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

[Nagol]

I've been playing since 1981 and I have never seen an adventure that can be run "out the box".

Cool story. I've been running since 1980 and have often run modules straight.

 

[Umbran]

Most, if not all, GMs here write adventures. Publishing them is hardly worth the effort.

Moreover, most of us write adventures specifically for our players, their goals, desires, and such. We can usually accurately target the kinds of things that give our players a good time. But, I don't think most of what we individual GMs produce generalizes well at all.

And, that may have been the point of the comment. Making adventures that are deemed "good" by large numbers of people isn't easy. We can look at our tables and say, "Well, my players are happy, so I must be doing as good a job as any of those published writers." But, you see, those published writers are managing to make hundreds and thousands of players happy, which is a much more impressive feat.

 

[Nagol]

I think you’d be better off with Tomb of Annihilation if you want a more old school feel. It’s a hexcrawl followed by a dungeoncrawl, with a classic D&D villain as the antagonist. Maybe your group will like that?



I don’t think anyone’s “jumping through hoops to defend” it so much as simply stating that most of the criticisms can be addressed pretty easily. And that the book actually offers a good deal of guidance on how to do that.

But it’s far from perfect. It was being made simultaneously with the playtest, and that shows. It’s largely linear (or at least chunks of it are), which is a negative to many. The opening scenario requires a good amount of DM judgment and a good grasp of the 5E system, which is probably not the smartest move for the start.

But for all it’s flaws, it’s far from “unplayable” or “horrible”. It has plenty to offer. And even an adventure like Curse of Strahd that is widely acclaimed (with which I’d agree) has shortcomings and a host of detractors who make those shortcomings out to be massive.

Re: Tomb of Annihilation:

I lost my only 5e PC in the opening scene. It was a 5th level Wizard with 8 Con who had been revivified previously...

Lost more hit points than I had as a total from the curse.

 

[billd91]

Um... So, I don't personally enjoy @Jd Smith1's preferred style of play, but what I certainly don't enjoy is the fact that you seem to be unwilling to let others play the game the way they want to play it.

He isn't. He's defending his style of play from Jd Smith1's potshots at it.

 

[generic]

He isn't. He's defending his style of play from Jd Smith1's potshots at it.

I'll have to review the posts which came prior. Thank you for this.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

If a player knows that his PC can't die, then he knows the final outcome of every undertaking.

I remember watching the Dark Knight for the first time. At no point during that movie did I think Batman was going to die. I also could not have predicted the final outcome of that film.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Yes, as you said....but you also said there are no stakes beyond PC death so I’m just trying to reconcile these somewhat contradictory statements.

I didn't say that there are no stakes beyond PC death. That is your misinterpretation.

I said that without the possibility of PC deaths, there was no drama, no stakes, no tension. The GM is just telling a story, and the players are an audience.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I remember watching the Dark Knight for the first time. At no point during that movie did I think Batman was going to die. I also could not have predicted the final outcome of that film.

Really?

 

[Jd Smith1]

He isn't. He's defending his style of play from Jd Smith1's potshots at it.

Other way around. He's attacking mine.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Really?

Are you asking "Really?" at that I never thought Batman would die, or that I didn't know how the movie would end?