What Makes Red Hand of Doom So Popular?

[Palanan]

There are probably more campaign journals for RHoD than any other module, and it's mentioned and recommended more often than just about any module or AP, with the possible exception of Rise of the Runelords.

What is it about RHoD that makes it so popular? Does it offer players more flexibility, more interesting NPCs, or well-calibrated challenges? Is it the storyline, encounter design, ease of preparation for DMs? Are there specific aspects that make it more enjoyable for players, or is it just a rare case of all the ingredients coming together in a perfect blend of hobgobliny doomy goodness?

[Draconi Redfir]

no idea TBH, i played red hand of doom once myself, found it pretty mediocre. It wasn't very long from what i can remember, so that might have been one thing. Buuut otherwise.. *shrug*

[BWR]

Focused and tight design with enough room for expansion and customization to make it usable for many D&D games. Enough variety in travel, tactics, monsters, diplomacy and environment to be good yet doesn't try to do too much. It's not the best game I've played, but solidly designed and enjoyable.

[Jon_Dahl]

It's very precisely made, easy to read, all the details are there and plenty of world-changing stuff happens. I think it's easy to DM and I think many DMs agree with me. So we DM it and thus it's popular, no matter what the players think. Maybe players would like to play something else, but the other stuff is not easy to DM, so it doesn't happen.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, it's just a really well-written adventure. Among other things, it comes with a general timeline of events should the PCs not interfere with the bad guys' plans, specific guidelines for exactly how much of a disruption the PCs can cause for stopping various plots, and an assortment of plug-and-play encounters that are consistent with the adventure but can be inserted just about anywhere in the story. It also has stuff like "what if bad guy X escapes? then he should join Y and show up with him at Z." Finally, it tells you what sort of help you can expect from the various groups that you befriend when it comes time for the big battle against the invading army.

Besides all these great built-in DM aids, the storyline is just epic (a desperate struggle against an almost overwhelming invasion) and pretty iconic Dungeons & Dragons fare, and there's a lot of variety. It has an army of goblinoids, giants, four out of five types of chromatic dragons, some undead, and a selection of devils to fight. It has wilderness encounters, ruins, two fully-fledged dungeons, and a large battle on an open plain. It has villages, cities, swamps, deserts, and mountain environments.

[Amphetryon]

From my experience? Nothing. Players almost immediately tried to do something not within the module's expected parameters, found themselves underwhelmed with the module's/DM's inability to cope with this, and then felt cheated when their response was treated as 'not interfering with the bad guys' plans.'

This is, essentially, an identical set of complaints to the problems with other modules I've seen.

[AslanCross]

I think it's generally a good mix of everything classic without anything feeling out of place, except maybe for that hag cook in the final dungeon.
1. Fighting evil humanoid creatures
2. Saving people
3. Local political intrigue
4. An undead arc
5. A huge epic battle
6. A dragon boss fight in each chapter.
7. A final dungeon involving a lot of devils

The entire region was quite diverse---forests, a large city ruin sinking into a bog, a lich's dungeon, an open city battle, and a BBEG stronghold high in the mountains.

[Starbuck_II]

From my experience? Nothing. Players almost immediately tried to do something not within the module's expected parameters, found themselves underwhelmed with the module's/DM's inability to cope with this, and then felt cheated when their response was treated as 'not interfering with the bad guys' plans.'

This is, essentially, an identical set of complaints to the problems with other modules I've seen.

I'm curious, what did your player's try to do?

[Amphetryon]

I'm curious, what did your player's try to do?

Spoilers in case folks want to keep the events secret:

1. Scale down the cliffs rather than deal with the bridge. Players reacted to the notion of crossing the bridge as a railroad 'choke point' and immediately looked for another alternative, perceiving the bridge to be an obvious setup. DM did not anticipate this at all.
2. Recruit additional settlers and adventurers to the region, by going around and entreating neighboring towns and kingdoms, in order to deal with the hobgoblin hordes with more than just a single party. DM quickly ran out of supplied NPCs and neighbors.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I like Red Hand of Doom because it is a classic storyline: humanoid invasion of unprepared land that is pretty well done and allows characters to make some real choices as well as some fake ones. The gold payment for the dwarves (do the PCs deliver it or keep it?), the lich (do PCs try to negotiate or fight him?), and the mix of NPCs (some will join the party but it's not a JRPG where every NPC joins and every NPC who does is loyal). I also like that it has a lot of different contingencies planned for--what if the players do nothing, what if the bad guy escapes, etc. And it falls within what I think of as the sweet spot of D&D. Levels 5-11 or so seem to be the region where the mechanics work best and the game is the most fun.

I'll also add that it's available in a one-book format. Some other adventures--especially adventure paths like Shackled City, Savage Tide, or Age of Worms require tracking down a whole bunch of out of print dragon magazine issues. That's less of an issue for more recent Paizo adventure paths or ones that got reprints but it's a real pain for their 3.5 adventure paths. (Which is a shame because I loved Age of Worms and Savage Tide sounded like a lot of fun too).

[Starbuck_II]

Spoilers in case folks want to keep the events secret:

1. Scale down the cliffs rather than deal with the bridge. Players reacted to the notion of crossing the bridge as a railroad 'choke point' and immediately looked for another alternative, perceiving the bridge to be an obvious setup. DM did not anticipate this at all.
2. Recruit additional settlers and adventurers to the region, by going around and entreating neighboring towns and kingdoms, in order to deal with the hobgoblin hordes with more than just a single party. DM quickly ran out of supplied NPCs and neighbors.

Well:

1. It covers that. If you ignore the bridge, it lets the Hand attack the town sooner (which is qhy you are expected to destroy it. I don't see how scaling the cliffs helps.
What was their plan that scaling cliffs helped?
2. Technically, all that would is give a little bit more victory points. And it seemed more the DMs fault than the Modules.


Really, I wish they made more games like Red Hand of Doom. One book compact adventure that has contingencies even if there might be more one can think of.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Well:

1. It covers that. If you ignore the bridge, it lets the Hand attack the town sooner (which is qhy you are expected to destroy it. I don't see how scaling the cliffs helps.
What was their plan that scaling cliffs helped?
2. Technically, all that would is give a little bit more victory points. And it seemed more the DMs fault than the Modules.


Really, I wish they made more games like Red Hand of Doom. One book compact adventure that has contingencies even if there might be more one can think of.


1. It covers that. If you ignore the bridge, it lets the Hand attack the town sooner (which is qhy you are expected to destroy it. I don't see how scaling the cliffs helps.
What was their plan that scaling cliffs helped?

I expect their plan was just to avoid the bridge and get to Cinder hill without a fight. If they wanted to do that, the adventure doesn't give much guidance. The Red Hand loses several days if the bridge is destroyed (either to create a new bridge with wall of stone spells or to find a way around that the army can use). The plan should let the party avoid the fight and leave the bridge intact. DCs for scaling the cliffs can be found in PHB.

