you can do but wait till its all out, blindly pay for what may turn out to not be anything to your liking, or just not get it all.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 5, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> WOTC can never win apparently.



I'm not really seeing how WOTC is a victim here.  WotC can "win" by providing what has become the expectation for plot-driven adventure paths, part of which is to provide a plot overview of the adventures as a DM aid.  Or failing that, they could provide sensible reasons for not providing such things.  "We don't want the DM to know the plot," is a rather absurd excuse.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2008)

I find many of these reactions to be quite disproportionate to the offense here.

Okay, WotC isn't putting in a plot summary. They are simply making their product less accessible and less useful for those who wish to run them. But, it's their product, and if they want to make decisions that most people think is a bad one, then it isn't a slight or anything against customers, it is a failing of their product line. Companies do things that make their offerings less valuable all the time, and people either decide that its worth it or not and move on. I don't really get the outrage here.

WotC is fairly new to the AP business. Give 'em some room. They'll figure it out eventually. Express your displeasure, but don't make this out to be a big issue. It isn't.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 5, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Might as well add me too, because I don't get it either.
> 
> WOTC can never win apparently.




That's exactly what I am talking about: We are asking for a synopsis because we want such stuff as DMs - like directors wanting a script before they start shooting the movie. You and others only see "WotC Bashing".

If WotC does not understand that some DMs do not want those surprises, and want a synopsis instead, and if it ignores an easy solution like putting the info in spoiler tags then WoTC is acting stupidly and arrogantly in telling us that we should take their surprises and like them.

That, or they are lieing, and don't have a clue where the path is leading.

Get it now?


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 5, 2008)

Perhaps WotC isn't providing an overview of the AP, because many of the decisions have yet to be taken and the overall story is being built "on the fly"...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Get it now?




Here's the thing. They think APs sell better, get a larger audience, get more market, whatever... without a synopsis. You disagree. That's it. There's nothing more than that. It's a business decision they are making. It's their business.

I don't know, maybe I'm reading more into this than there seems to be, but people seem to be taking this _personally_. It isn't personal.

You want a synopsis or you won't run the adventure? Don't run the adventure! If enough people ignore it, then they change their mind because they were wrong. If everybody loves it, then oh well.

They aren't killing puppies here.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 5, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> They aren't killing puppies here.



Maybe they will by the end of the AP... no one can be sure without a synopsis.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 5, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> Here's the thing. They think APs sell better, get a larger audience, get more market, whatever... without a synopsis. You disagree. That's it. There's nothing more than that. It's a business decision they are making. It's their business.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I'm reading more into this than there seems to be, but people seem to be taking this _personally_. It isn't personal.
> 
> ...




They don't say "We think this will be better for our business". They say "you'll be happier not knowing it in advance". That's arrogant. They also ignore every experience made by people who did a lot more APs than they did - that's arrogant, and stupid too.

I don't like to be talked down to, especially not by people who try to sell me something. I do take that personally.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 5, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> WotC is fairly new to the AP business. Give 'em some room. They'll figure it out eventually. Express your displeasure, but don't make this out to be a big issue. It isn't.




The issue is we are trying to HELP them and tell them what this AP needs in order to be better. And they turn around and tell us no, not going to happen. _I_ think thats a pretty significant issue, and apparently I'm not the only one. Yes, they are new at the whole AP thing, but they have to have seen it done before by others. Hell, James Jacobs, veteran of many APs, just posted about the IMPORTANCE of what we are asking for, so perhaps there is something there. 

You are right, this isnt a personal decision by WoTC. Doesnt mean its a correct one, or that we are not allowed to be uspet by it. The line that "Companies do that sort of thing all the time" does not make it a correct decision, Ill point to the age old "If everyone else jumps off a bridge..." argument mom used to make here. And Ill also be the first to admit that just because I want the synopsis, it doesnt make the addition of one the correct thing to do either. However I see far more people upset at the lack of a synopsis than people hard fast supporting the lack of one, and in the end it's usually a good business decision to listen to your customers. My 2 copper on things.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2008)

Fenes said:


> They don't say "We think this will be better for our business". They say "you'll be happier not knowing it in advance".




They do not say that. I think it would be prudent to quote the actual text here, since it has changed in the minds of posters over the course of this thread.



			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!




The relevant part is probably "Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going." That's far, far, less arrogant than "you'll be happier not knowing it in advance." Their opinion is that part of the appeal of the adventure is learning those twists as it goes along - even for the DM. Are they right? Probably not. But, its their mistake to make, and I think reading insult into that is putting words in Buehler's mouth.



Wonka said:


> The issue is we are trying to HELP them and tell them what this AP needs in order to be better.




I agree. It _is_ a stupid decision. I think it will only hurt them in the long run, and eventually I think they _will_ release a summary. If you'll read my post above, I am definitely not taking the position that this is a good decision.  But, I think there's a difference between a stupid decision and a malicious one. So, yes, I do agree with you on that note. 100%.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 5, 2008)

Fenes said:


> They say "you'll be happier not knowing it in advance".




Except that is not what he said at all. You're putting words in his mouth.



> The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!




Nothing about you being happier not knowing, nothing about how you should have fun, nothing about what is fun or unfun. He says "We've got a plot all the way through 30, and we don't want to tip our hand, because we think things will lose their impact if we do. We have what we consider a compelling villain, a logical structure, major NPCs, and a real plot hook. Wait and see." Not a single thing saying "You'll be happier not knowing what's going to happen next."


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 5, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> Maybe they will by the end of the AP... no one can be sure without a synopsis.




Goooooooooooooooooal! . . . We have a winner.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 5, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Except that is not what he said at all. You're putting words in his mouth.



Like you did with Celtavian, over-interpreting his words on a previous thread? Black pots, kettles, glass houses and all that. I think you just naturally like being argumentative.
In this case, I think the natural implication is that Randy thinks they will be producing a better product (one that will consumer will be happier with), if they don't produce an outline revealing their "grand reveal". Fenes interpretation of that would seem to be in the bounds of acceptability - particularly in relation to the subject as a whole. Essentially The Little Raven, I think you are wrong on this one.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 5, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> Here's my guess on what they don't want to spoil:
> With 16 more months to go, I expect that the later parts of SoW will include monsters from MM2 (and maybe 3), as well as things from other books yet to be published or even announced.



I think you've hit the nail on the head there. What they really don't want to spoil is the design direction of future products. Also, even though it makes logical sense that they'd be including material from upcoming books, I wouldn't doubt that they anticipate an outraged cry from people "being made to buy the new books."


----------



## Wonka (Sep 5, 2008)

Qualidar said:


> I think you've hit the nail on the head there. What they really don't want to spoil is the design direction of future products. Also, even though it makes logical sense that they'd be including material from upcoming books, I wouldn't doubt that they anticipate an outraged cry from people "being made to buy the new books."




Except the AP synopsis does not need to go into such details to provide what we are asking about! We dont need to know that BBEG is some new monster from MM2, merely that he EXISTS, and whats hes going to do. We dont need to know what yet-to-be-released class he is, just that he might have "powers yet to be seen". They can give us the information we need and not reveal the new monsters/classes etc they might be using. What the synopsis is supposed to give is a PLOT overview of whats going on, the crunch of it is usually not mentioned.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Sep 5, 2008)

Ah. The sound of umbrage being taken at the flavor of the free ice cream.

Admittedly, none of us have paid a dime for the material we've got so far. And admittedly, WotC isn't doing anything but indicating that they don't plan on creating a product supplement that some people feel is mandatory for their enjoyment. In consequence, we've got some people feeling entitled to the creation of this supplement, to the point that they're feeling actively insulted by someone else's exercise of artistic judgment.

