D&D 5E Enhancing "Storm King's Thunder"

[dropbear8mybaby]

I'm thinking of running the first part(s) of SKT at a convention, say 8-12 hours of play.

How long might Nightstone be expected to take?

I wouldn't do that. It's a very bad module full of, essentially, random, meaningless encounters that have zero relevance to the story, or even to the reason why the PC's are there, and the Nightstone itself never comes up in the adventure, or in the campaign. Not only that, but it's also very poorly structured and can be incredibly boring for a long stretch of time because of all the completely pointless areas that hold no interest or clues or anything other than empty rooms on a very large map.

It's about as bad an adventure as you can make, short of being Castle Greyhawk.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I wouldn't do that. It's a very bad module full of, essentially, random, meaningless encounters that have zero relevance to the story, or even to the reason why the PC's are there, and the Nightstone itself never comes up in the adventure, or in the campaign. Not only that, but it's also very poorly structured and can be incredibly boring for a long stretch of time because of all the completely pointless areas that hold no interest or clues or anything other than empty rooms on a very large map.

It's about as bad an adventure as you can make, short of being Castle Greyhawk.

Oddly enough, my players had a blast while playing it. They brag to this day about how they killed the orc horde...

 

[Motorskills]

I played in "part two", the caves and the cloud giant castle, I enjoyed both of those immensely.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Yeah, having not played it myself, just read the module, it seems like a fun wee effort that focuses on Goblins and has a nice mix of humour (the gobbos pranking around in the rubble) and pathos (the villagers who died in the caves).


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Motorskills]

So....two four-hour slots should cover Nightstone / caves / cloud giant castle?

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Oddly enough, my players had a blast while playing it. They brag to this day about how they killed the orc horde...

I played in "part two", the caves and the cloud giant castle, I enjoyed both of those immensely.

Then credit should go to your DM's who more than likely had to either skip a ton of irrelevant content and probably rework the module to have it be anything other than a confused mix of unrelated events. Personally, when I buy a campaign book, it's because I want to do less work, not more.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Then credit should go to your DM's who more than likely had to either skip a ton of irrelevant content and probably rework the module to have it be anything other than a confused mix of unrelated events. Personally, when I buy a campaign book, it's because I want to do less work, not more.

While I appreciate your compliments to me as a DM, I've run SKT with precisely four minor changes (1. a hill giant encounter between Nightstone and meeting Zephyros; 2. two minor added encounters around Triboar to allow the characters to have a bit more engagement with the city they were soon to defend; 3. Added some minor foreshadowing for Harshnag, the Eye of the All Father, and the storm giant court; and 4. had them interact with Lord Drylund and his party boat when they went through Yartar during Chapter 3.), and precisely zero major changes. Both I as the DM and my players have had a great time running/playing it, and at no point has any of my players commented that they thought there were any plot inconsistencies; to the contrary, they have commented on how well the story has flowed and how interesting it has been. We likely have only two or three more sessions to go before fully completing it (including visiting all five giant settlements, as they wanted to take care of the remaining giant lords before taking out Iymrith), and they have already told me they are sad to see the campaign come to an end.


Basically, the issues with SKT are nowhere near what you are making them out to be...

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Basically, the issues with SKT are nowhere near what you are making them out to be...

Umm, you just proved my point. You had to make changes for it to make sense.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Umm, you just proved my point. You had to make changes for it to make sense.

Your point was, and I quote:

"Then credit should go to your DM's who more than likely had to either skip a ton of irrelevant content and probably rework the module to have it be anything other than a confused mix of unrelated events."

As I did neither (I skipped absolutely none of the content, and made 4 slight, almost cosmetic, changes, which is certainly not "reworking the module"), your point remains unproven.

 

[Koren n'Rhys]

I wouldn't do that. It's a very bad module full of, essentially, random, meaningless encounters that have zero relevance to the story, or even to the reason why the PC's are there, and the Nightstone itself never comes up in the adventure, or in the campaign. Not only that, but it's also very poorly structured and can be incredibly boring for a long stretch of time because of all the completely pointless areas that hold no interest or clues or anything other than empty rooms on a very large map.

It's about as bad an adventure as you can make, short of being Castle Greyhawk.

An interesting observation, and a fair one, in your opinion. I think the majority opinion, by far, is that STK is a very good campaign and it's being enjoyed by payers and DMs alike. ANY adventure is going to need to be tweaked and modified to suit the needs and motivations of a particular group. It sounds to me like it simply isn't a good choice for you and yours. That's fine, but to come into a 160+ post thread by people playing it and sharing ideas to improve the fun just to on it and tell us you think it's horrible? Not helpful to anyone involved.

So, thanks for stopping in with your opinion, but you don't need to stay and argue it. I, at least, would rather not have the thread cluttered with the negativity.


Editted to add: If you have any suggestions to improve what you see as flaws, by all means please share them. My point is that simply saying it's a horrible adventure that no one should play is not helpful and adds nothing productive to the conversation. Thanks.