D&D 5E A brief rant about Rime of the Frost Maiden, farming, logistics, and ecology

[Wasteland Knight]

Paizo Dungeon is the High Mark of D&D adventure design.
Paizo Dungeon was so good, it splintered the Republic, and lead to a separatist movement.

I own Ptolus signed copy #24. Ptolus is so good, Monte Cook just raised millions of dollars by selling it again.

So you don't just expect "good", you expect the Best. If it ain't Shakespeare it is .

Out of curiosity, are you converting the Shackled City AP to 5e? That requires effort, is that a demerit?

To me Shackled City was just OK, great for parts....but it did not engage me like Age of Worms did, or Castle Maure.

The group that is playing Shackled City is very much a PF1e group, so that's the system I'm using. 3.5 is close enough to PF1e that there is really very little conversion required. I wouldn't run Shackled City in 5e as long as I had players who are happy in 3.5/PF. The less conversion the better

 

[Charlaquin]

I wonder if the argument here is dependant on two different ways to see these adventure books.

Some people are reading the books as-is and concluding that the story they recite makes no sense and is not logical and at the end of the day faulty and stupid. It appears as though they are treating this book as its own contained story in of itself.

Other people see what is written in all these books and are finding all manner of reasons why the things written either don't matter, are easily worked around, will influence what occurs but not necessarily be played out as-is, or can be completely ignored. If I had to guess... I would say that these people might believe the story isn't actually what is in the book, but is what actually ends up occuring at the table.

Those are two very different ways of looking at the book and this game.

If the only story that matters is what actually occurs while playing the adventure... then the DM has full capability of giving out "truth". Thus anything in the book that is never actually mentioned to the players... is never commented on... is never placed down as part of the fiction the entire table is building... then any of the "issues" with the story in the book itself do not actually exist. If it isn't mentioned or doesn't happen, it's not true.

This conundrum is something that has been argued about for literally years. Is something true in this game because the rules allow it to potentially be true... or is only true if it actually occurs? Case in point... the idea that Rogues make for the best Arcanists. They have the potential to take Expertise in Arcana and have a 20 INT at Level 20... and thus they will always potentially be better at Arcana than Wizards (which runs counter to how people think the game should be.) The only issue is... if you never once SEE a 20th Level Rogue player actually take Expertise in Arcana and max out INT and is in a party next to a Wizard character with proficiency in Arcana and also 20 INT (thus having the two standing next to each other with the Rogue demonstrably better at Arcana)... then does the potential actually matter? Does it matter that the book could allow a Rogue like this to exist... even if none ever actually do? And thus is it worth getting up in arms about it?

If the problems with farming and husbandry and two years of winter never actually come up in the game as run by a specific DM... do those problems actually exist just because someone wrote them down in the book? Some will say 'yes, absolutely', others will say 'no, of course not'. Because every DM is different. And that's why the authors of all these adventures do not seem to worry about these potential logical inconsistencies... they care more about making compelling scenarios and potential narratives. Because they know full well that every DM who runs this game is going to take what they like, toss out the rest, and not a single story that comes out of it will be the same. So they don't need to present an airtight written narrative package, because that's not what this book is for. It's not meant to be a story read unto itself, it's merely a depository of ideas that every DM can draw from to create their own story at the table.

I’m not sure this dichotomy holds up, considering several people have expressed seeing it as a problem because they anticipate their players encountering it in game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally, I don’t see the incongruity as a big issue, but I don’t see it as a non-issue either. It’s a nitpick. Something that might be a little annoying if you notice it, but doesn’t ruin the game by any means. But I also see the solution of “its nearly summer and the days haven’t gotten any longer” instead of “it’s been winter for two years” as an easy, elegant solution. Is it necessary? Not in my opinion. But it does smooth over a nitpick for very little effort. Now, I haven’t read the module, but to me it doesn’t seem like anything is lost by making this small change.

 

[Guest User]

But overall, you say you respect my right to a viewpoint, but you don't, because you just said that my viewpoint doesn't matter whatsoever!

I'm not trying to be rude, but it seems likely we are processing the text differently.

