D&D 5E L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown

[Klaus]

I never said 4E encourages GMs to ignore action declaration. It does (at least as the published adventures I have read indicate) limit those action types depending on the framed scene. If the adventure says "this is a skill challenge" then the choices are limited to the use of skills in the challenge.

Only if you ignore the part of the DMG that says the DM should encourage and reward players that think of ways to use skills that aren't listed in a skill challenge (while at the same time keeping an eye out for players trying just to get a mechanical advantage).

And the D&D Essentials Dungeon Master's Kit is, IMHO (as someone who DMed 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e), the best DM book published for D&D.

 

[Imaro]

It seems you remember the module better than I do. Were the villagers trading with the goblins? Had the goblins hurt anyone who didn't deserve hurting? Was there any reason to justify invading the goblins home?

The villagers believed the goblins were stealing the saplings of the trees they planted from the fruit they bought from them in order to keep a monopoly on it... I won't spoiler what was really happening with the saplings since it's part of the adventure but the source of the fruit was very much a malignant force that the goblins were dealing with and that threatened the village.

 

[Salamandyr]

There were 3 hooks to get PC's involved in The Sunless Citadel... and this was not one of them.

Thank you for updating your post with the 3 hooks. Hook 3 is...pretty much exactly what I said. The goblins are really not bad guys here. The module tries to make them seem creepy. They're "ransoming" the magic fruit. No they're not. They're selling it.

And the villagers suspect that the goblins are trying to "protect their monopoly", as if this is some kind of justification for sending burglars into the goblins home and murdering them. No; the villagers are showing the same moral clarity of bandits who rob you of your pocket change, and then burglarize your home because you weren't carrying enough in your wallet.

Hook 2 is just a set up that works around hook 3 (all hooks happen whether they're used to hook the players or not). And hook 3 is general "You're amoral murder hoboes! Go!"

Would it have killed WOTC to have had the monsters doing something you know, monstrous? Being cut throat business men just doesn't cut it in my book.

I'm aware that the fruit was malignant. Talking about the module is making some of it come back. But the goblins weren't trying to trick the village. They were honest brokers. It was the village that wanted more out of the deal, and was willing to send "adventurers" to get it.

 

[Imaro]

True enough. Although also to be fair... part of what took the combats in KotS so long to run were that for most people it was the first time they were actually ever playing with the new 4E rules. They were learning what their PCs did while at the same time working through the encounters.

If you were to run those initial couple of kobold encounters now with people who have been playing 4E this entire time? They'd fly by. Heck... the first encounter is three "real" kobolds and 5 minions. An experienced group of 4E players could mow that encounter down in probably seven or eight minutes.

I think this is a weak excuse mainly because KotS was specifically marketed as a beginning adventure, and thus unfamiliarity with the rules should have been a factor in the design process.

I also disagree that the first encounter could be finished in 7 or 8 minutes, even by a fairly experienced group unless everything was already set up, they were not interacting with each other at all (just moving and making choices on auto-pilot) and nova'ing with their dailies.... moving minis, selecting powers, assessing the grid, etc. would easily push it over that... This is actually one of the serious issues I have with 4e for my group, because of combat length, it feels like we're moving at a snail's pace when we play it... with combat taking up the lion's share of our gaming time (when we first started playing 4e there were times where my players lost track of what their objective was over the course of our gaming sessions because combat took so long). I like combat but we don't play D&D just for combat. OAN, I think this may be (rightly or wrongly) part of the reason 4e got the "primarily a combat game" tag attached to it early on.

 

[Imaro]

Thank you for updating your post with the 3 hooks. Hook 3 is...pretty much exactly what I said. The goblins are really not bad guys here. The module tries to make them seem creepy. They're "ransoming" the magic fruit. No they're not. They're selling it.

And the villagers suspect that the goblins are trying to "protect their monopoly", as if this is some kind of justification for sending burglars into the goblins home and murdering them. No; the villagers are showing the same moral clarity of bandits who rob you of your pocket change, and then burglarize your home because you weren't carrying enough in your wallet.

