D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[Helldritch]

Was it?

Waterdeep: Dragon Heist | Dungeons & Dragons

Learn more about Waterdeep: Dragon Heist from Dungeons & Dragons.

dnd.wizards.com

Wizards of the Coast D&d Waterdeep Dragon Heist Hc (D&d Adventure) : Wizards RPG Team: Amazon.co.uk: Toys & Games

Free delivery and returns on eligible orders. Buy Wizards of the Coast D&d Waterdeep Dragon Heist Hc (D&d Adventure) at Amazon UK.

www.amazon.co.uk

Neither the Wizards nor more in-depth Amazon descriptions mention that (unless I'm being blind!). It's still objectively bad design, but I agree that there is clearly dishonest marketing at play here too.

Thank you. But I think it was mentionned in a pod cast or something. Not mentionning it in the product itself or the advertisement was bad. But capitalism, capitalism mon Capitaine!

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, I like that he takes time to do it. Not necessarily the amount if time he takes. There was more to his post than this little part.

You like to nit pock on small parts but you often fail to see the whole picture/post into account ( or simply do not wish to). That is your prerogative.

He does not seems to have the experience you or I have in DMing. For him, taking that much time is commendable and with experience, he will get faster. For you and I... something would be wrong.

You seem to have not read my whole post either. I am probably not being as concise as needed. But here it is. I bolded the part that responds to your last paragraph.

Add all that up and you might find it takes a few hours for each session. Not minutes. And as I stated before, if I want to improv or just glance at the characters and play the stubborn dwarf who isn't trying to convey information related to an entire book's worth of material, then no problem. My prep time is zero seconds. But, again, to run it as intended, takes time.
You are right though. If I want to read it, scribble some notes, improv each character, read the text box the AP provides, and force the player's down the railroad. You got it. 15-20 prep time per session, max. And I am also saying, there is nothing wrong with that. I've done it. I imagine every experienced DM has done it. It can be fun. But, for the long haul, as a player and DM, I prefer my DM to have things thought out.

It takes no time to run an AP. Read. Scribble some notes. Done.
But if I want to do it justice, tailor it to my players, and make it memorable, not just another session, then I put in the extra time. Of course, life does not always allow for that. Which is why I can do both, but prefer the more thoughtful approach.

 

[Scott Christian]

Thanks, this is interesting! I shall avoid all of the above.

Re: 5E/PF have none as difficult to run as these, do you think that's due to 5E/PF having better writers or being easier to write for or what? It seems like the people involved in writing the adventures above were mostly professionals with a lot of experience. Numenera's mega-adventure the Devil's Spine (which I presume may be the offender) is written by Monte Cook. The Dalish Curse is by Steve Kenson.

I agree. I like Monte Cook's stuff too. I like some of his design theories, and as a world builder, I feel he does a great job. But, as an adventure writer, I find (at least the ones I've run), to be lacking. That is one of the reasons I (using hyperbole) compared D&D's 5e' AP's to Shakespeare. Cook is a professional, but, in my opinion, still can't do what the 5e AP's have done.

 

[Scott Christian]

Some of this isn't even opinion. It's demonstrable fact. So all this stuff about "groups differ" is irrelevant with that. "Groups differ" doesn't explain bad organisation. "Groups differ" doesn't explain missing material or massive plot holes. "Groups differ" doesn't explain inconsistencies, lore errors or impossible timelines. "Groups differ" doesn't explain AP writers just straight-up getting rules wrong or ignoring rules (I have no issue with an AP overriding rules if it acknowledges that is what it is doing, of course).

Not going to go into each definition of these with you and ask for examples. These organization problems you see are opinion, proven by the many people who have been able to run these AP's. You can't run it or find it so unorganized that it's ruined. I am okay with that. But many groups, including the groups I have played with can. That means it is an opinion. Just because you say it straightforward and in a bold manner doesn't make it a fact. Prove to me that the majority of DM's had difficulty playing the AP because of its organization. That would make it lean more towards fact.
The plot holes you speak of do not exist for many groups. For yours they do. Hence, groups are different. If you can show me that every group playing said I don't understand this, then it is a fact. But the fact of the matter, they only exist for your group. And if they do exist for your DM, maybe that DM should put in the work instead of always thinking they should be able to prep in ten minutes. The same is true for missing material. The AP can't be 1,000 pages. It would become too complex. So work on the DM's part might be required.
Lore errors happen. D&D, because of it's longevity and voluminous amounts of lore, has many. Most players and DM's don't notice. Certainly casual players do not notice. But it is no excuse. The editing should catch them.
Ignoring rules or changing them is based on context. It is a way to set something up for the adventure's sake. If my players' characters are travelling through a desert, and I want to show how hard it is, I might have them do con saves and automatically go to the second stage of exhaustion if they fail. If I want to set up a bar fight, I might not want the players to use the standard non-lethal combat rules, but instead a different version so I can show people using jujitsu, judo, or wrestling. I know you don't have problem if they override rules, but it is implied (at least to me) if they have something different or ignore a rule they are doing it for the sake of the adventure, not because they are ignorant to the rule as stated.

