Talk:Adventure Path

Greyhawk setting

The default setting for the adventure paths is nominally the "core setting", but many of the elements in the modules are Greyhawk, and have never been put in the 3rd ed. core books. These include the Amedio Jungle, Hellfurnaces, Sasserine, Diamond Lake, Dragotha, and many other details. This article could use a section discussing the complex nature of the setting, including the issues related to Wizards of the Coast and Paizo interaction where we can get sources for that; any details that were changed (like the Free City of Greyhawk becoming The Free City); and the pressure to come out with earlier and more detailed conversion notes for other settings. However, if we're going to say just one thing, it really has to be that the setting is Greyhawk, which it is. If we want to qualify that, we could say "with some elements added or changed", since that's certainly true (e.g. Free City, addition of Mystara elements in ST, Tenser/Manzorian, etc) -Harmil 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have to say anything about the subject at all, especially given that (as I think we both agree) there isn't one simple statement we can make that doesn't distort something? PurplePlatypus 14:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Erik Mona, there were only 3 Greyhawk references he had to change for AoW, in order to make the AP more adaptable: the Free City of Greyhawk became the "Free City," Tenser became "Manzorian," & Bucknard became "Balakarde." Diamond Lake, Lanod neff, the Cult of the Green Lady, the Mistmarsh, the Wormcrawl Fissure, Alhaster, the Free City Arena, the Scarlet Brotherhood, Kelanen, the Vohoun Ocean, and many more elements have a long history with Greyhawk.--Robbstrd 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mere of Dead Men

This series of AD&D 2nd edition adventures that appeared in Dungeon (1999) was a "thematic precursor to the Shackled City Adventure Path" (Dungeon # 116, p. 69)and should, I think, be mentioned in this article. --84.50.72.7 18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

D&D topics

Why is the D&D topics block in there twice at the bottom of the article? I'd remove it myself but I'm wondering if I'm missing something. --168.215.131.150 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's there by mistake. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

History of the term

Reading this article, as it was since 15 October 2014, I saw that it was not well put, since it referred to adventure paths as solely those of D&D and Pathfinder. I changed the description and saved it. Then I made some other changes to add more definition and background to the article, but 50.141.204.194 changed those back and only kept the generalisation of it not being just D&D or Pathfinder. I put my info back in again, since he/she did not provide any reason for not wanting them. Then 2601:d:b480:ed2:6d38:ead:3d14:1262 took them back out again, saying "applying this term retroactively to older adventures is WP:OR". That to me means he/she did not read what I wrote. I do not use the "term" for earlier modules. I say the "concept" existed way back, and I refer to GDQ1-7. There is huge difference between the two. It should be quite obvious that Dungeon magazine did not discover the wheel here. What happenned with "Shackled City" is exactly what happenned with Queen of the Drow: first they where published separately and then as one big tome. The only difference is that in one case the installments were published in a magazine, and in the other case in standalone modules, but does anybody think that adventure paths are those storylines published in periodicals only? I certainly don't think so. Therefore, I don't see why my additions should not be included. They try to inform people that are new to the concept and/or the game of what existed before. Please, could someone reply and/or comment on this. I don't want to keep adding and deleting things. If some people are narrow-minded or act childishly, I won't participate in that. It's not like it's an article on nuclear fusion. This seems to be quite straightforward. Do you agree my additions make the article better or not, and if not why?

For your reference, the start of the article as I wrote it:

---

An adventure path is a term used in the context of tabletop role-playing games, to mean a series of interlinked adventures, which can be played in succession and lead characters to advance from lower to significantly higher levels, through a particular path of events. Although there have been, in the past, numerous examples of adventure modules that formed a series of interlinked adventures (e.g. Greyhawk's Falconmaster trilogy: Falcon's Revenge, Falconmaster, Flames of the Falcon), the term is usually applied to particularly lengthy adventure series, usually consisting of 11-12 installments, where by the end of the plotline the characters might advance for as many as 15 levels (in a d20-based game). Moreover, the concept is not only one of size, but also one of scope. With an adventure path player characters usually get to visit and explore much larger parts of the fantasy world they live in than with any other type of adventure module. For example, large boxed set adventure modules like Dragon Mountain might not be characterised as adventure paths.

