D&D 5E Do You Tinker with Adventures to Make Them "Winnable"?

[Reynard]

CRPG designers came up with it while working with a different medium, or mage took it from some fringe group of tabletop players. "Do some side quests to level up" is not a phrase I've ever seen published in older paper RPGs (including modules and including Dragon magazine for D&D). The whole concept of "side quest" vs "main quest" where a side quest is done for extra levels to make the main quest easier (and where the main quest and side quest just sit there waiting for you to find back to them) is distinctly not from TTRPGs.

That's an interesting perspective. I remember opening up the Expert set in 85 or so, in which the town of Threshold and environs was described, along with a large number of quests on which to go. I also remember playing sandbox games, running into hints we couldn't handle, and therefore heading off to go get extra XP elsewhere so that we could come back and defeat whatever dungeon or mobster had stymied us.

None of this is new, and none of it was invented by CRPGs.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

That's an interesting perspective. I remember opening up the Expert set in 85 or so, in which the town of Threshold and environs was described, along with a large number of quests on which to go.

Having a lot of quests is not having a static main quest plus side quests that you go on specifically to level up. How many times does the phrase "side quest" appear in the book?

"Go on a side quest to level up for the main quest" structures are a Peru specific thing.

 

[Weiley31]

Yes I would tinker an adventure in a way in which it wouldn't completely no sell a class option a player did/chose because something like that could have a huge affect if an adventure is winnable or not. Not to mention a good possibility of ruining a player's fun: damn the consequences of players choice.

Take for example Descent into Avernus, an adventure that really laughs at a heavy user of fire via Demon/Devil immunities to fire. Now a Sorcerer may have an option to Elemental Adept pass that, but I still find that stupid. So I'd have it changed/flipped that whoever has the Shield of The Hidden Lord equipped to them, that character is able to override/ignore Damage Immunity to Fire.

This makes sense to me since Garagauth is a former Archdevil AND Faerunian demi-god. This also makes him ideal as the evil replacement for Lulu if your party is evil/not saints.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Take for example Descent into Avernus, an adventure that really laughs at a heavy user of fire via Demon/Devil immunities to fire. Now a Sorcerer may have an option to Elemental Adept pass that, but I still find that stupid. So I'd have it changed/flipped that whoever has the Shield of The Hidden Lord equipped to them, that character is able to override/ignore Damage Immunity to Fire.

Something like this can easily be handled in Session 0. "Hey everyone, this campaign is going to deal heavily with evil outsiders. You may want to plan accordingly." I did something very similar when I ran Shackled City and I don't feel that it ruined anything for my group's enjoyment.

 

[Weiley31]

Something like this can easily be handled in Session 0. "Hey everyone, this campaign is going to deal heavily with evil outsiders. You may want to plan accordingly." I did something very similar when I ran Shackled City and I don't feel that it ruined anything for my group's enjoyment.

Meh, I'll just allow the auto bypass via an item.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Meh, I'll just allow the auto bypass via an item.

An equally valid solution.

 

[Reynard]

Having a lot of quests is not having a static main quest plus side quests that you go on specifically to level up. How many times does the phrase "side quest" appear in the book?

"Go on a side quest to level up for the main quest" structures are a Peru specific thing.

So semantics is the problem? Okay, but it seems like a weird thing to get hung up on. The reality is that we have been doing this exact thing in TTRPGs for a long time.

Remember when everyone freaked out that 4E introduced "MMORPG" terminology with roles? And then it turned out that folks had been using that language, if not the exact terms, since the wargaming days? Yeah, it's like that.

"Those darn kids and their computer games" aren't the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Having a lot of quests is not having a static main quest plus side quests that you go on specifically to level up. How many times does the phrase "side quest" appear in the book?

"Go on a side quest to level up for the main quest" structures are a Peru specific thing.

Village of Hommlet, Caves of Chaos, they use that exact structure. The fact that the term "side quest" had not been invented in the 1970s did not mean that there where no side quests.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think also in the example given there is nothing stopping the players

Spoiler: Spoilers for adventure refenced

coming back when the moon is in a different phase, coming back with an elf or coming back with a knock scroll to open the tomb.

Why does the adventure have to provide instant gratification.

In that particular instance, there is no reason the PCs have to open that door at all. They can still "succeed" with the assigned mission without opening the door.

 

[Retreater]

In that particular instance, there is no reason the PCs have to open that door at all. They can still "succeed" with the assigned mission without opening the door.

Except that the person ultimately responsible for the attacks is behind the door and they can keep sending agents to harass the villagers (which is said in the adventure will be the outcome if she's not stopped.)