The playtest reports really demonstrate ...

I understand that the premise is to have the DM figure out the story bits for himself...

Nope. Much like the team responsible for the playtest revision, you've missed the point: The DM isn't supposed to figure out the story bits.

The Caves of Chaos simply exist. It's up to the players to figure out what they want to do with it. A story may come out of that; but it will be in the telling, not in the playing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Nope. Much like the team responsible for the playtest revision, you've missed the point: The DM isn't supposed to figure out the story bits.

The Caves of Chaos simply exist. It's up to the players to figure out what they want to do with it. A story may come out of that; but it will be in the telling, not in the playing.

So instead of relying too heavily on the DM to accommodate for its shortcomings as an adventure, it relies too heavily on the players to accommodate for its shortcomings as an adventure. I can't say I'm seeing the difference here.

My problem isn't so much that Caves of Chaos lacks a story, but rather that there's simply nothing interesting going on that can be used to build one. The entire module pretty much boils down to, "Oh, this section has kobolds, this section has orcs, this section has gnolls and here are the cultists!" There's no interesting traps, no intriguing puzzles, no dynamic encounters beyond "You see four orcs." (Although I suspect this last bit is due to the current lack of tactical rules, but I digress)

It doesn't, on its own, offer any chances to have meaningful encounters with maybe the exception of the laughably terrible no-win scenario involving the Medusa, wherein the PCs will likely be killed if they refuse to free her and they are even more likely to be killed if they DO free her.

Just because you can put in your own parts doesn't mean that a car lacking a steering wheel can be considered a working vehicle.
 

I'm happy that the ability of the system to play in its sandbox is represented. Sure.

It's not the type of adventure I get much out of, so I wish they'd _also_ shown how other adventures would look. Perhaps a representative set, with an introductory adventure from every edition. That'd be kinda awesome.
 


Yet Keep on the Shadowfell was widely insulted because it was just a dungeon full of encounters?

Linked together in an unpleasing manner. I found KotS alright once I changed the way the passages and whatnot interconnected. It became more freeform and less "Fight 1 --> Fight 2 --> Fight 3."
 

Keep on the Shadowfell was a bit of a dud, but I'd say the true successor to the old school sandbox in 4e was Thunderspire Labyrinth. I never understood why Thunderspire was also accused of being "fight, fight fight" when there were an infinite amount of dungeons in the Labyrinth, and a really cool home base in the Hall of Seven Pillars.

The link between the major factions was also very interesting, in that they were all profiting from the slave trade in some manner (the hobgoblins were slaving, the duegar were buying for labour, and the gnolls were buying for sacrifices). The only change I'd probably make is to make a slave auction ongoing during the hobgoblin lair raid, and have other inhabitants of Thunderspire Labyrinth covering their faces and trying to escape out the back door.
 

Thunderspire Labyrinth has some good ideas, and good maps, but in my view the actual encounter design for the goblins and the gnolls is pretty terrible. (I haven't run the duergar, and the Tower of Mysteries is really its own thing.) To get the best out of both the ideas and the maps I disregarded the advice for running the humanoids, and instead made it much more free-flowing and interactive.
 


KotS had outdoor encounters. Those are taboo to oldschool. ;)
Bulls***

Anyway.

I had a look at B2, saw a string of boring rooms, gave it a pass, got hold of Caves of Thracia, will run that next. If you run old school, run the pearls, not the turds.
 

Remove ads

Top