D&D General The Biggest Problem with Modern Adventures...

[Zardnaar]

Yep. And there's just as much mediocrity in the old TSR adventures and WotC adventures as well.

Quite frankly, I bet on the whole every single adventure or module ever written "stinks" from the perspective of somebody.

TSR had more hits WotC has had 2 in 8 years.

You can rattle off multiple great adventures from 81-89.

They have avoided forest oracle levels of bad.

 

[Zardnaar]

Modern adventures nothing. I've been running Night Below in 2e on and off for a few years now and I'm really getting sick of it. But I want to finish the damn thing instead of just leaving it hanging. That adventure isn't quite an AP, but it's a long campaign designed to start at level 1 and go over level 10. It doesn't help that the adventure really doesn't mesh well with the gameplay preferences that I've developed ever since I first bought it back in late 1995 or early 1996. Back then I was a new DM, and it was the biggest example of how to set up an adventure; these days I have a better understanding of how i want to run a game. Just from running this, I have no interest in running an AP of any sort, good or bad. I don't like being locked into a long adventure, and would rather shorter stuff for better variety. It's kind of a shame because there are times I'd like to try doing the old Dragonlance campaign, but DL 1-14 is pretty much "All aboard the Ansalon Express!".

I think part of the problem is simply being an adventure in the first place. In the old days they were modules not adventures. I think I'd rather do modules. A module might not have a lot of plot, but it's more a plug and play affair. The DM can just drop it into an existing campaign, and it doesn't have bit and pieces of story all over the place clogging things up. I think a good example of an adventure that was more the classic module type was The Shattered Circle, released near the end of 2e. That was a decent sized dungeon that wasn't loaded down with plot and backstory which a DM could just drop into a world with little difficulty.

I suppose the OSR crowd releases stuff that's closer to my taste in some ways, but I've never felt all that comfortable running prewritten stuff. I always feel better running my material.

Edit: And then after posting this, i read @Reynard 's post just above which is expressing just about the same sentiments.

Night belows a bit to long. Harranshire is great the rest eh.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Early adventures usually have quite a few problems. Which is a shame, because many curious people will get the game and whatever adventure is available, have a bad time with a bad adventure, and conclude that the game sucks.

The main problem is of course that early adventures are made by people who by definition don't have much experience writing adventures for this game, or this version of the game. Worse, they may be relying on instincts from previous versions that no longer are correct. For example, both Hellknight Hill (part 1 of the first PF2 adventure path) and The Fall of Plaguestone (the first PF2 standalone adventure) are incredibly overtuned. This is likely because in PF1, rampant power inflation and an inherited problem with how challenge rating worked meant that the encounter building guidelines were a joke, so you pretty much had to overtune your encounters compared to what the rules suggested. But balance in PF2 is much tighter and unforgiving, particularly at lower levels, so that's going to lead to a bad time and TPKs.

A related problem is that the early adventures are often written using early drafts of the rules, and often a late rule or design change isn't accounted for in the adventure. For example, in the last D&D Next playtest package, kobolds had AC 11, 2 hp, and a +1 attack bonus dealing d4+1 damage at either melee or range. Their Pack Tactics ability would give them +1 to hit for each ally within 5 ft of the target.

In the Monster Manual, the kobold has AC 12, 5 hp, a +4 attack bonus dealing 1d4+2 damage, and pack attack gives them advantage on their rolls.

Now, the numbers don't translate one-for-one – for example, it seems attack rolls are a bit lower in the D&D Next version (only fighters have a +2 proficiency bonus at level 1, for example). But player AC and hit points seem about the same, so it's clear that the published kobold is a much more dangerous creature than its D&D Next cousin.

Why do I go on about this? Because the first published 5e adventure, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, starts with the PCs fighting a group of 8 effing kobolds. Against a typical 4-person adventuring party, that's two kobolds each, and it's a BIG difference between fighting two kobolds with +2 to hit dealing d4+1 damage, and fighting two kobolds with +4 to hit and advantage and dealing d4+2 damage. Even the hp can make a difference – against a typical d8 damage cantrip, 5 hp gives you a 50% survival chance, but 2 hp only 13%.

Now, I don't know if the designers of Hoard of the Dragon Queen were balancing this fight using D&D Next kobolds, 5e kobolds, or some version that was never released, but it would certainly explain why they start the adventure, which will be many people's first encounter with 5e, with such a potentially lethal battle.

Hilariously the 4E first adventure also starts with a potentially highly fatal fight against too many kobolds. Indeed the kobolds are so dangerous in general in that adventure that it has an almost Dragon Mountain vibe at times. It's particularly spicy because the players are likely struggling slightly with the then-new system.

 

[Reynard]

Meh. Big dungeons (as judged by number of encounters, not physical size) are boring.

Then you are doing them wrong.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hilariously the 4E first adventure also starts with a potentially highly fatal fight against too many kobolds. Indeed the kobolds are so dangerous in general in that adventure that it has an almost Dragon Mountain vibe at times. It's particularly spicy because the players are likely struggling slightly with the then-new system.

I remember my players saying things like "damn these kobolds are tough I wanna play one".

 

[Burnside]

It's one of the reasons I wish Dungeon was still around-- not necessarily because "official" is better, but at least it is curated. I use pre written modules more than I ever used to (mostly because VTT makes improv hard for me) and would love to do more small ones but finding the quality is hard.

Here are some I really think you can't go wrong with:

Complete Adventures of M.T. Black on DMsGuild:
Complete Adventures of M.T. Black Vol. I - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Low-Level Adventure Pack from Dan Coleman Productions on DriveThruRPG:
Low Level Adventure Pack (PC levels 1 - 6) [BUNDLE] - Dan Coleman Productions | Collections | DriveThruRPG.com

Mid-Level Adventure Pack from Dan Coleman Productions on DriveThruRPG:
Mid Level Adventure Pack (PC levels 7 - 13) [BUNDLE] - Dan Coleman Productions | Collections | DriveThruRPG.com

Note that a few of Dan Coleman's adventures are also available in the Roll20 marketplace, including Bandit's Nest and Bad Apples.

 

[payn]

I remember my players saying things like "damn these kobolds are tough I wanna play one".

Sorry, monsters and PCs are not built the same anymore.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I remember my players saying things like "damn these kobolds are tough I wanna play one".

Lol I think mine said something very similar!

 

[Reynard]

Sorry, monsters and PCs are not built the same anymore.

"Why can't I learn the magical attack that lich used on me?"
"Its an ancient spell forgotten by all except the entity you just murdered."

 

[payn]

"Why can't I learn the magical attack that lich used on me?"
"Its an ancient spell forgotten by all except the entity you just murdered."

Thats a good one. I was thinking "Why cant my fighter swallow whole the enemies like the purple worm can?" but I was afraid id start a new movement.