D&D 4E Is it me or are 4E modules just not...exciting?

[WizarDru]

If there was something I felt 4E never got right it was adventures. At the same time, there are a few that I think are great like the OP asks for: Reavers of Harkenfold and Cairn of the Winter King are both good in my opinion. Then there are some (precious and rare sadly) great Dungeon Adventures: Beneath the Sands, Force of Nature and Lord of the White Fields.

Thanks for the recommendations. Several people point to 'Reavers', so that'll be one I definitely investigate.


To be clear, this is not meant to be a criticism of 4E in any way shape or form. I don't believe my dissatisfaction stems from the edition even slightly. Instead I think the issue is one of focus and design intent. Someone suggested that perhaps it was because the earlier modules were originally 3E modules that were clumsily adapted. I don't think that's the case...again because the problem isn't a mechanical one. The issue I have is not with the balance of encounters or the lethality or anything like that. It's with the narrative and the story...or often the lack therein.

Let me give an example. [Warning: Blathering to Ensue]

The module "The Tyrant's Oath" is from Dungeon 178. There's nothing particularly wrong with it and I don't mean to imply that it's poorly done. But it's the first module to hand and illustrates some of my issues, so I'll use it. In it, the players are supposedly trapped between a warlord and yuan-ti leader vying for control of a valley. The main plot is that the players end up at a village (somehow) and the village gets attacked. Villagers get kidnapped. The village elder give the players expositionary info and then either they go to the first warlord or she sends her people to the party. She will win, regardless, and then the village elder NPC (who is also her mom) will then cajole her into helping the PCs eradicate the yuan-ti. The players then lead her barbarian army against the yuan-ti with the module's obligatory skill challenge. The temple they reside in contains a water-trap, although the module seems more concerned that this is just a tricky combat environment. Then a showdown. The End.

So there's several things I don't like, here. First, there is NO MAP. Well, actually there is a bunch of combat maps, but there's no linkage. There is no regional map, for example. And why would there be? The players have no choice in navigating one since everything is really just being shuttled from one encounter to another. While the module suggests that the players might actually choose one option over another once or twice, it doesn't entertain the idea that the players have any agency. The combat encounter will happen, one way or the other. I should point out, to be fair, that the module does entertain the option of the players doing slightly different things...but offers no suggestions on how to keep the players on the path organically.

At one point, there's a section where the module says "This is a perfect opportunity for roleplaying." That's odd only in that it waits until halfway through the module for it, despite there having been several such moments prior. By this point, it's when the PCs encounter the human warlord. The act of calling it out almost implies it as a mechanical option: "Okay, now we'll do some role-playing. Right here. On this spot." I'm being a little unfair, here, but it feels weird for it to be called out like that. The module NPCs kind of run into a few logical inconsistencies, but that's nothing to do with my complaints. I see what the writer was going for, regardless of my opinion of the execution. That's something I, as the DM, can fill in.

Right smack-dab towards the late-middle of the module is the Obligatory Skill Challenge. That's what it looks like, how it reads and how it feels. The rules require at least one and There It Is. In this case, the players have to help the warlord's army fight yuan-ti cultists on the way to their hideout. It has a nice feature in that skill usage unlocks other skill usage possibilities, but is pretty limited. It suffers mostly from being the only skill challenge; because of this, it has to serve many masters and feels under-developed because it offers no options for deviation from it's script....not a problem when a couple of players get to contribute to another challenge. But if there ISN'T another challenge, it becomes less enjoyable for some. It also doesn't encourage skill use, but just throws the skills out there and some of them feel a little forced. It's a decent skill challenge and I don't want to make you think it's a bad one. But if it wasn't for the cascading skills, it's something I could have improvised...most of the skill checks are justifications, not suggestions. When I compare these with some of the Skill Challenges that I've seen Piratecat devise (and that I've made myself, with his input)....they just seem rote.

I harp on the Skill Challenges because they are something that I most want out of printed modules. I look to a module to SAVE ME TIME. Ideas I can steal, rules I can adapt, monsters I can use and skill challenges I can't improvise in a moment's notice. The skill challenge in 'Tyrant's Oath' feels like one that was required, not that was desired.

I think that other thing that feels dull here is that it's all so...linear. I realize most D&D modules are exactly that and I'm not sure why THIS feels different to me. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with the story idea: it's actually a decent story idea and is executed fine. My problem feels more with the module layout and focus. It feels like the players don't really have much effect on the story, just some nominal ability to adjust the outcome. And the layout appears to be focused solely on moving characters between combat encounters. There is no careful exploration, no developing the village and it's inhabitants and certainly no jumping the tracks. It feels like the module doesn't care about anything but getting the players to their starting markers for Encounter X and assumes you wouldn't, either.

And perhaps that's the issue that bothers me the most. A lot of the emergent gaming elements that I've always taken for granted in D&D appear to have been de-emphasized or removed from most of the modules I've read. There is little to no implication of players going off-the-rails even a little or even the assumption that they'd bother.

