I really like the idea of quest cards (see page 103 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). I like that they give players something tangible to hold onto and look at each game session to remind them what their ongoing adventure objectives are.
In my conversion of DL1, there are only two adventure-related quests ("Find Evidence of the True Gods" and "Appeal to the Seekers") but I also included some minor quests that serve as nudges to encourage light roleplaying ("Recite The Canticle" and "Introducing the Heroes"). For players that might not be inclined towards roleplaying, completing these quests lets them dabble a bit in some story-based player narrative and earn some quest XP as an incentive.
I've made a package of quest cards to print out and hand out to my players, and if anyone else is interested in using them too, please feel free to download them. They are formatted to be printed on Avery index cards (05388).
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
DL1 Character Builder Files
Reader Bill saved my bacon with some good advice about getting the Character Builder files up and available for anyone who's interested in them.
The links below are to the actual .dnd4e files for each character, so you should just be able to right-click the links, save them to the characters file of your builder, and go from there.
Enjoy!
Tanis Half-elven
Sturm Brightblade
Caramon Majere
Raistlin Majere
Flint Fireforge
Tasslehoff Burrfoot
Goldmoon
Riverwind
The links below are to the actual .dnd4e files for each character, so you should just be able to right-click the links, save them to the characters file of your builder, and go from there.
Enjoy!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Wherefore Art Thou 7th-level?
Today I thought I'd talk about why I designed the pregenerated characters the way I did. Since statting the heroes was largely an interpretive exercise, I expect there could be some disagreement with the conclusions I came to, but one could always use the D&D Character Builder to whip up their own versions of the heroes in just a few minutes.
First, to get some perspective on where we're coming from, let's recall how the heroes were first presented. In the original module, DL1 Dragons of Despair, the pregenerated heroes were:
Tanis: 5th-level half-elf fighter
Sturm: 6th-level human fighter
Caramon: 6th-level human fighter
Raistlin: 3rd-level human magic-user
Flint: 4th-level dwarf fighter
Tasslehoff: 4th-level kender (halfling) thief
Goldmoon: 5th-level human cleric
Riverwind: 5th-level human ranger
One immediately notices that the heroes are not all the same level. One might initially ascribe this to the fact that in AD&D, each class required different amounts of XP to reach each level. However, this cannot be the reason for our heroes' varying levels, since if the heroes had all had the same total XP, Tas should be the higest-level character, because thieves needed the least amount of XP to level. Instead, I believe they assigned the characters different levels simply to show their varying levels of skill and expertise; Caramon and Sturm were the most skilled fighters, whereas Raistlin was just beginning gain mastery over his magic.
In 4E, this approach doesn't work. Adventures work best when the PCs are all the same level, and all the game's math is based on a party of like-leveled PCs. Therefore, I knew that I'd be starting all the heroes at the same level. But which level?
A couple of different strategies suggested themselves. For one, I could start the heroes all at 1st level. Since I knew I wanted to run the converted module for newbie players, this would have been a natural place to start. Another possibility was to follow the example set in the 3E conversion of DL1 (published by Margaret Weis Productions) and start the heroes at 5th level, which is very close to the average level of the heroes in the original DL1.
Ultimately, I decided to go with neither of these options, and started the heroes at 7th level. I did this primarily because I knew that I wanted the PCs to gain one level with each adventure in the series. Therefore, at the climax of DL4, the end of the first story arc of the Dragonlance saga, the heroes would enter the paragon tier. This seemed pretty fitting. In 4E, the focus of the heroic tier is adventuring on a regional basis, righting wrongs in the characters' own little corner of the world. And in DL1 to DL4, that's just what the heroes have done in the lands of Abanasinia. The paragon tier is all about moving the campaign's action onto the world stage, which is exactly what happens in the final two story arcs of Dragonlance.
With level decided and set at 7th, I set out to build the heroes. I'll talk about the more interesting points for each of them. As a general note, I didn't build the heroes with an eye to optimization. I was trying evoke their personalities in their builds, and therefore some of the heroes ended up being more (or less) optimized than others.
Tanis
Initially I wanted to stat Tanis as a warlord with a ranger multiclass. I figured that way he'd use his two multiclass power-swap feats in the heroic tier to pick up ranger powers. However, this proved to be problematic for a couple of reasons. The first was that since the PCs were starting at 7th level, Tanis would only have one multiclass power-swap feat to work with (the one at 4th level). Another problem was that as a warlord, Tanis would need to spend a feat to pick up longbow profiency.
Based on these two issues, I decided to go with hybrid warlord|ranger for Tanis, since I felt that bow use is pretty iconic to Tanis's character. To differentiate Tanis from Riverwind, I gave Tanis the Quick Draw feat so that he could spread his powers equally between warlord melee powers and ranger ranged powers. Tanis's schtick effectively became switching rapidly and effortlessly between melee and ranged attacks. Ultimately, this implementation of Tanis proved to be evocative but a bit problematic. Warlord and ranger do not synergize that well under the hybrid rules, and required a wide spread of ability scores for Tanis. All this means that Tanis as presented is probably the most suboptimal of the heroes, but I think the final arrangement of his stats allows the character to be reasonably effective (and I went through several iterations). The bottom line is: had there been a ranged build for warlords, I would have gone with that. Maybe with the upcoming Martial Power 2 we'll see such a build.
For Tanis's half-elf dilettante power selection, I went with jinx shot, a ranged bard power, since it is a power from a class with the leader role, and since Tanis has a decent Charisma (though this is not Tanis's most reliable attack). Although this is technically an arcane power, I thought that in Tanis's case, a little imaginative handwaving could be done to envision this as a martial ability for Tanis.
