D&D 5E Is Storm King's Thunder a flop . . ? Still early yet but doesn't look that good.

[delericho]

Which is cool but probably reading far more into it than the designers planned. In fact, you probably just wrote more about this than is actually in the module. Your bringing your own information and filling in gaps that otherwise exist in the module. Which is fine, but just because you can read between the lines and fill in the gaps doesn't mean the gaps don't exist.

Agreed. And, for what it's worth, if SKT had included material of the sort [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] had written, it would have been a much better adventure for it.

One thing WotC (and, for that matter, Paizo and other adventure writers) should consider is that they're not just telling a story - they're providing tools for the DM to tell a story. That being the case, they should be spelling out things like theme and subtext as clearly as possible, because the more the DM understands this, the better equipped he is to run the thing. (Even if his first step in doing so is "ignore all that theme crap"!)

Oh, and what happens if Hekaton dies? Which is a very real possibility?

Isn't that spelled out? If H dies, his youngest daughter takes over the kingdom.

(Though there is a bit of a flaw in the adventure (spoilers) - as written, Imyrith flees the Storm Giant kingdom, stealing the Korolnor Scepter in the process. This probably leaves Serissa paralysed and trapped in the Wyrmskull Throne (p.210, p.237). However, if Hekaton is slain and unable to help in the final showdown, the book says that Serissa takes his place - this being the same Serissa who is trapped in her throne.)

 

[clearstream]

Agreed. And, for what it's worth, if SKT had included material of the sort @vonklaude had written, it would have been a much better adventure for it.

Thank you albeit I feel like SKT included exactly that material: I didn't add a word. But if a DM doesn't grok the underlying symbolism then I guess I can appreciate their problem.

One thing WotC (and, for that matter, Paizo and other adventure writers) should consider is that they're not just telling a story - they're providing tools for the DM to tell a story. That being the case, they should be spelling out things like theme and subtext as clearly as possible, because the more the DM understands this, the better equipped he is to run the thing. (Even if his first step in doing so is "ignore all that theme crap"!)

You make a fair point. Clearly the symbolism isn't evident to everyone (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) therefore it would help some DMs if the designers had spelled it out. Once you think of the material as Shakespearean maybe it just didn't seem necessary to say more.

 

[delericho]

Thank you

You're welcome. It was a very good post.

I feel like SKT included exactly that material: I didn't add a word. But if a DM doesn't grok the underlying symbolism then I guess I can appreciate their problem.

What you did was to make explicit what was (possibly) implicit. (Though it's also worth noting that it is also only your interpretation of that symbolism - it's not necessarily the only one, nor indeed can we be certain that it was what Chris Perkins intended.)

You make a fair point. Clearly the symbolism isn't evident to everyone (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) therefore it would help some DMs if the designers had spelled it out. Once you think of the material as Shakespearean maybe it just didn't seem necessary to say more.

The thing is, the WotC designers (and their counterparts in other companies) should be well aware of the endless DM advice around puzzles/riddles/mysteries in the game - that clues need to be spelled out very clearly, because what's obvious to the DM probably isn't obvious to the player.

The exact same lesson applies here: what's (potentially) obvious to the designer isn't necessarily obvious to the DM reading the book. So, again, it should be spelled out very clearly.

And it's also worth noting that not every DM is going to be familiar with the symbolism, and not every DM is going to draw those connections. Indeed, the DM can't be assumed to be familiar with "King Lear", or indeed with any Shakespeare... nor even that English is their first language.

(And, for that matter, it's worth noting that while WotC has referred to "Shakespearean giants" at various points, I don't think the book actually says that - if you didn't happen to know that from Perkins' twitterings you might well miss it entirely.)

 

[Jester David]

But this is not a serious accusation, surely? If a published adventure denied opportunity for my players to fail or bring about alternate endings, then for me that adventure would be weak indeed. Imagine a Tomb of Horrors where Acerak cannot prevail?

But if you can completely change how the Ordning is restored, the players can't fail. You can just change the symbolism/deus ex machina and the heroes succeed.
or, if you want, nothing the players do succeeds, the north remains in chaos, and the heroes actions were moot...

 

[Jester David]

The thing is, the WotC designers (and their counterparts in other companies) should be well aware of the endless DM advice around puzzles/riddles/mysteries in the game - that clues need to be spelled out very clearly, because what's obvious to the DM probably isn't obvious to the player.

The exact same lesson applies here: what's (potentially) obvious to the designer isn't necessarily obvious to the DM reading the book. So, again, it should be spelled out very clearly.

To say nothing about being obvious to the players, when the events unfold over 4-16 weeks. Who don't get to read the adventure backstory.

I'be said before that storytelling rules change for D&D. The first rule of storytelling is show not tell. Don't just say someone is a thief, show them stealing something. But that doesn't work with D&D as showing and telling are the same thing. You need to involve not show or tell. Don't say someone is a thief, have him try to steal something from the players.