Would you agree taste is subjective?

If you like Bach, and I don't, the application of the concept of "good faith/bad faith" doesn't really apply.

Once we acknowledge our diametrical views, what else is there to do?
One can't argue someone into not likely the flavor of an orange.
Some like it, some don't.

To date, I have not found any of the objections raised against Rime to be insurmountable. Please offer more, I could be swayed.

(this is a joke)....I can assure you the spell Reduce to Strawman is not on my spell list.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You do understand that it isn’t completely dark right? There just isn’t direct sunlight.

Yes, I'm familiar with how artic daylight works. Artic winter twilight isn't very bright -- go outside about 30 mins before your local sunrise and that's peak brightness at noon in the arctic. It's brutal, and only lasts for about a month during the arctic winter, after which the sun does rise above the horizon and you get direct sunlight. What the module is claiming is worse that a full arctic winter and has lasted for two years.

It would be better to not try to lecture dismissively when you're not fully clear on the ramifications of your claims.

You do see that it isn’t a hard line cutoff between Fine and Apocalypse... things are getting steadily worse as stores run low, livestock is slain for food and plants and game die.

Sure, but the module says the things that require light and seasons have survived two years without but now are in danger. It might have been a slow slide, or sudden, we don't know, only that it's now a problem that requires heroes when it didn't before.

It feels like you’ve reached a conclusion and now can’t see the wood for the dying trees.

You do know that you just said that your way of playing is better and I should accept your way of playing, yes? That if I have an issue with the premise setup of the module, that it's because I care about the wrong things in the game and should just care about the right ones? Because the fundamental difference is one of play priorities -- I like a strong premise that holds at least some water without additional work and you don't care so much about that. You're now saying that you've the better way to play and that my looking for a stronger premise to anchor characters into the setting and plot is unimportant because you just want to jump to the action and get to the cool locations, like an upside-down tower. I'm ecstatic that this module is good for you, and happy that you're going to have a ton of fun playing it. I'm going to have to do work, and would prefer if you would stop demeaning my play so you can make internet points. Thanks.

And, again, I disagree with all the statements that WotC sucks or are hacks. I'm specifically talking about things that I will have to address to make play more enjoyable for my table and not blaming WotC for not catering to me explicitly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Personally, I don’t see the incongruity as a big issue, but I don’t see it as a non-issue either. It’s a nitpick. Something that might be a little annoying if you notice it, but doesn’t ruin the game by any means. But I also see the solution of “its nearly summer and the days haven’t gotten any longer” instead of “it’s been winter for two years” as an easy, elegant solution. Is it necessary? Not in my opinion. But it does smooth over a nitpick for very little effort. Now, I haven’t read the module, but to me it doesn’t seem like anything is lost by making this small change.

Yeah, it may be a nitpick, but it's one that bothers me because I prefer a strong foundation so that I can ad-lib more successfully in the game. If I'm starting from having to paper over a big issue like this, then I can find myself in a spot where play is rapidly evolving and I'm scrambling to make sense of things. Would it happen here? Eh, probably not, with how this adventure unfolds the off-scripting I'd have to do is unlikely to be in relation to survival of the flora and fauna directly. But, still, it's a thing for me that I like to have a strong foundation of tropes and genre logic so that I can set a tone and stick to it even when things are rapidly evolving. This one is a bit too rough for me.

That said, the fix, as you note, is pretty easy. The pushback on that, though, is odd to me -- there's a strong sense of defending the text as written and justifying the two years of winter and darkness as legit rather than not caring about it or looking for fixes. There's essentially three camps, here -- I don't care, I care and should be changed to make better sense, and I care but we need to keep it and here's some reasons it's true. The sparring is a bit odd.

For me, I seem to be getting caught in my usual bugbear -- bad arguments make me want to respond. Not bad positions, bad arguments -- as in poorly structured arguments. I don't think there are many bad positions in this thread (expect WotC sucks, which is overblown at best), but there's a few bad arguments. I need to do better at just walking away from those.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's also worth noting that even in a fantasy world, two years is a remarkably long time for people to "wait it out" patiently. Perhaps it is my recent experience in a nation with people whose lives were disrupted on a massive scale, but I don't imagine it would take two years of perpetual winter's night to have people just now getting concerned. I think the human sacrifice would have unfortunately started much sooner...