From a non-mechanical perspective, some may noticed that I have listed Tanis as being unaligned, whereas in the original module, his alignment was given as neutral good. I think that this fits with Tanis's character as presented in the novels. This is one of a minority of cases where I chose to emphasize the novels over the modules. A major theme in Dragonlance is the balance between good and evil, and in the novels, particularly Spring Dawning, Tanis is depicted as being torn between selfishness and selflessness, between doing what's most expedient and doing what's right. In Spring Dawning the balance is served when two unaligned characters make a decision about their own moral positions: Tanis chooses good, and Raistlin chooses evil. Their individual choices later intersect to bring about the defeat of Takhisis and thus the restoration of the balance. I wanted sense that this is possible in my conversion, too, and therefore, Tanis is unaligned rather than neutral good.
Sturm
I might have made Sturm a paladin. It certainly would have been a nod to the codes of the Knights of Solamnia, and all the smiting and challenging powers of the paladin would have been very thematic. However, I instead went with fighter given that the plot of DL1 hinges on the restoration of divine power -- I didn't want to jump through hoops to explain why Sturm as a paladin could use his powers, when Goldmoon, a cleric, could not use hers without the Blue Crystal Staff. Worse, I didn't want to steal the thunder of the Staff or dilute the plot by concocting a MacGuffin to serve the same purpose for Sturm. Also, Sturm as a fighter will allow him some contrast later with Derek, a paladin.
Sturm is usually depicted in art as carrying a shield, but the modules always portrayed him as using a two-handed sword. I knew I wanted to my version of Sturm to be a great-weapon fighter as well. In terms of optimization of the group as a whole, Caramon (as the hero with the highest strength) "should" have been the great-weapon fighter, so to help carve out Sturm's niche, and to show contrast between Sturm's studied skill with Caramon's raw power, I gave Sturm the Weapon Expertise feat and powers like sure strike that play up accuracy while downplaying pure strength. I also gave him a strong focus on defensive stances and powers that facilitate marking -- like come and get it. For Sturm, I see this power as being less about bravado, and more about his chivalrous challenges and bravery in the face of superior numbers.
Caramon
As mentioned above, from an optimization point of view, Caramon "should" have been the great-weapon fighter. However, Caramon is iconically a sword-and-board fighter. I played up Caramon's brawn-over-brains fighting style (and contrasted his style against Sturm's) by choosing powers like brute strike, feats like Power Attack and Weapon Focus (as opposed to Sturm's Weapon Expertise). I also decided that Caramon's schtick would be charging, and selected powers like knockdown attack and rhino strike, as well as magic items, like his vanguard longsword, that synergize with charge attacks.
Raistlin
There has been a lot of discussion about how Raistlin could (or should) be statted. Those coming from a 3E perspective might naturally expect Raistlin to have some sort of mechanical nod to his having passed the Test and joined the ranks of the Wizards of High Sorcery. I discussed why I specifically avoided this in a previous post.
Given Raistlin's well-known story involvement with the spirit of Fistandantilus, which I think fits brilliantly with the vestige warlock pact, I was faced with a decision to make for Raistlin's class: wizard, wizard with warlock multiclass, or hybrid wizard|warlock. I would have really liked to go with wizard multiclassed to warlock (vestige pact), but in the end I felt that would have required a bit of design work to more thematically represent the vestige pact. Since I knew I wasn't going to design fiddly rules bits, however, I ultimately chose to go straight wizard and leave the Fistandantilus stuff purely to story -- if Raistlin's player wanted to explore it.
It seemed intuitive to give Raistlin the staff of defense form of implement mastery, given his iconic possession of the Staff of Magius, but since that build benefits from a higher Constitution, it was mechanically undesireable. Fortunately, the rules provided a good workaround for this. Raistlin's spellbooks are also an iconic part of his character, so I gave him the tome of readiness implement mastery and the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat so that he can wield both his tome and his staff to cast his spells.
Flint
Traditionally, Flint has a high Constitution score. It was a pretty straightforward decision to build him as a battlerager fighter wielding a greataxe. His selection of invigorating powers play up both his somewhat unchivalrous fighting style and his staying power in a fight.
Tasslehoff
Tas was another straightforward conversion, and an artful dodger rogue was a no-brainer. I decided that his hoopak would be easily represented by giving him a sling and a dagger -- weapons that already work with rogue powers. Since these are, in story terms, part of the same weapon, Tas doesn't need the Quick Draw feat to effectively use them both, and therefore all of his selected powers function with both melee and ranged weapons. Add in the Distant Advantage feat, and Tas has tons of opportunities to get his sneak attack damage each round.
Goldmoon
I initially thought about making Goldmoon an invoker to show her special relationship to the goddess Mishakal, but decided against it for several reasons, both having to do with Elistan. I felt that although Goldmoon was the one who was initially chosen by the Gods of Light to be the first cleric in their service since the Cataclysm to wield divine power, their real purpose in choosing her was so that she could then deliver the knowledge of the gods to Elistan, who would be their true prophet. Therefore, from a story perspective, I felt that Elistan made more sense as an invoker, as the voice of the gods. Furthermore, from a mechanical point of view, the heroes in the "Winter" story arc needed a controller, and that sealed the deal. Goldmoon would be the cleric, and Elistan would be the invoker.
My first iteration of Goldmoon's stats had her combining melee cleric powers and ranged cleric powers, but this required her to have a high Strength score to be effective, which didn't feel appropriate. Therefore, I changed her to using strictly ranged and buffing powers -- a devoted cleric. I didn't go so far as to build her as a full-on shielding cleric, but it certainly could have been a valid choice.
