Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 comac Oct 25, 2008 11:14:03	What am I missing? we did adventure one. Pretty confusing story, the players got through it OK, however.... Part 2... hoo boy. What is going on here? ok theres 2 portals, where if you take one you miss out on 2 story rewards and some really cool items... excpet theres no hints at all its just completely random. This is terrible.... But in exception to that, am I missing something or do you just get no XP for going through the dining room/library because there's none listed at the end Also, it doesn't explain how to get out of the bedroom once you are in there... what do they just have to walk around until they decide to go stand on the portal and go down the other completely random teleporter? Who is playtesting this stuff, and whoever it is can we please have new writers and a new team to make some adventures that people don't complain about
#2 MarkB Oct 25, 2008 11:18:51	Most of these questions are addressed either in the Stickied WitR thread at the top of the page or in the couple of other existing threads here. And it might be an idea to add spoiler-tags to your post, or add the word SPOILERS to the thread title.
#3 comac Oct 25, 2008 11:36:41	PFf exactly my point. I have to have the passive insight to come on to this board and look at a sticky topic before I can even run this adventure. Why wasn't it printed well in the first place? I don't have the internet while we play because I'm out in the field doing the legwork for Wizards getting people interested in WITR. Well I'm expecting more from this company. Sorry about the spoilers
#4 _Mithreinmaethor_ Oct 25, 2008 18:44:57	Why should there be an hints as to which way they are to go ? They are going on blind faith trying to follow the Princess. So they dont get the stuff? People have never missed things in modules before? So not sure that I see your point in all of this? Had there been hints as to go one way or the other then we would see people whining about "oh why do you railroad us down this way and that and dont give us a choice"
#5 WolfStar76 Oct 25, 2008 22:36:26	What am I missing? we did adventure one. Pretty confusing story, the players got through it OK, however.... Part one super-summary Some Eldarin were brought into the forest in Cormyr during the Spellplauge. They cleaimed the woods, because nobody else was using them, and that's where they were dropped. Princess Eldara, acting as a Liason between the Elves and Humans in Cormyr, has been assigned to spend 7 years in Cormyr. She's not a fan of that plan, so she tricks Thraven into writing a note saying he stole the Diadem of Dreams. During the anticipated ambush, he and Eldara escape in the melee. Eldara betrays him at the Entrance to the Halls, puts on the Diadem, and tries to find her way home to the feywild - having realized the true powers of the Diadem.
#6 WolfStar76 Oct 25, 2008 22:38:21	PFf exactly my point. I have to have the passive insight to come on to this board and look at a sticky topic before I can even run this adventure. Why wasn't it printed well in the first place? I don't have the internet while we play because I'm out in the field doing the legwork for Wizards getting people interested in WITR. Well I'm expecting more from this company. Sorry about the spoilers Yup, heaven forbid you'd read the encounter in advance, realize you have questions, then come to the official forums and read one of two threads about the module in question. Much easier to go through the module - apparently cold - and then be angry about it after the fact.
#7 syrinx_dm Oct 26, 2008 0:25:01	Part 2... hoo boy. What is going on here? ok theres 2 portals, where if you take one you miss out on 2 story rewards and some really cool items... excpet theres no hints at all its just completely random. This is terrible.... As a player, this was very disappointing to me. Show We apparently picked the “correct” portal, in that we got to the Princess quickly, without activating any story awards or the Onyx Dog treasure bundle. This was based solely on picking “Right or Left”. To me that’s pretty crappy module writing.