2. Technically, all that would is give a little bit more victory points. And it seemed more the DMs fault than the Modules.

Pretty sure that if you are running in the Elsir Vale as written, going traipsing to Dennovar for help that can't possibly arrive in time and probably isn't forthcoming anyway technically means the Red Hand wins the battle of Brindol because it happens when you aren't there. If the adventure is adapted to a different setting, that should be part of the adaptation. Brindol has to stand or fall on its own or the adventure doesn't work. And settlers? Why did the players imagine they had years to play with rather than weeks?

[Jon_Dahl]

Spoilers in case folks want to keep the events secret:

1. Scale down the cliffs rather than deal with the bridge. Players reacted to the notion of crossing the bridge as a railroad 'choke point' and immediately looked for another alternative, perceiving the bridge to be an obvious setup. DM did not anticipate this at all.
2. Recruit additional settlers and adventurers to the region, by going around and entreating neighboring towns and kingdoms, in order to deal with the hobgoblin hordes with more than just a single party. DM quickly ran out of supplied NPCs and neighbors.

I don't understand. There is a restricted timeline of events in RHoD. In the end, the whole campaign world will be destroyed. All DMs are supposed to run the timeline from the beginning to end. After the campaign is finished. Very simple.

[Kurald Galain]

Huh. I'm not familiar with RHOD myself, but reading into the matter I find that we have a RHOD handbook for DMs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?171284-The-3-5-Red-Hand-Of-Doom-Handbook-for-DMs-Major-spoilers!-WIP-PEACH!) right at our forums here, which states,

"RHOD as written is built for a very inexperienced group of four players whose character choices don't deviate away from the classic four "

and goes on to suggest heavy modifications to the adventure.

[Cwymbran-San]

Huh. I'm not familiar with RHOD myself, but reading into the matter I find that we have a RHOD handbook for DMs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?171284-The-3-5-Red-Hand-Of-Doom-Handbook-for-DMs-Major-spoilers!-WIP-PEACH!) right at our forums here, which states,

"RHOD as written is built for a very inexperienced group of four players whose character choices don't deviate away from the classic four "

and goes on to suggest heavy modifications to the adventure.

Yup, because let's face it, most people on these boards are quite good at optimizing and might be underwhelmed with what the off-the-shelve adventure throws at you. So, encounter modification to fit the groups style of play is a thing.

On the other hand, the basic principles for every player taste are there:

- Fights, lots of them, and with varied opposition
- political intrigue
- exploration
- dungeoneering
- loot (!), although that needs some tinkering as well
- and the feeling that the players actions actually have a meaning.

You should have seen my groups reaction when they found Norro Winston shot (but not killed) by Skather. They almost immediately set out to avenge the fallen speaker. And the still hold a grudge against Skather (i let him escape ;-) ).

[Faily]

Spoilers in case folks want to keep the events secret:

1. Scale down the cliffs rather than deal with the bridge. Players reacted to the notion of crossing the bridge as a railroad 'choke point' and immediately looked for another alternative, perceiving the bridge to be an obvious setup. DM did not anticipate this at all.
2. Recruit additional settlers and adventurers to the region, by going around and entreating neighboring towns and kingdoms, in order to deal with the hobgoblin hordes with more than just a single
party. DM quickly ran out of supplied NPCs and neighbors.

A case of inexperienced GM who had probably not prepared much or read the module. As others pointed out, all your points are covered in the book.

Sure, you can feel that the bridge is an enormous plot-device... but if you have a deep gorge that stretches for miles in both directions, it kinda makes sense that the people in the setting built a bridge to be able to cross it easily. It's normally what people do. It saves time, after all.

The book also points out what is closest to Brindol when it comes to settlements. The reason why those other cities and towns don't get to feature in the adventure (apart from the possibility of the battle of Brindol being pushed to Denovar, iirc), is because they are far away. There is always the hook of of the Dwarf-mercenaries to follow up on, not to mention that it could push the Tiri-Kitor chapter on its own if that's what they want to do. However... if the party wants to spend their time travelling away from the adventure and try to act like its a JRPG where the Final Boss is put on hold while you go and recruit more party-members and finish all the mini-games... that's when I would at some point tell them that either the vale was overrun (as per the time-schedule, which doesn't give them much time if they don't do anything to stop the Horde, and pretty much ensures the destruction of Brindol due to no attempts at weakening them), or some other band of heroes stepped up and did the job and now became celebrated heroes of the region; while the NPCs who met the PCs originally scorn them for their cowardice in failing to help them in their time of need.



Huh. I'm not familiar with RHOD myself, but reading into the matter I find that we have a RHOD handbook for DMs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?171284-The-3-5-Red-Hand-Of-Doom-Handbook-for-DMs-Major-spoilers!-WIP-PEACH!) right at our forums here, which states,

"RHOD as written is built for a very inexperienced group of four players whose character choices don't deviate away from the classic four "

and goes on to suggest heavy modifications to the adventure.

As it is written, it is perfect for an inexperienced group. But if you have players who are pretty experienced and know about optimizing, then it needs a bit of modification to provide the same challenge. Otherwise most enemies will just be a speedbump.

[Amphetryon]

A case of inexperienced GM who had probably not prepared much or read the module. As others pointed out, all your points are covered in the book.

Sure, you can feel that the bridge is an enormous plot-device... but if you have a deep gorge that stretches for miles in both directions, it kinda makes sense that the people in the setting built a bridge to be able to cross it easily. It's normally what people do. It saves time, after all.

The book also points out what is closest to Brindol when it comes to settlements. The reason why those other cities and towns don't get to feature in the adventure (apart from the possibility of the battle of Brindol being pushed to Denovar, iirc), is because they are far away. There is always the hook of of the Dwarf-mercenaries to follow up on, not to mention that it could push the Tiri-Kitor chapter on its own if that's what they want to do. However... if the party wants to spend their time travelling away from the adventure and try to act like its a JRPG where the Final Boss is put on hold while you go and recruit more party-members and finish all the mini-games... that's when I would at some point tell them that either the vale was overrun (as per the time-schedule, which doesn't give them much time if they don't do anything to stop the Horde, and pretty much ensures the destruction of Brindol due to no attempts at weakening them), or some other band of heroes stepped up and did the job and now became celebrated heroes of the region; while the NPCs who met the PCs originally scorn them for their cowardice in failing to help them in their time of need.

Does not really contradict the concerns of the group:
The fact that you have the bridge across a many-miles-long gorge does not excuse its use as a railroad and contrived plot device, but rationalizes it. Players who dislike feeling forced into a single course of action will still try to find an alternate option to the railroad, and feel punished by the module for doing so. The same complaint fits the 'other cities and towns are far away' explanation for why the PCs were not allowed to recruit help from others rather than face hobgoblin hordes with a single 4-person party. The fact that the module rationalizes the railroad does not excuse or erase the railroad, particularly when Players who seek solutions that aren't along the tracks find that no such solutions are allowed to work.

