D&D 5E Princes vs Tyranny

[pukunui]

I have just had the distinct pleasure of being able to read both Tyranny of Dragons modules for the first time, followed in quick succession by Princes of the Apocalypse. Both stories are thus still fresh in my mind, and funnily enough, while my intention has been to follow up Lost Mine of Phandelver with Princes, I am actually finding myself drawn to Tyranny more.

I know the Tyranny modules have copped a lot of flak for being an error-riddled railroad, but I was actually quite pleasantly surprised when I read through them. Most of the errors are fairly minor and thus easy to resolve, and while it may be fairly linear, it looks to be a pretty wild ride!

One thing that I think Tyranny has in its favor is greater variety. It covers a lot more ground, both literally and figuratively. It serves as a mini-tour of the Sword Coast, and takes the PCs to a multitude of environments, including a swampy ruin, an alpine hunting lodge, a giant's flying castle, an iceberg, an extradimensional maze, and a volcanic caldera. Princes, on the other hand, takes place in a relatively small area and ends up feeling very samey-same after a while. Even with the side treks, I fear it could get boringly repetitive, as the main gist of the campaign involves doing the same thing four times, just with slightly different window dressing each time.

Also, Tyranny culminates in an epic battle against a god. Fighting an archomental in an elemental node just doesn't compare. If they'd finished off Princes with an encounter with the Elder Elemental Eye, that would be another thing, but since they didn't, the climax just doesn't seem to have the same wow factor.

Tyranny is also more straightforward. While I know a lot of people hate linear adventures, I think they can be a good thing for newer players. Sandboxes are nice and all, but being able to literally go anywhere and do anything can be a daunting prospect for inexperienced players. Giving them some direction and structure can be useful.

Lost Mine of Phandelver has been the first experience with D&D for most of the players in my home group (which consists of my wife, two friends of ours, and me). While Princes offers a convenient way to follow that up (seeing as it is next door to the Phandalin area and even provides some hooks from Lost Mine to Princes), I feel like Tyranny might provide a more satisfying experience for us.

 

[MerricB]

Lost Mine of Phandelver has been the first experience with D&D for most of the players in my home group (which consists of my wife, two friends of ours, and me). While Princes offers a convenient way to follow that up (seeing as it is next door to the Phandalin area and even provides some hooks from Lost Mine to Princes), I feel like Tyranny might provide a more satisfying experience for us.

Incidentally, you can move directly from Lost Mine to Hoard of the Dragon Queen - just start with Episode 5. If you get out your area map from Lost Mine (see here: http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140617), the Work Camp and Castle Naerytar are both in the Mere of Dead Men, just to the south of the map - in fact, they're even closer to Lost Mine than Princes is!

You'll be the right level. Just have the faction contacts in Lost Mine let the players know that the Cult has been active, tell them that the treasure has been tracked to the work camp, and let them find out where it goes from there.

Cheers!

 

[pukunui]

Yes, that's true. However, if I run Tyranny of Dragons, I think I'd prefer to start from the beginning without skipping anything.

 

[Zaran]

My only real problem with Tyranny of Dragons is that there is no room for my PCs to do anything else but save the world. They found out exactly what was going on from the cultist they captured for Greenest and from then on if they quit, then the world was toast. It's the worst kind of railroad that the players have to be on board with from the beginning and create their characters to work with that. If someone wants to overthrow their uncle waldo who killed their parents and took over their small fiefdom then they are going to be disappointed because if they did that then they can't save the world instead.

Also, I could give them truck loads of gold or 100 gold. It doesn't matter because they don't get a chance to spend it. At least not in Dairy Queen. I didn't read through Rinse of the Laundromat because I was that fed up with it. Tyranny might have a fantastic story where the heroes save the world but it takes a lot of the ability of the players to add to the story. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that a lot of players (and GMs) will not like that kind of thing.

If I ever did HotDQ again, I'd make sure that the players do not find out about what is going on until much later and I probably would throw out whole chapters and let the plot play out over years with the PCs stumbling on the cultists at different points in their lives.

Everything I have heard about the Princess of Hockey Pucks is that it's a more traditional set up where the PCs aren't held hostage to the plot and have more freedom to explore around.

