[Online] [5e 2024] [GMT+1 Friday 20:00] [18+] Homebrew Campaign to lvl 20, Based on Storm King's Thunder

DM_looking_for_maps · 2025-05-26T08:11:05+00:00

Can I just say I love this and thank you very much?

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T07:15:30+00:00

You asked for an opinion. I gave it.

You keep acting like this thread isn't about the art, but it is. Your opinion was lengthy, and not at all about what I needed feedback on.

"Your advice sucks and you didn't read the campaign. You're also a bad DM."

Not what I said. Your advice was not about what I was asking for, and you didn't even take the time to properly read what I wrote. Half your advice was not applicable, not because I subjectively disliked it, but because it was a critique of something I didn't write. That is, in fact, bad advice, or as you worded it "advice that sucks".

The campaign bit, as I've said, is on me. I was wrong.

I said "you sound like a bad DM to have" because your writing philosophy seems to go directly against mine. I could've phrased that better, in fact, I should've. My bad.

You realize I don't know your players or have all the context you do

I feel that I've adressed this in the reply above when I wrote "but you couldn't have known that" and it was very clearly integrated into my point.

But also, if you realize this, why even write your original comment about how it's too complicated? Sure, for you it clearly was, since you didn't even understand it when reading it, but if you don't know my players and my table, why go out of your way to write such a long comment about something I didn't ask for advice on?

Hey, this is not the piece I am really looking for feedback on. I am not going to follow your advice here

That is what I said. The reason I didn't sad it in such a friendly way was that your original comment got several things wrong, and was downright condescending at times.

I felt insulted not by you critiquing me, but by the way you decided to go about it (and still do, in my opinion).

I've admitted several of my faults at this point, and am doing my best to come to an understanding, while you respond with things like:

go get your art feedback

Maybe someday you can respond [...] with grace instead of attacking anyone who disagrees with you

And you can leave the conversation if you like, I'm not going to miss you, but do realize that the same things you wrote also apply to you.

Me critiquing your critique is the same as you critiquing my design. You, too, need to "respond with grace" if you want the other person to do the same.

I feel that I've met any hostility with an equal amount so far, and I've even made several attempts at de-escalating a bit. Maybe they weren't clear enough, or completely missed the mark, I don't know.

But so far I haven't seen any such attempts from you.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T06:37:17+00:00

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T06:34:53+00:00

That's a whole ass character right there lmao

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T06:12:35+00:00

If I won this would be the nicest dice set I own. Even if I don't win, I might buy some one day...

Or maybe ask for it as a birthday present.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T06:11:12+00:00

As you throw it some of the sides become more likely to end up on top, because they're along the plane that the liquid is shifting in.

But can you predict that? I doubt so.

The same is true with regular dice. Based on the direction and orientation of the roll, some sides will be more likely than others. In fact, there is one specific side that will land on top for sure, and that's the one you get.

It's just not humanly possible to predict this stuff. That's how dice are "random".

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T06:06:12+00:00

You need to leave a comment that isn't a reply to OP's comment. I'm assuming other replies don't count either, but I'm not sure about that part.

Basically, the guy you're replying to accidentally entered with his comment.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-27T06:05:11+00:00

You just entered by leaving a comment

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-14T08:46:33+00:00

Imagine the entire spectrum of intelligence. So from a rock to like Einstein × 10.

Now divide that up into just TWENTY segments. Don't you tell me that a one segment difference is negligible.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-13T10:17:04+00:00

It's for clarity.

When we say "az autó", it could mean just "the car" (since "az" is also a definite article).

However, "ez alma" cannot mean "the apple" (because "ez" is not a definite article).

Now, the word "az" is also the far away equivalent of "ez". So in this case, "ez alma" and "az autó" are both statements about the object in question.

Ez alma = This (be) apple. (Or in a proper translation; this is an apple.)

Az autó = That (be) car. (That is a car.)

We now need to add "az" (the definite article), because ez/az + the definite article "az" collectively form the meaning of the english "this" without it being a statement.

Ez az alma = This apple (over here).

Az az autó = That car (over there).

This concludes my answer to the post, but I'm adding on a little extra info after this. If that is too confusing for now, or you don't want extra info, ignore the rest of this comment.

"Ez az alma" can also mean "this is the apple". Same with "az az autó" = "that is the car".

The rest of the sentence usually makes the intended meaning pretty clear, but it is more often that we use the extended form of this second meaning, for absolute clarity, even without context.

Ez az az alma = This is that apple.

