What I would like to point out because I have seen others mention it.
I think that what we have seen is only the adventure. Other articles in Dungeon might have some info about the AP. Certainly this issue of the magazine is not over so there might be sth more (I do not know, I just hope).
Another point that I would like to make is that when you try to compare it with Burnt Offerings then you are making a bad job. Burnt Offerings gets you from 1st to 3rd level while Rivenroar gets only to second level. If we take into account that there are 30 levels now then perhaps when we have the 3rd article of the AP we can make a more honest evaluation.
The above was just a side-note.
|
Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil? 2001.I didn't like it, though I know many did. I think opinions were sufficiently spotty that I wouldn't describe them as "raving." That may just be my bias against it, though.
I would agree with that assessment. Even I have some complaints (some areas are just too large, takes time to get to the adventure and is easy to "derail", etc).
I was mostly serious, but also used that module to point out that the last time anything can remotely close to "raving" was 7 years ago and very early in 3rd Editions life.
What I would like to point out because I have seen others mention it.
I think that what we have seen is only the adventure. Other articles in Dungeon might have some info about the AP. Certainly this issue of the magazine is not over so there might be sth more (I do not know, I just hope).
Another point that I would like to make is that when you try to compare it with Burnt Offerings then you are making a bad job. Burnt Offerings gets you from 1st to 3rd level while Rivenroar gets only to second level. If we take into account that there are 30 levels now then perhaps when we have the 3rd article of the AP we can make a more honest evaluation.
The above was just a side-note.
Well I'll forgive and forget if they make improvements for later APs. I mean I love a good hackfest. Lots of APs have them, its simply a matter of balance. If WotC makes some good though provoking APs after this one and then justifies their first part as being action packed because they believe thats the best way to start off a campaign I'll let it slide.
Lots of speculation for why they did not make the background a little more detailed. I throw out another possibility - its so that you can convert it to your world easily. That was the philosophy in Dungeon at certain times, but its a lousy philosophy. Keeping things bland for easy conversion is a lot worse then having things be exciting but making the DM do a bit of work if they want to set the adventure some where else. If the background is bland its not of interest to anyone, while really interesting backgrounds will motivate a DM to put in the effort needed to convert as the DM will be all enthused. They should be drowning this in Points of Light fluff. Eberron fans would figure out how to make it work for them if they felt the story was compelling enough.
|
That sums up my feelings pretty nicely. Of course, as they say, practice makes perfect, so hopefully overtime they'll improve as they learn what makes a good adventure and what doesn't.
That had ALL of 3.x to get it right and practice, how come they didnt?
Your line, less tactfully said, is the 'excuse' I see over at enworld by at least one poster. "Its only the first one" was the line.
This AP chapter, much like Keep on the shadowfell, should knock our socks off, being the two premier releases of their new 4e flagship.
Instead they get a big 'MEH', and thats sad.
That had ALL of 3.x to get it right and practice, how come they didnt?
Your line, less tactfully said, is the 'excuse' I see over at enworld by at least one poster. "Its only the first one" was the line.
This AP chapter, much like Keep on the shadowfell, should knock our socks off, being the two premier releases of their new 4e flagship.
Instead they get a big 'MEH', and thats sad.
For most of 3E they didn't make any modules. More importantly, they weren't running Dungeon either, so obviously they're somewhat shaky at this.
I'd have liked their initial foray into adventures be a smash success as anyone else, but I think expecting the first version of anything to be the best is setting the bar a bit too high.
What you call an "excuse" I'd classify as optimism and an acknowledgment that there is room for improvement. Can't I say hopefully they'll get better?
I find it striking how pessimistic many on this board seem to be at times. (Only until I remember I'm still on the internet though! :P)
If I was in charge of adventure design at wotc I would have made damn sure the first module and the first part of the first new AP were pants-wettingly brilliant - full of imaginative situations, settings, characters and monsters. I would have littered future hooks that cried out for investigation, or just made the adventures ripe with atmosphere and magic. These are the hooks with which they can expect to lure 3e players into switching, I'd want word of mouth to be drawing in the doubters ... luring 3e players to at least buy them 'to try to back engineer' ... and yet look at them.
