D&D 5E Rime of the Frostmaiden Post-Mortem (Spoilers)

[Swedish Chef]

Our session zero was spent deciding what characters we were going to play and the DM presented the list of Secrets for us to choose from. We decided 2 of our characters were from Ten Towns (Lonelywood and Bryn Shander), without knowing anything about the sacrifices. Failure on the DMs part? Probably. On the flip side, though, if we knew of the sacrifices and the types during session zero, it probably would have resulted in us passing on the adventure altogether. We, as players, would find it very difficult to play characters that were outsiders willing to help towns performing human sacrifice and I doubt any of us would have chosen to play natives to the Towns.

As it is, we as a party have decided to take on Auril simply to protect ourselves and the smaller towns. Our secondary objective is to take down the corrupt leaders of the three towns performing human sacrifices. We'll see what happens as the adventure progresses.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You don't have to hate hugging unicorns to be unimpressed with WotC's adventure output. I love hug-a-unicorn stuff and I'm still deeply unimpressed.

I don't think that the tone of WotC adventures even has much to do with anything. WotC just isn't very good at writing campaign-length/adventure path material. They literally never have been. I struggle to think of a WotC AP that is more that more than mediocre, certainly in 4E/5E. They could be as edgy as hell, and about strangling unicorns, and they'd still not be very good.

And the "large sandbox section with poor support!" is pretty common in WotC adventures, and I guess is part of what means they're not really APs. As is "a series of largely disconnected and incoherent adventures". Third parties seem to be a lot better at this. Obviously Paizo are better at this and I don't even like Pathfinder (1E or 2E).

That's not to say WotC doesn't sometimes put out good adventures, but they are very much the exception and tend to be the short and mid-length ones, not the campaign-length ones.

I don't think it's new, and I don't expect them to change, because I think it's management-level failure to recognise they're kind of crap at this, and that their products sell largely because they're part of a brand and well-advertised, and there's an inherent demand for pre-written adventures/campaigns, rather than because of them being particularly good. It's a bit like Abercrombie and Fitch, where one employee said they could put dog-poop on a baseball cap, spell out Abercrombie and Fitch with it, and it would sell. Not quite that extreme, but I suspect even the very worst 5E adventures have sold extremely well, simply because there's no real critical reviewing of this stuff, and customers just take what they're given. It is obviously difficult to critically review an AP before playing it, but most "reviews" early in the life of an AP/campaign adventure are glowing, even if ultimately consensus is that it wasn't very good, simply because the people who review this stuff are mostly fans, and mostly reviewing it in a vacuum in the best possible light (in some cases they don't even DM). And from my groups at least, most of the other DMs don't even look for reviews - they just automatically assume "WotC = doesn't suck". Or, they used to, anyway.

I think there are a few things going on here.

Firstly, the concept of an Adventure Path is deeply flawed. You can't detail a whole 10 level campaign before session zero without severely constraining player freedom. It's simply not possible, there are far too many potential points in which things could happen differently. I might start with a broad outline, but I wouldn't start planning specific encounters until a session or two before they are needed. In ye olden days there would be a module, and it would spawn sequels. But if the first module didn't finish a certain way you wouldn't run the sequel. Desert of Desolation is a prime example of this. Both sequels depend on the party unleashing an efreet in a minor encounter in Pharaoh. If they don't stumble over that encounter then the sequels never happen.

Second, the death of authorial voice (bar one). I think pretty much the point in running adventures instead of writing them yourself is to get other peoples ideas. And most of WotC 5e adventures are dominated by just one voice: Chris Perkins. Which would be fine for just one or two, but his style gets predictable after a while. I'm pretty sure WotC have identified this issue, since we are seeing more effort to bring in outside voices recently. But he still has a tendency to muck about with stuff.

This relates to the third issue: fixed page length. It's pretty obvious that WotC adventures start out a lot longer, then a heck of a lot of stuff winds up being cut.

Finally, my last issue is more personal. I think starter adventures like Lost Mines do too much hand-holding. If you spend too much time holding someone's hand, they don't learn to walk on there own, they learn to always look for the hand. I remember the early starter adventures always had "this area has been deliberately left blank for the DM to complete themselves". Lesson: if confronted with a blank space, make something up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think there are a few things going on here.

Firstly, the concept of an Adventure Path is deeply flawed. You can't detail a whole 10 level campaign before session zero without severely constraining player freedom. It's simply not possible, there are far too many potential points in which things could happen differently. I might start with a broad outline, but I wouldn't start planning specific encounters until a session or two before they are needed. In ye olden days there would be a module, and it would spawn sequels. But if the first module didn't finish a certain way you wouldn't run the sequel. Desert of Desolation is a prime example of this. Both sequels depend on the party unleashing an efreet in a minor encounter in Pharaoh. If they don't stumble over that encounter then the sequels never happen.

