|
4 years ago ::
Jul 29, 2009 - 2:14AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2003
|
As a general trend, I think, the LFR writers are getting better and better with each round of releases. Certainly LURU1-4 was the most enjoyable of the LURU regional mods I've played so far. Spoiler:
Show
I appreciate the choice the PCs had with how to address the High Hunt and the rescue. It's always nice to see your choices in how to approach a task matter, affect the adventure, and remove some of the feeling of railroading. More and more mods seem to have an element of this, and it's nearly always a good thing.
The only 'drawback' (tongue slightly in cheek, here) is that we ended up with over half an hour (real time) in-character roleplaying (RP? In an LFR mod? Shock horror) as the party members with differing agendas tried to come to an agreement, which caused the mod to run long. The cleric and invoker wanted to participate in the hunt on the wolves' terms to ensure the safety of the children, and the warforged fighter refused to take his armor off and kept trying to attack! In the end we negotiated a compromise, which was a nice option to have.
The atmosphere was excellent, the sections hurrying through the forest/taking the wilderness/making weapons etc. seemed appropriate, and the combat encounters were decent enough, although with our equipment we didn't find the challenge level that high. We did have two clerics, but not once in three encounter (with 6 players) were all four healing words used. The only time any PC was in remote danger of going down was when she was grabbed by the owlbear, but we managed to break the grab before its turn came round again.
I daresay it's a lot tougher without gear.
All in all, thumbs up.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 02, 2009 - 1:35PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2001
|
As the author of the adventure I would like to thank you for the feedback and I am very glad you enjoyed it. As simply a reader of these forums, its nice to see comments on an adventure that don't start out as a gripe. Spoiler:
Show
I am so sorry you had to deal with role-playing in an LFR mod [NOT!!!]
I am not overly surprised you found the mod somewhat easy considering the path you took. The adventure was primarily designed around the hunt being run without equipment. But some players, as you personally experienced, just can't stand being stripped of their equipment, so the 'with equipment' option was included. With 3 possible paths for the adventure, having all paths perfectly balanced was a near impossible feat. Call it the price of having choices that matter.
But again, thank you for the comments and I am glad you enjoyed the adventure. 
Writing Director - Returned Abeir
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 02, 2009 - 3:27PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2008
|
I also got to play this the other day and I also enjoyed the fact we had options. Our party were conflicted. Spoilers
Show
As a priest of Tempus my Warforged was more than willing to agree to the terms once he had established through high insight rolls that the lycanthropes would stick to their terms. My Warforged finds Oliff to be an annoying little brat so he wasn't particularly concerned over the fact the lycanthropes used him as bait. The fact the lycanthropes didn't give a damn about the kids and were willing to let them go free offset the dishonorable way in which they lured our party.
Another player was of course less concerned and the other two players wanted to hide our gear before agreeing to the terms (which I was very adamant against doing. There'd be no honour that way  ).
It was an interesting position to find my priest of Tempus in and so I quite enjoyed the module. I did suggest we fortify the cave with the Owlbear so we had the fight after the Owlbear outside the cave. I don't know if that was intended, but regardless our DM certainly reacted well when the situation arose
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 02, 2009 - 6:09PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2007
|
I ran this module the other day, and found it to be quite refreshing as far as LFR mods thus far have gone for the following reasons: Spoiler:
Show
1. It was 45 pages long, some hate that sort of thing, I think it demonstrates a willingness to make the module as long as is REQUIRED - rather then an arbitrary number of pages.
2. There were clear options, and a 'sandbox' feel if DMed right, a nice contrast when juxtaposed with all the frustratingly railroad modules out there.
3. The monsters weren't designed to annoy, they were designed to damage - this makes them much more enjoyable then say, insubstantial weakening monsters that do minimal damage (Read - take fights forever)
4. Given the oppurtunity, the whole honor thing is a refreshing take on monsters who randomly want to attack you.
-> My only complaint is that the premise of the module, i.e: WHY the PCs take part in the hunt could have been a bit better, but I understand that these things are often handed down from on high, so well done there in retaining options in a clear railroad situation.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 02, 2009 - 8:19PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2006
|
I played in this two weeks ago and had a blast. The setup was great and stuck with me longer than most mods. Good stuff, good fun!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 10:19AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Spoiler:
Show
I am not overly surprised you found the mod somewhat easy considering the path you took. The adventure was primarily designed around the hunt being run without equipment. But some players, as you personally experienced, just can't stand being stripped of their equipment, so the 'with equipment' option was included. With 3 possible paths for the adventure, having all paths perfectly balanced was a near impossible feat. Call it the price of having choices that matter.
