(from my blog, a little rant)
Inspired by common recommendations (http://slyflourish.com/starting_strong_at_your_first_dnd_game.html) to use it as a GM's first 5e adventure, I have to say I disagree.
The problems start with the very first encounter, and what it says about the world.
Why are 4 goblins ambushing a well armed party of 4-6 larger and likely tougher looking travellers - the PCs? Answer: To give PCs a starting encounter. From goblin perspective it makes no sense. They would let such go past & wait for easier prey.
Why do the goblins use such sub-optimal tactics, with 2 charging into melee to get slaughtered? Answer: So the PCs can win. Because if the goblins were to use sniping tactics from cover, combined with their racial ability to hide, disengage etc, they might well actually win.
This is a terrible first encounter which sends the message that the world exist for the benefit of the PCs. It would work much better to (for instance) have four drunken goblins lounging around the wagon Paizo-style, a wine butt spilling the last dregs onto the ground - ie the PCs got lucky. Then the goblins can even react in confused & suboptimal manner without straining plausibility.
But don't set up an ambush that is suicidal from the POV of the ambushers.
Quote from: S'mon;1046996Why do the goblins use such sub-optimal tactics, with 2 charging into melee to get slaughtered? Answer: So the PCs can win.
WotC writers metagaming a touch, I see.
Suboptimal goblin tactics are now the reason the whole of Mines of Phandelver sucks? K, fam.
The adventure is written for up to five PCs not six, it on page 2 first sentence of Running the Adventure. If you run it with six or more then their advice and setup indeed doesn't make sense and the PCs will handily win most encounters.
I have run Philanderer three times, each time the initial goblin ambush was challenge for the PC. Two reasons their high stealth resulted in a surprise round each time and they are armed with shortbows.
This blog post, a near party kill (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-near-party-kill-d-5e-tale.html), is typical of how the first encounter goes for me.
As for in-game motivation, the adventure has the party driving a wagon full of supplies to Phandelver. Out of a five person party may be one or two will looked like a heavily armed warrior. The rest will be dressed in more ordinary clothes little different than what commoner wear. The party in my blog post only Vognur looked like a armed warrior. Sidwin had some gear and looked like he could handle himself in a fight. But Squirrel was dressed in ordinary clothes and Ara was dressed in robes that marked him as slightly more wealthy.
The goblins also have a wisdom of 8 which implies they would tend to take more chances than a more sensible group would. Combined with the overconfidence resulting from their use of missile weapons and stealth ability to me makes an ambush of a 4 to 5 person party involved escorting a supply wagon makes it a plausible encounter.
Is the setup and advice perfect? No but I still give a solid A as far as these goes. However also from experience running 5e, if you have less than four or more than five, then the encounter will likely go very different when run multiple times. I don't think the writer of the adventure realized how crucial that is.
Especially in hindsight when 5e first came out a lot of people wanted to try it. This often resulted in oversized parties. So if I were to write a intro adventure like Phandelver for the next hot edition, I would spend some paragraph on how to scale encounters up (or down) to account for the size of the party. I am not a fan of scaling but the point of Phandelver is an aide to the novice referee. They need to know what the effect of having a 8 person party swamp everything or what happens if there are only two players involved.
I played through Lost Mine of Phandelver, and for some reason, I didn't find it all that engaging. Maybe I'm just not suited to D&D.
It's an entry level adventure for newbie players; it's supposed to teach the mechanics. Did you ever play the Mentzer Red Box adventure? You pretty much are guaranteed to beat the first couple encounters by design.
I went to your blog in hopes your full review delved deeper
It didn't. This is the entire review
One would think, as we're D&D players, that we'd explore our dungeons a little deeper
You give goblins too many street smarts and too little confidence in their stealth abilities.
Plus there is that whole (very subtle) plot point about the goblins being on the look out for anyone with mining supplies and the bugbear back at the lair ready to kick their asses if they do not obey.
(SPOILER)
I think it is kind of assumed these are the same goblins that ambushed the dwarf earlier and confidence is high on the goblin side.
Plus, (and here is where I think you really miss the boat on Phandelver) not every first time D&D player is a tactical genius or looking to play D&D Risk. Some of them just want to pretend to be an Elf that goes Pew Pew every now and then. And WoTC wants them to feel welcome too. You as the experienced DM should be able to flavor to taste.