Second, the death of authorial voice (bar one). I think pretty much the point in running adventures instead of writing them yourself is to get other peoples ideas. And most of WotC 5e adventures are dominated by just one voice: Chris Perkins. Which would be fine for just one or two, but his style gets predictable after a while. I'm pretty sure WotC have identified this issue, since we are seeing more effort to bring in outside voices recently. But he still has a tendency to muck about with stuff.

This relates to the third issue: fixed page length. It's pretty obvious that WotC adventures start out a lot longer, then a heck of a lot of stuff winds up being cut.

Finally, my last issue is more personal. I think starter adventures like Lost Mines do too much hand-holding. If you spend too much time holding someone's hand, they don't learn to walk on there own, they learn to always look for the hand. I remember the early starter adventures always had "this area has been deliberately left blank for the DM to complete themselves". Lesson: if confronted with a blank space, make something up.

I don't disagree with most of this, but I would dispute the "deeply flawed" point very strongly, simply because I've seen it done with such great success so many times by companies whose name is not WotC, and despite not being a fan of obvious railroading I've happily played through APs, and I know DMs who are not great DMs who have done a good job thanks to a well-written AP.

I think the issue is that WotC agree with you, and thus create these messy-as-hell adventures that they think work better than an AP, but are in reality just a lot harder for time-pressured or less-experienced/engaged DMs to run well than an AP.

I mean, you say the reason to buy adventures is to "get other people's ideas", and whilst that's valid and true as a reason, that's not why I'd buy a big-ass campaign-scale adventure, ever. The only times I've bought those it's been because I don't have time to write a big-ass campaign-scale adventure. The problem with the WotC approach is that due to the weird sandboxes, the disjointed adventures, and as you say, the general sense that a ton got cut (often "connective tissue", to use a slightly gross metaphor), I find I have to do literally almost as much work as actually writing a campaign to get one functional.

That was not true of Paizo's APs in 3.XE. I didn't like a lot of them. I didn't like the tone of a lot of them. But I didn't have to do tons of work just to make them work. I guess I want WotC's tone with Paizo's grasp on avoiding making me do work. If I'm paying a ton of money for an adventure, it's because I want the work done for me!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I find I have to do literally almost as much work as actually writing a campaign to get one functional.

I find it's always more work to run someone else's adventure than to write it myself.

The only reason I do it is I don't want my players to get too bored with my authorial voice.

As for Paizo, I've never liked any of them, so I've never run one. Personally, from those I have read, I am sceptical of the claim they can be run without a lot of work. I'm pretty sure my players wouldn't stay obligingly on the rails.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I find it's always more work to run someone else's adventure than to write it myself.

The only reason I do it is I don't want my players to get too bored with my authorial voice.

Interesting, for me I've found it varies a ton. There are adventures I've totally happily run "out of the book" (albeit no WotC ones!), and there are adventures I've had to read, make notes on, re-plan, re-read, make further notes, add and alter sections, and so on to the point where I could easily have written an adventure the same size in a fraction of the time.

Of course this exposes my achilles heel.

Maps.

God I hate making maps. I love maps (preferably monochrome, not colourful). I love them to bits. I don't have a problem conceptualizing places either. Nor do I totally lack artistic talent. But I HAAAAAAAAAAAAATE making my own maps. I once scrapped a great adventure concept simply because it would have required me to make an elaborate map. And yeah I buy a lot of map packs as a result!

 

[Azuresun]

The Biggest Problem - one I am still grappling with - is at the end in Ythryn

​

Spoiler: Spoiler alert for the ending of Rime

At the END OF THE CAMPAIGN... the logic falls apart entirely. This material is from a thread from Justin Alexander - he says it really well

Ending Option #1
One way the PCs can end the campaign is to activate the 'Reset Obelisk and save Ythryn' ending of the campaign.
How do they do this:
1. They take Iriolarthas' staff of power (within Ythryn).
2. They use it to activate the obelisk.
Seems simples!!

