PDA

View Full Version : Am I wrong?



Doomboy911
2013-11-19, 12:28 PM
Usually when that question is asked the answer is yes, yes you are but lets hear this out.

Essentially the dungeon master is testing a module on us to see if it's worth publishing. Even though I'm sure he won't value my opinion I've got some things worth saying.

1. First is that he had us level in this game twice. I understand as a DM and a player that leveling takes forever (perhaps it makes up for the five day travels that take five seconds) so doing this in module just sounds like a headache for someone who wants a smooth running campaign.

2. The time skip. The DM wants his adventure to seem like a truly epic quest so we have to travel to an uncharted part of the world on ship for the next part of our quest. It takes two years, this was where the second level we got came in apparently we spent so long on this ship we leveled. (And the paladin's horse died and she had to ride the horse's kid, the alchemist of our group even had a kid)

As we set out he even asked us what we were doing on our two year ride and than awarded us based off what we were doing.

I feel this is off for two reasons, one if he wants the quest to be epic and make us spend two years on a boat he should make it less humdrum, we didn't really do anything significant it was more like we just chilled on a boat for awhile not we were sailing off into the vast unknown to reap riches unheard of. The other reason is the rewarding if this was a module the DM running it would have to whip up special rewards based off what the players were doing. I'm not saying a module is for the uncreative just that you rely on the writer more than yourself to provide material. So the dm will get tripped up in having to reward his players and than even if the dm whips up a chart for rewards there's still a good chance a player might spend his time doing something not on said hypothetical chart. We all know that players are unpredictable so does the player who does something else just not get rewarded? Than we get a shift in power and perhaps a bit of anger towards others.

3. A villain that isn't a villain. So in order to get some information about our quest we had to pull off some odd jobs for a sordid information broker, we avoided these odd jobs because they were kind of against our alignment, (the paladin couldn't kill an innocent man and I as a cleric of Kord! couldn't rig a tournament) so we beat up the middle man and force him to take us to the information broker who informs us that if we had performed our goals we would've been helping a good deal of people. He gives us the information we want and we go off and gather more information than head back to where we started. Now we have to make our way out on this two year journey, the sort of villain doesn't even make ripples. We find out that some of his men our on the ship but they're not really going to stop us. So I feel that the three sessions we spent dealing with the information broker was more of a waste of our time. He could've easily told us why he wanted to do the terrible things he wanted us to do but no we had to be forced and tricked into doing what we did. For no apparent reason.

4. His way of making the quest epic. The biggest complaint is that he started us at level eight but decided we had half gold, we apparently spent the rest on a six month journey searching for the mystical artifact that we're all after. Along the way we keep running into people who tell us that the path is treacherous and warning us to turn back and go home now. That's all fine and good except these people who tell us to go back our nobodies. Like an old innkeeper who directs us to the information broker. How does she know the path is dangerous? Has she ventured on it herself? Has someone told her that that people who came this way have died? She has no way of knowing it's dangerous.

I feel that a lot of players would be upset by starting with half gold just to make the adventure more epic especially when the quest comes off as more expensive than epic.

I don't know maybe I'm wrong and this is all the making of the most epic adventure ever. Internet what do you think?

BWR
2013-11-19, 01:31 PM
It's hard to tell from what little you've given us. Since the DM is running it to see if it's worth publishing, keep careful note of all the places you think it's lacking and hand them over at the end of the session or at the end of the game, whatever. Think of this as an alpha test of the module. If the DM wants to run it for you but for some incomprehensible reason doesn't want feedback there's no helping him and you will just have to treat this as a normal adventure.

If he wants feedback, make careful note of what works and what doesn't and more importantly, why it doesn't work. And keep the tone as neutral as possible.

As for my peresonal opinions, based on what you have presented us with.
1. I don't really see your problem. There is a lack of infomation. Is the problem that you have leveled twice when you don't think there has been enough non-combat matters between levels? Or that it's going too slowly? Or that they are handed out without earning them honestly (by conflict or deep immersion in plot)?

2. Downtiming is tricky. Was the alchemist the mother or the father? Just saying "A, your horse died, and B, you're preggers" by way of handling the downtime is a terrible way of doing things. Yes, unfortunate things happen all the time but in a game such as this just fiating stuff like that is a direct attack on the PC. Some players won't mind but some players will. Know your players. If he intends to have some note in the adventure saying "kill off a special mount/animalcompanion/familiar and knock any female PC up or have a male PC spawn a child" I would strongly advise against it.
If the PC is known for enjoying the beast with two backs and does so habitually, then all's well - children do happen and I don't see a problem with a game taking unprotected sex to its logical conclusion. But just randomly saying "you're a parent" is not a good move.