Phandelver isn't awful, but it isn't nearly as good as many 5E fans would have us believe. It presents a few mini-dungeons and a very basic, vanilla plot. The challenges ramp up. They take place in varied environments. It's hard to screw up the adventure.
On the minus side, it's generic Forgotten Realms pablum. When the PCs get to town, they're confronted with a gang of ruffians and one solution to the problem - hack them all dead. The villain does nothing villainous; he's the villain because he's the villain (and Glassstaff? Really? Even by the dire standards of FR, that's bad). A bunch of vanilla NPCs are introduced but they can be pretty much ignored. The town is and its inhabitants are far less interesting than Hommlet. The dungeons are generic complexes. It's all safe and boring and accessible and uninspired.
Really, it's a testament to how modest our expectations are for low-level published adventures that Phandelver gets so much praise.
Quote from: Haffrung;1047031Phandelver isn't awful, but it isn't nearly as good as many 5E fans would have us believe. It presents a few mini-dungeons and a very basic, vanilla plot. The challenges ramp up.
That might explain why I found it underwhelming--we came in with 3rd and 4th level characters converted from BECMI, so we were overleveled for most of it.
LMoP is littered with problems, not least the opening skirmish.
Still a fantastic intro module.
All the monsters die in D&D though. All hobo serial killer games suck, in general.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1047039All the monsters die in D&D though. All hobo serial killer games suck, in general.
God I want to game with you. You're just so optimistic!
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1047039All the monsters die in D&D though. All hobo serial killer games suck, in general.
Have you ever actually played D&D before? Serious question.
Phandelver could have used a little more of the fantastical, and a little more varied situations. However, it is constrained by being a teaching module. There is even somewhat of a mini-railroad at the beginning so that the instructions in that section are used first. The main problem thereafter is that that environment is sparse.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1047004Suboptimal goblin tactics are now the reason the whole of Mines of Phandelver sucks? K, fam.
Naw it keeps on sucking after that :p - but having such a bad encounter as the first thing many new GMs will ever run is a bug one.
Phandalin is also really bad, with the quest hub npcs devoid of any personality.
Quote from: Azraele;1047022I went to your blog in hopes your full review delved deeper
It didn't. This is the entire review
One would think, as we're D&D players, that we'd explore our dungeons a little deeper
My blog sucks too - but I don't charge money for it! :p
Quote from: Haffrung;1047031Phandelver isn't awful, but it isn't nearly as good as many 5E fans would have us believe. It presents a few mini-dungeons and a very basic, vanilla plot. The challenges ramp up. They take place in varied environments. It's hard to screw up the adventure.
On the minus side, it's generic Forgotten Realms pablum. When the PCs get to town, they're confronted with a gang of ruffians and one solution to the problem - hack them all dead. The villain does nothing villainous; he's the villain because he's the villain (and Glassstaff? Really? Even by the dire standards of FR, that's bad). A bunch of vanilla NPCs are introduced but they can be pretty much ignored. The town is and its inhabitants are far less interesting than Hommlet. The dungeons are generic complexes. It's all safe and boring and accessible and uninspired.
Really, it's a testament to how modest our expectations are for low-level published adventures that Phandelver gets so much praise.
Yes I had the same feeling about Phandalin. I played then GM'd it but both times the games died after the fights with tge brigands, boredom being a major factor. WotC have done much better intro material, eg the 4e Forgotten Realms guide Loudwater adventures covered similar ground but much beter done, some npcs even had personalities!
LMoP is popular because humanity is starved for sandbox style play even if they don't know it, and this is one of the closer approximations of a sandbox module to come from WoC. It might not be great, but at least you can mostly ignore the plot and wander around exploring a bit while still using the booklet.
I understand exactly what you are saying. However, would it be better to have a group of 12 goblins (outnumbering the Pcs so goblin fear is irrelevant) who attack the party and wipe them out? It's a "realistic" encounter, but is it one you want to run your initial party through? Will that make a better encounter?
There is a limit to how much "truth" I want in my game.
I liked the adventure I consider it very well made for D&D. It starts with a linear escort quest but it quickly expands to a sandbox wilderness and dungeon exploration mini campaign with many memorable locations and encounters. Pretty good stuff if only the later adventures where that good..
Phandelver was the first 5e game I ran, though I did it a little differently and set it in Karameikos.
Here's the map (http://s415.photobucket.com/user/KrimsonGray/media/Campaign%20Cartographer/PhandelverKarameikosOverland_zps2b86db9a.png.html)
Most of the early enthusiasm for Phandelver, the first 5e adventure, was it so greatly exceeded expectations compared to the first 4e adventure.
