I ask this periodically, because I have to admit I haven't really been following it much. I haven't had a good look at anything other than the main books.
So, of all the stuff that's come out for 5e so far, what do you think is the best, and why?
Tome of Beasts by Kobold Press is pretty cool. Not official, of course, but several of the artists who worked on the official stuff illustrated it, and KP worked with WotC pretty heavily when 5e was in production.
I like Goodman Games' modules. They just have a cool attitude, like, "Fuck you, players! Surviving is for babies!"
WoTC or third party?
Curse of Strahd is great I think: a sandboxy expansion of the original Ravenloft.
Volo's Guide. New PC races and new monsters (Well old Fiend Folio, MM2 and even Spelljammer redone for 5e.)
I like Tome of Beasts, but using ToB monsters last night (ash ghouls, CR 12) I was struck by how they seemed very 3e in feel, with long spell lists, a massive area damage recharge attack - 66 dmg, save for half, and STR ability drain (and no recovery mechanic for the ability drain! They seemed most like Shadows so I went with recovery on Short Rest). Not necessarily a bad thing, WoTC 5e monsters tend to be a bit feeble, but using two CR 12 critters vs a 15th & 18th level PC nearly wiped them out, which would be very unlikely with MM monsters.
Apart from the 5e PHB/MM/DMG (whose only big downside is the crappy glue on my printings, pretty outrageous at $50 a book) the 5e book I have with the biggest coolness factor would actually be the 5e Primeval Thule campaign setting. As an alternative to Forgotten Realms it's great. I haven't GM'd Thule yet only because I'm already using Wilderlands & Golarion.
Out of the Abyss is good for a modern module. If not sandbox-y, is at least sandbox-y-y. It shows a clear preference for player/PC agency.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972122Out of the Abyss is good for a modern module. If not sandbox-y, is at least sandbox-y-y. It shows a clear preference for player/PC agency.
I like Out of the Abyss and having read them all, think it looks the easiest to run. CoS looks good, but I've heard bad things about running it.
Edit: We just finished Storm King's Thunder and had a lot of fun, but the DM was mixing a lot of his own stuff in there so no idea how the core module/campaign plays 'vanilla'.
Quote from: RPGPundit;972049I ask this periodically, because I have to admit I haven't really been following it much. I haven't had a good look at anything other than the main books.
So, of all the stuff that's come out for 5e so far, what do you think is the best, and why?
I'm guessing players will flock to any re-booted books for 5e that they have nostalgia for from previous editions. That's how it works with other RPGs.
I'm a big fan of the Adventures in Middle-earth products from Cubicle 7. It's my favorite way to play 5E.
Quote from: Ulairi;972157I'm a big fan of the Adventures in Middle-earth products from Cubicle 7. It's my favorite way to play 5E.
I was wondering how long before someone would bring this up, given that this particular version of 5e is the most *un-5e* game. Interesting.
Quote from: tenbones;972158I was wondering how long before someone would bring this up, given that this particular version of 5e is the most *un-5e* game. Interesting.
It is however the best 5e supplement. And as for being un-5e that true only you feel that the bag of class powers, items, monsters, and spells are rules of the game as opposed to being details of a sub-genre or setting. What makes Adventures in Middle Earth brilliant is that combat, leveling, proficiency, skills, and the mechanics behind abilities work just like in the core rules. But by re-arranging the table on classes, spells, monsters, etc, it results in something that make you go, "Yeah that is Middle Earth".
Opposed to the MERP adaptation which was Rolemaster lite shoehorned into Middle Earth.
And because Cubicle didn't tamper with the core mechanics you can use any of the core 5e stuff you want to use.
Quote from: estar;972165It is however the best 5e supplement. And as for being un-5e that true only you feel that the bag of class powers, items, monsters, and spells are rules of the game as opposed to being details of a sub-genre or setting. What makes Adventures in Middle Earth brilliant is that combat, leveling, proficiency, skills, and the mechanics behind abilities work just like in the core rules. But by re-arranging the table on classes, spells, monsters, etc, it results in something that make you go, "Yeah that is Middle Earth".