I think Jackson Pollock had fundamentally bad ideas about painting, and his work does absolutely nothing for me. However, it never occurred to me that he was leveling a personal insult at me when he decided to try and kill the representational in art. WotC's trying for an artistic effect with their reveal. Maybe I'll like it, and maybe I won't, but I don't pretend that they're doing this just to mock me.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 5, 2008)

What about if they gave an overview of just the heroic portion?  Most people are probably going to run the AP from the beginning in a new game (it is still pretty early in 4Es lifespan after all), so it would make sense to just provide the heroic portion and entice people.  Maybe a month prior to the paragon portion starting they release that overview.  We're not talking deep info here, more like a couple of paragraphs giving the basic gist of things.


----------



## SoulsFury (Sep 5, 2008)

reveal said:


> This is why I wrote an open letter to Randy Buehler.





This scares me you posted this since you and your wife make up 2 out of every 5 posts... you two don't talk in person?

On topic:
I think there should be some kind of plot line for DMs to follow. I was considering running the SoW but I was waiting for detailed info and now, its not coming for a long time (once all adventures are printed and have paid money for DDI).


----------



## Hussar (Sep 5, 2008)

SSquirrel - I think that's probably the most reasonable request.  

Would teasers for each module be enough to make people happy?


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 5, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That's exactly what I am talking about: We are asking for a synopsis because we want such stuff as DMs - like directors wanting a script before they start shooting the movie. You and others only see "WotC Bashing".
> 
> If WotC does not understand that some DMs do not want those surprises, and want a synopsis instead, and if it ignores an easy solution like putting the info in spoiler tags then WoTC is acting stupidly and arrogantly in telling us that we should take their surprises and like them.
> 
> ...



 Saying that WotC is acting stupidly and arrogantly, and that there is a good chance they are lying . . .

Yeah, that's WotC bashing right there.  Pretty unmistakable.

If you post, "I don't agree with this decision or the reasons you give for making it, and I would prefer a synopsis" is a fair opinion to express, and if forwarded to WotC's customer service, constructive criticsism.

If you post, "What?!  No synopsis?  Well, then, nuts to them cause I won't buy it" is also a valid opinion, although one that strays deeply into the realm of hyperbole, one we visit quite often here on ENWorld.

If you post, "Those fools at WotC!  They are stupid, arrogant, and quite possibly deceitful!"  well, you are quite unfairly and ignorantly bashing WotC, something we also see quite often here on ENWorld, in particular on this thread.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 5, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> If you post, "Those fools at WotC!  They are stupid, arrogant, and quite possibly deceitful!"  well, you are quite unfairly and ignorantly bashing WotC, something we also see quite often here on ENWorld, in particular on this thread.




I'd say that if WotC, as posted above, do not even follow the advice about needing plot outlines in their own product (El Mahdi pointed this out, p. 141 DMG, Campaign Outline), then it's neither unfair nor ignorant to call that stupid, arrogant, and possibly deceitful, depending on their motives.

Preaching water and drinking wine and all.


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 5, 2008)

WotC's attitude in this is, frankly, insulting.  I was 100% behind 4E and very excited, but it seems like at every turn they are trying to drive me away as a customer. I'm extremely disappointed with them.  They are coming across pretty badly, and like they don't collectively understand how to support an RPG.  I know there are good, smart, gaming individuals there, but as a whole, they are failing miserably to retain my interest in the "brand".


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 5, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> The line of reasoning that argues 'we are owed a synopsis from the very beginning so I know exactly what is going to happen before I invest my time' is flawed.
> Using that reasoning, every fiction author should be expected to summarize their entire story arc at the front of the very first book of a series.





Quoted for NOT-truth. What are you thinking, man?  Adventure modules are fiction for the DM to read now?  They are game aids, nothing more!  If this attitude is widespread, I seriously worry about the future of this hobby.  Published D&D adventures are not works of fiction!


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 5, 2008)

Jan van Leyden said:


> It sounds very much like Mr. Buehler trying to cover up for some other problem - like not enough time or funds for digesting the internal outline and producing one for the public.
> 
> While I would understand a statement like: "We would love to do an overview article for players and one for GMs, but we could not keep our schedules for other articles in Dungeon and Dragon, if we would do this. So we can't promise ayou anything along htis lines."
> 
> ...




I think just the opposite is true: they know exactly what they are doing, and it is all marketing.  They want to "hook" us on the adventure path so we feel like we must follow it (and eventually pay for it, installment by installment) so we can see what happens next.  They are treating it just like a story, which is the fundamental flaw.  The coverup excuse is just adding a layer of insult to the initial mistake.



Drkfathr1 said:


> Is Lorraine Williams back in charge over there?




Sadly, I've been feeling that vibe as well, and quite strongly.  You are not alone.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 5, 2008)

Hmm, i wanted to post something, but the board ate it. Oh well. I´ll just save the thread in my folder labelled "ridiculous overreaction" and post something later.


----------



## amethal (Sep 5, 2008)

Qualidar said:


> I think you've hit the nail on the head there. What they really don't want to spoil is the design direction of future products.



If that is their reason, why keep it a secret and post instead a different reason? Surely that would be "WotC lying".

It also isn't a reason I agree with. I can see nothing but good in knowing, to pick a random example, that there's a brown dragon at the end of the adventure and hinting that there will be a brown dragon in Draconomicon 1. Its a way of using Dungeon to generate interest in Draconomicon 1, same as the printed magazines sometimes used to do.

Of course, the problem would come if it turned out the brown dragon had become a lilac dragon by the time they came to write the actual adventure. However, since the entire adventure path is "intricately plotted" (or whatever the expression was they used) then such a change is very unlikely.



> Also, even though it makes logical sense that they'd be including material from upcoming books, I wouldn't doubt that they anticipate an outraged cry from people "being made to buy the new books."



Why would people have to buy new books? Surely they will include the stats for all the creatures in the adventure itself?

I know reading 1st edition adventures _encouraged_ me to buy the Fiend Folio (I already had both Monster Manuals) so I could read the flavour text on the various FF critters, but it certainly didn't _force_ me - the stat blocks themselves were already there in the adventure for the DM to use.


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 6, 2008)

amethal said:


> If that is their reason, why keep it a secret and post instead a different reason? Surely that would be "WotC lying".
> 
> It also isn't a reason I agree with. I can see nothing but good in knowing, to pick a random example, that there's a brown dragon at the end of the adventure and hinting that there will be a brown dragon in Draconomicon 1. Its a way of using Dungeon to generate interest in Draconomicon 1, same as the printed magazines sometimes used to do.




You make more sense than I do. Perhaps Jack Colby's right about it being a marketing angle.




> Why would people have to buy new books? Surely they will include the stats for all the creatures in the adventure itself?
> 
> I know reading 1st edition adventures _encouraged_ me to buy the Fiend Folio (I already had both Monster Manuals) so I could read the flavour text on the various FF critters, but it certainly didn't _force_ me - the stat blocks themselves were already there in the adventure for the DM to use.




Would you really put this past them? Perhaps I'm just too jaded, but given the vibe I get off of WotC these days this is just the sort of thing I can see them doing. I actually expect it.


----------



## vazanar (Sep 6, 2008)

Hussar said:


> SSquirrel - I think that's probably the most reasonable request.
> 
> Would teasers for each module be enough to make people happy?




Personally that would be enough for me, teasers on all the modules in the AP. It's what I got used to from Paizo. Do it with the third/fourth module's issue of dungeon (like AoW). That way I have a better idea of ways to fit my characters backgrounds in without invalidating parts of the map/plot. Worked great in Age of Worms/Rise of Runelords/Crimson Throne. I know any mega module I've run, I at least read the overall outline.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 6, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Again, I see nothing in his post that says that. He says that the impact will be lessened if you know about surprises ahead of time, which is an accurate statement. If you knew Vader was Luke's father before watching that scene in Empire, then it wouldn't have the same impact.
> 
> There's a difference between "it won't have the same imoact we want if you know ahead of time" and "it will hurt you to know this."




