D&D 5E (2014) PotA Worth Buying?

[Jester David]

So does PotA deserve its high rating or is it mostly people rating it due to it being pretty? Is iteasier than HotDQ to sex it up a bit or add the elements of a plotline or some interesting NPCs or is it more or a explore a bit and find dungeons to hack up? How would you rate it vs adventures of the cailbre of.

You're overthinking it.

Let me answer your question with another question:
Would your group be interested in running through a megadungeon campaign where they spend 75% of their time dungeon crawling?
If yes, look up Princess of the Apocalypse. If no, maybe wait to see how Out of the Abyss reviews.
It's really as simple as that. Everything else is just adding complications to the issue.

Savage Tide AP
Rise of the Runelords AP
Kingmaker AP
The Night Below (2E)
Assault of Blacktooth Ridge (C&C)
Skull and Shackles AP
Nights Dark error (B10 BECMI)

As these are some of the better adventures I have run/looked at over the last 3 years or so. It doesn't sound dreadful at least and I am wondering if I should just rate for RoD and get a double deal. IDK if I will run it either but might see if I can talk one of my players into running it so if it is on the easy side that is fine as a few my players do some random (read very suboptimal) things at times.

This is tricky to evaluate, as Pathfinder APs have soooo much more content. Not only because the stories are larger, but because characters advance so much slower and require that many more encounters. And, also, Paizo has really gotten good at planning and making APs.
That said, it seems disingenuous to compare WotC's adventures only to the most popular of Pathfinder's APs. Of course PotA is going to compare unfavorably to Rise of the Runelords or Skull & Shackles. But there are seventeen of them now. A better question would be "how does PotA compare to Curse of the Crimson Throne or Second Darkness?

 

[Corpsetaker]

Have you actually read or played it to come to that conclusion?

Yes I have.

Do I have your permission to have my own opinion?

 

[delericho]

That said, it seems disingenuous to compare WotC's adventures only to the most popular of Pathfinder's APs. Of course PotA is going to compare unfavorably to Rise of the Runelords or Skull & Shackles. But there are seventeen of them now. A better question would be "how does PotA compare to Curse of the Crimson Throne or Second Darkness?

The problem with that argument is that PotA has entered a marketplace where Rise of the Runelords and Skull and Shackles already exist. So that is the competition that PotA is up against. If WotC want to be taken seriously for their adventures, they're going to have to be able to hang with the best of them.

As for how good PotA itself is: my impressions based on my partial read-through are that it's a distinct improvement on "Tyranny of Dragons", but still not all that good - I'd probably be inclined to give it the dreaded three-star review (except that I gave "Hoard..." three stars, and this one is better). And, in particular, I'm surprised at how little of this 256-page book is actually dedicated to the adventure - there's a lot of supporting material in there!

But, having said that, I am only about a quarter of the way through the book, so it's entirely possible that I might hit gold in a few more pages! So treat what I've just said with a pinch or more of salt.

 

[Blackwarder]

I honestly don't get all the negative talks about Tyranny of Dragons, I started running the adventure a couple of months ago dreading the experience because of all the bad reviews, but my group love it, in fact they loved it so much that we switched from a bi-weakly game to a weakly game (I got a bunch of dads with small kids in that group). They like the story and the episode and the fact that they are saving the world right from the start, granted, chapter 4 was meh at best, but that's mainly because I haven't had time to prep and we were forced to squeeze it all into a session and a half but everything else is awesome.

I also started running Princes of the Appocalypse at the same time to a different group and they are also having a blast, although they are frustrated because they don't understand what's going on.

As a DM I find HotDQ easier to prep and run than PotA, mainly because the sandbox nature of PotA coupled with the layout of the book makes it hard to keep track of what happened or happening.

Warder

 

[Mistwell]

Yes I have.

Do I have your permission to have my own opinion?

Yes, do I have your permission to ask the basis of your opinion? I mean, are you really saying it's unfair of me to ask if you read a book you're critiquing? You've never in the past mentioned that you bought this book, though you've posted about it many times. This is the first mention I've seen from you of having read or played it that I can recall. I don't think it's an unfair question to ask how you formed your opinion. If you're saying you have, I believe you. So which is it - did you read it, or play it?