Frankly, they're pathetic. The worst kind of old school, '2 orcs in a room' tat.
Could future modules and adventures be better? Well, they couldn't be much worse I suppose.
I have two main doubts things will get much better on this front; firstly wotc has had many many years to learn how to write interesting adventures, so I don't buy the 'hey they're learning, give 'em a chance' argument. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, I'm not sure their present method of presenting adventures encourages what most of us seem to want from a D&D adventure. By which I mean, if you're losing half or more of the page count to narrowly focused combat tactics (ie how the two orcs defend their one little dungeon room), then can the entirety of the adventure be made to sing?
|
|
For most of 3E they didn't make any modules. More importantly, they weren't running Dungeon either, so obviously they're somewhat shaky at this.
They produced more than a few. Roughly 27 of them. Spread from 2000/2001 to 2007.. 11 pf them '00 '01. 10ish from 2006/2007. I wasnt counting anything from Dungeon.
I'd have liked their initial foray into adventures be a smash success as anyone else, but I think expecting the first version of anything to be the best is setting the bar a bit too high.What you call an "excuse" I'd classify as optimism and an acknowledgment that there is room for improvement. Can't I say hopefully they'll get better?
I find it striking how pessimistic many on this board seem to be at times. (Only until I remember I'm still on the internet though! :P)
And this is what I just DONT understand about some of you 4e folks. Its like you dont expect better and shrug yoru shoulders and make excuses.
Yes excuses. Yes WotC can make room for improvement, but that doesnt mean you cant ignore the crap they have released with a shurg of your shoulders and a word of "oh maybe they'll do better next time."
Dont you want better? Dont you expect better? Maybe I've been spoiled by 3rd party produces, but really.
Its not pessimistic if its true. Keepon the shadowfell, the priemer adventure out of the gate, to a brand new edition(that incidentally has created a small rift in the community) was a poor product. The FIRST adventure path on their Online dungeon magazine(which again inceidentally that the cancellation of the print magazine brought bad feelings to their fan base) falls flat of an AP goal.
It drives me nuts that some folks attitude is....maybe next time.
It should be almost every time. ESPECIALLY with a brand new edition here.
|
Quite ... one of the main philosophies I hate about 4e.
I really don't know where the guys from wotc have been for the last ten years, don't they realise the growth of interesting, to some degree unique, and detailed settings has changed D&D's campaign backdrops from it's bland, cookie cutter, setting origins?
With 4e it's like Eberron, Midnight, Kalamar, Ghelspad, Iron Kingdoms, etc etc have never happened ... we're suddenly tossed back into the bad old days of poorly thought out 'dungeons in wilderness, with a few generic towns'.
Sure looks that way. I am glad we have Paizo.
One thing going for 4.0, it is so damn easy to convert mods that you can kind of ignore the stuff they are making and dip into the good stuff being done by everyone else.
We just need more monster books. OOPS! Can't get them. GSL.
|
|
I have two main doubts things will get much better on this front; firstly wotc has had many many years to learn how to write interesting adventures, so I don't buy the 'hey they're learning, give 'em a chance' argument. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, I'm not sure their present method of presenting adventures encourages what most of us seem to want from a D&D adventure. By which I mean, if you're losing half or more of the page count to narrowly focused combat tactics (ie how the two orcs defend their one little dungeon room), then can the entirety of the adventure be made to sing?
