D&D 5E (2014) An adventure start for new PCs isn't railroading...

[Celtavian]

I've always hated "captured" scenarios. Yes, they do feel a lot more like railroading than taverns.

They feel like "you were a punk and got captured" instead of "you are a starting hero starting an adventure". It just seems like a darker starting point and kind of DM heavy handed.

Wait a minute. Are you calling Conan a punk?

 

[Zardnaar]

I like the mental gymnastics required to redefine what a rail road is. Starting the game captured isn't unique to OotA but is up there on the railroad scale. And the option to play an adventure or not is not much of a choice as you could apply that metric to any adventure.

AP type adventures are always going to be a bit railroady because they generally have a plot line. Some are just a bit more railroaded than others. In the good ol days I used to prep several adventures and the one I would run would depend on the PCs actions (mostly Dungeon adventures).

 

[Uchawi]

It is a railroad, the question is how long do the players need to stay on the track. I believe it is an acceptable practice for players that are new to the game, and that is the overall focus of 5E. But on the other hand, it will be offensive to others (probably more experienced players).

The only question I would offer, is could they have done a better job of offering the illusion of choice, yet still present options that would eventually lead to the players being captured, or caught behind a rock and a hard place. I believe overall that type of experience is more rewarding, but there is a small chance the group will overcome any odds at all costs. And those are the stories we remember.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a player, if I were starting OotA, knowing it is a capture start, I would choose a class partly based on that. Probably not a wizard or heavy armour guy. Instead maybe a monk, or sorcerer, or warlock, or other class which doesn't rely on gear too much.

That could end up being very short sighted unless it was a class you will really enjoy playing throughout the campaign.

Slavelords had an adventure that *required* the group to be captured. (The end of A3). I find there's a significant difference between forcing an ongoing campaign along a particular path and starting the campaign in a particular state.

Which isn't to say that I'm opposed to the idea, but I do think there's a difference.

Cheers!

Yes. I always thought that the A series worked better as individual tournament scenarios than as a campaign. The campaign use requires a lot of additional prep work.

It is a railroad, the question is how long do the players need to stay on the track. I believe it is an acceptable practice for players that are new to the game, and that is the overall focus of 5E. But on the other hand, it will be offensive to others (probably more experienced players).

The only question I would offer, is could they have done a better job of offering the illusion of choice, yet still present options that would eventually lead to the players being captured, or caught behind a rock and a hard place. I believe overall that type of experience is more rewarding, but there is a small chance the group will overcome any odds at all costs. And those are the stories we remember.

As a very experienced player, I am fine with starting as captives. Illusion of choice once play begins is more likely to get me to drop the game then any starting condition. The beginning status quo is simply that. You deal with it and play from there. Organizing specific outcomes in actual play is simply informing your players that you are telling them a story, and that they are just along for the ride. Their decisions don't really matter. Players looking for interesting game play in which they make meaningful decisions will abandon such a game.

 

[dd.stevenson]

To which AP or APs are you referring, specifically?

Carrion Crown, Serpent's Skull, and Skull & Shackles.

It was the opening to SS ("You've been poisoned; roll fort to see who wakes up first") that warmed me up to the benefits of a heavy handed premise. In contrast S&S really refined my understanding of the perils of continuing the heavy handed approach after the initial scene.

Eventually my players, who'd had no problem with these premises, balked at the slight changes to the premise demanded at the beginning of modules 2/3 in each of these APs. Comparing their (positive) reactions to the heavy-handed premises to their (negative) reactions to the slight premise changes at the beginning of the modules is what drove the lesson home.

 

[The Hitcher]

Another screenwriting guideline: start as near to the action as you can - preferably in it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wait a minute. Are you calling Conan a punk?

Yes, O'Brien is a punk. Oh wait. You're talking about that silly '82 movie. The one that rewrote the story. Meh. People don't read books anymore. While it's true that Conan got captured a few times WHILE adventuring (e.g. Scarlett Citadel), his story didn't start out that way. He was raiding as a teenager.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I think what I will do is read Out of the Abyss. See if there is a named drow wizard in the module that they will meet as an enemy at some point. I'll use him as an opening enemy to give them someone to blame for their capture, a focus for their hate and desire for revenge. I'll make him a real bastard. The kind of bastard that when he finally dies, the PCs feel great.

That is unneeded there is a drow priestess and her elite warriors that are stated to be the ones responsible. after their escape she and her elites chase and track them through out the under dark until she is killed or completely loses track of where the characters are. When they are prisoners she spends her time taunting and abusing them.

 

[Celtavian]

Yes, O'Brien is a punk. Oh wait. You're talking about that silly '82 movie. The one that rewrote the story. Meh. People don't read books anymore. While it's true that Conan got captured a few times WHILE adventuring (e.g. Scarlett Citadel), his story didn't start out that way. He was raiding as a teenager.

Isn't that a bit a presumptuous? The Conan stories were short stories. The movie took various elements from stories and incorporated some of their own material to create a very faithful rendition of Conan.The 82' movie was good. A very well done Conan story in a movie. Now the second movie...trash.

It isn't as though Conan stories were very long. It would have been difficult to make a movie of a Conan short story. Not to mention Robert E. Howard's prose was repetitive at times. He had some extraordinary prose that sung, but just as many stories that were quite boring. I pounded through Robert E. Howard quickly. By the time I was done, I could see why his stories were well-loved. I could also see stories written strictly for commercial purpose that were rushed and unoriginal.

Suffice it to say we disagree about the original Conan movie which I found entertaining.

 

[Celtavian]

That is unneeded there is a drow priestess and her elite warriors that are stated to be the ones responsible. after their escape she and her elites chase and track them through out the under dark until she is killed or completely loses track of where the characters are. When they are prisoners she spends her time taunting and abusing them.

Then I may use her or build a character of my creation. I like to customize adventures.