D&D 5E Thinking about 5E releases...

[Mistwell]

I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse right now and I'm playing through both Hoard and Rise. So yes....Ive read and interacted with these adventures first hand.
I don't think they are equivalent to a collection of shorter old-school modules becasue they weren't written or intended that way.
If they were, where are the end points and start points of the modules within the series? They aren't there.

I disagree, there are, others have pulled them apart and mentioned each one, and the fact they were designed for four hour Adventurers League play is part of the reason. They're similar to, for instance, the A1-A4 series - all connected modules but each intended to be run as a single session.

edit: Why is it important to you to say they are equivalent? Are you trying to make that point to somehow make poeple think that WOTC is providing more material than they are?

You asked me dude. I just answered your question. It's not "important". I am explaining WOTC is providing the amount of material they are providing, not trying to make it look like any more or less.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Yeah, the insurrection of character vs. Build, started to bug me.

 

[Parmandur]

Tyranny of Dragons actually makes much more sense if you look at it as a collection of old school unrelated modules thinly connected by a metaplot that can be removed.

 

[aramis erak]

But many of those were series that tied together for a bigger story! GDQ, A series, DL series.yes there were many standalones and at the same time comparing fifth to first at this point it lines up pretty well with the early days. GDQ was early in first's existence, as was A. Even Homlett was part of what was supposed to be a four part series. When we hit three years, then we compare. I'd not be surprised by shorter adventures appearing suddenly for a more regular release schedule with gazetteer treatments in them, focusing on smaller stories.

There are a bunch.
A1-A4 is a 4 module path
DL1-DL16 is a 16 module path... but each can be played as a standalone.
B11-B12 is a 2 module path.
C4-C5 is a 2 module path.
G1-G3+D1-D3+Q1 is a 7 module path.
DDA1-DDA2 and DDA3-DDA4 are a pair of 2 module paths
DLE1-DLE3 is a 3 module path.
I3-I5 is a 3 module path
I6 & I10 (ravenloft) 2 module sequence - no need to tie them together, but they can be.
R7-R10 is a 4 module path.
T1-4 is a 4 module single volume
UK2-UK3 is a 2 module path
S4+WG4 is a 2 module path
X4-X5 is a 2 module path, but X10 can be added to them, and is thematically and locationally tied to them.
There's a Beholder Trilogy, a Lost Tombs trilogy, a Sahuagin trilogy,

Sequels to S1, S2, Castle Amber, A1-4 were written much later. These were the "Return to" modules.


I'd say about 25% of the TSR modules are intended to be part of sequences.

Most can be played stand-alone.

 

[Corpsetaker]

There are a bunch.
A1-A4 is a 4 module path
DL1-DL16 is a 16 module path... but each can be played as a standalone.
B11-B12 is a 2 module path.
C4-C5 is a 2 module path.
G1-G3+D1-D3+Q1 is a 7 module path.
DDA1-DDA2 and DDA3-DDA4 are a pair of 2 module paths
DLE1-DLE3 is a 3 module path.
I3-I5 is a 3 module path
I6 & I10 (ravenloft) 2 module sequence - no need to tie them together, but they can be.
R7-R10 is a 4 module path.
T1-4 is a 4 module single volume
UK2-UK3 is a 2 module path
S4+WG4 is a 2 module path
X4-X5 is a 2 module path, but X10 can be added to them, and is thematically and locationally tied to them.
There's a Beholder Trilogy, a Lost Tombs trilogy, a Sahuagin trilogy,

Sequels to S1, S2, Castle Amber, A1-4 were written much later. These were the "Return to" modules.


I'd say about 25% of the TSR modules are intended to be part of sequences.

Most can be played stand-alone.

And the good thing about this setup is I can mix and match and not have to shell out tons of money. I don't want to pay 40 to 50 for an AP just to use a few bits when I don't want to use the whole thing. I would rather by a one shot module here and there to run.

