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. 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. 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 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.