[ComaVision]

As it is written, it is perfect for an inexperienced group. But if you have players who are pretty experienced and know about optimizing, then it needs a bit of modification to provide the same challenge. Otherwise most enemies will just be a speedbump.

For an example, I'm DMing RHoD currently and a member of my group is playing an ubercharger. Without me editing the baddies, he'd just one-hit everything in the book.

@Amphetryon: That's a pretty loose definition of a railroad. Just because the group can do anything doesn't mean everything is effective. My group is absolutely welcome to travel several weeks to the next large city (slotted RHoD into another world) and petition them for help but Brindol will be lost before they ever get back. If not letting any decision the PCs make work is railroading, then choo-choo all day.

[Amphetryon]

For an example, I'm DMing RHoD currently and a member of my group is playing an ubercharger. Without me editing the baddies, he'd just one-hit everything in the book.

@Amphetryon: That's a pretty loose definition of a railroad. Just because the group can do anything doesn't mean everything is effective. My group is absolutely welcome to travel several weeks to the next large city (slotted RHoD into another world) and petition them for help but Brindol will be lost before they ever get back. If not letting any decision the PCs make work is railroading, then choo-choo all day.

I have yet to play with a group who did not consider 'there is but 1 valid solution, but you can try anything you like' to be other than a well-dressed railroad, regardless of how happy they were to travel the rails. If that is not your experience (generic 'you') I congratulate you on your good fortune. It does not change my experience.

[Wonton]

Spoilers in case folks want to keep the events secret:

1. Scale down the cliffs rather than deal with the bridge. Players reacted to the notion of crossing the bridge as a railroad 'choke point' and immediately looked for another alternative, perceiving the bridge to be an obvious setup. DM did not anticipate this at all.
2. Recruit additional settlers and adventurers to the region, by going around and entreating neighboring towns and kingdoms, in order to deal with the hobgoblin hordes with more than just a single party. DM quickly ran out of supplied NPCs and neighbors.

I haven't played RHoD but that just seems like a case of an underprepared DM. Some DMs can improvise really well, some DMs prepare extensively for every situation, sounds like this DM was neither.

I'm in the second camp, so if I was designing an encounter on a bridge, one of the first questions I'd ask myself would be "what if they choose to not cross the bridge", and then I'd figure out a solution.

[ComaVision]

I have yet to play with a group who did not consider 'there is but 1 valid solution, but you can try anything you like' to be other than a well-dressed railroad, regardless of how happy they were to travel the rails. If that is not your experience (generic 'you') I congratulate you on your good fortune. It does not change my experience.

The first time I tried to run RHoD, the group decided it was too challenging and left the Vale. I ended up running a completely different campaign. The Vale was taken over though, and the group did see the smoke on the horizon.

Are you telling me you can't have anything of strategic importance to an enemy in a game because if it's railroading? A group running RHoD could fail to get the invasion map, never see or destroy the bridge, and still successfully complete the adventure.

[LTwerewolf]

I didn't like it so much because about 2 hours into it, I figured out the entire storyline and all the "surprises" without ever having any exposure to the module in the past. It's too cliche for me. Some people like the cliche, and sometimes I do too, but not an entire campaign.

[ComaVision]

I didn't like it so much because about 2 hours into it, I figured out the entire storyline and all the "surprises" without ever having any exposure to the module in the past. It's too cliche for me. Some people like the cliche, and sometimes I do too, but not an entire campaign.

You mean the humans band together all the 'good' races to defend against the invasion of the monsters? :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I guess it's both the appeal and a shortcoming. I think I like it because it's such classic fantasy but totally understand where you're coming from.

[Amphetryon]

Are you telling me you can't have anything of strategic importance to an enemy in a game because if it's railroading? A group running RHoD could fail to get the invasion map, never see or destroy the bridge, and still successfully complete the adventure.
Nope, I never said nor implied that.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Does not really contradict the concerns of the group:
The fact that you have the bridge across a many-miles-long gorge does not excuse its use as a railroad and contrived plot device, but rationalizes it. Players who dislike feeling forced into a single course of action will still try to find an alternate option to the railroad, and feel punished by the module for doing so. The same complaint fits the 'other cities and towns are far away' explanation for why the PCs were not allowed to recruit help from others rather than face hobgoblin hordes with a single 4-person party. The fact that the module rationalizes the railroad does not excuse or erase the railroad, particularly when Players who seek solutions that aren't along the tracks find that no such solutions are allowed to work.

I'm not sure why the bridge got your group so worked up. Seize/hold/destroy the bridge is a classic military objective precisely because bridges really are usually the only practical way to move large armies across the terrain quickly. That's why people build them. If people could just walk around, no-one would have built a bridge. But even so, if the players in RHOD avoid the bridge by scaling the cliffs and then swimming across the rapids, casting a bunch of fly spells, levitating a folding boat, or whatever, the only thing that happens is that... they avoid the bridge. Congratulations, now the players can get to Cinder Hill without fighting the garrison at the bridge. And if the players do the same thing on the way back...they don't fight the garrison at the bridge and don't destroy the bridge. And the Horde doesn't lose the 1-2 days to go around/rebuild it. Not sure how that constitutes a railroad. More like the opposite. If you don't want to do something, it's silly to complain that it doesn't get done.

As for the "other cities/towns are far away" item, you're confusing having a functional plot with a railroad. If the BBEG is massing his goblin hordes to "sack the undefended lands of the vale," he's an idiot if the towns of the vale are not actually undefended. If, upon being surprised by the descending goblin horde, the towns of the vale don't mobilize their militias/evacuate/hire mercenaries, band together, etc, then they are idiots. One of the high points of the adventure is that the NPCs are not idiots. Azar Kuul has rightly judged that his horde--especially with the the alliances he made--is sufficient to smash any force that the vale can muster in time. (Though it is not explicitly stated, this is presumably one of the reasons he opts to take Brindol by storm rather than waiting out a long siege--taking it by storm ensures that there is no possibility of neighboring cities (Dennovar, etc) mustering their armies and lifting the siege). Likewise, with some small exceptions in councils, the inhabitants of the vale are not idiots. Drellin's Ferry is on war footing when the PCs arrive. They are prepared to deal with the goblin trouble they have. They're just not big and fortified enough to hold off the horde. The lord of Brindol has sent messengers (in some cases delayed by roadblocks) to hire mercenaries and gather forces from anywhere that can provide them in time. And that's how the "four adventurers" can defeat the horde. Not by themselves, but by breaking up the horde's alliances, delaying the horde, ensuring the mercenaries get their gold, recruiting allies the people of the vale don't know about, and providing just enough high level punch to tip the balance when the battle of brindol finally comes.

It's not railroading to say that stupid ideas that depend upon the bad guys waiting around until you are ready for them will never work. To the contrary, it's the sign of a good adventure.