#8 redclock_the_untimely Oct 26, 2008 2:06:52	As for the two portals... Warning: minor rant ahead with a dash of sarcasm and silliness. Show As no one else has mentioned it here or on any other thread I've read that had concerns about players missing the story rewards, I'll say it here. I would have let the PC's explore that area and receive the rewards once they had returned from the shadowfell in part three. Sure you have long since moved on from the second part of the adventure, but since when do players ever do things in the prescribed order? Where does it say they can't go back and finish later? Sure, the adult in me says we should cut our losses and move on to the next big thing, but the kid in me says "I'm a greeeeedy little bugger that wants to strip this place for every last copper and no one can stop me!" /rant
#9 josephkell Oct 26, 2008 2:38:27	The only major complaints should be: 1. Who the **** approved the splitting of an encounter between 1 page and then putting another thing after the end reward section. 2. Environments missing and no describing the number of monsters. Block text should NOT be where the actual room is described. Oh.. Now I get it. No one edited this module after Matthew Sernette wrote it. And if it was playtested, Matthew probably ran it. There is where the problem is. Matthew should not have been given access to the DM until after the DM tried to fumble through the adventure, so that the questions could have been answered as to what was missing. Authors should never be allowed to "edit" their own stuff because they tend to fill in the blanks of what they forgot to include.
#10 MarkB Oct 26, 2008 4:20:20	As a player, this was very disappointing to me. Show We apparently picked the “correct” portal, in that we got to the Princess quickly, without activating any story awards or the Onyx Dog treasure bundle. This was based solely on picking “Right or Left”. To me that’s pretty crappy module writing.
#11 WolfStar76 Oct 26, 2008 5:49:21	The only major complaints should be: 1. Who the **** approved the splitting of an encounter between 1 page and then putting another thing after the end reward section. Unfortunately this is the WotC standard for published modules (and this apparently counts as published) for about a year and a half or two years now. It's getting *better* but I'm still not a fan.
#12 kinevon Oct 26, 2008 7:13:41	I agree. Show When I run it today, I'm going to have just one active portal, and a doorway leading to the other rooms. I think my players are cautious enough not to risk stepping through a magical portal before they've explored the other available options. I wouldn't mind this part so much, if it weren't for the fact that one of these 'story rewards' - uniquely in my experience thus far - is not merely a fluff-based reward, but grants the players actual game-mechanical advantage, granting them purchase access to alchemical formulae above their character level.
#13 mwao_dup Oct 26, 2008 7:53:54	What's so terrible about an optional encounter? You either get it or you don't. As others have pointed out *not* having the occasional optional side-trek is what gets many people shouting "railroad!" Show I think it is the conditions that trigger the optional encounter...when an optional encounter is based on blind luck and there's no other optional encounter, that's annoying. If you go through one portal and encounter X then go to Z or you go through the other portal and encounter Y then go to Z, then blind luck is okay. You get something new. It could even be as straightforward as a shadowy portal and a silvery portal, where the shadowy portal takes you to optional encounter. But optional encounters should have some sort of trigger, where a decision more complex than left or right is involved. (and this is speaking as someone who went through the optional encounter)
#14 matteblack Oct 26, 2008 9:23:46	Why should there be an hints as to which way they are to go ? They are going on blind faith trying to follow the Princess. So they dont get the stuff? People have never missed things in modules before? So not sure that I see your point in all of this? Had there been hints as to go one way or the other then we would see people whining about "oh why do you railroad us down this way and that and dont give us a choice" There are alot of answers between "railroading" the barty and writing content that half the groups playing it will randomly miss. I like to play so, I miss the opportunity of playing more others miss the character rewards. It would be fine if their were two paths that gave different encounters and similar rewards but, missing a 1/3 of a mod to coin flip strikes me as bad adventure composition. Overall, I liked the premise and encounters of the adventures but, the above issue was pretty bad and alot of the encounter directions seemed to need more clarity and more intuitive placement. Many DMs mentioned finding critical info scattered around the document. On a smaller point, I wondered why some rolls were made "strength checks" as opposed to "athletics checks". Why not reward people who trained athletics or have abilities that can effect skill rolls. It struck me a lack of understanding of the new rules system but, I suppose there could be other reasons intentioned to keep things difficult.