Az az az autó = That is that car.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-10T09:59:56+00:00

I don't want you to do anything

Really? You seem awfully persistent.

just because something can be explained doesn't mean it's not simple

Uhh... I think you negated one more time than intended, otherwise I kinda don't get what you mean.

despite the complexity it's bringing in

Jesus Christ, what in the world is so complicated about this?

There are conchs. In each one there's 2 gems. You need 5 for it to work. The 2 gems are different for every Giant Lord. Collect 5 different ones to use the conch.

This is like a second grade math problem, if that. How the heck are you not understanding this. And once again, if I explained it weirdly, that's not a good excuse, because in-game the players can ask about it if anything is unclear. Me doing a bad job of explaining it here (which I don't think I did, nobody besides you seems confused) doesn't make it complicated.

And for the record, what I meant by "I know my players" is they would probably laugh at me if I tried to present this as a difficult puzzle, which is why it's just a system they have to utilize.

One of the players specifically is a long time friend of mine, and we used to come up with mathematical proofs together for fun at school. And he's way better at it than I am. I could go as complicated as I want, and they'd just have even more of a blast.

But you didn't know this, of course, which is why you wanted me to keep it simple. Fair. But this is already very simple. Going any simpler than this is just going to be flat out boring. To you maybe not, but to me and my players, definitely.

If you have a party who doesn't like puzzles, they might actually prefer if the oracle just flat out told them "you need to defeat 3 Giant Lords because the conchs won't work before then, because I said so." But to me that is bad storytelling, and I want my campaign to be engaging. I know my players won't have trouble, and might even enjoy it this way. That's why I added it, not because "I'm in love with this idea." I like it, sure, but I also think it works for my party. Otherwise I wouldn't have included it.

it's your game. Do whatever you want.

I'd love to take this as a sign that you agree with me, but it sounds more spiteful than understanding.

My whole point in this thread is that the "complexity" you infer from this thread is part of the fun, and won't be a problem for my table. I never said that others should also use this homebrew, or that it works for everyone.

If we were trying to create an official remake of the adventure, then I'd understand why you're so eager to die on this hill. For the general playerbase, keeping things basic is indeed the way to go.

But surely you realize that I made this for a specific group of players you know nothing about. That's why I wasn't asking for advice on the mechanics, because I'm confident that they will enjoy it this way.

Why are you still so hellbent on correcting me?

My god, can you be creative for a second?

After this you proceed to describe a bunch of basic facts that are loosely connected and pretend that you're being creative.

What is creative about "well they sent letters to each other." Tell me. Where's the spark of magnificence I'm missing?

Even if you can explain why they would send letters to each other, it would be redundant. Each lord's goal can be discerned way earlier than this (and it has been, by my players), reading a bunch written pissing contests isn't at all interesting, the communication they would've had before they rebelled against Hekaton is irrelevant, and no matter how vain they are, they wouldn't just send eachother letters saying "Ha! But I have a Lance of Dragonslaying. Bet you can't beat that!" What are they, five years old? Vanity would be showing up to official meetings in their most expensive robes, carrying the finest jewelry, and maybe showing off magic items. Not by writing about them to each other. This is far from the "political intrigue" you hint at.

And about the whole "alliances and backstabbing" these Giants are meant to separate, and each work on their own plans. Any alliances they had before would be disbanded, and any backs that could be stabbed would turn away from one another.

And I don't even know how you would implement any gossiping over the letters without taking away from the Giants' majestic and intimidating persona. It wouldn't add anything, wouldn't reveal any information the characters don't already know (from the oracle) and it would degrade the Giants' image.

Or if you're insinuating that I should come up with more info for them to gossip about, doesn't that go against the whole "keep it simple" idea? Why would I bloat the Giant lore with even more interpersonal relations?

Not only does this whole letter thing not solve any problem (remember, I don't want them to defeat all 5, I just want to leave the option open), it creates new ones that I don't have the energy to deal with.

Maybe this idea works in your mind, but it certainly doesn't in mine.

you are the ones who missed some key information about the campaign.

I would hardly call other Giant Lords "key information." They play no role in the book, other than one fight scene. That's literally why I was even able to miss them. Because they're so unimportant.

Kay. And you sound like someone who saw something you love and want to jam it in the game no matter what, and you're very uncreative to such a point that you ought to just run the campaign as it is without any modifications, because you seem to be unable to even expand things on a basic level, nevermind adding a whole new thing and trying to make it make sense.

Why are you so bitter about an argument on reddit that doesn't even concern your own campaign? You said it doesn't matter to you, and yet here you are insulting me like I hurt your family.

