D&D 4E Which 4E adventures did you play?

[D'karr]

It wasn't the writers. I've heard from some of the adventure writers from Wizards and they were quite clear: it was editorial mandate to do simple, combat-heavy adventures (especially in HPE).

Okay, so if the adventure writers were "pressured" to do simple, combat-heavy adventures then it should follow that it is not the system that forces that inflexibility, but editorial/publisher mandates. Then how come the game system is being blamed for inflexibility?

It is clear to me that some writers understood how to make the system work out. Chris Sims did it with his D&D Encounters Season of Keep on the Borderlands, and the format for D&D Encounters can be viewed as extremely "inflexible." Chris Perkins did it with his adaptations of the Against the Giants Series. Steve Townshend did it with both Madness at Gardmore Abbey, and his D&D Encounters Season Beyond the Crystal Cave, co-written with Chris Sims.

So I understand editorial mandates, I just don't understand the logical leap to blame the system.

The other part of it, of course, is just that 4E changes the D&D adventure paradigm just too much so that it's something new. You can run a 1E adventure in 2E or 3E (or one of the other ways around) and have no problem because, structurally, adventures all work the same way. 4E requires a different structure. And that's a real problem when the things 4E is actually best at (exploration and role-playing) are ignored in place of lots and lots of combat (which it's bad at, except for the set-piece boss combats).

I have converted and run I6-Ravenloft, A1-A4-Slavers Series, U1-Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, some sections of B2-Keep on the Borderlands (the Caves of Chaos), X1-Isle of Dread, and countless other TSR and Paizo adventures for use with 4e. I have not changed the structure of the adventures. I've used the tools provided in the game and tweaked to taste. When a combat in one of those adventures is insignificant, minions and lower level standards work just fine to emulate the same type of hectic chaos. In A2, when the party enters the stockade, and are discovered by the guards on the battlements this turned into a battle with mooks (artillery minions), and a skill challenge to get out of the courtyard alive. These are all tools that the game already provides.

The only adventure that I had to actually tweak its structure and do a lot of "house-ruling" on was A4-In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. Of course that is because of all the adventures this one is the one that most cuts against the grain of any edition of D&D. Even then I used the vast majority of tools directly from the game system (skill challenges, minions, lower level standard creatures,page 42, and set-piece combat). The final confrontation with the slavelords on their ship was awesome. The fact that the writers chose not to use the appropriate tools to showcase their system was a detriment to adventures published for 4e. But blaming the system is not an excuse for poor adventure writing, even with bad editorial mandates.

Cheers!

Same to you, I always enjoy your discussions.

4E had a lot of awful adventures written for it. So, too, honestly, did every edition of dnd, but folks had a much better idea how to write adventures by the time 3rd rolled around. I didn't run Pathfinder at all, but I still merrily subscribed to PF adventures for years to use in 4e.

I agree, bad adventures are a dime a ton for any edition of D&D. Even some of the "classics" suffer from a certain type of myopia, but it's kind of understandable to a point. It's also interesting that so many people have taken Paizo adventures, obviously written for a different edition/game, and successfully converted them for 4e use. I found that Paizo adventures worked better for 4e than they did for 3.x or Pathfinder.

Even though I now write for LFR, with an audience that near mandates heavy combat convention-capable (railroadish) adventures, I'm still baffled at the lack of narrative anything in most of the official 4e adventures. Which is a real shame, however that decision got handed down.

The early LFR mods were "atrocious" IMO. I believe that I could count in one hand the very few that were standouts. They suffered from the same myopia that all the other published adventures suffered. Eventually they got much better with solid "storylines/story hooks" that the players would actually discover and actively participate in. I've also seen the stuff you guys wrote for Epic Level, and I'm very pleased to say that you guys have done an awesome job in attempting to break the mold. Congratulations. It is understandable that you guys have some restrictions due to the nature of the audience for the adventures, but I've seen your adventures and they are head and shoulders above what WotC has published. They are better because they don't forget that there are more things to do than simply combat. You guys emphasize that, even in a combat heavy mod.

I think the real shame is that the writers are hiding behind the "game system" made me do it excuse when obviously others made some really good adventures with the same system, and even under stricter "inflexibility" (D&D Encounters).

 

[Starfox]

I agree, bad adventures are a dime a ton for any edition of D&D. Even some of the "classics" suffer from a certain type of myopia, but it's kind of understandable to a point. It's also interesting that so many people have taken Paizo adventures, obviously written for a different edition/game, and successfully converted them for 4e use. I found that Paizo adventures worked better for 4e than they did for 3.x or Pathfinder.

Time makes us forget the bad and remember the good. Yes, many early adventures did suck when you think back hard, but what I remember are mostly the good moments even of bad adventures.

And the thing with Pazio adventures reminds me of another truism; once you have taken a shine to a system and mastered it, everything seems to run better in that system.

 

[Quickleaf]

The other part of it, of course, is just that 4E changes the D&D adventure paradigm just too much so that it's something new. You can run a 1E adventure in 2E or 3E (or one of the other ways around) and have no problem because, structurally, adventures all work the same way. 4E requires a different structure. And that's a real problem when the things 4E is actually best at (exploration and role-playing) are ignored in place of lots and lots of combat (which it's bad at, except for the set-piece boss combats).

I've been wondering how true this is or not. My buddy ran his own conversion of B2-Keep on the Borderland (and Caves of Chaos) in 4e and it felt almost like we were playing first edition! Also I ran Dragon Mountain in 4e and it felt like a hardcore dungeon crawl with some resource management, loads of traps, and war of attrition style play.

