Tales From The Yawning Portal - 7 Classic Dungeons Updated To 5E!

Coming in April is WotC's next official D&D product, Tales from the Yawning Portal. This hardcover book contains seven classic dungeons updated to 5th Edition, from adventures such as Against the Giants, Dead in Thay, Forge of Fury, Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Sunless Citadel, Tomb of Horrors, and White Plume Mountain. This is, presumably, the product previously codenamed Labyrinth. It's set for an April 4th release, for $49.95.

When the shadows grow long in Waterdeep and the fireplace in the taproom of the Yawning Portal dims to a deep crimson glow, adventurers from across the Sword Coast spin tales and spread rumors of lost treasures.

Within this tome are seven of the deadliest dungeons from the history of Dungeons & Dragons. Some are classics that have hosted an untold number of adventurers, while others are newer creations, boldly staking a claim to their place in the pantheon of notable adventures.

The seeds of these stories now rest in your hands. D&D’s deadliest dungeons are now part of your arsenal of adventures. Enjoy, and remember to keep a few spare character sheets handy.

For use with the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide, this book provides fans with a treasure trove of adventures, all of which have been updated to the fifth edition rules. Explore seven deadly dungeons in this adventure supplement for the world’s greatest roleplaying game:

• Against the Giants
• Dead in Thay
• Forge of Fury
• Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan
• Sunless Citadel
• Tomb of Horrors
• White Plume Mountain

Find it on WotC's site here. Forbes has an interview about it here. Mearls says "We're announcing a new D&D product, a book coming out this spring. It is called Tales from the Yawning Portal(out March 24th in local game stores and April 4th everywhere else) It's a collection of seven of the most famous dungeons from Dungeons & Dragons history. They're all collected in one hardcover book. The idea behind it is not only do you want to capture some of the most famous dungeons from the game's history, but we also wanted to give a selection of adventures that you could in theory start at Level 1 with the first dungeon and play all the way up to Level 15 by playing the adventures one after another."

Cover Image

Gibbering Mouther

Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan



SaveSave



SaveSave
SaveSave​

 

[Corpsetaker]

I think it was the WoW based ruleset that killed 4e. When I read the ruleset, it sounded great. But, in play, it was just too much to keep track of.

Ninja'd

 

[CapnZapp]

i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.

But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules?

The 4e ruleset made combats very fun, but in the end, they took too much time (for us). In fact they took all the time - when we realized there was no time left during a session for the R in "RPG", it was time to drop the edition.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The 4e ruleset made combats very fun, but in the end, they took too much time (for us). In fact they took all the time - when we realized there was no time left during a session for the R in "RPG", it was time to drop the edition.

I can't tell you how many times in our games where people were forgetting they had a +1 to this, or could move this person this many squares after the battle was over or after the round was over.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can't tell you how many times in our games where people were forgetting they had a +1 to this, or could move this person this many squares after the battle was over or after the round was over.

This is what we dislike. We tend to optimize, and we dislike having to make decisions on the fly.

The result was that, for us, 4E was a very fun tactical combat game. But after a tense hard challenging fight* four hours later nobody could muster the energy to roleplay their character (as opposed to moving its figure around on the board).

*) We tried small "easy" fights and did not like it at all. Why waste your time with a foregone conclusion?

Since we want to play a roleplaying game, we all prefer other editions (meaning d20 and 5E).

 

[Jester David]

And for me,there is the paradox- I vastly prefer 5e's ruleset and they are producing absolutely nothing that makes me excited to or want to play the game. And I'd like to. Its a solid game when we play it. Loved Lost Mines and some conversions I have run. BUT I've seen TSR and WOTC regurgitate this stuff edition after edition after edition after..... Boring. Artificial Vanilla flavor D&D

On the other hand, while I don't like everything they do by a long shot, at least Paizo produces a pile of quality NEW adventure material in the sizes and formats I like and I can sift through to find my diamonds. But I won't touch the system with a 10 foot pole (barring the PFBB).

Solution- spend money elsewhere, hope they change their business models/systems to something vibrant/fresh. Lots of creative, better quality D&D products out there being produced that don't have a D&D label. I wouldn't hold my breath for Wizards to do anything but the SOS they have been doing since 1997, in a different wrapping paper.

WotC spent fifteen years only giving adventures token attention.

The focus on classics works for now: it gives them time to relearn how to write adventures and work out the kinks, while building an audience. And they need to build up a back catalogue of classic and traditional adventures before they can do the more gonzo stuff. They can't jump right into the funky stuff.

When Paizo started doing adventures, most of theirs were pretty darn traditional in terms of fantasy as well. Rise of the Runelords was pretty darn archtypal in terms of villain and story. It took Paizo seven years to slightly do something experimental (Reign of Winter) and another couple years for Iron Gods.

Even then, Out of the Abyss was unlike anything that had come before. And while it was inspired by the Giant series, Storm King's Thunder was very much its own beast. So they seem to be alternating between classical update and something new.

i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.