 

[TheSword]

Yes, I'm familiar with how artic daylight works. Artic winter twilight isn't very bright -- go outside about 30 mins before your local sunrise and that's peak brightness at noon in the arctic. It's brutal, and only lasts for about a month during the arctic winter, after which the sun does rise above the horizon and you get direct sunlight. What the module is claiming is worse that a full arctic winter and has lasted for two years.

It would be better to not try to lecture dismissively when you're not fully clear on the ramifications of your claims.

Sure, but the module says the things that require light and seasons have survived two years without but now are in danger. It might have been a slow slide, or sudden, we don't know, only that it's now a problem that requires heroes when it didn't before.

By taking a single line from the 300+ page book and extrapolating from that the assumption that light is a certain way, you’ve taken your extraordinarily-specialist and specific knowledge of real world arctic weather conditions and assumed that because it’s that way in the RL Arctic, that it’s also that way in IWD. It’s your approach that has created the problem.

You could have followed the logical approach and assumed that because trees and some plants and some animals have survived that maybe that Pre-dawn isn’t quite as atrocious as you think it is. But instead you’ve tried to set yourself up as an authority on fantasy world arctic sunlight. As such, you’ve created a rod for your own back and it’s the reason there’s maybe not a lot of sympathy for this position.

You do know that you just said that your way of playing is better and I should accept your way of playing, yes? That if I have an issue with the premise setup of the module, that it's because I care about the wrong things in the game and should just care about the right ones? Because the fundamental difference is one of play priorities -- I like a strong premise that holds at least some water without additional work and you don't care so much about that. You're now saying that you've the better way to play and that my looking for a stronger premise to anchor characters into the setting and plot is unimportant because you just want to jump to the action and get to the cool locations, like an upside-down tower. I'm ecstatic that this module is good for you, and happy that you're going to have a ton of fun playing it. I'm going to have to do work, and would prefer if you would stop demeaning my play so you can make internet points. Thanks.

And, again, I disagree with all the statements that WotC sucks or are hacks. I'm specifically talking about things that I will have to address to make play more enjoyable for my table and not blaming WotC for not catering to me explicitly.

Not so. Your way is not wrong. Wanting a more lifelike and understandable world is laudable. However you are an expert in arctic weather conditions. You have access to the Enworld Forums and you’re a smart guy. Fix the problem as you clearly have the capability.

A physics professor shouldn’t complain to lay people about how annoying it is that the typical episode of Star Trek doesn’t conform to the laws of physics and how the makers of Star Trek are waste-men for not making more scientifically accurate episodes. Expressing dismay that all the lay people that just enjoy a good story don’t have a bigger issue with this.

The difference is that with IWD the physics professor actually gets to re-write the Star Trek script and put on their own show! What’s to complain about?

 

[Guest User]

The pushback on that, though, is odd to me -- there's a strong sense of defending the text as written and justifying the two years of winter and darkness as legit rather than not caring about it or looking for fixes

I just discounted it and moved on. It was too nonsensical a design decision, so like a Civilian in a Call of Cthulhu game, I just ignored the slathering abyss and went about my business.

I get hung up on things as well. Every time I read the plot synopsis of SKT, I close the book and put it away.

The encounters and maps and NPCs in Rime, actually have effort that was put into their creation. It shows.

In my opinion, a new DM, someone who cut their teeth on the Starter/ Essentials kit could pick this up and run with it. Like all modules, it needs some work, but it is very road worthy as is.

 

[MarkB]

I think it's also worth noting that even in a fantasy world, two years is a remarkably long time for people to "wait it out" patiently. Perhaps it is my recent experience in a nation with people whose lives were disrupted on a massive scale, but I don't imagine it would take two years of perpetual winter's night to have people just now getting concerned. I think the human sacrifice would have unfortunately started much sooner...

It did start sooner. By the time the adventure opens, it's been happening for over a year.