D&D 5E Next generation adventure design

[Jan van Leyden]

The reason for not publishing printed sequels (or APs) is that you're then really only selling to a subset of the people who bought the previous volume in the series, which means an ever-diminishing number of sales. Given that adventures don't seem to sell too well in the first place*, you don't really want to be getting into that.

But this doesn't have to be the case. Given that many GMs like to tinker with the stuff anyway and given the infrastructure established for 4e (Adventure Tools) it should suffice to define the interfaces of the parts.

Give me information on necessary location (need a swamp nearby?), knowledge (PCs need to seek Aaron the All-knowing, who may be allied with Ernie the Evil), hardware (map to the Tower of Tim the Tomcat) to get the adventure started.

Give me a clear list of goals for the adventure, of items to be won and friends and enemies to be made.

Give me this information openly before I decide to buy the thing. With this help I can evlaluate how well a module fits in my campaign and what changes I'd have to make.

One could orchestrate the preparation of the adventure without investing lots of work, and the players won't notice that they are about to play Adventure 13 from the Saga od the Squealing Swine AP.

I'm in a similar situation right now, changing Madness at Gardmore Abbey for my group playing in Ptolus. I bought MaGA because of the praise it has received, but without knowing what I had to do to fit it into my campaign and whether it would be possible at all.

I'd rather see a lot of adventures on the shelves which I can assess for my purposes than just one I'd buy at my own riks.

 

[delericho]

But this doesn't have to be the case.

It appears that it simply is the case. I believe it was one of the outcomes of the market research Ryan Dancey did all those years ago - the further you go into a series, the worse the sales become.

Given that many GMs like to tinker with the stuff anyway and given the infrastructure established for 4e (Adventure Tools) it should suffice to define the interfaces of the parts.

WotC tried this with the first 3e Adventure Path (that is, "Sunless Citadel" to "Bastion of Broken Souls") - these were mostly standalone adventures with loose links between, thus trying to get the best of both worlds. It appears that the sales figures weren't good enough for them to ever do it again.

I'd rather see a lot of adventures on the shelves which I can assess for my purposes than just one I'd buy at my own riks.

I don't have any objection to there being lots of adventures on the shelves, although WotC should do so (or not) purely based on whether they'll sell.

However, if they do produce lots of adventures in print, they would almost certainly be better off doing lots of standalone adventures and letting DMs chain them together if they want, rather than producing Adventure Paths and letting the DM strip out the links if they wish - it strongly appears that the sales will be better this way.

That's not to say Adventure Paths can't make money, of course - Paizo very clearly demonstrate that. But it does appear that the way to sell those is via subscription. That way, Paizo know, even before they print it, that Volume 6 of "Wrath of the Rightous" will sell enough copies to justify the print run. Since WotC's subscription method is via DDI and eDungeon, that's probably what they should use.

 

[Jester David]

The reason for not publishing printed sequels (or APs) is that you're then really only selling to a subset of the people who bought the previous volume in the series, which means an ever-diminishing number of sales. Given that adventures don't seem to sell too well in the first place*, you don't really want to be getting into that.

* The exception, of course, being subscription-based products, such as the printed Dungeon, Paizo's Adventure Paths, or the DDI...

Where did the "common wisdom" that adventures begin? I'm curious about that.

It could very well be true.
But I wonder if there was another factor at play. Like "adventures don't well well... when released between bi-monthly hardcover accessories" or "adventures don't sell well... because they're all unremarkable dungeon crawls" or "adventures don't sell well... because they're secondary to the company."

I wonder if dentures were the focus of the line they might perform better

 

[delericho]

Where did the "common wisdom" that adventures begin? I'm curious about that.

It could very well be true.
But I wonder if there was another factor at play. Like "adventures don't well well... when released between bi-monthly hardcover accessories"

I suspect this is more or less it - "adventures don't sell well... compared to player-focussed splatbooks (possibly with a side-order of power-creep)".

And, honestly, it's not hard to see why: adventures are aimed at DMs while splatbooks are aimed at players (who outnumber them something like 4:1). And although not every player will be interested in a splatbook, neither will every DM be interested in an adventure - a great many DMs never use any published adventures, while those who do may well not buy this adventure.

Now, it should be noted that both Paizo and Goodman have shown that there is money to be made with adventures. Paizo, in particular, have built a very successful business around selling them. But it's not at all clear whether any adventure would do well enough for WotC to consider it worthwhile printing it. (Actually, I wouldn't be shocked to find that that's now true of any print product, since the DDI ripped the heart out of splatbook sales, but that's another question.)

 

[NewJeffCT]

In the world were I'm in charge WotC has two concurrent and very different APs, one published and one in Dungeon. The physical one likely has more setpiece fights as it can have poster maps.
Plus occasional one-shot adventures and mini-campaigns. And maybe a mega adventure every couple years.