Riverwind
At first, I wanted Riverwind to use a mixture of melee and ranged attacks, but soon realized that this is an ineffective build unless the ranger is a dual-wielder (which I wanted to avoid for Riverwind). I also realized that would step on the toes of Tanis as I presented him. Therefore, I built Riverwind as an archer ranger, but with a few melee powers and the Quick Draw feat should he need to enter close combat. I also replaced his traditional sword with a spear to help further differentiate him from Tanis, but ultimately I felt that Riverwind should be primarily a ranged attacker.
And that's why I designed the heroes the way I did.
As an aside, I planned to include with this post links to pages containing the D&D Character Builder summary info so that anyone interested could import the characters to their copy of the Builder. I tried pasting the summaries on both wiki pages and in email, but unfortunately both methods were not importing correctly into my Builder. Does anyone have any experience with this? Suggestions?
First, to get some perspective on where we're coming from, let's recall how the heroes were first presented. In the original module, DL1 Dragons of Despair, the pregenerated heroes were:
One immediately notices that the heroes are not all the same level. One might initially ascribe this to the fact that in AD&D, each class required different amounts of XP to reach each level. However, this cannot be the reason for our heroes' varying levels, since if the heroes had all had the same total XP, Tas should be the higest-level character, because thieves needed the least amount of XP to level. Instead, I believe they assigned the characters different levels simply to show their varying levels of skill and expertise; Caramon and Sturm were the most skilled fighters, whereas Raistlin was just beginning gain mastery over his magic.
In 4E, this approach doesn't work. Adventures work best when the PCs are all the same level, and all the game's math is based on a party of like-leveled PCs. Therefore, I knew that I'd be starting all the heroes at the same level. But which level?
A couple of different strategies suggested themselves. For one, I could start the heroes all at 1st level. Since I knew I wanted to run the converted module for newbie players, this would have been a natural place to start. Another possibility was to follow the example set in the 3E conversion of DL1 (published by Margaret Weis Productions) and start the heroes at 5th level, which is very close to the average level of the heroes in the original DL1.
Ultimately, I decided to go with neither of these options, and started the heroes at 7th level. I did this primarily because I knew that I wanted the PCs to gain one level with each adventure in the series. Therefore, at the climax of DL4, the end of the first story arc of the Dragonlance saga, the heroes would enter the paragon tier. This seemed pretty fitting. In 4E, the focus of the heroic tier is adventuring on a regional basis, righting wrongs in the characters' own little corner of the world. And in DL1 to DL4, that's just what the heroes have done in the lands of Abanasinia. The paragon tier is all about moving the campaign's action onto the world stage, which is exactly what happens in the final two story arcs of Dragonlance.
With level decided and set at 7th, I set out to build the heroes. I'll talk about the more interesting points for each of them. As a general note, I didn't build the heroes with an eye to optimization. I was trying evoke their personalities in their builds, and therefore some of the heroes ended up being more (or less) optimized than others.
Tanis
Initially I wanted to stat Tanis as a warlord with a ranger multiclass. I figured that way he'd use his two multiclass power-swap feats in the heroic tier to pick up ranger powers. However, this proved to be problematic for a couple of reasons. The first was that since the PCs were starting at 7th level, Tanis would only have one multiclass power-swap feat to work with (the one at 4th level). Another problem was that as a warlord, Tanis would need to spend a feat to pick up longbow profiency.
Based on these two issues, I decided to go with hybrid warlord|ranger for Tanis, since I felt that bow use is pretty iconic to Tanis's character. To differentiate Tanis from Riverwind, I gave Tanis the Quick Draw feat so that he could spread his powers equally between warlord melee powers and ranger ranged powers. Tanis's schtick effectively became switching rapidly and effortlessly between melee and ranged attacks. Ultimately, this implementation of Tanis proved to be evocative but a bit problematic. Warlord and ranger do not synergize that well under the hybrid rules, and required a wide spread of ability scores for Tanis. All this means that Tanis as presented is probably the most suboptimal of the heroes, but I think the final arrangement of his stats allows the character to be reasonably effective (and I went through several iterations). The bottom line is: had there been a ranged build for warlords, I would have gone with that. Maybe with the upcoming Martial Power 2 we'll see such a build.
For Tanis's half-elf dilettante power selection, I went with jinx shot, a ranged bard power, since it is a power from a class with the leader role, and since Tanis has a decent Charisma (though this is not Tanis's most reliable attack). Although this is technically an arcane power, I thought that in Tanis's case, a little imaginative handwaving could be done to envision this as a martial ability for Tanis.
From a non-mechanical perspective, some may noticed that I have listed Tanis as being unaligned, whereas in the original module, his alignment was given as neutral good. I think that this fits with Tanis's character as presented in the novels. This is one of a minority of cases where I chose to emphasize the novels over the modules. A major theme in Dragonlance is the balance between good and evil, and in the novels, particularly Spring Dawning, Tanis is depicted as being torn between selfishness and selflessness, between doing what's most expedient and doing what's right. In Spring Dawning the balance is served when two unaligned characters make a decision about their own moral positions: Tanis chooses good, and Raistlin chooses evil. Their individual choices later intersect to bring about the defeat of Takhisis and thus the restoration of the balance. I wanted sense that this is possible in my conversion, too, and therefore, Tanis is unaligned rather than neutral good.