But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules? In FR I suspect it was the re-set that killed it(which I welcomed, though did not care for all the details). But eberron and dark sun seemed to be pretty well received? :shrug:

The Points of Light setting model fails because it only works in the a couple products before it collapses. The idea of the PoL setting is a generic world of names on a map and some minor lore, a starting setting where you can branch out and explore on your own as a DM. That's a great starting point, and people can talk about what they did with the setting and the various places.

But that ceases to work once you start publishing more adventures and content in that world, as every new product is introducing a contradiction between what the DM created and what WotC created.
"Gardmore Abbey" is on the map in the DMG, just a short hop from both Fallcrest and Winterhaven. Really close to the Keep on the Shadowfell. How many DMs decided to set adventures or scenes there in the three years between Keep on the Shadowfell and Madness at Gardmore Abbey?

Plus, people complain about setting four "Realmshaking Adventures" in a space the size of the Sword Coast. Imagine those adventures in an area as small as the Nentir Vale (which is close to the size of the Dessarin Valley, the setting of Princes of the Apocalypse).


The "setting per year" model also did seem to fail. They quickly moved from setting book/player book to player book/monster book for Dark Sun.
I think dwindling sales of the 4e rules didn't help. People just were not buying 4e books. The settings they chose were also tricky. The Realms was nuked, Eberron hadn't changed so the 3e setting book could still be used, and Dark Sun was as much player content as world lore.

Selling settings will always be niche, since the majority of DMs run homebrew. So right out of the game, campaign settings are at a disadvantage in terms of sales.
You don't need three campaign settings. No DM is changing settings every year. Sure, there will be the collectors that buy everything, but those are a minority and not the main audience. The average player buying the books might get a campaign setting. Or two. But then they'll stop, so you have diminishing returns.
When you are releasing a setting every year, people might decide to hold off on buying the books in the hopes their setting will be next. The Mystara fans would be less likely to buy the Realms of Dragonlance if they think a book for them might be next.
In theory, the fans of classic settings will buy their favourite, and *could* they'll offset the people buying future settings. But they're also the people who for sure have a copy of that material already. You're selling them a book they already have. Settings, by their nature, are primarily rules agnostic.

Releasing regular campaign settings just doesn't seem sustainable. It's not a long term business model.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The "setting per year" model also did seem to fail. They quickly moved from setting book/player book to player book/monster book for Dark Sun. I think dwindling sales of the 4e rules didn't help. People just were not buying 4e books. The settings they chose were also tricky. The Realms was nuked, Eberron hadn't changed so the 3e setting book could still be used, and Dark Sun was as much player content as world lore.

Where do you get that this failed?

 

[JeffB]

Where do you get that this failed?

This is what I was trying to get at with my post. But I don't think I was very clear..

Would the 4e setting model work in 5e? FR book, players guide, and smaller adventures or a collection, or a path to support it. Next year- Do RL. Next year DS..or.whatever.

I don't think the demise of that setting release model in 4e is because the model was the problem. It was the ruleset not being popular. I think this setting model would work well in 5e, and allows them to appeal to the fans of xyz setting people outside POL (or some other generic setting they made up for 5e), allow for some new adventures and retreads of old adventure themes that are particular to a setting (in a Yawning portal style book )Instead of replacing the original flavors with vanilla forgotten realms and writing a half ass "return to" AP alone. None of the remakes/rehashes/re-visits from 2e through now have ever held a candle to the originals they are based on.

 

[Parmandur]

This is what I was trying to get at with my post. But I don't think I was very clear..

Would the 4e setting model work in 5e? FR book, players guide, and smaller adventures or a collection, or a path to support it. Next year- Do RL. Next year DS..or.whatever.

I don't think the demise of that setting release model in 4e is because the model was the problem. It was the ruleset not being popular. I think this setting model would work well in 5e, and allows them to appeal to the fans of xyz setting people outside POL (or some other generic setting they made up for 5e), allow for some new adventures and retreads of old adventure themes that are particular to a setting (in a Yawning portal style book )Instead of replacing the original flavors with vanilla forgotten realms and writing a half ass "return to" AP alone. None of the remakes/rehashes/re-visits from 2e through now have ever held a candle to the originals they are based on.

All we have is conjecture; WotC has market research about what people would like to buy. They seem to view it as a failed model on its own terms, and as they have the info it seems reasonable to suppose it was simply a failure.

 

[pkt77242]

I think the reason that we aren't seeing setting guides is that WoTC wants to appeal to as many people as possible with its 1 expansion release per year. With the SCAG they had a part setting guide (to appeal to DMs) and part play options to appeal to players. VGtM had some players options to go along with monsters. A straight setting guide usually appeals more to DMs then players and so the most that you would get is another SCAG style book and with the tepid response to SCAG we might not see any more books like it.

ETA: Also ignoring the realms doesn't work with the cross media approach to 5E.

 

[Jester David]

Where do you get that this failed?

Well, they released two settings. Then completely changed how they released the third setting, having a monster book and a hybrid DM/player book. And then changed things again for Neverwinter with a single book that was a also a hybrid player/DM book.

If something is working (either well or even adequately) you don't completely change how things are done. If it ain't broke, you don't fix it.
Therefore, it seems reasonable that the setting model wasn't working well for WotC.