A better way to say it would be "if you knew Vader was Lukes father while watching A New Hope" it won't have the same impact.

Because that is what we are talking about. Players may know information that materially affects the game long before a point where it could even be considered to be "out"

There are other considerations as well. Writing an overview is a good aide for finishing a product. But publishing an overview constrains the final product to a path that might not end up being the best, or most faithful to the authors intent.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 6, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> A better way to say it would be "if you knew Vader was Lukes father while watching A New Hope" it won't have the same impact.
> 
> Because that is what we are talking about. Players may know information that materially affects the game long before a point where it could even be considered to be "out"
> 
> There are other considerations as well. Writing an overview is a good aide for finishing a product. But publishing an overview constrains the final product to a path that might not end up being the best, or most faithful to the authors intent.




_Except nothing about this has anything to do with players.  It's about DMs._


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 6, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I'd say that if WotC, as posted above, do not even follow the advice about needing plot outlines in their own product (El Mahdi pointed this out, p. 141 DMG, Campaign Outline), then it's neither unfair nor ignorant to call that stupid, arrogant, and possibly deceitful, depending on their motives.
> 
> Preaching water and drinking wine and all.



Soooooo, if they don't take the attacks from the cranky gamer squeaky wheel squad as useful sound advice, they are stupid and arrogant and deceitful?  Nice train of logic there.

Oh well, they may lose the business of the cranky gamers, but they won't lose mine, or the majority of D&D players.  Heh, I even doubt they lose much business from the cranky gamers, as what would they then complain about?


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 6, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> Soooooo, if they don't take the attacks from the cranky gamer squeaky wheel squad as useful sound advice, they are stupid and arrogant and deceitful? Nice train of logic there.
> 
> Oh well, they may lose the business of the cranky gamers, but they won't lose mine, or the majority of D&D players. Heh, I even doubt they lose much business from the cranky gamers, as what would they then complain about?




How is this constructive?  If someone thinks WoTC response is reasonable, they have a right to say it.  If someone thinks WoTC response is unreasonable, they also have a right to say it.  Why is it that people on both sides of this feel the need to attack people on the other side?  I, and I hope, most people, have no problem with opposite opinions or polite, respectful responses pointing out flaws in logic or arguments.  However, I think it's fairly universal that people take umbrage at being insulted for stating an opinion.  People on both sides of this have been doing this.  

*The Little Raven* did a good job of pointing out an inaccuracy in *Fenes* statement (in post #91) in a respectful and logical manner, without attacking the person.  Why does this seem so dificult for others to do?

Because a portion of WoTC customers, specifically a portion of WoTC DM customers, have a critique for WoTC about their products, and express those opinions to WoTC, that does not make them the _"cranky gamer squeaky wheel squad"_.  What they are is _fans and customers_, providing feedback about a _fan driven_ company and product.

Maybe WoTC will lose customers over this, and then again, maybe not.  But whether someone outside of WoTC agrees with the complaints or not, doesn't matter.  In business, the maxim "_the customer is always right"_, still does, and probably will always, apply.

Personally, I feel like this thread is a horse that's been beaten, hit with criticals a few times, and then coup de' graced right into the ground.  If there's no more useful, constructive, and respectful opinions to be stated about this subject, maybe it's time for the mods to close it.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 6, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _Except nothing about this has anything to do with players.  It's about DMs._




How so? I didn't get my special DM password that lets me get all the DM only material. When did they hand you yours?


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> How so? I didn't get my special DM password that lets me get all the DM only material. When did they hand you yours?




I got mine today! Only cost me 9.95 a month mmhmm mmhmm!

edit: Before this gets misconstrued, this is merely a joke. There is no maliciousness behind this. Just attempting to take some of the edge off this discussion


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Wonka said:


> I got mine today! Only cost me 9.95 a month mmhmm mmhmm!
> 
> edit: Before this gets misconstrued, this is merely a joke. There is no maliciousness behind this. Just attempting to take some of the edge off this discussion




NP. The point is there is no reasonable way to restrict the information once its out there and releasing it limits their options to change the path on the fly as necessary

Its not some horrible slight against the DnD community.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> NP. The point is there is no reasonable way to restrict the information once its out there and releasing it limits their options to change the path on the fly as necessary
> 
> Its not some horrible slight against the DnD community.




Yup. That is a very valid point. It is probably why they aren't releasing the synopsis; they just dont have it all ready or they want some wiggle room in case something changes along the way. I just wish, however, that they would tell us that if it were the case! I think most people would be much more reasonable about this if they had said that. I think what bothers most people about this, myself included, is the manner in which Randy went about rejected the proposal for the overview. The stated reason just doesnt make a whole lot of sense. As has been mentioned elsewhere, a really good compromise I think would be a "per-tier" synopsis. Im sure they have the modules to 10th or 11th level in editing now. While not giving the whole overview that might be wanted, it would at least give SOMETHING to work with.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

There's also no way to restrict players from downloading the full adventures, yet they are still posted. So, that's no no reason not to post the outline - players who would want to spoil it for themselves will already be reading the adventures as they are posted anyway.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Yup. That is a very valid point. It is probably why they aren't releasing the synopsis; they just dont have it all ready




No. I never said "they just don't have it all ready" i said "a published outline sets the path in stone". They say they have an outline and there is no reason to doubt them. Its just this "they are terrible and/or incompetent and my proof is that they didn't release the overview" is ridiculous. 



Fenes said:


> There's also no way to restrict players from downloading the full adventures, yet they are still posted. So, that's no no reason not to post the outline - players who would want to spoil it for themselves will already be reading the adventures as they are posted anyway.




Downloading a full adventure might get you advanced information by a month or a few sessions. In all likelihood there are going to be hints to that specific reveal anyway. With information on the entire path out there you are likely to find out that the guy who is hiring you is actually a member of the devious black jugglers and you're getting them an artifact that they will use 4 adventures down the line to summon a demon.

As i said earlier, there is a big difference watching "The Empire Strikes Back" and knowing from the outset that Vader is Luke's father and watching "A New Hope" and knowing that Vader is Luke's father, Princess Lea is his sister, Vader built C-3PO, and R2-D2 was his mothers droid.

By not releasing an overview you can keep the spoiling, intentional or unintentional to a minimum.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> As i said earlier, there is a big difference watching "The Empire Strikes Back" and knowing from the outset that Vader is Luke's father and watching "A New Hope" and knowing that Vader is Luke's father, Princess Lea is his sister, Vader built C-3PO, and R2-D2 was his mothers droid.
> 
> By not releasing an overview you can keep the spoiling, intentional or unintentional to a minimum.




And I'm saying that Lucas still made sure the other people making the movie knew what was going on.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And I'm saying that Lucas still made sure the other people making the movie knew what was going on.




Uhh, no he didn't. Not until they were prepping for screening the next one. Rumor is that Hamil didn't know the Vader reveal until they were actually shooting it[that or it was he never knew because he wasn't playing with the final script, as Jones was doing voice overs]

And even then there is a massive difference between "3-4 people who have an interest in keeping information secret who are making your movie know what is going on" than "releasing the information to the world and hoping no one but the right people find out"


----------



## Uzzy (Sep 7, 2008)

Given that there is nothing stopping players, who really want to go get spoilers for the adventures, actually downloading the adventures themselves and having a look through them, the idea that they aren't releasing an overview to avoid spoiling the player and DM base is silly.

A basic, high level overview of the forthcoming adventures is just common sense, in order to let DM's know if this is the path for them. Failure to deliver one is quite silly.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> Given that there is nothing stopping players, who really want to go get spoilers for the adventures, actually downloading the adventures themselves and having a look through them, the idea that they aren't releasing an overview to avoid spoiling the player and DM base is silly.
> 
> A basic, high level overview of the forthcoming adventures is just common sense, in order to let DM's know if this is the path for them. Failure to deliver one is quite silly.




