D&D 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen - a solid D effort.

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
S*puts on old grognard curmudgeon hat* "You're supposed to make the adventure yours you silly kids!" *removes hat*

So here we are seeing in real time the divergence of old school, make the adventure mine style of DMing (with the successful play stories and positive reviews) with the do all the work for me and let get right into the fun style of DMing. Neither is better than the other, but one is more fitting for DMs at certain points in the lives.
I don't think you understand the criticisms. It's not a new-school/old-school divide. Both old adventures and new adventures require you to "make it your own." I don't think there's any RPG experience that isn't customized by the GM. We want to customize adventures. My problems with HotDQ (like most TSR/WotC/Paizo adventures) are:

  1. There are flaws/playtsyle differences I have to fix, which forces me to customize it before I can use it (i.e., railroading, dumb encounters).
  2. It's written in a way that makes it difficult to customize it (i.e., wall of text).

If you are a DM that needs a lot of prep time but don't have it and/or you are not quick on your feet at the table, this adventure may fall flat in your hands.

If you don't need a lot of prep time or you have the time or you are quick on your feet, this adventure may very well shine in your hands.
Isn't the whole point to save time? If I had all the time I needed, I'd create my own damn adventure. The whole value of using a published adventure ("module") is that it makes my life more convenient. If I have to take more time customizing the module than it would take to just come up with my own ideas (of similar quality), isn't it a waste of money?

Further reading:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/03/evaluating-your-city.html
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2013/04/i-went-to-elsir-vale-and-all-i-got-was.html
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-caverns-of-thracia-is-best.html
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I've been looking forward to running it for awhile. It might be precisely because of it's generic-ness that makes it interesting to me. I've been truly inspired by this module more than any I've run in a long time. How to run each scene pops immediately to my mind. (And it doesn't sound anything like what the OP described.) Sure, I've got to come up with tons of details, but that's the fun. The alternative would be to have everything written out for me... a railroad for the DM, if not the players.

I don't plan on railroading my players. I only see the adventure as described in the book to fit the MOST LIKELY scenario, not the ONLY scenario. I've certainly run plenty worse adventures than this. In fact, I'd say nearly every adventure I've ever read is worse than this. Unless I'm missing some brilliant ones somewhere that would make this one good, wouldn't it?
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Really?

There was absolutely no such promotion that I heard. .

You never heard of the Adventure League? Or how Tyranny of Dragons was the flagship kickoff for the Adventure League?

Okay....

Organized Play aside, the fact is that this adventure is being sold for private, at-home use, though it appears to be poorly suited for it.

Funny enough, most feedback I have heard from people have played it at home have enjoyed it, so it seems your opinion on what it's suited for is in the minority. Also, all the old AD&D tournament modules were sold for private too. Doesn't change the fact that they were designed for tournament play.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
I've been looking forward to running it for awhile. It might be precisely because of it's generic-ness that makes it interesting to me. I've been truly inspired by this module more than any I've run in a long time. How to run each scene pops immediately to my mind. (And it doesn't sound anything like what the OP described.) Sure, I've got to come up with tons of details, but that's the fun. The alternative would be to have everything written out for me... a railroad for the DM, if not the players.
Steve and Wolfgang can write no doubt :) I have found memories of Wolfgang's Assassin Mountain and Secrets of the Lamp to this day.

I don't plan on railroading my players. I only see the adventure as described in the book to fit the MOST LIKELY scenario, not the ONLY scenario. I've certainly run plenty worse adventures than this. In fact, I'd say nearly every adventure I've ever read is worse than this. Unless I'm missing some brilliant ones somewhere that would make this one good, wouldn't it?
So you're saying HotDQ is more sandbox than linear adventure? That if the players decide to off in an unanticipated (but not illogical) direction, the book supports you in handling that?

Olgar Shiverstone said:
A few small dungeons does not a sandbox make. One of them only has one real choice in it. One is a manor house, so not a lot of choice. The other two have a couple of possible routes through them -- but does not change the fact that the arc of the entire adventure is essentially linear and the PCs are required to spend much of the adventure following the bad guys around.

If the adventure were seeded with options for more hooks and information that might allow investigation to lead to different points of the adventure, allow the PCs to get ahead of the bad guys, or even reach the final location after bypassing some earlier locations, I might credit it as a sandbox.

But as written -- nope, pretty much linear.
That's a shame. I am also flummoxed at how given what you say, anyone could think HotDQ was not linear? It seems, from your description, that is pretty obviously is linear.

I do wonder how much of his was the authors vs. the story bible mandate from WotC...
 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
(Spoilers, by the way)
It's basically impossible to do a sandbox for any adventure where there's a strong story involved. However, that doesn't mean that individual episodes of the adventures can't allow the players a variety of approaches (and the DM a variety of approaches in how to handle them). It doesn't change the fact that certain things have to happen to lead the characters onto the next episode, but it does mean that the adventure isn't 100% forced.

The first episode of Hoard of the Dragon is a good example of this style of design. Let's look at its structure:

Introduction: The players come to Greenest for a variety of reasons and discover it's under attack by a dragon, kobolds and humans.