That said, "this adventure for total noobs sucks because it's set up for total noobs to play" is pretty lame. Geez, you can easily rp a little here, and just assume the goblins were wildly overconfident, or that none of the goblins can count (and one that said he did lied, and told the rest they had the numerical advantage).
If you're playing with all hard core min-maxers, and you're l33t DM-dude, why are you wasting time with Phandelver? That's...stupid.
On the other hand, having a very simple controlled fight so everyone can learn the mechanics (and one or two lucky hits can easily bring down a small party), is smart.
Next up, someone complains that on a hot day, the ice cream seems extra cold...
In a city-state ruled by the Invincible Overlord.
It's like I'm ten all over again.
My detailed account of what happened to my group while running the Lost Mines
So it start off with a near party kill (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-near-party-kill-d-5e-tale.html).
The party goes to Phandelvers, recpurates and starts the search for Gundren Rockseer. (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/they-only-made-it-to-goblin-cave.html)
Note: Shows that despite its presentation the intro isn't as much of a railroad as it first appears.
The Goblin Cave is assaulted (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-d-5e-story-continues-conquest-of.html)
The Redbrands are dealt with and their lair is invaded. (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/where-is-glasstaff-5e-adventure.html)
The fight with the Redbrands continues, the death of a character, and the pa. (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-great-escape-of-5e.html)
The groups tries to run down Glasstaff, deals with an ogre doing his business, and finds out in 5th edition z (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/09/it-is-mad-mad-5e-world.html)
The party deal with some orcs (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/09/showdown-at-orc-corral-this-weeks.html)
This phase of the campaign wraps up with the Party going to Wind Echo Cavern and finally deals with the person behind what going on.
Again I think Phandelver is fantastic. To me the point of a great intro module isn't to get fancy for the novice. Fr a experienced referee like myself a good intro module makes it easy for me to extrapolate the added detail by hinting at the life of the setting which the adventure does. I think it stands up there with adventures like Keep on the Borderlands and some of the other classics.
Quote from: John Scott;1047188I liked the adventure I consider it very well made for D&D. It starts with a linear escort quest but it quickly expands to a sandbox wilderness and dungeon exploration mini campaign with many memorable locations and encounters. Pretty good stuff if only the later adventures where that good..
Yeah I thought it was a pretty good sandboxy adventure site. With the ruffians even the town is pretty interesting. Good art. Overall I rate it pretty highly. I like it better than all the 1-20 adventure paths (er, not that i've read them, except for parts of ToA; I just dont like pre-plotted APs on anti-railroad principles, #HooksNotPlots and all that).
LMOP is great and if it wasn't for it I and about 20 other players with me wouldn't have gotten into tabletop.
Quote from: spon;1047181I understand exactly what you are saying. However, would it be better to have a group of 12 goblins (outnumbering the Pcs so goblin fear is irrelevant) who attack the party and wipe them out? It's a "realistic" encounter, but is it one you want to run your initial party through? Will that make a better encounter?
There is a limit to how much "truth" I want in my game.
Maybe 2 drunken goblins on the wagon while 2 more lurk in the bushes would work. Or just a couple stragglers looting the wagon.
This is precisely my objection, that a realistic ambush would wipe out 1st level PCs. It is the first encounter and as designed it trains GM & players to see the world as set up for their convenience, enemies using tactics designed to give the PCs a winnable encounter. The lair design with enemies - a unified group - carefully set out in small beatable groups is similar, at least the noisy waterfall helps with justification.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1047177LMoP is popular because humanity is starved for sandbox style play even if they don't know it, and this is one of the closer approximations of a sandbox module to come from WoC. It might not be great, but at least you can mostly ignore the plot and wander around exploring a bit while still using the booklet.
A properly detailed Phandalin and starting the PCs in town with several rumours could have been much better to create a sandbox ethos.
Quote from: Doom;1047194On the other hand, having a very simple controlled fight so everyone can learn the mechanics (and one or two lucky hits can easily bring down a small party), is smart.
Sure, I agree strongly with this. It's just what they came up with is really bad for that purpose - on the one hand 4 goblins should be wary of what might be a powerful party (they don't know the PCs are level 1), OTOH if the GM accidentally runs the goblins according to their stat blocks so they shoot/move/hide in the woods instead of charging in, he will likely TPK the party.
