Keeping them as kobolds let's you tie the two adventures together. Besides which, once you get past Irontooth, no more kobolds. And then you get to hope they don't get goblin'd out.
Can always refluff the kobolds as goblins, though, and just go with it. Whatever you do decide to do, though, I recommend you have an idea of why they're doing it and what, ultimately, you intend to happen if the heroes didn't get involved.
Since my games are running around here (as PbPs), and my players might see this, I'm spoilering it and hoping they stay on their honor.
my "Kobold Hall - Keep on the Shadowfell" plotline arc ..."mbToggleSBlock(14);" class="mbSBlockBtn" id="sBlockBtn14">Show
First, instead of going to Thunderspire Mountain for the next bit, I set my next hook to be HS2 Orcs of Stonefang Pass, with a stop in a refluffed Hommlet (standing in for Timbervale) along the way.
The Kobolds near Fallcrest, the Goblins near Winterhaven, the Hobgoblins near Timbervale, and the Orcs near Stonefang, are all loosely coordinated by various Evil Cults — Tiamat, Orcus, Lolth, and so on — who've been brought together by someone who wants them to be distracting everyone from what he's actually up to: Acererak. (Yes, I have the Tomb of Horrors adventures planned, if they manage to get to them.)
Opposing them are the Raven Queen (who's passively helping) and Vecna (who's a bit more active, in that he's using underlings to annoy the heroes into following the trail of breadcrumbs). Vecna's playing the long game, though, in that he wants Acererak to succeed long enough to weaken the Raven Queen, but not strong enough to be a real threat, which is why he's involved the heroes. The rest of the non-evil Gods won't get directly involved because of the Dawn War Accords (Raven Queen being exempt because she wasn't immortal then, and probably wouldn't give a damned anyway even if she was; everyone else is too good to do so, or too evil to care).
Heroic Tier is the figuring out of what's going on. Paragon Tier is countering the immediate threat — Acererak's own plots, as well as the plan the other Evils have come up with (Revenge of the Giants). Epic Tier is dealing with the ultimate face-off: Acererak (if he's still around) vs Raven Queen vs Orcus vs Vecna in a battle royale.
Nah, you're right, swmabie. I think I'm more or less worried about what little time we'll have to play together will be spent "not playing the Keep on the Shadowfell."
Basically, with what all of us have going on in our personal lives, we'll be lucky to meet every 5-6 weeks for a chunk of play time. I have my mind set on running KotS. I'm just hoping my players don't get bored with the probable situation of them NOT getting to the Keep for what could be 3-4 months of real time, if not longer. If I choose to do Kobold Hall first, that will take at least the first whole play session and push back things even more. I think that's what I mean by being Kobolded (and Goblin'd) out.
Bah, I'm just stressing, no need to post about this junk OR hijack the op's thread! AT LEAST we'll be getting to play, something that is more important to us than anything else!
There was a whole section of the initial dungeon, I think it was the rough, unfinished caverns, that I found to be a huge waste of time. I dropped the whole thing, moved anything the players needed to find to other sections. I think that is a big part of the adventure, removing the "grind" portions that are there purely for xp or to slow down the adventurers. Focus on the interesting bits, ones that don't require a fight to the death in every encounter.
Also, I would suggest revamping the main villain. As he stands in the written game, he isn't that effective and really lacks in clear direction. He even carries a magic item, a helm of charging or somesuch, he can't even use. If the evil necromancer dude is charging the players, there is something wrong
Use the module, any module, as an inspiration and guideline, rather than as a constraint. It might seem like everything will be fine if you just stick to what's written, but in doing so you will miss out on the true potential of the game, especially if you're blocking player ideas in order to stay on the track of the adventure. As soon as you're comfortable, start asking the players what they think is going on in the adventure, and what they'd like to be engaged in while playing. They'll give you good ideas, and you can avoid or omit sections they players wouldn't enjoy.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
I think I'm more or less worried about what little time we'll have to play together will be spent "not playing the Keep on the Shadowfell." Basically, with what all of us have going on in our personal lives, we'll be lucky to meet every 5-6 weeks for a chunk of play time. I have my mind set on running KotS. I'm just hoping my players don't get bored with the probable situation of them NOT getting to the Keep for what could be 3-4 months of real time, if not longer.
Believe me, you are not the only one with this issue. My own tabletop group gets together twice, maybe three times, a year, at best.
From personal experience, I strongly suggest you don't bother with a long term adventure like Keep/Shadowfell. The second time y'all get together, you'll be spending a good portion of the time reminding people who and what they are, and why they're doing it.