Spoiler:
Show
The problem isn't so much having choices that matter, it's that playing along is the wrong choice.
If the PCs refuse to give up their items, they face easier combats. More importantly, there is zero payoff for playing along with what the author wants.
Basically, in an IC-sense, it makes perfect sense for the PCs to argue to keep their equipment. In a metagame sense, if the players ignore what makes IC-sense to go along with what they believe the author wants, it turns out they handicapped themselves for nothing--they essentially just voluntarily chose to face tougher combats for no reason at all.
In a metagame sense, adventures like this are saying to players, "Trust me. I know I'm asking you to do something detrimental to your PC (fight naked, give up a magic item, sacrifice yourself), but the author will either make it so that you're not really disadvantaged, or make it up to you in the long run." ...neither of which turns out to be true here.
That doesn't strike me as the lesson you were trying to teach, since the end result is that players are going to be even less likely to play along next time such a situation comes along.
I would have expected one of the magic item bundles to only be available to those who accepted the challenge of leaving their equipment behind. It surprised me considerably that the Mark of the Beast story award was not limited to groups that had accepted that challenge.
Bizarrely, the adventure does have one magic item only available to certain PCs, but it's those who have a story award for succeeding on a skill challenge back in LURU1-2.
Having the choices perfectly balanced is a bit of a straw man. A L7-10 PC is likely (if not expected) to have at the very least a vanilla +2 weapon/armor/amulet; most will have the Expertise feat for their chosen weapon/implement (and/or be using a +3 proficiency bonus weapon). A PC without his usual equipment is thus likely to be at -3 attack, -2 damage, -2 defenses and without all of the options magical equipment gives.
As such, even the most superficial of examinations should indicate that modifying the creatures' attacks/defenses by -1 (as a number of creatures are so modified) does not make up for the loss of equipment.
As written, this adventure simply begins with a very simple skill challenge (Diplomacy DC 20, 1 success before 1 failure) that if you fail, increases the effective difficulty of the entire adventure by 1-2 levels without any reward.
Personally, when running the adventure, I will probably not give the PCs the option (since I think Track 1 is more fun) but will softball the adventure (give the illusion of danger but surreptitiously pull all punches so that there's no actual chance of death or failure) as I would find it unfair to kill a PC for not being up to a challenge I artificially increased.
For those just running the adventure as written, with it up to the PCs whether they succeed or fail, live or die (which should be the expected mode for campaign play), playing along with what the author wants is equivalent to deliberately failing a skill challenge for no real reason, and the PCs are punished accordingly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 1:28PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
Spoiler:
Show
The problem isn't so much having choices that matter, it's that playing along is the wrong choice.
If the PCs refuse to give up their items, they face easier combats. More importantly, there is zero payoff for playing along with what the author wants.
I ran this for my home group. Our payoff was more fun, more challenge, and a "unique" LFR adventure mechanic. For us, that was a huge positive payoff!
Basically, in an IC-sense, it makes perfect sense for the PCs to argue to keep their equipment. In a metagame sense, if the players ignore what makes IC-sense to go along with what they believe the author wants, it turns out they handicapped themselves for nothing--they essentially just voluntarily chose to face tougher combats for no reason at all.
Having read and judged the mod, I disagree with your assessment. It is very clear that characters arguing to keep their equipment shouldn't work. I think the author did an excellent job highlighting that the intent/balance of the mod is to run without equipment, and EMPHASIZING that there are some players who would not find this type of adventure fun. Modifications provided for their benefit. (Bonus points to the author for recognizing this and providing an appropriate alternative.)
That doesn't strike me as the lesson you were trying to teach, since the end result is that players are going to be even less likely to play along next time such a situation comes along.
I didn't get the feeling that there was a lesson to be taught here at all . . .
As written, this adventure simply begins with a very simple skill challenge (Diplomacy DC 20, 1 success before 1 failure) that if you fail, increases the effective difficulty of the entire adventure by 1-2 levels without any reward.
This is not how I read the mod as written. I read it as, "If a player is not going to have fun playing without their equipment, then here is a very simple skill challenge for that play-style. However, I did NOT think this was the intent of the mod."
