D&D 5E The Larger Failure of "Tyranny of Dragons"

[Zardnaar]

Or, alternatively (and, I think more accurately) folks may be rating in terms of how much fun they had, or expect to have, playing the thing. If they think it'll be a lot of fun, it's worth a 5, no matter that there's some that may be technically better designed.

There's a restaurant near me. They sell burgers. If I take one apart, and look at each piece with a very critical eye, I am sure I could come up with a laundry list of negative aspects to the burger. Tallying a review on this basis will make it look like their food is awful.

Stack the stuff together, and take a few bites, however, and the burger is awesome!

People on messageboards tend to do more of the former, and less of the latter.

I prefer more a % based system on reviews. For example a lot are simple yes/no.

On a % system anything higher than 51% could get a positive tick even though I consider 51%-70% as a bit meh and anything below 50 as outright bad. I don't generally buy video games rated below 70% for example.

Giving HotDQ a 5star rating is silly IMHO along with a 1star rating. I trust the ENworkd reviews more than Amazon and I buy stuff based in positive buzz here more than say Amazon. Also try and avoid Amazon as much as I can due to RL moral reasons as well (labour conditions).

Some things are also very very subjective beer and wine reviews are prime examples. D&D adventures are a lot easier to rate IMHO.

5E adventures are fairly consistent though none are really bad and most would be in the 65-85% range with a few standouts.

It's impossible to crank out consistently great APs IMHO. Great adventures tend to be shorter as it's to hard to keep things going over 10-15 levels.

Each on is essentially 3-4 smaller adventures and no author yet can crank out that level of quality consistently.

 

[Carmen Sbordone]

I posted because of the frustration I'm having trying to find an adventure to run for a group that wants a "classic Dnd" experience, which would seem to be Tyranny of Dragons, but because it's awful I have to update something from a previous edition.

Update something from the past or homebrew and/or kitbash one together from the current releases. Or look to third party- goodman games, frog god games or legendary games, troll lord games for example.

As much as i enjoy the 5e core rulset, and its good its brought newer players into the game, the adventure releases to me arent that good, as its just rehashing whats come before. Ive been spare parting them for my own uses(to be fair, i also did that the puaxos adventure paths)

 

[pukunui]

However there is a good chance that a horde of monsters will have a hoard of treasure

Yeah, I was gonna make some witty remark along those lines but wasn't satisfied with any of my attempts so left it out.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, I was gonna make some witty remark along those lines but wasn't satisfied with any of my attempts so left it out.

@Mirtek certainly hoarded the good lines...

 

[Hussar]

/snip

People on messageboards tend to do more of the former, and less of the latter.

And, let's not forget, that people equate bad with "I don't like". Because, well, people are incapable of differentiating their personal tastes and preferences with actual objective quality.

 

[ccs]

Sure they bash modules but is it standard practice to create two threads about it? If they do, pushback is going to be expected.

Yeah, go on move that goal post.

 

[Gradine]

Now, it's funny that you ask, because from Chapter 6 on, just about every chapter is a pretty dynamite stand alone module. The earlier chapters are the bumpy part, particularly with motivation and timing.

I'm still way behind on the thread yet, but this is kind of the point. Chapters 1-5 present a variety of different scenarios with a rather specific way of dealing with them.
Chapter 1: Hub/Mission Based
Chapter 2: Infiltration
Chapter 3: Dungeon Crawl
Chapter 4: Interaction-Heavy
Chapter 5: Investigation
Each one is designed to teach the players a new angle/skill(s)/tool(s) in how to resolve various conflicts in D&D. Chapter 6 on, then, presents the players with more traditional open-ended scenarios and has the confidence that the players will put to use those tools to resolve them.

This is why the kinds of old-school grognards who don't need that level of hand-holding that tend to populate forums such as these hate HotDQ and the "filthy newbie casuals" give it a 4.5 on Amazon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And, let's not forget, that people equate bad with "I don't like". Because, well, people are incapable of differentiating their personal tastes and preferences with actual objective quality.

By the same token, they equate "I like it!" or "it's popular" with good.

So everything could be objectively bad, using that logic, as easily as everything could good or just OK.

Of course, perfection is unattainable, so, it's probably safe to assume that everything is just objectively bad, and the things people hold up as good, or even just OK, are merely opinions buoyed by their personal preferences.

 

[pemerton]

Literally my first experience with Hoard...
First text box in the book: “Players [1st level], you approach a city that has an adult blue dragon attacking.”
PCs: “Nope.”
DM: “Um, okay, then the campaign is over.”

I didn’t forget to take away player agency.

Telling the players that their PCs are approaching a city is not taking away agency, any more than telling them they are at a taven (which clearly involved approaching said tavern).

Agency for players is about action declaration and resolution. It doesn't have to include authority over framing and situation.

If they don't cut and run, then they see you as the kind of GM that won't kill them, and you've already damaged your campaign by removing any tension for your players.

They're not stakes at all, since you're the kind of GM who won't kill PCs.

I don't understand this. Why is killing PCs the only stakes for a RPG? Even for D&D this has not normally been my epxerience.

There's a recent thread on this here

 

[Sadras]

Yeah, go on move that goal post.

I originally said it seemed like a futile exercise and lazy thing to do by bashing the AP now after all the readily available resources.

Your response was people do it all the time, sometimes bashing modules that were written before they were even born.

But here is the thing, it doesn't change my view that it is a futile exercise and lazy approach given the number of aids which exist. Goals posts realigned - I'm guessing you're ecstatic.