And for all those Star War fans: I think you're confusing director and actor/audience.

DMS are not the audience of a movie. DMS are not even the actors of a movie. DMs are the directors of a movie, altering the script to better suit the task when needed. The very least we need to work is an outline of the script.


----------



## Serendipity (Sep 7, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> If they say, the BBEG of SoW is _____________, a 33rd level primordial (see Manual of the Planes) that rides an acient wyrm brown dragon (see Draconomicon I) and is surrounded by hordes of ___________ (see MM2)...., well, not only does that spoil the adventure path, but it also spoils parts of those products.




Actually, wouldn't doing just that be good marketing?   Providing instant incentive for GMs to go out and actually *buy* said extra books.


----------



## TheFindus (Sep 7, 2008)

I find the angle in wich WotC is looking at the AP-overview-issue quite disturbing. This is not a movie or a book we are talking about, in wich the author can only reveal the secrets at a certain point, because there would otherwise be no suspense.

The AP from a DMs point of view is rather like a holiday trip that needs to planned ahead. And I would like to know if my players need to pack warm clothes or a swimsuit.
This is so easy to see, I cannot understand how WotC fails to see this point. Which they obviously do, because of how they answered the question.

I mean, they market the AP as one product (consisting of 18 parts), with its own logo and stuff. It is one of the main reasons why I, and I guess a lot of gamers like me, would be willing to pay $4.95 for a downscaled version of DnDInsider. It would be awesome to play an entire campaign that I like for the most part with much less preparation between job, family and other hobbies. But I have to know the "that I like for the most part" part. Otherwise I might not buy the AP. And there would be less reason for me to pay for DnDInsider at this point.

So, clearly, they cannot give an overview, because they have not planned out the entire campaign yet. That really is the only reason that makes sense. 
But why do thy not just give us what they have at this point? I mean, it would be much easier for me to plan ahead knowing what would be coming in the heroic tier. Because 10 levels is still a way to go. I would be pleased to have an overview for every tier. Planningwise, I do not need the entire overview.

It seems to me that WotC does not really trust me or my players. To think that players have to be kept from spoiling their fun through reading the content of the adventures they are going to play is very absurd. If somebody wants to do that, that is indeed their problem. Not the problem of WotC. But, to be honest, I have never met a player that does that (we are not stupid, you know?). And I do not play with people like that.

Ach, this discussion bugs me to no end. It really spoils my fun.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> Given that there is nothing stopping players, who really want to go get spoilers for the adventures, actually downloading the adventures themselves and having a look through them, the idea that they aren't releasing an overview to avoid spoiling the player and DM base is silly.
> 
> A basic, high level overview of the forthcoming adventures is just common sense, in order to let DM's know if this is the path for them. Failure to deliver one is quite silly.




*Given that there is a very significant difference between a spoiler one month in advance when there is likely to already be foreshadowing in play and and a spoiler months[or years in advance when players need to be acting under an entirely different set of assumptions your argument that their reasoning is silly is thoroughly refuted*



Fenes said:


> And for all those Star War fans: I think you're confusing director and actor/audience.
> 
> DMS are not the audience of a movie. DMS are not even the actors of a movie. DMs are the directors of a movie, altering the script to better suit the task when needed. The very least we need to work is an outline of the script.




DMs are the directors, but WotC cannot release the information to DMs without possibly releasing the information to players. And, like any spoiler, once you learn it, you can't unlearn it.  

Players are like actors, except in our play, the actors do not take direction from the director. The director is the guy in the audience of an improv skill that is yelling out places and settings the players have to deal with. 

Even though there is a narrative to these places and situations, the players are acting in their own best interest and not in the interest of the narrative.

It is a valid judgment that the value of the information to the DM's[who have the power to change what they need] may not be outweighed by the costs imposed by the information possibly being known by the players.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> *Given that there is a very significant difference between a spoiler one month in advance when there is likely to already be foreshadowing in play and and a spoiler months[or years in advance when players need to be acting under an entirely different set of assumptions your argument that their reasoning is silly is thoroughly refuted*




You forgot that you cannot have foreshadowing in play if you do not know what to foreshadow, and what can be cut for better playability or taste of the group. Without an outline, the DM is likely to skip some of this foreshadowing (if there is any), making the AP more of a compilation of loosely linked adventures for the players.



Goumindong said:


> DMs are the directors, but WotC cannot release the information to DMs without possibly releasing the information to players. And, like any spoiler, once you learn it, you can't unlearn it.




A player wouldn't get the spoilers unless he wanted it.



Goumindong said:


> Players are like actors, except in our play, the actors do not take direction from the director. The director is the guy in the audience of an improv skill that is yelling out places and settings the players have to deal with.
> 
> Even though there is a narrative to these places and situations, the players are acting in their own best interest and not in the interest of the narrative.
> 
> It is a valid judgment that the value of the information to the DM's[who have the power to change what they need] may not be outweighed by the costs imposed by the information possibly being known by the players.




Have you ever DMed? Your arguments sound as if you have no experience with DMing, at least not with DMing a campaign that's not just verbatim reading of a bought adventure. You really sound like you think all a DM has  to (and can) do is read the adventure text.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> As i said earlier, there is a big difference *watching* "The Empire Strikes Back" and knowing from the outset that Vader is Luke's father and watching "A New Hope" and knowing that Vader is Luke's father, Princess Lea is his sister, Vader built C-3PO, and R2-D2 was his mothers droid.
> 
> By not releasing an overview you can keep the spoiling, intentional or unintentional to a minimum.




Once again, you are missing the point entirely. This analogy is simply not valid! Its not PLAYERS who need the overview, its the DMs. In your example of the star wars movies, the players would be the viewers. In which case, yes, your example would be a valid one. However, most of us making our points are NOT players, but DMs. In your example, DMs wouldnt be the viewers of Star Wars, they would be the DIRECTOR(s). Are you telling me Star Wars would have been better if the director had NO idea what was going on in the movie? Just shooting the scenes as they were written in order to "keep the spoiling, intentional or unintentional, to a minimum"? How can he know which scences are the most important? Which characters would come back for bigger roles later? Say the director didnt know leia was lukes sister, and decides he didnt like the character, and as such drops the character. Only to find out in a later scene how big of a role she was to play in the movie. Whoops! Would have been nice to know that before hand. Ill say it again: *The directors (DMs in this case) NEED to have the "movie" spoiled.* Please, please, please stop using this argument, as it just doesn't work for the situation.



			
				Goumindong said:
			
		

> DMs are the directors, but WotC cannot release the information to DMs without possibly releasing the information to players. And, like any spoiler, once you learn it, you can't unlearn it.




Whats to stop a player from walking into any FLGS, picking up the adventure they are currently running, and flipping through it? What about players who also DM, and just have happened to run the adventure before for another group? We should stop printing modules, lest the players read them and know whats going to happen! This is a problem with a PLAYER. Its up to them to show restraint and not spoil it, not WoTC. *Whats to stop the players from downloading the modules from Dungeon magazine and reading them?* There is NO difference between spoiling the current adventure, and spoiling the entire one, so saying that argument is not valid is perposterous. Should WoTC not make those available lest the players download them and read them and spoil the adventure? Once you have WoTC start withholding information the DMs need, JUST so players cant read it, they are entering the territory of a government. They are not my government, they make the table top RPG that I play. 

Basically my conclusion comes down to this. You do not DM.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You forgot that you cannot have foreshadowing in play if you do not know what to foreshadow, and what can be cut for better playability or taste of the group.




This is untrue. There is foreshadowing in the first SoW module.[the note, the portal, the information on the Rivenroars]



> A player wouldn't get the spoilers unless he wanted it.



