D&D 5E (2014) Ben Riggs talks to Richard Baker. Phandelver in 2018 alone sold 300k copies.

[Yalım]

Oh. He wrote Red Hand of Doom?

It's one of the only pre-made module/adventure that I even took part in (was playing in that one) and it was a blast. I got to read through it when play was over. I thought it was great.

Now you make me want to go read Reavers of Harkenwold.

lol I had this exact reaction in the other direction, "He wrote Reavers? I should go read Red Hand now..."

 

[ECMO3]

The fact WOTC didn't do it justice in the hardback reissue is a tragedy.

What is worse is they did reissue it as Phadelver and Below and more or less ruined what was a great adventure.

 

[Reynard]

Personal Pet Peeve: people "rating" an adventure (good or bad) that they have only read.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personal Pet Peeve: people "rating" an adventure (good or bad) that they have only read.

Some have obvious flaws though that stand out.

And if the hook doesn't engage you it's obvious the adventure wont appeal.

Even the art or present matters.

I don't pay much attention to reviews though. Eventually consensus usually emerges on adventure quality.

 

[Reynard]

Some have obvious flaws though that stand out.

And if the hook doesn't engage you it's obvious the adventure wont appeal.

Even the art or present matters.

I don't pay much attention to reviews though. Eventually consensus usually emerges on adventure quality.

Things that seem "obvious" in reading ate often wrong when put to the table.

 

[Zardnaar]

Things that seem "obvious" in reading ate often wrong when put to the table.

Out of the Abyss was very obvious reading it. So was DiA.

Princes of the Apocalypse not so much.

Strahd and ToA are kinda obvious as well but other way (theyre good). Similar with the starter set ones.

 

[Reynard]

Out of the Abyss was very obvious reading it. So was DiA.

Princes of the Apocalypse not so much.

Strahd and ToA are kinda obvious as well but other way (theyre good). Similar with the starter set ones.

So, explain. What obvious thing from reading DiA was born out in play?

 

[Reynard]

To be clear, "I read it and didn't like it" is fine. "I read it and it is a bad adventure" usually isn't.

Waterdeep Dragonheist reads like garbage but turns out to be a great adventure creation toolkit.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, explain. What obvious thing from reading DiA was born out in play?

BG feels tacked on and the encounters in Hell are kinda meh.

I think they had a basic flowchart of a bare handful of encounters for levels 7-9.

Think there was a grand total of 10 or so.

Ots not a well regarded adventure. I've got a lot of use out of it as a sourcebook though so it's not half bad in that regard.
Probably why ots a bit of a failure at both. Its not a good source book or adventure it's trying to do to much.

 

[Reynard]

BG feels tacked on and the encounters in Hell are kinda meh.

I think they had a basic flowchart of a bare handful of encounters for levels 7-9.

Think there was a grand total of 10 or so.

Ots not a well regarded adventure. I've got a lot of use out of it as a sourcebook though so it's not half bad in that regard.
Probably why ots a bit of a failure at both. Its not a good source book or adventure it's trying to do to much.

My "favorite" thing about DiA is that the "flowcharts" are straight up linear poles. Lol.

I and my group had a lot of fun with that adventure, but that is because we just went way over the top. We played it linear, but every scene was a even more ridiculous set piece than the last. I even brought in a squad of Doom Troopers with beam rifles and power armor.

That is to say: DiA was not a great adventure but it was still great fun. So where does that sit?