I don't really get the second part of your thoughts on point 2. Are you saying that the voyage shouldn't be time-skipped, that there should be some sort of encounters on the way? Or that the DM forced you to go on the boat with no ability to drop out of the skip to do things on your own? Or that the DM basically sat there saying "so you're on the boat, and today nothing happnes" umpteen times?

3. In itself, running an adventure that doesn't suit all alignments or classes is perfectly fine, so long as this is announced at character creation. If you want intrigue and skullduggery and knives in backs and poison in wine, fine but tell your players before they roll up the Paladin Pentet.
As for the seemingly unnecessary subterfuge, there can be valid reasons for this. One the NPC is a secretive sort of person, one who does not share his reasons or motives with just anyone. Also, the middle men may not know the reasons, or think to share them with you to begin with. The NPC may be unsure of the PCs capabilities and personalities, so he runs on a need-to-know basis. He wants a job done, people are told what to do, not why.

This comes off, based on your descriptions, as a perfectly acceptable idea that didn't work in execution.

4. I'm a bit confused by your description. Is this situation merely that the DM bckstoried a lot of boring and fruitless work by saying "you spent 6 months and a fortune trying to find out about the mcguffin. Finally, after half a year, you have a solid lead." ? Because that's fine. If there is one thing that frustrates players it's running around for several sessions and having nothing you do be of any use (I've been on both sides of that).
You could make a small scene or two out of it, describing the sorts of places you visit, the people you talk to, the prices you pay to use ancient libraries, etc.
But if the DM starts you out on a boat to find the artifact and doesn't provide an introduction and hooks to draw you in to why you are looking for it, that's shoddy design. Even if the hooks are obvious and not very temptingly baited, it's a tradition to throw them out there. At least give the players some illusion that they can say 'no'.

As for NPCs knowing things they apparantly shouldn't, again we are not given enough info to judge. Perhaps it's like "I'm off to Mordor. Know how to get there?" to which any marginally knowledgeable person will say "That's certain death, that is." even if they have no direct information about it or know anyone who does.
But if the place you are heading for is unknown to the general public, then there are some issues.

As for starting at half standard WBL, I don't see a problem with this unless the game becomes unreasonably hard because of this. If a non-caster combatant can't afford a magic weapon and you only meet creatures with DR/magic, turning an otherwise challenging fight into certain death if a spellcaster doesn't have Magic Weapon handy, then it's unreasonable. If not, fine. It's just another element of flavor for the adventure.

Alberic Strein
2013-11-19, 01:49 PM
Yes you are.

Okay, it hits a bit too close to home, as it is quite a bit similar to the game I'm running with my players, but I'll try to provide a worthwile opinion.


1. First is that he had us level in this game twice. I understand as a DM and a player that leveling takes forever (perhaps it makes up for the five day travels that take five seconds) so doing this in module just sounds like a headache for someone who wants a smooth running campaign.

Yes. However, some very good modules are broken in different parts, so he could publish it as a set, ending the scenarii with the level up sound and starting with the months where nothing happened.


2. The time skip. The DM wants his adventure to seem like a truly epic quest so we have to travel to an uncharted part of the world on ship for the next part of our quest. It takes two years, this was where the second level we got came in apparently we spent so long on this ship we leveled. (And the paladin's horse died and she had to ride the horse's kid, the alchemist of our group even had a kid)

I believe the "level up" system in 3.5 has a 2 months training thing, if the first part ends with the ship's departure, then the level up would be logical. I used the time skip myself, my players being stranded on an unhabitated island for what ended up being one year and a half. Making time pass can be a great way to give some unsuspected depth to your scenario, but yeah, it can be tricky

In this unreliable setting called real life (or, more closely, my perception of real life) ships very, very rarely set out full west for full years. Colombus' first travel to the Americas (though he was looking for something else entirely) took five weeks, to put it into perspective. His return took something like three months.

So, the whole journey could be littered with little calls there and there, justifying the skill ranks the team took with their levels, or opening the way for some exotic adventures.



As we set out he even asked us what we were doing on our two year ride and than awarded us based off what we were doing.

I feel this is off for two reasons, one if he wants the quest to be epic and make us spend two years on a boat he should make it less humdrum, we didn't really do anything significant it was more like we just chilled on a boat for awhile not we were sailing off into the vast unknown to reap riches unheard of. The other reason is the rewarding if this was a module the DM running it would have to whip up special rewards based off what the players were doing. I'm not saying a module is for the uncreative just that you rely on the writer more than yourself to provide material. So the dm will get tripped up in having to reward his players and than even if the dm whips up a chart for rewards there's still a good chance a player might spend his time doing something not on said hypothetical chart. We all know that players are unpredictable so does the player who does something else just not get rewarded? Than we get a shift in power and perhaps a bit of anger towards others.

