Demonomicon, ToH, Orcs of Stonefang Pass and Vor Rukoth in hand

[Aegeri]

Unless you're reading a different version of the Plane Above than I am, the account given in that book does not sound like unbiased "straight up fact" in any manner from the way it's written. Considering how immensely biased it comes off as, especially in its description of "He who was" I do not believe the intent is matter of fact. As I said, I would expect a source that is ostensibly about daemons to have an entirely different concept behind it than what the devils would say. I would be disappointed if they were the same for that reason.

Note that there are the odd issue that is definitely a lack of cross talk amongst authors, but this isn't one of them I feel.

 

[MrMyth]

There's a difference between botching internal continuity and intentionally providing alternatives myths and legends or details provided by an unreliable narrator. I genuinely appreciate the latter approach, and it was awesome in 2e and at times during 3e when it was used. But if it's going to be that way, it should be described as such rather than presented as straight up fact. Not having read the 4e demonomicon, I can't say which is the case here when it and the Plane Above contradict one another.

I know the writer of that entry in the Plane Above has explicitly stated it is intended as a specific perspective on events rather than absolute truth. The text hints at that, as Aegeri notes - but it doesn't outright state it, which does bother me.

And for whatever reason they change the Marauder's name in the Demonomicon. In 2e, 3e, the 4e MotP, and the 4e DMG 2 it was Shemeshka the Marauder, but it's Shemeshka the False in the Demonomicon. Is it given any explanation or is it a continuity issue?

I'm pretty sure Shemeshka is listed as 'the Marauder' when she is introduced to the PCs in the adventure. The actual stat-block is named Shemeshka the False, specifically after the party:
[sblock]
1) Discovers they've been completely tricked/duped/played by her; and
2) They've seen through her disguise as A'kin the Friendly Fiend.

The adventure leaves several questions open-ended here, either in prep for some future follow-up, or to let the DM take this short adventure in whatever direction they like. Has Shemeshka always been the Friendly Fiend? Was she just wearing his disguise at this time to throw blame on him? Is this truly Shemeshka at all, or is some even deeper deception going on?
[/sblock]

 

[Shemeska]

I'm pretty sure Shemeshka is listed as 'the Marauder' when she is introduced to the PCs in the adventure. The actual stat-block is named Shemeshka the False, specifically after the party:

Well that's a pretty good clarification of the situation, and actually a nifty approach. Thank you

 

[grabmill]

So, what do the experts say: should my group continue with Thunderspire Labyrinth or should I go for Orcs of Stonefang Pass, once they are finished with the oh-so-great KotS? *cough*

 

[Jack99]

So, what do the experts say: should my group continue with Thunderspire Labyrinth or should I go for Orcs of Stonefang Pass, once they are finished with the oh-so-great KotS? *cough*

Thunderspire actually has good potential, if you are willing to flesh things out somewhat.. But if you run things "as is", go with Orcs.

 

[pemerton]

So, what do the experts say: should my group continue with Thunderspire Labyrinth or should I go for Orcs of Stonefang Pass, once they are finished with the oh-so-great KotS? *cough*

I've run Thunderspire in dribs and drabs, but not straight through. It has some good maps and creatures, but the plot is a bit weak and the encounters as written not always that dynamic.



*SPOILERS BELOW*



For the Chamber of Eyes I did two things. First, I joined the introductory encounter (with the hobgoblins torturing the prisoner) onto the Chamber of Eyes: (i) run the corridor in the introductory encounter onto the entryway into the foyer of the Chamber of Eyes; (ii) add a secret passage exiting the NE corner of the hobgoblin chamber via a secret door and running diagonally, with staircases, up to the balcony in the Chamber of Eyes foyer; (iii) add a spyhole/arrowslit on the E wall of the hobgoblin chamber (near the barrels) looking onto the Chamber of Eyes foyer; (iv) add a portcullis that the hobgoblins can drop in the entryway to their chamber, making the secret passage the only easy path between their chamber and the Chamber of Eyes.

Second, I was prepared to run the introductory encounter, C1, C2 and C4 as a single encounter with waves. The PCs first heard the prisoner being tortured (I made it someone they had already met earlier in the campaign who they knew had been captured by goblins/hobgoblins and were hoping to rescue) and entered that chamber. The portcullis (iv above) was dropped, trapping them in that room. As they made fairly short work of the hobgoblin soldiers the warcaster opened the secret door and fled up the passage (ii above) with half the PCs chasing him while the others finished off the soldiers. The PCs correctly feared that he was going to get reinforcements. The PCs narrowly failed to stop him on the balcony, and he went through the other door and alerted the goblins in C2. I had the bugbear engage the PCs on the upper level, while the skull cleavers came out through the main doors to make missile attacks - some of the PCs jumped down to engage them, while others fought the bugbear and one who had been left behind in the first room attacked through the spyhole (iii above). The warcaster meanwhile went on and alerted the chief, who came forward to join the skullcleavers with his wolf while the archers controlled the long-ish corridor with cover from the shrine doorway (I eliminated the second warcaster as unnecessary).

This was a very dynamic encounter, with PCs moving around through the various corridors in the entry way, going back and forth into the original room to take advantage of the arrowslit, and in the end causing the hobgoblin archers to retreat after defeating the rest of the goblins. (They then took on the archers with the rest of C3 - roused from their drunken revelling - as a separate encounter.)

