D&D 5E L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown

[Salamandyr]

The difference between "railroad" and "signal" is a very fine line indeed

This is one of the areas where I'll give Sunless Citadel credit. It has "signals" but it's not a railroad. There's an arc to it, but it's up to the PC's to follow it, and it gives them enough clues to do so.

 

[Imaro]

I think it *was* factored in. That's why the very first encounter was 5 minions and 3 kobolds... they couldn't get any simpler of a first encounter. But the game itself is a tactically complex game when it comes to combat and is in many ways is very different from any of the previous editions. So those first several encounters are set up directly to help bring players up to speed on what combat is, and what their PCs can do. The improv is the improv-- that part of the roleplaying game is no different than any previous RPG, so there's no need to get most of the players "up to speed" on that, as it were. Most of the people playing the module know what roleplaying is, so the module is more focused on teaching the new and different style of tactical combat, rather than putting the focus on the improv.

You are arguing against a claim I never made. The issue I've noted with KotS is that it has stretches of fight, after fight, after fight, after fight which, when coupled with the inherent length of combat in 4e creates large areas of boring slog-fests. This, not the complexity of a single fight in the beginning of the module is what I am speaking too.

Now, did that not really help those players who were *completely* new to the RPG genre of games? I agree, not much at all. But then again, I'd submit that very few introductory modules have ever really taught new players how to do the improv part of roleplaying games either. So its not like KotS was an outlier on that in any way. They ALL just say "Interact with these NPCs!" but don't exactly go out of their way to show or tell you what they mean by that.

Again... I didn't address this point so I'm not sure why you are mentioning it...

Now if you want to argue that 4E tactical combat is too complex in itself... then that's a different story. But that has nothing to do with the module... that's entirely based on the game rules. Which KotS had no impact on.

The first post above states my main issue with the module...

Simple disagreement here. Each PC has two at-wills, an encounter and a daily. Four things to look at (5 if they were human). You give an experienced group of players a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger, and Wizard with the basic powers from the first PHB for those classes that they have seen played for five years now... there's barely ANY time needed to "think about things". Wizard drops a Scorching Burst on as many minions as he can his first turn. Cleric fires Lance of Faith at a Kobold Dragonshield. Fighter runs up to that Dragonshield in melee... Cleaves if he's now adjacent to two enemies, Reaping Strike if he's adjacent to one. Ranger Twin Strikes two more minions that the Wizard missed with the Burst. Rogue flanks the Fighter and Sneak Attacks the Kobold Dragonshield between them. By the end of that first round, probably all the minions are dead, along with one real kobold (with a second one hurt). Rinse and repeat over the next round (or two, if the kobolds are lucky) and combat is over.

If it really takes you 45 minutes to run that first KotS combat now... I'd really question things.

Actually they have racial powers as well... can take a second wind as an action... have action points that can be used, and so on, so I think there are a few more things to look at than you are presenting. Also, how does the wizard know which monsters are minions?... did the fighter mark, did he remember combat superiority when/if it's triggered? Why arent' the kobolds doing anything in your example, is it a certainty all the PC's were able to beat them in inititiative? If not this combat could go totally different and not in the PC's favor. I just don't see 3-4 rounds of combat in 4e being over in 7-8 minutes... but hey maybe you can accomplish speed combat in 4e, though I'm not sure I would necessarily want to have to play like that.

 

[Imaro]

It's pretty simple really. You've already provided the backstory in an earlier post. The PC's will gear up and fare forth to the Sunless Citadel intent on fulfilling the requirements of whatever hook the DM chose to emphasize (or all of them). Unless the DM has gone to the trouble of pointing up that the monsters in question have only engaged in marginally suspicious behavior, they'll probably assume, based on prior experience with either this game or cultural immersion, "monsters bad, kill em". They'll go in the dungeon, fight their way to the end, possibly allying with Meepo, and eventually fight their way to the bad guy, overcome him, get a magic sword, and go home.

Yeah, I'm with The Jester... this is so broad as to make almost anything "story"... basically it's the story of almost every module ever made, explore something and kill some monsters. IMO the story is how this is accomplished... which varies between groups.

 

[Salamandyr]

Yeah, I'm with The Jester... this is so broad as to make almost anything "story"... basically it's the story of almost every module ever made, explore something and kill some monsters. IMO the story is how this is accomplished... which varies between groups.

I can think of a couple of modules where there really is no story...Keep on the Borderlands, for instance. There's no villain, only the barest of threats. It's a cast of characters who have been given no motivation. They're just there, waiting for a DM to decide what they're doing. No story, just a setting.

Temple of Elemental Evil almost has a story, but misses out in the end I think. There is a main villain, but it's a prisoner, and there is a good chance the PC's will never face her. The sub-villains are plotting...something. But it's such a nebulous plot that until the PC's show up nothing will ever happen. So while there is some motivation floating around, there's no real arc, no expected climax, just a bunch of possibilities, so it misses being a story in and of itself.

But Sunless Citadel is different. It has an arc, the characters have a reason to go there, they have a mystery to solve, and a main villain who is the mover and shaker of everything going on that they have to thwart in a climactic battle. There is something going on and what the PC's do will affect what happens. That's a story. What the characters do in between the exposition and the climactic fight with the major bad guy is the kind of adventure filler. But it's a story-no matter what the players do, the world at the end will be different from the world at the beginning.

And writers of modules generally have some idea of how they want the world to change, even if the players don't actually cooperate.

 

[DEFCON 1]

... but hey maybe you can accomplish speed combat in 4e, though I'm not sure I would necessarily want to have to play like that.

If you're bemoaning the fact that 4E combat takes too long... why on earth wouldn't you want to be able to play like that?

