D&D 5E What do you want in the first D&D Next adventure path?

[delericho]

From WotC? I want something simple and iconic. Structure it like the A1-4 Slavers series, T1-4 or GDQ1-7, but don't just do a carbon copy of any of these.

From third-party publishers? Give us something new. New monsters, new challenges, entirely new types of adventures, or something.

 

[Morrus]

FromFrom third-party publishers? Give us something new. New monsters, new challenges, entirely new types of adventures, or something.

If we're allowed to, we'll do our best.

 

[drothgery]

The only thing I'd say about any first adventure path is that WotC not start it with a 'preview adventure' published before the initial 5e rulebooks (and so, almost certainly, with incomplete / non-final rules).

 

[Lanefan]

The first half-dozen or so "official" 5e adventures should not be a path of any kind; instead they should be freestanding adventure modules with minimal if any baked-in backstory, such that DMs can drop them in to whatever setting they're using and have 'em work.

It's too much work, I find, to take an adventure that is part of a path and run it as a standalone in a different setting or story, no matter how good it is; because of all the effort required to strip out the path elements.

In other words, I'd rather be able to easily use the adventure to help tell my story, rather than the story of whatever path it is part of.

Lanefan

 

[Mengu]

The first published 5e adventure should be a pristine example of "how to write a 5e adventure". It should showcase the various tools of the edition, provide an introduction for recommended secondary rules for the adventure (or adventure arc), provide grey box text for various play styles, encompass the three pillars, and be an excellent example for DM's who wish to write their own adventures and campaigns, as well as aspiring authors and publishers who wish to provide material for this iteration of D&D.

I would actually prefer two simultaneously published adventures, both embodying the above elements. One would be an example of a traditional sandbox embracing a low power setting for the old schoolers, and the other would be an example of a more plot driven adventure embracing a more heroic setting for... well... me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

A sandbox. Preferably one that has dragons, and perhaps dungeons. Set in Greyhawk.

Oh, plus goblin ninjas, pirate flumpfs, and dinosaurs.

 

[howandwhy99]

I suggest Wizards does not build a single series of linked adventure modules to showcase their additional rules. Doing so would contradict the whole idea of modules in the first place: their optional status. Individual adventure modules however, should do just that. Adventure content that showcases the latest and greatest is definitely needed the day the optional rules mods come out.

My desire is that Wizards goes shopping for big name talent capable of delivering. That costs money, but they have it. I also believe they should utilize another huge asset for them: copyright. They own A LOT of copyrights and piecemeal adventures could sell well to particular groups that already have a following. Designing adventures and then demonstrating how those adventures could conform to previous copyrights for the adventure would also help. There are also copyrights that in the past have halted their original creators from publishing for their own creative work.

Cases in point:

• Castle Greyhawk and Gygax's last great project. (they should definitely go after this for 5th)
• Maure Castle (Kuntz never did finish his extremely popular work here)
• Later Gygax work like his Necropolis adventure for Dangerous Journeys

On top of those they could republish iconic adventures from the early years with the new rules in place.
And, oh yeah, they also own Avalon Hill, a brand ripe with solid games, game rules, and perhaps even supportable products.

So rather than an adventure path, I hope they: look at what is already selling and who the designers are, then pinpoint particular works for sale rather than going for a subscriber-based adventure model. If connectivity is desired, include a section on how each adventure can fit in any campaign setting using the published settings as examples.

side point ----> Ironically the Planescape setting was antithetical to D&D for the first decade or so. However, planar travel within the prime material worlds, dimensions, and inner planes was pretty commonplace. (You just didn't get to play in heaven or hell for numerous reasons) By the mid-80s dimension hopping was tying every game one could think of together to sell Uber-Game Systems.

 

[KidSnide]

In my mind, if the game is going to be modular, then the adventures should be too. Or rather, the adventures should provide excuses to add in modules, to try out different rules for a short period of time to see if you like them. Allow groups to dabble in different styles and philosophies of gameplay.

I totally disagree. Yes, you could use a modular game to go nuts and have a different play style in every adventure. But that's not its primary purpose. The primary purpose is to allow each group to fit the game to their play style -- not to play 14 different play styles in 12 sessions.

An adventure path like you describe would be an interesting thought exercise, but I think you'd get a path that nobody could adapt to their playstyle because the whole point of the AP would be to try a dozen different styles. I suppose that would be fun for some folks (maybe people who's natural alignment is chaotic), but that's an esoteric niche product, not a good choice for the "first AP."

The first AP should be an escalating series of conflicts culminating in a conflict with a powerful and famous outer-planer being. That's clearly the biggest single spot on the market. I don't think we need six different versions of this AP, but it's probably what should come out first.

-KS

 

[delericho]

I totally disagree. Yes, you could use a modular game to go nuts and have a different play style in every adventure. But that's not its primary purpose. The primary purpose is to allow each group to fit the game to their play style -- not to play 14 different play styles in 12 sessions.

I agree. By all means, have individual adventures that use particular modules (and these can switch on an adventure-by-adventure basis), and by all means have Adventure Paths that expect a particular set of modules. But don't have an Adventure Path where the selection of modules changes in mid-stream - that more or less guarantees a lack of consistency, and certainly guarantees that I won't be buying.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I like the idea of a dragon quest but not in the traditional sense - I want the dragon to be the mover and shaker of the bad guy world. WOrking from the shadows through agents, cults whatever he is the one pulling the strings and the ultimate confrontation should be only after a long and intense series of adventures stressing investigation and exploration. Combat can, of course, be a big part of this - or it can be very small. Flexibility of design is key, imo. Give the DM ideas on multiple paths to victory so they can tailor the adventure to their group. The adventure path should, ideally (IMO), be a framework upon which DMs can hang the elements their players love best.


What a really, really, REALLY, do NOT want to see is yet another re-tread of a 'classic' adventure updated to the new rules. I really think it does a disservice to a new edition to rewrite old adventures like this. Every edition needs its own stand out modules.