Triiiiiiicky... The way I would go at it wouldn't work for a published module. Namely, informal rewards and skill ranks. After that year and a half, anyone who didn't shut herself in her cabin should get some free ranks in shiphandling, and anyone who didn't levitate all day to avoid seasickness should be immune to it.

But really, there really is NOTHING to do on a boat... Besides sailing said boat and playing dice.



3. A villain that isn't a villain. So in order to get some information about our quest we had to pull off some odd jobs for a sordid information broker, we avoided these odd jobs because they were kind of against our alignment, (the paladin couldn't kill an innocent man and I as a cleric of Kord! couldn't rig a tournament) so we beat up the middle man and force him to take us to the information broker who informs us that if we had performed our goals we would've been helping a good deal of people. He gives us the information we want and we go off and gather more information than head back to where we started. Now we have to make our way out on this two year journey, the sort of villain doesn't even make ripples. We find out that some of his men our on the ship but they're not really going to stop us. So I feel that the three sessions we spent dealing with the information broker was more of a waste of our time. He could've easily told us why he wanted to do the terrible things he wanted us to do but no we had to be forced and tricked into doing what we did. For no apparent reason.

Call me crazy but... This sounds a lot more like plot derailment. Maybe the broker was not supposed to be the villain and your DM gave him some legitimately "good" reasons to let you know you had helped yourself some plot derailment. Or he was sour about it.

I personally love non-villain antagonists. They are set to oppose you and your team, but they are logical, pragmatic, and could end up with some sympathisers in the group. Cue Chaos.

Might need rewriting and re-testing.



4. His way of making the quest epic. The biggest complaint is that he started us at level eight but decided we had half gold, we apparently spent the rest on a six month journey searching for the mystical artifact that we're all after. Along the way we keep running into people who tell us that the path is treacherous and warning us to turn back and go home now. That's all fine and good except these people who tell us to go back our nobodies. Like an old innkeeper who directs us to the information broker. How does she know the path is dangerous? Has she ventured on it herself? Has someone told her that that people who came this way have died? She has no way of knowing it's dangerous.

DM'ing tired is bad.



I feel that a lot of players would be upset by starting with half gold just to make the adventure more epic especially when the quest comes off as more expensive than epic.

I don't know maybe I'm wrong and this is all the making of the most epic adventure ever. Internet what do you think?

Bah, I don't care for the half gold. Some wacky restrictions make some campaigns completely awesome.

"Full warrior or full Paladin team. Your choice"

Reading your post I feel the "module" is more of A FULL CAMPAIGN than anything else.

Also it seems you can't trust your DM, not because he is a man, but because he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Tell him to sleep on it, refine it, and be ready to accept criticism.

And reread epic classics.

(The count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas springs to mind. Original is in french, but it's everything your DM seems to be going for... And then more.)

Rhynn
2013-11-19, 02:13 PM
First, what are we talking here? D&D 3.5? PF? 4E?

By "module," are we talking "campaign" or "adventure" ? To me, "module" means something like the old AD&D or BECM A-series, B-series, T1, etc. modules - a location for adventure, maybe a light plot to push the players into it. What you describe sounds more like an entire campaign. Basically, how many hours of playing time are we talking here?

1. sounds inevitable if it's a campaign, but if it's a module, then there's no reason for levels to be gained mid-play, if they are gained at all.

However, combined with what you describe in 2., this is bad. A module or campaign that you publish absolutely can't include, IMO, arbitrary level-ups for no reason. A GM may elect to use them, but they don't belong in a product you want to publish, because some GMs absolutely will not use them because they have no precedent in the rules.

2. sounds horrible. If you're going to put in a two-year sea voyage, you should make it interesting. That is, in a sense, an epic endeavor in itself; especially in a fantasy world. Frankly, I think it's a crime not to at least include a ton of short ideas for little adventures, challenges, and locations to come across... far-away ports, islands where you put to shore for supplies and get captured by cyclopes or accidentally awaken an iron golem filled with molten lead, etc. The time skip seems like a bad idea already; it pretty much by definition requires this to be a long-term campaign (so making the journey involved and interesting fits); a "module" should be something you can plop into any campaign, and if it takes two years, you really can't.

