D&D 5E Convince me to keep reading Princes of the Apocalypse (*significant* spoilers. Also my players keep out)

[MonsterEnvy]

Wait a second. You complain that this entirely new story is too derivative and unimaginative, but you want them to update the old modules and just print those? How does that make any sense?

Also as I mentioned Princes of the Apocalypse has very little in common with the Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[Jester David]

I'll give you the bunyip.

The asylum tied directly into the story. You had to go to the asylum to figure out what was going on with the serial killer. It was a major clue in the second module.

The asylum is a giant red herring. It gives you little new information you couldn't find elsewhere. It's experience padding.

The first module definitely tied into the story. That is why you revisit the same hidden temple in module five. The finding of the underground temple in the first module was of vital importance. The clues in the goblin lair seemed unrelated at first, but were subtle clues to be recalled later on. I consider it similar to a writer having antagonist deal with a seemingly unrelated problem that eventually ties into the plot later. The first module set the plate for the rest of it. There were key parts of it that tied in like the runewell and the sihedron amulet that played parts later on.

The first module is pretty much a side quest. Nothing that happens with the goblins or villains has any bearing on the larger story. You could start the PCs at level 4, have them hired to investigate the Catacombs of Wrath, discover a Sihedron mdelalion, and the larger story would be unaffected in the least.

 

[B. Chaos]

The problem with WotC's adventures for 5e is that they're all railroads. Whatever choices you make, in the end they're meaningless because of the formula to sell an adventure that picks up where the last product left off and has a defined endpoint for the next product to pick up on. Wherever you go in the adventure and whatever you do doesn't matter because you're on a train that is starting from point A and inevitably goes to point B.

The solution would be to create open ended sandboxes that do not have a predetermined *plot*. Though I don't see Wizards doing this anytime soon.

 

[SilverfireSage]

The solution would be to create open ended sandboxes that do not have a predetermined *plot*. Though I don't see Wizards doing this anytime soon.

Isn't that just a campaign setting?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The problem with WotC's adventures for 5e is that they're all railroads. Whatever choices you make, in the end they're meaningless because of the formula to sell an adventure that picks up where the last product left off and has a defined endpoint for the next product to pick up on. Wherever you go in the adventure and whatever you do doesn't matter because you're on a train that is starting from point A and inevitably goes to point B.

The solution would be to create open ended sandboxes that do not have a predetermined *plot*. Though I don't see Wizards doing this anytime soon.

The Adventure picking up were the last one let off only applies to Tyranny of Dragons.

Pretty much you have no idea what you are talking about. Princes of the Apocalypse is one of the most Sandboxy adventures I have seen and it's a stand alone book.

Isn't that just a campaign setting?

I guess. But the guy does not have any clue what he is talking about anyway. He clearly has not read the book or know anything about it.

 

[B. Chaos]

Isn't that just a campaign setting?

A sandbox doesn't have to be a whole setting but it can be. You could shrink it down to a city, a village, or any location you want to explore. It's a different way of DMing where player agency is maintained. The players aren't forced to pursue a particular storyline but instead have the options to pursue multiple threads of adventure.

A simple explanation of railroading is when the players reach a fork in the road. If they go left they encounter a troll cave. If they go right they still encounter a troll cave. To reach the next part of the story, no matter what the players do for the rest of the adventure they're going to end up fighting that troll. When all roads lead to Rome, it's not a game where choices matter.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

A sandbox doesn't have to be a whole setting but it can be. You could shrink it down to a city, a village, or any location you want to explore. It's a different way of DMing where player agency is maintained. The players aren't forced to pursue a particular storyline but instead have the options to pursue multiple threads of adventure.

A simple explanation of railroading is when the players reach a fork in the road. If they go left they encounter a troll cave. If they go right they still encounter a troll cave. To reach the next part of the story, no matter what the players do for the rest of the adventure they're going to end up fighting that troll. When all roads lead to Rome, it's not a game where choices matter.

Well then you would probably really like Princes.

 

[SilverfireSage]

A sandbox doesn't have to be a whole setting but it can be. You could shrink it down to a city, a village, or any location you want to explore. It's a different way of DMing where player agency is maintained. The players aren't forced to pursue a particular storyline but instead have the options to pursue multiple threads of adventure.

A simple explanation of railroading is when the players reach a fork in the road. If they go left they encounter a troll cave. If they go right they still encounter a troll cave. To reach the next part of the story, no matter what the players do for the rest of the adventure they're going to end up fighting that troll. When all roads lead to Rome, it's not a game where choices matter.

Are there truly any adventures out there that aren't "railroad" by your estimation then? Kingmaker maybe? Because PotA allows a lot of player agency, but it will always lead to something towards the main story, so by your definition, the only way that an adventure can be sandbox is if the DM makes it all up based on where the players are going. In that case, why have an adventure at all?

 

[B. Chaos]

No that's not my viewpoint at all. You're putting forth a reductio ad absurdum argument. The point I was making was that anything which forces a player to make a choice in order to advance a plotline is not a choice at all, no matter the means of coercion - illusionism, dead ends, etc.

I'm not a person who has problem admitting when they're wrong. Your comments did cause me to read some reviews on the this book, and it does look like a decent sandbox. After being thoroughly unimpressed by HotDQ and the tiamat storyline I mistakenly assumed this would be the same.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I really like the Sandboxy nature of this Adventure as well.

There is no set order to the dungeons in the adventure (Though some area's are more difficult then others), and players are free to move throughout the Valley as wished. It's quite cool.