I would definitely save an ambush scenario for level 2 or 3 (& use a plausible number of ambushers using plausible tactics), unless the PCs were really stupid and created the get-ambushed situation through their own actions. For level 1 I would use weaker opposition (the Redbrands too are very tough too & only survivable if the PCs clear the goblin caves first), and play them smarter.
Speaking of the Redbrands, the logical thing to do would be to rally the townsfolk against them - this needs stat blocks. I think I hated Phandalin even more; the presentation makes it incredibly hard to run as an interesting living place. It desperately needed a 'Keep on the Borderlands' type keying. I'm running Morgansfort* from basicfantasy.org right now, and the difference is striking - most NPCs only get a line of characterisation but it's full of snippets to inspire me playing them, and they clearly have their own non-PC-centric lives, they don't just exist as quest giving slot machines.
*Also aimed at newbs. The home base is much better done and I'm liking the dungeons too, though the numbers of foes in a room is often excessive - 28 kobolds, 14 orcs etc. I don't normally adjust scenarios but I ran the third adventure for a solo PC Ftr-2 (w Clr-1 NPC) on Monday & I did cut the number of orcs a bit; with some bad luck the party still narrowly lost and ended up in Necromancer's prison cell. Ftr currently attempting an escape, unarmed & on 2 hp...
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1047226LMOP is great and if it wasn't for it I and about 20 other players with me wouldn't have gotten into tabletop.
Well ok, I guess it can't be *all* bad. :D It clearly does a better job than 4e's Keep on the Shadowfell.
For its intended purpose, it's great.
It's vanilla enough to have broad appeal, sandboxy enough to introduce new players to the open gameplay opportunities of TRPGs, it has red herrings/sidequests (Necromancer, Banshee), settlements for role-playing opportunities, a dungeon with a backstory, it and covers levels 1-3 to give you a feel for the type of progression 5E does.
Is it a perfect module for a 20+ year veteran? Probably not. Though I really had fun running it.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1047257Is it a perfect module for a 20+ year veteran? Probably not.
I would just say that while I've been GMing for 34 years, my favourite published adventures tend to be the newbie-oriented ones. If well done they are easy to use, evoke a sense of wonder, and are easy to edit/amend.
I gave away my copy of Phandelver, but if I still had it I think I could get something out of it by changing the beginning setup, developing the town properly, starting the PCs in town, and giving them NPC contacts and rumours of adventure. But really for that the PCs would need to be starting at 3rd level not 1st.
I think my big problem was that it was my first experience with 5e in 2014, I was using it to learn the game, I tried to run it as written (having played I think 3 sessions earlier) and it left a sour taste. The players were bored and frustrated, I think the only thing they enjoyed was killing a random ghoul in the ruined village, who was not part of the adventure. My next attempt with 5e in Jan 2015 I started with a conversion of Dyson's Delve, that went fantastically well and developed into my ongoing Wilderlands campaign.
It is designed as a starter adventure. Sure, you could start the PC in town and do rumors and such, but if you have never played before at all, this might be intimidating. So it starts with a straightforward encounter that the PC should win (I took 2 of 5 of the characters I ran through that encounter to zero and death saves, but you seem to think it is dead easy).
I found it had a nice mix of town and wilderness and dungeon crawls and did a good job of exposing the players to different parts of playing D&D. Heck, the first encounter is designed to be player theatre of mind and if anything said we are leaving 4e behind, that should be it.
One amazing design element of the adventure is that it is quite possible to TPK the party. Now that is teaching proper D&D.
I ended up killing one character and the ranger's animal companion before the group finished it.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1047364So it starts with a straightforward encounter that the PC should win (I took 2 of 5 of the characters I ran through that encounter to zero and death saves, but you seem to think it is dead easy).
No - I said the opposite, that the goblins have a fair chance to win if played logically rather than as scripted. But not enough of a chance to win that they would logically attack armed & armoured travellers. I could see goblins ambushing 2 travellers if one were unarmoured, but not 4-5 with several being obvious warriors.
I would prefer an easier starting encounter where the enemy act like they actually want to survive.
Maybe they were hopped up on goofballs or something?
I think there has been a recent trend (or maybe not so recent, goes back to at least 3e) that holds low level monsters like goblins and kobolds are super-crafty, Viet Cong like guerrilla warriors and not primitive, slightly above animal intelligence mooks that are meant to be sword fodder for low level parties, which is clearly what they were intended to be.