I hate to sound so negative, here. It's just that lately I've been going through modules and they just leave me bored or unenthused and I'm trying to figure out why. When I read "Forge of Fury", I couldn't wait to run it. When I got my hands on "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil", we started a whole campaign just to run it. "Shackled City" was exciting (at first). When I see more recent modules...I just don't feel like it's anything more than setup for specific encounters with stuff used as mortar to join them.

My assumption is that there must be some really great 4E adventures...I just need to find them. If folks have more suggestions, please add them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the problem is in two related parts. Well, besides those initial modules suffering from version 0.5 issues, which any new edtion would have. Anyway:

1. IMHO, 4E is a bit more geared to adventure source material instead of straight adventure modules. Ideally, you'd have several interesting locations, inhabitants, "wandering" monsters, and such--more than you could need to run an adventure. Then you'd have some guidance on how those parts might go together, but nothing would force them that way. Sklll challenges would, of necessity, grow organically out of the choices the players made--though you might have a couple discussed as examples.

This kind of thing is where having streamlined rules, refluffing ability, etc. really helps. In a typical 3E or 3.5 Dungeon adventure, the 4E style just looks like a lot of missing details.

2. Like the ruleset itself, a good 4E module will always be better to play than to read.

Also, besides the above, I think that WotC worried a little too much about making every adventure ultra-accessible to a new GM. I think they forgot that some of us managed just fine with Keep on the Borderlands. And Keep on the Borderlands, or something very like it, would be a good fit for 4E, and a lot more forgiving of beginners than it was in Basic or 1E. (Starting out with more staying power makes getting caught between the goblins and the orcs not such a killer.)

Why they didn't do at least a few such modules, I'll never know. Mearls wrote a source book for Arcana Evolved, "Ruins of Intrigue", that was built on exactly that model.

 

[Mistwell]

My favorite published adventures so far, for 4e:

Cairn of the Winter King (WOTC - from Monster Vault);
War of the Burning Sky (from EnWorld);
Forges of the Mountain King (Goodman Games).


I've heard very good things about Slaying Stone (WOTC) and Reavers of Harkenwold (WOTC - DM's Kit).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The Slaying Stone is not bad. Can't say about some of the other recommendations of good ones. But one of the things that makes The Slaying Stone fairly decent is that it can be run more like Keep on the Borderlands, if you want. It's obvious how to do it, from the module as presented.

I'm curious if any of the other modules recommended thus far have this characteristic, or is it something else that makes them good.

 

[OnlineDM]

As I said before, I'm still pretty new to D&D (really just started at the beginning of 2010), so I haven't read a lot of older modules. But one thing that strikes me as being a bit different between the older modules I've seen and most of the 4e modules is that the older modules will often have a big map of an entire cavern complex or whatever the setting is, with labels for each area, and then a section where each label is explained (Room 1: 2d4 goblin warriors; Room 2: No monsters, but a chasm crosses the floor...). There's no written assumption about which rooms the PCs will visit in which order.

In most 4e modules, there seems to be a clearer set of rails (Encounter 1 leads to Encounter 2 leads to Encounter 3) with, as you said, no need for an overall map. This is one area where Reavers of Harkenwold does a better job. The PCs can choose to go wherever they want on the map (though NPCs will certainly be asking for help and offering suggestions about certain places). However, once they've chosen where to go (help the humans against the bullywugs or help the elves against the goblins?) there's a little linear delve when they get there (bullywug entrance -> bullywug main chamber -> bullywug party coming at the PCs as they leave). The Iron Keep at the end, though, is totally free form - here's what's in each room. Have at it, PCs!

 

[keterys]

To be honest, I think that's a trend I've observed in many games. Set pieces are far more in fashion, in tabletop or video game, than the old style of scattershot.

Theres also a certain minimum bar of challenge to be worth running a combat. In converting old modules, I often see ridiculously easy combats (ex: 1d4 skeletons in a 10x10 room for 9th level pcs to fight) and I often try to combine multiple together to make an interesting fight, but we used to just very quickly do the fight and take our 5 damage (maybe) and move on.

Random encounters are also heavily out of fashion and those old sprawl explores almost demand that...

 

[Kobold Boots]

I've only run the Scales of War path, and my players seem to enjoy it a great deal. But I do a lot of prep work and changes before hand to make sure each PC fits into the plot, and the module fits into my game world.

This I feel is a very, very important concept in the greater discussion.

Modules from WoTC should be considered templates to fit a DMs greater story in to with what is presented a guide to keep people moving forward when floon expires.

I think niche publishers are the best overall source of fully complete and compelling modules, but can also be the source of things that can kill a DMs own floon if those modules are too dependent on material within the work.

Still. The role of the DM is to act as the editor and person that pulls his or her campaign together. More than anything else, if the module doesn't translate well in gameplay it's because the DM didn't prep or just isn't good at wordsmithing his game.

 

[Quickleaf]

1. IMHO, 4E is a bit more geared to adventure source material instead of straight adventure modules.

I'm curious about this point. So there's something about 4e's mechanics that lends it more readily to a sandbox style than previous editions? Can you elaborate?

