D&D 5E Why the D&D Next playtest won't resemble the final product

[Ahnehnois]

Notwithstanding that the accepted wisdom is that adventures don't sell, all it takes is for one or two really crappy adventures early in the life of an edition that don't grok the system and you end up with 4E-like split in your customer base.

Really? What percentage of the D&D fanbase do you think ever saw that adventure?

Personally, I've only ever played in one published adventure (for a session or two) and read one. And to me it was pretty clear in both cases that the adventure was a waste of time and the rules system behind it was great.

I'm very skeptical when anyone says that the niche market for content like that really matters.

 

[keterys]

I know a lot of people who were turned off of 4E due to a lot of early bad adventures and play examples.

Things like complexity 5 skill challenges where your only options were Diplomacy and Bluff. Really dumb use of solos. Dozens of kobolds in a row. Whatever the heck KotS was.

I had one group of people who are diehard 4e folks toss the WotC adventure path in disgust, in effect. Another set who disliked 4e who had a ton of fun when I ran them through Curse of the Crimson Throne in 4e. Adventures do make a difference.

Every edition needs its Meepo.

 

[Hussar]

I know a lot of people who were turned off of 4E due to a lot of early bad adventures and play examples.

Things like complexity 5 skill challenges where your only options were Diplomacy and Bluff. Really dumb use of solos. Dozens of kobolds in a row. Whatever the heck KotS was.

I had one group of people who are diehard 4e folks toss the WotC adventure path in disgust, in effect. Another set who disliked 4e who had a ton of fun when I ran them through Curse of the Crimson Throne in 4e. Adventures do make a difference.

Every edition needs its Meepo.

I would totally agree with this. When people talk about early D&D, one thing that consistently comes up is the modules. There were some really, really bad modules in the early years, but, a lot of really good ones too. How many people's first experience with D&D was Keep on the Borderlands? It may not be the best module ever written, but, it's pretty darn good (and, yes, I know I've ragged on KotB at times, but, it really is a good module). Even people who started with 2e likely saw a fair number of 1e modules from older players. 3e had so bloody many modules that it was an embarrassment of riches. People still talk about Rappun Athuk and things like that. So the experiences have certainly shaded people's views of the editions.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Really? What percentage of the D&D fanbase do you think ever saw that adventure?

I started playing D&D just after 4e launched. On the D&D website, there was a prominently displayed banner that said something like "free quick-start rules and adventure." It was Keep on the Shadowfell and a few pregens. They clearly wanted beginners to start there, so I downloaded it.

And so it came to pass that my first experience with this game (which was supposed to be about telling a shared story and exploring a fantasy world) consisted of "You're on your way somewhere and kobolds attack. Now spend three hours playing out the combat."

I didn't have fun, my friends didn't have fun, and it basically killed our interest in D&D. Perhaps if the rules had been friendlier, and the adventure had been better, we'd be playing together to this day.

 

[delericho]

Honestly, Mike's team should have as one of their design or brand goals never to release anything like KotS or PoS (what an accurate acronym!) ever again on pain of death.

Could be tricky. WotC have only ever produced a handful of good adventures*, of which the two best-known are "Red Hand of Doom" and "The Sunless Citadel". Of course, the first of these was written by key Paizo staff, while the latter was written by Bruce Cordell, who sadly seems to have hit a serious slump in form since.

* Important caveat: that excludes their eDungeon output. I'm not familiar enough with the electonic magazine to make any comment there; it's entirely possible that they've put out nothing but gold for years.

Incidentally, the last 4e campaign I played, the game was going very well until the DM made the mistake of using the 4e Forgotten Realms adventure "Sceptre Tower of Spellgard". At which point we watched his creativity dry up and his enthusiasm die, and he dropped the game shortly after that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I know a lot of people who were turned off of 4E due to a lot of early bad adventures and play examples.

Well, yes. But I don't know how much of that is about the specific adventure(s).

When people talk about early D&D, one thing that consistently comes up is the modules.

The only consistent thing I've ever heard about people's experiences with adventures is that they maybe tried using one briefly once and stopped. Certainly that was my experience, and similarly none of the people I've met who didn't learn gaming in my group used them. And the original post I was quoting noted the comparatively low sales of adventures (keeping in mind that many people read them or use them as inspiration without really playing them). I don't think that most people playing any edition of D&D use published adventures, and I think that's a good thing.

So again, yes, I believe that the first 4e adventure was probably bad, and that many people had bad experiences with it. I also believe that if it had been the best adventure ever written, people would have had marginally better experiences at best. My belief has always been that using published adventures is anathema to playing a roleplaying game. At best, they can save a little time. At worst, they can ruin a game. Worst is more likely, IME. Which is why I've made the case that there shouldn't be a recommended adventure in or associated with the core books, and that producing and promoting adventures is not a worthwhile goal for WotC.

I didn't have fun, my friends didn't have fun, and it basically killed our interest in D&D. Perhaps if the rules had been friendlier, and the adventure had been better, we'd be playing together to this day.

And that's the thing that concerns me about adventures. I started playing at middle school age with some DM's who were by no means great, but made their own material. Once we tried a module. The experience was really a joke. It seemed absurdly artificial, and not much fun at all except to make fun of.

Now, because we had all already played D&D, we were able to place the blame on the module (which was a Dragonlance adventure that I suspect would be considered reasonably good) rather than on the DM or the game itself. But if it had been a first experience, I'm right with you that it might have been toxic to our group and pushed us out of the hobby. Again, that's why I don't believe in adventures period.