 

[pukunui]

My only real problem with Tyranny of Dragons is that there is no room for my PCs to do anything else but save the world. They found out exactly what was going on from the cultist they captured for Greenest and from then on if they quit, then the world was toast. It's the worst kind of railroad that the players have to be on board with from the beginning and create their characters to work with that. If someone wants to overthrow their uncle waldo who killed their parents and took over their small fiefdom then they are going to be disappointed because if they did that then they can't save the world instead.

I can only see this being a problem if the DM didn't do a good enough job pitching the campaign. If I run Tyranny of Dragons, I intend to make it quite clear that this is a very focused campaign and there's not much room to go off and do your own thing - at least, not at first. There's more room for personal side quests in The Rise of Tiamat. That being said, HotDQ provides a page of bonds and two substitute background features that can tie the PCs into the campaign on a more personal level and give them a vested interest in going all the way.

Also, I could give them truck loads of gold or 100 gold. It doesn't matter because they don't get a chance to spend it.

I'm not sure why that's a problem. Not every D&D campaign has to be about amassing loads of wealth.

... just that a lot of players (and GMs) will not like that kind of thing.

Which is perfectly fine. I'm not trying to say that Tyranny is *better* than Princes, just that for various reasons, I am finding it to be more appealing to me right now.

Everything I have heard about the Princess of Hockey Pucks is that it's a more traditional set up where the PCs aren't held hostage to the plot and have more freedom to explore around.

What's with all the cutesy names?

Yes, the PCs have more freedom, but as I said, the freedom to go anywhere and do anything can be daunting for inexperienced players. My wife, in particular, frequently asks me what she is supposed to be doing? I keep telling her whatever she wants her character to do, but it's clear to me that she craves more direction.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that linear adventures aren't *always* or *inherently* bad. For the right group of players, they can be the perfect thing (whereas an open-ended sandbox like Princes might be precisely the wrong thing for that same group). Neither style - "railroad" or "sandbox" - is inherently superior to the other. They are just different methods for achieving a similar result - namely, to have fun while creating good memories with other people.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, that's true. However, if I run Tyranny of Dragons, I think I'd prefer to start from the beginning without skipping anything.

Then have fun!

I really enjoyed the Hoard/Rise adventures. One thing I really recommend is playing them with milestones: The Rise of Tiamat, in particular, is designed that way.

I get much more of an epic feel from Hoard/Rise than I do from Princes, largely due to the scale it works on. Hoard is relatively small-scale, although there's a lot of travelling, as you're just discovering what's going on. One thing to remember is that even as the party are following the treasure, agents of the factions are gathering information on the Cult from other activities as well.

However, everything changes after Skyreach Castle. The destruction/liberation of the castle raises the credibility of the party significantly in the eyes of the factions, and that Onthar Frume and Leosin helped sponsor the characters' mission allows them to be introduced to the Council of Waterdeep. From there, it's all about getting a feeling for how dangerous the Cult is from the reports of the council members, while dealing with some of the bigger threats that come up.

All of which then culminates in the March on the Well of Dragons.

Princes of the Apocalypse is a different beast. It's very close to an old-school megadungeon, although with a lot of modern elements, including advice on how to bring the warring factions to life; something that I felt was greatly lacking from Temple of Elemental Evil and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. A little bit of scale is given through the side quests in Chapter 6, but I'm not quite getting the same scale of adventure from it as from Tyranny. This is actually a good thing - we don't want all adventures to be the same!

The biggest problems with Hoard/Rise come from some of the encounters needing a little more work - probably the one that requires the most attention is the final fight at the Well of Dragons, as it would be nice if there were more guidelines for how the opposition changes dependent on the allies the party has. Structurally, it's very strong. Actually, it's one of the strongest structures I've seen in an adventure. Most of the action flows naturally from one section to the next. Yes, it's relatively linear, but almost every adventure path from Paizo is similarly linear.

What Tyranny does well is have your actions have an effect later down the line. What you did with the hatchery in Episode 3 of Hoard of the Dragon Queen factors into what allies you have when you come to the final battle of The Rise of Tiamat. There are very, very few adventures which care that much.

Cheers!

 

[pukunui]

Then have fun!

Thanks. I hope to!

I really enjoyed the Hoard/Rise adventures. One thing I really recommend is playing them with milestones: The Rise of Tiamat, in particular, is designed that way.

I've been using XP for Lost Mine but generally I prefer not to, so yes, I would use the milestone levelling with ToD.