#15 fiupntballr Oct 26, 2008 11:50:32	On a smaller point, I wondered why some rolls were made "strength checks" as opposed to "athletics checks". I 100 Percent Agree!! Good thing I rolled a at 20 on that thing with my weak halfling... Overall I had alot of fun in all 3 parts
#16 arvagor Oct 26, 2008 12:46:52	On a smaller point, I wondered why some rolls were made "strength checks" as opposed to "athletics checks". Why not reward people who trained athletics or have abilities that can effect skill rolls. It struck me a lack of understanding of the new rules system but, I suppose there could be other reasons intentioned to keep things difficult. Athletics checks are called for when the act requires some sort of coordination in the effort -- climbing, swimming, jumping, etc. (as the PH says, "activities that rely on muscular strength") Every place a Strength check was called for was a situation where you needed simple brute force -- moving a rusted lever, or forcing open a heavy iron door. There's also nothing preventing cooperation (i.e. assisting) in any of the checks.
#17 matteblack Oct 26, 2008 16:13:31	Athletics checks are called for when the act requires some sort of coordination in the effort -- climbing, swimming, jumping, etc. (as the PH says, "activities that rely on muscular strength") Every place a Strength check was called for was a situation where you needed simple brute force -- moving a rusted lever, or forcing open a heavy iron door. There's also nothing preventing cooperation (i.e. assisting) in any of the checks. How exactly are "brute force" and "muscular strength" different? Also, how does a "strength roll" make more sense for "brute force" while "athletics skill" makes more sense for "muscular strength"? I don't know whether it was down out of ignorance or intentionally but, it would seem to me that the Athletics skill should allow characters to add technique to their strength when attempting to apply force in a physical challenge. I feel like the way it was done devalued training in Athletics and other feats and powers that might manipulate "skill" rolls. Should the game be rewarding characters just because they took high ability scores? My guess is that it was simply a matter of 3rd Edition thinking that should have been picked up in editting.
#18 arvagor Oct 26, 2008 16:49:05	How exactly are "brute force" and "muscular strength" different? Also, how does a "strength roll" make more sense for "brute force" while "athletics skill" makes more sense for "muscular strength"? Well, if you don't see a difference in how you might use your Strength to climb a wall or jump a 10 foot gap as opposed to putting your shoulder to a door to shove it open, then it could well be a moot point. Never mind then that the Player's Handbook lists numerous examples where a Strength check is used: Page 25, Making Checks: "if you try to bash down a door, it’s a Strength check against a set DC that depends on the nature of the door." Page 26, Ability Checks: "Example: A Strength check to break down a door is 1d20 + one-half your level + your Strength ability modifier." Page 214: "[Armor Check] ... You don’t take the penalty to ability checks (such as a Strength check to break down a door or a Dexterity check to determine initiative in combat)." Page 222, Carrying, Lifting, and Dragging: "Your DM can also ask you to make a Strength check to push or to lift something heavy in a stressful situation, such as in the middle of combat." Page 262, Interacting with the Environment: the table lists several examples of Strength checks, including breaking down or forcing open several types of doors Page 263: "If a lever is rusted in position, though, you might need to force it. In such a situation, the DM might ask you to make an ability check (see page 26); no particular skill is involved, just a raw test of your Strength." Looking at the list on page 262, it seems to me that the players who opted to bust down the jail cell doors (for example) got off easy with a DC 18.
#19 MarkB Oct 26, 2008 18:24:53	Show When I run it today, I'm going to have just one active portal, and a doorway leading to the other rooms. I think my players are cautious enough not to risk stepping through a magical portal before they've explored the other available options.
#20 _Mithreinmaethor_ Oct 26, 2008 19:06:47	You realize that the combats in that area give no exps at all and the book is now a moot point with the new CCG and the ebony dog is a marginal magic item. So not sure why people get so upset if they missed it by going the wrong way.
