D&D 5E D&DNext WotC Adventures

[delericho]

No for me, actually. I vastly prefer the bullet points calling out the major elements of the room, to make sure I don't miss them.

Yep. I'm with Charles Ryan on this one: rather than giving us a big block of descriptive text, I'd rather the designers call out the salient points in big, clear bullets, and let me flesh out the meat on the bones.

If nothing else, this means that if the PCs arrive from the north rather than from the south, I can adjust my description to suit more easily!

 

[Mistwell]

It works, but I disagree that it works great. You can see my DnDClassics review for some of my criticisms. To give an example from last night's session, there was the following room:


Wouldn't it be a lot easier to run blind if it was written like this?:
[assuming that the map clearly shows that the door is blocked]

Again, I'm comparing it to what I consider the gold standard of adventure presentation, and most people probably don't have such high standards.

For me? No. I much prefer the exiting method to your version. The existing version is much more clear to me, and yours seems a step back that requires a whole lot more work from the DM. And I like the descriptive text too.

I mean, there is a purpose to white space and headings and paragraph separation of concepts. They all are easier methods to convey concepts. It's why, for example, Bar Exam prep courses all use those methods, because it's the proven most effective means of conveying information quickly at a glance.

To me, your standards are lower, lazier, and not as advanced as the existing method used. It's a mess to me to read a paragraph like that and have to suss out the meaningful things and how to describe the room. It looks like the pre-edited version of an adventure, the type that makes editors groan at all the work they have ahead of them to present it in an acceptable format.

 

[Argyle King]

Correct me if I'm wrong, in published date order:

1. Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle
2. Murder in Baldur's Gate
3. Legacy of the Crystal Shard
4. Scourge of the Sword Coast

That's all right?

I've read a few reviews of the first two, but has anyone played the last couple and are they any good? I'm thinking of starting a campaign with some newbs and wondering which one of these is worth trying.

Thanks.

I haven't played Ghost of Dragonspear Castle, so no opinion.

I felt that Murder In Balder's Gate was terrible; made even worse by being played during Encounters. Why did I think it was terrible? I felt as though it was a murder mystery in which none of my actions actually mattered. I think the concept was cool, but the execution was not. Overall, I felt as though -as mentioned already- my character choices had little to no impact on what was going on. That's not a feeling I like to have during a rpg; especially during an adventure in which it's implied that you have a chance to investigate what is going on and stop a plot. All-in-all, it made me feel as though either D&D isn't well suited to the style of adventure or the WoTC writing staff isn't good at writing that type of adventure; possibly both. I came away feeling very negative about the game during the weeks in which this was the Encounters season. It's a shame too because I liked the theory and idea behind the adventure; in the GURPS Supers game I'm currently GMing, the first story arc is a murder mystery, so I can appreciate the theme; it just wasn't well done. Some day, I might sit down and try running Murder during a home game with Dungeon Fantasy to see if the results are different. However, right now, I have a very negative opinion of the adventure.

Legacy of The Crystal Shard was a saving grace for my continued participation in Encounters. After Murder In Balder's Gate, I was ready to stop showing up. Thankfully, Legacy turned out to be (in my opinion) a very good adventure. It had some nice sandbox elements, branching paths which were engaging, and it appeared to be designed in such a way that I felt as though my actions and what I chose to do mattered. I had a lot of fun with Legacy of The Crystal Shard, and, as things currently stand, it's my favorite 5th Edition adventure. I'm planning to actually buy the adventure at some point for use with Dungeon Fantasy (if I were planning to buy D&D 5th, I'd run it with D&D 5th.) I have a very positive opinion of this adventure.

Scourge of The Sword Coast... is this the current Encounters season adventure? If so, my opinion thus far is that it's painfully boring. There seems to be little to no motivation for my character to be involved in anything. Some jerkwad noble lost an artifact... I feel like that's supposed to be an adventure hook, but -as both a player and a character- I have little reason to care. I then went to fight some goblins; as a cleric of war and battle, it was pretty easy to explain my character deciding to accompany a group of adventurers during their mission to fight an enemy. However, it's been really dull. Yeah, sure, I've fought a bunch of goblins, and I've fought a bunch of orcs, but the adventure seems like an endless string of encounters with not much of any motivation behind why. Perhaps things are different during a home campaign in which a group has more time to explore the nuances of the area and roleplaying. All I know is that it currently seems really really boring. For what it's worth, I've been mentally comparing it to Mirror of The Fire Demon* because the horde of orcs theme is similar; I'd even go so far as to say the use of a magical macguffin as motivation for an adventure, and a plethora of combat encounters are both similar. While Mirror does have a few layout issues which bother me, and some things I changed when running it for my home group, I thus far have a better opinion of it than I do of Scourge of The Sword Coast. However, to be completely fair, one of the obstacles I have when playing Scourge of The Sword Coast is that I have little knowledge of Forgotten Realms... maybe being more fluent in the lore of the setting would help my enjoyment? I'm not sure; it just seems dull at the moment. Scourge still seems like a far better adventure than Murder in Balder's Gate, and it's possible that I may -in the future- use it in conjunction with Mirror of The Fire Demon to create a longer story arc, but, overall, my default opinion of Scourge is that it's very bland and boring.


