Explicit recognition that D&D is a "Task Resolution" game system. This does not position the terminology in its larger roleplay theory context (e.g., juxtapose it with Conflict Resolution) but it is nice to see an "understanding of what our game is".
A reference on page 53, in the Keegan encounter that a player can only have their character opt to Bluff instead of answer a question to their PC truthfully "as long as the players involved are in agreement". Now I'm all for a table consensus on play styles etc. to ensure everyone is able to "play the character they expected to play" but table veto on an individual player's choices of how to play character in an encounter? The time to discuss "can any of us lie and the others know about it" is at table-social-contract stage before play starts not midst encounter. I'm hoping this is an artifact of this author's views and not something entrenched in 4e design.
In a style of play matter, the issue of directing Keegan's questions to the character best able to answer is done a bit heavy handed ("find out which character has the best for this question and put it to them"), I suggest the DM should have copies of the PC sheets retained and not ask them, just direct questions. For that matter, if Keegan makes clear that "once one has answered, they must not answer till all others have" then as questions are asked the one best suited to answer can self identify except for those that do indeed target someone for whom its evident (e.g., most intimidating). To me this is more natural and less rail-roady.
Another point about the Keegan encounter is that it's intended to be roleplay encounter (I sooo dislike splitting encounters into "combat" and "non-combat", it's so binary a classification with the 2nd type simply "not the first"), the encounter scripts past PC reactions that would normally be feasible in the situation described.
PCs move up to coffin, disturb it, lid explodes and undead comes up out of it (rising from prone). The PCs have no chance to affect a prone creature rising up before them before it starts talking. Again this is railroady, it's "we're ignoring the regular task resolution rules to make sure the encounter plays as GM/module planned".
To fix this, I would had the coffin standing upright against the wall, and have the lid explode out as the players first step onto the raised area it's on, thus there is 5' to 10' (1-2 squares) between Keegan and PC's and normal initiative can be determined but his free action talking take place. This also makes it more understandable that the "explosion" doesn't damage anyone. I would also have the dust last a round, and have him start speaking while hidden by it, this prevents targeting powers/ranged attacks at him and thus more logically buys time.
Admittedly, these are partial rules so the next couple may be unfair till the full text comes out:
- You recover all hit points after one good rest, however many that is - so even without magic, there is no amount of injury that lays a hero up for a few days even? That does not seem a way to emulate heroic fantasy narratives.
- Monsters are destroyed at zero hit points. They are up and about or dead, no middle ground. That's rule 0'd easily enough with a random number of them only incapacitated and dying if untreated and others coming around in a 6 hours otherwise.
Rob
A reference on page 53, in the Keegan encounter that a player can only have their character opt to Bluff instead of answer a question to their PC truthfully "as long as the players involved are in agreement". Now I'm all for a table consensus on play styles etc. to ensure everyone is able to "play the character they expected to play" but table veto on an individual player's choices of how to play character in an encounter? The time to discuss "can any of us lie and the others know about it" is at table-social-contract stage before play starts not midst encounter. I'm hoping this is an artifact of this author's views and not something entrenched in 4e design.
I've not read the scenario, but I don't completely know what is going on, however, this sounds to me like code for "If the players start arguing over this issue at the table, deal with this issue fairly". Obviously this sounds like a key encounter, and players get that great sense of when 'something important' is about to happen in the game.
I've noticed a lot of scenarios don't include backup ways of handling things. Such as if the players are suppose to break a curse on someone, and they just end up killing them, then potential key information, not to mention story plot can be lost. Some scenarios do not take complete failure into account. I do not know if this is the case here, but this defintly sounds more like a cue for less experienced DM's then it does answer by committee.
A reference on page 53, in the Keegan encounter that a player can only have their character opt to Bluff instead of answer a question to their PC truthfully "as long as the players involved are in agreement". Now I'm all for a table consensus on play styles etc. to ensure everyone is able to "play the character they expected to play" but table veto on an individual player's choices of how to play character in an encounter? The time to discuss "can any of us lie and the others know about it" is at table-social-contract stage before play starts not midst encounter. I'm hoping this is an artifact of this author's views and not something entrenched in 4e design.
Well, considering the group is together when the questions are answered, a character with a serious truth bender could easily call shenanigans on whoever's trying to lie to the ghost, and it's not like these are personal questions that the other PC's wouldn't know the answer to.
However, then the issue arises of how the dungeon plays if PC's are played cleverly as so much XP lies off down those avoidable channels.
My players would definitely try to "knock out"/"capture" a goblin in Area 1 for example and otherwise listen and scout. They always seek sources of information. This is where "if monsters go down they're dead" rule is a problem in believability and they're wondering "what about my Intimidate skill, why did I have that if there's nothing to use it on." (e.g., the Dragonborn has +10 Intimidate and can speak with kobolds in draconic and the goblins all speak common and have a Will Defense of 13). If I say "no every monster is a fight till they escape or die and dead when they go down one" they will groan. Massive strike against system till housefuled.
Exploration and interrogation of prisoner reveals that there is a direct route to the final encounter that is about 5 encounters out of the 17 keyed, that's skipping alot of XP though.