However - there is a problem here!
Since Iriolarthas (the demilich) has spent 1800+ years trying to solve this problem. Despite his "best efforts" he's been unable to do so, despite having access to everything he needs.
A - the text states he is only a demilich since he cannot access his phylactery (its trapped under ice) -but this is a misreading of the rules about the phylactery - since it only has to be on the same plane as the demi-lich.....thus...??!!
B. But the problem here is that:
(i) The city is stuck because X needs to be done. (X = get staff)
(ii) X could have been done at any time. (Since Iriolarthas has his staff - although in the adventure it is not on his person but hidden in the rubbish in his library...??)
And this doesn't make sense. Nor will it make sense to any of my players who all are smart (one incredibly so) and experienced gamers... and I am sure this is the case for many gaming tables......

Thus the only solution seems to be - and an easy one here to boot: the GM needs to add an out-of-context element - ie: the staff of power is outside of the city (not in the demi-lich's library) - in a ruin such as that sole Spire of Netherill - which would force the PCs to leave the city, get the thing they need, and then come back. Which would also help with some of the timeline issues the finale struggles with.

Activating the Obelisk creates other problems too.... (going back in time - so you may want to change that too!)

Ending Option #2
The Pcs use the Ythryn mythallar to cast control weather and end Auril's winter!

Problem: This doesn't actually work. Like WTF!
1. it can only change the temperature from "arctic cold" to "cold". For 8 hours. As long as the user concentrates.
2. PCs have to do this 3 times per day for it to work, whilst concentrating.
3. It only effects a 50 miles radius, which isn't far enough to reach all of Ten-Towns.

On the other hand, as JA points out, it's nice to have an alternative resolution to the Auril's winter plot than killing Auril... except not really. Because the adventure says that using the mythallar immediately causes Auril to show up and fight them to the death.

So it's all pointless.

[I like the idea of this working - so it needs some work to be changed!]

A bit more "here's how I'll do it" for this bit:

Spoiler: Ythryn

Bringing the mythallar and the dispelling giant artifact into contact will destroy them both and produce a dispelling pulse that ends all magic for miles around--since Netherese magic was more powerful than anything possible in the modern day, this can even undo the work of a god.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Of course this exposes my achilles heel.

Maps.

The internet is a wonderful thing, it has an almost infinite supply of stuff to steal.

Of course, my first job was as a cartographer, so I'm not entirely incapable of making maps myself, should I want to make the effort!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course, my first job was as a cartographer, so I'm not entirely incapable of making maps myself, should I want to make the effort!

Oh god I think you made me realize why I don't like making maps.

I was thinking "It's weird, when I was a kid I loved drawing maps endlessly!". But then... I started doing A-level archaeology (later switched it to Ancient History, but that's a long story), and went on some digs as a volunteer/amateur, and I had to learn to read maps properly and very carefully (even more than when I was a kid doing hiking), and to make maps fitting to certain specifications over and over, and I think somewhere in that process I started hating mapping. Hell I remember weeks of helping setting up the measuring tools and then very carefully and precisely drawing the maps out. And I know it was the one aspect of archaeology that just did not make me happy.

Wow, hadn't thought about that for a while.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh god I think you made me realize why I don't like making maps.

I was thinking "It's weird, when I was a kid I loved drawing maps endlessly!". But then... I started doing A-level archaeology (later switched it to Ancient History, but that's a long story), and went on some digs as a volunteer/amateur, and I had to learn to read maps properly and very carefully (even more than when I was a kid doing hiking), and to make maps fitting to certain specifications over and over, and I think somewhere in that process I started hating mapping. naughty word I remember weeks of helping setting up the measuring tools and then very carefully and precisely drawing the maps out. And I know it was the one aspect of archaeology that just did not make me happy.

Wow, hadn't thought about that for a while.

Talk about learning lessons! I started out making street plans for estate agents. Not only did the exact measurements not matter, we actually had to make them somewhat wrong to avoid copywrite issues with the Ordinance Survey!

 

[FrozenNorth]

[Human Sacrifices in Ten-Towns]

Not to beat a dead horse, but to me, this problem is principally due to alignment.

When I read through the adventure, what I got from it was that people were desperate, and the situation was dire.

From a DM perspective, this is useful:

• an understandable outcome of the situation the towns are in is to turn to human sacrifice;
• it is probably the best element in the campaign to show how desperate people are;
• it is a legitimate moral issue for the players: are they sympathetic? Judgemental?

(The timelines still don’t make sense, I’ll admit).

Maybe they will decide that the town leadership must die. So they kill them. Then what? There still isn’t enough food, winter hasn’t ended, and Auril now has a grudge against them. Seems like a cool adventure.

I think the problem comes from either (a) Lawful Good people wouldn’t do that; or (b) the party killing desperate Lawful Good people is wrong.

Either way, remove alignment and the dilemma remains, without being tied up in objective judgment.