This is a terribly naive view of the situation. I have neither played nor read Keep on the Shadowfell, but i know enough about the module just from off hand comments from people who have to get a good enough idea of what I can expect




> Have you ever DMed? Your arguments sound as if you have no experience with DMing, at least not with DMing a campaign that's not just verbatim reading of a bought adventure. You really sound like you think all a DM has  to (and can) do is read the adventure text.



I am DMing RoR quite successfully right now. Before that i DM'd a 4e adventure of my own making. Before that multiple 3e adventures of my own design. I've both directed and acted in amature productions. 

Now that we have corrected the ad hominem there are a number of ways that things can be DM'd. Just as there are a number of ways that things can be directed. You can indeed direct while only knowing what has happened and not what will happen. Its actually easier to DM not knowing where things are going than it is to direct. Since a director needs to know the motivations _for_ his actors and a DM needs to know the motivations _of_ his actors. But both of these things are still rooted in the past and not the future. But a director needs to know what the actors characters want to do, and a DM doesn't. Or he can just ask.

What is happening here is a desire from many DMs to be both the director and the writer. And well, if you're using the plot of pre-made adventures then that boat has sailed, you've defeated the point already.



> Are you telling me Star Wars would have been better if the director had NO idea what was going on in the movie?



When the audience _is_ the actors it can actually have a huge effect. Especially if your actors accidentally get your hands on parts of the script they should not. As someone who has DM'd, directed, and acted you certainly can direct and act without knowing where the action is going just as you can act without knowing where the action is going.

I can absolutely tell you that episodes 1-3 would have been better if no one had seen Episodes 4-6 before. Skywalker would have been a much more compelling figure if "you're going to become Darth Vader" was not hanging over the directors and actors head. The fall might have been striking and poignant instead a "Frodo, get on the boat already" moment prolonged for 3 movies.



> Whats to stop a player from walking into any FLGS, picking up the adventure they are currently running, and flipping through it?



*This complaint has been answered at least twice in the last page, stop bringing it up like its some revelation. It was even mentioned directly above the section you quoted in your discussion!

*


> There is NO difference between spoiling the current adventure, and spoiling the entire one, so saying that argument is not valid is perposterous



Yes there is. Spoiling the entire part reveals more information than would be revealed by spoiling each and every adventure before it was played but after the previous one was. This is because the following adventures reveal information about previous adventures which would not be revealed otherwise.

edit: Note, if there was no difference between spoiling the current and entire set then there would be no reason to want the information. Since there is, as you said, no difference between knowing and not knowing.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> edit: Note, if there was no difference between spoiling the current and entire set then there would be no reason to want the information. Since there is, as you said, no difference between knowing and not knowing.




You show a rather obvious lack of understanding what DMs need, despite your claims of experience. You also ignore that WotC itself advices DMs to get an outline of a campaign. The rest of your arguments show the sadly usual confusing of D&D for Star Wars.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> *This complaint has been answered at least twice in the last page, stop bringing it up like its some revelation. It was even mentioned directly above the section you quoted in your discussion!
> *



No, it hasn't actualy. At least not with any satisfaction for me. You merely state 



> *Given that there is a very significant difference between a spoiler one month in advance when there is likely to already be foreshadowing in play and and a spoiler months[or years in advance when players need to be acting under an entirely different set of assumptions your argument that their reasoning is silly is thoroughly refuted*




That tells me NOTHING.  You give no justification to your reasoning, you just say its correct, and as such the other argument is wrong. And Im not bringing it up because its a revolutionary point, but because its a good point that hadn't been answered to my satisfaction. 

I repeat, a player can walk into a FLGS, pick up Red Hand of Doom, and know exactly whats going on. And again, that is the PLAYERS fault. And yes, i read the part above the section I quoted. You give an example of being spoiled. An example that once again, has your players going out of their way to spoil the adventure for themselves. This is a problem with your PLAYERS, not the fact that the information is available.




Goumindong said:


> Yes there is. Spoiling the entire part reveals more information than would be revealed by spoiling each and every adventure before it was played but after the previous one was. This is because the following adventures reveal information about previous adventures which would not be revealed otherwise.
> 
> edit: Note, if there was no difference between spoiling the current and entire set then there would be no reason to want the information. Since there is, as you said, no difference between knowing and not knowing.




Ah now you FINALLY tell me the logic behind your reason. I dont agree, but at this point it is painfully obvious we are just on oppisite sides of this argument, so Im not going to bother to refute where I disagree. Im going to leave it at agree to disagree, because it comes down to this:

You dont want the information because it can spoil it for your players. I want the information because I need to know how to shape the adventure to my players and my personal tastes. We are on oppisite sides, and we are not going to convince each other differently. 

Now that this is established, Im going to not worry about this anymore and go play Spore.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You show a rather obvious lack of understanding what DMs need, despite your claims of experience. You also ignore that WotC itself advices DMs to get an outline of a campaign. The rest of your arguments show the sadly usual confusing of D&D for Star Wars.




More ad hominem. 

A question. You realize that I am saying the information is valuable to DM's, right? Its that the argument that says there is no difference between spoiling the next adventure and spoiling the entire adventure relies on the statement "outlines provide valuable information to DM's" must be false. Since the arguer is claiming that both statements are true, one of the statements must be incorrect.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Wonka said:


> No, it hasn't actualy.
> 
> Ah now you FINALLY tell me the logic behind your reason.



Eh, not my fault you didn't read the thread


Goumindong said:


> Downloading a full adventure might get you advanced information by a month or a few sessions. In all likelihood there are going to be hints to that specific reveal anyway. With information on the entire path out there you are likely to find out that the guy who is hiring you is actually a member of the devious black jugglers and you're getting them an artifact that they will use 4 adventures down the line to summon a demon.







			
				you again said:
			
		

> You give an example of being spoiled. An example that once again, has your players going out of their way to spoil the adventure for themselves. This is a problem with your PLAYERS, not the fact that the information is available.




Actually my example was with me getting spoiled while not having read the adventure or having an interest in finding out what was going to happen.



			
				me again said:
			
		

> This is a terribly naive view of the situation. I have neither played nor read Keep on the Shadowfell, but i know enough about the module just from off hand comments from people who have to get a good enough idea of what I can expect




This is the second time you have ignored text in the post you were quoting. Stop doing it. Read the damn thread.

If you can't figure out how information disseminates even if the disseminators and disseminatees don't want it to then i don't know what to say for you.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Eh, not my fault you didn't read the thread




And its not my fault you don't listen to your own advice. I did read the thread and I did read all those points. And as I said, none of those satisfactorily gives enough reason to your argument, IN MY OPINION. And as I said before, I agree to disagree. Perhaps you should as well.

Im going to say this one more time. I don't feel the POTENTIAL to spoil information for the players is a valid reason for withholding information the DM needs to run an adventure. PERIOD. Nothing you have said convinces me otherwise, nor will. Nothing I say will convince you otherwse, nor will it. Now, i really need to listen to myself and stop responding to you, you are wasting my Spore time.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Well, the world doesn't revolve around you. The fact that you don't care for reasons why these things might have been withheld does not delegitimize the reasons. I read the thread, i understand the conversation that is going on.

And no, the DM does not need the information to run the adventure. This has been covered already. It will be helpful, but it is not necessary.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Well, the world doesn't revolve around you. The fact that you don't care for reasons why these things might have been withheld does not delegitimize the reasons. I read the thread, i understand the conversation that is going on.
> 
> And no, the DM does not need the information to run the adventure. This has been covered already. It will be helpful, but it is not necessary.




If you go striclty by "need" you don't need a lot of things. You don't even "need" the adventure to run it, some off-hand info ("Spoilers") is enough.

I think you're just unwilling or unable to understand that not everyone plays like you do - which seems to be "read the adventure verbatim, don't modify it, don't customise, don't edit".