#21 matteblack Oct 26, 2008 20:23:35	You realize that the combats in that area give no exps at all and the book is now a moot point with the new CCG and the ebony dog is a marginal magic item. So not sure why people get so upset if they missed it by going the wrong way. There was an item accessed through it that I unfortunately did not have an available pick for that would have been very fitting for my character, perhaps others. There was also an event note that may or may not have future impact. At it's writing, the book could have been a big deal. The biggest issue for me was the possibility of missing out on game content. Whether or not it had a big impact, people are annoyed because they don't want to see meaningful consequences for arbitrary decisions becoming a common practice. To me it belittles the few choices we do get to make and see have an impact.
#22 _Mithreinmaethor_ Oct 26, 2008 20:52:43	There was an item accessed through it that I unfortunately did not have an available pick for that would have been very fitting for my character, perhaps others. There was also an event note that may or may not have future impact. At it's writing, the book could have been a big deal. The biggest issue for me was the possibility of missing out on game content. Whether or not it had a big impact, people are annoyed because they don't want to see meaningful consequences for arbitrary decisions becoming a common practice. To me it belittles the few choices we do get to make and see have an impact. You could miss game content in any other module that you play as well. I know in LG I missed out on gold/exps and items in modules more times than I care to count. Your adventurers were faced with a choice. You chose one way and unfortunately missed out on something. It happens
#23 matteblack Oct 26, 2008 23:25:53	You could miss game content in any other module that you play as well. I know in LG I missed out on gold/exps and items in modules more times than I care to count. Your adventurers were faced with a choice. You chose one way and unfortunately missed out on something. It happens I have no problem with losing out because of failure, character motivations, running out of time or missing clues but, what is the point of losing out on an enjoyable encounter and other rewards because of a choice of left or right? Why bother writing it and then add a mechanism that randomly causes 50% of players to miss out on it?
#24 surgebuster Oct 26, 2008 23:49:15	In my local area, we have a running joke of always going left when given the choice. So, in the two slot zeroes of BHH, and the seven other tables that ran over the weekend, I believe every single group decided to go left and missed out on the encounter and story awards... Kinda funny really... Joe
#25 _metz_ Oct 27, 2008 0:25:22	In my local area, we have a running joke of always going left when given the choice. So, in the two slot zeroes of BHH, and the seven other tables that ran over the weekend, I believe every single group decided to go left and missed out on the encounter and story awards... Kinda funny really... It's an Aussie wide thing I think, In my running of the mod, I changed the room with the rewards to BE the left one on purpose. Unsurprisingly, parties managed to do the optional encounter, but yes, if I had not of done that, they would have missed out. Fantastic module writing.
#26 JohnLynch Oct 27, 2008 1:06:30	Our group (Australian) also did the whole "always go left when in a dungeon" thing. Although the person that said it had previously run the module so I was thinking there's a chance he was metagaming. However if the optional part was suppose to be on the right, perhaps he wasn't. Regardless we also got the optional part. And I agree, its silly to have something optional, without having a prize for missing out on it to make up for it if its 50-50.
#27 Cailte Oct 27, 2008 7:27:17	As I ended up "leading" our party I chose left, possibly because of the "always go left" gag (it wasn't a deliberately associated choice). The gag does indeed seem to be Australia wide, as it came into my home group from a Sydney player. My 2 main gripes with the module are the "50/50" hit on the loot, and the silliness of the Ritual at the end of 2.
#28 JohnLynch Oct 27, 2008 7:46:01	My 2 main gripes with the module are the "50/50" hit on the loot Its starting to seem more 80/20 :P
#29 JohnduBois Oct 27, 2008 7:54:54	I think that this whole situation exemplifies the "DM Empowerment" being a feature rather than a bug of LFR. At my tables, every party got to go to the sidetrack encounter, and not all of them went left...
#30 WolfStar76 Oct 27, 2008 9:22:57	VCL transparency notice As Comac has not done so, I'm having an ORC change the subject line of the header post.