Opposed to the MERP adaptation which was Rolemaster lite shoehorned into Middle Earth.
And because Cubicle didn't tamper with the core mechanics you can use any of the core 5e stuff you want to use.
Oh you don't have to sell me on it. As soon as I heard they removed all that stuff I KNEW it would be better than the core rules. heh
Edit: or at the very least, I knew it would be pretty popular with a certain stripe of player/GM.
Ugh, these answers are discouraging. The best stuff are things that don't appeal for various reasons. Adventures in Middle Earth is put together well, but it's a little light on content, and I have no intention of running a game that uses it, as the last thing I want to do is take the magic out. Plus the journey rules left me completely cold. I'm not buying hardback adventures packaged as campaigns, because by the time I get done adapting it, it would be easier to write my own material. I guess that's what I'll continue to do.
A survey of compatible scenarios that people found good hasn't changed my answer, either. I've got two of the highly rated ones from Goodman Games, and was distinctly underwhelmed. Maybe my tastes are now simply too narrow to expect much in the way of products.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;972173A survey of compatible scenarios that people found good hasn't changed my answer, either. I've got two of the highly rated ones from Goodman Games, and was distinctly underwhelmed. Maybe my tastes are now simply too narrow to expect much in the way of products.
What are these tastes? So far, we know you aren't looking for settings (or at least LotR), and aren't looking for hardback adventures. What are you looking for? Individual dungeon modules? New races or classes to play? campaign builders?
On most of the boards, people seem to bemoan the lack of 1) a specific campaign setting, 2) more 'player's options' style crunch, or 3) just the total output.
Adventures in Middle Earth. Hands down.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972177What are these tastes? So far, we know you aren't looking for settings (or at least LotR), and aren't looking for hardback adventures. What are you looking for? Individual dungeon modules? New races or classes to play? campaign builders?
On most of the boards, people seem to bemoan the lack of 1) a specific campaign setting, 2) more 'player's options' style crunch, or 3) just the total output.
Either or both of these two things:
A. New sub systems done well, not more items in the existing sub systems. No to new classes, spells, etc. Yes to modules for sailing, domain management, optional inventory systems somewhere between current encumbrance and "make it up". That sort of thing. By modules there I mean a packaged set of guidelines, rules, widgets, and so forth to make something that more or less is understandable and works as a starting point, if nothing else. Similar to the BECMI/RC War Machine rules. (If we need a few new spells or such to support the module, well OK I guess, but color me skeptical.) Yeah, I know, I should do these myself to suit me. My time is limited, and I'd really like several such options. And I'm annoyed that the 5E framework could easily support it, but what we get is the splat books.
B. (Apologies in advance if I don't explain this very well.) For adventures or source material, I want something at least trying to approach Maze of the Blue Medusa or Deep Carbon Observatory quality, but without the edgy or dark attitude. I like typical high fantasy that D&D so often aims for, and in published modules so often fails to deliver. I haven't picked up either of those modules yet--despite the favorable reviews--because I'd spend too much time translating the content into what my groups would enjoy. Or to look on the other end, I've got Dark Albion. I enjoyed reading it. But the chances that I'm going to run it are remote, well, because it accomplishes what it sets out to do with the historical, low-key fantasy parts, and I want more day-to-day fantasy than that. If you ever read any of the Willie Walsh adventures in Dungeon magazine, those probably hit the closest to the vibe I enjoy and find useful. It's old school geared material for characters that probably are going to try to be the heroes.
Quote from: tenbones;972169Oh you don't have to sell me on it. As soon as I heard they removed all that stuff I KNEW it would be better than the core rules. heh
Edit: or at the very least, I knew it would be pretty popular with a certain stripe of player/GM.