My only comment on this:
Born on a stormy Christmas day, in our nation’s capital, during the Nixon administration, the stars were definitely wrong when Stephen Radney-MacFarland came screaming into the world. Spending most of his impressionable years as a vagabond and ne’re-do-well, Stephen eventually settled in the Northwest to waste his life on roleplaying games.Once that RPGA guy, Stephen is now a developer in RPG R&D where he doesn’t create the traps… he just makes them deadlier. He also teaches a class on roleplaying design for the Art Institute of Seattle, molding the minds of young and upcoming designers. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
|
|
If I was in charge of adventure design at wotc I would have made damn sure the first module and the first part of the first new AP were pants-wettingly brilliant - full of imaginative situations, settings, characters and monsters. I would have littered future hooks that cried out for investigation, or just made the adventures ripe with atmosphere and magic. These are the hooks with which they can expect to lure 3e players into switching, I'd want word of mouth to be drawing in the doubters ... luring 3e players to at least buy them 'to try to back engineer' ... and yet look at them.
Thats EXACTLY IT!, Thats what they should be doing. It should be, but its not.
And sadly, the 4e fans dont seem to think the deserve better, from what I read here and elsewhere.
some good points...
Maybe -- and hopefully. But it would be more sloppy performance if they failed to give us a head-up on important supplements.
Can't I say hopefully they'll get better?
With so much room for improvement, your optimism will likely be rewarded :)
I find it striking how pessimistic many on this board seem to be at times. (Only until I remember I'm still on the internet though! :P)
Very true (and I've been part of it, I'll admit).
But while WotC doesn't deserve some of the criticism they've gotten, some of it they do deserve. And there's not much excuse from a company of their stature and talent to persistently disappoint like this.
And it also strikes me that the criticism on this particular thread has few opponents, and those aren't very enthusiastic. This was an unqualified mess-up.
Born on a stormy Christmas day, in our nation’s capital, during the Nixon administration, the stars were definitely wrong when Stephen Radney-MacFarland came screaming into the world...
SRM is one of the kalikantzari -- this explains so much :o
And this is what I just DONT understand about some of you 4e folks. Its like you dont expect better and shrug yoru shoulders and make excuses.Yes excuses. Yes WotC can make room for improvement, but that doesnt mean you cant ignore the crap they have released with a shurg of your shoulders and a word of "oh maybe they'll do better next time."
Dont you want better? Dont you expect better? Maybe I've been spoiled by 3rd party produces, but really.
Its not pessimistic if its true. Keepon the shadowfell, the priemer adventure out of the gate, to a brand new edition(that incidentally has created a small rift in the community) was a poor product. The FIRST adventure path on their Online dungeon magazine(which again inceidentally that the cancellation of the print magazine brought bad feelings to their fan base) falls flat of an AP goal.
It drives me nuts that some folks attitude is....maybe next time.
It should be almost every time. ESPECIALLY with a brand new edition here.
Well I can shrug my shoulders and say 'maybe next time' in part because they've not met my expectations in this regard since 2nd edition with the exception of those times they brought in free lancer talent. If I am forced to decide that 4E as a rules set is drek because WotC can't get the act together and make a good adventure then should I not hold the entire 3.x era to the same standard? I mean WotC mostly made drek during that era too. Heck, they're flag ship adventures for 3.0 where pretty lousy as well and we got by. I'm already well versed in dealing with the fact that WotC apparently does not know how to craft an adventure. Its just not that hard to convert an adventure and it never has been - but with 4E its also pretty quick (unless you start throwing in skill challanges, those look time consuming to craft). Hence if WotC lets me down I'll shrug and go to sources that do know how to make a good adventure.
My hopes are not completely dashed as well because they are talking about putting some big names on the varous parts of their AP. Some of these guys are talented freelancers. I have some faith that they can make a good adventure. Finally, even if they totally drop the ball on the AP the rest of Dungeon will likely be essentially submission based. The cream will rise to the top presumably. Dungeon has gone up and down to some extent through out its history but its model is such that its pretty rare that it has been actually bad. If your in direct competition to get noticed with 200 other submissions the then the winner is usually pretty interesting and well worth anyones time to read and play.
The great danger here is that editors make a big difference in the quality of the product. Does WotC have what it takes to edit their submissions for maximum benefit? I guess we'll see.
There is one other possibility - we are basically all wrong and WotC is right. Extensive testing has shown that most players really don't want to much annoying plot to get in the way of their killing monsters...I sure hope thats not true (and in truth I don't believe it is true - Paizo grew Dungeons audience, quality counts).