[Faily]

So basically, it is a group that sees a plot-hook or a prepared encounter, and immediately screams "RAILROAD AHEAD!".

No, seriously, they can object to it as much as they want. Heck, I'd even let them cross the gorge through magic+good climb gear and skill... but that begs the question of: what's the point? The PCs have (most likely) been asked to look into the problem of raiding hobgoblins, and events at the Vraath Keep will lead them to the Skull Gorge Bridge. Which is then occupied by a small force of hobgoblins + a dragon. The module explains what lies past the bridge (the Cinder Hills, which is the staging point for the Red Hand). The module also points out what will happen if PCs attempt to infiltrate or attack the Red Hand at Cinder Hill or other places.

So sure, you can let them cross the bridge and see the Red Hand without encountering the garrison at the Bridge. That means they lose a lot of potential to stop the horde's invasion, as the bridge allows them to move properly into the vale without any hampering.

Again, they are completely free to not follow the plot and go do what they think it's best. Doesn't mean it is the best solution, or that it will take less time. Players are free to do as they please, but should also know that actions have consequences and the world doesn't change to fit what they want.

Also, I do find it douchey and rude to not "play along" when a GM obviously have a scenario or an adventure prepared, and instead just go off in the opposite direction. A lot of problems with that though is solved by communication between players and GM. If the GM announces ahead of time "this adventure I want to run is going to be a heroic adventure, with the heroes facing impossible odds to save the day as they hurry to avoid the midnight-strike of the doomsday clock". Or something along those lines. Basically, tell them it's going to be classic heroic story with a time-schedule.

[dascarletm]

Does not really contradict the concerns of the group:
The fact that you have the bridge across a many-miles-long gorge does not excuse its use as a railroad and contrived plot device, but rationalizes it. Players who dislike feeling forced into a single course of action will still try to find an alternate option to the railroad, and feel punished by the module for doing so. The same complaint fits the 'other cities and towns are far away' explanation for why the PCs were not allowed to recruit help from others rather than face hobgoblin hordes with a single 4-person party. The fact that the module rationalizes the railroad does not excuse or erase the railroad, particularly when Players who seek solutions that aren't along the tracks find that no such solutions are allowed to work.

The metagame is strong in these players. I don't disagree with your point in general, but I would be annoyed at my players if their characters acted like that. You are going to not take the bridge? You are going to dangerously climb the cliff-face because... why? The only real reason is because the characters have self awareness that they are in a game. Okay. Rant over.

[Faily]

I didn't like it so much because about 2 hours into it, I figured out the entire storyline and all the "surprises" without ever having any exposure to the module in the past. It's too cliche for me. Some people like the cliche, and sometimes I do too, but not an entire campaign.

I can see that as a legit complaint. It's something that is a selling point to some people, and a losing point for some. I agree it is a "traditionally" themed campaign with some obvious cliches, but for me it was one of the reasons I liked it.

[Starbuck_II]

Now, I can sort of see sneaking by...


I can see if they sneak into Cinder Hill then maybe they can get clues to Main base. But that would be only help.
Maybe they could kill a general, but the risk of being caught/flanked by the hundreds of men/giants is pretty big.

They lose Brindal, but take out Tiamat. It would be a Pyrrhic Victory for the Vale though.

[Hecuba]

Does not really contradict the concerns of the group:
The fact that you have the bridge across a many-miles-long gorge does not excuse its use as a railroad and contrived plot device, but rationalizes it. Players who dislike feeling forced into a single course of action will still try to find an alternate option to the railroad, and feel punished by the module for doing so. The same complaint fits the 'other cities and towns are far away' explanation for why the PCs were not allowed to recruit help from others rather than face hobgoblin hordes with a single 4-person party. The fact that the module rationalizes the railroad does not excuse or erase the railroad, particularly when Players who seek solutions that aren't along the tracks find that no such solutions are allowed to work.

I agree that the bridge feels contrived, which is certainly a valid definition of "railroad" (though I would generally reserve it for something a bit more heavy handed than that personally).

I'm still not following exactly what the group was intending to accomplish tactically by climbing down into the gorge instead. If they just did that and nothing else, that seems less like "Oh, the bridge is clearly contrived. I don't want to be led by the nose to a solution: lets come up with something novel." and more like "Oh, the bridge is clearly contrived. Let's ignore it entirely."

I won't say that the later is somehow a bad way to play, but it will probably break any module in existence. The contrived thing will probably be contrived in such a way as to have tactical implications. Jumping the rails and finding another solution for those tactical problems will keep the module running. Ignoring the tactical implications doesn't.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BWR
Focused and tight design with enough room for expansion and customization to make it usable for many D&D games. Enough variety in travel, tactics, monsters, diplomacy and environment to be good yet doesn't try to do too much. It's not the best game I've played, but solidly designed and enjoyable.


Originally Posted by Jon_Dahl
It's very precisely made, easy to read, all the details are there and plenty of world-changing stuff happens.


Originally Posted by KillianHawkeye
Yeah, it's just a really well-written adventure…the storyline is just epic (a desperate struggle against an almost overwhelming invasion) and pretty iconic Dungeons & Dragons fare, and there's a lot of variety.

The common vibe I'm getting here is that the designers put a lot of thought and effort into creating a coherent, logical storyline around a classic fantasy theme, with deliberate variety in terrains, challenges and opponents. Sounds excellent to me.

As for the concerns about how it's built for a bog-standard party, and how players with even basic op-fu will roll over a lot of encounters...what occurs to me is that RHoD came out ten solid years ago, and there's been a lot of optimization discussion since then. I'd say the fact that the module wasn't designed around options and assumptions that didn't exist at the time shouldn't be a mark against it.


Originally Posted by dascarletm
The metagame is strong in these players.

Ever since Amphetryon's first spoiler I've been thinking those players were heavy metagamers.


Originally Posted by Faily
Players are free to do as they please, but should also know that actions have consequences and the world doesn't change to fit what they want.

Agreed completely, but sadly I've had players who couldn't be convinced of this.

Perhaps not coincidentally, they were heavy metagamers as well. :smallannoyed:


Originally Posted by Elder_Basilisk
And that's how the "four adventurers" can defeat the horde. Not by themselves, but by breaking up the horde's alliances, delaying the horde, ensuring the mercenaries get their gold, recruiting allies the people of the vale don't know about, and providing just enough high level punch to tip the balance when the battle of brindol finally comes.

This to me sounds like the hallmark of a well-designed adventure, with the story points nicely calibrated for the party to nudge great events by doing the right thing at the right moment.

That type of campaign really appeals to me, but it might not work for those who prefer a more heavy-handed approach. Some people would rather stomp than nudge, and it sounds like RHoD isn't quite their cup of manticore blood.

[Agincourt]

I agree that the bridge feels contrived, which is certainly a valid definition of "railroad" (though I would generally reserve it for something a bit more heavy handed than that personally).

