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

[jrowland]

On another note:

I have two pirate background players who also played "Murder in Baldur's Gate". One of the players played an assassin and personally nearly became the Chosen of Bhaal. Those old characters will appear as NPCs when play moves to Baldur's Gate. More importantly, I think the cultists will hire ships instead of travellng overland to give the pirates some love...lots of tension on that ship.

 

[GX.Sigma]

[/LIST]

I understand the criticisms. I wasn't making it a new/old school divide, "old school" was a short hand descriptor for a style of DMing. Brand new DMs could/can DM that way.

as to point 1: I take it, despite saying , "We want to customize adventures" you have a problem with "forces me to customize". I am sure you don't mean that literally (Mike mearls isn't at your house with a gun is he?), so I can only scratch my head and wonder why you want to customize, but don't actually want to customize. I'll just assume you didn't mean it as a separate point and it is there to only reinforce point 2. Personally, I feel railroaded if (as DM) a module is so "good" as to not require customization.

as to point 2: a "wall of text" makes customizing hard? Reading is hard? Of course not, you seem literate. It's poorly written? Yes...sort of...maybe. and that is where the difference lay. Ever read the original G1? Wall of text. Not much to the story. That is what I meant by old school. For some DMs, G1 is great simply because it is the skeleton of an adventure. If HotDQ was 10 pages, I'd like it more, but I do enjoy the wall of text. Gives me ideas. For some, G1 is horrible because its this wall of text keyed encounter booklet with a weak plot that expects the DM to fill out the details. who has time for that? AmIright? It comes down to what you are looking for in an adventure. Which brings us to:



No. It's to have fun. But you meant that as a rhetorical question I think.



Yes, In your opinion, given your requirement that the "value" is to make your life more convenient. Others disagree, mostly because others have different values. Who knew?. I value the story itself. I have a number of Pathfinder APs I'll likely never run (I hope I do). Certainly was not a waste of money, IMO. They are good stories. I bought a pdf of G1 to run my group through during the 5E playtest. Wasn't a waste of money and I spent more time modifying it than If I had just ad-libbed a hill giant "fortress", but I had fun doing it, so it was money well spent. (besides, I didn't want to dig through the boxes in the basement for the paper copy I have).

I appreciate the OPs review. I certainly didn't notice some of these things because I tend to ad-lib modules and change on the fly anyway to fit my homebrew world and my players stories. But even so, those criticisms are worthwhile so I don't inadvertently create those sorts of wtf moments at my table.

Is it worth getting? maybe. re-read my previous post.

It seems our values are so different that we can't have a useful conversation about this. Correct me if I'm wrong: To you, reading an adventure is a fun activity that you do in your spare time. To me, reading an adventure is a hassle that detracts from its usefulness as a tool to help me run a game.

 

[MerricB]

So this adventure was very much so designed for 5e Encounters.

The first three episodes are the only ones used with Encounters.

After that, the primary way the adventure will be played is at home.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

That doesn't change the fact that at least 6 of the Top 30 D&D Adventures were tournament modules. If I were to run any of these exactly as printed, they'd all pretty much suck, nostalgia aside.

I might be in the minority, but, as an experienced DM, I never look at a published adventure as something I can just open up and start running. All adventures "suck" until I'm able to make whatever changes I deem fit to make it work in my campaign.

Pretty much like you, I don't care for the old tournament modules which recieve such a lot of praise. They illustrate the "PCs vs Dungeon" idea, which I just don't like.

I prefer adventures - whether self-written or published ones - which give me at least a framework of a plot or story. I don't expect to use a canned module as written, because that would be bland. But I expect it to deliver material which I can adapt to my players and campaign; and with material I don't mean just maps and monster statistics. If that would be all I need, I could just take my 1e DMG and roll up a random dungeon.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, I feel railroaded if (as DM) a module is so "good" as to not require customization.

I don't. Instead, I feel like I got my money's worth.

Ever read the original G1? Wall of text. Not much to the story. That is what I meant by old school. For some DMs, G1 is great simply because it is the skeleton of an adventure.