Quote from: JeremyR;1047373Maybe they were hopped up on goofballs or something?
I think there has been a recent trend (or maybe not so recent, goes back to at least 3e) that holds low level monsters like goblins and kobolds are super-crafty, Viet Cong like guerrilla warriors and not primitive, slightly above animal intelligence mooks that are meant to be sword fodder for low level parties, which is clearly what they were intended to be.
I recall a White Dwarf article ca 1985 that advocated playing goblins (etc) with some survival sense. And going back to the 1970s we had Reaction & Morale checks which encouraged reasonably plausible behaviour.
Personally I (a) greatly dislike Tucker's Kobolds gaming and (b) recognise that even animals have a survival instinct and don't want to be killed or injured. Sure goblins are not especially competent. That's why I would rather see lazy drunken goblins ambushed on the road, than see sober hiding goblins initiate an ambush designed to let them lose.
These are 5e goblins with
Nimble Escape. The goblin can take the Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action on each of its turns. Not hugely powerful in the dungeon, but extremely powerful in the woods. They also have INT 10. So if the goblins have to ambush, at least let them use their primary racial abilities! Reduce number to 3 or even 2 so they don't likely cause a TPK, and have them harry the PCs from the bushes with arrows (shoot - move - hide), then flee (disengage - move - dash) if PCs get into melee with them.
5e goblin stat block:
Goblin
Small humanoid (goblinoid), neutral evil
Armor Class 15 (leather armor, shield)
Hit Points 7 (2d6)
Speed 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
8 (-1)14 (+2)10 (+0)10 (+0)8 (-1)8 (-1)
Skills Stealth +6
Senses darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 9
Languages Common, Goblin
Challenge 1/4 (50 XP)
Nimble Escape. The goblin can take the Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action on each of its turns.
ACTIONS
Scimitar. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) slashing damage.
Shortbow. Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 80/320 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing damage.As statted, in a wilderness ambush scenario they are likely more than a match for first level PCs one on one. Compared to a default Human Guard they hit more accurately for more damage, have fewer hp but similar AC, and their racial powers give them twice the XP value.
Guard
Medium humanoid (any race), any alignment
Armor Class 16 (chain shirt, shield)
Hit Points 11 (2d8 + 2)
Speed 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
13 (+1) 12 (+1) 12 (+1) 10 (+0) 11 (+0) 10 (+0)
Skills Perception +2
Senses passive Perception 12
Languages any one language (usually Common)
Challenge 1/8 (25 XP)
Actions
Spear. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack: +3 to hit,
reach 5 ft. or range 20/60 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d6 + 1) piercing damage, or 5 (1d8 + 1) piercing damage if
used with two hands to make a melee attack.
Quote from: S'mon;1047399They also have INT 10.
Considering that SOP in many 5e D&D builds is to dump Int on any non-Wizard (or a specific subtype of Fighters and Rogues), there's a good chance that Int 10 makes them a bit smarter than many members of a PC group. Too bad they don't have the Wis to appreciate that.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1047257For its intended purpose, it's great.
It's vanilla enough to have broad appeal, sandboxy enough to introduce new players to the open gameplay opportunities of TRPGs, it has red herrings/sidequests (Necromancer, Banshee), settlements for role-playing opportunities, a dungeon with a backstory, it and covers levels 1-3 to give you a feel for the type of progression 5E does.
Is it a perfect module for a 20+ year veteran? Probably not. Though I really had fun running it.
Emphasis on that part. I think it is great as a showcase of the game mechanics, and an enforcing the idea that sandboxing is how you are expected to play. It is certainly better than some of the BitD intro scenarios (the Holmes or B/X in-the-rulebook dungeons which were mostly just dungeons, or the BECMI one which was literally a choose-your-own-adventure railroad). I think perhaps people are comparing this unfavorably to hit-it-out-of-the-park modules like
The Keep on the Borderlands or their own homebrew initiation to the game*.
*the former of which actually has some real issues for modern new gamers, a longhand discussion thereof probably better suited for a separate thread.I will agree with the OP: That goblin ambush against level 1 characters probably
should result in a TPK if the goblins are played reasonably, and the right thing to have done would have been to rewrite the scenario such that the setup was instead not an ambush, but maybe four goblins that randomly ran into the party (cue reaction checks or negotiation, then potentially fighting on equal terms) rather than play the goblins as self-sacrificial and ingrain into new players the idea that the world conspires to hand them mildly challenging combat encounters for their benefit. However, the rest of the adventure is pretty much vanilla-at-worst and does teach some decent lessons (interact with people, choose what you want to do next, don't expect or allow the DM to tell you what you are going to be doing next).