For me the bottom line is they could screw up in this regard completely and consistently and that'd be a disappointment to me but not a huge one. I'll just convert adventures I do like and use them. I mean I'll mostly do that anyway when its my turn to DM. My next 4E campaign that I DM (as opposed to play) is going to be mostly 2nd edition stuff with a scattering of 1st and 3.5 material. My last 3.5 campaign had only one adventure that was from the 3.x era (Maure Castle) so one can get by even with WotCs lacklustre efforts in this area.
|
|
If I am forced to decide that 4E as a rules set is drek because WotC can't get the act together and make a good adventure then should I not hold the entire 3.x era to the same standard? I mean WotC mostly made drek during that era too. Heck, they're flag ship adventures for 3.0 where pretty lousy as well and we got by.
Except that some or most of us got by with 3PP, while the current GSL makes it very difficult for someone to write cool adventures for 4th Edition, or new material to keep it fresh like Monte's BOXM.
|
|
There is one other possibility - we are basically all wrong and WotC is right. Extensive testing has shown that most players really don't want to much annoying plot to get in the way of their killing monsters...I sure hope thats not true (and in truth I don't believe it is true - Paizo grew Dungeons audience, quality counts).
Stop it. Stop scaring me like that. Gods I hope that isnt the case with Wotc.
Except that some or most of us got by with 3PP, while the current GSL makes it very difficult for someone to write cool adventures for 4th Edition, or new material to keep it fresh like Monte's BOXM.
And yet many companies still plan on using it. It is preemptive to dismiss 4E's eventual 3PP support, especially in light of A) it not being allowed to be released yet or B) it's lack of time for other companies to gain experience, both as an organization and with the rules which are brand new.
Hopefully us 4E-ers will end up with support just as good as some of the leading 3E 3PPs ... in some cases we may have the same people in fact! :)
Stop it. Stop scaring me like that. Gods I hope that isnt the case with Wotc.There is one other possibility - we are basically all wrong and WotC is right. Extensive testing has shown that most players really don't want to much annoying plot to get in the way of their killing monsters...I sure hope thats not true (and in truth I don't believe it is true - Paizo grew Dungeons audience, quality counts).
Lol, most reviews I've seen are average to poor, so I don't think we're in that situation yet. Of course we're still just guessing at popular gamer opinion, since the percent of us that spend time writing reviews/living on the boards might not be truly representative of the whole.
Cheers! :)
Hopefully us 4E-ers will end up with support just as good as some of the leading 3E 3PPs ... in some cases we may have the same people in fact! :)I hope for your sakes you do. Something WotC failed to realize until late in 3rd Edition is that adventures get you hooked.
There's the optimism I keep looking for! :)
|
|
There's the optimism I keep looking for! :)Hopefully us 4E-ers will end up with support just as good as some of the leading 3E 3PPs ... in some cases we may have the same people in fact! :)I hope for your sakes you do. Something WotC failed to realize until late in 3rd Edition is that adventures get you hooked.
Yah! But I don't want to wait until august for the Punjar stuff from GG or October for other stuff.
I'm just surprised since D. Noonan has produced some very good adventures in the past. Maybe, like others have said, the background fluff is in the upcoming Dragons.
Like others, I liked the pre-dungeon encounters, and there was one interesting trap room in the 'crawl part, but the others were just a series of encounters.
|
|
I think that what we have seen is only the adventure. Other articles in Dungeon might have some info about the AP. Certainly this issue of the magazine is not over so there might be sth more (I do not know, I just hope).
But that, again, is bad marketing. As a DM I want the stuff I need to play the adventure BEFORE I start it, not somtime in between the adventures. So they could have posted a Dungeon article about the Town and given some Hooks, some side-treks an general Fluff.