I have TOR rules set and would rather play Middle Earth using that than a rejigged 5e.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;972204Either or both of these two things:
A. New sub systems done well, not more items in the existing sub systems. No to new classes, spells, etc... Similar to the BECMI/RC War Machine rules. (If we need a few new spells or such to support the module, well OK I guess, but color me skeptical.) Yeah, I know, I should do these myself to suit me. My time is limited, and I'd really like several such options. And I'm annoyed that the 5E framework could easily support it, but what we get is the splat books.
B. (Apologies in advance if I don't explain this very well.) For adventures or source material, I want something at least trying to approach Maze of the Blue Medusa or Deep Carbon Observatory quality, but without the edgy or dark attitude. ... It's old school geared material for characters that probably are going to try to be the heroes.
For the first, they put out some good RCish mass combat rules in UA that should be in Xanathar's Guide to Everything unless they're still tweaking them.
For the second, Out of the Abyss and Curse of Strahd both manage to be sandboxy and creative and even weird on occasion, particularly parts of OotA. A good mix of high fantasy and the unusual.
Quote from: Voros;972218I have TOR rules set and would rather play Middle Earth using that than a rejigged 5e.
Have you read it?
Quote from: Voros;972078WoTC or third party?
Curse of Strahd is great I think: a sandboxy expansion of the original Ravenloft.
Verb. sap.--if you're looking for something that fits in with the 2E/3E campaign setting, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There are a couple of Easter eggs, but a whole lot more discontinuities and ruptures.
This is not a reflection on the product's overall quality; just be aware what you're getting. It's arguably more discontinuous with the setting that
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.
So far I think Sword Coast Adventure Guide is my favorite supplement. I, admittedly, run a LOT of Forgotten Realms and it's been very useful in fleshing out areas and details for my campaigns. I just started the converted Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh in the Forgotten Realms and the book has been helpful there.
Quote from: estar;972298Have you read it?
No, it is a stripped down 5e with TOR rules bolted on? No doubt a fine system but can't see the point honestly, how is it superior to TOR's core rules?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;972311Verb. sap.--if you're looking for something that fits in with the 2E/3E campaign setting, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There are a couple of Easter eggs, but a whole lot more discontinuities and ruptures.
This is not a reflection on the product's overall quality; just be aware what you're getting. It's arguably more discontinuous with the setting that Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.
No offense but who gives a shit that it doesn't match the 2e/3e setting? Most would start a 5e CoS campaign from scratch anyway.
Quote from: Voros;972455No, it is a stripped down 5e with TOR rules bolted on?
Unfortunately it hard to take a statement like this seriously if you haven't read the book and just read the market blurb.
Quote from: Voros;972455No doubt a fine system but can't see the point honestly, how is it superior to TOR's core rules?
As for superiority, I think trying to judge the superiority of RPGs is horseshit. Rather I focus on how much work does it save me to run a campaign in a given genre or setting in this case Middle Earth. Both ToR and AiME do a equally good job. ToR is more focused on story creation while AiME more traditional and focuses on Adventuring.
What AiME is not is just 5e on top of Middle Earth. Instead it is a reworking of the stuff (classes, items, monsters, etc) and add additional rules to make the whole thing work as a Middle Earth RPG. For example magic items have been considerably reworked. There are no spell slots or anything of the like. Magic come off as enhanced skills and uncanny insight like in the books. Overall AiME is not just a good RPG for Middle Earth but for low fantasy settings in general.
But you wouldn't know that having not read it. If TOR works with the way you think about Middle Earth great, but I am not buying that you having an informed opinion just because AiME has 5e on the cover.
Actually I do know all that. I listened and read a lot of positive and extensive reviews since I already owned TOR and wanted to see if AiME offered anything that I didn't get already with TOR. After some consideration I couldn't see the point of purchasing AiME as I like TOR just fine and couldn't see what AiME would give me that TOR didn't already have.