How far are you sailing that it takes two years, anyway? For an A-to-B journey, that's a very, very long time. Christopher Columbus' first voyage to the Americas and back took 8 months (Spain to Cuba). His second voyage took 11 months, back and forth. Captain Cook's voyages were much longer, but they involved mapping and surveying coastlines and literally sailing around the world doing giant loops...

3. sounds like bad adventure-writing. If you're writing an adventure with a plotline, you have to be hyper-aware of every situation where some hypothetical group of PCs is likely to not follow your plot. The only way to solve this sort of thing is to make it clear why they should - to the characters, not the players.

4. just sounds like bad prose-writing. Hardly a dealbreaker.

But yeah, if you're writing a to-publish module, you should follow the rules. That includes WBL. If a GM wants to change the rules, they can do that, but the adventure should stick to the shared by-the-book baseline.

Edit:

I believe the "level up" system in 3.5 has a 2 months training thing

Nope. Such an optional rule may exist somewhere, but I seriously doubt it would be two months. If you can give chapter and verse, I'll eat crow, but there's no such rule that I am aware of.


But really, there really is NOTHING to do on a boat... Besides sailing said boat and playing dice.

But, as you alluded to, ships have to put to shore all the time. Let's say you can carry a whole month's supplies for the whole crew (and manage to get a month's worth of food that won't spoil, every time you put to shore - a freaking miracle) - you'll have to put to shore at least 24 times during 2 years, not counting repairs, curiosity, etc. There is a ton of adventurous stuff going on during an ocean voyage.


Call me crazy but... This sounds a lot more like plot derailment. Maybe the broker was not supposed to be the villain and your DM gave him some legitimately "good" reasons to let you know you had helped yourself some plot derailment. Or he was sour about it.

You sound almost like you're suggesting "plot derailment" is something mean players do. It's usually a matter of poor design: if you don't provide a hook the party will actually want to grab (c.f. expecting a LG paladin to kill innocents and a cleric of fair contests to cheat), you've designed poorly and get to blame yourself.

More broadly, this is the problem with point-to-point pre-planned plots, and is inevitable when you use them.


Also, to put a none too fine a point to it: what is fine for a house campaign is not always even remotely fine for something you hope to publish. You have to be enormously stricter and more demanding of every aspect of the adventure or campagin, and you have to account for adapting it (which means sticking to the shared baseline, e.g. the rules, as much as possible; adding new stuff is fine, changing existing assumptions is worse).

MukkTB
2013-11-19, 02:24 PM
The thing that sticks out to me, is that by level 8 it shouldn't take years to get somewhere.

Rhynn
2013-11-19, 02:27 PM
The thing that sticks out to me, is that by level 8 it shouldn't take years to get somewhere.

Yeah, that's sort of a giant red flag that this is a railroad. Assuming this is some variation of D&D 3E we're talking, 8th-level characters can travel much faster than sitting on a ship for two years. Divinations and teleportation are available at that point.

You can't just write an adventure and not account for the features of the system you're making. It does make writing for D&D 3.X really difficult, but you can't just wave your hands and ignore that fact no matter how you'd like to. You'll end up railroading and constructing ridiculously contrived scenarios to force the players to act out your preconceived ideas of how things will progress.

JeenLeen
2013-11-19, 02:29 PM
First off, I second keeping notes and handing them over, but being neutral and kind in tone. If he's running it to test a module, he is (or at least should be) expecting feedback, positive and negative. Still, people can be attached to their creative works, so realize he might have difficulty taking negative criticism well.

1. If it's a one-shot, leveling twice slows down gameplay too much. If it's a module that lasts over several nights (which is what this sounds like), then it's reasonable depending on when it's done.

As long as it's at a reasonable stopping point, seems okay. I would say have at least 2-3 sessions between levels, though, to get use to the just-earned one before starting a new one.

2. If all of those time-skip things were based on what the PCs did, it seems reasonable. I do agree, though, that something like that sounds like it would be bad for a module, unless you set up a general risk/reward thing.

I do think the PCs shouldn't be penalized too much. Losing your animal companion is kind of a big deal, even if it's replaced with a mechanical equivalent, much moreso if it's not (young horse weaker than the warhorse, for example).

Is having a kid part of the plot, or just what was done in response to the alchemist's actions? If the latter, okay; if the former, sounds not good for a module.


Also, 2 years does just go over-the-top to me. A few months, sure, but two years sounds... well, annoying, not epic.
3. It sounds like this wasn't a villain in any sense, just a seedy information broker who (maybe for unknown reasons) was a liar yet the bad things would have led to good? Not too clear on that, but it sounds like the DM didn't give the players a good sense about it, either.

