Thomas Percy
First Post
Wrathamon said:
ad 1. I consider it.Andre said:
ad 2. I find it splendid idea. If the PCs cannot win directly, I can give them another goal: to save a city.
Last edited:
Witchfire Collected Edition
- Thread starter Thomas Percy
- Start date
ad 2. I find it splendid idea. If the PCs cannot win directly, I can give them another goal: to save a city.
Thomas Percy
First Post
malchus said:
ad 1. Collected 3,5e Edition - all three adventures in one book.
ad 2. Shame, but I don't have a time to read it all. I've read it all many years ago, so I have synopsis made by myself.
ad 3. Are cutscenes really rpg tools?
Last edited:
Thomas Percy
First Post
Terrible for DM and player alike.Stormborn said:
Thomas Percy
First Post
I like artwork too, but there is on the front cover picture of bad guy necromancer in the company of her zombies. The problem is she is undercover necromancer in the benining of the module.senodam said:
We played only first chapter, when she's simple girl (even an old friend of shePC and she's starting to romance with hePC) and my players are calling me to say they will follow her steps next game session. I have no doubt because of this cover.
Last edited:
Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
Never played through, but I do love the IK setting and love running other things.
The problem is that as this has already "happened", the PC's are basically unlikely to change the course of events which is problematic for fun sake. The problem is not that the PC's are railroaded, but they can easily detect that railroading. A good session can be railroaded from beginning to end by a clever DM and the PC's have the illusion of "Choice." This doesn't really have that illusion.
It's an interesting story, basically. And the majority of adventuring doesn't involve Uber NPC's; they work in the background and when you show up you get stepped on. Thats just the way it works in any game. I just didn't think the PC's had enough of a feeling of success - its not really them who save the city, or really do a great deal of anything; they are the minor characters in a larger plot.
Nothing against the setting, but the adventure just doesn't allow for what PC's really want - to make a difference.
The problem is that as this has already "happened", the PC's are basically unlikely to change the course of events which is problematic for fun sake. The problem is not that the PC's are railroaded, but they can easily detect that railroading. A good session can be railroaded from beginning to end by a clever DM and the PC's have the illusion of "Choice." This doesn't really have that illusion.
It's an interesting story, basically. And the majority of adventuring doesn't involve Uber NPC's; they work in the background and when you show up you get stepped on. Thats just the way it works in any game. I just didn't think the PC's had enough of a feeling of success - its not really them who save the city, or really do a great deal of anything; they are the minor characters in a larger plot.
Nothing against the setting, but the adventure just doesn't allow for what PC's really want - to make a difference.
Thomas Percy
First Post
It's worth mention, that I warned my players this adventure has super story, NPC, background, etc. but it's railroading one. My players said: "That's better to play a little railroaded but interesting game session, than fully not-railroaded but dumb. And that's much better than don't play at all".
But...
now, because of this, my players look for railroading durning the session
.
But...
now, because of this, my players look for railroading durning the session
.
Keeper of Secrets
First Post
Its funny. I thought it was just my imagination about the railroading.
Honestly, its a great story and I enjoyed reading it a lot. But the last encounter in the first part of the trology was a killer. I had to cheat a little to keep everyone alive and I could tell that my players were a little miffed at the idea that they were not much more than casual observes when the two villains duked it out for the sword.
Honestly, its a great story and I enjoyed reading it a lot. But the last encounter in the first part of the trology was a killer. I had to cheat a little to keep everyone alive and I could tell that my players were a little miffed at the idea that they were not much more than casual observes when the two villains duked it out for the sword.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
I have the original three modules. Can anyone who has both the original set of modules and the book compilation do a contrast and compare with them? I'd like to know what the big book has the individual modules don't.
Yeah, the modules are really good-looking, but the railroading was surprising given that the modules are so recent and railroading modules have been soundly trounced for decades now. One of these days I should see if the modules can be rewritten to remove the railroading to my liking.
Yeah, the modules are really good-looking, but the railroading was surprising given that the modules are so recent and railroading modules have been soundly trounced for decades now. One of these days I should see if the modules can be rewritten to remove the railroading to my liking.
Thomas Percy
First Post
We have illegal PDFs from the year 2001 only, because new book (bought on eBay) is sailing (or flying) from USA to Poland now. When I will have it I compare two versions, maybe there is no railroading in the 3,5 module.ColonelHardisson said:
Cergorach
The Laughing One
After seeing this thread i reread the final encounter from The Longest Night adventure, while it has it's faults, i don't think it's the railroad from hell. Keep in mind that it's a new publishers first foray into (D20) publishing, and the adventure is six years old.
I think the biggest problem with the adventure was that they wanted to do to much with to little space. As a result encounters aren't as fully fleshed out as i would like, to random, to brief, to direct...