Maybe if I had enough disposable income I'd splurge on AiME just to read the rules but I don't and didn't want to waste the money on books I'd never play. Your point about using the rules for a low magic setting is an interesting one.
Could you explain what mechanics make TOR more focused on story creation and AiME more traditional and focused on Adventuring?
I can't see using D&D mechanics for Tolkien at all, but I haven't read the book so maybe they pulled off a miracle. I'm afraid I shall never know as I'm not in the market for D&D products and haven't the extra money to buy something just to satisfy my curiosity.
Quote from: Voros;972535Could you explain what mechanics make TOR more focused on story creation and AiME more traditional and focused on Adventuring?
It more about tone and advice than rules, but one specific example is how both deal with Fellowships. Basically AiME has a Fellowship but no specific mechanics Fellowship Rating or Relationship. A "fellowship" in AiME is whatever group happen to be together during the session.
But the truth is that while there is a difference in focus, both are written by the same company with the same broad outlook on what constitute a Middle Earth Campaign. For me AiME is far more approachable than ToR, I know D&D 5e so I can focus on what different like Journey rules, vastly different style of magic, Audiences, etc rather than learn a whole new RPG from the ground up.
Cool thanks. I would like to read AiME to see the difference but just can't justify dropping that amount of money out of curiousity. It may eventually show up on Bundle of Holding though.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;972065Tome of Beasts by Kobold Press is pretty cool. Not official, of course, but several of the artists who worked on the official stuff illustrated it, and KP worked with WotC pretty heavily when 5e was in production.
I like Goodman Games' modules. They just have a cool attitude, like, "Fuck you, players! Surviving is for babies!"
Is Goodman doing 5e stuff? I hadn't paid any attention, and assumed they were all-in for DCC.
Quote from: estar;972165It is however the best 5e supplement. And as for being un-5e that true only you feel that the bag of class powers, items, monsters, and spells are rules of the game as opposed to being details of a sub-genre or setting. What makes Adventures in Middle Earth brilliant is that combat, leveling, proficiency, skills, and the mechanics behind abilities work just like in the core rules. But by re-arranging the table on classes, spells, monsters, etc, it results in something that make you go, "Yeah that is Middle Earth".
Opposed to the MERP adaptation which was Rolemaster lite shoehorned into Middle Earth.
And because Cubicle didn't tamper with the core mechanics you can use any of the core 5e stuff you want to use.
I wonder if including half casters as an option would ruin it? As is I'm not particularly interested in it because unless you're an angel there's no real option to use straightforward magic of any kind. Then again I'm not a big LotR fan. I would prefer an option to allow in the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales and History of Middle Earth but it will never happen because of the utter bastard in control of the Tolkien estate. To me LotR is just a tiny part and/or particular story taking place inside the actual setting. It has the same issue Dragonlance does in that it's makes a particular story about a specific group and era into an entire setting. It's doesn't work for me and ridiculously limited. At least Dragonlance could be played in different eras and was completely updated in 3e and can be easily updated in any direction preferred in 5e by WotC. Then again LotR is low magic which is something I rarely like and never like in a fantasy setting though the movies were awesome but not a setting I'm particularly interested to play in just not the target audience obviously.
The book, production values and setting? Top notch because C7 always does stellar stuff like Goodman Games. C7 does the books(and setting such as it is)pure justice.
Quote from: RPGPundit;973723Is Goodman doing 5e stuff? I hadn't paid any attention, and assumed they were all-in for DCC.
They do 5e modules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;973723Is Goodman doing 5e stuff? I hadn't paid any attention, and assumed they were all-in for DCC.
I bought one of their 5e modules. It was utter garbage IMO, worse than most of their 3e-era DCCs.
I was just venting to my Sunday 5e group today about Tales From The Yawning Portal - the adventures per se are good, but the 'conversion' appears to add absolutely nothing to the two I'm running (Sunless Citadel & Forge of Fury) - I might as well use the 3e original. In fact most of the maps are so shrunken that I *have to* use the original 3e maps just to see where the bloody doors are!