Having every monster "fight to the death and never surrender" nerfs that, and is unbelievable. The last goblin in a corner subject to a natural 20 on the Intimidate check isn't going to cough up something? Even within the rules as presented, the Wizard can still "sleep" creatures and then they wake up bound and being Intimidated to "reveal information". The more the DM nerfs sensible, valid tactical and strategic choices the more the railroad tracks are clear.
This is where the XP system also becomes an issue. "Smart PC's who avoid needless fights and through stealth, listening, questioning prisoners find the fast route to their target" also arrive there at lower level. The Quest system provides a possible solution if you say there is a recurring Quest of "smart play that favours being believable over 'gaming the system'" that awards XP for precisely that correct tactical play or character driven play and doesn't punish people for not playing "combat XP seekers".
There has always been this counter-intuitive element in "combat-rewarding" adventure construction.
Oh and I join the chorus of the paper it's printed on is cheap, though that's a widespread problem. The sturdiness of paper in products has varied substantially over the years. Paizo's modules have more sturdy covers but similar quality paper.
I also don't see a "permission to photocopy" printed on the PC sheets.
BTW, I'm critiquing mostly because I want to like and see much to like, so I want what's iffy better, since I don't want to "just walk away for another system".
Us Warhammer Role Players will tak you!
It's jarring going to Warhammer from DnD, because you have to think. Combats end in one or two decent connecting blows, like in real life.Ok enough about paper I have to deal with it enough as it is. As to the idea of being sneaky and avoiding combat they actually have a good mechanic for this. For those that have read the adventure a certain elf can be a good source of info if cornered. The only problem with this is you not only miss the xp but also all those pretty magic weapons and other items.
Having every monster "fight to the death and never surrender" nerfs that, and is unbelievable. The last goblin in a corner subject to a natural 20 on the Intimidate check isn't going to cough up something?
I don't have my module in front of me right now but if I recall correctly the Quick Start rules phrased it as "when a player is dropped below 0 HP they are dying. When a monster is dropped below 0 they are defeated."
Not "dead" just defeated. I saw nothing that got everyone so excited that the monsters were no longer there for them to question after dropping them. Wizards is just not stating the fact that once you take them down to minus 1/2 their HP you will walk away to let them bleed out.
Of course, like I said I do not have my quick rules in front of me right now so I might be mis-remembering things.
BTW, I'm critiquing mostly because I want to like and see much to like, so I want what's iffy better, since I don't want to "just walk away for another system".
page 32.
Well as someone who worked in a print shop and works for a copier company I don't see a problem with the paper quality. If they made the cover out of say an 80# cover it would crack with that large of a booklet. The paper weight they used is light enough to prevent cracking and sturdy enough to stand up to a little abuse. I have made many booklets at approximately the same stock and it was the best to use after looking at the other options. The amount of time opening and closing the booklet would shred a cover stock piece of paper.
Whatever paper they've used for modules in the past (like back in 1E/2E) would have been way better than the covers on KotS. Somewhat glossy, fairly stout and spill/handling resistant. Quite literally if your hands are even a little sweaty, greasy or heaven forbid you just had your hand around a cold coke, the ink on the covers/back will come off/smear (I think the latter must be why there's now a faint handprint on the cover - where the ink came off - of the one I'm borrowing, done by me
).Ok haven't played any published adventures from 1e/2e or seen them so I cannot comment on the paper. However all the current published adventures that I have seen with the exception of KOTS have had much smaller page counts (half as small at least). The reason they could have the thicker cover is they were scoured first and with that sharp a fold it was acceptable however as I said with this many pages it would be very difficult to have a cover on it. This many pages is an unfortunate middle ground it is too large for a cover and too small for any binding to be an option. All this and the problem of smearing has nothing to do with the paper but is because it is printed on an offset press which is what causes the smearing because the ink doesn't bind properly to any coated stock.
Just as an example. TSR 9190 (In Search Of Adventure) is 160 pages of good paper (a little thicker than most printer paper) perfect bound cardstock cover. Of course that is a supermodule, most modules were between 20 and 40 pages, but still same weight paper, same cardstock cover, and perfect bound.
Note: Perfect bound does not imply any kind of spine, it is the same way the KOTS books are bound.... with staples
Just as an example. TSR 9190 (In Search Of Adventure) is 160 pages of good paper (a little thicker than most printer paper) perfect bound cardstock cover. Of course that is a supermodule, most modules were between 20 and 40 pages, but still same weight paper, same cardstock cover, and perfect bound.
Note: Perfect bound does not imply any kind of spine, it is the same way the KOTS books are bound.... with staples
I tried finding a pic of the adventure and unfortunately couldn't find any that could confirm the binding but those I did see looked more like it was perfect bound.
The term perfect bound means glued pages with a cover surrounding the inner pages. The term for stapled is saddle stitched. Just to let you know. If you have a copy of the adventure and can confirm it is stapled and not glued great let me know. All said and done the presses and paper quality have changed a great deal from when they were published I am speaking from today’s tech and how the industry works.