Some simple examples are:
- You get 1d4 guards if the party comes up with a good idea to slow down the undead army. I would go for "As many guards as there are PCs", lets each player 'control' a guard, makes it more fun for all players.
- You get 1d4 encounters/monsters. This makes life difficult for the DM, that either isn't enough or it's to much for the party. Use a number, playtest it, make sure it ain't to easy or to hard.
- The author tells you that something doesn't work (arrows don't hit during the dispelling ritual for example), doesn't give an explanation why, nor do the stats as provided explain the situation. After one read i had enough material to fix most of the authors faults with sound game mechanics/stats (invulnerability to arrows for example makes a whole lot of sense).
- Opportunities for heroism are left untouched. There are supposed to be a couple of battles with the Thralls and there are a two acolytes who are there to be killed. Why not combine the two, fight the Thralls to save the acolytes, if the PCs don't act swiftly or effectively enough the acolytes are killed by the Thralls. This simple change would make the PCs much more involved, making a difference (not to mention a couple of allies in future adventures).
The fact that the PCs decide whether to give the blade to Alexia or Oberon is a lot of influence for a 1st-3rd level party vs. a 10th lvl Sorceress and a 12th lvl Wizard. That either choice will end with Alexia holding the Blade is not something the PCs ought to know. I'm of the firm believe that PCs shouldn't be able to fight and defeat every 'monster' they encounter, such encounters shouldn't be often, but this is one of those.
I've been DMing for close to 18 years, starting from an extremely open ended DM style (This is the village you start in, what do you want to do?), i have learned that Players want to have some focus and guidance in a campaign. But they also appreciate the freedom to do what ever they want, even if that kind of kills the adventure. I still have players from my first 3E campaign reminiscing over the time they defeated three hordes of orcs and by defeating them against all odds, the DM turned about 50 pages of adventure with the comment "I won't be needing this anymore!". (Northern Journey for FR) DMing isn't about following the adventure exactly or even at all, it's a starting block for the players to make their own stories, if the players go off script, don't force them back on, improvise!
In short, the adventure needs some work to make it fun, but in my experience, most worthwhile adventures need some work to be fun...
I'm also curious what the differences between the 3E version and the compilation for 3.5E are. If i ever get my group motivated enough to play Witchfire i'll post my conversion notes ;-)
I think the biggest problem with the adventure was that they wanted to do to much with to little space. As a result encounters aren't as fully fleshed out as i would like, to random, to brief, to direct...
Some simple examples are:
- You get 1d4 guards if the party comes up with a good idea to slow down the undead army. I would go for "As many guards as there are PCs", lets each player 'control' a guard, makes it more fun for all players.
- You get 1d4 encounters/monsters. This makes life difficult for the DM, that either isn't enough or it's to much for the party. Use a number, playtest it, make sure it ain't to easy or to hard.
- The author tells you that something doesn't work (arrows don't hit during the dispelling ritual for example), doesn't give an explanation why, nor do the stats as provided explain the situation. After one read i had enough material to fix most of the authors faults with sound game mechanics/stats (invulnerability to arrows for example makes a whole lot of sense).
- Opportunities for heroism are left untouched. There are supposed to be a couple of battles with the Thralls and there are a two acolytes who are there to be killed. Why not combine the two, fight the Thralls to save the acolytes, if the PCs don't act swiftly or effectively enough the acolytes are killed by the Thralls. This simple change would make the PCs much more involved, making a difference (not to mention a couple of allies in future adventures).
The fact that the PCs decide whether to give the blade to Alexia or Oberon is a lot of influence for a 1st-3rd level party vs. a 10th lvl Sorceress and a 12th lvl Wizard. That either choice will end with Alexia holding the Blade is not something the PCs ought to know. I'm of the firm believe that PCs shouldn't be able to fight and defeat every 'monster' they encounter, such encounters shouldn't be often, but this is one of those.
I've been DMing for close to 18 years, starting from an extremely open ended DM style (This is the village you start in, what do you want to do?), i have learned that Players want to have some focus and guidance in a campaign. But they also appreciate the freedom to do what ever they want, even if that kind of kills the adventure. I still have players from my first 3E campaign reminiscing over the time they defeated three hordes of orcs and by defeating them against all odds, the DM turned about 50 pages of adventure with the comment "I won't be needing this anymore!". (Northern Journey for FR) DMing isn't about following the adventure exactly or even at all, it's a starting block for the players to make their own stories, if the players go off script, don't force them back on, improvise!
In short, the adventure needs some work to make it fun, but in my experience, most worthwhile adventures need some work to be fun...
I'm also curious what the differences between the 3E version and the compilation for 3.5E are. If i ever get my group motivated enough to play Witchfire i'll post my conversion notes ;-)
Similar Threads