*link provided for reference: http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/dungeonfantasyadventure1/



So, to sum up...

Ghosts... no opinion
Murder... I think I threw up in my mouth a little
Legacy... woohoo
Scourge... zzzzzzzz... huh, it's my turn?

If the pattern remains the same, the next adventure should be pretty good, but the one after that will be terrible.

 

[Thaumaturge]

It's interesting to see these thoughts on Murder in Baldur's Gate.

I DM'd it in a home campaign. We started the first weekend it was out. We just wrapped it up, and only because I finally forced the situation. My players had a great time delving into the politics of the city, they got caught up in minor side plots, and were fooled by a couple of red herrings. They felt like they very much impacted the situation. The leadership of Baldur's Gate is... much changed... because of their interactions.

I wonder if it is because of the limitations of the Encounters format. A number of times we wondered how people were possibly rushing through it so quickly. The Encounters season for Legacy was over before we were done with Murder. That feels really rushed.

I was worried they would think their action weren't important, but that was definitely not how it played out at the table.

We had numerous sessions without combat, too, so maybe the adventure just spoke to a play style we all liked but that isn't standard.

I'm not saying the people who didn't enjoy it are wrong in their assessment. I'm just intrigued by the differences.

Thaumaturge.

 

[TarionzCousin]

No for me, actually. I vastly prefer the bullet points calling out the major elements of the room, to make sure I don't miss them.

I agree. The original example with text followed by bolded, bullet-pointed elements is what I want.

 

[keterys]

It's interesting to see these thoughts on Murder in Baldur's Gate.

My group had a similar problem.

We started with the event day, which was fantastic, and everyone was excited to delve into assassinations and Bhaal plots in Baldur's Gate.

And then the adventure took a right turn into bland petty arguments between city powers. My players felt like they could choose a side and have it mean something, but that none of the sides were worth supporting (this opinion come to after a few sessions backing and working against various plays, as each side did stupid or petty things).

As I was about to accelerate things rapidly to their conclusion, skipping over the middle of the campaign to at least have it go out with a bang, they intimidated an NPC into leaving the city, the NPC offhandedly made a comment about knowing about some work he could do in the Dalelands and the group asked if he'd bring them with them. The wererat rogue they'd just intimidated. They just wanted out of the horrible awful Baldur's Gate.

So, yeah, I agree, it's awful. It can be redeemed and frankly it's probably better if you don't play the event (assassin on the stage) so that it's not such a massive letdown from its start. But, I'd change it mightily if I ran it.

In fact, one of the big complaints we had as a group after doing it was that it felt like supporting someone was actually actively harmful, since that person then became an agent of Bhaal. So, yeah, even if you were invested in one of the NPCs your work got thrown in the trash, set on fire, turned into a fiery trash beast, then destroyed.

Dragonspear was fine. Haven't played it all the way through, but I ran it for their characters after they left Baldur's Gate and it reassured them that Next was D&D again.

 

[Thaumaturge]

In fact, one of the big complaints we had as a group after doing it was that it felt like supporting someone was actually actively harmful, since that person then became an agent of Bhaal. So, yeah, even if you were invested in one of the NPCs your work got thrown in the trash, set on fire, turned into a fiery trash beast, then destroyed.

A member of the party I DM'd thought it would be a good idea to cleanse the city of all three of the main instigators. They did.

And then he was chosen.

Good times.

 

[keterys]

A member of the party I DM'd thought it would be a good idea to cleanse the city of all three of the main instigators. They did.

And then he was chosen.

Good times.

I suspect that's how my game would have gone if we'd finished the adventure, yep.

 

[Argyle King]

It's interesting to see these thoughts on Murder in Baldur's Gate.