 

[Scott Christian]

about an hour to read it four times, while taking notes, speed reading is a pet peeve of mine.

And I apologize, but I do not understand this. You read a 260 page book, four times , in one hour? And also took notes? But you don't like speed-reading? Am I misreading it?

Note: I get it, it's not 260 pages of "reading." But it is 150-200 pages or reading if you leave out the art (which I hope you look at closely to maybe get clues on NPC's, since they are often the ones pictured) and stat blocks (that you still need to read). It's 50,000 to 75,000 words, which takes 2.5 to 3.5 hours for the average person. To read it in one hour would be fast. To read it four times would be very very very very fast.

 

[SkidAce]

... It does seem that no module is "so bad" that someone won't apologise for it, won't claim it's "fun for them", won't spend countless hours fixing it up....

The Forest Oracle...

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, and this is why I question why run them at all, a question no-one has answered yet. Or even like, hinted at an answer. Why do something that's both harder work and, it seems less rewarding?

I guess we will never know!

Mod Note:

Your snark it thoroughly nonconstructive to the point of trolling. Cut it out. We expect and require you to show more respect for your fellows.

Maybe if you came off less like an arrogant jerk you’d get more responses...

And, you escalating and making it personal only makes things worse. Next time, if someone comes across to an arrogant jerk, please consider that they probably aren't worth your time, rather than engage and act like a jerk yourself, hm?

At this point, we expect you folks to stop poking at each other. Leave off, and be respectful.

 

[Helldritch]

You seem to have not read my whole post either. I am probably not being as concise as needed. But here it is. I bolded the part that responds to your last paragraph.

It takes no time to run an AP. Read. Scribble some notes. Done.
But if I want to do it justice, tailor it to my players, and make it memorable, not just another session, then I put in the extra time. Of course, life does not always allow for that. Which is why I can do both, but prefer the more thoughtful approach.

Did read your post and did liked it. You "chastize" me for not reading and yet, just after that you re state that to do justice to an AP it takes more than a few notes... I do not need that much time to tailor an AP to either of my groups. First because I can read very fast and also because I have 37 years of DMing behind me. The fact that I have known some of my players for almost 5 decades helps too. The second groups are younger and were former students of mine.

To take your own words, the more "thoughtful" approach is, for me, as fast as your less "thoughtful" one.

I am a very structured DM. I take notes both during and after each sessions and I reread them before the next one to make adjustments to better suit the group. This is mainly because that at one time, I could have as much as 5 different groups. That is too much information to retain for a single person. Notes were the answer and it serves me well. These notes allow me to improvise a lot without derailing too far in o e direction or the other.

Edit: try it, notes changed a lot for me. It allowed me to improvise a lot and remain consistant.

I wonder why the edit did not appeared in the original post....?

 

[Lanefan]

Those good players are at the table because the DM chosen them to play in his/her game. Choosing good players is an important skill.

In fairness, not everyone is in a situation where they're able to choose from a pool of potential players. I've been fortunate that way, most of the time; but those that for example live in a small town might not have that deep a pool and thus could find themselves having to settle for whatever they get.

Organized-play DMs have it even worse, in that (as far as I know) they're expected to take anyone who wants to play as long as there's space at the table. They can't boot people until and unless those people cause problems, by which time it's too late.

 

[Eltab]

Organized-play DMs have it even worse, in that (as far as I know) they're expected to take anyone who wants to play as long as there's space at the table. They can't boot people until and unless those people cause problems, by which time it's too late.

That is basically right: the DM gets whoever is assigned to his/her table. Players get whichever DM they are assigned to. (Some times you can request DM Joe.) My experience is all as a player. I came in as a solo or with my son; groups of friends can sign up as a block. Organizers try to accommodate groups and fit the others in as they can. If you are flexible, it works. If you have to do things just this way, not so much.