I tried finding a pic of the adventure and unfortunately couldn't find any that could confirm the binding but those I did see looked more like it was perfect bound.
The term perfect bound means glued pages with a cover surrounding the inner pages. The term for stapled is saddle stitched. Just to let you know. If you have a copy of the adventure and can confirm it is stapled and not glued great let me know. All said and done the presses and paper quality have changed a great deal from when they were published I am speaking from today’s tech and how the industry works.
As a note, Goodman Games DDC series uses the cardstock covers that don't smear, so the tech's still available. I've seen modules up to at least 64 pages stapled, usually with removable cover where the main maps are located (I guess that's saddle stitched, though there's no "stitching" that I see, just 3 staples holding it together).
As a note, Goodman Games DDC series uses the cardstock covers that don't smear, so the tech's still available. I've seen modules up to at least 64 pages stapled, usually with removable cover where the main maps are located (I guess that's saddle stitched, though there's no "stitching" that I see, just 3 staples holding it together).
Sorry once again my point isn't that a cardstock cover would or wouldnt smear it is that they would crack at the fold. Once again the smearing comes from the fact that it is printed on a press and it not being able to be absorbed into the paper. A cardstock that is coated will smear just as bad as the inner sheats if printed on a press. The only two ways to prevent smearing is to use non-coated paper (which gives a faded look to the cover). The second method is to use a process that doesn't use ink such as electrostatic transfer fused toner systems (also called a copier). BTW saddle stiched just means staples a third of the way into each side at the fold. Quick question you said the covers were removeable are you meaning they were not stapled with the rest of the book.
Sorry once again my point isn't that a cardstock cover would or wouldnt smear it is that they would crack at the fold. Once again the smearing comes from the fact that it is printed on a press and it not being able to be absorbed into the paper. A cardstock that is coated will smear just as bad as the inner sheats if printed on a press. The only two ways to prevent smearing is to use non-coated paper (which gives a faded look to the cover). The second method is to use a process that doesn't use ink such as electrostatic transfer fused toner systems (also called a copier). BTW saddle stiched just means staples a third of the way into each side at the fold. Quick question you said the covers were removeable are you meaning they were not stapled with the rest of the book.
Ah, so these old modules are saddle-stitched, as are the KotS books.
Most 1E/2E/Goodman game modules have covers that aren't stapled to the book so you can set the map (on the inside cover) to one side while you flip through the booklet. About the cracking at the fold - I have a few well-worn adventures that has occured to, but they've been through hell anyways, and even in their crumbling condition feel far more stolid than KotS.
Goodman must be using ETFTS then, as their covers are glossy.
In the end, I just want something that doesn't feel as fragile as KotS - something that will survive in my gaming collections for years to come. I'm worried my borrowed KotS won't survive playing the entire module.
The "Hooks" give Quest XP for 6th, 7th and 8th level quests (yes, I'm one of those who courtesy of bookstores goofing have a copy of DMG).
Quest XP are supposed to be geared for the level the characters are expected to be when they complete the quest.
This means the XP granted here are excessive and provide more XP than they should (assuming they should have been 1, 2, 3, the surplus ends up being 525 additional XP for each player in a 5 PC group), and players or DM's who develop expectations of "rate of progression" based on this standard will have expectations out of sync with the DMG.
Also, the Lost Mentor seems to be more suitably a Minor Quest as does "getting an accurate map".
I think the Roleplaying possibilities are more interesting if the PC's come to Winterhaven having received word that Lord Padraig seeks assistance to deal with a growing threat from kobolds.
Their "major quest" is to make Winterhaven and environs secure. At first this will cause them to pursue kobolds etc. in a sandbox style but eventually they realize the "real threat" that is the core of the quest being the cult.
Players can author backstory that explains disliking kobolds and thus more logically sees them appreciate facing lots of them and pursuing that thread of story.
In Winterhaven, Ninaran is way too obvious. His "false tip" should be much subtler, and that he makes no effort to tip off the kobolds is strange.
I would set out several "minor quests", allowing Players to modify them to suit their desired character concept/backstory, starting with:
- your great-grand uncle Sir Keegan lived in these parts, he went mad and slaughtered is family, it is said he still haunts the area and that only one of your blood can see him rest peacefully -- something that logically draws them into the backstory of the keep (it's a shame for good backstory not to be set out for PC's).
- the missing mentor revised to be minor.
I would move any mention of cults etc. to be after the kobold lair and Irontooth are uncovered. Smart players can play past/avoid many of the encounters and thus arrive "too XP poor" for the big finale fight. To avoid this, they need to be pulled into the side-paths via minor quests and uncover the real issue as they do this, not get a Quest aiming them straight at the big bad.
A good flow chart breakdown is found here:
http://isabout.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/24-hours-on-the-shadowfell/#more-115
- Monsters are destroyed at zero hit points. They are up and about or dead, no middle ground. That's rule 0'd easily enough with a random number of them only incapacitated and dying if untreated and others coming around in a 6 hours otherwise.
PHB now in my hands I am happy. Monsters not automatically destroyed at zero; the person dealing damage can decide if they are killed or rendered unconscious.