Why they didn't do at least a few such modules, I'll never know. Mearls wrote a source book for Arcana Evolved, "Ruins of Intrigue", that was built on exactly that model.

I know right? Mike Mearls had some great earlier work, and I remember first reading through City Works (not an adventure but full of adventue hooks) and being blown away at the raw gaming goodness. Maybe when he's free to spread his wings his writing is better? I dont know. But the difference is intelligent creative well-designed material is noticeable, as you say.

In most 4e modules, there seems to be a clearer set of rails (Encounter 1 leads to Encounter 2 leads to Encounter 3) with, as you said, no need for an overall map.

Which sort of clashes with the "natural sandbox" aspect Crazy Jerome mentioned. IMO there's no good reason to design a modern adventure this way (hyper linear) unless it's a remake of an old school adventure.

This is one area where Reavers of Harkenwold does a better job. The PCs can choose to go wherever they want on the map (though NPCs will certainly be asking for help and offering suggestions about certain places).

Does it make a difference in terms of outcomes which order the PCs explore the map? Or is it "meaningless" freedom?

To be honest, I think that's a trend I've observed in many games. Set pieces are far more in fashion, in tabletop or video game, than the old style of scattershot.

Maybe I've just been polluted by the times, but isn't a focus on "set pieces" more exciting at the table than "death by attrition"?

Theres also a certain minimum bar of challenge to be worth running a combat. In converting old modules, I often see ridiculously easy combats (ex: 1d4 skeletons in a 10x10 room for 9th level pcs to fight) and I often try to combine multiple together to make an interesting fight, but we used to just very quickly do the fight and take our 5 damage (maybe) and move on.

Man I hated those kinds of potshots encounters when we played 1e. My philosophy with 4e is that the day the PCs are "level appropriate", I'll start using "level appropriate" encounters; until then I'm tossing very hard encounters at them. If I don't do this, the players aren't challenged and don't get to use half of the cool tactical powerz they have.

Random encounters are also heavily out of fashion and those old sprawl explores almost demand that...

I am in the process of penning an adventure where the PCs are part of a military unit besieging a warlock's keep. To get across the chaos within the keep, I put together a random "encounter" table as well as some premade encounters form climatic fights. I put "encounter" in "" because there's little to no fighting involved... Things like running into a duo of servants looting the castle, or catching a clerk burning records. These also have story ties (frex among the records are letters the warlock corresponded with a witch about a bastard heir and land rights), which the PCs can pursue as minor quests, or ignore and forge ahead with the main fights.

I haven't quite hit the right balance, but I think some kind of hyrid approach (random encounters & preplanned) will make an adventure more exciting for both players and DM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, there could be a lot of reasons why WotC seems to be good at rather 'flat' adventures. Large organization with a set management hierarchy perhaps? Do you think Paizo's developers all have titles like all the WotC devs seem to have? Everyone over there is "Head of R&D" or "Product Line Brand Manager" or "Grand Pooba" or whatever. I don't expect much gets done without lots of meetings and approvals and etc. It tends to mean things are going to be design by committee, little risk will be taken, limited project ownership, etc. I really doubt that's conducive to a lot of highly creative work or a lot of work with a very individual style.

There's absolutely nothing about 4e that genuinely inhibits good adventure design. Courts of the Shadow Fey for instance is a VERY nice module (one of Wolfgang Bauer's patronage projects). I'd venture to say it is the best 4e module out there, hands down.

You just can't bottle creativity. Mearls and all the people over there at WotC DO have it. I just don't think they're in a very good position to exercise it freely. Beyond that I think they've become stuck in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. They turn out some mediocre modules, management looks at the sales figures, puts even less resources into module design and tries to 'manage the process' even more tightly, killing it further.

Beyond that EVERYONE in the whole community was used to 3.5/d20 OGL work. The GSL doesn't stop you from doing modules at all, but all the devs spent a year being confused about what 4e licensing was going to be, and meanwhile instead of mastering the system they all went back to 3.5, which they're all infinitely familiar with. WotC is going to find out that competing against all the freelance people who can crank out pretty much anything, slap it into a PDF and call it good hurts. Some of it will be good.

If WotC was smart they'd figure out a way to get their 3PP mindshare back. Mindshare is the most imp\ortant thing you can have. The other thing is I think ironically the thing that 4e can do best is epic level play, which CAN actually be made to work quite well and which is practically hopeless in a 3.5 based system (at least doing a level 20 PF module is never going to work very well). Yet they've basically ignored that.

There's a way to get some awesome into 4e modules, but the corporate culture around the game is just not likely to get there.

 

[Windjammer]

WotC' 4E modules seem to labour under the assumption that the best modules are those which the DM can pick up and start running after half an hour. That's explicitly how the intro adventure to the FR Campaign Guide is advertised - but if you look at it, it's not in the least "parred down" compared to the usual 4E module fare. By extrapolation, then, it seems to be a more general desideratum.

As such, it has its obvious downsides. You frankly cannot have intricate plot lines, (non) player character developments, and so on, if you want to get up and running so quickly. The exceptions that were quoted above - in particular, Reavers of Harkenwold - don't fit that mold. Which is why they're so great.