Hook 2 is just a set up that works around hook 3 (all hooks happen whether they're used to hook the players or not). And hook 3 is general "You're amoral murder hoboes! Go!"

Would it have killed WOTC to have had the monsters doing something you know, monstrous? Being cut throat business men just doesn't cut it in my book.

None of those hooks have the PC's primary mission as "murdering the goblins". The PC's want to investigate whether the goblins are stealing the trees or not (theft being a time-honored reason for hunting down bandits but not goblins for some reason???), and where the goblins are getting the fruit from to heal an ally or friend. Also the seeds of those fruits do something monstrous...

EDIT: In fact there is a section in the module about being diplomatic with the two major groups of anatgonists, and while harder it is not impossible to establish diplomatic relations with the goblins.

 

[Warbringer]

KoTS was designed as a combat intensive adventure to get players used to the new rules of 4e, and was designed by Mearls and Cordell.

Now, that was an absolutely terrible marketing decision as it became the facto "4e is a tactical miniatures game," just look at the first adventure. If it was ever played by the team with anyone not immersed in the new rules it would have be absolutely clear they had a major issue on hire hands.

My concern, adventure design derails Next in the same way

 

[I'm A Banana]

Thank you for updating your post with the 3 hooks. Hook 3 is...pretty much exactly what I said. The goblins are really not bad guys here. The module tries to make them seem creepy. They're "ransoming" the magic fruit. No they're not. They're selling it.

And the villagers suspect that the goblins are trying to "protect their monopoly", as if this is some kind of justification for sending burglars into the goblins home and murdering them. No; the villagers are showing the same moral clarity of bandits who rob you of your pocket change, and then burglarize your home because you weren't carrying enough in your wallet.

Hook 2 is just a set up that works around hook 3 (all hooks happen whether they're used to hook the players or not). And hook 3 is general "You're amoral murder hoboes! Go!"

Would it have killed WOTC to have had the monsters doing something you know, monstrous? Being cut throat business men just doesn't cut it in my book.

I'm aware that the fruit was malignant. Talking about the module is making some of it come back. But the goblins weren't trying to trick the village. They were honest brokers. It was the village that wanted more out of the deal, and was willing to send "adventurers" to get it.

What I like about the third hook is that it creates an incentive for the PC's to work WITH the goblins, rather than kill 'em all. Go there, let the Bard do the talking, you might be able to start this adventure without having to risk your own life and limb for a while.

And it doesn't make it seem much like a mutual arrangement. The goblins have something the townsfolk want, but they keep it secret. Wars have certainly been started over less.

 

[Salamandyr]

None of those hooks have the PC's primary mission as "murdering the goblins". The villagers want the PC's to investigate whether the goblins are stealing their trees or not (theft being a time-honored reason for hunting down bandits but not goblins for some reason???), and the seeds of those fruits do something monstrous...

EDIT: In fact there is a section in the module about being diplomatic with the two major groups of anatgonists, and while harder it is not impossible to establish diplomatic relations with the goblins.

I did not recall that the DM notes indicated that this was a "diplomatic" mission. It doesn't seem like the module tried to hard to encourage players to assume the goblins probable innocence though. Usually a story gives you some kind of hint that the apparent bad guys are more than they seem. But fair enough, the module at least figleafs the fact that the goblins are really the good guys, even if the adventurers can't find this out until they've killed all of them.

However, I have to take issue with your second point. Sending adventurers after bandits is indeed a time honored D&D trope going back to at least "the Village of Hommlet". But to justify that, first you have to establish that there are, indeed, bandits. Slaying evil witches is also a time honored fantasy trope, but I wouldn't want to run a module where the players are sent to kill a bunch of women because somebody "suspected" them of being witches.

Yes, the seeds of the fruit do something monstrous. And I think Sunless Citadel has a great climax, and a really good Big Bad. It's also got some clever traps and tricks. I really like the structure and layout of the module. The only thing I don't like is that the goblins and kobolds are basically blameless victims in the whole charade. If the set up of the story had them killing and murdering the surrounding countryside, then sending adventurers to "deal with them" would be a great story.