I guess I find it dismaying that we assume introductory adventures most be generic and anodyne. Why wait until players are experienced to introduce imagination and originality? Why wait to deliver the aweseome?
And I've seen LMoP praised not just as a good introductory adventure, but as a great adventure full-stop. All I can think when I see that is compared to what? Are decent sandboxy adventures really such a rarity that an uninspired example like LMoP elicits wonder and praise?
Quote from: Haffrung;1047411I guess I find it dismaying that we assume introductory adventures most be generic and anodyne. Why wait until players are experienced to introduce imagination and originality? Why wait to deliver the aweseome?
And I've seen LMoP praised not just as a good introductory adventure, but as a great adventure full-stop. All I can think when I see that is compared to what? Are decent sandboxy adventures really such a rarity that an uninspired example like LMoP elicits wonder and praise?
It's not a great adventure. It is a good compromise framework: A beginning GM will have the introduction to play that they need, with some guidance, and the training wheels explicitly coming off as it goes. More options and a little more fleshed out and inspirational would be good, but you can't have everything. An experienced GM can read between the lines, and change things up if they want.
Quote from: Haffrung;1047411I guess I find it dismaying that we assume introductory adventures most be generic and anodyne. Why wait until players are experienced to introduce imagination and originality? Why wait to deliver the aweseome?
I don't know about anodyne, but on some level, one does want to exemplify near-to-the-mean of the norms of the game. If your introduction to D&D were to be an adventure where you spent half the adventure on a flying island full of steampunk monkeys making chocolates on a conveyor belt, Lucy and Ethel-style, with the main prize gatekept by winning a golf tournament, it might make for a good madcap adventure, but it wouldn't give people a good example of what playing D&D is normally like.
QuoteAnd I've seen LMoP praised not just as a good introductory adventure, but as a great adventure full-stop. All I can think when I see that is compared to what? Are decent sandboxy adventures really such a rarity that an uninspired example like LMoP elicits wonder and praise?
Well, just as a challenge, what half-dozen or so well-known published modules fit that bill? Honestly speaking, I don't know. I was only really exposed to published modules (excepting Isle of Dread, which came with our
Expert set) after I had a decade or more experience gaming. I think
Dread,
Borderlands, and probably a half-dozen others I'm not thinking of right now are near-inarguably good, and most of the rest are pretty dependent on preferred playstyle. In this case, the extreme diversity that seems to exist around what makes a good adventure might favor one that is vanilla-but-sufficient.
LMoP does its job as an introduction to the game well enough, and people are right that the sandbox aspect is a plus.
If it has a somewhat higher reputation than it deserves, I think that might be because people who were excited about the new edition were worried that it might face plant right out of the gate with a travesty like Keep on the Shadowfell and were relieved when it didn't.
Quote from: S'mon;1047250Well ok, I guess it can't be *all* bad. :D It clearly does a better job than 4e's Keep on the Shadowfell.
The thing is, the way I worked it was that I used it as a starting point to flesh it out. I built out the town, expanded the sandbox, added tons of hooks, developed the existing villains, etc. The campaign is still going on three years later and they're about halfway in terms of where the actual adventure is since there's so much stuff going.
Quote from: S'mon;1046996(from my blog, a little rant)
Inspired by common recommendations (http://slyflourish.com/starting_strong_at_your_first_dnd_game.html) to use it as a GM's first 5e adventure, I have to say I disagree.
The problems start with the very first encounter, and what it says about the world.
Why are 4 goblins ambushing a well armed party of 4-6 larger and likely tougher looking travellers - the PCs? Answer: To give PCs a starting encounter. From goblin perspective it makes no sense. They would let such go past & wait for easier prey.
Why do the goblins use such sub-optimal tactics, with 2 charging into melee to get slaughtered? Answer: So the PCs can win. Because if the goblins were to use sniping tactics from cover, combined with their racial ability to hide, disengage etc, they might well actually win.
This is a terrible first encounter which sends the message that the world exist for the benefit of the PCs. It would work much better to (for instance) have four drunken goblins lounging around the wagon Paizo-style, a wine butt spilling the last dregs onto the ground - ie the PCs got lucky. Then the goblins can even react in confused & suboptimal manner without straining plausibility.