I think beating the info out of him sounds like a good alternative avenue to gain the information. The guy could probably use more reasoning behind his motivations for lying/holding back info.

4. Giving less than standard gold just sounds like a bad idea. It makes sense plot-wise, but if I'm told we're running a level X game, I expect the gold a level X character starts with. It can be done well, but it doesn't seem worth it.

Also, the reason given doesn't sound that solid to me. Basically we were stupid before the module started and blew a lot of our wealth?

I will admit I'm a bit of a min-maxer, so I'd see having that gold missing as the DM taking away abilities I should have at that level. More RP-centric players may not mind as much.

MukkTB
2013-11-19, 02:46 PM
After some thought it might make sense for 8th level characters to spend years of travel doing some extraplanar trek across the dimensions. On the home dimension, not so much.

jedipotter
2013-11-19, 03:09 PM
I don't know maybe I'm wrong and this is all the making of the most epic adventure ever. Internet what do you think?

It is not the most Epic ever. As soon as the DM has to start doing things to ''make'' the quest/game/adventure more Epic...it is not.

Time is always a problem. It ''sounds good'' when things take a long time, but it really means very little. It sounds good to say ''I have been searching for the key for two years'', but it really means you were doing nothing 'notable' for two years.

And time always gets used to make things feel ''more Epic''. Like were Gandalf does not just fly Frodo over to Mt. Doom on one of the giant birds on page 2 and instead says ''lets walk''.

I would not like this module(lol, gosh you must be long time gamers), and would not use it or even buy it(well maybe at Half Price Books for like $1)

Jay R
2013-11-19, 03:28 PM
No, you are not wrong. You are merely opinionated.

But that was the initial point. He had you play it to get your opinions. The crucial data is that you didn't enjoy it.

But nobody likes all published modules. If most of the rest of the players enjoyed it, it may be publishable as is.

There a lots of gamers with different tastes from yours. For instance, I don't like the 3E assumption that there's a certain level of gold that all characters of a given level should have. Therefore one of your complaints is an aspect that appealed to me.

Or he may desire to modify the module based on your critique. Add some water encounters during the two year voyage, for instance.

There are also some aspects of an adventure that the players may not know, even after a run-through. For instance, he may already have a table of all possible rewards you can earn on board the ship. The players would never see this table, so you can't know if "the DM running it would have to whip up special rewards based off what the players were doing." Even if your DM had to do so, he might have used what you did as a tool to build such a table.

In any event, don't fall into the trap of assuming that an adventure must either appeal to you or be bad. There a lots of gamers with different tastes from yours.

Give your critique based on your experience, and move on.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-19, 03:35 PM
Time is always a problem. It ''sounds good'' when things take a long time, but it really means very little. It sounds good to say ''I have been searching for the key for two years'', but it really means you were doing nothing 'notable' for two years.

Agreed. If you have to spend two years finding your keys, at least have some adventures in that time. It helps to be able to say "I've been looking for these keys for two years, but it was still totally awesome and I had to fend off bandits, do detective work, infiltrate haunted temples, wrestle bears, and do other cool stuff like that" instead of "I sat on a ship for two years to get here". Granted, it is something of an achievement to be out at sea for two years and not go crazy.

An example of what I mean is that in Skyrim, epicness isn't conveyed just by distance, but that most of the fun stuff (i.e. encounters) happens while you're traveling between the "main quests", instead of a timeskip telling you you've spent 3 days traveling.



And time always gets used to make things feel ''more Epic''. Like were Gandalf does not just fly Frodo over to Mt. Doom on one of the giant birds on page 2 and instead says ''lets walk''.

I still find it bizarre that the eagles were cool with lifting Frodo out of Mordor (while Mt. Doom was erupting, sending magma and boulders into the air, no less!), but not with flying him in. Maybe Sauron's eye would have acted as anti-aircraft (that thing's gaze does bad things to people), so they could only call the eagles in after that was down?

Scow2
2013-11-19, 04:59 PM
-snip-

Just one major comment I have to say about your analysis:
Wealth By Level is not a rule in any way, shape, or form. It's a guideline.

The Glyphstone
2013-11-19, 05:35 PM
Just one major comment I have to say about your analysis:
Wealth By Level is not a rule in any way, shape, or form. It's a guideline.

It is, however, a guideline that a significant portion of the game is dependent on, and not one that should be tampered with lightly. Simply reducing (or increasing) wealth without taking into account the appropriate increase or decrease in encounter difficulty/frequency will cause major issues, and exacerbate the existing problem of disparity between mundane and magical classes.

urkthegurk
2013-11-19, 07:32 PM
1. sounds inevitable if it's a campaign, but if it's a module, then there's no reason for levels to be gained mid-play, if they are gained at all.