Ayup. And I can stick it in anywhere and wrap any story around it I want to.

Yes, In your opinion, given your requirement that the "value" is to make your life more convenient.

Er...why else would you buy a module instead of writing your own?

I (usually) don't need backstory; I already have that. What I need - and all I need - from a module is that it do the heavy lifting as regards the actual dungeon design: the mapping, the monster statting and suggested tactics, the trap placement and design, treasure descriptions and values, and so forth; all in a relatively simple and not-too-verbose manner. This is why I have yet to ever convert and run a Pathfinder module: too much bloody backstory getting in the way of the dungeon descriptions. I don't have the patience to winnow out the 10 pages of actual adventure from the 64 pages presented; it's quicker and easier to just design my own.

Pretty much like you, I don't care for the old tournament modules which recieve such a lot of praise. They illustrate the "PCs vs Dungeon" idea, which I just don't like.

Not sure if I'm missing something here, but aren't the PC's *supposed* to be fighting against the dungeon and its inhabitants?

I prefer adventures - whether self-written or published ones - which give me at least a framework of a plot or story. I don't expect to use a canned module as written, because that would be bland. But I expect it to deliver material which I can adapt to my players and campaign; and with material I don't mean just maps and monster statistics. If that would be all I need, I could just take my 1e DMG and roll up a random dungeon.

You could, and so could I; but if I can buy a module that's already done all the rolling for me, put it on a map, and statted out the monsters and traps why would I waste my time doing all that rolling.

I'm going to generate the backstory to suit my campaign anyway; it's far easier to do this from a blank slate (i.e. very minimal or no canned backstory) than to have to wade through and (in my mind) delete all the canned backstory first (1). The only canned backstory I care about in any module is that which specifically has to do with why and how the dungeon exists and-or why and how any bizarre things in it are intended to function (2).

(1) - canned backstory example: the dungeon is an old castle near the present-day border between Neverwinter lands and Luskan lands. Neverwinter Nobleman X is in a power struggle with Neverwinter Nobleman Y and wants to reboot the old castle to add to his power base (several pages of this conflict-of-intrigue history are given); in a previous adventure the party (in theory) went on at least one mission for Nobleman X thus here the hook is he hires the party to go and clear the castle out for him. I need none of this.

(2) - canned backstory example: the dungeon is an old castle built by Terazon the Mad Wizard a few centuries ago; a few years after completing the castle Terazon dabbled in magics he shouldn't have and inadvertently opened a gate from his lab in the castle's basement to the Elemental Plane of Magic, and the resulting magic surges kiled him. Now, the decay of the castle has brought down Terazon's old defensive enchantments; originally intended to keep unwelcome magic *out* they have for centuries instead been keeping the wild magic *in*. The hook is one or more of: a guild of arcanists hires the party to fix the problem; the party hears of the castle and all the rumoured treasure there (but knows nothing about the wild magic!); the party sees odd lighting effects in the distance at night and goes to investigate, etc. (following this would be several pages detailing the mechanics of how the wild magic works around the castle and what effects it might have on PCs) This sort of thing is what I want: setting-neutral and with just about no reference to the outside world at all - it's all about the castle itself.

Lanefan

 

[DEFCON 1]

And thus we have the true results of what a module like Hoard of the Dragon Queen gets for a review... it's all dependent on the playstyle of the person running it.

- If all you want are encounters or "set pieces" with no established story to get in the way (because you intend on creating your own story)... HofDQ probably is kind of a waste. Too much story or plot you get "railroaded" through or have to delete.

- If all you want is an adventure that you can run straight from the book with no interest in adding/adapting/changing anything to fit your campaign (in other words, kind of use it *as* a campaign)... HotDQ will be a waste if the encounters or fights themselves aren't interesting enough for you to run, or if the story doesn't grab you. If the fights and the story fit your particular style however, HotDQ might work wonderfully as a campaign.