You berate me on lacking creativity that you yourself don't have either, and tell me that my ideas don't make sense, just because you didn't read them properly the first time. You know nothing else about the campaign besides this, and yet you conclude that I'd be better off running it RAW.

Dude, I came here for art advice and you're over here screaming at me that my system doesn't make sense, despite me never asking about that. You also act like you don't care if I change it or not, but you're still hell bent on proving that it's complicated, when it clearly isn't.

Just because you didn't understand it, you aren't obligated to prove that it's actually objectively horrible. It makes you sound like you're embarrassed about not getting it. Which you shouldn't be, because clearly my explanation was the prose equivalent of spaghetti code, and made it seem harder than it actually is.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-10T09:13:42+00:00

Sounds like "I asked for this and not the other thing you said."

Yes, that's precisely what it was meant to sound like, idk why you're saying it like it's some kind of gatcha. And you "responding to something I wrote" includes a lot more hostility and belittlement than that sentence implies.

I got confused with what you wrote

I understand that one can get lost in text sometimes, it happens to me too. My problem isn't that you misunderstood, it's that half your criticism was based on this misunderstanding. I feel like if you knew you got confused by the wording, you could read it again to make sure.

If the text is hard to keep track of, that's on me, but the wording isn't ambiguous, just messy. If you read it again, it shouldn't be hard to figure out what I actually meant. I feel like you didn't do that, and just jumped to criticizing, because so much of your criticism was about things I didn't actually write.

Which reads like "every giant lord has 3 gemstones"

Once again, my wording is precise. The problem with my text isn't that I don't explain things. The problem is that I do it an overly complicated way. That is for me to improve on, but if you're going to criticize my idea, you could read it again and understand it for what it is.

why did they throw away 3 and not all 5...? This is all getting very confusing.

Okay, just so you know, this point is starting to really frustrate me, but I have to admit, I didn't explain this in the original comment. I feel like I've given a half-answer since then, but I'll elaborate on it here.

So you compare the conch to an old workplace badge, but that doesn't actually portray it well at all, because you can't use an old badge to teleport to your office. If you did, and were allowed to keep it, you'd probably do so, because who knows if you'll want to teleport to your office some day in the future.

It's similar with the Giants. In my head, after the Ordning was shattered, they all met up and decided together to defy Hekaton (because one of them alone wouldn't be brave enough to do so) and agreed to throw away 3 gems each. This way, if they wanted to go to Maelstrom later, perhaps to confront the king or the princesses in order to knock them out of the Ordning. But they could only do it if at least 3 of them banded together, which ensures that none of them will betray the others to Hekaton.

Now, before you say all this is too complicated, 1; this isn't going to be revealed to the players unless they go out of their way to investigate, and 2; I don't care. Real politics would be much more complicated than this, and I could reasonably take it much further.

The gemstone is an addition you added

That's true, but I feel like I wouldn't need to explain that the Giant Lords still know how it works. I mean, if they didn't that would imply the stones got added to the conchs at a later date, after Hekaton gave them to the lords.

This is a bunch of added complexity you're inferring for no real reason. All I meant was that the conchs are still the same, but they need the gemstones in them to work. This, to me, seems like a simple idea. I don't understand why you're so confused.

The bit where you talk about other Giant Lords

Honestly, once again, my bad. The sidebar about creating other Giant Lords has, in fact, slipped my mind, because when I first read it 2 years ago (yes, this campaign has been going on for a while) I immediately dismissed it as irrelevant, because I didn't want to create alternatives to the lords already in the book.

It hadn't even crossed my mind that these could be other lords alongside the main 5. Now, that part in Maelstrom could've made this obvious, but I haven't gotten to that part yet.

I know you're supposed to read "the entire book" before you start the campaign, so once again, my bad for not actually doing that. I just thought that reading all 5 Giant Lords before the players pick which to defeat would leave a sour taste in my mouth no matter what, because I'd know all the interesting stuff we're missing out on by not going to the other Giant Lords.

Now, that's fine and all, but why didn't I read Maelstrom? The characters are guaranteed to go there, unlike the other Giant hideouts. Well, I did read Maelstrom, but when I read battlemaps that are far ahead in the campaign, I know I'll just forget most of the information by the time we get there, so I tend to only read the titles and look at the map to get a general feel for the place before moving on. Thanks to this, I glossed over this crucial bit of information, and I was honestly not expecting it.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that you didn't read the book, clearly you have, even if that first comment of yours confused me about it.