 

[Imaro]

If you're bemoaning the fact that 4E combat takes too long... why on earth wouldn't you want to be able to play like that?

Because it's more like work than having fun, and there are a multitude of systems that I don't have that problem with while still running and playing at a relaxed pace...

EDIT: To give a little clarity, I've seen suggestions to use timers on people where they forfeit their turn if they don't act in a certain amount of time, to cut out chit chat, and so on... but for me and my group this makes the game feel like a job instead of something we are doing for enjoyment.

 

[pemerton]

I think part of the reason ExploderWizard feels that 4e is "railroady" is that the published adventures (at least the early ones) were really focused on the encounters.

If people are going to judge an edition's Merit based on adventures produced by WOTC for that edition, then late era 2e, 3e, AND 4e suck

I tend to agree with JeffB here. I'm thinking of a couple of 3E modules - Expedition to the Demon Web Pits, and Bastion of Broken Souls - and as written, they are nothing but strings of pre-scripted scenes which the players must move their PCs through more-or-less in the order written or the adventure won't work as written. Bastion of Broken Souls even has NPCs (the angel-gate, the exiled god) who won't negotiate and will always fight to the death.

When I ran Bastion of Broken Souls I just ignored those directions to the GM. When I use 4e modules, I ignore similar directions. 4e doesn't raise any special problems here.

Thus we get to the root of the problem. There is literally nothing for the players to accomplish that isn't simply pushing a button (rolling a die).

Huh? I've played a lot of classic D&D (B/X, AD&D) and action resolution in those systems involves dice-rolling too. For instance, in the back of Moldvay Basic there is a discussion of how a GM might resolve a player jumping over a cliff in the dungeon to escape from overwhelming enemies, and it suggests a low percentage chance of landing safely in a stream below.

That doesn't make B/X a railroad or devoid of meaningful choices - the choice whether to stand and fight, or to jump, seems reasonably meaningful. 4e is no different in this respect.

I ran a 4E campaign for over a year, sandbox style and never needed a single skill challenge. There was certainly skill use when required. More complex situations were simply roleplayed out. The chief determining factor in the resolution of those situations was active player input. Meaningful contributions by the players is what maintains interest and investment in the game.

Obviously player input and meaningful contributions are what maintains interest and investment in the game. That is completely orthogonal to skill challenges - which are about the method for determining the outcome of those player contributions. (As opposed to GM fiat, which is an alternative resolution technique but not necessarily an antidote for railroading.)

B/X has more helpful DM advice in this respect in its meager 128 pages than the whole library of 4E DMGs.

I actually don't reacall that B/X has any advice on avoiding railroading. It is focused more on various techniques of action resolution (in the absence of a uniform resolution system) and dungeon stocking. But if there's stuff I've forgotten I'm happy to be reminded!

Those games are not D&D.

Who said they are?

I never said 4E encourages GMs to ignore action declaration. It does (at least as the published adventures I have read indicate) limit those action types depending on the framed scene.

This is like saying that because Keep on the Borderlands doesn't tell me the difficulty of negotiating with the evil priest, but does tell me AC and hp for that NPC, therefore the players can't talk and can only fight.

Gygax took for granted that the GM would use the appropriate action resolution techniques to respond to player declarations of action. 4e is no different. If the PCs want to negotiate with an NPC, the game has the mechanics for resolving that.

If you have played with GMs who ignore player action declarations - and so, for instance, just ignore players who declare negotiation attempts on the part of their PCs, and only accept declarations of combat actions - then I have some sympathy. How did those GMs cope with 3E and earlier modules which only provided combat stats for NPCs?

 

[keterys]

I hear edition warring isn't allowed here.

Just saying.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I hear edition warring isn't allowed here.

Word.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I tend to agree with JeffB here. I'm thinking of a couple of 3E modules - Expedition to the Demon Web Pits, and Bastion of Broken Souls - and as written, they are nothing but strings of pre-scripted scenes which the players must move their PCs through more-or-less in the order written or the adventure won't work as written. Bastion of Broken Souls even has NPCs (the angel-gate, the exiled god) who won't negotiate and will always fight to the death.

When I ran Bastion of Broken Souls I just ignored those directions to the GM. When I use 4e modules, I ignore similar directions. 4e doesn't raise any special problems here.

I can see why it's a minor problem to you, being a good creative DM with time to spare to modify and/or basically create your own adventures (at least that's my impression of you). This isn't really the case for me, and probably isn't the case for nearly all new DM's (in my opinion). You might say that previous editions are just as bad, but I don't really agree with you there. Previous editions often had much less detailed encounters, which in this case is a benefit to a new DM, since he just can't run the adventures as written, he has to come up with some stuff by himself, or there just isn't enough content. Sure, it was harder, but new DM's weren't railroaded into a path of little creativity, which I think is one of the reasons 4e isn't generally viewed as a good edition.

I think 4e skill challenges is probably the worst example of the edition. It's a new mechanic which I actually like, but if you try to learn how to run one by using the skill challenges described in the first module Keep on the Shadowfell, they don't really work out (in my opinion). Sure it's only one module, but it's free and one that they want you to use to try out the game!

I think much too little effort is being put into the first adventures that are made and into examples of good gameplay. Instead the effort has just been put into the rulebooks, and later on expansions on the character creation. I really feel that this is one of 4e's biggest shortcomings. I don't think there is a single 4e module that has gained a reptutation. I know 3e had some, among others Red Hand of Doom (which I have run and really liked) and 2e and 1e certainly have a lot.

Regarding the "editon warring" comments, I don't quite get it, 4e is the game I am currently playing, but it doesn't mean I have to like all of it and critize the problem areas and hope they don't repeat them in 5e?