Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Are the Authors of the Dungeon & Dragons Hardcover Adventures Blind to the Plight of DMs?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7376624" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>It's an interesting post. I kind of have a different sort of issue with the AP approach, but I also recognize that for a published mass market game, they are probably the best option for their business model in terms of the economics in producing them, and for overall sales potential.</p><p></p><p>Where DM David seems to be seeing a disconnect is in the expectations of the DM, and mostly because there are so many different types of players out there. But the number one player they have to foster to is the casual player who plays the game by picking up a couple of rule-books and an AP and off they go. In another 6-12 months they'll be ready for another AP, and maybe somebody else in the group DMs, and the game continues.</p><p></p><p>This approach would favor a more linear adventure, but they are trying to promote multiple play-styles, even if they aren't doing a great job with some of them. In particular, I think they are addressing in an indirect way the "standard" approach of OD&D/AD&D - the campaign.</p><p></p><p>Back in the day the rule books made it quite clear that the DM was expected to design their own world, however much was needed, and populate it with dungeons. Published adventures could easily be dropped into a DM's campaign, and usually had some notes on how to do that. Some adventures went so far as to explicitly call out areas for the DM to expand. When they started publishing campaign settings, they still left things largely open for the DM. Greyhawk was more of a framework initially, and the original Forgotten Realms identified several regions (like Sembia) that "they would never publish material for so the DM could make it their own." That didn't last, of course...</p><p></p><p>In other words, the "norm" was that the DM was responsible for the setting, story hooks, etc. Even if using a published setting and published adventures, the idea was that the DM was running a campaign, that somethow tied them all together.</p><p></p><p>The APs seem to be designed with this approach somewhat in mind. Some more than others. But there really hasn't been much in the rules to support this. Yes, the DMG has a lot of things to help create a campaign world, but the publication of APs implies that it's not really needed. Instead, they've seemed to substitute "sandbox" for campaign. The idea that having a lot of space for people to explore and no explicit single linear path gives this illusion.</p><p></p><p>And really, that's the crux of the problem. Without an actual campaign to support the adventures, when the PCs go off track, there aren't other options for them. Most of the APs give the illusion of a campaign by existing in the same setting. And the other supplements have continued to be centered on that setting. But the APs stand alone. They function more like a video game, where there are defined limits to where you can go, and there are other interesting things, and occasionally beneficial things, for side adventures, but there is one plot.</p><p></p><p>In a campaign, there is no "one plot." If the PCs decide not to follow this plot, they find another one. You can make them as sandboxy as you'd like, ultimately there is still the one plot to return to, or you select a different AP.</p><p></p><p>When the play is campaign based, then a single character generally isn't essential to the continuation of the game. When one adventure is completed, there are others to explore. When one character dies, others (whether already created or not) are there to write the next part of the story. Some characters have big stories, some little. Exploration itself is often the adventure, and play focuses more on the setting and the character's place in it, rather than the characters specifically and, as has become more the norm, the advancement of those characters. </p><p></p><p>In other words, the focus has shifted towards the progression of a character through their "character build" and how they will reach the heights of their extraordinary abilities, than the world around them. That's not good or bad, just different. But it does make designing published adventures different, in my opinion. Even in the sandboxy parts of an AP, there need to be hooks to remind the PCs of what their ultimate "purpose" is. DMs get frustrated when there is a specific storyline (as there is in all of the APs), and they have difficulty getting the players to follow it. </p><p></p><p>I prefer a world where characters can wander into near certain death. They should watch for warning signs and be prepared to run away. But the game's core design now is more around "balanced" encounters, and not "wasting time" on encounters that are too easy, and that there should always be a chance of success (and the chances are higher in 5e than earlier editions). These are the expectations the rules as written set, and then the APs sometimes challenge those expectations. Expectations (possibly carried over from things like video games) are that a character shouldn't die in a side adventure, for example. It's an oft-repeated "truth" that a character dying in a random encounter is a bad thing.</p><p></p><p>These attitudes make it difficult for a DM to handle a sandbox wrapped around an AP. Combined with the presentation that implies that an AP is a self-contained "campaign" makes this worse. In theory at least. As I said, I've mostly heard good things about the APs, because it's been the more casual players that want to be part of a bigger story. So they are OK with the idea that they need to follow that plot. In which case the biggest problem is the DM having to figure out how to help them do that if they stray too far.