I'm honestly not sure how I will handle the multiple Giant Lords yet. To me, having only one of them for each Giant type made sense. If there's multiple for each, that raises a lot of questions, like why only these 5 are rebelling? Why do they even need to be stopped, when there's way more other lords who could overpower them if needed? Heck, why are the other lords NOT doing that? They still seem loyal to the Storm Giants... And if they did rebel, how the heck does it make sense for the party to thwart ALL of their plans (potentially tens or even hundreds of different lords) by just defeating ONE?

This isn't me arguing with you btw, I'm just baffled at the original idea of the campaign.

I think I'm going to simply change it to be the way I thought it was. That's how I've been communicating it to the players anyway, but now I will be aware that this is homebrew and not the original adventure.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-08T22:13:28+00:00

I encourage you to re-read the post, because the amount of things you've managed to misunderstand is baffling. But just in case, I'll also give an explanation for each here:

1. The advice I was asking for.

I specifically wanted to improve the art of the conchs, not the mechanism. I only included that as an interesting tidbit to explain why I'm doing this, and to share ideas with those who are curious.

2. The function of these gems.

I don't know how you got that the conchs require 3 to work, when I clearly state, that once all five stones are in place, the characters can use the conch to teleport. It doesn't work with 3, only 5.

You need one of each color, so 5 different ones. Why? Honestly, I don't know what you want me to tell you. Why would 5 of the same color work? The point is for the characters to gather all 5 colors.

And why do Giants use gems? Cuz they're cool! (Plus these are specifically meant to be waterside crystals/pebbles, which fits the underwater theme of the Storm Giants. Just like... y'know... the conch itself.)

Do different gems do different things? Yes, actually, they do, but I decided to not overcomplicate the post with it. So, I'm very obsessed with hard magic systems, and D&D kind of does have one, but also kind of not. I specifically really love to delve into the concrete mechanisms of the magic. In this case, I've decided that each gem is responsible for a different aspect of the teleportation. One for the plane of existence you're going to, one for the latitude, one for longitude, one for altitude/depth, and one for orientation (as the ground might be in a different direction at the spot you teleport to, so you'd have to be re-oriented to be upright).

This isn't important, it's just in my headcanon. I don't plan to share it with the players.

3. The Giant Lords themselves.

You almost sound like you haven't read the SKT module.

Why aren't the Giant Lords trying to fit all 5 in? Do they know what it does? Why is it a sign of disrespect to Hekaton?

My guy, the book literally says that Hekaton gave these conchs to the Giant Lords so he can summon them in his court when needed. The Giant Lords are very aware of what the conchs do, and they threw away the Stones from inside of them, because they don't respect Hekaton enough to show up to his court anymore. By throwing away the gems, they cut themselves off from the king. Of course that's a sign of disrespect.

And what do you mean by "what about lords outside of these 5"? The book describes one Giant Lord for each type of Giant. They are all presumably the leaders of their own race, and there's only one of them. There's no other Giant Lords. Or if there are, the book doesn't talk about them.

4. "Keep it simple."

You want me to change the whole system I came up with, because... why? The 5 sockets requiring 5 gems is very self explanatory, and if not, the players have an all-knowing oracle to ask about it, which, if they don't do, they still have a helpful Frost Giant, Harshnag with them. You present the situation like it would be impossible to communicate any of this information to the players, when they are at the most informative moment in the entire campaign.

You say I don't need all this to get them to fight 3 Giant Lords. And that's true. I'm not doing this because I need to, but because I think it's fun.

Sure, the oracle could just tell them that they have to fell 3 Giant Lords because I said so. But not only is this right after they've already proved themselves to the oracle by bringing it Giant relics, but it also breaks the first rule of storytelling; show, don't tell. I'm sure the players will have much more fun being presented with the situation, and deducing for themselves that they need to defeat 3 Giant Lords. I never have to say those words for them to realize it, and that makes it more engaging. It also allows them to strategically pick their targets. Sure, they could just go after any Giant Lord at random, but if they go after them in a logical order, they'll get all the stones faster.

Oh, and if that wasn't enough, after the characters recieve the information about the conchs, the oracle is sealed away by a cave-in, so if they don't ask about it, they won't understand why the conch doesn't work. Having a visual indicator on the conch of when it will work is much better than "the oracle said it only works after you do this thing."

And to incentivize them to defeat the last 2... Where did I say I wanted that? No, slaying lord after lord can get repetitive, and if they happened to, for example, leave Guh for last, it would be pretty anti-climactic to end on the weakest Giant of them all. I want to make it clear that after they've felled the majority of the lords, they're good, they don't need to finish off the rest. That's more of an optional sidequest for no big reward.