I'm still not following exactly what the group was intending to accomplish tactically by climbing down into the gorge instead. If they just did that and nothing else, that seems less like "Oh, the bridge is clearly contrived. I don't want to be led by the nose to a solution: lets come up with something novel." and more like "Oh, the bridge is clearly contrived. Let's ignore it entirely."

I won't say that the later is somehow a bad way to play, but it will probably break any module in existence. The contrived thing will probably be contrived in such a way as to have tactical implications. Jumping the rails and finding another solution for those tactical problems will keep the module running. Ignoring the tactical implications doesn't.

I'm just not seeing how it's contrived. All through military history, bridges have been strategic choke points. I found the bridge to be the most realistic episode in module.

I'm not seeing the railroad either. The party can completely ignore the bridge and still successfully defeat the horde. If a completely optional part of the module is a "railroad" than any planning by the DM is railroading and the term has lost all meaning.

[AslanCross]

I thought that in general, the module allowed for a lot of flexibility despite the cliche appearance of the plot.

In fact, the overall victory point mechanism that drove the plot allowed the DM to make decisions based on the players' actions. I think it was entirely possible to miss out the Rhest stronghold, and in my experience the players found a pretty novel solution to infiltrating it unseen (the warforged scout walked across the lake bed the whole way).

It was also possible to skip out on the Ghostlord entirely. The players can also choose to (try) to slay him. My PCs almost did, but thankfully they realized it was folly.

Really, I agree that the module was pretty cliche, but I fail to see how it was contrived. Even the final dungeon had multiple Possible paths to the end.


As for being cliche, I think there are always ways for the DM to make modules less generic.

Since I set in in Eberron, I raised the stakes: The Elsir Fane of Tiamat was only one of five points on a giant, world-spanning pentagram, which was a prison seal for Tiamat (who is a demon overlord of dragons in Eberron and not a deity).

Her awakening would spell the end of civilization as we know it, as the dragon nation of Argonnessen would mobilize its entire army and raze the continent to the ground. The PCs only discover this when they infiltrate Azarr Kul's quarters.

Other Eberron-unique elements were a train fight as the PCs traveled to the Elsir Fane, more Rakshasa assassins (they tend to be servants of demon overlords like Tiamat)

[Hecuba]

I'm just not seeing how it's contrived. All through military history, bridges have been strategic choke points. I found the bridge to be the most realistic episode in module.

I'm not seeing the railroad either. The party can completely ignore the bridge and still successfully defeat the horde. If a completely optional part of the module is a "railroad" than any planning by the DM is railroading and the term has lost all meaning.

For me, the bridge seems like a minor symptom of the geography in general seeming contrived.

And, while (as I mentioned prior) I wouldn't generally use "railroad" here (it's not quite heavy handed enough to rise to that level for me), I do think the treatment given the bridge is a bit too *wink wink nudge nudge*. As you point out, it is indeed something of blatantly obvious strategic importance. Why then is its strategic use only effectively binary? Either you get rid of it on the way back to town, or nothing? Ignoring it altogether is tactically flawed, but strategic choke-points can be used in many ways. For example: since you're at a numerical disadvantage, forcing a battle to that location choke-points can act as an immense force multiplier.

[Beheld]

It was also possible to skip out on the Ghostlord entirely. The players can also choose to (try) to slay him. My PCs almost did, but thankfully they realized it was folly.

"Folly"? Really. They could have obtained and destroyed his phylactery well beforehand, and he's... kind of a chump. The worst he can possibly do is DC 19 save for half 37 damage, and half of that is fire. And he's locked in a little room where anyone can just move right up and destroy his face. I mean... I guess if you use the terrible knowledge rules as written and your players don't correct for that by knowing the monster manual and/or deliberate NPC info fishing in town, they could walk in with no idea of Lich defenses, and then it might be hard to pin him to a wall and beat him to death with Freedom of Movement on a Barb/Fighter/Druid type.

[Thurbane]

Also, I do find it douchey and rude to not "play along" when a GM obviously have a scenario or an adventure prepared, and instead just go off in the opposite direction.

http://i67.tinypic.com/4lkgsh.jpg

[Starbuck_II]

For me, the bridge seems like a minor symptom of the geography in general seeming contrived.

And, while (as I mentioned prior) I wouldn't generally use "railroad" here (it's not quite heavy handed enough to rise to that level for me), I do think the treatment given the bridge is a bit too *wink wink nudge nudge*. As you point out, it is indeed something of blatantly obvious strategic importance. Why then is its strategic use only effectively binary? Either you get rid of it on the way back to town, or nothing? Ignoring it altogether is tactically flawed, but strategic choke-points can be used in many ways. For example: since you're at a numerical disadvantage, forcing a battle to that location choke-points can act as an immense force multiplier.

Okay, this is pretty good point:

I can see this working, but remember the Red Hand has flying minions too like chimera, manticore, etc (granted their force is mainly ground). Unless you have a good amount of ranged warriors your idea will barely help.
Sure, the first group they send will be ground, but eventually they realize the issue and send flying. At least I think how it would go.
But with ranged team members, yeah, this might help. (but eventually, they would get through)

But it would be an exciting adventure I guess.

[Hecuba]

Okay, this is pretty good point:

I can see this working, but remember the Red Hand has flying minions too like chimera, manticore, etc (granted their force is mainly ground). Unless you have a good amount of ranged warriors your idea will barely help.
Sure, the first group they send will be ground, but eventually they realize the issue and send flying. At least I think how it would go.
But with ranged team members, yeah, this might help. (but eventually, they would get through)

But it would be an exciting adventure I guess.

(Dropping the spoilers and instead being vague, since this seems like a very fundamental point to the conversation.)

I agree that that probably wouldn't be the best way to use the element in question, and it would eventually fail (likely for the reasons you indicate). But the core issue is that that particular element gets presented in a binary way - there's not much support for applying any lateral solution to the tactical problem.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Hecuba
I agree that that probably wouldn't be the best way to use the element in question, and it would eventually fail (likely for the reasons you indicate). But the core issue is that that particular element gets presented in a binary way - there's not much support for applying any lateral solution to the tactical problem.

Without having seen the issue in play, just relying on what people have said here, I'm wondering if this isn't more of a chokepoint for inexperienced DMs. Amphetryon's DM was apparently thrown by the "lateral" (or vertical) thinking of that party, so maybe this particular story feature is more of a problem for DMs who are relying on a binary decision tree?

My impression from comments so far is that the module is extremely well-written and tightly constructed, so I'm guessing a DM who's read it thoroughly before starting the game would be better able to handle these situations on the fly. It sounds like DMs who try to read it in stages, or who aren't used to running complex and interlocking storylines, would be at the most disadvantage here.

And that would be the one thing keeping me from running this--it really sounds like a ton of work to stay on top of. I know full well that being a DM means thankless effort and unseen labor, but between fitting it into a different campaign world and adapting encounters for op-savvy players, it sounds like there's a lot of tinkering involved.