 

[Mistwell]

The problem with that argument is that PotA has entered a marketplace where Rise of the Runelords and Skull and Shackles already exist. So that is the competition that PotA is up against. If WotC want to be taken seriously for their adventures, they're going to have to be able to hang with the best of them.

Paizo authors wrote the WOTC adventures. When those identical authors write Pathfinder adventures, they don't get critiqued to the same level. I think that's the source of frustration here - WOTC literally can't win here. They go out of their way to hire people who also work for Paizo, and they're called outsourcers. And then when it comes to talking about the adventure itself, suddenly they're called WOTC adventures again, and compared unfavorably to Paizo adventures. It's a shifting standard, which always works out negative for WOTC depending on what portion of the topic is being discussed.

Which is why I am glad Morrus started the review section. You get a much better, more representative sample of opinions from people who have actually read and/or run these things that way, than you do in a thread like this.

And the bottom line when you compare this adventure's reviews to those two adventures you mentioned is it comes out pretty darn well relative to those adventures. For example I checked it - this adventure has more reviews than Rise of the Runelords, and is rated better (91% vs 85%). Skull and Shackles gets only a 79% vs. the 91%. So if you're asking how it compares to those two adventures based on people who actually post reviews - it compares very favorably. More people have posted reviews, and of those who have posted reviews, people rate it better than those two adventures.

 

[Michael Long]

Paizo authors wrote the WOTC adventures. When those identical authors write Pathfinder adventures, they don't get critiqued to the same level. I think that's the source of frustration here - WOTC literally can't win here. They go out of their way to hire people who also work for Paizo, and they're called outsourcers. And then when it comes to talking about the adventure itself, suddenly they're called WOTC adventures again, and compared unfavorably to Paizo adventures. It's a shifting standard, which always works out negative for WOTC depending on what portion of the topic is being discussed.

Which is why I am glad Morrus started the review section. You get a much better, more representative sample of opinions from people who have actually read and/or run these things that way, than you do in a thread like this.

And the bottom line when you compare this adventure's reviews to those two adventures you mentioned is it comes out pretty darn well relative to those adventures. For example I checked it - this adventure has more reviews than Rise of the Runelords, and is rated better (91% vs 85%). Skull and Shackles gets only a 79% vs. the 91%. So if you're asking how it compares to those two adventures based on people who actually post reviews - it compares very favorably. More people have posted reviews, and of those who have posted reviews, people rate it better than those two adventures.

I like the reviews, but wish it was a little easier to just rank it 1 to 5 stars and move on. Plus, once you rate it I don't see a way to change that rating, [like if they revised it] other than creating a new Review Page for the new product.

 

[delericho]

Paizo authors wrote the WOTC adventures. When those identical authors write Pathfinder adventures, they don't get critiqued to the same level. I think that's the source of frustration here - WOTC literally can't win here. They go out of their way to hire people who also work for Paizo, and they're called outsourcers.

"Outsourcing" isn't a dirty word.

And then when it comes to talking about the adventure itself, suddenly they're called WOTC adventures again, and compared unfavorably to Paizo adventures.

If they're not as good then of course the comparison will be an unfavourable one. And IMO "Tyranny of Dragons" isn't as good as "Rise of the Runelords". But exactly the same is true of, say, "Second Darkness" - it also compares unfavourably with RotRL.

But when someone asks what AP to buy, they won't be directed to "Second Darkness" - they'll be pointed to RotRL, or "Skull & Shackles", or "Kingmaker". If WotC want their new storylines to be mentioned alongside the best, that's the standard that they have to hit.

And as you point out, WotC have many of the best in the business writing their adventures for them. They should be able to stand comparison with the best.

It's a shifting standard, which always works out negative for WOTC depending on what portion of the topic is being discussed.

See my review of the D&D Starter Set, or more specifically "Lost Mine of Phandelver". I give credit where it's due - and that adventure is due it in spades. IMO, "Tyranny of Dragons" is not, which is why I say as much. (And, as I said in my previous post, I'm not in a position to give anything other than a very provisional opinion of PotA.)

I can't speak for anyone else, of course.

You get a much better, more representative sample of opinions from people who have actually read and/or run these things...