Then the could have posetd the first adventure.Another point that I would like to make is that when you try to compare it with Burnt Offerings then you are making a bad job. Burnt Offerings gets you from 1st to 3rd level while Rivenroar gets only to second level. If we take into account that there are 30 levels now then perhaps when we have the 3rd article of the AP we can make a more honest evaluation.
Thing is, PF adventures are also available in Dead Tree form. Therefore Paizo has certain space restrictions as to how long the articles can be.
Dungeon and Dragon are online only. There is no rectriction to the Stuff they could publish.Apart from that, even compared to the 32page PF adventures rivenroar is crap. Look at the background stuff and fluff PAIZO and freelancers are able to put in these and compare it to Rivenroar.
IMO there is simply no excuse. Smaller companies might get away with mediocre adventures. But WoC is the market leader! These guys know the 4th rules since years! They have the funds to hire freelancers who are known to be able to produce superb adventures (and Nick Logue already did some articles for dragon).
WoC simply messed it up!
Perhaps the new digital form will work well given the poor reception the new AP seems to have gotten.
Unlike the adventures published in magazines, there is nothing stopping WoTC from editing the AP and putting the most recent version up for download.
Has anyone who has complaints about the AP thought about sending their issues to WoTC?
As much as I miss the physical magazine, one of the main advantages I saw was not needing to pencil in errata after the fact.
Stop it. Stop scaring me like that. Gods I hope that isnt the case with Wotc.There is one other possibility - we are basically all wrong and WotC is right. Extensive testing has shown that most players really don't want to much annoying plot to get in the way of their killing monsters...I sure hope thats not true (and in truth I don't believe it is true - Paizo grew Dungeons audience, quality counts).
It maybe just so that Wizards would like the players to think that way. Plot and role-playing sell no miniatures. no Dungeon Tiles, no virtual game table, no V-Minis. Combat encounters do. Go figure.
On one of the WoTC Forums, the person who did the cartography (Mike Schley) posted a map key for the town of Brindol. In the post he mentioned that the posting was basically to tide people over until Wizards could edit the PDF. This gives me hope that the PDF's of the AP will be living documents.
Here is his post
Originally Posted by Schley
Here's a temporary key until WOTC gets around to updating the pdf.You're getting it straight from the horses mouth since I was the cartographer for both Brindol maps.
1. City Gates
2. The Stone Wyvern (Tavern)
3. Axenhaft Security (Guard Service)
4. Shank's Shivs (Weapon Shop)
5. Brindol Market
6. Thirsty Zombie (Tavern)
7. Red Magic and Sundries (Magic Shop)
8. Shrine of Yondalla
9. The Craven Raven (Tavern)
10. Velorian's Playhouse
11. Brindol Academy
12. The Laughing Manticore (Tavern)
13. Kaal Manor (Noble Estate)
14. Teskerwill Manor (Noble Estate)
16. The Hall of Great Valor *
17. Cathedral of Pelor
18. Brindol Keep
19. Haskin Mansion (Noble Estate)
20. Brindol Cemetery
21. Temple of Wee Jas* Note that tag #16 has changed from "Cathedral Square" in RHoD to "The Hall of Great Valor" in RaR.
Hope this helps.
Mike
On one of the WoTC Forums, the person who did the cartography (Mike Schley) posted a map key for the town of Brindol. In the post he mentioned that the posting was basically to tide people over until Wizards could edit the PDF. This gives me hope that the PDF's of the AP will be living documents.
Here is his post
Originally Posted by Schley
Here's a temporary key until WOTC gets around to updating the pdf.You're getting it straight from the horses mouth since I was the cartographer for both Brindol maps.
8. Shrine of Yondalla
21. Temple of Wee Jas
I hope they fix those two before they update the pdf. Since Yonalla and Wee Jas are no longer deities in the POL setting.
|
|
I hope they fix those two before they update the pdf. Since Yonalla and Wee Jas are no longer deities in the POL setting.On one of the WoTC Forums, the person who did the cartography (Mike Schley) posted a map key for the town of Brindol. In the post he mentioned that the posting was basically to tide people over until Wizards could edit the PDF. This gives me hope that the PDF's of the AP will be living documents.