Symbolism and themes are great literary devices when you can read and digest. They don't work as well in a game where there might be days or weeks between game sessions, and motives needs to be clear. A "symbolic ending" is not an apparent one with hooks and obvious reasons to complete. A symbolic quest is a railroading quest.
When SKT starts to end, the rails come out and things get funky, and you end up with a single clue deciphered by a single ability check leading you to one dude who sends you to the place you need to go. And there's no good reason to do so beyond the adventure wanting you to, since there's no obvious benefit to humanity.

Isn't that spelled out? If H dies, his youngest daughter takes over the kingdom.

I meant symbolically speaking...

 

[Demetrios1453]

But if you can completely change how the Ordning is restored, the players can't fail. You can just change the symbolism/deus ex machina and the heroes succeed.
or, if you want, nothing the players do succeeds, the north remains in chaos, and the heroes actions were moot...

So, you're arguing that if a DM dares to change the plot, the players are doomed to either win no matter what they do, or lose no matter what they do? I'm sorry, I've seen too many parties make stupid decisions to believe that there is ever a set-up where players can't fail lol. But in any case, I can think of a half-dozen ways to change how the Ordning could be restored, each of them both attainable and failable by any given party. Why do you believe that changing that would force the characters onto a "win-only" path?

(The latter path, where there isn't a way to restore the Ordning is indeed a bleak one, but then again, some groups like that sort of gritty "the heroes can't win" type of play. Not my cup of tea, but if the DM wants to do that, then that's perfectly fine with me)

 

[Demetrios1453]

Symbolism and themes are great literary devices when you can read and digest. They don't work as well in a game where there might be days or weeks between game sessions, and motives needs to be clear. A When SKT starts to end, the rails come out and things get funky, and you end up with a single clue deciphered by a single ability check leading you to one dude who sends you to the place you need to go. And there's no good reason to do so beyond the adventure wanting you to, since there's no obvious benefit to humanity.

What single clue? My characters just went through Yartar on the game session on Thursday, and they now all but have a big honkin' neon sign that will say "go here" once Serissa gives them that coin. If you're that worried that they won't be able to get past that part, have the party start the main campaign in Triboar - the follow-up quests guarantee that they will pass through Yartar (probably more than once), and you can easily seed the endgame for them at that point.

 

[Jester David]

What single clue? My characters just went through Yartar on the game session on Thursday, and they now all but have a big honkin' neon sign that will say "go here" once Serissa gives them that coin. If you're that worried that they won't be able to get past that part, have the party start the main campaign in Triboar - the follow-up quests guarantee that they will pass through Yartar (probably more than once), and you can easily seed the endgame for them at that point.

Only a third of groups will start in Triboar, and even with quests not everyone will end up in Yartar.
Even if they do, there's no set encounters directing them to the barge, or way to encounter the gambling chip.
There's no reason to go to Yartar with the chip, which means a higher DC check, which could fail. There's no alternative solution but making check after check trying to Investigate.
(This is ignoring the fact a super obvious clue was left at the murder scene. It almost feels too convenient. Plus Serissa has had months to investigate this clue but hasn't.)

If that succeeds, you go to Yartar. Where if you deal 18 or more damage to the noble, you kill him outright and again the adventure grinds to a halt as, again, there's no other clue.
After that you just sail about aimlessly for several days waiting for the ship to spawn.

And once on the ship, the captain carved an explanation of the adventure into the floorboards while sleeping. Why? Because reasons.

The adventure is this huge giant sandbox until the end, and them it becomes this tightly scripted affair with no deviation. It's odd.
(Listening to the podcast interview on writing this adventure, apparently Chris Perkins found it much harder to write than Strahd. He likely burned out and ran out of time)

 

[Bayonet]

Aw, shucks. I thought Storm King's Thunder would be one of those D&D products that everybody loved and no-one got a hair up their a$$ about!




I haven't played it yet, but it's on my list. If it isn't the most cohesive adventure, I'm sure it's good enough to cannibalize.

 

[Daern]

I'm going to us STK when/if my players wander out of the mists of ravenloft. They will be at a higher level but that just means the more giants and less punches pulled. I'll plop them down in the north amongst a lot of talk about the Death of the Storm King. Maybe even run a version of the classic Conan story "Frost Giant's Daughter" except make it Serissa, who tells them to find her friend Harshnag, and the Oracle. Then they can wander their way south, happening upon giant attacks and messing about. Maybe Harshnag only notices them once they've defended a town.
To me, STK is a campaign book with a metaplot. I'm really looking forward to a campaign that's structured in a way that allows the players to follow up on it according to their fancy. If they want to get into other things, I can use the book locations to remind them of the big plot but also offer the temptation of Elemental Cult Dungeons.