D&D 4E Is it me or are 4E modules just not...exciting?

[WizarDru]

So, we've been playing 4E for...huh, I guess 2 years, now? Not heavily, mind you, but consistently. Mostly using my own material, but often (as in years and editions past) grabbing from various published sources.

But I've been noticing something since the arrival of 4E and I'm trying to figure out if it's just me, just the modules I've seen or if this is a real trend based on the change in direction of the game. Understand I'm not looking for a discussion of how this is endemic to 4E or otherwise a mechanical issue...because that's not really what I'm describing here (and honestly, not a conversation I'm terribly interested in having).

What AM I describing? Simply this: modules for D&D Fourth Edition are DULL. Terminally boring exercises in setting up encounters, often stitched together with what feel like obligatory skill challenges with no spice or interest. Modules that feel more like someone took four D&D Encounters and then just made some excuses to bridge them together, bound them and then shipped it. Which may have been the intent and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. As one of my players often says: "Them orcs ain't gonna kill THEMSELVES." I'm as partial to a throwdown as the next guy.

But there seems virtually no sizzle to all the 4E modules I've seen other than that. They lack STORY. Look at Sunless Citadel or Forge of Fury: there have a build-up to getting there, towns with at least a hint of re-usability and then dungeons that have flavor. There are zones in the dungeons, little sub-plots within (save Meepo? Kill him. Deal with the Roper? Avoid him?) and it feels like a PLACE. And let's be clear, here...I think many of the 3E Adventure Path modules are not that good. Standing Stone made me actively irritated and the module with Ashardalon was one my group actively hated (and thus we derailed it). But even those had things HAPPEN. You traveled to other planes, you tracked clues and pursued enemies and had showdowns. Heck, Standing Stone at least attempted to manufacture a mystery (nonsensical as it was, IMHO).

Whenever I look at a 4E module, they feel...I dunno, flavorless. Exercises in tedium. Fluff feels forced and then you just have a few quick encounters referenced in a mostly linear fashion, then a bunch of appendices that are just basically combat scenarios and little more than that.

What I'm trying to figure out is if I'm not giving them enough of a chance or if maybe I'm just not reading the right modules. I long for modules that make me WANT to run them. That feature actual traps, not just a quick skill check...that feature Skill Challenges that are more than just something I could have cobbled together myself in a couple of minutes on the fly. I have yet to really feel like I've seen more than one module in 4E that actually has a story beyond "...and then they punched the monster. The End."

Help me out here, gang. What am I missing? Why am I feeling so dissatisfied?

 

[OnlineDM]

I'm still fairly new to D&D, so I don't have previous editions to compare. But my understanding is that it's very hit or miss with 4e, and lots of folks have complained about most of the modules that have come out.

That said, I think they're getting better. The adventure from the DM Kit, Reavers of Harkenwold, is quite good. There's a real story with interesting characters, and the PCs get genuinely involved in what's going on. I was very pleased with it.

Your point about skill challenges is dead-on, I think. 4th Edition's original books made a big deal about skill challenges being equal in importance to combat encounters, and I'm guessing that every module was required to have at least one skill challenge.

Much virtual ink has been spilled elsewhere on the topic of skill challenges in 4e, but I think it's true that the majority of them stink to high heavens. A good skill challenge grows organically out of what the PCs are trying to do; requiring X successes before 3 failures is just plain artificial in many situations. Skill challenges CAN be fun and interesting, but most of them aren't.

So, it's not just you. But there's hope!

 

[AeroDm]

I think 4e is really flavorful just in different ways. In 3e silly little things like Meepo dominated the adventure but ended up becoming shared experiences that the entire community could relate to and discuss. In 4e, you teleport and travel to different worlds at relatively low levels which has a ton of flavor, just different flavor. It is tough to straight up compare the two.

It also doesn't help that the 3e adventures just before 4e were absolutely phenomenal.

 

[IanB]

A big part of the issue for me is they mostly abandoned their campaign settings, which is where almost all their best fluff work had been done in the past, going back to TSR days even. All the 4e flavor stuff is tied to the new cosmology and the undetailed 'default' PoL setting, neither of which had any existing traction with people, and the little snips here and there about the PoL setting in particular aren't super compelling without any larger context or coherency to place them in.