Overall, my group found this mod to be an innovative, unique, and very fun LFR adventure. Kudos to the author for doing something different, while providing an alternative for all play-styles.
Racing to the cabin to grab implements and weapons during the final fight made that one of the most memorable encounters of LFR for our group.
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 4:31PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Spoiler:
Show
Having read and judged the mod, I disagree with your assessment. It is very clear that characters arguing to keep their equipment shouldn't work.
Spoiler:
Show
Er, page 9 of the adventure:
"Track 3: It is also possible for the PCs to attempt to negotiate with One Fang to take the children’s place but allow the PCs to keep their equipment. To do this requires a successful DC 20 Diplomacy or Intimidate check to convince them it is more challenging to face a fully equipped prey and thus a greater honor to Malar."
(The part you're referring to is two paragraphs down, about ignoring a failure at this check if the players are whining too much.)
I agree with you that playing without your equipment makes this adventure more fun. However, keeping your equipment is trivial enough (a group that can't pull off a single DC 20 Diplomacy/Intimidate roll has no business playing a L7-10 adventure), that the group basically has to deliberately choose that way, despite that being difficult to justify in-character.
If the author's desire was that this option not be taken, my preference would have been to either see the option not be given, or have the PCs be aware that there's some tradeoff (they lose out on rewards or the combats are tougher) that they might not want to make.
I didn't get the feeling that there was a lesson to be taught here at all...
Every adventure teaches a lesson.
If you want to know what kind of player and what type of PC the campaign encourages, you don't look at what the campaign guidelines say, you look at what the campaign actually rewards.
Many adventures simply teach the lesson that combat capability is rewarded, but consider, for example, Barrow of the Ogre King, which has one combat whose entire point is "Hey, sometimes you're better off if you talk first instead of immediately attacking."
The key is to teach the right lessons, because players learn quickly--don't, for example, have an adventure where the PCs miss out on gold if they don't haggle over what the adventure hook is offering, unless you want them to do that on every single adventure from then on; if trusting an NPC gets the characters stabbed in the back, don't be surprised if the players are less trusting next time.
One of the most common lessons that many RPGA adventures teach is to go along with the flow of the adventure, even if it doesn't make much sense or requires your character to do things not particularly in-character. As such, you want to be careful about adventures in which PCs can have an easier challenge with the same rewards by choosing their natural inclination over what the author is signposting he would prefer, as that's not a lesson you want to teach.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 6:17PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
Spoiler:
Show
The key is to teach the right lessons, because players learn quickly--don't, for example, have an adventure where the PCs miss out on gold if they don't haggle over what the adventure hook is offering, unless you want them to do that on every single adventure from then on; if trusting an NPC gets the characters stabbed in the back, don't be surprised if the players are less trusting next time.
That lesson's already been blasted into everyone's head ... too late. Someone was remarking basically on the "cry wolf" situation we've already had. Our PCs are going to get into serious trouble some day by treating every NPC warily, even distrustingly.
One of the most common lessons that many RPGA adventures teach is to go along with the flow of the adventure, even if it doesn't make much sense or requires your character to do things not particularly in-character. As such, you want to be careful about adventures in which PCs can have an easier challenge with the same rewards by choosing their natural inclination over what the author is signposting he would prefer, as that's not a lesson you want to teach.
I think that if I understand the spoilers correctly, the encounter could have been stepped up for an equipped party versus unequipped and not lost a great deal of flavor. While it might have been more work to write/design two sets of stat blocks (oh noes, shades of LG loom, forfend forfend!), it could have been done and with a good IC reason too. I doubt very much that it would have killed the story or the writers.
On the other hand, what would the lesson be to those that do go with the author's intent and give up their weapons? And would it be a better or worse lesson to teach?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 6:43PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2008
|
Our PCs are going to get into serious trouble some day by treating every NPC warily, even distrustingly.
And then right after that they will get into more trouble for being too trusting.
One thing I would love to see is more guidance in the modules in regard to Insight DCs/results. A little one inch box that listed DCs and results for each NPC would add little if anything to the length of the adventure. Even when I have thoroughly read the modules I find myself screwing up on insight checks as I lose track of which NPC knows what and when or their probable DCs and bluff and such.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign.
The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic.
Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
|
|
|