Sturm
I might have made Sturm a paladin. It certainly would have been a nod to the codes of the Knights of Solamnia, and all the smiting and challenging powers of the paladin would have been very thematic. However, I instead went with fighter given that the plot of DL1 hinges on the restoration of divine power -- I didn't want to jump through hoops to explain why Sturm as a paladin could use his powers, when Goldmoon, a cleric, could not use hers without the Blue Crystal Staff. Worse, I didn't want to steal the thunder of the Staff or dilute the plot by concocting a MacGuffin to serve the same purpose for Sturm. Also, Sturm as a fighter will allow him some contrast later with Derek, a paladin.
Sturm is usually depicted in art as carrying a shield, but the modules always portrayed him as using a two-handed sword. I knew I wanted to my version of Sturm to be a great-weapon fighter as well. In terms of optimization of the group as a whole, Caramon (as the hero with the highest strength) "should" have been the great-weapon fighter, so to help carve out Sturm's niche, and to show contrast between Sturm's studied skill with Caramon's raw power, I gave Sturm the Weapon Expertise feat and powers like sure strike that play up accuracy while downplaying pure strength. I also gave him a strong focus on defensive stances and powers that facilitate marking -- like come and get it. For Sturm, I see this power as being less about bravado, and more about his chivalrous challenges and bravery in the face of superior numbers.
Caramon
As mentioned above, from an optimization point of view, Caramon "should" have been the great-weapon fighter. However, Caramon is iconically a sword-and-board fighter. I played up Caramon's brawn-over-brains fighting style (and contrasted his style against Sturm's) by choosing powers like brute strike, feats like Power Attack and Weapon Focus (as opposed to Sturm's Weapon Expertise). I also decided that Caramon's schtick would be charging, and selected powers like knockdown attack and rhino strike, as well as magic items, like his vanguard longsword, that synergize with charge attacks.
Raistlin
There has been a lot of discussion about how Raistlin could (or should) be statted. Those coming from a 3E perspective might naturally expect Raistlin to have some sort of mechanical nod to his having passed the Test and joined the ranks of the Wizards of High Sorcery. I discussed why I specifically avoided this in a previous post.
Given Raistlin's well-known story involvement with the spirit of Fistandantilus, which I think fits brilliantly with the vestige warlock pact, I was faced with a decision to make for Raistlin's class: wizard, wizard with warlock multiclass, or hybrid wizard|warlock. I would have really liked to go with wizard multiclassed to warlock (vestige pact), but in the end I felt that would have required a bit of design work to more thematically represent the vestige pact. Since I knew I wasn't going to design fiddly rules bits, however, I ultimately chose to go straight wizard and leave the Fistandantilus stuff purely to story -- if Raistlin's player wanted to explore it.
It seemed intuitive to give Raistlin the staff of defense form of implement mastery, given his iconic possession of the Staff of Magius, but since that build benefits from a higher Constitution, it was mechanically undesireable. Fortunately, the rules provided a good workaround for this. Raistlin's spellbooks are also an iconic part of his character, so I gave him the tome of readiness implement mastery and the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat so that he can wield both his tome and his staff to cast his spells.
Flint
Traditionally, Flint has a high Constitution score. It was a pretty straightforward decision to build him as a battlerager fighter wielding a greataxe. His selection of invigorating powers play up both his somewhat unchivalrous fighting style and his staying power in a fight.
Tasslehoff
Tas was another straightforward conversion, and an artful dodger rogue was a no-brainer. I decided that his hoopak would be easily represented by giving him a sling and a dagger -- weapons that already work with rogue powers. Since these are, in story terms, part of the same weapon, Tas doesn't need the Quick Draw feat to effectively use them both, and therefore all of his selected powers function with both melee and ranged weapons. Add in the Distant Advantage feat, and Tas has tons of opportunities to get his sneak attack damage each round.
Goldmoon
I initially thought about making Goldmoon an invoker to show her special relationship to the goddess Mishakal, but decided against it for several reasons, both having to do with Elistan. I felt that although Goldmoon was the one who was initially chosen by the Gods of Light to be the first cleric in their service since the Cataclysm to wield divine power, their real purpose in choosing her was so that she could then deliver the knowledge of the gods to Elistan, who would be their true prophet. Therefore, from a story perspective, I felt that Elistan made more sense as an invoker, as the voice of the gods. Furthermore, from a mechanical point of view, the heroes in the "Winter" story arc needed a controller, and that sealed the deal. Goldmoon would be the cleric, and Elistan would be the invoker.
My first iteration of Goldmoon's stats had her combining melee cleric powers and ranged cleric powers, but this required her to have a high Strength score to be effective, which didn't feel appropriate. Therefore, I changed her to using strictly ranged and buffing powers -- a devoted cleric. I didn't go so far as to build her as a full-on shielding cleric, but it certainly could have been a valid choice.
Riverwind
At first, I wanted Riverwind to use a mixture of melee and ranged attacks, but soon realized that this is an ineffective build unless the ranger is a dual-wielder (which I wanted to avoid for Riverwind). I also realized that would step on the toes of Tanis as I presented him. Therefore, I built Riverwind as an archer ranger, but with a few melee powers and the Quick Draw feat should he need to enter close combat. I also replaced his traditional sword with a spear to help further differentiate him from Tanis, but ultimately I felt that Riverwind should be primarily a ranged attacker.
And that's why I designed the heroes the way I did.
As an aside, I planned to include with this post links to pages containing the D&D Character Builder summary info so that anyone interested could import the characters to their copy of the Builder. I tried pasting the summaries on both wiki pages and in email, but unfortunately both methods were not importing correctly into my Builder. Does anyone have any experience with this? Suggestions?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Dragonlance for Newbies
As I've mentioned, I don't have a gaming group at the moment. I have vague designs to run my conversion of DL1 for a group of new players at some point in the future -- unsuspecting friends who may be interested in checking out D&D. And by "new players" I mean new to D&D, new to roleplaying, the whole shebang.