There is absolutely no guarantee that anyone writing a review has read and/or run (or even seen) any of the products in question. And it would be the work of a few moments to post a "call for reviews" over on Paizo.com and garner any of their Paths a whole bunch of 5-star reviews.

 

[Mistwell]

"Outsourcing" isn't a dirty word.

If most people take it as a bad thing, then it's a bad thing. It really doesn't matter if some dictionary definition paints it in neutral tones, or if you feel neutral about it. All that matters is how it comes across to most people - and it comes across as a negative to most people. We've run a sufficiently large test right here at EnWorld and the Wizards boards, seen the reactions of a sizable number of D&D fans, and can draw at least some conclusions from that sample that it's being taken as a negative. So, it's a negative in this context - even if you disagree, even if a dictionary disagrees.

If they're not as good then of course the comparison will be an unfavourable one.

Missed the point by a mile. Not as good AS WHAT? It's a "WOTC" adventure when talking about a comparison to "Paizo adventures". But it's a Sasquatch Game Studio adventure when talking about the business end and outsourcing. It's a disingenuous moving standard. When Richard Baker, Stephen Schubert, and David Noonan write a Pathfinder adventure, there is none of this crap about outsourcing. And when that Pathfinder adventure is compared, it's compared based on reviews.

And IMO "Tyranny of Dragons" isn't as good as "Rise of the Runelords"

Well Tyranny got a 75%, and Rise got an 85%. So, that's consistent with the reviews. Second Darkness got 50% by the way.

But when someone asks what AP to buy, they won't be directed to "Second Darkness" - they'll be pointed to RotRL, or "Skull & Shackles", or "Kingmaker". If WotC want their new storylines to be mentioned alongside the best, that's the standard that they have to hit.

They hit and exceeded that standard with PotA (which is the thread topic). PotA is at 91.5%, with a lot of reviews in. In a comparison: Rise is at 85%, Second Darkness is at 50%, Skull & Shackles is at 79%, Kingmaker is at 70.5%. How is that not them being worthy of mention alongside those adventures? It got the best rating, it had a larger sample size for that rating, seems like it's fair to mention it along side those other fine adventures as also a fine adventure.

And as you point out, WotC have many of the best in the business writing their adventures for them. They should be able to stand comparison with the best.

Agreed, and they do. They shouldn't however have a different standard. They should not be treated as "outsourcing" when other companies don't get treated that way for identical authorship of their adventures. They shouldn't get treated as "the Reviews section isn't good enough of a standard" when comparing reviews, when it was considered perfectly good for rating the adventures of other companies. It's the constant double standard that I don't like - the shifting of goals and criteria whenever focusing on a WOTC product in ways that are never done for the products of other companies.

There is absolutely no guarantee that anyone writing a review has read and/or run (or even seen) any of the products in question. And it would be the work of a few moments to post a "call for reviews" over on Paizo.com and garner any of their Paths a whole bunch of 5-star reviews.

When you read the reviews - which is obvious you have not done so - you will see it would be very difficult to post any of those reviews without having at least read it. They're written (obviously) by people who have read the adventures and put the time in to provide a review. They're not just pat "Oh wow this is awesome!".

The second part of your comment is my point about double standards. This isn't the WOTC board full of WOTC fans just posting automatic positive reviews. And for years WOTC wasn't even publishing anything for the game and this board was full of Pathfinder fans who were honestly and sincerely reviewing Pathfinder products - there is nothing about the reviews of those Pathfinder adventures that suggests anything was being skewed or unfairly reviewed or reviewed by people who never read the adventure. And nobody has ever complained (that I am aware of) that the reviews for those Pathfinder adventures were anything other than fair and rationale and well thought out honest reviews. That system was perfectly good for Pathfinder reviews.

But now comes WOTC products, a couple of their products got positive reviews (not even all of them - as I said, Tyranny isn't stacking up so well), and suddenly that entire Reviews section is being questioned with the implication it's flawed and shouldn't be trusted in any way.

It's a double standard. Obviously so, to anyone paying attention. It's unwarrented. The Reviews section is a good one. It's not going to be perfect, as no system is perfect. But it's pretty darn good, and it's not being unduly biased by over the top fans in any particular direction. It's not biased in favor of WOTC products and their fans, any more than the Pathfinder adventure reviews were being biased. It's a reasonable fair, thoughtful, thorough, and honest Reviews section. It is that for Paizo products, and it is that for WOTC products. And it's a double standard and disingenuous to pretend otherwise, but only suddenly when WOTC products are being reviewed.

