D&D 4E Best 4E module?

[pemerton]

What distinguishes 4e, mechanically, from other versions of D&D is:

(1) Closed scene resolution outside of combat (ie skill challenges);

(2) Full embrace of fortune-in-the-middle in its core combat resolution, combined with a lot of player-side mechanical capacity that feeds into positioning and effect-heavy combat.​

Showing off (1) depends on clear framing of the fiction and the GM allowing the players to take control of the fiction through their action declarations (basically the opposite of most 2nd ed AD&D era module set-ups).

Showing off (2) depends on large spaces, interesting terrain including cover and verticality, circular paths, the GM using different sorts of creatures set up in interesting positions and/or waves, and being open to p 42 and related ideas like terrain powers.

The best module I used for 4e wasn't a 4e module at all: it was the B/X module Night's Dark Terror. The (near-)opening scene where the PCs are attacked on a boat was awesome in 4e: a river and its banks are a large space; the terrain included the PCs' boat, the NPCs' raft, the water, a sandbar, and the river banks; I used ranged attackers from the banks and raft, as well as melee attackers swimming through the water to attack the PCs; and I don't remember all the action declarations any more, but some of what I remember includes taking cover in the boat from NPC arrows, jumping across to the sandbar and falling into water, taking control of the NPCs' raft, and a final fight on the bank between the PC fighter and the NPC bandit leader.

The 4e combat engine brings a lot of mechanical overhead with it: to make it worthwhile, in my view, it needs to be used for these vivid, "visually" dramatic, action-packed combats.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't have a good answer, just because I've never been the type to run modules or adventures; I have no real examples to draw from.

I imagine a good 4e module, specifically, would be the one that highlights how much fun 4e combat is. Encounters with challenging terrain, hazards, and a mix of different monster types to make a fight really sing. Non-combat encounters that reward varied skill and ritual use, with obvious pass-fail forks in the adventure (fails aren't hard stops, they just lead to different, more challenging paths).

 

[pemerton]

Non-combat encounters that reward varied skill and ritual use, with obvious pass-fail forks in the adventure (fails aren't hard stops, they just lead to different, more challenging paths).

This idea of failure => greater challenge was widely adopted by WotC in its published material for 4e. I don't think it's a good approach. The penalty for bad rolls shouldn't be sloggy adventuring.

The penalty for bad rolls should be fiction that wasn't what the players wanted for their PCs. Of course this only works if the game has meaningful fiction as central to it. But you already need that for skill challenges to work; without meaningful fiction, they become the (notorious) "dice-rolling exercises".

 

[TwoSix]

This idea of failure => greater challenge was widely adopted by WotC in its published material for 4e. I don't think it's a good approach. The penalty for bad rolls shouldn't be sloggy adventuring.

The penalty for bad rolls should be fiction that wasn't what the players wanted for their PCs. Of course this only works if the game has meaningful fiction as central to it. But you already need that for skill challenges to work; without meaningful fiction, they become the (notorious) "dice-rolling exercises".

I think that's difficult to achieve with modules, specifically. Modules usually revolve around the players solving the DM's key, and the narrative around the module is, by design, generally resolved within the play of the module. Now ideally, resolving the fiction of the module will also hook back into the PC's own fiction and drive them forward, but that's generally outside the bounds of the module's design.

I do see the point about sloggy adventuring, though. 4e characters are still relatively effective even when resource depleted, it's just that expending all your dailies to get through tough challenges makes fights slower moving forward. It's why I've felt that healing surges, action points, and dailies should be a linked resource pool; expending a healing surge gains an action point, action points can be used to recharge a daily power. That way your surge count is the "check engine light" that communicates that it's time to look for a rest stop or an exit.

 

[S'mon]

I didn't encounter any really good 4e D&D modules.

Here is what I would recommend for making H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth a bit more playable:



And here's what I did for the only other module I thought was somewhat playable on its own terms, P2:


That thread has a bit more about what I did to P2 if anyone's interested.

Yes, H2 and P2 are the only 4e adventures I've run that I can actually recommend. Both have relatively open structures that lend themselves to GM improvisation. I got bored/burned out with the Well of Demons in H2 and cut to the end. P2 was consistently fun all the way through.

The Slaying Stone was not terrible, but the town map was very weak - with an art budget this could have been a good adventure.

Orcs of Stonefang Pass was too linear. But it did set up Stonefang as a BBEG IMC, and a dwarf PC ended up marrying Serka of the Shadowed Chain. For establishing a bunch of Dwarfy setting lore it was a win.

I did enjoy Dungeon 155's Heathen a lot. OK it is super linear, but as an expy of Apocalypse Now at least it has a good excuse! A few too many combats as written, but the climax is fantastic, & IMC the encounter with Jaryn was extremely dramatic in a way you hardly ever see in D&D.

 

[S'mon]

Great premise, and starts out very well, but the dungeon itself is decidedly a mixed bag IMHO: some rooms have good use of the ice theme, but others feel like they were randomly generated. Dunno if I'd recommend it as a example of 4E done right. (But to be fair, 4E isn't exactly my favorite edition, so I may be biased.)

Yeah, IME it was a great premise but not well executed. Felt like they'd just picked up a random dungeon map for the main bit.

 

[S'mon]

The 4e combat engine brings a lot of mechanical overhead with it: to make it worthwhile, in my view, it needs to be used for these vivid, "visually" dramatic, action-packed combats.

I remember in Heathen the three linked combats in Jaryn's hall were great; the first with his guards probably the best. I used the 3D cardboard terrain that had been on sale around that time, it looked awesome. Also the fact that the PCs were trapped in Jaryn's dungeon with his fanatical Banite army pounding at the doors made it a lot more tense than the typical clear-the-level adventure.

The showdown with the vampire boss & his minions at the end of P2 was also very good.

Mostly though the best 4e fights were when I chose a battlemap & enemies myself and built it myself.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Some of the later Living Forgotten Realms adventures actually made a good showcase of 4E's strengths, as far as I have been able to tell from reports on the net. (I've only played some of them in 5e myself). Especially the epic ones should be really great at showing what 4e can do at very high levels.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

And I agree with the above list, except I would add P1 King of the Trollhaunt Warrens to the list and remove Cairn.
I'd say Reavers and Gardmore are among the best released by WotC, regardless of edition.

 

[pemerton]

I did enjoy Dungeon 155's Heathen a lot. OK it is super linear, but as an expy of Apocalypse Now at least it has a good excuse! A few too many combats as written, but the climax is fantastic, & IMC the encounter with Jaryn was extremely dramatic in a way you hardly ever see in D&D.

I did Heathen differently from you, but agree that it was a good set-up.

For anyone who's interested, here's a thread from 2012 where S'mon and I discuss this module.

I think that's difficult to achieve with modules, specifically. Modules usually revolve around the players solving the DM's key, and the narrative around the module is, by design, generally resolved within the play of the module. Now ideally, resolving the fiction of the module will also hook back into the PC's own fiction and drive them forward, but that's generally outside the bounds of the module's design.

I agree with this. It's why, in the end, I think that 4e is not a good edition for modules - modules are about (degrees of) railroading, and 4e is about player-driven development of the fiction.