I think Dragonlance is a great setting for new players for several reasons. It's a fairly standard fantasy setting with light medieval shading and a general tone of modernity as far as attitudes and social mores go, so there's nothing too strange or foreign for newcomers to grasp. The setting deliberately divorces itself from some elements commonly used in fantasy that are straight out of Tolkien, namely hobbits and orcs. This can help keep the setting distinct in the minds of new players.
Because DL1 is designed for level 7 characters, there is a bit of a hurdle to overcome in the form of the learning curve involved with new players. At 1st level, characters have a small suite of options available, but at 7th level, their options have already greatly increased. However, I think a patient DM with a willingness to explain how things work and take it a bit easy on the PCs while they figure things out can ease this problem somewhat. Some of the earlier tactical encounters in DL1 were designed with this in mind as "training encounters". It's only in some of the later encounters that some extra twists are added.
So how do new players, who know nothing about D&D or Dragonlance, come up with characters? This is obviously where pregenerated heroes earn their pagecount. On the other hand, you can't throw down a gigantic wad of eight character sheets and expect new players to make heads or tails of them.
To help my (hypothetical) group with this, I created a short document, Dragonlance Character Options, that could be sent to the players in advance of the first game session. It gives a brief overview of each hero using next to no game terms. Each hero's personality, combat style, and role in the group is described using plain descriptive language. The blurbs are short enough to not overwhelm new players, and, of course, the fantastic Larry Elmore pen and ink portraits of the heroes (originally published in DL5 Dragons of Mystery) are included (because, let's face it, people are going to judge a book by it's cover -- or in the case, judge a hero by their getup).
In my last post, I wrote about some groups wanting to "play the novels" and some groups wanting to just "play the modules". With new players who know nothing about Dragonlance, you get what is (in my opinion) the best of both worlds: the players can react to situations in the adventure with absolutely no preconceived notion of what "should" happen, and you can also let them use the pregenerated heroes with all the various plot hooks and dramatic setups that come with them. Furthermore, fresh players have no idea how each character's story arc played out in the novels. As each subsequent adventure is played, the players will come up with their own stories and goals for these characters and feel no constraints based on what happened in the novels. No "Well, I don't want to play Sturm, he dies in DL8..."
And that's why I think Dragonlance is great for newbies.
I think Dragonlance is a great setting for new players for several reasons. It's a fairly standard fantasy setting with light medieval shading and a general tone of modernity as far as attitudes and social mores go, so there's nothing too strange or foreign for newcomers to grasp. The setting deliberately divorces itself from some elements commonly used in fantasy that are straight out of Tolkien, namely hobbits and orcs. This can help keep the setting distinct in the minds of new players.
Because DL1 is designed for level 7 characters, there is a bit of a hurdle to overcome in the form of the learning curve involved with new players. At 1st level, characters have a small suite of options available, but at 7th level, their options have already greatly increased. However, I think a patient DM with a willingness to explain how things work and take it a bit easy on the PCs while they figure things out can ease this problem somewhat. Some of the earlier tactical encounters in DL1 were designed with this in mind as "training encounters". It's only in some of the later encounters that some extra twists are added.
So how do new players, who know nothing about D&D or Dragonlance, come up with characters? This is obviously where pregenerated heroes earn their pagecount. On the other hand, you can't throw down a gigantic wad of eight character sheets and expect new players to make heads or tails of them.
To help my (hypothetical) group with this, I created a short document, Dragonlance Character Options, that could be sent to the players in advance of the first game session. It gives a brief overview of each hero using next to no game terms. Each hero's personality, combat style, and role in the group is described using plain descriptive language. The blurbs are short enough to not overwhelm new players, and, of course, the fantastic Larry Elmore pen and ink portraits of the heroes (originally published in DL5 Dragons of Mystery) are included (because, let's face it, people are going to judge a book by it's cover -- or in the case, judge a hero by their getup).
In my last post, I wrote about some groups wanting to "play the novels" and some groups wanting to just "play the modules". With new players who know nothing about Dragonlance, you get what is (in my opinion) the best of both worlds: the players can react to situations in the adventure with absolutely no preconceived notion of what "should" happen, and you can also let them use the pregenerated heroes with all the various plot hooks and dramatic setups that come with them. Furthermore, fresh players have no idea how each character's story arc played out in the novels. As each subsequent adventure is played, the players will come up with their own stories and goals for these characters and feel no constraints based on what happened in the novels. No "Well, I don't want to play Sturm, he dies in DL8..."
And that's why I think Dragonlance is great for newbies.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
BYOH (Bring Your Own Heroes)
In my conversion of "Dragons of Despair" I wrote that players are "encouraged" to use the pregenerated PCs. I made that assertion based partly on the fact that I do believe the backstories of those heroes add depth the established overarching plot of the adventure arc, and partly out of tradition: that's what the Dragonlance modules have always advised.
In addition, suggesting that players use the pregenned PCs justifies dedicating wordcount to dramatic moments or plot points that feature the backstories of those characters—for example, Kitiara's letter in DL1. The real purpose of Kitiara's letter in the adventure is threefold: 1) to foreshadow her later involvement as a villain, 2) to establish her relationship to some of the heroes, namely Tanis, Raistlin, and Caramon; and 3) to urge the PCs to move out of Solace quickly. Items 1 and becomes meaningless if the pregenned PCs aren't being used; and item 3 isn't critical in the grand scheme of things.
