D&D 5E Anyone else feeling "meh" about recent 5e releases?

[Garthanos]

I mean, talk about sucking at opening. Completely lacking in anything remotely resembling a story and a, more or less, random assortment of low level monsters living cheek to jowl in a completely unbelievable setting.

I thought that was the definition of Dungeon.... or module.

 

[Parmandur]

To be fair to the poster you are responding to, this old grognard finds it a lot more work to prep the current adventure hardbacks than the old modules, and not just because of the number of pages. I loved running Curse of Strahd, but it took a LOT of homework to prepare it and I relied heavily on a number of aid to keep things straight in the game (some excellent outlines on DM's Guild, DnD Beyond for text search, etc.). Dragon Heist, Storm Kings Thunder are the same. I have not bought Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abys, Tyranny of Dragons, or Hoard of the Dragon Queen but they seem like a similar chore. I find it much easier to run Tales from the Yawning Portal and am looking forward to Ghosts of Saltmarsh. I also have a new appreciation for the other classics having bought the first two Goodman Games reprints (Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread).

The later are easier not only because they are shorter but there is less complicated backstory and plot lines to keep track of. Even Dungeon of the Mad Mage is easier because prepping and running a mega dungeon is easier than trying to run a party through a novel.

I've been running Rappan Athuk from Frog God Games. This beast of a book is over 500 pages, with 56 dungeon levels, 22 wilderness areas, and over 100+ keyed maps and I am running AS A BREAK from the WotC books. With a mega dungeon like Rappan Athuk the party makes the story. The plots develop organically. Sure, you want to be familiar with the overall dungeon, but you are generally needing to read carefully over a small amount of content covering where the party is likely to be during your next game, and, if they end up somewhere you completely didn't expect, you can take a short break and quickly read over the area to make sure you understand any more complicated encounter or trap. Usually I don't need a break.

I thought maybe it was because I'm an experienced DM that I feel this way. After all, a LOT of people didn't like Dungeon of the Mad Mage. And it seems like many of the new DMs that 5e drew into the game needed their hands held and that the players expected a rich and intricate plot to take part in. But I watch my son who will be going on 13 years and he is turned off by the big hardcovers on my shelf and using graph paper and the online tool Notion, creates his own dungeons with simple plots that I enjoy just as much as the published material. And I like how most of my son's time is spend MAKING maps, MAKING monsters on D&D beyond, MAKING new making items on D&D beyond. I love how the main book he references is the DMs Guide because some of the tables are useful to helping you quickly MAKE things.

THAT is what is missing from most of the published material. Gaps. There is too much to cram and two few blanks to fill.

Now the benefit of being an experienced DM--and a busy, aging, and increasingly forgetful DM--is that when, despite all my prep, I get something wrong or forget something important, I just go with it and it becomes the adventure. The gaps in my memory become the gaps that are missing in the publication. Under-preparing can lead to a more creative and customized game.

The plots are by and large irrelevant: they can be built out and used easily enough., but they can be ignored very easily and the pieces used just as well. Tomb of Annhilation, for example, works perfectly with no "death curse."

 

[MNblockhead]

HoW?! How do you avoid the junk?

As @Hussar notes, there are lots of reviews of modules. There are entire blogs like tenfootpole.org that do nothing but review adventures.

 

[Zardnaar]

The ratio of good and bad is different. At least with Paizo and WoTC.
You don't really get terrible anymore but very little is great. Paizo hasn't made a great AP for years. They've made a few good ones though and 0 terrible ymmv though.

It's really hard to make a great AP, a great adventure is easier. Since an AP is really 4 to 6 adventures.

 

[robus]

We experienced DMs roll our eyes & patch the holes. But not everyone is an experienced DM. And it all still reads really poorly, is overly railroady, & essentially relies upon players asking the questions just because that's what was presented. Ugh.

Agreed. These adventures are too much work to run. I buy them to save me time, not to add to my mental stress! The “clever” plot twists generally result in major logic gaps that leave you floundering as soon as the players start to poke at them. I would much prefer they focus on fantastic locations and cool encounters than tricky meta-plotting. My players would be quite happy with a simple linear plot, they’ll find plenty of ways to complicate things if they so desire

 

[dwelwell]

I'm glad. But as person who's been playing 5e D&D since its release, I don't need anything in it. While it might be great for new players, how many starter sets do they need to publish every year?

