D&D 5E What Wizards can do to make D&D Next successful.

[Lord of Wyrmsholt]

I've been playing D&D since 1st edition, and I haven't looked forward to a new edition as much as D&D Next since 2nd edition was coming out. Having The Caves of Chaos as the first adventure didn't hurt, nor did the introduction of the very elegant advantage/disadvantage mechanism. I, for one, appreciate WotC's public beta (which is far better than TSR's survey for 2nd edition in Dragon--thank you internet), and I'd rather have useful things to playtest than having the playtests hit a particular schedule.

Many of the debates on EN World have focused specifically on individual mechanics. Rightly so, making them work well is important. But when I think back to D&D I don't think of the rule books (although I still have a warm spot in my heart for the 1st edition DMG). Rather, I think about the individual adventures, such as when we sacrificed our party with a point-blank fireball in a desperate attempt to kill Strahd in the original Ravenloft or when we suckered a dragon to fly through my cleric's blade barrier.

Paizo (whom I wish was still in charge of print versions of Dragon and Dungeon) really leveraged their adventure-writing expertise to make Pathfinder a success. To draw a computer analogy, adventures are the "killer apps" for an RPG system. I personally want to run Pathfinder, not because of its rule set, but because of the adventure paths. In contrast, I feel (potentially incorrectly) as though WotC has really made adventures secondary to their focus on rules books in the recent editions. A focus on adventures gives the impression of 'more support' for the system and prevents the ever increasing rules complexity that additional rule books create (something that I'm more sensitive to as I will be introducing a new generation to RPGs soon--and I'd love it to be D&D Next). I think forces other than nostalgia are influencing the demand for pdf's of older adventures.

There's a great appetite for linked adventures like the classic A1-4, G1-3, and D1-3. The advantages of linked adventures is that they don't permanently fragment the customer base like all the Dark Sun/Planescape/Birthright/Dragonlance etc. split did in 2nd edition. And I hope that WotC won't be afraid of 'unusual' one-shots. Remember how much fun S3 was? Or Dead Gods?

So please, WotC, put a focus on adventures in D&D Next, even though they make less money than the rule books themselves. Tell the bean counters that these are an investment to make happy customers and generate more sales of the rule books so we can run the new killer apps that you've written. I really think the long-term success of D&D Next will depend on it.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am unsure if I will get 5e, but if they focus on some really good adventures I will. I really enjoyed Red Hand of Doom and if there had been more modules of the same quality, I would have gotten them.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am down with that, but honestly I don't buy adventure books. As a trade-off to producing less splat, I would like to see much larger, if more infrequent, core books. Material that I can really sit on for a long period of time while running a game, without worrying about a new splatbook being released every month or so making my players want to pick up new tricks and new feats that may or may not be fairly balanced within the game as a whole or within my own game's scope.

This is one thing I enjoy about Pathfinder as well, even though I don't buy their adventure books(because I prefer to create my own), the splat they do produce is fairly well condensed. A good example is the NPC Codex. This is information that could reasonably be spread over innumerable splat-books or adventure modules, but for all the folks who don't want to spend $300 to "catch 'em all", we get this lovely little collection.

So sure, prioritize adventures over splat, but for those of us who aren't interested in pre-made adventures, give us some big juicy rulebooks that we can work our own magic with.

 

[Hussar]

One would hope that, given the online Dungeon magazine, focusing on decent adventures would be a priority.

Anything would be better than the early offerings for 4e. Yuck. To be fair though, Dungeon adventures did get better as time went on. The Chaos Scar series was fun and some of the remakes like the Giants modules were very well done. Would be nice if they could be a bit original though. :/

 

[Jester David]

WotC has said they want to focus on adventures and the like for this edition. But, we'll see how well that plan works when the game is release, after they have a couple rounds of layoffs and staff shuffling.
Prior to 3e, WotC had planned to release something similar to what we now call adventure paths, and we saw semi-linked modules (Sunless Citadel and the like) as a result but nothing like the Dungeon adventure paths. So we'll see what actually happens. There continues to be the assumption player books sell better than DM books and adventures.

 

[hbarsquared]

I totally agree. I think it would also be worth it for WotC to take it a step or three further.

Adventure modules and adventure paths would be very welcome, of course.

But what about more sandbox-style adventures, or even more sandboxes themselves? The Gloomwrought book, and Gardmoure Abbey were steps in the right direction, I think. Even the Neverwinter book, not really a full "campaign setting," but a terrific and inspirational sandbox.

More books that detail a city, or an event, complete with locations, NPCs (various allies and villains, alike), and sample encounters would be amazing.

So, not only books like these, but Next is ripe for introducing rules-bits into these products. Maybe not a splatbook, bit a "mystery adventure" series that introduces mystery-solving add-on rules modules, sample puzzle encounters, etc. Instead of rulebooks, embed new rules into the published adventure and sandbox books!

My hopes for 5e publishing, anyway.

 

[Starfox]

No embedded rules, please!

This is one thing Pazio has done well . their rules are concentrated in a few books. The adventure path books contain fluff (like religions) and some very light rules (additional summonables), but few rules. With the exception of the Cheliax book, the world books contain mostly traits, which are highly optional. Custom magic items are also ok. General rules, classes, and spells are not.

Embedding rules means you have to own many products in order to just play the game, since some player might want to use an odd or unusual rule from some obscure source.

In 4E, this was aggravated by the "everything is core" model.

 

[Morik]

I would like new material like the outstanding box-sets back in the ol' days of D&D gaming... really folks, we need new maps on the "New realms" for example... after the spellplaque had hit Faerun... very much has changed, right?

Even the landscape needs some support for detailing what's going on in the realms.

I am really fed up with these cheap supplements of WOTc regarding the realms... (and DnD in general) the box sets were much, much better, far better.

Really.. who, in the nine hells, needs three Player Handbooks? Or the same amount of Dungeon Master Handbooks?

That's really cheap publishing IMO.

They really have to go back to stand succesfull in the future!

 

[ren1999]

I think it would be cool if WOTC focused on updating the classic adventures of 1e and open license other adventure designers to make new games.

 

[DaveMage]

I think to be successful they will have to do the following:

#1. Release the rules for free (ala Pathfinder). That way there's no cost barrier to entry for anyone that wants to play.

#2. As the OP suggests, support the game with rich adventures. That hasn't been WotC's forte for a while, so the jury is out whether they can pull it off.

#3. Stop laying off D&D staff. If the team isn't consistent, neither will the quality be consistent.

I don't think they are capable of doing all of the above. We'll see.