Certainly doesn't make me want to buy any other 5e WotC adventures.
I generally find with 5e that converting 0e-3e and OSR stuff is the way to go.
I've really liked the AiME books so far, so much so that I prefer it over vanilla D&D. My biggest hope now is that it someday delivers on a solid version of the High Elves. While I really like TOR and think it does an excellent job of nailing Tolkien's stuff, that's the one area where I feel TOR failed utterly. C7 tried so hard to balance the Rangers and High Elves with the "regular" cultures that they ended up making them the weakest options. Given how unhappy a lot of people were, I'm hopeful that we'll see better versions in the future and that's why the High Elves weren't included in the AiME player's book even while some of the newer TOR cultures were. They did a good job of making the Dunedain "better" in AiME in some ways but still balanced.
Quote from: S'mon;974160I was just venting to my Sunday 5e group today about Tales From The Yawning Portal - the adventures per se are good, but the 'conversion' appears to add absolutely nothing to the two I'm running (Sunless Citadel & Forge of Fury) - I might as well use the 3e original. In fact most of the maps are so shrunken that I *have to* use the original 3e maps just to see where the bloody doors are!
Certainly doesn't make me want to buy any other 5e WotC adventures.
The whole point of Tales of the Yawning Portal is to introduce those adventures to newer players and save some time for those experienced GMs too lazy to do the conversions themselves.
Not sure why you would expect them to 'add' anything. It was made quite clear these were to be faithful adaptations of the originals. Seems to me you have no one to blame except yourself for buying it without even a cursory review of what it was you were springing for.
Quote from: Voros;974183The whole point of Tales of the Yawning Portal is to introduce those adventures to newer players and save some time for those experienced GMs too lazy to do the conversions themselves.
Not sure why you would expect them to 'add' anything. It was made quite clear these were to be faithful adaptations of the originals. Seems to me you have no one to blame except yourself for buying it without even a cursory review of what it was you were springing for.
Well I got hardcopies of Sunless Citadel & Dead in Thay which I didn't have before.
Like I said, I'd have expected the new presentation of maps etc at least as good as the originals, not worse.
Reasonable 5e stat blocks would have been nice, too. As it is I'm still having to do the same sort of stat work I'd do converting the modules myself. There are some (I think) new stat blocks at the back, but none have come up yet, it's all been "this enormous bloated giant rat has 16 hp, CR 0.5 and attacks at +5" (when normal rats have 7 hp, CR 1/4 & attack at +4). I still had to do most of the statting for that rat in-play; decide on a reasonable DEX for a bloated rat (10), set damage (d6+3, being medium size with a +5 to hit I'm thinking STR 16) etc. Kept AC at 12 but based off blubber not speed. Not hard, but I could have done that off the 3e stats just as well as what they gave me.
I did look at it before buying BTW. I wasn't looking for brand new adventures. It wasn't initially obvious how inadequate the conversion is (IMO).
The starter set is the best part of 5e imo. Feels like a little starter sandbox.
But then I havent bought any of the hardback adventure paths, because, well they're adventure paths. I understand from some reviews that some are a bit more sandboxy however (referred to already in this thread)
Best thing from WotC, Basic and the Starter Set. Phandelver suffered from being too tied in to the artificial Living Campaign structure with the same Political Factions everywhere, but it was still a good starter module provided you gave it a makeover.
Best thing from 3rd Party Publishers - Cubicle 7 just destroyed the competition with Adventures in Middle Earth.
Scarred Lands is serviceable, but some of the setting elements didn't port over very well, especially the different Corean orders, etc.
Anyone take a look at Mithgarthr: A Dark World of Treacherous Adventure (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/213852/ME1001--Mithgarthr-RPG-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest)?
Looks interesting. They're obviously giving a shout out to Warhammer with the subtitle. Kind of looks a little like the setting of Shadows of the Demon Lord if the Demon Lord was Orcus and the world was a quasi-nordic dark fantasy fighting the forces of Chaos.