I also decided that the duergar would wait and see what happened rather than joining in on the potentially losing side of a fight - the PCs discovered the duergar in their rooms as they were looking for somewhere to take their short rest and ended up negotiating a contract with them, paying 300 gp to be delivered in a months time to pay for the release of the slaves (the players preferred this to the thought of having to assault a duergar stronghold).

In the Well of Demons I also ran the gnoll encounters together as a single more dynamic encounter (again leaving the tieflings out of the equation, figuring that they would make a more interesting encounter after the gnolls had been dealt with). The interesting aspects here were (i) the players thought the first chamber with the motely crew of monsters was the more challenging encounter, and so blew quite a few resources on it and therefore were really pushed to the limits with the gnolls, (ii) the use of the connecting tunnel from the boar room to the entry chamber as a way of making the PCs fight on two fronts (and yes, enemies were pushed into the well) and (iii) replacing the barlgura demon with a naldrezu (sp?) from MM2, which is a lurker that captures a PC and teleports it away to munch on it - combined with the two-fronts aspect this introduced extra mobility and tension into the fight.

LostSoul had a thread last year (or even in 2008?) where he talked about his experiences with KotS and Thunderspire. This might also be useful for you.

 

[grabmill]

Thanks a lot, I'll go and read that thread as well.
Personally, my first impression from Thunderspire was: fight Hobgoblins, then fight Duergar, just like KotS is like "first fight kobolds, then fight goblins, then fight hobgoblins (with some undead in between)". But judging from comments from other people, Thunderspire has a much better story. I'm definitely not afraid to tweak things a bit as well. I might even 'steal' your ideas .

But I'm straying off-topic. Forgive me.

 

[Klaus]

Thanks a lot, I'll go and read that thread as well.
Personally, my first impression from Thunderspire was: fight Hobgoblins, then fight Duergar, just like KotS is like "first fight kobolds, then fight goblins, then fight hobgoblins (with some undead in between)". But judging from comments from other people, Thunderspire has a much better story. I'm definitely not afraid to tweak things a bit as well. I might even 'steal' your ideas .

But I'm straying off-topic. Forgive me.

IMHO, Thunderspire is better served if you use the Seven-Pillared Hall as an Underdark "point of light" and use the rest as individual adventures.

 

[catsclaw227]

The Plane Above segment on Asmodeus always reminds me of something written from his perspective (or from a devils perspective), especially due to the tone and prose used. The Demonomicon may be an alternative view, where the demons take credit for Asmodeus' fall instead and another perspective. I actually don't mind such "contradictions" because I've always felt such things shouldn't be written into canon - instead left open to interpretation. The demons might be right according to the account in Demonomicon, or perhaps the Plane Above account is correct.

I've never understood this obsession with having direct "Word of God" canon in books. What happened with Asmodeus is ancient history, having 100% known absolute fact seems contrary to the point and rather silly. I would expect different races - especially ones as biased and generally manipulative as BOTH Devils and Demons to have widely different accounts. If Demonomicon gave the same opinions as The Plane Above that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would demons or devils for that matter tell the truth about such things? They'd have their own biased accounts - you would inherently expect them to be different.

This is how I read the differences in the books. Most of the time, when I read D&D fluff, I assume that the voice is giving their own historical perspective of things, and therefore I don't get all caught up in "OMG!!! Violation of Canon!!!"

There's a difference between botching internal continuity and intentionally providing alternatives myths and legends or details provided by an unreliable narrator.

I really like the latter as well. And when I see the first, it bugs me --- until I look at how much "canon" has been written to date. Sometimes it blows my mind how much detail a writer needs to know so that they don't mess up a name or cross-up previously written canon.

I don't know how you guys do it! I'd be botching things all the way through. But, then again, maybe I would have enough insight to simply write my stuff in a way that puts an in-world voice to things so that it comes off as the historical opinion of just another scholar or bard.

Now, in home-brews? Canon, shmanon. It's the DM's creation, so Asmodeus can be a deity-fallen-to-devil, or he can be a son of a primordial whose wits, greed, cruelty and evil has put him at odds with his progenitor.

Unless you're reading a different version of the Plane Above than I am, the account given in that book does not sound like unbiased "straight up fact" in any manner from the way it's written. Considering how immensely biased it comes off as, especially in its description of "He who was" I do not believe the intent is matter of fact. As I said, I would expect a source that is ostensibly about daemons to have an entirely different concept behind it than what the devils would say. I would be disappointed if they were the same for that reason.

I got this as well. It definitely came across as written from the perspective of the "in-game author" and not the WOTC author.

Note that there are the odd issue that is definitely a lack of cross talk amongst authors, but this isn't one of them I feel.

Or maybe just lack of necessary time and resources to know every little bit of historical canon. These books do have deadlines....

Maybe one of the 4e (or past 2e/3e) authors can pop in and ask about how they deal with the massive amounts of ever growing canon.

 

[ferratus]

IMHO, Thunderspire is better served if you use the Seven-Pillared Hall as an Underdark "point of light" and use the rest as individual adventures.

Hell yes. I really enjoyed running Thunderspire Labyrinth, so I was puzzled by the hatred of it. I then realized that I played up the factionalism of the Thunderspire Labyrinth itself, as it consisted of several Underdark races that hated each other. Each action that the party undertook upset the balance of power in the Seven Pillared Hall, which meant that they gained new allies and enemies with every strike against one faction or another.

I only regret that I didn't use Thunderspire as the beginning of an Underdark campaign. When I get a new gaming group someday, that's the location I will use for my heroes to conquer a kingdom in the Underdark.