[Hecuba]

Without having seen the issue in play, just relying on what people have said here, I'm wondering if this isn't more of a chokepoint for inexperienced DMs. Amphetryon's DM was apparently thrown by the "lateral" (or vertical) thinking of that party, so maybe this particular story feature is more of a problem for DMs who are relying on a binary decision tree?

My impression from comments so far is that the module is extremely well-written and tightly constructed, so I'm guessing a DM who's read it thoroughly before starting the game would be better able to handle these situations on the fly. It sounds like DMs who try to read it in stages, or who aren't used to running complex and interlocking storylines, would be at the most disadvantage here.

And that would be the one thing keeping me from running this--it really sounds like a ton of work to stay on top of. I know full well that being a DM means thankless effort and unseen labor, but between fitting it into a different campaign world and adapting encounters for op-savvy players, it sounds like there's a lot of tinkering involved.

I agree that its a well written module, as far as modules go.

The issue tends to be the tight, well defined timeline. The element in question causes an explicit change to the timeline if (and only if) you handle it as designed. Very few, if any, modules that run such a ticking clock make the effort to build in the flexibility needed if the players make attempts that are specifically intended to modify the timeline in unexpected ways. The best that you can hope for is that the DM will wing it well (or that they have actively prepared a more robust framework for accelerating and delaying actions than the module).

[Wonton]

The metagame is strong in these players. I don't disagree with your point in general, but I would be annoyed at my players if their characters acted like that. You are going to not take the bridge? You are going to dangerously climb the cliff-face because... why? The only real reason is because the characters have self awareness that they are in a game. Okay. Rant over.

I agree with this 100%. Those actions just don't make sense in-character to me.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Okay, this is pretty good point:

I can see this working, but remember the Red Hand has flying minions too like chimera, manticore, etc (granted their force is mainly ground). Unless you have a good amount of ranged warriors your idea will barely help.
Sure, the first group they send will be ground, but eventually they realize the issue and send flying. At least I think how it would go.
But with ranged team members, yeah, this might help. (but eventually, they would get through)

But it would be an exciting adventure I guess.

There are two parts of the idea. One will not work at all. There is no way to get back to Drellin's Ferry, fully mobilize the militia, march them through the Witchwood, and reach the bridge in time to make a stand there against the horde. (And if there were, it wouldn't work. You could just run the defending the town scenario with different terrain). The second part of the idea--attempting a 300-style defense of the bridge (with just the party members) could be attempted but would be even less effective. It would probably run like this: 1. the PCs attack the vanguard and have a tough fight with 20 or so hobgoblins and a couple ogres or something. 2. The Red Hand sends a couple manticores to scout the woods and verify that there is not a large force hiding there to counterattack. 3. Abiathrax flies over and eats the PCs. Or Kharn air-walks over and with his mistresses and kills them single-handedly. Or Skather sneaks over and kills the whole party before they realize he's there.

Net delay to Red Hand forces: Less than if the PCs just destroyed the bridge. Oh, and the PCs are now dead.

Just because an encounter/idea would be cool does not mean it is contrived or railroady if the actual scenario does not allow for it to work. An adventure set during the first world war is not contrived or railroady because there is no option for the Anglo-French to settle the battle on the Somme by challenging Fritz von Below to single combat on top a flaming zeppelin even though that would be pretty cool.



My impression from comments so far is that the module is extremely well-written and tightly constructed, so I'm guessing a DM who's read it thoroughly before starting the game would be better able to handle these situations on the fly. It sounds like DMs who try to read it in stages, or who aren't used to running complex and interlocking storylines, would be at the most disadvantage here.

And that would be the one thing keeping me from running this--it really sounds like a ton of work to stay on top of. I know full well that being a DM means thankless effort and unseen labor, but between fitting it into a different campaign world and adapting encounters for op-savvy players, it sounds like there's a lot of tinkering involved.

That's one of the good things about the adventure: it actually makes it relatively easy to handle these things. Most of the things the players can do either slow the timeline, grant victory points, or both. Just keep a timeline and a tally of victory points on your DM notebook and you're good. Now, you can make it more involved if you want and your players want that kind of thing, but as written, it's fairly easy to keep track of things and to adjudicate the effects of the characters' efforts. If you have players who want to go off-script at every opportunity (and often just for the sake of going off-script), it will require more DM skill at improvisation to herd the cats around the adventure and figure things out, but that's true no matter what adventure you run (and even if you are running your own homebrew sandbox game with no adventure or pre-planned story it's still true).

[AslanCross]

"Folly"? Really. They could have obtained and destroyed his phylactery well beforehand, and he's... kind of a chump. The worst he can possibly do is DC 19 save for half 37 damage, and half of that is fire. And he's locked in a little room where anyone can just move right up and destroy his face. I mean... I guess if you use the terrible knowledge rules as written and your players don't correct for that by knowing the monster manual and/or deliberate NPC info fishing in town, they could walk in with no idea of Lich defenses, and then it might be hard to pin him to a wall and beat him to death with Freedom of Movement on a Barb/Fighter/Druid type.

I'd forgotten to mention that due to higher-than-expected op-fu of the party, almost all PC class-level characters were upscaled as well. I used a much more powerful CR 15 Ghostlord with a better spell selection. He'd have pinned them in the narrow tunnel and cast antilife shell and roasted them alive with wall of fire. I'd also added a melee minion (Pseudonatural psychic warrior bugbear) for him, as per the backstory I did for him in my game. Furthermore, this doesn't really detract anything from my point---it was entirely possible to miss him or screw up the encounter with him, which will strategically jeopardize Brindol's chances of surviving the raid.

The module as written is not perfect, and nobody here is saying it is. I did have to make numerous changes to it (mostly in the area of optimization). However, the module as a whole is more flexible than a lot of others I've seen.

[Sliver]

If the players react to every plot point by calling it 'railroading' and avoiding it, even if in-character it makes no sense, and then complaining about their (lack of) actions having negative consequences, then I doubt a written adventure is for them. Railroads can branch out too, you know? So even if they have several choices, they won't be happy. Their goal is to catch their DM off-guard, not to play the game.

There's a difference between coming up with creative solutions that the DM doesn't expect and refusing to interact with the plot. Personally, if my players refuse interacting with a bridge just because "that's what the DM wants us to do", which is probably their general stance regarding the game, then I wouldn't be their DM for long. I'm sure some DM would be able to work with that, but I'm not that kind of DM.

But the players refusing to play along with the module is not really the module's fault. It's up to the DM to either work out how to make it work or try to return them back to the plot, and that's when you can actually call it railroading.

If the players find it frustrating when what they are trying to do doesn't work, then congratulate them for experiencing what the DM feels!