- If all you want is a plotline or timeline of events that your BBEG is moving towards, fully expecting to fill in backstory and other scenes depending on where your characters go (and you have no problem changing or even completely removing specific chapters if the characters don't go in that particular way)... then HotDQ is probably fairly worthwhile. There are many very interesting and different type of roleplaying "adventures" that occur during the module (turn back a village invasion / masquerade in an enemy camp / dungeon crawl / three month caravan journey / investigation of mystery / journey through foreboding terrain to take over a castle / negotiate with or destroy member of the opposing force / fight in a flying castle.) A whole series of different types of scenarios, all connected together with a plotline you can follow or add to as you see fit.

- If you see any written and established plot reasons to get from episode to episode as "railroading" (because they did not offer up or try to justify more than one way to do it)... then you probably will find HotDQ a waste. The book offers a single primary reason to go from one to the next because it's probably the one that most groups would end up using. But that gives the impression that either that's the only way to do it (and thus you as DM have to force your characters to take the breadcrumb, hence the "railroad")... or that the writers don't care about other ways of DMing since they only gave one (rather than offer multiple connective possibilities to allow sandboxy DMs many ideas of where the players might take the story -- or offer no connective possibilities whatsoever so that the individual DMs have to rely entirely on what their players did to make the justifications to move on to the next scenes.)

- If all you want is a series of individual episodes or encounters to take apart and insert into your own adventures without worrying about or even bothering connecting them together ... HotDQ might be a mixed bag. Some might work for you and some might not. They don't have the page count to really delve (pun intended) deep into any one set piece to make it completely unique (compared to another longer module you might be able to pick up), but you do get a series of seven really different styles and types of scenarios (unlike say the 4E Dungeon Delve book which was *only* 30 short dungeon delves).

All of these are ways in which the original in-depth review helps out a lot. Because if you read it... you really will get a sense of where you yourself lie when it comes to all these different ways of running games. You'll either read it and think "This review is exactly the kind of thing I see, and it hits on all the ways this adventure does nothing for me." Or else you read it and think "This review is negative towards all the various aspects of module design that never bother me or that I change or adapt anyway, so I can't take it at face value." Or wherever you might fall in between.

 

[jrowland]

It seems our values are so different that we can't have a useful conversation about this. Correct me if I'm wrong: To you, reading an adventure is a fun activity that you do in your spare time. To me, reading an adventure is a hassle that detracts from its usefulness as a tool to help me run a game.

you are correct

 

[Haffrung]

I prefer adventures - whether self-written or published ones - which give me at least a framework of a plot or story. I don't expect to use a canned module as written, because that would be bland. But I expect it to deliver material which I can adapt to my players and campaign; and with material I don't mean just maps and monster statistics. If that would be all I need, I could just take my 1e DMG and roll up a random dungeon.

Maybe the 5E DMG will include a random story generator. But WotC would be shooting themselves in the foot because I suppose nobody would ever need to buy an adventure again.

 

[Haffrung]

I'm going to generate the backstory to suit my campaign anyway; it's far easier to do this from a blank slate (i.e. very minimal or no canned backstory) than to have to wade through and (in my mind) delete all the canned backstory first (1). The only canned backstory I care about in any module is that which specifically has to do with why and how the dungeon exists and-or why and how any bizarre things in it are intended to function (2).

Agreed. Since my players, as a rule, aren't interested in saving the village/city/kingdom, or running errands for powerful lords, the background stories to 90 per cent of published adventures are useless to me anyway, and only get in the way of using the setting content. I don't buy adventures to read background material about the lost lover of the bitter sorceror, and his desire for revenge against her tyrannical father. I don't read those kind of melodramatic stories in novels, so I certainly don't want them intruding on my D&D content.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. Since my players, as a rule, aren't interested in saving the village/city/kingdom, or running errands for powerful lords, the background stories to 90 per cent of published adventures are useless to me anyway, and only get in the way of using the setting content. I don't buy adventures to read background material about the lost lover of the bitter sorceror, and his desire for revenge against her tyrannical father. I don't read those kind of melodramatic stories in novels, so I certainly don't want them intruding on my D&D content.

I will in fairness say this, however: any half-decent canned adventure should include some hook suggestions for those DMs who need such to get themselves and-or their players started. But as suggestions, rather than baked in to the actual adventure.

Lanefan