Quote from: S'mon;974188I did look at it before buying BTW. I wasn't looking for brand new adventures. It wasn't initially obvious how inadequate the conversion is (IMO).
I see what you mean then. I got it more for the older adventures as I want to run Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and Tomb of Horrors in particular for my group of D&D newbies. I haven't noticed such sloppy conversions but haven't had a chance to run them yet.
Quote from: Voros;974249I see what you mean then. I got it more for the older adventures as I want to run Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and Tomb of Horrors in particular for my group of D&D newbies. I haven't noticed such sloppy conversions but haven't had a chance to run them yet.
It does make me think I should pull out some more of my 3e-era stack of modules and run those in 5e. This is the second time I've run The Forge of Fury - first time was using 4e rules - and certainly running in 5e is a breeze, even though I'm using very different levels than the recommended ones (3rd level PCs in Sunless Citadel, 8th-19th(!) in Forge of Fury) and still challenging them just fine. I've noticed that with Paizo stuff too, I'm currently running Seven Swords of Sin, written for 7th level 3e PCs, with a 12th-14th level 5e group who have been finding it pretty tough.
Best so far. Starter Set and Lost Mines of Phandelver. Why is it good. It's a simple (but not simplistic) sandbox adventure with plenty of opportunities for fun roleplaying and exploration. It captures what D&D is to me, and my players loved it.
Not so good. Everything that followed afterwards. 200+ pages of borefest "campaign" adventures. If you are not Masks of Nyarlathotep or GPC please don't do that. Keep it short and sweet.
Quote from: John Scott;974279Best so far. Starter Set and Lost Mines of Phandelver. Why is it good. It's a simple (but not simplistic) sandbox adventure with plenty of opportunities for fun roleplaying and exploration. It captures what D&D is to me, and my players loved it.
I think I'm the only person who didn't like the Starter Set!
I think my problem is with Phandalin - it's both a "starter town" and adventuring location, yet it's undetailed except as a quest hub. The NPCs only exist as videogame-style quest givers. No personalities, no stats. When I tried to run it I found there was nothing to bring to life, not even anything to spark off of. Even 4e-era WoTC did better; eg Loudwater in the the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has several NPCs with a fair bit of personality, and the presentation is much less cramped. Hell, even
Keep on the Shadowfell does better! Paizo's Sandpoint is a work of genius by comparison.
Quote from: S'mon;974280I think I'm the only person who didn't like the Starter Set!
I think my problem is with Phandalin - it's both a "starter town" and adventuring location, yet it's undetailed except as a quest hub. The NPCs only exist as videogame-style quest givers. No personalities, no stats. When I tried to run it I found there was nothing to bring to life, not even anything to spark off of. Even 4e-era WoTC did better; eg Loudwater in the the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has several NPCs with a fair bit of personality, and the presentation is much less cramped. Hell, even Keep on the Shadowfell does better! Paizo's Sandpoint is a work of genius by comparison.
My group had plenty of roleplaying with the npc's. There are plenty of hooks in the adventure. The interaction with the red hoods, a doppelgänger NPC who wanted to join the party and spy on them, the shady mayor, the cultists at the ruins etc.
I played the adventure with 2 different groups and each time the interactions between PC and NPC where entirely different and with different outcomes.
I only need a small paragraph for each npc and a hook, the rest I leave it to my imagination and more importantly to my players.
Quote from: S'mon;974280I think I'm the only person who didn't like the Starter Set!
I think my problem is with Phandalin - it's both a "starter town" and adventuring location, yet it's undetailed except as a quest hub. The NPCs only exist as videogame-style quest givers. No personalities, no stats. When I tried to run it I found there was nothing to bring to life, not even anything to spark off of. Even 4e-era WoTC did better; eg Loudwater in the the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has several NPCs with a fair bit of personality, and the presentation is much less cramped. Hell, even Keep on the Shadowfell does better! Paizo's Sandpoint is a work of genius by comparison.