I disagree. Modules can have multiple arcs in them (see Age of Worms) and it can be perfectly reasonable to have level-ups happen between them.



However, combined with what you describe in 2., this is bad. A module or campaign that you publish absolutely can't include, IMO, arbitrary level-ups for no reason. A GM may elect to use them, but they don't belong in a product you want to publish, because some GMs absolutely will not use them because they have no precedent in the rules.

Its true. It would be better to have some sort of unique guideline for level-ups that happen around that time. Stuff like the PCs have access to some skill tricks and special feats they can choose to take, bonuses, unique spells. And if you get the players involved in plotting the ship's route or what have you, hand out a chunk of xp. But if they don't do anything, they don't get xp. There's a reason every 80-year old commoner isn't 15th level. Although maybe they should be.



2. sounds horrible. If you're going to put in a two-year sea voyage, you should make it interesting. That is, in a sense, an epic endeavor in itself; especially in a fantasy world. Frankly, I think it's a crime not to at least include a ton of short ideas for little adventures, challenges, and locations to come across... far-away ports, islands where you put to shore for supplies and get captured by cyclopes or accidentally awaken an iron golem filled with molten lead, etc. The time skip seems like a bad idea already; it pretty much by definition requires this to be a long-term campaign (so making the journey involved and interesting fits); a "module" should be something you can plop into any campaign, and if it takes two years, you really can't.

Yes.



In this unreliable setting called real life (or, more closely, my perception of real life) ships very, very rarely set out full west for full years. Colombus' first travel to the Americas (though he was looking for something else entirely) took five weeks, to put it into perspective. His return took something like three months.

So its a world the size of Jupiter, or maybe its flat. Or maybe they get lost, or time-travel or whatever like Odysseus, who took TEN YEARS to sail across the Mediterranean. But yes, clearly the DM has not addressed this :P

As for WBL, if the module wants to deal with this I'd suggest including a section on rewards that are appropriate for WBL guidelines, but aren't refundable for cash. Stuff like magical tattoos, special abilities, maybe contracts like Letters of Mark, since you're on a boat and all, or permission to start a colony on behalf of the crown. Also lots of money made trading, I'd imagine Vikings for instance don't have a lot of trouble keeping up with WBL, if, you know, DnD matched up with the real world.

If you don't hand out goodies to replace items and so on, expect PCs to start pillaging a lot more to pay for their bar tab.

NichG
2013-11-19, 08:38 PM
The main issue I think is not any of these details, its that this module wouldn't play nice with most other things.

The point of a module is basically to fit in with the rest of the campaign smoothly and give the DM a way to say 'I'm not feeling very creative right now, so lets do this thing instead for a bit'. That basically means that it needs to specify ahead of time whatever constraints are needed (for Forgotten Realms characters Lv8 to Lv10), and then basically present a scenario that can be fitted into a campaign world/sequence with minimal damage given that the constraints it asks for are fulfilled (e.g. its for Forgotten Realms, so if you want to run it on Krynn some things may not make sense or will need to be adapted, but if you run it for your Faerun campaign you should be able to expect that it won't make sweeping changes as a matter of assumption).

A lot of the things in this adventure simply don't seem modular to me. The two year ocean voyage is likely to mess up any sort of time-dependent thing the DM has running in the background from their own campaign. If those two years were filled with events, that might be worth the loss of generality, but if its just a timeskip then it seems ill-considered. Specifying PC treasure levels at the start of the module is going to make it less generally useful - thats like saying 'for PCs Lv8-10 with no more than half WBL'. You can constrain the module that way, but it makes it less useful for people. It would be better to have a section at the start that explains 'Adapting this adventure for different wealth levels', for example.

All that said, however, there are things you as a player can't see during play. Maybe in the written-up version of the module it has all of this stuff, and the DM just chose to run it that way because that was the option he liked the best. Without seeing that actual document its hard to say more.

Brookshw
2013-11-19, 09:44 PM
You're not wrong and it certainly sounds like some elements of this could be improved, but that's what playtesting is for.

The only thing I'll add, I'm okay with the knowledgeable innkeeper. Well, as long as it's done well.

"As you and your compatriots discuss the plans to scale mount doom in search of the Mcguffin the innkeeper delivers your next round. Hearing your conversation as he walked up he puts your drinks down with a bang and a sneer. 'Please by all means get on with your mighty task. You're the 5th group this month to attempt it and not a one has returned. Good luck, let me know where your next of kin be'"

For kinder approach substitute "as he walked up he slows and looks down. Carefully placing your drinks on the table he looks you square in the eye and says in a quiet voice, 'don't do it son. Every year a handful come through searching for the very thing. They go up but nary a one descends. Even me own son tried it, I'll never see his smile again. Find something safer, find something to live for, not something to die for'."