I DM'd it in a home campaign. We started the first weekend it was out. We just wrapped it up, and only because I finally forced the situation. My players had a great time delving into the politics of the city, they got caught up in minor side plots, and were fooled by a couple of red herrings. They felt like they very much impacted the situation. The leadership of Baldur's Gate is... much changed... because of their interactions.

I wonder if it is because of the limitations of the Encounters format. A number of times we wondered how people were possibly rushing through it so quickly. The Encounters season for Legacy was over before we were done with Murder. That feels really rushed.

I was worried they would think their action weren't important, but that was definitely not how it played out at the table.

We had numerous sessions without combat, too, so maybe the adventure just spoke to a play style we all liked but that isn't standard.

I'm not saying the people who didn't enjoy it are wrong in their assessment. I'm just intrigued by the differences.

Thaumaturge.

I suspect that the Encounters format may be part of the issue I had with it. I do think that it would likely run better in a home game where a group has more time to explore the nuances of the political conflicts. However, even after reading the adventure (upon finishing it as a player, I read it to see if maybe the group had missed something,) I feel like it could have been written in a way which allowed for more flexibility and gave a clearer idea of what the motivations behind the various groups were. It's weird... there was a lot of information in the adventure, but none of it really spoke to me about anything; I'm not quite sure how to explain what I mean by that. The best example I can think of to compare it to is like a political speech... many words, but not much actually said. Also, so below...

My group had a similar problem.

We started with the event day, which was fantastic, and everyone was excited to delve into assassinations and Bhaal plots in Baldur's Gate.

And then the adventure took a right turn into bland petty arguments between city powers. My players felt like they could choose a side and have it mean something, but that none of the sides were worth supporting (this opinion come to after a few sessions backing and working against various plays, as each side did stupid or petty things).

As I was about to accelerate things rapidly to their conclusion, skipping over the middle of the campaign to at least have it go out with a bang, they intimidated an NPC into leaving the city, the NPC offhandedly made a comment about knowing about some work he could do in the Dalelands and the group asked if he'd bring them with them. The wererat rogue they'd just intimidated. They just wanted out of the horrible awful Baldur's Gate.

So, yeah, I agree, it's awful. It can be redeemed and frankly it's probably better if you don't play the event (assassin on the stage) so that it's not such a massive letdown from its start. But, I'd change it mightily if I ran it.

In fact, one of the big complaints we had as a group after doing it was that it felt like supporting someone was actually actively harmful, since that person then became an agent of Bhaal. So, yeah, even if you were invested in one of the NPCs your work got thrown in the trash, set on fire, turned into a fiery trash beast, then destroyed.

Dragonspear was fine. Haven't played it all the way through, but I ran it for their characters after they left Baldur's Gate and it reassured them that Next was D&D again.

I can completely relate to this. None of the NPCs were people I felt I actually wanted to help. Had it not been Encounters in which I was expected to participate in the adventure, the character I was playing at the time would have simply left and allowed the chips to fall where they may in his absence. Best case scenario... some of the other characters I currently play in other campaigns would have likely decided to help level/destroy the city. It didn't seem worth saving.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Scourge of The Sword Coast... is this the current Encounters season adventure? If so, my opinion thus far is that it's painfully boring. There seems to be little to no motivation for my character to be involved in anything. Some jerkwad noble lost an artifact... I feel like that's supposed to be an adventure hook, but -as both a player and a character- I have little reason to care. I then went to fight some goblins; as a cleric of war and battle, it was pretty easy to explain my character deciding to accompany a group of adventurers during their mission to fight an enemy. However, it's been really dull. Yeah, sure, I've fought a bunch of goblins, and I've fought a bunch of orcs, but the adventure seems like an endless string of encounters with not much of any motivation behind why.

As a DM of Scourge, it is essentially Keep on the Borderlands. It's just that each monster lair isn't 80 feet from the next.

Keep = town of Daggerford with hooks and intrigue.
Goblinoid Lair
Orc Lair
Gnoll Lair
Duergar Lair
and then the Evil Temple

Wrapped up with a final encounter that explains why the various groups were connected.

Dead in Thay referenced Tomb of Horrors/Undermountain.

The adventures are playing off the different adventure styles.

Ghosts was much more in the AP style of linked location done in order.

Baldur's Gate probably needed some sort of disclaimer that one of the three could be reflavored or a fourth party could be added if the party needed a more heroic patron. It was pretty much a lesser of 3 evils module as written.