I suspect the reason is that WotC didn't want to overwhelm noobs with too much information that isn't needed to learn the game. It would be interesting for them to create a Phandalin supplement with that information added for more advanced adventures.
Quote from: John Scott;974279Not so good. Everything that followed afterwards. 200+ pages of borefest "campaign" adventures. If you are not Masks of Nyarlathotep or GPC please don't do that. Keep it short and sweet.
I don't have 5E, so I may be incorrect, but I think the problem with those adventures is both being that long and being story path campaigns. The story path model can be effective in something that lasts a session, but a campaign long story path is a long time to keep the players on a railroad. Some players do like that kind of structure, but others are going to feel trapped in it after a while.
By contrast, Masks is an investigative sandbox that that can followed up in any way the players choose and resolved in a number of ways. It also has number of loosely connected side adventures the players can pursue or ignore. The Great Pendragon Campaign does have a more linear structure, but that linear structure is dealing with larger events. The players own lives and family dealings provide them with a lot of freedom. The secret to a good campaign mega-supplement is to give the players a lot of room to move inside it.
Quote from: Marleycat;974025I wonder if including half casters as an option would ruin it? As is I'm not particularly interested in it because unless you're an angel there's no real option to use straightforward magic of any kind. Then again I'm not a big LotR fan. I would prefer an option to allow in the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales and History of Middle Earth but it will never happen because of the utter bastard in control of the Tolkien estate. To me LotR is just a tiny part and/or particular story taking place inside the actual setting. It has the same issue Dragonlance does in that it's makes a particular story about a specific group and era into an entire setting. It's doesn't work for me and ridiculously limited. At least Dragonlance could be played in different eras and was completely updated in 3e and can be easily updated in any direction preferred in 5e by WotC. Then again LotR is low magic which is something I rarely like and never like in a fantasy setting though the movies were awesome but not a setting I'm particularly interested to play in just not the target audience obviously.
The book, production values and setting? Top notch because C7 always does stellar stuff like Goodman Games. C7 does the books(and setting such as it is)pure justice.
I think Middle-earth is broad enough as is to run a 1st or 2nd age campaign with AiME. I usually run Middle-earth games in the 4th Age. There is enough going on and enough details in the books that I don't think it's that hard to adapt and because Middle-earth is low-magic it's easy to get into and not have the campaign run away from you.
Quote from: Baulderstone;974301I don't have 5E, so I may be incorrect, but I think the problem with those adventures is both being that long and being story path campaigns. The story path model can be effective in something that lasts a session, but a campaign long story path is a long time to keep the players on a railroad. Some players do like that kind of structure, but others are going to feel trapped in it after a while.
By contrast, Masks is an investigative sandbox that that can followed up in any way the players choose and resolved in a number of ways. It also has number of loosely connected side adventures the players can pursue or ignore. The Great Pendragon Campaign does have a more linear structure, but that linear structure is dealing with larger events. The players own lives and family dealings provide them with a lot of freedom. The secret to a good campaign mega-supplement is to give the players a lot of room to move inside it.
I agree. Personaly I have no particular interest reading a 200 pages book of "been there done that" adventure for D&D, for that reason I prefer playing older modules or shorter adventures.
Quote from: S'mon;974280I think I'm the only person who didn't like the Starter Set!
I think my problem is with Phandalin - it's both a "starter town" and adventuring location, yet it's undetailed except as a quest hub. The NPCs only exist as videogame-style quest givers. No personalities, no stats. When I tried to run it I found there was nothing to bring to life, not even anything to spark off of. Even 4e-era WoTC did better; eg Loudwater in the the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has several NPCs with a fair bit of personality, and the presentation is much less cramped. Hell, even Keep on the Shadowfell does better! Paizo's Sandpoint is a work of genius by comparison.