And you keep dodging the question why WotC wouldn't evne follow their own advice from the DMG.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If you go striclty by "need" you don't need a lot of things. You don't even "need" the adventure to run it, some off-hand info ("Spoilers") is enough.
> 
> I think you're just unwilling or unable to understand that not everyone plays like you do - which seems to be "read the adventure verbatim, don't modify it, don't customise, don't edit".
> 
> And you keep dodging the question why WotC wouldn't evne follow their own advice from the DMG.




You're assuming. I modify, customize and edit when necessary or desired. And if doing so, can easily do so for further down the line. Oh noes, you killed off an important NPC. Well now you know, pick an appropriate other NPC and substitute. A synopsis is by no means required to improvise, edit, and cusomtimze. 

And no, you are wrong about Wizards following their own advice. They are, they have an outline. They are the one creating the adventure path and so the purpose of the outline, to focus the creation of said adventure path, is being fulfilled.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Well, the world doesn't revolve around you. The fact that you don't care for reasons why these things might have been withheld does not delegitimize the reasons. I read the thread, i understand the conversation that is going on.




Yes, because I said my opinion was the end all didn't I? Of course the world doesn't revolve around me. Nor does it revolve around you. This works both ways. Just because you offer reasons why they are might be withholding this information, doesn't delegitimize the complaints a lot of other DMs seem to have with the lack of the overview. I read the thread also, I also understand whats going on. 



			
				Goumindong said:
			
		

> And no, the DM does not need the information to run the adventure. This has been covered already. It will be helpful, but it is not necessary.




Again, this is your OPINION. Perhaps I should have edited my prior statement. Of course not EVERY DM needs this information. You obviously don't, and I appluad your ability to run a cohesive story without such info. I, and it would seem quite a few other DMs, are not so fortunate with the ability to adlib like you. I DO need the information to run a good story, at least as far as what I consider a good campaign. Does this make me a bad dm? Does your ability to ad lib make you a better DM than me? Again, not going to answer because all id be offering is my opinion. The question becomes (at least how I see it), when it seems more than one DM would need this information to run what they consider a proper campaign, are their complaints suddenly any less valid?


----------



## Eccles (Sep 7, 2008)

Personally I'm happy (in a way) there's no synopsis, as I'm sharing DM duties with someone else, and we're doing an adventure each in turn. If there was a synopsis, I'd have to read it, and I might know what was coming!

The 1st adventure does have some items of potential foreshadowing - the Rivenroars, the note and the portal, as Goumindong pointed out.

The only problem is I (as DM) can't point out whether any of these are significant. Whilst the note's obviously important, and the players have a copy, the Rivenroars and the funny portal-place might be totally meaningless, and I don't know whether to stress it or leave it as interesting backround. Unless I'm told in advance that the Rivenroars are going to be important, I can't really make a big deal of them!


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> And no, you are wrong about Wizards following their own advice. They are, they have an outline. They are the one creating the adventure path and so the purpose of the outline, to focus the creation of said adventure path, is being fulfilled.




You keep missing the point about being a DM. A DM means we need that outline to run a campaign, as everyone who ever DMed should understand.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Sigh, i guess you _still_ don't get it. I am not the one making the judgment. The choice is not mine. You, and others, have been saying that WotC is wrong to not release them, and this is false. Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done. Unless there are no valid reasons to withhold, which we have established now that there are then your objections are invalid.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Eccles said:


> The only problem is I (as DM) can't point out whether any of these are significant. Whilst the note's obviously important, and the players have a copy, the Rivenroars and the funny portal-place might be totally meaningless, and I don't know whether to stress it or leave it as interesting backround. Unless I'm told in advance that the Rivenroars are going to be important, I can't really make a big deal of them!




Which is just about the biggest problem there is. Without advance info we don't know what to cut, what to replace, and so on. We're forced to run the adventure verbatim, losing a lot of what makes pen and paper games enjoyable - the way to customise a adventure to your group's taste.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Sigh, i guess you _still_ don't get it. I am not the one making the judgment. The choice is not mine. You, and others, have been saying that WotC is wrong to not release them, and this is false. Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done. Unless there are no valid reasons to withhold, which we have established now that there are then your objections are invalid.




Pretentious much? If a reason to withhold the info is utterly invalid as "We don't want to give you spoilers" since we do get spoilers anyway once the adventure is out, and is also insulting us by assuming we can't handle spoilers in a mature way, then no, there is no reason not to release the info.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done.




Not "objectively false", this is a subjective assumption.  It could just as likely be a mistake, inexperience, or oversight on WoTC part.  No one here, unless they work for WoTC, and is familiar with the decision process that was followed for these products, can make such statements.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You keep missing the point about being a DM. A DM means we need that outline to run a campaign, as everyone who ever DMed should understand.




The point that we don't _need_ an outline is true.  The DMG doesn't say you _need_ one, it _advises_ that it's _advantageous_ to have one.

The real point is _WoTC_ is not providing that which _they_ advise using, in _their_ own material.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 7, 2008)

Eccles said:


> Personally I'm happy (in a way) there's no synopsis, as I'm sharing DM duties with someone else, and we're doing an adventure each in turn. *If there was a synopsis, I'd have to read it, and I might know what was coming!*




I don't understand why you would _have to_ read it.  Could you explain this better? (i.e. is it personal taste; or is it, like me, that we can't resist our WoTC masters).


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Unless there are no valid reasons to withhold, which *we have established now that there are* then your objections are invalid.




WE haven't established this, you have. You say not wanting to spoil is a valid reason to withhold, and as such its ok that they are not releasing the synopsis, and that our objections are invalid. I do NOT think that is a valid reason, and as such i think my objections are perfectly valid. You can't win this, I cant win this, as this is obviously a philosphical difference between us. No one is wrong, all of these opinions are valid. My issue with you now is how you are telling me that we are wrong, and you are right. I can totally see where you are coming from on this, and while I dont agree, you are entilted to feel that way. You seem to not recognize that our argumet is valid. This now seems to be the cause of the argumentivness that is forming.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You keep missing the point about being a DM. A DM means we need that outline to run a campaign, as everyone who ever DMed should understand.




No it doesn't, reasons for this and examples have been given on this very page. take your ad hominem elsewhere. 



Fenes said:


> Pretentious much? If a reason to withhold the info is utterly invalid as "We don't want to give you spoilers" since we do get spoilers anyway once the adventure is out, and is also insulting us by assuming we can't handle spoilers in a mature way, then no, there is no reason not to release the info.




Why is it invalid? Certainly not just because you say so?

Yes its advantageous for a DM to have an adventure synopsis. Yes most DM's would like one. Yes, its very clear you want one. No, that does not make the opposing reasons invalid. It simply means that there are benefits and costs to be weighed. They weighed them and decided in a manner you would not. 

Sometimes there can be no reason why a decision could be rationally made. This is not one of those times.



El Mahdi said:


> Not "objectively false", this is a subjective assumption. It could just as likely be a mistake, inexperience, or oversight on WoTC part. No one here, unless they work for WoTC, and is familiar with the decision process that was followed for these products, can make such statements.




No, it is objectively false. No one here has been making a subjective assumption. If they were, they would be saying "we made a subjective assumption and we regret that WotC did not make the same subjective assumption that we did". Instead they are saying that WotC is in the wrong for making a subjective assumption that has very little to do with them, because they made a different subjective assumption.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 7, 2008)

Wonka said:


> WE haven't established this, you have. You say not wanting to spoil is a valid reason to withhold, and as such its ok that they are not releasing the synopsis, and that our objections are invalid. I do NOT think that is a valid reason, and as such i think my objections are perfectly valid.




You have no argument for as to why an argument is not valid. You have only your opinion. Your objection cannot be valid.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> . . . Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done. . .




Okay, we'll try this one more time.