The truth is I think the Dragonlance modules run just fine with any original group of heroes the players come up with. In what amounts to a contradiction to my "bottom-up" approach to the adventure, I did include a short appendix in DL1 that makes suggestions regarding setting-appropriate race and class selections for PCs. I included these suggestions out of respect for the setting’s traditions, but I also think many groups would not be concerned about what would or would not be appropriate in the Dragonlance setting—they just want to have fun playing the game. In such a group you could easily have a warforged fighter, an eladrin druid, a dwarf invoker, a shifter ranger, a half-orc rogue, a deva avenger, a dragonborn paladin, and a goliath warden. Instead of a staff of blue crystal, maybe the paladin has come into possession of the Blue Crystal Sword. It would make absolutely no sense in the context of Dragonlance, but the adventure would still be great fun, and the players are playing the heroes they want to play.
The 3E adaptation of the Dragonlance modules published by Margaret Weis Productions addressed these issues by using a really clever device that they called character archetypes. These identified the archetypal roles played in the adventure by each of the pregenerated heroes. For example, Tanis is the Leader, Goldmoon is the Prophet, and Raistlin is the Sage. The idea is that a group can map its own PCs to those same roles, and then dramatic story-based moments in the adventure that originally applied to the classic heroes can be easily transferred to the player's own heroes.
I thought about doing something similar in my conversion but ultimately decided not to, simply because I felt that if the players used the pregenerated heroes, there would be built-in roleplaying hooks in the adventure for them; and if they used their own characters, they could provide their own hooks and sources of drama. I thought that any plot points "requiring" a certain type of character could be subtly reworked so that the archetype isn't truly necessary in the end.
In DL1, this is best illustrated with the example of Goldmoon. At first glance the adventure needs a cleric—someone to wield the Blue Crystal Staff and to become the first post-Cataclysmic cleric of Mishakal. But really, in 4E, any divine character would do. To take it even further, you don't need a divine character at all—the PCs really just need to get the Staff to Xak Tsaroth to hear the message of the goddess, and then they can use it to help them defeat Khisanth. If there's no PC to become a cleric (or invoker, or avenger, or whatever) at the end of the adventure, that's fine. They're going to take the knowledge of the True Gods to the NPC Elistan in the next adventure anyway.
Handling it this way gives the story perhaps less dramatic heft than it would have if the classic heroes were in use—but a group preferring to use its own original heroes will provide plenty of their own dramatic moments and introduce their own themes if they’re dedicated roleplayers. Some groups will want to “play the novels” and other groups will want to “play the modules.” Both groups will have fun, and I wanted the converted module to be accessible to both playstyles.
And that’s why I dedicated a lot of space to the character sheets for the classic heroes, and interspersed the adventure with references to their dramatic stories, but also included the appendix about original characters. I think for Dragonlance, it’s just fine if you bring your own heroes.
In addition, suggesting that players use the pregenned PCs justifies dedicating wordcount to dramatic moments or plot points that feature the backstories of those characters—for example, Kitiara's letter in DL1. The real purpose of Kitiara's letter in the adventure is threefold: 1) to foreshadow her later involvement as a villain, 2) to establish her relationship to some of the heroes, namely Tanis, Raistlin, and Caramon; and 3) to urge the PCs to move out of Solace quickly. Items 1 and becomes meaningless if the pregenned PCs aren't being used; and item 3 isn't critical in the grand scheme of things.
The truth is I think the Dragonlance modules run just fine with any original group of heroes the players come up with. In what amounts to a contradiction to my "bottom-up" approach to the adventure, I did include a short appendix in DL1 that makes suggestions regarding setting-appropriate race and class selections for PCs. I included these suggestions out of respect for the setting’s traditions, but I also think many groups would not be concerned about what would or would not be appropriate in the Dragonlance setting—they just want to have fun playing the game. In such a group you could easily have a warforged fighter, an eladrin druid, a dwarf invoker, a shifter ranger, a half-orc rogue, a deva avenger, a dragonborn paladin, and a goliath warden. Instead of a staff of blue crystal, maybe the paladin has come into possession of the Blue Crystal Sword. It would make absolutely no sense in the context of Dragonlance, but the adventure would still be great fun, and the players are playing the heroes they want to play.
The 3E adaptation of the Dragonlance modules published by Margaret Weis Productions addressed these issues by using a really clever device that they called character archetypes. These identified the archetypal roles played in the adventure by each of the pregenerated heroes. For example, Tanis is the Leader, Goldmoon is the Prophet, and Raistlin is the Sage. The idea is that a group can map its own PCs to those same roles, and then dramatic story-based moments in the adventure that originally applied to the classic heroes can be easily transferred to the player's own heroes.
I thought about doing something similar in my conversion but ultimately decided not to, simply because I felt that if the players used the pregenerated heroes, there would be built-in roleplaying hooks in the adventure for them; and if they used their own characters, they could provide their own hooks and sources of drama. I thought that any plot points "requiring" a certain type of character could be subtly reworked so that the archetype isn't truly necessary in the end.
In DL1, this is best illustrated with the example of Goldmoon. At first glance the adventure needs a cleric—someone to wield the Blue Crystal Staff and to become the first post-Cataclysmic cleric of Mishakal. But really, in 4E, any divine character would do. To take it even further, you don't need a divine character at all—the PCs really just need to get the Staff to Xak Tsaroth to hear the message of the goddess, and then they can use it to help them defeat Khisanth. If there's no PC to become a cleric (or invoker, or avenger, or whatever) at the end of the adventure, that's fine. They're going to take the knowledge of the True Gods to the NPC Elistan in the next adventure anyway.
