Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iron Sky" data-source="post: 6909376" data-attributes="member: 60965">One thing I could have disclosed earlier that may make me a challenging judge for these forums: I don't play 5e D&D, never have, likely never will. After burning out of 4e, I walked off into level-less, skill-based games (like EPIC RPG) with a dabbling of more narrative games (like Dungeon World) and never looked back. I've played 15 years of D&D and know most of the tropes, but you hinge something on the specific mechanics of a 5e monster, I will fail you. That said, your theoretical adventure-purchasing audience includes brand-new DMs that couldn't spot the glabrezu at the neighborhood vrock-party, so maybe that's not all bad.I stated in the beginning of my judgement that my response was going to probably be harsh as I was going to hold the adventures to an unrealistic standard (one I consider much more reasonable and reachable with round 2 and 3's higher word counts), but I did hold both adventures to that standard equally. @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=92511" target="_blank">steeldragons</a>, I realize Horror was essentially a <a href="https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Five_Room_Dungeon" target="_blank">5-room dungeon</a>, but it was missing several things that I think would have made it a great 5RD: A) it really only had 3 rooms with a couple potential (I.E. random) side-rooms: 1) the entrance guardian(pumpkin), the road(a hallway with some pits), 2) a second guardian(golem), and 3) a boss fight. Everything else lay at the whims of Fouramid, the god of triangular dice.B) some sort of non-combat encounter that really challenges the players' minds - a puzzle, tough choice, a seemingly impossible situation that makes them sweat and think. The quicksand was essentially a simple trap (roll to notice; failing that, roll not to be pulled in; failing that, there might be a touch of player creativity if no one has a rope or the right spell prepared), the lizardfolk encounter doesn't require any interaction (players might simply say "they don't seem hostile, let's push on") and the swamp was just difficult terrain. Two of those three are potentially missed in the random path generator as well.C) It also lacked a major twist and/or reversal. If lizardfolk had been a required encounter and the PCs needed fresh leeches for some reason to take out the vampire who had melded with a lead golem, that would have been interesting and set the players scrambling. Or if the lead golem was an unstoppable alchemical contraption fueled by leach-husks like a corn-husk-fueled ethanol bio-fuel engine, then maybe they could cut off the fuel source and bypass it, or something other than a fight in a field, a walk through a swamp, a fight on a bridge, and a fight in a room.In short, it challenged the characters (rolling dice, using up resources), but never really the players: they just had to sit back in their seats on the murder-hobo train until the next stop to kill some things. Making the pathing random made this potentially even worse.Having 1d4 events and with only 1 required hurt the adventure. Think of a DM prep perspective for someone using this: they need to know what happens at each end of that d4 and if the DM rolls "Road" on the first shot, your adventure (designed to save them prep) has just made them waste three encounters worth of reading and planning, in addition to skipping one of the most interesting scenes.As for making the players wonder about the leprechauns, that's great - just don't make the DM wonder as well. Remember, the DM is getting the adventure to save them time and creative energy and now they need to figure out what the deal with leprechauns is since you never said. Sometimes, on the spot like that, a satisfying answer is in short supply.Lastly, I thought the Lead Golem the sort of cool, creative use I was hoping for (the metal is spelled "Lead" too). Only difficulty is there was no reason it needed to be there and with nothing tying it to any of the other ingredients... @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=67" target="_blank">Rune</a>, my criticism of the naga bit is the same as steeldragon's leprachaun but on a much larger scale. You seem to say the backstory doesn't matter to the adventure. This may be the case with extraneous fluffy stuff that the PCs will never need to know, but in this case, that sentence is explaining to me - the DM running it - what the hell is going on. That the same sentence is also the last before the transition to the mines, which made it the last chance to explaining how and why they are going to the mines. It also fails to do this. If that sentence had been clear, my job would have been much easier, but it almost cost you this first round all on its own.It doesn't help that even after your post-ruling explanation, I still don't get what is going on. If the naga wanted her fang back and was able to geas him, how about "give me my damn tooth now" for a geas? Why does mercy for his unwarranted assault on her extend to letting him keep the tooth he knocked out? What did the naga expect the Bloodsmith was going to do with her fang? If she trusted him so little that she had to double geas him, why did she even let him take it in the first place?Maybe the DM doesn't need to know all this if everything goes smoothly and the PCs do exactly what they are expected to (like that ever happens), but what if they start asking more questions? It's like watching a TV show where cool stuff is happening, but you eventually realize the writers are just making it up as they go (*cough* Lost *cough*) and suddenly it suspension of disbelief is suspended.Also, if the druids aren't proactive enough to drop a warning note to the villagers, why would they be forward enough to track down a group of armed vagabonds and try to convince them to help? The lack of transition as to where and how the druids enter the picture make the whole druid chunk the anchor around what was otherwise a pretty good adventure's neck.For players missing some clues, that's fine, normal, and business as usual, but the DM has to know or they look like an idiot and the game might even break when a player figures everything out first and catches the DM off guard. If you've ever played a game with someone who knows the setting better than you, you have an excellent idea what this is like. Ever run Forgotten Realms for someone who has read R. A. Salvatore's everything and you've only skimmed a couple chapters of the campaign setting? Run a Star Wars RPG with a player who owns Star Wars Trivial Pursuit? That on a small scale.The last words I'll say about my opinion on these two entries are this:Blood set out for an ambitious goal (a mystery investigation) and crashed hard near the end thanks to the giant plot hole / poorly explained and/or thought out scenario that anchored the whole deal.Horror set out for a much more modest goal (a short delve) and succeeded in the barest fashion in large part due to lack of player challenge.Both of these are far better than I'd bet 90% of DMs out there could do with the ingredients, time-, and word-limits that were set and you were the ones willing to put your best efforts out in the public eye to be gutted. Don't take my critiques mean I'm not impressed with either of your efforts or the courage it takes to subject yourselves and your brain-children to criticism in the name of pushing yourselves to be better writers and GMs.I'll save the rest of my words for tonight's judgement.Edit: spelled steeldragons' name wrong.</blockquote>

Verification