[Hecuba]

There are two parts of the idea. One will not work at all. There is no way to get back to Drellin's Ferry, fully mobilize the militia, march them through the Witchwood, and reach the bridge in time to make a stand there against the horde. (And if there were, it wouldn't work. You could just run the defending the town scenario with different terrain). The second part of the idea--attempting a 300-style defense of the bridge (with just the party members) could be attempted but would be even less effective. It would probably run like this: 1. the PCs attack the vanguard and have a tough fight with 20 or so hobgoblins and a couple ogres or something. 2. The Red Hand sends a couple manticores to scout the woods and verify that there is not a large force hiding there to counterattack. 3. Abiathrax flies over and eats the PCs. Or Kharn air-walks over and with his mistresses and kills them single-handedly. Or Skather sneaks over and kills the whole party before they realize he's there.

Net delay to Red Hand forces: Less than if the PCs just destroyed the bridge. Oh, and the PCs are now dead.

The named NPCs are certainly something of an issue at that point (though if you know you're dealing with dragons and specifically build for it, you could manage), but the PCs will likely be able to deal with shooting down some manticores before they can scout.

Regardless, there are other options: hide, wait for a significant but still manageable portion of the army to get across and then blow the bridge and retreat. You now have a 3 day period in which to run skirmish tactics to significantly weaken the horde. And yet somehow they don't become any weaker.

Or, heck, move down the plot some and away from the bridge. With the benefits of command undead and a high enough CHA score, you should be able to get more than neutrality out of the be lich. At the very least, you should be able to co-opt some of his forces.

Or consider what happens if you capture on me of the minor named villains and find out where Kul is. What if you then just assassinate him?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Silver
If the players react to every plot point by calling it 'railroading' and avoiding it, even if in-character it makes no sense, and then complaining about their (lack of) actions having negative consequences, then I doubt a written adventure is for them. Railroads can branch out too, you know? So even if they have several choices, they won't be happy. Their goal is to catch their DM off-guard, not to play the game.

….But the players refusing to play along with the module is not really the module's fault.

Absolutely this.

Trying to catch the DM off-guard is an issue of player maturity, and nothing to do with the module.


Originally Posted by Hecuba
Or consider what happens if you capture on me of the minor named villains and find out where Kul is. What if you then just assassinate him?

I'm guessing that "one" was autocorrected to "on me"?

As for assassinating Kul, who I assume is the horde's leader, I would say the key word here is "just." That implies something so easy as to be trivial, and infiltrating a horde and taking down its leader shouldn't be trivial.

If your point is that the module doesn't account for this possibility, that's fair enough--but no module can possibly account for every tactical option a party comes up with. (I.e., warforged walking across the bottom of a lake, etc.)

A party's attempt to infiltrate and assassinate would mean some extra work for the DM--but even if they manage to take down Kul, what's the guarantee the horde won't overwhelm them immediately afterward? And if they do manage to escape, what's to keep a DM from raising another supporting NPC to the level of new horde-leader?


Originally Posted by Hecuba
With the benefits of command undead and a high enough CHA score, you should be able to get more than neutrality out of the be lich. At the very least, you should be able to co-opt some of his forces.

Does the lich command undead bees? :smalltongue:

But the comment about command undead implies a character built for that purpose, with foreknowledge of the lich's involvement. As a DM I would be a little grumpy if a player tried to design a character specifically to undercut one component of the plot.

[Hecuba]

I'm guessing that "one" was autocorrected to "on me"?

As for assassinating Kul, who I assume is the horde's leader, I would say the key word here is "just." That implies something so easy as to be trivial, and infiltrating a horde and taking down its leader shouldn't be trivial.

If your point is that the module doesn't account for this possibility, that's fair enough--but no module can possibly account for every tactical option a party comes up with. (I.e., warforged walking across the bottom of a lake, etc.)

A party's attempt to infiltrate and assassinate would mean some extra work for the DM--but even if they manage to take down Kul, what's the guarantee the horde won't overwhelm them immediately afterward? And if they do manage to escape, what's to keep a DM from raising another supporting NPC to the level of new horde-leader?

Stupid autocorrect. But, yes, that should have read "one."

The issue is not that the horde should magically disband, but that is should accomplish something. As it stands, the best the DM could give as a result is a slight delay in the timeline, which won't matter, or some extra victory points, which might well not matter either.




Does the lich command undead bees? :smalltongue:

But the comment about command undead implies a character built for that purpose, with foreknowledge of the lich's involvement. As a DM I would be a little grumpy if a player tried to design a character specifically to undercut one component of the plot.
No bees that I recall. But he does have undead Dire lions.

And command undead doesn't require breaking the game intentionally. It merely requires that you be playing any of several varieties of necromancers. Heck, is a required entry prereq for Pale Master and True Necromancer.

RHOD is a good module: it gives you decent leeway on how you pursue the tactical goals you are presented with. But it is still a module: the strategic goals are mostly baked in.

[Beheld]

Or, heck, move down the plot some and away from the bridge. With the benefits of command undead and a high enough CHA score, you should be able to get more than neutrality out of the be lich. At the very least, you should be able to co-opt some of his forces.

I've seen lots of parties walk into the ghostlords lair and say "oh, so you give lions in exchange for not destroying the phylactery? Cool, we have it now, not them, send some lions to defend Brindol" seems pretty common. But while the module writers are clearly falling into the classic "undead can never be used by good guys" trap, it does give a framework to address the benefits.


Or consider what happens if you capture on me of the minor named villains and find out where Kul is. What if you then just assassinate him?

Then you would get victory points, a delay on the timeline, and you would already have completed part 5, and winning brindol is the end.

[Amphetryon]

Trying to catch the DM off-guard is an issue of player maturity, and nothing to do with the module.

Actually, in our case:
We looked at the bridge and the intel we had thus far ('hordes of hobgoblins across the bridge have resisted other attempts to pacify them,' approximately) and realized we'd be sitting ducks on the bridge, and previous groups probably had been, too. We considered our party akin to a Special Forces unit, with a group reasonably well spec'ed for infiltration, while recognizing that a direct frontal approach would reasonably lead to our being attacked on the bridge, quite possibly from both sides. We were collectively good at Survival skills and Climb, and camouflage (Hide/Move Silently/some minor Illusions). Further, we reasoned that previous fights on the bridge could have ended with useful treasure going over the side of the bridge, with at least some possibility that the hobgoblins had yet to retrieve it; this would have provided us additional resources with which a party of 4 might handle 'hordes of hobgoblins' that, from everything we'd learned thus far, had a nearly overwhelming numerical advantage.

If the preceding reads as immaturity or metagaming to you, I suppose that's your prerogative.

[SethoMarkus]

Actually, in our case:
We looked at the bridge and the intel we had thus far ('hordes of hobgoblins across the bridge have resisted other attempts to pacify them,' approximately) and realized we'd be sitting ducks on the bridge, and previous groups probably had been, too. We considered our party akin to a Special Forces unit, with a group reasonably well spec'ed for infiltration, while recognizing that a direct frontal approach would reasonably lead to our being attacked on the bridge, quite possibly from both sides. We were collectively good at Survival skills and Climb, and camouflage (Hide/Move Silently/some minor Illusions). Further, we reasoned that previous fights on the bridge could have ended with useful treasure going over the side of the bridge, with at least some possibility that the hobgoblins had yet to retrieve it; this would have provided us additional resources with which a party of 4 might handle 'hordes of hobgoblins' that, from everything we'd learned thus far, had a nearly overwhelming numerical advantage.