Here is his post
Originally Posted by Schley
Here's a temporary key until WOTC gets around to updating the pdf.You're getting it straight from the horses mouth since I was the cartographer for both Brindol maps.
8. Shrine of Yondalla
21. Temple of Wee Jas
Bwahahahahahahaha....now thats funny.
But good to see their updating.
|
|
Would they listen if we did? Or would we get a form letter thanking us? This isnt like Paizo open playtest you know.
Has anyone who has complaints about the AP thought about sending their issues to WoTC?
Yeah, but we don't know until we do it. I think private email may be the best way to do it and they have atendency to scour their boards and wipe out negative P.R.
|
|
Yeah, but we don't know until we do it. I think private email may be the ebst way to do it and they have atendency to scour their boards and wipe out negative P.R.
The problem is, when one scours their boards for negative PR, it doesnt bode well for email complaints.
Not saying I wont, just saying the odds arent good.
Would they listen if we did? Or would we get a form letter thanking us? This isnt like Paizo open playtest you know.
Has anyone who has complaints about the AP thought about sending their issues to WoTC?
Yeah, but we don't know until we do it. I think private email may be the ebst way to do it and they have atendency to scour their boards and wipe out negative P.R.
I tend to have an optimistic outlook when it comes to this...I would like to think that WoTC would recognize one of the main advantages of the digital magazine...the ability to fix mistakes without the need for costly reprints, etc. (Most people mention the issues that the Shackled City AP had in its first run, and how it was fixed for the Hardcover...WoTC could nip this sort of thing in the bud).
There is no reason why they wouldn't listen to emails pointing out omissions/errors (assuming the phrase "You Suck!" isn't included in that email :) ).
I also can't see why they wouldn't listen to idea for companion articles (i.e. fleshing out of the city/area, possible backgrounds for the PCs (which is what the first companion piece is to be apparently), etc. (Again, assuming that it is done in a non-hostile manner)
The cost to them is neglible, while the result is pretty much always going to be positive.
The adventure seems to be of the same mold as the 4e rules. It's pared down to the bare minimum needed to get the players engaged in the excitement of tactical battle. All the 'boring' bits are excised so all you're left with is the good stuff.
It's also nicely set up for use as a pickup game, where you can throw a party of whatever characters people happen to have against the challenges.
This seems in keeping with the 4e design philosophy, which is to elminate all the boring stuff that was unfun in earlier editons, like empty rooms or NPCs to talk to that aren't immediately relevant to the encounters.
To their credit, though, this does put the onus on the DM to do worldbuilding and to fill in and add to the adventure as presented in the same way we used to back in the days of Keep on the Borderlands and all. Though I'm not sure how that works with their goal of minimizing DM workloads.
It maybe just so that Wizards would like the players to think that way. Plot and role-playing sell no miniatures. no Dungeon Tiles, no virtual game table, no V-Minis. Combat encounters do. Go figure.Stop it. Stop scaring me like that. Gods I hope that isnt the case with Wotc.There is one other possibility - we are basically all wrong and WotC is right. Extensive testing has shown that most players really don't want to much annoying plot to get in the way of their killing monsters...I sure hope thats not true (and in truth I don't believe it is true - Paizo grew Dungeons audience, quality counts).
They don't if we don't play the adventure. In any case they have to know that change ups are going to be their bread and butter. They need hack heavy dungeon crawls to satisfy the players that like them. However they don't need many. It should be obvious, even to WotC that they make the most money etc. by filling every adventure niche they can.
To their credit, though, this does put the onus on the DM to do worldbuilding and to fill in and add to the adventure as presented in the same way we used to back in the days of Keep on the Borderlands and all. Though I'm not sure how that works with their goal of minimizing DM workloads.