Handling it this way gives the story perhaps less dramatic heft than it would have if the classic heroes were in use—but a group preferring to use its own original heroes will provide plenty of their own dramatic moments and introduce their own themes if they’re dedicated roleplayers. Some groups will want to “play the novels” and other groups will want to “play the modules.” Both groups will have fun, and I wanted the converted module to be accessible to both playstyles.
And that’s why I dedicated a lot of space to the character sheets for the classic heroes, and interspersed the adventure with references to their dramatic stories, but also included the appendix about original characters. I think for Dragonlance, it’s just fine if you bring your own heroes.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
An Adventure Path, Not a Campaign Setting
When I began to plan how I wanted to convert "Dragons of Despair" from the AD&D rules to the 4E rules, I thought about whether I should take a top-down or bottom-up approach in detailing the setting of the adventure.
As world-builders know, a top-down approach to designing a milieu involves starting large and considering the big picture. Which PC races exist in your world, and how to do the various classes fit in? Are there new races or classes that need special rules? How about organizations that would work as paragon paths? What are the populations and dispositions of the cities, towns, villages, and nations of the world? Who are the rulers, movers, and shakers?
A bottom-up approach, on the other hand, involves starting small and working on only what you need. Are the PCs going to visit Town X? If not, then you don't need to spend much time thinking about what Town X is like, who lives there, and what the current situation is there.
Ultimately I decided that I was going to treat my conversion like an adventure path and not a campaign setting: I was going to use a bottom-up approach. In truth, the result is probably more like a hybrid of top-down and bottom-up because the Dragonlance setting has existed for many years; all the conceptualization has been done already. So although I didn't spend any word count on detailing the town of New Ports, for example (since the PCs won't visit it in DL1), the information about this location is out there somewhere.
I think one of the benefits to treating Dragonlance like an adventure path rather than a campaign setting is that it allows me dispense with designing fiddly rules bits for "Dragonlance-isms". I was content to let the existing architecture of 4E fit where it needed to fit. For example, I might have designed a new PC race: the kender. They'd probably have a racial power called "Taunt"; maybe this power would mark one or more foes or have some other effects, like pulling them a few squares. It'd be neat. This approach would be expected if Dragonlance were given a full treatment as a campaign setting, but for an adventure path, is it really necessary? Why not just use halflings straight out of the Player's Handbook? Likewise, why bother with rules that attempt to give mechanics to exactly what it means to be a Wizard of High Sorcery? In the context of an adventure path, who cares?
I think that the original Dragonlance modules took this approach too. There were a few corner cases (if I remember, they added some special rules for kender) but for the most part, sure there were Knights of Solamnia and Wizards of High Sorcery and Silvanesti elves and dark dwarves and whatever else -- but these were just names that fleshed out the milieu in the imaginations of the players. They were story elements. There was no mechanical difference between a Silvanesti elf and a Qualinesti elf or between a White Robe wizard and a Red Robe wizard.
Conversely, because I'm treating the conversion project like an adventure path and not a campaign setting, I don't need to bother explaining 4E-isms that don't seem to fit easily into the established milieu -- like dragonborn, tieflings, or eladrin. Are there tieflings out there somewhere in the wider world of Krynn as it's depicted in my version of DL1? I don't know -- maybe. But since there are no tieflings in DL1 I didn't feel compelled to explain their presence or absence.
It wasn't until the Dragonlance Adventures hardback was published for AD&D that Dragonlance began to be treated as a discrete campaign setting. That book introduced rules mechanics to address the differences between Knights of the Rose and Knights of the Crown, gully dwarves and hill dwarves, and many other Dragonlance-isms. There was even a chart that showed the mechanical influence of the phases of the moons on the spellcasting ability of wizards.
3E really ran with the idea that in-game distinctions should also have mechanical ramifications for characters, as is particularly well illustrated with the abundance of prestige classes that were developed. Dragonlance received a 3E campaign setting treatment that introduced races, feats, prestige classes, and even some base classes specific to the world of Krynn.
I think with 4E, we're seeing a return to the concept of keeping story elements and rules constructs largely separate. That is to say, in 4E, rules elements have stories attached, but story elements need not have rules attached. Flint was a metalsmith and a woodworker? In AD&D, it said that on his character sheet, whereas in 3E, he had levels in the expert class and spent skill points in Craft (Metalsmithing) and Craft (Woodworking). In 4E it says "Flint is a metalsmith and a woodworker" on his character sheet. Is one way better than the other? I think the answer to that question is no, neither method has more intrinsic value than the other. One is a more simulationist approah, and one is a more narrativist approach. They are both equally valid.
But because 4E significantly downplays a simulationist approach in favor of a gamist approach (with some narrativism), I decided to go for a bottom-up, gamist/narrativist approach for my conversion project. I think it works.
And that's why you won't see any races, classes, or paragon paths in "Dragons of Despair" or any of the other Dragonlance modules I convert.
As world-builders know, a top-down approach to designing a milieu involves starting large and considering the big picture. Which PC races exist in your world, and how to do the various classes fit in? Are there new races or classes that need special rules? How about organizations that would work as paragon paths? What are the populations and dispositions of the cities, towns, villages, and nations of the world? Who are the rulers, movers, and shakers?
A bottom-up approach, on the other hand, involves starting small and working on only what you need. Are the PCs going to visit Town X? If not, then you don't need to spend much time thinking about what Town X is like, who lives there, and what the current situation is there.