If the preceding reads as immaturity or metagaming to you, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Those are certainly important details to know, but it still doesn't answer what the PCs hoped to accomplish (after their detour), or how the DM failed to accommodate the detour. I can easily see the PCs returning to the "rails" after this, or how ignoring this plot point and moving on could justify the negative consequences prescribed in the module. I'm not trying to say that your group did anything wrong, I guess I just fail to see how that proves the plot point was a "railroad", or how the module was lacking. It just shows a lack of the DMs ability to improv unexpected events (also not a critique of their ability).

[Amphetryon]

Those are certainly important details to know, but it still doesn't answer what the PCs hoped to accomplish (after their detour), or how the DM failed to accommodate the detour. I can easily see the PCs returning to the "rails" after this, or how ignoring this plot point and moving on could justify the negative consequences prescribed in the module. I'm not trying to say that your group did anything wrong, I guess I just fail to see how that proves the plot point was a "railroad", or how the module was lacking. It just shows a lack of the DMs ability to improv unexpected events (also not a critique of their ability).

To the first, I explicitly answered what we hoped to accomplish; you quoted it. Avoid the obvious ambush choke point that the hobgoblin hordes appeared to have used in the past and could be expected to use against us, and acquire additional gear from any remains of those who came before us, on the grounds that they had been on the same mission and might have come with appropriate gear that would help our mission against a numerically superior force.

To the second, if "this goal before you has but one way - in this case, literally one path - by which you may complete it successfully, and any deviations from that path will result in failure" does not meet your definition of a railroad, then I'm curious to hear how you'd define it.

[SethoMarkus]

To the first, I explicitly answered what we hoped to accomplish; you quoted it. Avoid the obvious ambush choke point that the hobgoblin hordes appeared to have used in the past and could be expected to use against us, and acquire additional gear from any remains of those who came before us, on the grounds that they had been on the same mission and might have come with appropriate gear that would help our mission against a numerically superior force.

To the second, if "this goal before you has but one way - in this case, literally one path - by which you may complete it successfully, and any deviations from that path will result in failure" does not meet your definition of a railroad, then I'm curious to hear how you'd define it.

I apologize, let try to clarify my questions.

For the first, yes, you climbed doen the cliff to acquire additional supplies and avoid an ambush. What did you do after? Attack the bridge from behind? Ignore the bridge from that point forward? Use the new supplies, if any, to harry the enemy camp or towards fortifying the town? I can see what your reaction to the bridge was immediately, but picking your nose before walking away from a basketball is still walking away from a basketball.

For the second, I only see a railroad if the DM forces you to confront the bridge head on or not at all. I do see other options here. I also see consequences. If you do not address the threat of the bridge it is not a railroad for there to be consequences, that is simply carrying through with cause-effect. Now, if you somehow addressed the threat but not in te way the module expected (like felling trees in the woods to impede ground troop movement and setting up archery nests to dissuade aerial attacks, and the DM still acted as though you did nothing, that would be a railroad. To the best of my knowledge from your descriptions this did not happen, but I admit I do not know the whole story. If you are allowed to make the choice of what to do with the bridge, it is not a railroad.

Since you asked, my definition of railroading is "when the players' actions fail to have an effect on the direction or outcome of events within the story". So to me, if the bridge was ignored and there were not repercussions, that would be more indicative of railroading than saying that avoiding the bridge caused the enemy army to easily reach the town.

[Beheld]

To the first, I explicitly answered what we hoped to accomplish; you quoted it. Avoid the obvious ambush choke point that the hobgoblin hordes appeared to have used in the past and could be expected to use against us, and acquire additional gear from any remains of those who came before us, on the grounds that they had been on the same mission and might have come with appropriate gear that would help our mission against a numerically superior force.

To the second, if "this goal before you has but one way - in this case, literally one path - by which you may complete it successfully, and any deviations from that path will result in failure" does not meet your definition of a railroad, then I'm curious to hear how you'd define it.

I can only reiterate the many things that other have said, you can progress the module without ever having gone over the bridge, without ever having gone to cinder hill at all. The module has explicit parts that address how to progress if the PCs do neither of those things. You can still convince Drellin's Ferry to leave, or you can not convince them and they can all die, or be routed, and then the Horde advances and uses the bridge to advance over and the module progresses.

Nothing about using the bridge, destroying the bridge, or even scouting Cinder Hill is even necessary for the module to progress. And FYI, the bridge isn't a choke point ambush at all, they are defending the bridge, because they don't want anyone to destroy it.

[Starbuck_II]

I can see that plan. If the players presented this plan, I'd totally hide some treasure on the bottom of grotto (lake?, what is below the bridge?).
Maybe something really nice to make for time resources spent getting it.

[Anlashok]

This all seems less like a description of why RHOD is bad and more a description of what happens when you have a bad GM trying to run a modules with players who aren't paying attention and are actively hostile to the idea of modules.

[Spore]

This all seems less like a description of why RHOD is bad and more a description of what happens when you have a bad GM trying to run a modules with players who aren't paying attention and are actively hostile to the idea of modules.

A bad DM fails to create an illusion of a fantasy world and then the players see all the nooks and crannies of plot devices, supposed encounters and similar. And if the DM religiously follows the module and does not introduce a few red herrings - reacting to the group's paranoid ramblings - then they can easily predict the next fight, the next survival situation or the next time sensitive situation.

I have only DMed for three sessions so far and people expected a BIG fight for their first combat after I have told them an infiltrator wants to destroy the town's powder mill. It was a singular Half Elven scout they caught. After leaving the powder mill in the morning, they ran into an ambush and had a group member kidnapped (player was absent). I really, REALLY caught them off guard.

They went back to the city not in a group, so they even trickled into the fight one by one.

[Amphetryon]

This all seems less like a description of why RHOD is bad and more a description of what happens when you have a bad GM trying to run a modules with players who aren't paying attention and are actively hostile to the idea of modules.

If anything I wrote indicates we, as Players, were not paying attention to what the DM presented, I'd like some clarification on why you believe that.

[SethoMarkus]

Actually, Amphetryon, I have one question. I don't mean to be attacking you or your position, I just have a differing opinion of the matter and am trying to better understand how the situation could be seen as railroading. So, my question is:

How would you change the bridge scenario to remove the railroad? I am being genuine here. I would really like to know what changes can be made (drastic or minor) to make it non-railroady, because as it stands I legitimately do not see how it is one currently.

I was rereading some of the posts, and realised I was coming off a bit harsh, and that wasn't my intention. I just feel consequences aren't railroading and so I probably was missing your point entirely because of my bias.