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7376624, member: 6778044"] It's an interesting post. I kind of have a different sort of issue with the AP approach, but I also recognize that for a published mass market game, they are probably the best option for their business model in terms of the economics in producing them, and for overall sales potential. Where DM David seems to be seeing a disconnect is in the expectations of the DM, and mostly because there are so many different types of players out there. But the number one player they have to foster to is the casual player who plays the game by picking up a couple of rule-books and an AP and off they go. In another 6-12 months they'll be ready for another AP, and maybe somebody else in the group DMs, and the game continues. This approach would favor a more linear adventure, but they are trying to promote multiple play-styles, even if they aren't doing a great job with some of them. In particular, I think they are addressing in an indirect way the "standard" approach of OD&D/AD&D - the campaign. Back in the day the rule books made it quite clear that the DM was expected to design their own world, however much was needed, and populate it with dungeons. Published adventures could easily be dropped into a DM's campaign, and usually had some notes on how to do that. Some adventures went so far as to explicitly call out areas for the DM to expand. When they started publishing campaign settings, they still left things largely open for the DM. Greyhawk was more of a framework initially, and the original Forgotten Realms identified several regions (like Sembia) that "they would never publish material for so the DM could make it their own." That didn't last, of course... In other words, the "norm" was that the DM was responsible for the setting, story hooks, etc. Even if using a published setting and published adventures, the idea was that the DM was running a campaign, that somethow tied them all together. The APs seem to be designed with this approach somewhat in mind. Some more than others. But there really hasn't been much in the rules to support this. Yes, the DMG has a lot of things to help create a campaign world, but the publication of APs implies that it's not really needed. Instead, they've seemed to substitute "sandbox" for campaign. The idea that having a lot of space for people to explore and no explicit single linear path gives this illusion. And really, that's the crux of the problem. Without an actual campaign to support the adventures, when the PCs go off track, there aren't other options for them. Most of the APs give the illusion of a campaign by existing in the same setting. And the other supplements have continued to be centered on that setting. But the APs stand alone. They function more like a video game, where there are defined limits to where you can go, and there are other interesting things, and occasionally beneficial things, for side adventures, but there is one plot. In a campaign, there is no "one plot." If the PCs decide not to follow this plot, they find another one. You can make them as sandboxy as you'd like, ultimately there is still the one plot to return to, or you select a different AP. When the play is campaign based, then a single character generally isn't essential to the continuation of the game. When one adventure is completed, there are others to explore. When one character dies, others (whether already created or not) are there to write the next part of the story. Some characters have big stories, some little. Exploration itself is often the adventure, and play focuses more on the setting and the character's place in it, rather than the characters specifically and, as has become more the norm, the advancement of those characters. In other words, the focus has shifted towards the progression of a character through their "character build" and how they will reach the heights of their extraordinary abilities, than the world around them. That's not good or bad, just different. But it does make designing published adventures different, in my opinion. Even in the sandboxy parts of an AP, there need to be hooks to remind the PCs of what their ultimate "purpose" is. DMs get frustrated when there is a specific storyline (as there is in all of the APs), and they have difficulty getting the players to follow it. I prefer a world where characters can wander into near certain death. They should watch for warning signs and be prepared to run away. But the game's core design now is more around "balanced" encounters, and not "wasting time" on encounters that are too easy, and that there should always be a chance of success (and the chances are higher in 5e than earlier editions). These are the expectations the rules as written set, and then the APs sometimes challenge those expectations. Expectations (possibly carried over from things like video games) are that a character shouldn't die in a side adventure, for example. It's an oft-repeated "truth" that a character dying in a random encounter is a bad thing. These attitudes make it difficult for a DM to handle a sandbox wrapped around an AP. Combined with the presentation that implies that an AP is a self-contained "campaign" makes this worse. In theory at least. As I said, I've mostly heard good things about the APs, because it's been the more casual players that want to be part of a bigger story. So they are OK with the idea that they need to follow that plot. In which case the biggest problem is the DM having to figure out how to help them do that if they stray too far. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Are the Authors of the Dungeon & Dragons Hardcover Adventures Blind to the Plight of DMs?"
Top