Its a flawed concept, IMO. I'd rather have an adventure set in the City of Sharn with all the trimmings and try and work that back into a sword and sorcery campaign thats very medieval then have nothing and have to build it myself. As problematic as air ships and talking stones might be most of the core ideas can be converted. NPCs might need to be moved around etc. but it can be done. The key is to put good flavour on display and inspire DMs to run with it. The actual campaign world in use is rarely a big problem.
To their credit, though, this does put the onus on the DM to do worldbuilding and to fill in and add to the adventure as presented in the same way we used to back in the days of Keep on the Borderlands and all. Though I'm not sure how that works with their goal of minimizing DM workloads.
This is not to their credit. You can't lower your quality of work and say -- "oh, now you can do the work." This is either laziness or apathy.
WotC wants us to believe that they're taking D&D to a new level. I didn't realize they meant a lower level :/
|
|
I tend to have an optimistic outlook when it comes to this...I would like to think that WoTC would recognize one of the main advantages of the digital magazine...the ability to fix mistakes without the need for costly reprints, etc. (Most people mention the issues that the Shackled City AP had in its first run, and how it was fixed for the Hardcover...WoTC could nip this sort of thing in the bud).
There is no reason why they wouldn't listen to emails pointing out omissions/errors (assuming the phrase "You Suck!" isn't included in that email :) ).
I also can't see why they wouldn't listen to idea for companion articles (i.e. fleshing out of the city/area, possible backgrounds for the PCs (which is what the first companion piece is to be apparently), etc. (Again, assuming that it is done in a non-hostile manner)
The cost to them is neglible, while the result is pretty much always going to be positive.
*nods*
I'll admit, I dont have one. I'm much more pessimisstic. Wotc 4e-piazo/fans of 3e has an aweful lot of the same feel as Games workshop-Privateer press situations in many fashions.
*shrug* I cant see why either, but some companies have a tendecy to put there hands over their ears when they hear things they dont like or want.
|
|
Here is his post
Originally Posted by Schley
Here's a temporary key until WOTC gets around to updating the pdf.You're getting it straight from the horses mouth since I was the cartographer for both Brindol maps.
...snip...
Hope this helps.
Mike
Except that in RaR, Brindol has different churches, nobility, and taverns. I would make the following changes to keep things accurate (bold indicates change):
1. City Gates
2. Brindol Gentlemen's Club (Tavern)
3. Teamsters and Farriers (Guild)
4. Gavriel Arms and Smithy (Weapon Shop)
5. Brindol Market
6. The Marooned Schooner (Tavern)
7. Alchemy by Adronsius (Magic Shop)
8. Shrine of Avandra and Avandrian Hostel (Inn)
9. The Blue Parrot (Tavern)
10. Prospector's Guild
11. College of Ioun
12. The Red Door(Inn)
13. Kaal Manor (Noble Estate)
14. Teskerwill Manor (Noble Estate)
16. The Hall of Great Valor *
17. Cathedral of Pelor
18. Brindol Keep (Lord Warden Harrik Orenna)
19. Haskin Mansion (Noble Estate)
20. Brindol Cemetery
21. Temple of Erathis
This leaves 3 Inns, 3 Taverns, 2 Guildhalls, 2 Shops, and 2 Churches for the DM to place (or substitute in a suitable place). I would advise against moving the Temple of Erathis (next to graveyard), but the other locations I changed could be swapped as desired.
Okay, I have not read it yet but let me see if I get the gist of it from comments here.
The AP so far is simply a number of combat exercises in the shape of a dungeon crawl, strung together with minimal/inconsistent background/non-combat instances, based on the PH which has, as its focus, combat.
I'll go read it now, maybe I got the wrong impression.
|
|
I've read it twice already and I liked it.
Nevertheless, Paizo still writes better adventures. It seems experience helps , although I like David Noonam a lot (from SCAP).
My biggest problem was the fact that the map doesn't point the location of the dungeon.
About the locations in Brindol's map, I suppose that they will show them in another article of Dungeon or perhaps Dragon this month.
And it is not entirely only combat.
If you could, Mormegil, could you post your thoughts when running it?