As I've always said, I'll take the raw improv of someone with minimal talent over an adventure written by someone who isn't in the room any day. And I truly mean that, having been on both sides of the screen for it. Raw improv is good, and most people, even beginners, have enough sense to let a DM stand on his own two legs even if he isn't the best.

 

[Alphastream]

This worries me for the same reason as others have alluded to.

Keep on the Shadowfell.

That is a valid concern. But, this is another case where the playtest process really helps. By all accounts, 4E barely had any playtesting outside of Wizards, and even within it seems to have been limited, rushed, and undergoing changes very rapidly at the end of the process. With Next, we can follow various Twitter feeds and see that they are playing Next every single week, often several times, plus in home campaigns. We can look at the playtest packets and see that they are not only converting classic adventures (itself a very good learning process), but writing their own.

Unless Next undergoes radical changes at the last minute, I think we can expect that key Wizards staff will have a very good handle on adventure writing. And, while we don't know anything about organized play, there are some organized play stalwarts that are getting exposure to writing for D&D Next (Shawn Merwin, for example), that I think we will see a head start there and a far improved process for Next. On top of all of this, the style of writing will resemble previous editions, but try to bring in advances in narrative and set-piece design. Authors familiar with various editions should feel somewhat comfortable even with their first attempts. The same was not at all true of 4E, which was so fundamentally different than any RPG we had seen before.

 

[Alphastream]

I know a lot of people who were turned off of 4E due to a lot of early bad adventures and play examples.

I think it is important to note that, historically, this didn't start with 4E. We can thank 3E for the beginning of a design movement toward very encounter-based adventures with a poor narrative. If you take a look at some of the 3E adventures such as the Fantastic Locations series, we can see the exact same take on adventure writing as in the initial 4E adventures (I can argue the 4E ones have a better narrative). Heck, we can see this in various adventures throughout D&D's history (the Thunder Rift series, for example), but it really does seem to have been a dramatic change in 3E rather than something 4E cooked up.

Edit:Going a bit deeper on the topic...

I started playing D&D just after 4e launched. On the D&D website, there was a prominently displayed banner that said something like "free quick-start rules and adventure." It was Keep on the Shadowfell and a few pregens.

As a further example, there was a quick-start 3E adventure "Into the Darkness" that was even worse. It was three boring rooms (undead somehow used as guardians, then kobolds, then a half-orc and his pet shocker lizard). No story beyond a thin premise.

I'm completely agreeing that we need better introductory adventures for D&D Next. And we already have them. Blindengstone is miles ahead of what late 3E and early 4E offered. I think most people will really like what they experience at the upcoming Game Day and Gen Con. And I do really see a renewed interest in good adventure writing at Wizards.

DDI was mentioned. The adventures there have often been spectacular - industry leading. If I think on the adventures I most admire, many of them come from DDI over the past two years. Wizards has a far closer relationship between freelancers than in the Paizo or pre-Paizo years, and I think that will continue to create good results in the future.

It is also worth noting that Wizards has increased its relationship with those involved in organized play. Current freelancers (and WotC staff!) now include a lot of people with organized play experience. There seems to be a better recognition that organized play can help writers hone skills. We have seen DDI issues where more than half of the contributors have written for Living Forgotten Realms, for example. Organized play authors have been authors on several 4E published books, as well as written for programs like Lair Assault and Encounters. Many of the prolific freelancers (Townshend, Merwin) have deep experience with organized play. That creates a lot of strength around adventure writing, just as Paizo's programs now create a nice feedback loop between PFS, Superstar, and sourcebook/adventure path authors. And, we should mention that Paizo and WotC staff often switch teams or work for both. That strengthens our hobby as well. We see Townshend working for 13th Age, Paizo, and Wizards, which increases what each company learns from the writing process.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, yes. But I don't know how much of that is about the specific adventure(s).
The only consistent thing I've ever heard about people's experiences with adventures is that they maybe tried using one briefly once and stopped. Certainly that was my experience, and similarly none of the people I've met who didn't learn gaming in my group used them. And the original post I was quoting noted the comparatively low sales of adventures (keeping in mind that many people read them or use them as inspiration without really playing them). I don't think that most people playing any edition of D&D use published adventures, and I think that's a good thing.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but this is how usually approach adventures. I use the adventures to sorta "get the hang" of an edition (or even a setting) and then write my own. KotB did a nice job getting me started back in the day. As did some of the other adventures along the way. I think 4e had a "killer combo" of bad introductory adventure and bad/inadequate advice in the first books. My forays into 4e fell rather flat as a result.

How much did that contribute to 4e's widespread poor reception? I find that hard to say. I certainly don't think it helped any, but I can't say I think it was any sort of proximate cause. I've met too many people who object to 4e on different grounds. I certainly don't think its any basis for the vitriol and spite of the edition wars.

Hopefully, 5e will give us adventures that help highlight the system's strengths.

 

[GX.Sigma]

As I've always said, I'll take the raw improv of someone with minimal talent over an adventure written by someone who isn't in the room any day. And I truly mean that, having been on both sides of the screen for it. Raw improv is good, and most people, even beginners, have enough sense to let a DM stand on his own two legs even if he isn't the best.

I started DMing with 5e and Keep on the Borderlands. It was perfect for this: it required improv. It just said "Here's a town, here's a place with a bunch of monsters. Do whatever you want with it." In other words, it took care of the mechanical/system elements, and let us take care of everything else.