I'd like to see a really to see a good megadventure within the first six months of launch. Something cool and new and not a remake or Return to _____. An attempt for a modern classic.

I agree - I would love them to have a regular adventure path or two coming out annually, including something by the end of this year. I'd XP you for this, but I must spread it around first. And, I also agree that it shouldn't be Tomb of Horrors, 5e version, or the Keep on the New Borderlands...

I think solid playable adventure paths are the way to go - monthly adventures like Paizo, only published in Dungeon, and maybe one or two mega-sets released each year. In the interim, you can also reboot the classics like Temple of Elemental Evil, but not have them as the focus of 5e.

I should also add that one of the reasons I didn't like 4e was the lack of adventures and that some of the early 4e adventures were not well received, which turned me off the most published 4e adventures. So, when I ran 4e games, I just converted some Paizo adventure paths and used those. Were there many choices for 4e once you got past level 10 or so?

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I think the design team would be well served by a long look at Savage Worlds plot point campaigns in general, and 50 Fathoms in specific. It's a fantastic model for sandbox campaigns with an epic scope.

Agreed. This is basically how I write up my campaigns now.

I must say i like the way WoTC designed their latest adventures Murder in Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard. They're more open in their concept, and have a lot going for them giving players lots of agency.

I thought Murder blew chunks (IMO, YMMV) but I simply loved Legacy (IMO, YMMV). I also really liked Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle. I was worried after Murder thinking that WotC was going to start the new edition with Mearlsian duds like they did with 4E but Legacy and Ghosts made me hopeful that WotC still have a chance of producing decent adventures.

It appears that it simply is the case. I believe it was one of the outcomes of the market research Ryan Dancey did all those years ago - the further you go into a series, the worse the sales become. (snip)

Funnily enough, I find I lose interest in adventure paths after around 8th-10th level. I think a large part for me is that 1. I like to stop around that level, 2. my players like to stop around that level, and 3. after that level I find I prefer adventures more tailored to my group. Also, a lot of adventure paths feel like they have about 8 or so levels where the story makes sense - and those 8 or so levels are not necessarily contiguous - and the rest is just filler to make up the levels and the page count. (I find Rise of the Runelords is a major example of this. Some great ideas bogged into place with some really crappy filler.)

If WotC is planning on an adventure path for Next I think they should stop around 10th-level, make sure it has a really good conclusion and then lay out some suggestions as to how the campaign could be continued.

And honestly I wish Paizo would do the same. (I realise I am in a very small minority with that statement.)

 

[NewJeffCT]

Agreed. This is basically how I write up my campaigns now.



I thought Murder blew chunks (IMO, YMMV) but I simply loved Legacy (IMO, YMMV). I also really liked Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle. I was worried after Murder thinking that WotC was going to start the new edition with Mearlsian duds like they did with 4E but Legacy and Ghosts made me hopeful that WotC still have a chance of producing decent adventures.



Funnily enough, I find I lose interest in adventure paths after around 8th-10th level. I think a large part for me is that 1. I like to stop around that level, 2. my players like to stop around that level, and 3. after that level I find I prefer adventures more tailored to my group. Also, a lot of adventure paths feel like they have about 8 or so levels where the story makes sense - and those 8 or so levels are not necessarily contiguous - and the rest is just filler to make up the levels and the page count. (I find Rise of the Runelords is a major example of this. Some great ideas bogged into place with some really crappy filler.)

If WotC is planning on an adventure path for Next I think they should stop around 10th-level, make sure it has a really good conclusion and then lay out some suggestions as to how the campaign could be continued.

And honestly I wish Paizo would do the same. (I realise I am in a very small minority with that statement.)

Just curious. I haven't been following next too too closely, but are the core books going to be level 1-10, 1-20 like 3e/3.5e or 1-30 like 4e, or something else all together?

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Just curious. I haven't been following next too too closely, but are the core books going to be level 1-10, 1-20 like 3e/3.5e or 1-30 like 4e, or something else all together?

No idea.

My bet is on 1-20 but I'm not interested in Next so I also haven't been following the updates. I am interested in buying the adventures and also some of the FR products.

 

[delericho]

Also, a lot of adventure paths feel like they have about 8 or so levels where the story makes sense - and those 8 or so levels are not necessarily contiguous - and the rest is just filler to make up the levels and the page count.

There's certainly a lot of grinding for XP in many of the Adventure Paths. In fact, in many of them they outright tell you to insert encounters if the PCs don't have enough XP to make the recommended level. And I agree that's a weakness.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Just curious. I haven't been following next too too closely, but are the core books going to be level 1-10, 1-20 like 3e/3.5e or 1-30 like 4e, or something else all together?

As of January 2013, they were planning on the basic set being levels 1-10. The standard rules are 1-20.