Princes of the Apocalypse is a different beast. It's very close to an old-school megadungeon, although with a lot of modern elements, including advice on how to bring the warring factions to life; something that I felt was greatly lacking from Temple of Elemental Evil and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. A little bit of scale is given through the side quests in Chapter 6, but I'm not quite getting the same scale of adventure from it as from Tyranny. This is actually a good thing - we don't want all adventures to be the same!

I've never played through either ToEE adventure. Are they both as repetitive as Princes? I do appreciate that each elemental cult is different, but ultimately, I'm not sure those differences are enough. I'm just worried that it will get really boring and repetitive once the PCs get down into the dungeon.

Yes, it's relatively linear, but almost every adventure path from Paizo is similarly linear.

What Tyranny does well is have your actions have an effect later down the line. What you did with the hatchery in Episode 3 of Hoard of the Dragon Queen factors into what allies you have when you come to the final battle of The Rise of Tiamat. There are very, very few adventures which care that much.

Yes! I got that sense too.

I'm most of the way through Age of Worms right now (we're at level 16), and I would say that, in some cases, it's actually been a worse railroad that ToD appears to be. There have been times where there's clearly been only one way to succeed, and others where it's been obvious that the adventure won't let us take any shortcuts. It also doesn't feel like our actions have had any effect on the outcome. We're just being sent from one random place to the next, finding little crumbs of clues while the bad guys go about their business unhindered.

 

[Umbran]

My only real problem with Tyranny of Dragons is that there is no room for my PCs to do anything else but save the world.

Your critique, then, is basically that the adventure path product you bought is, in fact, an adventure path, and not, say, a sandbox setting product?

I don't know about you, but when my group and I are expecting for the PCs to do their own thing, I don't pick up a published adventure. In general, a publisher can't know what my PCs come up with as their own wants and desires, as they are very specific to the people at my table. So, of course, a published adventure really can't be designed with player-driven content in mind. That pretty much has to be homebrewed.

 

[Zaran]

Your critique, then, is basically that the adventure path product you bought is, in fact, an adventure path, and not, say, a sandbox setting product?

I don't know about you, but when my group and I are expecting for the PCs to do their own thing, I don't pick up a published adventure. In general, a publisher can't know what my PCs come up with as their own wants and desires, as they are very specific to the people at my table. So, of course, a published adventure really can't be designed with player-driven content in mind. That pretty much has to be homebrewed.

Correct. I probably shouldn't have bought it. I wanted to get what I could have 5e and start playing immediately and was disappointed in my purchase. That being said there are adventure paths that have more room and don't have a condensed time line of events. The 4e adventure path in Dungeon was one.

 

[MerricB]

I've never played through either ToEE adventure. Are they both as repetitive as Princes?

More, in a lot of ways.

The original ToEE is a very problematic product, as it was unfinished when Gary Gygax left TSR. Frank Mentzer finished it, and it's sort of okay, but the concept behind it is much stronger than the execution. It can be great, but it needs a DM adding in a lot of action from the NPCs and reacting to what the players do. Yes, a good DM will do that anyway, but without much in the way of suggestions it's a lot of work.

You can feel the difference as you go from Hommlet to Nulb. Hommlet has a lot of detail (and spies and the like), but Nulb is empty. All in all, it's a disappointing adventure.

RttToEE has a little more variety, but it doesn't have much in the way of side-quests and tends to focus entirely too much on the dungeoncrawl. I used parts of it to finish off my 4E campaign last year, and I was very glad I wasn't running the entire thing.

I'm most of the way through Age of Worms right now (we're at level 16), and I would say that, in some cases, it's actually been a worse railroad that ToD appears to be. There have been times where there's clearly been only one way to succeed, and others where it's been obvious that the adventure won't let us take any shortcuts. It also doesn't feel like our actions have had any effect on the outcome. We're just being sent from one random place to the next, finding little crumbs of clues while the bad guys go about their business unhindered.

I ran Age of Worms when it first came out, and I completely agree. (For my mechanical problems with the 3E AoW see here: How Paizo made me hate 3E). Age of Worms has some fantastic sections - The Prince of Redhand in particular - but in a lot of ways its the archetypal Paizo AP: you need to optimize your PCs incredibly to face the challenges.

Cheers!