You could pull this off pretty easy. Hey, bonus side quests! Find the bodies and loot them for your missing WBL or find out what happened, maybe a medusa stoned the kid and you can return him to his family. Options!

Rhynn
2013-11-20, 12:26 AM
I still find it bizarre that the eagles were cool with lifting Frodo out of Mordor (while Mt. Doom was erupting, sending magma and boulders into the air, no less!), but not with flying him in. Maybe Sauron's eye would have acted as anti-aircraft (that thing's gaze does bad things to people), so they could only call the eagles in after that was down?

I've never comprehended this particular niggle. The Nazgūl have freaking flying monsters of their own, and the Eye would certainly have spotted giant eagles flying in; Sauron would have filled Sammath Naur with orcs and worse, making it completely impossible to reach the Cracks of Doom and destroy the ring.* Indeed, it would probably have been impossible for Gandalf (or Legolas or Aragorn) to sneak into Mordor at all, and the way things shook out was the only way it could have happened. (There's a reason they all decided to abandon Frodo and Sam to their fate - they knew it was the only way to succeed.)

* It's not a cartoon volcano with a big ol' hole in the top conveniently full of hot lava that you could drop the ring into on a flyover. You have to go inside Mount Doom to find the volcanic fissures...


It is, however, a guideline that a significant portion of the game is dependent on, and not one that should be tampered with lightly.

It's not even that it's such an integral part of the game I don't think it should be meddled it; I think it's a part of the game that should be meddled with at the table, not in an adventure/campaign you try to publish.


The main issue I think is not any of these details, its that this module wouldn't play nice with most other things.

I thought that was what I was getting at with a lot of my points: many of the details are too table-specific (messing with WBL, advancing the game by two years, etc.).

Jay R
2013-11-20, 12:37 AM
I still find it bizarre that the eagles were cool with lifting Frodo out of Mordor (while Mt. Doom was erupting, sending magma and boulders into the air, no less!), but not with flying him in. Maybe Sauron's eye would have acted as anti-aircraft (that thing's gaze does bad things to people), so they could only call the eagles in after that was down?

Nine flying wraiths. Tens of thousands of potential archers.

First empty Mordor of fighting units. Then send in unarmored flyers.

Sith_Happens
2013-11-20, 04:28 AM
Yeah, #2 is by far the biggest problem, by virtue of the sheer stupidity of it. The only way a ship ride takes two years is if you have an entire campaign along the way. Not to mention that every current edition of D&D has ways of traveling long distances quickly (though I don't know what level they come online in 4E).

Gavran
2013-11-20, 09:40 AM
Yeah, #2 is by far the biggest problem, by virtue of the sheer stupidity of it. The only way a ship ride takes two years is if you have an entire campaign along the way. Not to mention that every current edition of D&D has ways of traveling long distances quickly (though I don't know what level they come online in 4E).

Just for fun, the ritual to summon giant eagles to fly you around (which happens to be one of the first effective ways to travel a long distance quickly) is level 10.

Note also that teleportation to a place that hasn't had a teleportation circle set up in it that you're aware of isn't possible until level 28, and even that requires you to be able to describe the place specifically, though I imagine most DMs would allow "The Lost Continent of Myth" or what have you.

If the world is so huge that a sea vessel really takes two years to reach the destination, in 4E, there really might not be a better option. Of course it seems far more likely the DM is just being silly because there's no reason for that to be true.

Note: On modularity, I for one got the impression that this is supposed to be a "campaign", not an "adventure" and that makes a lot of those issues irrelevant.

@OP, your attitude seems a bit "wrong" but without hearing more of the story I'll grant the possibility that the GM has been handling this all very poorly as amateurs often do with their creative projects. All I can say is be honest with your feedback, but don't be mean about it. If your attitude is set on thinking he won't value your feedback, then just give him a emailed/printed/written sheet of it at the end and leave it at that. If he does seem to value it, suggest that he has other people DM his playtests, because a printed adventure is a tool marketed at DMs, not players.

Sebastrd
2013-11-20, 01:17 PM
If you're DM really wants to find out if it's publishable, he should have someone else run it and see how it turns out.

Lorsa
2013-11-21, 07:54 AM
It's a bit hard to say anything on most of the things you wrote, as more detailed information would be good.