I suggest finding One Shots instead. If you go to the Living Forgotten Realms website, there are a bunch of adventures that can be run in one sitting (3 or so hours, if not quicker); just refluff them if you don't want to tread on the Realms. There's stuff published in Dungeon all the time. There's even a book full of them: Dungeon Delves.
I've personally found it a lot easier to run one of these when my people can get together, instead of trying to run any sort of campaign or even multi-session adventures.
In fact, its rare for them to play the same characters from time to time; they wouldn't remember them even if they did. So the night before, once I know how many people are supposed to show up, and I've found a one-shot I like the look of, I make a party for them, based on what I know of them and what they like. Sometimes I'll give them twists they've never played before, sometimes I'll give them their usual types of characters. Sometimes I'll pick investigations, sometimes combat-intense stuff; sometimes I'll have one of each and gauge their moods. 4e's easy enough to play that I usually don't have to worry about what I'm giving them; some people I'm more likely to give Essentials classes to than others to cut down on Analysis Paralysis, but the mechanics are all straight forward, so once I've done the "Ok, read over your powers. Any questions?" and answered anything they're not sure about, it's pretty straight forward.
AT LEAST we'll be getting to play, something that is more important to us than anything else!
That's the definite truth.
If you're interested in playing more often, though.... There's a couple of forums on the boards here for Play-by-Post games. As rare as my tabletop group gets together, I (and my wife) get our fix by playing PbP instead. If you're looking for more steady games, that might be an option for you to look into. If you want to know more, PM me.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
That's probably the best advice that I will need to hear. As much as I fantasize about a grandiose adventure where I can take my players from 1-to-infinity, realistically, I'll be lucky if we see each other 8 times in a year.
Maybe I try to implement some crazy plan where every time my players meet, they are a new level. I run a little one-shot adventure for first level and that "levels" them to 2, and the next time we meet we have a 2nd level one-shot... it's starting to sound more appealing as I type. Just to keep it sort of fresh and a way to capitalize what short time we have together.
Thanks for the PbP input, as well. I may be pm'ing you! I appreciate it.
Maybe I try to implement some crazy plan where every time my players meet, they are a new level. I run a little one-shot adventure for first level and that "levels" them to 2, and the next time we meet we have a 2nd level one-shot... it's starting to sound more appealing as I type. Just to keep it sort of fresh and a way to capitalize what short time we have together.
If you do this, and your group enjoys the combat aspects more than other stuff, then I strongly recommend getting the Dungeon Delves book. It has 30 short adventures in it — one for each level, each with about 3 encounters or so; so if you do the level-per-game thing, you can do everything with the one book, pretty much. They also have suggestions for expansions and other tie-ins, so if you are able to spend more time playing, you can expand them as you see fit, or keep them as simple one-shots. I've used them both ways; I've used them for my tabletop group as one-shots, and I've used them to tied into one of my play-by-post group's adventure, to save me time for full-fledged encounter building.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Maybe I try to implement some crazy plan where every time my players meet, they are a new level. I run a little one-shot adventure for first level and that "levels" them to 2, and the next time we meet we have a 2nd level one-shot... it's starting to sound more appealing as I type. Just to keep it sort of fresh and a way to capitalize what short time we have together.
If you do this, and your group enjoys the combat aspects more than other stuff, then I strongly recommend getting the Dungeon Delves book. It has 30 short adventures in it — one for each level, each with about 3 encounters or so; so if you do the level-per-game thing, you can do everything with the one book, pretty much. They also have suggestions for expansions and other tie-ins, so if you are able to spend more time playing, you can expand them as you see fit, or keep them as simple one-shots. I've used them both ways; I've used them for my tabletop group as one-shots, and I've used them to tied into one of my play-by-post group's adventure, to save me time for full-fledged encounter building.
I second that recommendation, whether you're into combat or not. Furthermore, many of the supplementary books contain "delves" and encounters that can be slotted in with little or no justification.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
That's probably the best advice that I will need to hear. As much as I fantasize about a grandiose adventure where I can take my players from 1-to-infinity, realistically, I'll be lucky if we see each other 8 times in a year.
Maybe I try to implement some crazy plan where every time my players meet, they are a new level. I run a little one-shot adventure for first level and that "levels" them to 2, and the next time we meet we have a 2nd level one-shot... it's starting to sound more appealing as I type. Just to keep it sort of fresh and a way to capitalize what short time we have together.
Thanks for the PbP input, as well. I may be pm'ing you! I appreciate it.
You have DDI, so look at the Chaos Scar adventures. Most of them can be played in a single night, and they exist for just about every level , so it's good for the 'we level after every session' pacing.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