Opportunities for Adventure: The DM presents the players with a number of adventure opportunities: The players see the cultists burning the mill. They encounter villagers needing escort to the keep. The dragon attacks the keep. The cultists attack the church which has villagers inside. A warrior of the cult challenges the defenders to send out a champion.

The players can react to any of these events. They can ignore them entirely. They can wander around the village attacking random cultist encounters. There's a general expectation that the group will meet the Protector of the village and offer to help (because, in the end, this is an adventure about heroes), but there's a lot of freedom for the players in DM in which encounters to use and how to approach each encounter.
What you're saying is: The DM presents an adventure hook to the players. The players can react to it or ignore it. Then the DM presents another adventure hook (of the DM's choice) to the players, and so on.

That is not a sandbox. That is a railroad. If the players ignore the dragon, nothing happens. If the players ignore the half-dragon, nothing happens. In other words: If they don't follow the plot, they don't get to play. Those missions are complete railroads and have no gameplay value. Additionally, both of those are actually worse for the characters if they participate, since they have to use up resources on a task that doesn't matter!

Let's look at the other missions...

The Old Tunnel: Literally a straight line with monsters in the middle, and harder monsters at the end. The only sandboxy thing about this is the result: It creates another exit/entrance to the home base. There's even some mechanical support for it (every time they use it thenceforth, there's a chance that the enemies find it).

The Sally Port: The characters fight a group of monsters in a 10x20 room, then cast a specific spell, then fight another group of monsters. The potentially sandboxy thing about this is that if the PCs ignore it, more raiders can break through the broken gate. However, there's no support for that outcome, and it's not mentioned in the module at all (it assumes the PCs agree to the quest, and succeed), so it doesn't count.

Prisoners: This one makes no sense. Why do the characters have to bring the prisoner back to the keep? My players asked me this question, and I had no good answer. Either way, it's a non-adventure: go out, grab the first cultist you see, come back. How exciting.

Save the Mill: I almost lumped this one in with the dragon and half-dragon encounters, but there is one redeeming quality here: If the PCs realize it's a trap before going in, they can still get XP. However, it doesn't count because the text assumes the players go in anyway, which is stupid. The PCs can also get bonus XP for succeeding on a passive perception check, which is even stupider.

Sanctuary: This one is the only significantly sandboxy mission. There's a clear goal, but many options on how to approach it. There are a few major problems with it, though:
  • One approach is clearly better than all the others (and the text even points it out)
  • There's no map or anything to help you if the PCs decide to take other approaches
  • The outcome is scripted
There are a few good ideas in it, though:
  • A dilemma that requires quick thinking from the players (essentially the same as the one in Tomb of Horrors, but much more forgiving in a variety of ways)
  • The PCs get XP for each civilian they save, even they manage to avoid all the monsters (actually, the text says that's "in addition to the points for killing monsters," which is stupid, so it doesn't count)
That's one legitimately sandboxy idea in the whole first episode.
 
Last edited:

You never heard of the Adventure League? Or how Tyranny of Dragons was the flagship kickoff for the Adventure League?

Okay....

I'd hazard that most potential buyersof HotDQ have never heard of the Adventurers league. If you're some guy who heard about 5E because it was mentioned in Wired magazine, and you bought HotDQ on Amazon, why the hell would you know about organized play? Or Tyranny of Dragons? Not everyone is plugged into the online or organized play scene. Not everyone reads the WotC site. D&D has a huge audience of casual gamers who are completely oblivious to all that stuff.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I'd hazard that most potential buyersof HotDQ have never heard of the Adventurers league. If you're some guy who heard about 5E because it was mentioned in Wired magazine, and you bought HotDQ on Amazon, why the hell would you know about organized play? Or Tyranny of Dragons? Not everyone is plugged into the online or organized play scene. Not everyone reads the WotC site. D&D has a huge audience of casual gamers who are completely oblivious to all that stuff.

In 1999, maybe. In 2014 everybody is in the internet and looks up their hobbies, joins Facebook groups, all sorts of things. Even my grandma uses the internet for knitting patterns.
 

DaveMage

Slumbering in Tsar
Funny enough, most feedback I have heard from people have played it at home have enjoyed it, so it seems your opinion on what it's suited for is in the minority. Also, all the old AD&D tournament modules were sold for private too. Doesn't change the fact that they were designed for tournament play.

Yeah, but those old AD&D modules say *right in the book* that they were originally created for tournament play.
 

In 1999, maybe. In 2014 everybody is in the internet and looks up their hobbies, joins Facebook groups, all sorts of things. Even my grandma uses the internet for knitting patterns.

Of the six people in my D&D group, I am the only one who reads about the game online. In fact, there's maybe one other guy who even knows the publisher is WotC. Everyone else just shows up and plays, much like a poker group. The amount of time they spend thinking about the game away from the table is nil. This is also the case for the boardgame groups I'm in. A couple of the players read up on boardgames online. The rest simply show up and play.

Those people may indeed use the internet to look up other hobbies. Like golf, or cycling, or vintage guitars. Just because they play D&D, or Puerto Rico, doesn't mean gaming is their big hobby. The boardgaming industry has realized this, and aims many of its games for casual groups. WotC is trying to do the same thing with 5E.
 


Remove ads

Top