Unless _*you*_ work for WoTC, and are specifically involved in, or privy to, the decision process used or not used, or the research done or not done, _*you*_ are not qualified to make a statement about what decisions were made and how they were reached.  Therefore, any statement made by anyone here, that doesn't meet the aforementioned qualifications, is by definition a subjective statement, not grounded in fact.  Your statement *may be true* or *may not be true*.  *You*, however, _*are not qualified*_ to make this statement.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> You have no argument for as to why an argument is not valid. You have only your opinion. Your objection cannot be valid.




And your arguments consist of "you have no argument, you are wrong." Once again, Ive gone over why I consider the reason for not wanting to spoil the AP to be not valid. Perhaps if you've read the thread like you claim you'd find it. Ive given my reasons, as such my opinion is valid. Its not my fault you cant find them. All Im getting from you is you ffer your OPINIONS (not facts) for your arguments and they are valid, but I offer my OPINIONS (not facts) for my argument and my opinion isn't valid? How does that work anyway?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 7, 2008)

Pointless exchange again. Time to ignore.


----------



## Goumindong (Sep 8, 2008)

Wonka said:


> And your arguments consist of "you have no argument, you are wrong." Once again, Ive gone over why I consider the reason for not wanting to spoil the AP to be not valid. Perhaps if you've read the thread like you claim you'd find it. Ive given my reasons, as such my opinion is valid. Its not my fault you cant find them. All Im getting from you is you ffer your OPINIONS (not facts) for your arguments and they are valid, but I offer my OPINIONS (not facts) for my argument and my opinion isn't valid? How does that work anyway?




I am sorry, this is simply not true. I do not need to make a value judgment on the process in order to be right. All i need to do is show that you can make a value judgment in the manner prescribed. I do not need to make a claim of the value of the reasons.

In order for your statements to be true, you need to show how said value judgments cannot produce the results you claim. You have given opinion to that fact but you have not produced argument or evidence. You have simply given your value judgment and said that it is the only one that can exist. 

Here is an example of what is happening. 

Someone is having a birthday and they decide to serve yellow cake. Now, you come along and say "no, you must serve chocolate cake". Some other guy comes along and says, "he can serve whatever cake he wants, there are valid reasons for serving yellow cake and here are some", he then proceeds to give you some reasons for serving yellow cake and no one refutes that those may be valid.

You may like chocolate cake, but unless there is no valid reason for serving yellow cake you are wrong to claim his decision is stupid, only that you would have liked something else since it only consists of a value judgment. This holds true for pretty much any product ever sold. "They aren't producing mauve Jettas? Blasphemy!". No, its not. 

I can't and wont legitimize your nerd rage regarding this issue.


----------



## Wicht (Sep 8, 2008)

Mmm... cake


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 8, 2008)

Wicht said:


> Mmm... cake




I like cheesecake.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 8, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> I can't and wont legitimize your nerd rage regarding this issue.




Yet continuing the argument doesn't do just that? Hhhhhmmmmmm.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 8, 2008)

Wicht said:


> Mmm... cake






SkidAce said:


> I like cheesecake.




With a mug of hot chocolate.  And those little marshmallows in it.


----------



## Set (Sep 8, 2008)

What's with all this 'spoiler' nonsense anyway?

I've probably played Keep on the Borderlands a half dozen times and Against the Giants at least twice.  It didn't get any less fun.

I also watch movies, like the Matrix and the Crow, multiple times, and knowing how they end doesn't 'spoil' them for me.  I suspect that the vast majority of people who paid good money to see Titanic knew that the boat was going to sink.  Ditto for the shock ending of The Passion of the Christ, which was 'spoiled' a couple thousand years ago...

I've been running the Freeport trilogy lately, and knowing the ending of the story helped me to tweak some encounters in the first adventure, so that they more properly foreshadowed some clues that would be dropped in the third adventure.  If I had no idea what was going on in the third adventure, there's no way I could have tightened that part up, and the 'clue' would have been inconsistent with what was presented in the first adventure, and possibly led the players *away* from their objective, rather than steered them towards it!

If I'm gonna GM something, I'm darn well gonna know what I'm doing!

And if I'm playing something that I'm familiar with, I'm a grown up, and having been in this bed before isn't going to prevent me from enjoying a fun ride, just because I know how it's gonna end.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 8, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> I am sorry, this is simply not true. I do not need to make a value judgment on the process in order to be right. All i need to do is show that you can make a value judgment in the manner prescribed. I do not need to make a claim of the value of the reasons.
> 
> In order for your statements to be true, you need to show how said value judgments cannot produce the results you claim. You have given opinion to that fact but you have not produced argument or evidence. You have simply given your value judgment and said that it is the only one that can exist.




Here, hows this work. Their value judgment (withholding the overview to not spoil it for players which you are claiming) hinders my ability to run the AP. Therefore the value judgments cannot produce the results of me properly running the AP. 

Id also like to point out at NO point have you offered anything other than opinion, so once again, you are making a hypocrite of yourself.



			
				goumindong said:
			
		

> Here is an example of what is happening.
> 
> Someone is having a birthday and they decide to serve yellow cake. Now, you come along and say "no, you must serve chocolate cake". Some other guy comes along and says, "he can serve whatever cake he wants, there are valid reasons for serving yellow cake and here are some", he then proceeds to give you some reasons for serving yellow cake and no one refutes that those may be valid.
> 
> ...




Yeah. This is *so* not what I'm talking about. You analogy here does NOT relate to the argument I am making at all. It seems you really don't understand where I am coming from. My "nerd rage" as you call it, stems from your inability to comprehend my arguments, and to twist them around to suit your arguments. If what you describe me doing is "nerd rage" I have no choice bu to label your defense "WoTC fan boism". See, I can throw out random stuff too and claim it as fact! Therefore, I am done trying to explain myself to you. Consider this my last (for real this time) response to you. Tell yourself you won, I don't care. Im perfectly fine with my opnion that you have no idea what you are talkin about. Good day to you sir.

 Besides, everyone knows the cake is a lie.


----------



## Rel (Sep 8, 2008)

Guomindong and Wonka, you are no longer allowed to talk to each other in this thread.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 8, 2008)

No problem, I'm done.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Sep 8, 2008)

You know, I don't remember people being outraged that WotC wasn't providing a 1-30 campaign outline for the plotline started in KotS. The H/P/E sequence of modules are intended for sequential play, yet I don't remember people taking umbrage at the lack of a full depiction of events in an H1 sidebar. The only difference I can see is that WotC's breaking Scales of War into about twice as many parts as the H/P/E module series.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2008)

Set said:


> What's with all this 'spoiler' nonsense anyway?
> 
> I've probably played Keep on the Borderlands a half dozen times and Against the Giants at least twice.  It didn't get any less fun.
> 
> I also watch movies, like the Matrix and the Crow, multiple times, and knowing how they end doesn't 'spoil' them for me.  I suspect that the vast majority of people who paid good money to see Titanic knew that the boat was going to sink.  Ditto for the shock ending of The Passion of the Christ, which was 'spoiled' a couple thousand years ago...



Well, at least in context of movies, there is the fun of watching it the first time and being surprised by all the twists ant turns, and the fun of re-watching it and seeing how they were set-up. 

In case of adventures - well, my group played a lot of Torg, and also re-played a lot of the modules. Our recent "revival" of Torg -with two players not familiar with it, and one having played or run them all - was a lot of less fun for the player that knew all the plots. 

"Don't ask me! I do even know what's in the fracking cabinet!" (It were two heavily armed combat robots...). Yes, plot twists can be less enjoyable if being spoilered.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 8, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> "Don't ask me! I do even know what's in the fracking cabinet!" (It were two heavily armed combat robots...). Yes, plot twists can be less enjoyable if being spoilered.




Plot twists can be even less enjoyable if run by someone who doesn't know them. Ever had an adventure where the DM didn't really get all the info he should have gotten, through lazyness, or lack of language skills?

