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

[Zardnaar]

They don't have to stay on the railroad. Let them wander off. As mentioned, if a published adventure allowed for anything the players might want to do it would need an infinite number of pages. The author's just have to assume the players will want to follow the main plot, and the DM will fill in anything else, because they don't have the pages to do otherwise.

My approach is to put hooks for various adventures in the path of the players, and let them pursue whichever they prefer.

Being able to rewrite the adventure doesn't mean it's a good adventure.

Means you have a good DM who can make anything work. Once again just run a better adventure make it easier on yourself.

 

[Coroc]

What if the players aren't interested in working as caravan guards?

What if they don't want to stick around town doing odd jobs?

And if they do not kill 5 goblins and deliver 20 Giant rat tails to the city watch then Asmodeus takes over the Realms, not even Elminster can prevent this

Nah pun aside, this is of course a classic critic point of "Sandboxes". Let us be clear there is no real sandbox.
In the 2e creative campaigning guide (A tremendously good general work on DMing) they differ between linear and matrix campaign. A linear campaign is obviously what we call railroading.
A matrix campaign also does not have limitless opportunities, therefore the more that you intend to run it as a true matrix the more enables you need: Time pressure, enemies (and allies) acting in a certain direction if the players do not interfere, other factors of interest which cannot be ignored by the players, e.g. wanted buy the law, get drawn into the conflict no matter what, need some cash to buy themselves something to eat.
This still requires a load of work on the DM (or Editor of official stuff at Wizards)
There is a solution which is a bit more simple with two options:
1. Pseudo matrix: The given encounters occur more or less in the right order like in a linear campaign, namely there where the players are going, no matter where that is.

2. Matrix, but not truly open world: The encounters can be approached in any given order, some are tougher, some are weaker, or the encounter toughness is adaptable (Mob strength CR and number), anyway the CR is always somewhat matching the group level, no truly overpowering encounters and if so then more than one warning that it might be to much for the group.
LMoP is something like 2.

But no matter what style, it still requires the group to go anywhere. And if they never take the bait then do not hesitate and let big evil win for a change. Their next characters have the harder job to fix all that what the first group should have prevented.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why don't you just have an opening appropriate to 1st levels?

Your small ship is under attack from an Imperial Star Destroyer commanded by the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Nothing wrong with introducing high stakes right from the start.

If they don't cut and run, then they see you as the kind of GM that won't kill them

I am. And I want the players to know that the will be rewarded for acting like heroic adventurers, not snivelling cowards.

But if I wasn't, then I would choose a story that was less clearly heroic. Choosing the right adventure for the style of DMing and the style of playing is an important part of preparation. And if an adventure doesn't suit it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the adventure or the players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Being able to rewrite the adventure doesn't mean it's a good adventure.

Means you have a good DM who can make anything work. Once again just run a better adventure make it easier on yourself.

Nor does rewriting parts of an adventure make it a bad adventure. That's the whole point of playing with a human DM rather than a computer - the players can do the unexpected and the human DM can adapt.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Your small ship is under attack from an Imperial Star Destroyer commanded by the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Nothing wrong with introducing high stakes right from the start.

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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Doesn't mean I won't blow up Alderaan.

The PC's lives are not the only stakes that players can care about.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Doesn't mean I won't blow up Alderaan.

The PC's lives are not the only stakes that players can care about.

If you say so.

 

[dave2008]

Unless you think the person is lying, that’s exactly what it means because that’s the reason they said they gave five stars.

OK, I stand corrected. I have never left a review on Amazon before so I didn't realize that.

 

[JeffB]

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,

Not sure I would consider Tyranny as a classic D&D experience at all- And the DL adventures were extremely polarizing BITD-Railroady adventures based on popular books are not a good design principle for TTRPG play-

But you could try:

Into the Borderlands
Isle of Dread
And the new Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - All from Goodman.

Rappan Athuk
Tegel Manor - both from Frog God/Necromancer

Also, On DM's Guild check out "Classic modules today" - they provide decent mechanical conversions of old TSR materials for reasonable prices, which opens up possibilities with some fun classic adventures like Castle Amber, The Lost City (also on the way from Goodman, I think), Slavers series, Master of the Desert Nomads/Temple of Death, etc.

 

[jayoungr]

Perhaps it was the rocky start of Horde of the Dragon Queen, the railroad plot, the imbalanced encounters (take your pick), but it is almost universally maligned.

I've always been a defender of this campaign. It's never been unplayable, as some have claimed. My group had a great time with it, and the infamous "caravan" chapter was their favorite part. And the balance problems--which, as we know, were caused by the fact that the monster manual was being finalized while the adventure was being written--should be fixed by the new edition, at least.

I honestly don't get the "railroad" complaints. I truly don't. The only sense in which there is a linear plot is that players need to follow the treasure in HotDQ and see where it's going. That's all. As long as they do that, they have lots of freedom to come up with their own approach to handling any of the challenges that crop up at any of the stops along the way. (Heck, they don't even have to follow the same load of treasure the whole distance, because it's clear shipments are coming in from all over.) And then in Rise of Tiamat, there are various missions that can be undertaken in whatever order the players want, or even skipped.

No, it's not a sandbox. But loads of adventures are not sandboxes and don't get this kind of hate. All I can think is that it got extra scrutiny because it was the first campaign of a new edition.