D&D 5E Which of these possible endings do you prefer to see in every published adventure *as written*?

[Jolly Ruby]

concerning itself with moral correctness

Asking for clarification: I know that moral correctness is subjective, but what do you mean by "concerning itself"? I wouldn't classify the example you gave, Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions, as "concerning itself with moral correctness". It says that killing everybody without dialogue is a "bloodbath", but it provides guidance in how your party can complete the adventure without losing anything if they choose that route. There's no downside if you chose the "bad ending".

(PS: It's a genuine doubt, but I'm afraid it sounds adversarial. I'm sorry if it sounds like that, English is not my first language)

 

[Scribe]

Not sure if I understand the options but...

I want lots of options. I want choices made throughout to have consequence, and I certainly dont want whatever passes for 'modern sensibilities' of morality to be the only 'correct' option.

 

[Stormonu]

I don't need the story well-defined. Give me the locations, whose where and their motivations/tactics. Let my players make the stories they want istead of having it forced on them.

 

[Emoshin]

Asking for clarification: I know that moral correctness is subjective, but what do you mean by "concerning itself"? I wouldn't classify the example you gave, Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions, as "concerning itself with moral correctness". It says that killing everybody without dialogue is a "bloodbath", but it provides guidance in how your party can complete the adventure without losing anything if they choose that route. There's no downside if you chose the "bad ending".

(PS: It's a genuine doubt, but I'm afraid it sounds adversarial. I'm sorry if it sounds like that, English is not my first language)

Hi Jolly!

Thank you and no worries!

It's been a while, so my recollection is far from perfect here. From what I remember

- Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions was controversial at the time it was released for choosing to apply those words (when it could have been more neutral)

- the antagonists had a scheme that arguably was causing harm or death to innocent unaware people, and could be considered guilty of murder (at worse) or involuntary manslaughter at best (a modern legal term, but I'm just paraphrasing what I remember)

- therefore, for some folks, it sounded like the author or adventure was moralizing players/PCs who chose to use the violent option for whatever reason

- in context, other adventure modules have generally refrained from calling out PC violence against NPCs who cause harm to innocents

- D&D is generally a very violent genre, but every gaming table is accepted to find its moral path, so why was this particular adventure cherrypicking this violent option and calling out it that way whereas no or few other adventure have done so?

I hope that makes sense. I did not fully research this when I wrote the OP, just going by memory!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This whole thing is weird to me. If anyone who writes an adventure runs adventures, they know the players will inevitably do something you'll never see coming, no matter how many times it's playtested. ("Wait, how did you end up owning a bakery in Menzoberranzan again?") Some loose ideas about the plans the NPCs have and how the world might change based on one or more NPCs plots being foiled is all that really makes sense.

"This is the one true ending" or even "here are the two or three ways this adventure can end" are unrealistic, to put it mildly.

 

[Emoshin]

This whole thing is weird to me. If anyone who writes an adventure runs adventures, they know the players will inevitably do something you'll never see coming, no matter how many times it's playtested. ("Wait, how did you end up owning a bakery in Menzoberranzan again?") Some loose ideas about the plans the NPCs have and how the world might change based on one or more NPCs plots being foiled, is all that really makes sense.

"This is the one true ending" or even "here are the two or three ways this adventure can end" are unrealistic, to put it mildly.

Hi Whizbang Dustyboots, don't think of it as "one true ending"

Suggested endings ("here are the two or three ways this adventure can end") is closer to it.

Just think of some WoTC 5E published adventures that have provided some if-then scenarios, especially at the end. I don't know if all of them do it, but I know some definitely do I think some of them do? So just roll with that. Of course, if it does not jive with you, don't select the option!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hi Whizbang Dustyboots, don't think of it as "one true ending"

Suggested endings ("here are the two or three ways this adventure can end") is closer to it.

Just think of some WoTC 5E published adventures that have provided some if-then scenarios, especially at the end. I don't know if all of them do it, but I know some definitely do I think some of them do? So just roll with that. Of course, if it does not jive with you, don't select the option!

I think WotC is being weird here, not this poll.

No adventure survives contact with the players and it's weird to me that any adventure publisher would burn up word count on writing out specific endings.

 

[Emoshin]

I think WotC is being weird here, not this poll.

No adventure survives contact with the players and it's weird to me that any adventure publisher would burn up word count on writing out specific endings.

I don't know for sure what is "normal" here across the 5E community, that's why I started the poll! The poll is not scientific, but hopefully directional

 

[ad_hoc]

We have a rule that all the PCs are good.

I don't have an interest in an adventure that is a morality test.

I think morality is important but I don't want to play the trolley problem.

I want endings that have various levels of achievement.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hmmm... I'd LIKE for adventures to have a few possible endings (regardless of morals) AND I prefer good, heroic characters (but I am not stuck on that ALL the time. Sometimes I like to play or DM for morally gray or even evil characters). BUT I don't particularly care either way, because I do (and probably would regardless of what's included in a written adventure) make up my own endings/middles that tweak the adventure toward whatever style my group(s) is currently playing. Does that make sense?