But don't set up an ambush that is suicidal from the POV of the ambushers.
Yeah, if this is how it really is set up, then it sucks ass.
In retrospect you can say Phandelver sucks, but when I bought it there weren't exactly a lot of other options that didn't require conversion. It was designed to be played out of the box, so you spent time playing. I mean yes, I did go out of the way to make a map of northern Karameikos to place it in, but it's not like I HAD to locate it in Mystara.
Quote from: S'mon;1046996(from my blog, a little rant)
Inspired by common recommendations (http://slyflourish.com/starting_strong_at_your_first_dnd_game.html) to use it as a GM's first 5e adventure, I have to say I disagree.
The problems start with the very first encounter, and what it says about the world.
Why are 4 goblins ambushing a well armed party of 4-6 larger and likely tougher looking travellers - the PCs? Answer: To give PCs a starting encounter. From goblin perspective it makes no sense. They would let such go past & wait for easier prey.
Why do the goblins use such sub-optimal tactics, with 2 charging into melee to get slaughtered? Answer: So the PCs can win. Because if the goblins were to use sniping tactics from cover, combined with their racial ability to hide, disengage etc, they might well actually win.
This is a terrible first encounter which sends the message that the world exist for the benefit of the PCs. It would work much better to (for instance) have four drunken goblins lounging around the wagon Paizo-style, a wine butt spilling the last dregs onto the ground - ie the PCs got lucky. Then the goblins can even react in confused & suboptimal manner without straining plausibility.
But don't set up an ambush that is suicidal from the POV of the ambushers.
They're goblins.
They're a low level mung mob high in base instinct & impulse, and low in reason and self discipline.
Their strengths should be unpredictability (stemming from greed & power seeking), and numbers.
I'd have more of an issue giving new players the idea that the average goblin is a learned student of Sun Tzu, and/or that war simulationism is expected at the gaming table.
Quote from: H0undM@ster;1047942They're goblins.
They're a low level mung mob high in base instinct & impulse, and low in reason and self discipline.
Their strengths should be unpredictability (stemming from greed & power seeking), and numbers.
I'd have more of an issue giving new players the idea that the average goblin is a learned student of Sun Tzu, and/or that war simulationism is expected at the gaming table.
I was thinking that considering how many player characters have done the same thing. Sure it's okay to play adversaries as smart but it's okay for them to be dumb as well. How often are there news articles about people dying in stupid ways? Monsters should also have the right to rush headlong into stupidity.
Quote from: Krimson;1047943I was thinking that considering how many player characters have done the same thing. Sure it's okay to play adversaries as smart but it's okay for them to be dumb as well. How often are there news articles about people dying in stupid ways? Monsters should also have the right to rush headlong into stupidity.
That's actually a very good point (above and beyond all the other good reasons for this fight to happen).
Seriously, "Leeroy Jenkins" is funny because there is a load of truth in it.
Goblins are literally the stupid monster race. That's their shtick. If they can't be dumb then who can.
But also, that fight is infamous for having a good chance to wipe them out at level 1, so it's not even that dumb.
Quote from: Krimson;1047943Sure it's okay to play adversaries as smart but it's okay for them to be dumb as well. How often are there news articles about people dying in stupid ways? Monsters should also have the right to rush headlong into stupidity.
For me, its as straightforward as:
Many races within a fantasy setting will not think & behave as humans do.
Which personally, makes them more believable. I'm not fond of the habit of humanizing things not human, from the "
its a serial killer shark" in Jaws, to goblins in my leisure time make believe
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1047987Goblins are literally the stupid monster race. That's their shtick. If they can't be dumb then who can.
5e goblins are INT 10 WIS 8, and are statted as shifty tricksters. 5e ogres are stupid.
Quote from: H0undM@ster;1047990Many races within a fantasy setting will not think & behave as humans do.
Darwin Award is a real thing. Behaviour sufficiently contra-survival will get selected against.
Anyway if it was say 2 orcs or hobgoblins & 2 goblins, it'd make sense for the melee brutes to charge while the goblins sniped.
Quote from: S'mon;1048023Darwin Award is a real thing. Behaviour sufficiently contra-survival will get selected against.
Anyway if it was say 2 orcs or hobgoblins & 2 goblins, it'd make sense for the melee brutes to charge while the goblins sniped.
If it's two hobs and two gobs, I'd expect the goblins to be forced into a charge while the hobs try and flank.