 

[Mistwell]

And the good thing about this setup is I can mix and match and not have to shell out tons of money. I don't want to pay 40 to 50 for an AP just to use a few bits when I don't want to use the whole thing. I would rather by a one shot module here and there to run.

Understood. I get that preference for one-shot adventures, and I like them sometimes as well.

But others prefer the AP format, which costs less when you combine the equivalent price for one-shot adventures that add up to anything close to that page count, and they can either split out the sections of the AP they like and treat them like individual adventures, or run it as a big adventure path.

It's just a matter of preference.

The problem here is that for years Paizo has experimented with both formats, as has WOTC, and both reached the same conclusion using their own independent evidence of sales. Both companies were doing both, and now both have ended the one-shots except for organized play, and gone exclusively with adventure paths for sale. That tells me they both have data we don't - the APs are more cost effective for them than the individual adventures.

 

[Staffan]

The problem here is that for years Paizo has experimented with both formats, as has WOTC, and both reached the same conclusion using their own independent evidence of sales. Both companies were doing both, and now both have ended the one-shots except for organized play, and gone exclusively with adventure paths for sale. That tells me they both have data we don't - the APs are more cost effective for them than the individual adventures.

Paizo are still doing non-AP adventures. They recently changed to a slightly beefier format - 64 pages, released every three months, as opposed to their old 32 pages bi-monthly - but they're still doing them.

I'm mostly familiar with their initial outing in the new format (Dragon's Demand), but it seems they're going for something that'll take a month or two to play.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Paizo are still doing non-AP adventures. They recently changed to a slightly beefier format - 64 pages, released every three months, as opposed to their old 32 pages bi-monthly - but they're still doing them.

I'm mostly familiar with their initial outing in the new format (Dragon's Demand), but it seems they're going for something that'll take a month or two to play.

Not to mention all the other books they have out such as the campaign guides etc...

Just going through some of my books such as the Inner Sea Guide and Lost cities of Golarion and they are great for ideas.

 

[Mistwell]

Paizo are still doing non-AP adventures. They recently changed to a slightly beefier format - 64 pages, released every three months, as opposed to their old 32 pages bi-monthly - but they're still doing them.

I'm mostly familiar with their initial outing in the new format (Dragon's Demand), but it seems they're going for something that'll take a month or two to play.

A 64 page book is not a one shot. Have you played a 64 page book in 4 hours? Me neither. An AP does not have to take you from level 1 to 20 to be an AP. Those 64 pagers are just smaller APs. A month or two to play something is clearly not a one shot.

In fact looking at the adventure you named (Dragon's Demand) they describe it as a "deluxe super-adventure". The comments say it's a town with 5 different dungeons to explore and loot "over the course of the campaign" divided into many chapters that appear to be what would be individual adventures linked together. This is exactly the type of thing I was mentioning above.

Paizo has abandoned the one-shots I was responding to, just like WOTC has, for everything except organized play. There has to be a reason both companies came to that conclusion. I can't think of anything other than the combined format must be the most cost effective way to do things. Can you think of another reason?

 

[Staffan]

A 64 page book is not a one shot. Have you played a 64 page book in 4 hours? Me neither. An AP does not have to take you from level 1 to 20 to be an AP. Those 64 pagers are just smaller APs. A month or two to play something is clearly not a one shot.

So everything is either a one-shot or an adventure path? By that standard, almost every adventure ever published is an adventure path, which makes the definition useless. I never heard of anyone playing through e.g. Keep on the Borderlands or Palace of the Silver Princess in a single session, so by your definition they are adventure paths too.

Adventure paths don't have to take you from 1 to 20, but they should be the basis of an entire campaign, starting at low levels and taking you to very high ones. They should have multiple distinct phases. Something like Dragon's Demand is just a regular adventure. I'm personally not happy calling Princes of the Apocalypse an adventure path either, because I do not think it has the required sequentiality to it. It's just a big adventure.