I'm trying to put my finger on just how we did these two adventures because they are so outside of the normal 4e cinematic setpiece paradigm.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've been wondering how true this is or not. My buddy ran his own conversion of B2-Keep on the Borderland (and Caves of Chaos) in 4e and it felt almost like we were playing first edition! Also I ran Dragon Mountain in 4e and it felt like a hardcore dungeon crawl with some resource management, loads of traps, and war of attrition style play.

I'm trying to put my finger on just how we did these two adventures because they are so outside of the normal 4e cinematic setpiece paradigm.

- Skill Challenges that are very ablative to surges and punitive to the Dungeon Crawl narrative.
- Nasty hazards/traps that are the do the same as above.
- Hit and run guerilla warfare with minions; 1 round and done that does little more than ablate surges (serves same function as traps and Skill Challenges and makes players paranoid).
- Horror or Exhaustion Condition using the Disease Track that is punitive to surges and the group's ability to take Short or Extended Rests.
- Harsh conditions imposed on PCs for securing an Extended Rest (perhaps a successful Skill Challenge to find a safe haven).

All of those get the job done and well. All of my successful dungeon crawls have at least 2 of those. Your Dragon Mountain conversion was rife with them.

 

[Manbearcat]

Extending on the last post:

I think the 4e paradigm confuses people because D&D historically has its center of pressure for the group as (i) HPs, (ii) deployable wizard/cleric Dailies and the (iii) related ability to take an extended rest and restore lost resources (i) and (ii). If you pressure those areas, and pressure them hard, a successful dungeon crawl can be had. In 4e, the only thing that is shared (fully) is iii. In 4e, the pressure points are (i) character healing surges, (ii) dailies for all classes, (iii) the related ability to take an extended rest and restore lost resources (i) and (ii), (iv) the ability to make short rests difficult/impossible such that encounter resources are not always available, and (v) monetary/time constraints on Ritual Casting. Martial Practices are bound by healing surges so they bounce back to (i).

Going from the (i) in former editions to (i) in 4e is jarring it appears. However, once you get the general concept and understand the best techniques to make this happen, its really rather intuitive and there are lots of rewarding mechanical ways to pressure the PCs that don't involve fiat. Going from (ii) in former editions to (ii) in 4e isn't particularly difficult as you mostly just have to extend the paradigm across classes. However, the potency of (ii) in former editions primarily dicates the grouop's strategic resources rather than tactical, so that is somewhat jarring. The last two areas are generally in line with a lot of old-school means for pressuring PCs so really not out of D&D orthodoxy.

Overall, the most important areas are understanding why and how to pressure/ablate the group's healing surges and the diffrence between across board dailies and the adjustment of strategic dailies to tactical dailies. Ritual Casting accounting/pressuring can be heavily involved as well as this is the PC's extra-scene, strategic resource that is the analog for old-school Dailies (with stepped down potency in most cases).

 

[Kaallis]

I put H1-3 and P1-3 (we fully intend to finish the 'E' series, too) - but I should say that I have been increasingly expanding and modifying them since H2... The skill challenges especially I have given a fair bit of work, and some of the encounters. Oh, and re-speccing the monsters to MM3 standards and the solos to MC styles as they came along, of course.

I still have the old "Adventure Tools" (the offline one, not the rentware) and I find this latter bit so easy that I haven't been worried about completely redesigning some monsters. While 4E's core systems may be tricky to houserule (but, then, why would you want to?), what I call the "game elements" - monsters, magic items, terrain, traps and so on - are a breeze IME.

What do you mean by re-speccing to MM3 standards and solos to MC styles? I want to start running P2 with my level 11 friends but should I tweak first?

 

[D'karr]

What do you mean by re-speccing to MM3 standards and solos to MC styles? I want to start running P2 with my level 11 friends but should I tweak first?

You might want to look at the math fixes from MM3. The MM1 monsters were very poorly "balanced/designed" so that they were ineffective, attrition slogs, or simply boring.

The math fixes in MM3 corrected a lot of that. Solos were redesigned to take into account the action economy, damage was increased to keep threat levels, and defenses/HP were corrected to decrease/avoid grind. If a monster appeared in MM1 and also appears in Monster Vault, use the one in MV, etc.

This was not a "huge" problem with Heroic Tier monsters, though it was annoying. However, Paragon and Epic monsters really needed the fixes - badly.

 

[Kaallis]

You might want to look at the math fixes from MM3. The MM1 monsters were very poorly "balanced/designed" so that they were ineffective, attrition slogs, or simply boring.

The math fixes in MM3 corrected a lot of that. Solos were redesigned to take into account the action economy, damage was increased to keep threat levels, and defenses/HP were corrected to decrease/avoid grind. If a monster appeared in MM1 and also appears in Monster Vault, use the one in MV, etc.

This was not a "huge" problem with Heroic Tier monsters, though it was annoying. However, Paragon and Epic monsters really needed the fixes - badly.

Thanks for the quick answer. Do you happen to have an example that would apply to a monster found in P1 ? I started to look but couldn't find anything for now.

 

[D'karr]

Thanks for the quick answer. Do you happen to have an example that would apply to a monster found in P1 ? I started to look but couldn't find anything for now.

Unfortunately, I don't have my books in front of me or ready access to that adventure. If you have the adventure in front of you take a look at the stats for a Troll as an example, then compare it to the math fix in MM3. That would probably be your easiest way. If you have access to the Adventure Tools I think that you can filter out the monsters by source (P1) and look at each individually to make a comparison.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

 

[Starfox]

If I recall the fix was pretty simple; for MM1 monsters of Paragon or Epic tier, halve hit points and double damage (or was it triple damage at Epic?).