However, two year long journeys by ship? In which universe does this happen? Either it is the kind of voyage that travels through a lot of various ports, going in circles and eventually ending up at a destination but then there really should be a lot more adventures along the way. Or it's just travel over the ocean for two years in which case most of the crew will have starved to death. I suppose a cleric of sufficiently high level could simply conjure the food though, but then again if we count magic into the equation why does this take 2 years anyway?

Furthermore, how large is this planet? Two years would take you around the Earth at least once.


For instance, I don't like the 3E assumption that there's a certain level of gold that all characters of a given level should have.

I thought the assumption was more "this is the amount of gold we've tailored the monster's CR towards". It's supposed to be a guide for you to not throw too dangerous challenges to players, or too easy ones.

Of course, if you don't need the cR systems in the first place, or let the players choose their own fights based on in-game information or something such then you don't really need the wealth-by-level guidelines. I've never gotten the impression they're an assumption though.

Sith_Happens
2013-11-21, 08:20 AM
I thought the assumption was more "this is the amount of gold we've tailored the monster's CR towards". It's supposed to be a guide for you to not throw too dangerous challenges to players, or too easy ones.

In practice that's usually the same thing.

Jay R
2013-11-21, 02:22 PM
I thought the assumption was more "this is the amount of gold we've tailored the monster's CR towards". It's supposed to be a guide for you to not throw too dangerous challenges to players, or too easy ones.

Of course, if you don't need the cR systems in the first place, or let the players choose their own fights based on in-game information or something such then you don't really need the wealth-by-level guidelines. I've never gotten the impression they're an assumption though.

As soon as players started complaining that the DM wasn't giving them enough stuff, based on the WBL guideline, it became a standard assumption and a quota in fact, if not in intent.

I'm currently playing a 2E 10th level thief / 10th level wizard with three magic items - a sword +1, a Boccob's Book, and a communicator amulet (plus a few scrolls). No problem - there just aren't many items in that world. But the assumptions of 3E make such a world, if not impossible, at least inconsistent with the ruleset.

The question is what will the players want to play? The WBL guideline has changed that for many players.

And this gets back to the point of the thread. The measurement of the scenario being playtested is this: will it be fun for the players who might play it? We have one player saying "No". But the DM/writer needs to combine that with feedback from the other players.

Scow2
2013-11-21, 04:01 PM
As soon as players started complaining that the DM wasn't giving them enough stuff, based on the WBL guideline, it became a standard assumption and a quota in fact, if not in intent.Players aren't/weren't even supposed to know about WBL (Or specific magic items, for that matter), and assuming Dungeon Master guidelines are supposed to be true is an extreme and obscene case of player entitlement.

Brookshw
2013-11-21, 04:36 PM
Players aren't/weren't even supposed to know about WBL (Or specific magic items, for that matter), and assuming Dungeon Master guidelines are supposed to be true is an extreme and obscene case of player entitlement.

I'm very inclined to agree with you on this, the games fun because its fun, not because of rigging the system imo.

Knaight
2013-11-22, 06:18 PM
Players aren't/weren't even supposed to know about WBL (Or specific magic items, for that matter), and assuming Dungeon Master guidelines are supposed to be true is an extreme and obscene case of player entitlement.

This just seems like an unreasonable assumption. If you have one person who always GMs, and other people who always play, and never mix this up between campaigns, then sure, the whole "secret GM section" actually makes sense. If these roles are anything but fixed, at best you can have some sort of temporary set up where people learn one by one what is in the section, where everyone is kept in the dark until someone has a campaign plan (without having read the section) at which point they and only they read the material.

As for player entitlement - WBL is setting information, first and foremost. It gives you an idea of just how much magical stuff is in the setting, which also gives you some idea of what the stuff means. As such, changing WBL isn't really any different than any other setting detail, and the proposed setting should probably be upfront when starting a game - at least at the broad genera level - the same way the technological and cultural sophistication of the societies within the setting should probably be detailed. I have trouble seeing people wanting to know what sort of game they'll be playing as entitlement. This is just a less clear cut case than, say, deciding to play D&D and omitting how you're running a cyberpunk campaign with it.

Honest Tiefling
2013-11-22, 06:58 PM
Admittedly, an adventure where instead of having to do sordid missions you could just shake down the guy in an epic swashbuckling fight or after sneakily infiltrating his house would be pretty nifty.

What I want to know is what kind of adventure automatically assumes the PCs are all murderhobos and totes okay with shanking a random dude. Or why this information broker, I don't know, provides the information to lure a paladin into his schemes and hence pay him rather then mentioning the stabby stabby fun time.