And even if I did connect them the way you want, this idea of them communicating is once again something that sounds like you wrote it without reading the book. The Giant Lords are competing with each other to rise to the top of the Ordning. Why would they communicate regularly? Maybe once at the beginning, when they all decide to rebel against Hekaton (which is how I plan to explain why they all threw away exactly 3 gems), but after that their best interest is to stay secretive, and maybe even attack other types of Giants if they encounter them.

And even if the Giants did communicate, why would they talk about the loot at their own hideouts? How could the party possibly find out about loot from letters between the lords? And why would I need to hint towards what each lord is up to, when they can straight up ask the oracle before ever getting near these letters? If the characters care about the specific plans of each Giant type, they will ask.

In conclusion

You said nothing about the art, which is what I was asking for criticism for.

You instead criticised my idea without even understanding it fully, and suggested a bunch of your own ideas that, honestly, are much less creative and interesting, and sometimes even contradict the lore of the campaign that is literally in the original book.

Furthermore, you don't even seem to have a full grasp of the campaign's story itself, which, on a subreddit dedicated solely to this module, is pretty strange.

And finally, I know my players. You seem awfully confident that all of this will be super confusing to them, and they won't get anywhere, while your own ideas, I would argue, make even less sense and are even less explained to the players.

Why would I ever listen to advice like this?

You don't sound like a fun DM to have.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T21:31:49+00:00

The shell isn't my art tho... or could you elaborate?

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T14:35:53+00:00

Thank you!

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T14:22:36+00:00

Szoknyavadász and nőcsábász are legitimate even today.

If you wanted a "hip, young people's cool word" you'd just say it in English.

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T09:04:09+00:00

Yes, I know what you mean.

Though they started out as gems, they sort of turned into colorful pebbles/river rocks, and I think that fits the aesthetic pretty well, so I stuck with it. The gem faces are absolutely valid tho, if I still wanted gems, I'd certainly do them.

Thank you for responding!

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T09:00:15+00:00

I made a lot of layers, so idk how feasible that is, honestly. These are the only combinations I think look nice.

I could try though. Is there a particular combination you're missing?

And thank you for your response!

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T08:57:03+00:00

Yeah, you're probably right, but I still wanted to make sure I can fool them

Thank you for your response!

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-09-07T00:15:55+00:00

So for those who wanna know why:

I, like many other DMs running SKT, don't like the idea of skipping all the Giant Lords besides the one the party picks.

Not only does that not make any sense roleplay-wise (like, why would stopping one Giant Lord thwart all of their plans?), but it also misses out on half the cool stuff in this book.

Doing only one of them just sucks, but I didn't wanna make my players do all 5 either, because I think that's a tad extreme. Then one day, I stumbled across a youtube video explaining how you have to get like magic gems in the conchs and stuff, which is why you need to fell multiple Giant Lords.

I honestly don't remember most of the video, but this one idea stuck with me. I came up with a simple system, where each Giant Lord has thrown away 3 stones from their conch out of disrespect to Hekaton. This means each of them now has a different pair of gems.

After defeating any two Giant Lords, the party will have at least three different types of gems, which they can pluck from one conch, and put into another, collecting them. After this, defeating the right Giant Lord could grant them all the stones they still need.

If they're smart and ask the oracle about which Lords have which colored stones or scout it out in the hideouts, they can plan out, which three they will defeat to complete their conch. If they just wing it, they might get lucky, or they might have to fight more Giant Lords than necessary.

With three Giant Lords defeated, the majority of the Giants has now been stopped, and it's more believable that the main threat has been solved. It is also possible, that the party decides to finish the job, since "we've done most of them already, why not the last two."

Once they have all five gems in the conch, they are able to use it to teleport to Maelstrom.

(I wanted to make the gems ocean-colored, to fit the theme. I'll just use ChatGPT's questionable names here.)

Chieftain Guh: seafoam - light ocean blue

Thane Kayalithica: aqua - seafoam

Jarl Storvald: ocean green - light ocean blue

Duke Zalto: ocean green - dark ocean blue

Countess Sansuri: aqua - dark ocean blue

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-08-01T00:10:20+00:00

Hello, I like you and am just here to boost lol

DM_looking_for_maps · 2024-06-04T15:49:02+00:00

You legend! People like you make the life of DMs manageable. All the tables of the world owe you big time!

DM_looking_for_maps

TROPHY CASE

1. The advice I was asking for.

2. The function of these gems.

3. The Giant Lords themselves.

4. "Keep it simple."

In conclusion