I bought it for the Drago of Icespire Peak adventure, which is excellent. Worth the price of the whole set, imho.

 

[Green Onceler]

but the Paizo approach of AP comprising multiple linear adventures is generally pretty terrible.

Really? I always thought the general consensus was Paizo writes more interesting adventures than Wizards?

Comparing Curse of Strahd, the only 5e campaign I've played in, but generally thought of as one of the best, with Rise of the Runelords, also thought of as one of the stronger APs, I find the Paizo effort to be hands down more entertaining and interesting.

I'm not really here to argue, just more or less posting to follow the thread, which I find interesting.

 

[Parmandur]

Really? I always thought the general consensus was Paizo writes more interesting adventures than Wizards?

Comparing Curse of Strahd, the only 5e campaign I've played in, but generally thought of as one of the best, with Rise of the Runelords, also thought of as one of the stronger APs, I find the Paizo effort to be hands down more entertaining and interesting.

I'm not really here to argue, just more or less posting to follow the thread, which I find interesting.

They are different. Honestly haven't heard people talking about the Paizo APs the past few years.

The big difference is that the Pathfinder...paths...are serialized and sequential, while the WotC books have really not been that: more scattershot toolboxes and sandboxes. They don't provide the same serialized storytelling experience, but they do provide the tools to build an experience.

 

[Zardnaar]

Paizos still slighty better at adventure design and they are alit better at plot hooks. Last few weren't so good as they were really hooks on Pathfinder splat.

The gaps narrowed though, used to be a no contest. WoTC has the better ruleset.

I suspect a lot of PF players don't do high level either so an AP like Kingmaker which has a great part 1 and 2 will be well regarded.

The above is IMHO the meh wotc coast ones are about as meh as the PF ones. The best ones or the best part 1&2 are up there with LMoP.

 

[S'mon]

Really? I always thought the general consensus was Paizo writes more interesting adventures than Wizards?

Comparing Curse of Strahd, the only 5e campaign I've played in, but generally thought of as one of the best, with Rise of the Runelords, also thought of as one of the stronger APs, I find the Paizo effort to be hands down more entertaining and interesting.

I'm not really here to argue, just more or less posting to follow the thread, which I find interesting.

IMO
Rise of the Runelords is very good. Of other APs I've run/am running, Curse of the Crimson Throne and Shattered Star both suffer from the 6 book format. It leads to excessive padding by authors writing to the page count, and weak middle books - CoCT books 3 4 & (somewhat) 5, Shattered Star book 4, are pretty bad and mostly seem more geared to meeting the page count and leveling up the PCs than doing anything interesting. CoCT book 4 is so pointless I just skipped the whole thing, while SS 4 is a boring grind with a static villain.
But there is good stuff too - SS 1 and especially 2 were lots of fun, SS 5 & 6 feel suitably epic, and with 5 it helped a lot that big chunks can be skipped. Running SS6 currently, I find the main thing is turning lots of the given combat encounters into potential roleplay encounters. Luckily I have a really engaged player with a PC whose background as the de-stasised 11,000 year old Herald of Xin makes this easy.

Compared to WoTC stuff, the APs probably do contain more interesting stuff, a 6 book AP certainly will have more interesting stuff in among the padding than a single WoTC hardback. Neither are easy to use IME, though Rise of the Runelords hardback comes closest.

Edit: Mostly I find with the APs that mashing them up and using them as sources of ideas & NPCs works best. Paizo APs have tons of incredibly detailed NPCs with multi-paragraph backstories who sit in a room and "attack immediately... fights to the death". I like to get them out of those rooms doing stuff! The biggest issue with Paizo APs is that they are written primarily for non-playing readers. Adapting them to something good usually takes a fair bit of work, but is doable. The WoTC hardbacks seem written much more with the GM in mind, although they also tend to suffer from poor presentation and excess complexity in places.