"Are the Authors of the Dungeon & Dragons Hardcover Adventures Blind to the Plight of DMs?"

[delericho]

I would like a ring binder with inserts format, which I think they did with some 2nd edition products.

The early 2nd Ed Monstrous Compendium folders used this format. There are some pretty good reasons they haven't repeated that experiment.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Never had this problem with 4th Edition, even during Encounters. We had maps, tokens, full stat-blocks on the page, online tools, and,... Oh yeah! Dungeon magazine was still around, even if it was published exclusively online. Say what you want (because you will), but 4e made running and prep for DMs easy, fun, and satisfying. Best part of 4e, first thing to be forgotten. Oh well.

 

[CapnZapp]

For me DDAL is not what I want. Low production values combined with railroaded plot - not interested.

Sure WotC could make more adventures that are like the hardcovers (in quality and detail) but not as long - but I am convinced the reason is they don't sell as well.

 

[Sunflame]

Is it just me or people confuse sandbox with open world? I played (or DM) all the adventures and they are all "themepark" adventures, some more railroad and some more open world. But, not one of them is a "sandbox" adventure

 

[jasper]

I would like a ring binder with inserts format, which I think they did with some 2nd edition products.

Look at the flowers . Whack. Whack. Whack. DIG. DIG. DIG. Bury. Bury. Bury.
I must say I hate the ring binder idea. I hated ring binders when pull maintenance in the army. Now you want to reboot the idea to sell me content that will go flying down the hall out of my trapper Keeper when Morrus gives me a wedige between classes. NO.

 

[jasper]

Maybe. With each new hardcover, Wotc releases two free pdf adventurers written by the same authors. The pdf would be geared for new dms.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I would like a ring binder with inserts format, which I think they did with some 2nd edition products.

While it was nice in theory, the three-ring binder format for the Monstrous Compendiums was in the end a mess, as pages would end up getting ripped out and easily lost.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The early 2nd Ed Monstrous Compendium folders used this format. There are some pretty good reasons they haven't repeated that experiment.

The only thing I didn't like about the format was that they published monsters on both sides of a page. When they released supplemental packs of monsters it was impossible to keep them alphabetized because of this. Drove me nuts!

 

[Patrick McGill]

This is an interesting discussion, and I'm not trying to take away from it in any way, but with the recent news out of GAMA it's hard for me to fault WotC's current direction. They might know what they're doing well enough.

As far as personal wants, though, I think the adventures are going in the right direction. I love CoS, SKT, and ToA and their format much better than the previous ones. And, of course, I'd love to see a sequel to Tales from the Yawning Portal. The book has been so worth it to me. I've only gotten to drop one of those dungeons into a campaign but it has been a highlight.

As far as the crux of the discussion, being whether WotC is helping DMs well enough, I think they're doing a modest job but in this age of streaming shows and the likes of Matthew Colville on YouTube, there has never been a better time for DMs looking for guidance or examples. Imagine having to learn straight from the AD&D player's handbook.

 

[delericho]

The only thing I didn't like about the format was that they published monsters on both sides of a page. When they released supplemental packs of monsters it was impossible to keep them alphabetized because of this. Drove me nuts!

Yeah, that was a pain, especially as they didn't even make it past the first expansion before the system broke down.

I'm not sure I'd say that was the only thing I didn't like about them, though.