So we get a long series of modules, without a setting to call home, but that also feature some stuff that is very specific to the non-setting, in that they heavily involve the Raven Queen, which makes them hard to shoehorn into other settings. Most settings don't feature an unaligned/friendly death god (FR would be an exception, but even Wee Jas in Greyhawk doesn't work very well, since you know, really Nerull would be Orcus's main problem to deal with there.)

Add on top of things the fact that they're very early attempts at 4e adventure design and thus have a number of issues that you would expect from that and you end up with a very 'meh' experience.

That said I think that first adventure path in Dragon worked a little better, and if they'd actually stuck with getting one of those out per year they'd probably be in pretty good shape on this front by now. It took Paizo a while to find their feet as well, after all - look how much better Age of Worms was than Shackled City, and that's just after one try.

 

[D'karr]

Depends on what specific adventures you're looking at.

Goodman Games put out over a dozen adventures for 4e that were very good.

Reavers of Harkenwold from the new DM's kit, King of the Trollhaunt Warrens and The Slaying Stone from WotC are very good. More than a few Dungeon magazine adventures are also very good.

ENWorld's own War of the Burning Sky, good.

If you concentrate on the first few that came out of WotC, not very good.

 

[TerraDave]

Thunderspire, which may be the best of that first series, has a lot of interesting elements, but I would have a hard time pointing out the theme, other then chasing around some slaves in an series of underground locations. I liked it, but in hindsight, feels like less then the sum of its parts.

I am running the RPGA conversion of Tomb of Horrors. This is pretty awesome, full of flavourfull death, and a very clear theme. This is really coming from the original, but its a very strong conversion. The Tomb of Horrors book (the one you can get in stores), which is next for us, also looks very good. We will see.

 

[delericho]

Honestly, WotC adventures have never been very good, with just a few shining exceptions.

With 3e, that didn't matter because the third-party publishers and Paizo (then doing official adventures in Dungeon) filled the gap with some really good stuff.

Now, most of the 'big' names have moved away from D&D, leaving the field free for EN Publishing. Fortunately, "War of the Burning Sky" was good, and both "Zeitgeist" and "Santiago" look intriguing...

 

[Riastlin]

I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that 4e is such a different animal in many respects to prior editions. What worked well in prior editions doesn't necessarily work well in 4ed. Unfortunately, I think it took a lot of the writers some time to get comfortable with this fact. The problem though was that most of the modules (at least the ones published for retail sale) were released early on in 4ed's life cycle, meaning that in large part they were probably already written, or largely written before the books even came out -- thus not having the benefit of the awareness of how different the approach needed to be.

That being said, many of the later efforts have been much improved (like Reavers for instance). I think this is perhaps best illustrated by the Scales of War adventure path. The Heroic tier is largely a mess (more or less). There are a couple good adventures in there (Siege of Bordrin's Watch and Temple Between), but the others are at best bland, and at worst, just plain terrible. Take a look at Paragon tier though and the modules get a lot better (again IMHO). I think by the time they got around to publishing the paragon tier modules (starting about 8 months into 4ed's lifespan), the writers were getting a much better feel for what worked in 4ed.

So yeah, most of the ones published for retail sale were problematic, but they are getting better. Unfortunately, right now that largely means either buying expensive box sets you might not need, or perhaps a DDi subscription (there have been some quality mods in recent months as well).

 

[RangerWickett]

I hope that when ZEITGEIST comes out, it will be something that appeals to you.

 

[keterys]

I don't think that 4e means a module can't sizzle... heck, some of those sizzling modules from 3e I've done in 4e But, a very different set of people seem to be working on 4e, some of the same ones that did some awful boring stuff in 3e.

It's a bit more railroady than I'd like (a requirement for Living Forgotten Realms), though I fought hard to make it less so, but I'd like to think I worked a fair number of fun NPCs, locations, and concepts beyond just bland combats into the only 4e module I've worked on, and I don't think it would have had any more sizzle in another edition.