 

[Corpsetaker]

If most people take it as a bad thing, then it's a bad thing. It really doesn't matter if some dictionary definition paints it in neutral tones, or if you feel neutral about it. All that matters is how it comes across to most people - and it comes across as a negative to most people. We've run a sufficiently large test right here at EnWorld and the Wizards boards, seen the reactions of a sizable number of D&D fans, and can draw at least some conclusions from that sample that it's being taken as a negative. So, it's a negative in this context - even if you disagree, even if a dictionary disagrees.



Missed the point by a mile. Not as good AS WHAT? It's a "WOTC" adventure when talking about a comparison to "Paizo adventures". But it's a Sasquatch Game Studio adventure when talking about the business end and outsourcing. It's a disingenuous moving standard. When Richard Baker, Stephen Schubert, and David Noonan write a Pathfinder adventure, there is none of this crap about outsourcing. And when that Pathfinder adventure is compared, it's compared based on reviews.



Well Tyranny got a 75%, and Rise got an 85%. So, that's consistent with the reviews. Second Darkness got 50% by the way.



They hit and exceeded that standard with PotA (which is the thread topic). PotA is at 91.5%, with a lot of reviews in. In a comparison: Rise is at 85%, Second Darkness is at 50%, Skull & Shackles is at 79%, Kingmaker is at 70.5%. How is that not them being worthy of mention alongside those adventures? It got the best rating, it had a larger sample size for that rating, seems like it's fair to mention it along side those other fine adventures as also a fine adventure.



Agreed, and they do. They shouldn't however have a different standard. They should not be treated as "outsourcing" when other companies don't get treated that way for identical authorship of their adventures. They shouldn't get treated as "the Reviews section isn't good enough of a standard" when comparing reviews, when it was considered perfectly good for rating the adventures of other companies. It's the constant double standard that I don't like - the shifting of goals and criteria whenever focusing on a WOTC product in ways that are never done for the products of other companies.



When you read the reviews - which is obvious you have not done so - you will see it would be very difficult to post any of those reviews without having at least read it. They're written (obviously) by people who have read the adventures and put the time in to provide a review. They're not just pat "Oh wow this is awesome!".

The second part of your comment is my point about double standards. This isn't the WOTC board full of WOTC fans just posting automatic positive reviews. And for years WOTC wasn't even publishing anything for the game and this board was full of Pathfinder fans who were honestly and sincerely reviewing Pathfinder products - there is nothing about the reviews of those Pathfinder adventures that suggests anything was being skewed or unfairly reviewed or reviewed by people who never read the adventure. And nobody has ever complained (that I am aware of) that the reviews for those Pathfinder adventures were anything other than fair and rationale and well thought out honest reviews. That system was perfectly good for Pathfinder reviews.

But now comes WOTC products, a couple of their products got positive reviews (not even all of them - as I said, Tyranny isn't stacking up so well), and suddenly that entire Reviews section is being questioned with the implication it's flawed and shouldn't be trusted in any way.

It's a double standard. Obviously so, to anyone paying attention. It's unwarrented. The Reviews section is a good one. It's not going to be perfect, as no system is perfect. But it's pretty darn good, and it's not being unduly biased by over the top fans in any particular direction. It's not biased in favor of WOTC products and their fans, any more than the Pathfinder adventure reviews were being biased. It's a reasonable fair, thoughtful, thorough, and honest Reviews section. It is that for Paizo products, and it is that for WOTC products. And it's a double standard and disingenuous to pretend otherwise, but only suddenly when WOTC products are being reviewed.

Because there is a difference with regards to Pathfinder fans and D&D fans.

If you go and spend a significant amount of time on the Paizo boards and the Wizards boards, you will see a difference in the fans. Paizo fans do not hold back and will just as easily talk negative about Paizo products as they will praise them. Wizards fans are not the same, well those that frequent the Wizards boards anyway.

I mean let's use you for an example. Anytime anyone has a criticism of Wizards products you are all over them. "Did you actually play it?" You come off as very aggressive and as a defender. This type of attitude is why I don't go to the Wizards boards.