 

[Bacon Bits]

It somewhat depends, but in general I like when adventures sketch out the intended results when the PCs are completely successful, when they're partially successful but did not fail, and when they fail at their primary task. This often comes under a heading of "Wrapping Up" or "Future Hooks" or even part of an extended plot or direct follow-up adventure. It may need elaboration, but often it won't.

Imagine you were running a SW4-1: A New Hope module. I could imagine:

• Good. If the PCs manage to deliver the hidden Death Star plans to the Rebellion, rescue the Leia, and prevent the Death Star from destroying the core of the Rebellion on Yavin IV, they have won. If they also managed to win the Battle of Yavin, they are richly rewarded by the Rebellion (in addition to the Rebellion's rewards for rescuing Lady Leia and/or recovering the Death Star plans)! Assuming the party is on good terms with Leia and the other leaders, the Rebellion will also be interested in the PCs for future adventures, and would eagerly encourage them to join the Rebellion for mutual protection. If the Death Star is destroyed or incapacitated, then the Rebellion will allow any surviving former Jedi in the party to begin a new Jedi Temple under the protection of the Rebellion. If Sith Vader is somehow killed, Jedi characters know it's only a matter of time before another Sith rises to the Emperor's side.
• Mixed. If the PCs failed to recover the Death Star plans but successfully warn the Rebellion to abandon the base at Yavin, the Rebellion survives but may be in very dire circumstances. The Rebellion will still be interested in the PC's help and will protect them, but now it's out of desperation rather than admiration! The Rebellion will go into hiding at another hidden base (see SW5-1: Ice Base Hoth for an example hidden base) and will continue the fight to uncover the weakness of the Death Star.
• Bad. If the PCs fail to rescue Lady Leia (or she's unable to speak) and then the PCs also don't remember to contact Biggs Darklighter (pp3-4) or Lando Calrissian (p4), then the PCs have no way to learn the location of the Rebels even if they have the Death Star plans. Similar problems may occur if the if the Death Star plans are lost, or if the PCs don't reach the Rebellion in time. Either way, the outcome is that the Rebel base on Yavin IV is destroyed. If the base is destroyed without evacuation, the Rebellion -- or this branch of it -- is totally crushed and scattered. The PCs themselves may need to evade Imperial forces, especially if Sith Vader recognized any former Jedi in the party.

I think it's useful to see how the author of the module imagines it might go and how things might go pear-shaped.

 

[RangerWickett]

In the ZEITGEIST murder mystery Death of the Author, I didn't dwell too much on 'good' or 'bad' endings. The PCs can successfully solve the murder and catch the killer, or they can die, or they can realize that the killer has a good motive that they agree with, and help the killer get away with murder. But all that is only really a couple paragraphs of text after a bunch of details earlier about the motivation of the various NPCs. The GM ought to understand everyone well enough to manage different outcomes.

Similarly the one-shot Bonds of Forced Faith has some witches trying to do a ritual, and the PCs include a king and his intended successor, and the various outcomes are basically "1. The Witches Beat You," "2. Some or all of the party help the witches win." and "3-6. Different members of the party end up being picked as the next king."

But for longer ones, like the sprawling thriller The Dying Skyseer which spans 3 levels, there are various plot lines that can end up different ways depending on PC actions. The titular skyseer might get to deliver his prophecy or be thwarted. The factory that's trying to resist the crime syndicate's efforts to get it to help their smuggling operation might get burned down, or you might save it, or you might ally with the syndicate to persuade the owner to give in. The secret info a murdered spy stole might be recovered or lost, and if you recover it you might decide to do all sorts of stuff with it. Along the way you might ally with a couple sketchy characters, or make friends with a heroic fugitive, or become famous for helping a workers' protest.

It's really too complicated to have a 'good ending' or 'bad ending.' But at the start of the campaign, for character creation each player is told that they need to make a character who is motivated to serve their nation and protect it. They can be 'good' or 'bad' or a mix along the way, but the campaign expects buy-in from the players.

 

[Lanefan]

No adventure survives contact with the players and it's weird to me that any adventure publisher would burn up word count on writing out specific endings.

IMO adventure writers need to put some word count not just into alternate ending possibilities but into some of the more obvious "what if" scenarios all the way through.

Rare, for example, is the module author who takes flight abilities into account even when writing for levels that would almost certainly have it available. Ditto authors who bother to write about or even consider developments should the characters leave the adventure for a few days or weeks and then return (which my lot do all the time!). The players/PCs pulling an obvious what-if really shouldn't ever leave the DM hanging; IMO the point of using a pre-written module is to not have to worry about those things unless the players go right off the grid and come up with something really unforeseeable.

Boxed descriptions that assume the characters will always approach through one entrance when the room has three are another egregious example of poor adventure writing.

Yes, this all takes more word count, but in modern adventures (PF, I'm looking closely at you right now) there's often lots of needless backstory to chop off to generate that space.