D&D 5E A Board Game style Release Schedule

[Zardnaar]

I've heard some rumblings from people who have had early looks (connected to the Aventurer's League or stores). They've mostly been (infuriatingly) quiet for NDA reasons but they sound super excited.
This adventure is written by Rich Baker who has a lot of adventure writing cred, and wrote Phandelver. And they're not working around a changing edition.
I was "meh" about Elemental Evil, but they psyched me up.

Well Lost Mines was quite good. I am really paying attention to authors now running a 5E adventure by Skip Williams on Thursday.

What annoyed my about HoTDQ was that it should not have seen print in the condition it was in IMHO. Its only the size of a single Paizo monthly AP and it sucked. Thing is I am a fan of Wolfgang Baur as he used to submit to Dungeon magazine back in the AD&D days and he wrote part 1 of The Age of Worms AP.

We are not that far short of a year in and there is no Rise of the Runelords type adventure for 5E. Paizo got there 1st AP right post Dungeon, beats me why WoTC could not do it when LMoP was decent. Individually most of the Paizo APs are good, read enough of them they become a bit formulaic.

 

[Kramodlog]

I was "meh" about Elemental Evil, but they psyched me up.

Why? Because some people who usually get psyched about a D&D products were chosen to test this one and, surprise, they were psyched about PoA?

That reminds me, was the guy hired by WotC to do coms for D&D psyched about WotC products prior to his hire?

 

[Sailor Moon]

I don't get psyched over AP'S. I get psyched over some real content.

 

[Reynard]

They're not accessories. They're a very different product.

PDFs don't count. Setting books don't count. What, precisely, counts as support? Rule expansions? If that is true, 1E had next to no support at all until 1985. Adventures? In that case, 5E has next to no support now.

If WotC just released flavour-heavy campaign settings, I don't think that would alleviate people's calls for content. They're not *really* supporting the game.

I think you are wrong and you can see many discussion around the Forgotten Realms for evidence. People are clamoring for setting material and consider it to be support. I can't quite grok why you have such a narrow definition of "support."

All Paizo has is Pathfinder and they're willing to accept far less profits than WotC. And have yet to prove that their model is sustainable in the long term.
They're not necessarily the best business to emulate.

It's very likely Pathfinder will peak, drop, and then have to suffer heavy layoffs. Fours years as #1 isn't a great long term plan.
It's almost like Paizo saw D&D was struggling and decided to make as much money as possible while they were the only game in town, and hope to win enough fans to continue after the release of 5e. We'll see how that goes for them.

What a strange thing to assert. Paizo has been a successful company for over a decade now and the Pathfinder RPG has been going strong and growing for almost 6 years (not counting the Beta period). There is some concern on their boards about rules bloat, but otherwise it is a well loved game with lots of support, in adventures, setting material and rules. If D&D was going to emulate any RPG out there from a publishing standpoint, I can't think of a better one.

 

[delericho]

Thing is I am a fan of Wolfgang Baur as he used to submit to Dungeon magazine back in the AD&D days and he wrote part 1 of The Age of Worms AP.

The first part of "Age of Worms" is "The Whispering Cairn", which was written by Eric Mona. WB did, however, write the sixth installment, "A Gathering of Winds".

WB also wrote "Expedition to the Demonweb Pits" for 3e, which was also a problematic adventure - there's some good stuff in there, but the DM needs to be willing to do quite a lot of work to dig it out. I wonder if there's a common theme there?

We are not that far short of a year in and there is no Rise of the Runelords type adventure for 5E. Paizo got there 1st AP right post Dungeon, beats me why WoTC could not do it when LMoP was decent.

Because writing good adventures is hard, and writing good Adventure Paths is much harder? The thing is that by the time they did RotRL, Paizo already had three APs under their belt. They had learned an awful lot of the lessons needed, and had done a lot to master their art. Kobold Press, for all their other successes, don't have that same track record (and although WotC do have one modern AP under their belt, "Scales of War" isn't exactly the best regarded).

 

[Mistwell]

DMG came out three months ago to the day, as of today (Dec 9, 2014). We are 3 months from the street release of the core books.

The idea that people are predicting doom, for a game selling this well, because they don't have more (or more announced) three months in from the core book release, is ridiculous. I get it, we live in an impatient era. But even an impatient era has it's extremes, and this is one of them.

But OK, go on gnashing and wailing. I guess it demonstrates deep interest in the game, which is good for the game. I mean, people who don't care, don't demand more this early.

 

[Jester David]

Why? Because some people who usually get psyched about a D&D products were chosen to test this one and, surprise, they were psyched about PoA?

They weren't as psyched for Tyranny.