Quote from: S'mon;10480225e ogres are stupid.
As are many PC adventurers, excepting Wizards, Eldritch Knight Fighters, and Arcane Trickster Rogues. For everybody else, INT is the king of dump stats in 5e.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1048031As are many PC adventurers, excepting Wizards, Eldritch Knight Fighters, and Arcane Trickster Rogues. For everybody else, INT is the king of dump stats in 5e.
You can't dump any 5e stat below 8 using array or point buy. Ogres (https://www.5esrd.com/gamemastering/monsters-foes/monsters-by-type/giants/ogre/) are INT 5, compared to Goblin INT 10, Orc INT 7, Hobgoblin INT 10, Bugbear INT 8.
But I agree INT 8 PCs are very common in 5e!
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1048029If it's two hobs and two gobs, I'd expect the goblins to be forced into a charge while the hobs try and flank.
Hobgoblins need to be in close order to use Martial Advantage, while goblins benefit from Hiding each round to get advantage on their attacks. So that'd be bad tactics for both.
Quote from: S'mon;1048023Behavior sufficiently contra-survival will get selected against
Successful survival traits isnt a one answer game, its dependent on environment.
Even then, different successful strategies (solitary, paired & pack) develop within the same regions.
The actual world is littered with droves of INT 10 humans (many players) that cant, dont or wont approach challenges with that level of tactical priority or investment. A lot of people in my experience, do not associate optimal with "fun".
...and regardless of the present written INT rating for goblins, theres plenty of fantasy material (including D&D) presenting them as a low tier chaotic "king of the hill" swarm race. Which I find much more interesting than the modernly popular habit of re-skinning monsters into acceptable potential player races.
Quote from: H0undM@ster;1047990For me, its as straightforward as:
Many races within a fantasy setting will not think & behave as humans do.
Which personally, makes them more believable. I'm not fond of the habit of humanizing things not human, from the "its a serial killer shark" in Jaws, to goblins in my leisure time make believe
In some species of ants, individuals will sacrifice themselves for the colony. That could be a feature of goblin tribalism. Or maybe they can reproduce fast enough that rushing headlong into stupidity IS their main tactic, making sense in the context that Zerg Rushing your enemies takes advantage of superior numbers, though in 5e the encounter ratios are far lower, but that can be fixed with some minor tweaking and application of a mook rule. Oh geez, Google "Zerg Rush". :D Riffing off the alien mindset of a nonhuman species, certainly they may have tactics and strategy, but that doesn't mean their tactics and strategy mesh with what we generally understand and accept to be tactics and strategy.
Quote from: S'mon;10480225e goblins are INT 10 WIS 8, and are statted as shifty tricksters. 5e ogres are stupid.
Humans have 10 INT and look how dumb they are in real life.
I think of them as shifty tricksters but about as mature and wise as children.
Imagine if the goblins were 10 year olds.
I think the major failing of the module is that it didn't come bundled with Cheetos and Mt. Dew coupons. :p
Quote from: Opaopajr;1048215I think the major failing of the module is that it didn't come bundled with Cheetos and Mt. Dew coupons. :p
Here in Canada, Mountain Dew did not contain caffeine until 2012 because of some law which wouldn't allow caffeine in any pop that wasn't brown. So in my gaming heyday I really couldn't understand the appeal of Mountain Dew. :D
Quote from: Krimson;1048218Here in Canada, Mountain Dew did not contain caffeine until 2012 because of some law which wouldn't allow caffeine in any pop that wasn't brown. So in my gaming heyday I really couldn't understand the appeal of Mountain Dew. :D
Oh, the deprivation! :( What did you do without sweetened battery acid? :D
Quote from: Opaopajr;1048220Oh, the deprivation! :( What did you do without sweetened battery acid? :D
I had Dr Pepper. :)
Quote from: Krimson;1048206In some species of ants, individuals will sacrifice themselves for the colony. That could be a feature of goblin tribalism. Or maybe they can reproduce fast enough that rushing headlong into stupidity IS their main tactic, making sense in the context that Zerg Rushing your enemies takes advantage of superior numbers
Beyond that, another evolutionary tactic is to simply not spend a lot of energy (necessitating more food), and intelligence is energy-intensive. If we try to explain goblins using real world biology, the answer might simply be, "they can survive on ____ kcal a day, compared to ~2000 for something like a human, and the incremental advantage that the human's smarts give them is uncompetitive."