I see what you mean, but for me the Phandalin approach is more useful. What I need in an NPC is a name, a few details that hint at ties to the community, and let me provide the personality. For example, I got from Carp that this was a kid that explored a lot. I wanted more fantastic elements in the game, since I was introducing some new players. I changed Carp to a talking cat that lived on the same farm, and kept the same name. Gave him an acid tongue. None of that was really intended or hinted by the module, but I find that usually the similar ideas that an author includes fall flat, whereas obviously the ones I decide myself have a better chance of sticking.
The two Goodman Games modules I bought were too far the other way, however, even for me. Just completely flat. Even the bare bones NPCs gave me nothing.
Quote from: Baulderstone;974301I don't have 5E, so I may be incorrect, but I think the problem with those adventures is both being that long and being story path campaigns. The story path model can be effective in something that lasts a session, but a campaign long story path is a long time to keep the players on a railroad. Some players do like that kind of structure, but others are going to feel trapped in it after a while.
By contrast, Masks is an investigative sandbox that that can followed up in any way the players choose and resolved in a number of ways. It also has number of loosely connected side adventures the players can pursue or ignore. The Great Pendragon Campaign does have a more linear structure, but that linear structure is dealing with larger events. The players own lives and family dealings provide them with a lot of freedom. The secret to a good campaign mega-supplement is to give the players a lot of room to move inside it.
Except CoS and Out of the Abyss are not story path adventures. They have a variety of different paths amd approaches for the PCs to progress the story. Not saying they're at the level of Masks but if anything they're even less linear than that.
Even Storm King's Thunder which is pretty flawed is closer to a sandbox than a story path, it almost suffers the Skyrim effect where the PCs can get lost in all the sidequests leaving the impending doom in the background.
I get the feeling many are dismissing the 5e hardcover adventures without even reading them, let alone playing them.
*double post*
Quote from: Voros;974457I get the feeling many are dismissing the 5e hardcover adventures without even reading them, let alone playing them.
I was a player in Out of the Abyss, it looked good but the GM struggled and eventually gave up. Not having read it I get the impression WotC's appalling presentation skills were to blame. Weird how their 3.0 stuff from 2000 is much better presented than anything from the last 10-12 years.
Quote from: Voros;974457I get the feeling many are dismissing the 5e hardcover adventures without even reading them, let alone playing them.
I concur, while WoTC adventure each have their own issues overall they are pretty open and loose. In part because the author has only a single hardcover book to detail the campaign.
Quote from: Voros;974457Except CoS and Out of the Abyss are not story path adventures. They have a variety of different paths amd approaches for the PCs to progress the story. Not saying they're at the level of Masks but if anything they're even less linear than that.
Even Storm King's Thunder which is pretty flawed is closer to a sandbox than a story path, it almost suffers the Skyrim effect where the PCs can get lost in all the sidequests leaving the impending doom in the background.
I get the feeling many are dismissing the 5e hardcover adventures without even reading them, let alone playing them.
They get dismissed from my list of possible purchases because I've found that "big adventure hardback" is a pain for me to use. That kind of book has to get reviews of unabashedly awesome before I'll struggle through the drawbacks. WotC's tendency to have bloated text that isn't very useful to the GM isn't helping their case any, either. I'm still irritated about the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. But even if that isn't the case with their adventures, the massive campaign hardback is not high on my list. By the time I prep to use a book like that, I could have written material directly for the campaign that is far more useful to me. It's not so much a criticism of the books as a recognition that the format doesn't work well for me.
Fair enough, there is certainly something to say for the concision of the old 16 to 64 page modules but I do have to say the 5e adventure hardbacks don't strike me even remotely as being overwritten. They're open to criticism but at least criticise them, not what TSR or WoTC made 10-20 years ago.
Unlike many RPG products the WoTCs adventures are readily available in physical stores so a person can pick one up and read a few pages to get a sense of how verbose or well organized it is.