What's the alternative? Dismissing the idea a good product could be released and being pessimistic about the release schedule? Meh, pass. I have no problems ripping WotC a new one if they deserve it, but I'm not going to expect a product to fail without reason.

PDFs don't count. Setting books don't count. What, precisely, counts as support? Rule expansions? If that is true, 1E had next to no support at all until 1985. Adventures? In that case, 5E has next to no support now.

PDFs apparently don't count as support from WotC. And PDF setting content doesn't either. So if WotC can't count the stuff they're putting up online, why should other companies?
This is part of my point: 1e had very little "support" as we would now recognise it. Two extra monster books, two PC splatbooks, and four DM sourcebooks. 3e and 4e had that after a year. And while 1e started releasing waves of adventures, that took time to build up.

I think you are wrong and you can see many discussion around the Forgotten Realms for evidence. People are clamoring for setting material and consider it to be support. I can't quite grok why you have such a narrow definition of "support."

Well, WotC just released Ed Greenwood Presents the Forgotten Realms during the playtest process. Did that count as support?
And a search of "Forgotten Realms" on DnDClassics.com turns up a result of 108 items. Three times most other settings (although only 2x Ravenloft and Greyhawk).

What a strange thing to assert. Paizo has been a successful company for over a decade now and the Pathfinder RPG has been going strong and growing for almost 6 years (not counting the Beta period). There is some concern on their boards about rules bloat, but otherwise it is a well loved game with lots of support, in adventures, setting material and rules. If D&D was going to emulate any RPG out there from a publishing standpoint, I can't think of a better one.

Paizo struggled for a LOT of that decade. They had repeated financial troubles and were operating hand-to-mouth for half of that period. They didn't expect Pathfinder to be the success it was and were unprepared, so they almost lucked into their fortune. Not the best company to emulate.
Now, I really like Paizo. I like the team there a LOT and I have nothing but respect and good things to say about them. But one of the positive things I used to say was that they were being restrained in terms of content and releases, with three hardcovers a year, few extra classes and the like. They've really started to move against the game and business model that helped them establish themselves.

Well Lost Mines was quite good. I am really paying attention to authors now running a 5E adventure by Skip Williams on Thursday.

What annoyed my about HoTDQ was that it should not have seen print in the condition it was in IMHO. Its only the size of a single Paizo monthly AP and it sucked. Thing is I am a fan of Wolfgang Baur as he used to submit to Dungeon magazine back in the AD&D days and he wrote part 1 of The Age of Worms AP.

We are not that far short of a year in and there is no Rise of the Runelords type adventure for 5E. Paizo got there 1st AP right post Dungeon, beats me why WoTC could not do it when LMoP was decent. Individually most of the Paizo APs are good, read enough of them they become a bit formulaic.

A Pathfinder AP is about 90-odd pages, but only 60 of that is adventure. Yes, the Pathfinder APs are 360 pages of adventure compared to Tyranny's 196, but that has to do with speed of play. Pathfinder PCs level slower than 3e PCs. WotC spent the last two editions speeding up levelling. Pathfinder APs have a LOT of filler encounters.
But that said, I did find Tyranny on the short side as well. Especially for the price. I'm thankful Princes of the Apocalypse is a single volume and thus far cheaper.

That said, Paizo's first couple APs (Shackled City and Age of Worms) were a learning experience and had problems. They started Shackled City back in 2003, so they had 3.5 years of AP experience (and 3 APs) before they tackled Rise of the Runelords. Why should WotC get it right the first time? (Yeah, they did Scales of War too early in 4e, but the staff in charge of that was likely very different.)
And Paizo wan't designing an edition at the same time. Heck, the first AP for the Pathfinder RPG was Council of Thieves, which wasn't well received. And they weren't working out the bugs of working with licence partners.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't get psyched over AP'S. I get psyched over some real content.

Why don't you consider adventure oaths to be real content? What do you consider to be real content?

 

[Reynard]

And a search of "Forgotten Realms" on DnDClassics.com turns up a result of 108 items. Three times most other settings (although only 2x Ravenloft and Greyhawk).

Previous edition material can't really be counted as support forth new edition, can it, I mean unless it is an explicitly compatible version like 2E or Pathfinder?

 

[Jester David]

Previous edition material can't really be counted as support forth new edition, can it, I mean unless it is an explicitly compatible version like 2E or Pathfinder?

That's the catch. The difference between a 3e, 4e, and 5e Eberron or Forgotten Realms campaign setting is likely 5-20 pages of crunch in a 300-page book. It's an insignificant percentage. With the Eberron article for Unearthed Arcana, you could purchase a 3e or 4e Eberron campaign guide and run a complete campaign without problems.

By their very nature, campaign guides are support for the world and not the game system. Any game support comes at a direct cost to setting material. WotC could release a brand new setting book every 3 months and 5e would see less support.