I had a campaign done by a GM who didn't really read the campaign background info, and the further we were in, the less recognisable the adventures were (I read the book afterwards). In the end, the campaign was not much fun (too much railroading, not enough flavor, no foreshadowing, no customising, followed by more "railroading to fit the square peg into the round hole").


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Plot twists can be even less enjoyable if run by someone who doesn't know them. Ever had an adventure where the DM didn't really get all the info he should have gotten, through lazyness, or lack of language skills?




Yes, I think so. That's also a bad experience. But I wouldn't count on an overview really helping such a DM.  (at least the DM in question)


----------



## MerricB (Sep 8, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:


> You know, I don't remember people being outraged that WotC wasn't providing a 1-30 campaign outline for the plotline started in KotS. The H/P/E sequence of modules are intended for sequential play, yet I don't remember people taking umbrage at the lack of a full depiction of events in an H1 sidebar. The only difference I can see is that WotC's breaking Scales of War into about twice as many parts as the H/P/E module series.




There's actually a pretty big difference between a Dungeon magazine Adventure Path and the H/P/E series: the latter uses much less of an overall plot. Each of the H modules is self-contained, albeit with a couple of links that leads into the next one if you feel like it.

Certainly with the three Paizo adventure paths, they each had a significant plot-arc that is absent with the H series. I can't comment on the P series until I see it.

Then too, we tend to know months ahead of time of the general theme of each printed adventure through advertisements.

Cheers!


----------



## tomlib (Sep 8, 2008)

*Overview*

I was just directed to this topic although I've contributed to the discussion at WotC. It's nice to see some ideas on both sides of the issue although the rancor is off putting. I'm only a player in this campaign and not a GM so I have not read either of the first two adventures. Much of my information comes from discussions with our GM. Please take that into account.

For those who defend WotC's decision to withhold the Overview of _Scales of War_ from the GMs I offer up this argument:

I think, I could be wrong of course, that much of the cry about the Overview is related to the nature of the first two adventures, _Rescue at Rivenroar_ and _Bordrin's Watch_.

_Rescue at Rivenroar_ starts out in a similar fashion to Paizo's _Burnt Offerings_ the first module in the _Rise of the Runelords_ AP. In BO the third encounter, Die, Dog, Die!, involves the group rescuing Aldern Foxglove. The Paizo text of this reads as follows:

"The man in question is named *Aldern Foxglove *(CN male
human aristocrat 4/rogue 3), a noble destined to play an important
role in the next adventure, but whom for now is merely another​
frightened citizen."

Some issues:

1) RoR has nothing of this nature to help a GM plan.

2) No NPC is mentioned as being important to the campaign in RoR or BW.

3) RoR and BW take place in completely different towns.

4) There is a huge geographical error in regards to the flow direction of the Elsir River.

5) This first supplement in Dragon specifically designed for SoW really had almost nothing to do with SoW at all but was simply a group of generic character backgrounds not related to Elsir Vale by anything other than a few name drops.

5) The geography of Elsir Vale is mostly a mystery and the towns the campaign will be visiting just as much.

6) The original maps in RoR neglected to show key locations in Brindol or even the location of the titular Castle Rivenroar.

7) Errors pointed out by the community about individual articles were completely ignored when the compiled magazine came out. This is contrary to what was promised.

All of these things, I think, have led the GMs running or planning to run this campaign to the conclusion that WotC is not on top of the situation. SoW will require several years of effort to complete. In my opinion the cry for an Outline is in some ways simply an effort to determine if WotC actually has a plan for this campaign.

It seems clear to me that they are, at best, very disorganized. I suspect (but cannot prove) that Randy Beuhler is lying about the having a detailed and well planned out synopsis. I think that is not an unreasonable opinion to have at this time and accounts for the personal affront many have taken to his reply.

WotC can run an AP any way they see fit but I think most, even those who disagree with the idea of releasing an Overview, would agree that they are doing a poor job with quality control and communcating with their customers.

Peace to all and happy monster slaying!

Tom


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 8, 2008)

tomlib said:


> I was just directed to this topic . . .
> 
> . . . Peace to all and happy monster slaying!
> 
> Tom




Interesting theory.  I don't know if anyone outside of WoTC really knows why, or if, we are being lied to, but this was a very reasoned and thought out chain of logic.

Despite what I don't know, however, if it was ever revealed, or we (customers/fans) ever found out, that Randy Buehler had been lying to us about this - personally, I would never buy another WoTC product (or even download a free one) as long as he was working at WoTC (and maybe not even after, if it was a "management" decision involving more than just him).

Anyways, Peace to you to.  Maybe we'll bump into eachother in some monster lair somewhere.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Sep 8, 2008)

Just to add my 2 GP to the topic...

To me, as someone who both plays and DM's, I see no reason to NOT put out an overview of the series, because people are going to reading this AP for the next YEAR AND A HALF!!  An overview would serve to give DM's a chance to plot things in advance, and foreshadow where appropriate.

I think what upset me the most about this topic is the tone of the post that WotC put up; IMHO,it was QUITE condescending, and there was no "positive spin" to it at all.  Indeed, it sadly served to alienate me EVEN MORE for WotC than I was before.


----------



## reveal (Sep 10, 2008)

A new open letter to Randy Buehler


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 11, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> I think it will only hurt them in the long run, and eventually I think they _will_ release a summary.




Who was right? Come on, who was it? 

In case anyone wants it here.

[sblock]
Scales of War Heroic Tier

Episode #3: The Shadow Rift of Umbraforge
On returning from the Vents, the characters search for clues behind the well-armed orcs that sought passage beneath the mountains around Overlook. Their investigation takes them beneath the city, and then to another plane!

Episode #4: The Lost Mines of Karak
A dwarven clan of Overlook—once renowned for their wealthy mines—has fallen on hard times. But the rediscovery of one of their mines could spell relief for the city’s war efforts, and redemption for a once worthy name.

Episode #5
The heroes are summoned back to Brindol by an unexpected source. Their new ally then guides them to a long-lost fortress now inhabited by all manner of foul creatures.

Episode #6
The characters return to Overlook to find the city marshalling for war. But something rotten lurks in the city’s heart, and further investigation reveals that the city faces a threat as great from within as the army marshalling at the gates of Bordrin’s Watch.
Scales of War Paragon Tier (Episodes #7–12)

The scope has changed. By the end of the heroic tier, the heroes finally learn that the war in Elsir Vale is on a much larger scale than they imagined. Not only their small slice of the world is in danger, and the forces of good need powerful champions. The characters venture across the planes as a small, elite strike team, pursuing missions few champions of their world would dare to undertake. There, they must make new alliances to further their war effort, while sundering those of their enemies. Finally, they uncover the magnitude of the true threat facing their home.
Scales of War Epic Tier (Episodes #13–18)

The stakes increase. As the heroes cross into the epic tier, they learn that their world is truly under siege from all sides. Pursuing numerous threats only they can deal with, they single-handedly have the potential to turn the tide of war in one direction or the other. As the balance teeters on a razor’s edge, disaster strikes the characters’ allies, and they must act swiftly before their world—and possibly more—is lost to an age of darkness unlike any other.
[/sblock]


----------



## jeffh (Sep 11, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> Who was right? Come on, who was it?



After the first couple of days, it wasn't exactly difficult to call.

And questions can still legitimately be raised about how useful the new outline really is, though it's better than nothing. In fact, as far as the chances of my running Scales of War anytime before the first, say, nine or ten episodes are out, this is actually the last nail in the coffin. I feel I'm much better off converting an existing path such as Rise of the Runelords.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 11, 2008)

jeffh said:


> After the first couple of days, it wasn't exactly difficult to call. And questions can still legitimately be raised about how useful the new outline really is, though it's better than nothing.




You will not deter my feelings of accomplishment.


----------