Even if the intent of the story was to say "sometimes monsters aren't really monsters" (which I don't believe was the case, I think the writer actually thought selling apples for profit was actually somehow villainous), that's pretty deep for an introductory adventure, which are supposed to be a bit more straightforward than that. And if you are going to go that way, you need to hold the players' hands a bit.

 

[Imaro]

I did not recall that the DM notes indicated that this was a "diplomatic" mission. It doesn't seem like the module tried to hard to encourage players to assume the goblins probable innocence though. Usually a story gives you some kind of hint that the apparent bad guys are more than they seem. But fair enough, the module at least figleafs the fact that the goblins are really the good guys, even if the adventurers can't find this out until they've killed all of them.

It presents the option, but ultimately it is the PC's choice (as it should be) what approach they take, the module IMO shouldn't "try hard" to encourage the players to do anything. And I disagree that the goblins were "good" guys. The goblins robbed travelers along the Old Road until it fell out of use, the goblins are also working directly for Belak the Outcast so, regardless of reasons, they are furthering his plan and thus are not "good".

However, I have to take issue with your second point. Sending adventurers after bandits is indeed a time honored D&D trope going back to at least "the Village of Hommlet". But to justify that, first you have to establish that there are, indeed, bandits. Slaying evil witches is also a time honored fantasy trope, but I wouldn't want to run a module where the players are sent to kill a bunch of women because somebody "suspected" them of being witches.

First let's get this straight... they aren't sent by or hired by the villagers, read the hook again. Secondly the possibility of diplomacy is presented in the adventure itself so their mission is not to slay the goblins but to find out how/if the goblins are stealing the trees and where the fruit comes from... to heal their friend or ally. you keep presenting slaying the goblins as THE mission when it's not.

Yes, the seeds of the fruit do something monstrous. And I think Sunless Citadel has a great climax, and a really good Big Bad. It's also got some clever traps and tricks. I really like the structure and layout of the module. The only thing I don't like is that the goblins and kobolds are basically blameless victims in the whole charade. If the set up of the story had them killing and murdering the surrounding countryside, then sending adventurers to "deal with them" would be a great story.

I can kinda sorta see the kobolds as sorta blameless... when I squint super hard (though I'm not sure why this would stop the adventurers from seeking out a cure for their friend at their expense)... but then it's pretty easy for a party to negotiate and be diplomatic with them in the adventure. The goblins however are working directly for Belak the Outcast so they aren't blameless in any way.

Even if the intent of the story was to say "sometimes monsters aren't really monsters" (which I don't believe was the case, I think the writer actually thought selling apples for profit was actually somehow villainous), that's pretty deep for an introductory adventure, which are supposed to be a bit more straightforward than that. And if you are going to go that way, you need to hold the players' hands a bit.

What story, it's an adventure location... what the story is... is up to the actions taken by the party exploring it. The fact that numerous play groups ended up leaving the dungeon with a kobold friend named Meepo shows that there was a possible "sometimes monsters aren't really monsters" theme that could be explored through play but it was not the theme of The Sunless Citadel. Are you still harping on the apple thing... again the mission was not to...nevermind. Last but not least, no you do not need to hold the players hands a bit because you shouldn't be forcing a story on the players.

 

[Salamandyr]

Imaro, I'll have to let that stand as the last word on the Sunless Citadel. I'm happy that you enjoyed it more than I did. I only have a response this remark.

"What story, it's an adventure location... what the story is... is up to the actions taken by the party exploring it."

Every adventure module is a story...perhaps it would be better to refer to it as a "backstory", and often, though not always, an expected path the adventurers are expected to take, that will often differ in some particulars, but in the broad strokes will be similar. In some particular cases, the adventurers will do their own thing to the point that the adventurer at the table will in no way resemble anything expected by the writers of the module, which is one of the really fun things about tabletop roleplaying.

But even though that can happen, it's perfectly fair to talk about the intended "story" of an adventure module.