D&D 5E Where's the Villain? and other musings. Why some published campaigns are great and some aren't (Spoiler alerts)

[Hussar]

The players should choose their own goals (which may well be individual), not have a goal thrust upon them. Otherwise they may as well be reading a novel. RPGs are all about offering players choices. If the players go off-piste it's because they find the off-piste stuff more interesting, so the DM should go with that. A DM-imposed goal IS the rails of a railroad.

It’s all about buy in though. You agreed to play this campaign. You already made that choice.

 

[MarkB]

The lack of real motivation to move on to the last part of the adventure is a flaw in RotFM. Both times I've run it, I've made Ythryn pivotal to resolving the larger issues of the region. The first time, I had the mythallar be Auril's backup system in case she was taken out - the winter won't end unless the PCs break the remnants of her ritual that she embedded in it, in fact it will run out of control.

In the playthrough I'm currently running I took inspiration from Ravenloft and had Auril physically displace the entire region into a Domain of Dread a couple of weeks into the campaign - there's no unending darkness, but the domain locks the region into winter. The only thing powerful enough to return the region to Faerun is the mythallar at the centre of Ythryn.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It’s interesting to think about backstories. I often see backstory used as a reason for PCs to care about the campaign. And I do feel that yes players should create PCs with a reason to adventure and get involved. However, I also feel that a campaign needs to have enough drive to make me want to beat it in an of its own accord.

I would say that the last two APs I played both had players who created characters based on the information provided by the DM: in both cases, the characters still felt divorced from the campaign to the extent that one fizzled out and the other required a pretty major course correction from the DM.

I attribute this to two points:

• one, players are working with the information provided to them by the DM, and both miscommunication and a DM “wanting to play his cards close to his vest” can mean that characters that seem appropriate don’t gel with the AP;
• two, sometimes the adventure’s implementation works against the characters that were created.

 

[MarkB]

I would say that the last two APs I played both had players who created characters based on the information provided by the DM: in both cases, the characters still felt divorced from the campaign to the extent that one fizzled out and the other required a pretty major course correction from the DM.

I attribute this to two points:

• one, players are working with the information provided to them by the DM, and both miscommunication and a DM “wanting to play his cards close to his vest” can mean that characters that seem appropriate don’t gel with the AP;
• two, sometimes the adventure’s implementation works against the characters that were created.

That, and there can be great variation in how much players want to explore their backstory. I've seen some that will set it as major goals even ahead of what the party as a whole is pursuing, and others that will stroll on past any opportunity to engage with it even if you drop it right in front of them.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that the last two APs I played both had players who created characters based on the information provided by the DM: in both cases, the characters still felt divorced from the campaign to the extent that one fizzled out and the other required a pretty major course correction from the DM.

I attribute this to two points:

• one, players are working with the information provided to them by the DM, and both miscommunication and a DM “wanting to play his cards close to his vest” can mean that characters that seem appropriate don’t gel with the AP;
• two, sometimes the adventure’s implementation works against the characters that were created.

Yeah, it really behooves the DM to get that information into the player's hands. And, to be totally fair, sometimes players screw up too. I just started an Avernus campaign as a player. Decided to try out a Circle of Flame druid. Concept that I'd been jonesing for for a while. Then realized about three sessions in that a character that is devoted to burning stuff with fire is perhaps not the smartest choice in an adventure path that features stuff outright immune to fire in many encounters.

Worked with the DM to fix the problem and now we're back on task. But, yeah, with a less accommodating DM and/or player combination, I can see how this could have become a bigger problem.

OTOH, I once had a player in a Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign that created a ships captain character. Fantastic. By the end of the first adventure, I gave them a ship. All good right? Well, the player decided that he wanted nothing to do with actually having a ship, dumped the character immediately and made a new character.

But, as long as no one is being an asshat about it, it shouldn't be too difficult to weave into the campaign.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It’s all about buy in though. You agreed to play this campaign. You already made that choice.

If it's a choice between that or nothing, it's not much of a choice, is it? In my experience, it's the DM who chooses the adventure, not the players. And it's not rocket science to have a little flexibility. BG3 does it. It has a main story arc, but, because it has no human DM to improv, it also builds in lots of "what if the PCs do something weird" options.

 

[Hussar]

If it's a choice between that or nothing, it's not much of a choice, is it? In my experience, it's the DM who chooses the adventure, not the players. And it's not rocket science to have a little flexibility. BG3 does it. It has a main story arc, but, because it has no human DM to improv, it also builds in lots of "what if the PCs do something weird" options.

Meh if the whole “this game or nothing” doesn’t hold much water in the days of virtual tabletops.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Meh if the whole “this game or nothing” doesn’t hold much water in the days of virtual tabletops.

Some of us prefer to play with friends than rando strangers.

 

[FrozenNorth]

OTOH, I once had a player in a Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign that created a ships captain character. Fantastic. By the end of the first adventure, I gave them a ship. All good right? Well, the player decided that he wanted nothing to do with actually having a ship, dumped the character immediately and made a new character.

One of my experiences was the polar opposite of that. It was a Paizo AP with a player’s companion guide, so I made a character who was friends with and respected one of the NPCs described, and who was also supposed to be the primary questgiver.

The NPC provided the first quest (resolved by level 2) then essentially disappeared from the story.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Some of us prefer to play with friends than rando strangers.

Why is your friend saying “this game or nothing”?