Ultimately I decided that I was going to treat my conversion like an adventure path and not a campaign setting: I was going to use a bottom-up approach. In truth, the result is probably more like a hybrid of top-down and bottom-up because the Dragonlance setting has existed for many years; all the conceptualization has been done already. So although I didn't spend any word count on detailing the town of New Ports, for example (since the PCs won't visit it in DL1), the information about this location is out there somewhere.
I think one of the benefits to treating Dragonlance like an adventure path rather than a campaign setting is that it allows me dispense with designing fiddly rules bits for "Dragonlance-isms". I was content to let the existing architecture of 4E fit where it needed to fit. For example, I might have designed a new PC race: the kender. They'd probably have a racial power called "Taunt"; maybe this power would mark one or more foes or have some other effects, like pulling them a few squares. It'd be neat. This approach would be expected if Dragonlance were given a full treatment as a campaign setting, but for an adventure path, is it really necessary? Why not just use halflings straight out of the Player's Handbook? Likewise, why bother with rules that attempt to give mechanics to exactly what it means to be a Wizard of High Sorcery? In the context of an adventure path, who cares?
I think that the original Dragonlance modules took this approach too. There were a few corner cases (if I remember, they added some special rules for kender) but for the most part, sure there were Knights of Solamnia and Wizards of High Sorcery and Silvanesti elves and dark dwarves and whatever else -- but these were just names that fleshed out the milieu in the imaginations of the players. They were story elements. There was no mechanical difference between a Silvanesti elf and a Qualinesti elf or between a White Robe wizard and a Red Robe wizard.
Conversely, because I'm treating the conversion project like an adventure path and not a campaign setting, I don't need to bother explaining 4E-isms that don't seem to fit easily into the established milieu -- like dragonborn, tieflings, or eladrin. Are there tieflings out there somewhere in the wider world of Krynn as it's depicted in my version of DL1? I don't know -- maybe. But since there are no tieflings in DL1 I didn't feel compelled to explain their presence or absence.
It wasn't until the Dragonlance Adventures hardback was published for AD&D that Dragonlance began to be treated as a discrete campaign setting. That book introduced rules mechanics to address the differences between Knights of the Rose and Knights of the Crown, gully dwarves and hill dwarves, and many other Dragonlance-isms. There was even a chart that showed the mechanical influence of the phases of the moons on the spellcasting ability of wizards.
3E really ran with the idea that in-game distinctions should also have mechanical ramifications for characters, as is particularly well illustrated with the abundance of prestige classes that were developed. Dragonlance received a 3E campaign setting treatment that introduced races, feats, prestige classes, and even some base classes specific to the world of Krynn.
I think with 4E, we're seeing a return to the concept of keeping story elements and rules constructs largely separate. That is to say, in 4E, rules elements have stories attached, but story elements need not have rules attached. Flint was a metalsmith and a woodworker? In AD&D, it said that on his character sheet, whereas in 3E, he had levels in the expert class and spent skill points in Craft (Metalsmithing) and Craft (Woodworking). In 4E it says "Flint is a metalsmith and a woodworker" on his character sheet. Is one way better than the other? I think the answer to that question is no, neither method has more intrinsic value than the other. One is a more simulationist approah, and one is a more narrativist approach. They are both equally valid.
But because 4E significantly downplays a simulationist approach in favor of a gamist approach (with some narrativism), I decided to go for a bottom-up, gamist/narrativist approach for my conversion project. I think it works.
And that's why you won't see any races, classes, or paragon paths in "Dragons of Despair" or any of the other Dragonlance modules I convert.
Monday, September 28, 2009
DL1 Dragons of Despair
I've done a rough playtesting pass through the adventure, and have tweaked a number of things along the way; so without further ado, I wanted to share my conversion of "Dragons of Despair" for critique (constructive I hope) and enjoyment (also, I hope!).
As I mentioned earlier, I believe I've learned a lot about 4E encounter design and skill challenge design and while a couple of the counters in "Despair" are still perhaps a little rough, I'm looking forward to putting my newfound knowledge to use when I work on "Dragons of Flame".
In future posts I'll talk about my thought process in converting the adventure to 4th Edition and why I made some of the choices I made. I hope that anyone who finds these posts interesting will stick around and share any insight they might have. I certainly welcome constructive criticism and I'll see if I can incorporate any great advice received into the final version.
Before getting to the link to the adventure, I do need to make a bit of a disclaimer:
This conversion of "Dragons of Despair" is intended for personal home use and is not intended in any way to generate profit. It is contains material copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast which is reproduced without permission. I believe this not-for-profit, personal use of the copyrighted material constitutes a fair use of the material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
The art on page 1 is by Clyde Caldwell and has been used without permission. The art on pages 52, 53, and 54 is by Larry Elmore and has been used without permission.
The maps in this adventure were created with the MapTool software, using assets developed by various individuals.
And here's the link: DL1 Dragons of Despair. Enjoy!
As I mentioned earlier, I believe I've learned a lot about 4E encounter design and skill challenge design and while a couple of the counters in "Despair" are still perhaps a little rough, I'm looking forward to putting my newfound knowledge to use when I work on "Dragons of Flame".
In future posts I'll talk about my thought process in converting the adventure to 4th Edition and why I made some of the choices I made. I hope that anyone who finds these posts interesting will stick around and share any insight they might have. I certainly welcome constructive criticism and I'll see if I can incorporate any great advice received into the final version.
Before getting to the link to the adventure, I do need to make a bit of a disclaimer:
The art on page 1 is by Clyde Caldwell and has been used without permission. The art on pages 52, 53, and 54 is by Larry Elmore and has been used without permission.
The maps in this adventure were created with the MapTool software, using assets developed by various individuals.
And here's the link: DL1 Dragons of Despair. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