#31 Keithric Oct 27, 2008 9:45:56	When I ran it, one of the players asked which side the devil was on (to help him pick a side to go down) so I had the devil be on the side she'd taken to increase their chances of getting the treasure (cause, y'know, angel good) Separate from that, before I started I'd locked the door in the trapped pillar room and put a key to it in the bedroom hanging by a hook. So they found the key and opened it instead of having to force it. The lock would be easy for them to open with Thievery or Strength to force the door, but at least gives them impetus to check the other way. When I played it for slot zero, I rolled a die for direction and we randomly got the treasure way, and given the 50/50 nature of things I and another DM had said we'd want to at least give our players a fair shot at it.
#32 ToddMorgan Oct 27, 2008 9:49:07	I don't see why it's such a big deal for a DM to just decide whichever portal you go into in part 2, you end up in that optional encounter. It's up to DMs discretion but I've never been of the opinion that doing so would be a bad thing.
#33 Templeton Oct 27, 2008 13:23:32	Reading over the posts I thought the same thing. DM empowerment is huge in my opinion. We get to use our brains behind the screen again. I was prepared to do the exact same thing with group (which ever portal they took would lead them to the alternate area) when at the last moment their rougue decided he wanted to at least scout the other area first ("beasties coming up behind them") was his reasoning.
#34 matteblack Oct 27, 2008 13:56:32	Well, if you don't see a difference in how you might use your Strength to climb a wall or jump a 10 foot gap as opposed to putting your shoulder to a door to shove it open, then it could well be a moot point. Never mind then that the Player's Handbook lists numerous examples where a Strength check is used: Page 25, Making Checks: "if you try to bash down a door, it’s a Strength check against a set DC that depends on the nature of the door." Page 26, Ability Checks: "Example: A Strength check to break down a door is 1d20 + one-half your level + your Strength ability modifier." Page 214: "[Armor Check] ... You don’t take the penalty to ability checks (such as a Strength check to break down a door or a Dexterity check to determine initiative in combat)." Page 222, Carrying, Lifting, and Dragging: "Your DM can also ask you to make a Strength check to push or to lift something heavy in a stressful situation, such as in the middle of combat." Page 262, Interacting with the Environment: the table lists several examples of Strength checks, including breaking down or forcing open several types of doors Page 263: "If a lever is rusted in position, though, you might need to force it. In such a situation, the DM might ask you to make an ability check (see page 26); no particular skill is involved, just a raw test of your Strength." Looking at the list on page 262, it seems to me that the players who opted to bust down the jail cell doors (for example) got off easy with a DC 18. Thank you for opening up my eyes on the skill check issue. I guess my problem is more with the how the rules work than with how they were used in the mod.
#35 zachmitchl Oct 27, 2008 14:13:37	If you're going to have whichever portal they choose take them to the area with the treasure, then why bother having a choice at all? Making that change does not in itself excuse the module having a section in it that the PCs can miss entirely randomly 50% of the time. The original comment stated that this was a poor writing choice, and argueing that as a DM you can change it doesn't make it a good writing choice. It should have been caught in editing or playtesting. I did enjoy most of the adventure. I was disappointed with the portal issue and one of the players was quite upset having missed the magic item. Also, my group didn't enjoy the very last encounter very much as they had a hard time figuring out that they had to take the one portal back to the original Haunted Halls. It took some hinting at before they figured it out which led to it being a very dragged out encounter.
#36 tosta_dojen Oct 27, 2008 18:58:06	If you're going to have whichever portal they choose take them to the area with the treasure, then why bother having a choice at all? Making that change does not in itself excuse the module having a section in it that the PCs can miss entirely randomly 50% of the time. The original comment stated that this was a poor writing choice, and argueing that as a DM you can change it doesn't make it a good writing choice. It should have been caught in editing or playtesting. Exactly. DM Empowerment shouldn't be a crutch that lets authors get away with poorly-written adventures. If it's going to be used that way, my group's future with LFR is in serious jeopardy.