D&D 5E Will we see more 5e campaigns from WOTC like Curse Of Strahd? (eg focus on investigation vs combat)

[haqattaqq]

I've played most of the 5e campaigns from WOTC (Lost Mine, Princes of the Apocalypse, Into the Abyss, Curse of Strahd) and I *really*, like the Curse of Strahd because of its focus on investigation/atmosphere over raw combat. Add in how well all of the story threads tie together, random encounters that aren't just combat and actually advance the story and it's an ideal campaign for my group. We're not big on large dungeon crawls and non-stop combat (nothing wrong with that, just not for us).

So I'm loving it but I'm sure it's not for everyone. What do you think we'll see for future releases? Will they be more like this, or more like PotA which was much more of a giant dungeon crawl? Any predictions?

I don't know what the general response (or sales figures) have been for CoS vs the other campaigns - perhaps that will have a large bearing on the focus for future campaigns?

 

[Jediking]

My guess is that they will try out different campaigns, but also use the ones that sell well or get good feedback on as a baseline. So if PotA, OotA, and the Tyranny of Dragons line focused more on combat, it's a good time to try something new. I'm in a PotA game now and enjoying it, but haven't played the others enough to tell.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6794999]haqattaqq[/MENTION]

There is a thread about upcoming campaigns already: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-upcoming-5e-WOTC-products-(post-April-2016).

And you can find a summary of what Chris Perkins shared at Gamehole Con last winter over here.

In short, they want to try a variety of approaches. Specifically, the next adventure is probably going to be a reinterpretation of the G-series (Against the Giants) for mid-levels with some kind of Shakespearean influence.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unfortunately, campaigns featuring morally gray enemies with sufficient strength to encourage diplomacy over murderhoboing is the exception to the rule for D&D.

Most campaigns feature giants, drow, demons, orcs... the kind of enemy noone in their right mind would negotiate with.

(It's especially pronounced with Drow. There have been more than one megacampaign which would benefit greatly if the players have the background necessary to actually deal with the Drow, as oppose to the usual choice between kill or be killed. These campaigns expend considerable effort to detail the power struggles between different factions; something that is utterly lost when the Elf and the Paladin stomps onto the scene)

There are very few (read virtually no) campaigns where the enemy is someone whose motivations for being "evil" is remotely understandable and not just moustasche-twirling end-of-the-world shenanigans. There are very few campaigns where the "good guys" are also morally compromised. There are very few D&D campaigns that doesn't use fantasy races to shield us from having to consider our actions the way a human-vs-human war would.

It's just not D&D's way. (Even in Ravenloft, murderhoboing your way to enough levels to wipe out Strahd like a mere computer BBEG is treated as a completely viable, if not the default, approach)

So my guess would have to be "no"

 

[delericho]

My guess is that they will try out different campaigns, but also use the ones that sell well or get good feedback on as a baseline.

This.

Also, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on them doing one 'vanilla' storyline and one that's a bit more 'experimental' each year, at least until they've got solid data to work with.

 

[delericho]

Unfortunately, campaigns featuring morally gray enemies with sufficient strength to encourage diplomacy over murderhoboing is the exception to the rule for D&D.

Most campaigns feature giants, drow, demons, orcs... the kind of enemy noone in their right mind would negotiate with.

Good point.

There are very few (read virtually no) campaigns where the enemy is someone whose motivations for being "evil" is remotely understandable and not just moustasche-twirling end-of-the-world shenanigans. There are very few campaigns where the "good guys" are also morally compromised.

Which is especially amusing with 5e's factions, where the Zhentarim are one of those groups of "good guys".

 

[Mercule]

This.

Also, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on them doing one 'vanilla' storyline and one that's a bit more 'experimental' each year, at least until they've got solid data to work with.

This would make me a happy DM. Ecstatic would come from them not setting things in the Realms -- maybe every-other "vanilla" adventure, but no more than that.

 

[jayoungr]

Also, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on them doing one 'vanilla' storyline and one that's a bit more 'experimental' each year, at least until they've got solid data to work with.

So is Ravenloft the "experimental" storyline for this year--i.e., do you expect the next one to be more "vanilla"?

 

[delericho]

So is Ravenloft the "experimental" storyline for this year--i.e., do you expect the next one to be more "vanilla"?

Sounds like the next one may well be another take on "Against the Giants", which would suggest so. Of course, I might be wrong.

(Perhaps worth noting that "one of each per year" isn't quite the same as "alternating" - you could have V,E,V,E or you could have V,E,E,V, or similar.)

 

[jayoungr]

(Perhaps worth noting that "one of each per year" isn't quite the same as "alternating" - you could have V,E,V,E or you could have V,E,E,V, or similar.)

Right, and in support of that, I think Out of the Abyss was last year's experimental storyline. So the adventures thus far have been V, V, E, E, making it likely that the next one will be V.