History

The concept of an adventure path has been present in commercial products from the first years of role-playing games, an early example being Queen of the Spiders, which is referred to as a "supermodule". As an actual term, though, it originally applied to the series of Third Edition modules beginning with The Sunless Citadel, and then for other serial adventures for the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy roleplaying game or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Initially, these were lengthy series, published sequentially in Dungeon magazine. In 2007, Paizo Publishing attempted to trademark the term "Adventure Path," but the US Patent & Trademark Office determined that it was too generic for protection. Nowadays, adventure paths are also available from third party publishers, such as 0Onegames's Road to Revolution campaign arc, EN Publishing's War of the Burning Sky series for D&D 3rd Edition and subsequently updated for D&D 4th Edition, and its ZEITGEIST adventure path is due for release throughout 2011 and 2012.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:648:2800:131:698D:A454:E40E:342 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "Adventure Path" as defined in the lead section, and as demonstrated in the Sunless Citadel series, the Dungeon magazine series, and the Pathfinder series, is as follows: "a series of interlinked adventures for tabletop role-playing games which can be played in succession and lead characters to advance from lower to higher levels, through a particular path of events". The adventures using the term "Adventure Path" were specifically designed to take PCs from 1st to 20th level, as is my understanding. Are you trying to argue that your examples of Greyhawk's Falconmaster trilogy or the Queen of the Spiders supermodule fit that mold? Queen of the Spiders is listed as being for levels 8-14, whereas the Falconmaster modules don't seem to indicate much level progression at all (each is listed as for levels 5-7). Maybe you would want to include this information on Adventure (Dungeons & Dragons) and there compare it to the Adventure Paths? 2601:D:B480:ED2:6D38:EAD:3D14:1262 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I don't say that the Falconmaster trilogy is an adventure path (AP), quite the opposite. I mention it as an example of successive modules that are NOT an AP. Secondly, who is to say that APs *must* take you from level 1 to level 20? If there is a series of adventures that take you from 1 to 18, what is that? Or from 1 to 25? Thirdly, even if the original idea behind Dungeon magazine was to provide a DM with a complete set of adventures for the PCs to reach 20 and beyond, all I am saying is that an analogous idea existed in, for example, the GDQ1-7 modules. It does not matter that those modules had different level specifications; the *idea* behind it was the same. Again, I am NOT saying that GDQ1-7 was a AP, I'm saying that it carried that concept. Same could be said, for example, for "Fate of Istus". It was not a refined module (just a collection of adventures around a central plot), but again it was an early example of the concept. It's like saying that the F-117 fighter was the first stealth aircraft design. No, there existed multiple designs on stealth technology as far back as WWI. They just weren't as advanced. You might say (I don't know, I'm not an expert) that th F-117 was the first true stealth aircraft, but that is different. Similarly, you might say that Dungeon magazine's APs are the first to carry PCs from level 1 to 20 through one adventure plot (which even that I am not sure of), but that is different to saying that there were no precursors. And that is all I'm saying: GDQ1-7 is a precursor to today's APs. Lastly, I think it is worth mentioning that with the AD&D rules it was much harder to advance in levels, so an adventure that took you from 8 to 14 had to have a lot of depth of plot, and GDQ1-7 has been voted by many as the best module of the first 30 years of D&D, so a lot of depth there. (btw, why are you quoting me the definition for an adventure path that I wrote in the first place? ;) 2001:648:2800:131:698D:A454:E40E:342 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Starfinder

In the Paizo area, they've also adapted the Adventure Path concept to their Starfinder RPG. However, I'm not sure maintaining a comprehensive list of adventure paths is appropriate Wikipedia content. --100.6.59.176 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)