Anyone notice that the first adventure is no longer available within the table of contents on the new Magazine. It has been pulled there which I assume is for editing (maybe we can be hopeful for a better adventure now! *shifty eyes*) however there is away to still get to it and that is by following the single link the Wizards posts when they "complete" an article and it bypasses the table of content for the issue.
|
Anyone notice that the first adventure is no longer available within the table of contents on the new Magazine. It has been pulled there which I assume is for editing (maybe we can be hopeful for a better adventure now! *shifty eyes*) however there is away to still get to it and that is by following the single link the Wizards posts when they "complete" an article and it bypasses the table of content for the issue.
Nah... It is still there....
My take is that the 4e designers have concluded that setting and story aren't necessary for adventures. In fact, setting and story increase prep time and, thus, are an obstacle to the DM's "fun."
After reading Keep on the Shadowfell, Rescue at Rivenroar, and Treasure of Talon Pass, it feels as if D&D Miniatures "campaigns" are the design goal: a series of encounters with merely a few sentences to tie them together--hence James Wyatt proclaiming proudly that his own campaign consists of nothing more than random dungeons.
Chiming in late, but this sounds EXACTLY like the Descent: Journeys in the Dark boardgame.
|
|
Chiming in late, but this sounds EXACTLY like the Descent: Journeys in the Dark boardgame.My take is that the 4e designers have concluded that setting and story aren't necessary for adventures. In fact, setting and story increase prep time and, thus, are an obstacle to the DM's "fun."
After reading Keep on the Shadowfell, Rescue at Rivenroar, and Treasure of Talon Pass, it feels as if D&D Miniatures "campaigns" are the design goal: a series of encounters with merely a few sentences to tie them together--hence James Wyatt proclaiming proudly that his own campaign consists of nothing more than random dungeons.
Ironically, I tried the random dungeon/random encounter campaign as something fun on the side.
The grognard in me couldn't resist adding a plot, and pretty soon things got political and inter-planar, and we left the dungeon for cities and forests and mountains and imprisonment by Solars...
|
|
I just looked this over, and I wasn't satisfied with it-- it's lacking compared to the quality of the Paizo APs. But maybe there is going to be a lot more material coming in Dragon to flesh it out. But from what I could tell ** spoiler omitted **
to the first point: i think WotC may concentrate on the beginners and new to d&d players for the first few releases, relying on the "old timers" to put in a bit of work to flesh out their adventures as needed. the new player is the focus of the new system, i think: they're trying to expand their base, and they need to cater to the people who are going to fill the void left by the old school cats who wont jump on the 4e bandwagon.
Since I'm playing this I can't really address the module specifically. However I think the idea that having a good plot some how makes the game less accessible to new players is flawed. Good exciting plots will work at least as well as bad ones. Sure you might want to avoid plots with a heavy component of mystery solving until the players have some adventures under their belt otherwise there really no need to have a lame plot just to keep things really simple. You'll actually loose potential players this way not gain them, IMO.
If you could, Mormegil, could you post your thoughts when running it?I've read it twice already and I liked it.
Nevertheless, Paizo still writes better adventures. It seems experience helps , although I like David Noonam a lot (from SCAP).
My biggest problem was the fact that the map doesn't point the location of the dungeon.
About the locations in Brindol's map, I suppose that they will show them in another article of Dungeon or perhaps Dragon this month.
And it is not entirely only combat.
Oh, unfortunately this won't happen soon. The AP will start on Sept when my group returns from summer holidays.
|
Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil? 2001.I didn't like it, though I know many did. I think opinions were sufficiently spotty that I wouldn't describe them as "raving." That may just be my bias against it, though.I would agree with that assessment. Even I have some complaints (some areas are just too large, takes time to get to the adventure and is easy to "derail", etc).
I was mostly serious, but also used that module to point out that the last time anything can remotely close to "raving" was 7 years ago and very early in 3rd Editions life.
Actually, Red Hand of Doom was a raving success. It was a great adventure with the exception of the very last "grudge monster" encounter. That's probably why they decided to base their AP on it.