Anyone Else Tired of The Tyranny of Novelty?

[Aldarc]

I don’t think WOC is any more free from the pressure to be continually novel than smaller companies. If anything more so, because everyone has an opinion on WOC. I’ll repeat the list… carnival, library, ice world, Hellscape.

If you would like, I’m sure @Hussar and I could also repeat our rebuttal of your list. But I also suspect that you are missing my point here.

 

[TheSword]

If you would like, I’m sure @Hussar and I could also repeat our rebuttal of your list. But I also suspect that you are missing my point here.

Will it make any difference. My point was that I’m talking about WOC. The size of the company is no protection from the expectation of continual originality.

To be clear, I’m referring to the themes and encounters of the written adventures. Not rules incarnations which will of course vary.

 

[pemerton]

When I think of novelty in RPGing I don't think of 5e D&D! As @Aldarc has said, it seems a very, very orthodox RPG design.

Nothing I've heard about the scenarios makes me think they are very novel either. They seem to be pretty conventional party-of-PCs-works-its-way-through-the-sequence-of-events.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I think of novelty in RPGing I don't think of 5e D&D! As @Aldarc has said, it seems a very, very orthodox RPG design.

Nothing I've heard about the scenarios makes me think they are very novel either. They seem to be pretty conventional party-of-PCs-works-its-way-through-the-sequence-of-events.

They aren't set in bog-standard, quasi-medieval but not, vanilla settings, though. You can't just drop the Hell adventure in the middle of "my already mostly built sandbox setting that I've already detailed out to a high degree" whereas you could drop, say, Storm King's Thunder in because the locations are fairly generic.

This is the argument, as far as I can gather -- the want for adventures written so that they can fit into whatever the complainer's setting already is. Things like "frozen tundras" or "Feywild" or "Hell" don't except in rather specific settings (or so the argument goes). Now, granted, I really don't lend a lot of compassion to this argument, but I see it.

 

[pemerton]

They aren't set in bog-standard, quasi-medieval but not, vanilla settings, though. You can't just drop the Hell adventure in the middle of "my already mostly built sandbox setting that I've already detailed out to a high degree" whereas you could drop, say, Storm King's Thunder in because the locations are fairly generic.

This is the argument, as far as I can gather -- the want for adventures written so that they can fit into whatever the complainer's setting already is. Things like "frozen tundras" or "Feywild" or "Hell" don't except in rather specific settings (or so the argument goes). Now, granted, I really don't lend a lot of compassion to this argument, but I see it.

I find that part of the argument pretty strange too: Hell, tundras and a Feywild are all pretty generic fantasy settings!

And to layer my own argument over the top of that: when we're talking about novelty or tradition in RPGing, I find a concern for colour of setting over details of play a bit curious. I would think of novelty in terms of party play vs competitive play vs leading warbands vs a focus on social intimacy, etc.

 

[Aldarc]

They aren't set in bog-standard, quasi-medieval but not, vanilla settings, though. You can't just drop the Hell adventure in the middle of "my already mostly built sandbox setting that I've already detailed out to a high degree" whereas you could drop, say, Storm King's Thunder in because the locations are fairly generic.

This is the argument, as far as I can gather -- the want for adventures written so that they can fit into whatever the complainer's setting already is. Things like "frozen tundras" or "Feywild" or "Hell" don't except in rather specific settings (or so the argument goes). Now, granted, I really don't lend a lot of compassion to this argument, but I see it.

I think that WotC probably believes that you can though. Would it be that hard, for example, to "just drop the Hell adventure in the middle of" Greyhawk City or Sharn or "Homebrewpolis"? Probably not. Besides, I believe that TheSword has indicated on multiple occasions that they mostly play adventure paths rather than more sandbox games.

Will it make any difference. My point was that I’m talking about WOC. The size of the company is no protection from the expectation of continual originality.

To be clear, I’m referring to the themes and encounters of the written adventures. Not rules incarnations which will of course vary.

I'm beginning to suspect that WotC does not build its adventure books strictly like you expect them to (i.e., Paizo). WotC very often uses these adventure books as stealth GM resource books for a variety of settings, themes, and campaign types (e.g., urban, naval, jungle, etc). WotC uses this as extra incentive to get people to pick up books that they may otherwise not have an interest in running. They may prefer running their own adventures, for example, but Adventure Book X has guidelines for running desert campaigns, so now they're more interested in buying it. I suspect that they figure that you can either run a "bog-standard, quasi-medieval...vanilla setting" on your own or that there are more than enough such adventures already out there. So I don't think that they are not driven so much by "the expectation of continual originality," but, rather, "the expectation of further consumer utility."

If you want an adventure with more "bog-standard" themes, encounters, and the like, then either you or WotC needs to think of a compelling selling point of utility other than a preference for "bog-standard" fantasy.

It's also worth considering that maybe 5e is moving on from being "bog-standard" as a result of the changing demographics of the wider playerbase. It may not be as interested in "bog-standard" fantasy as you are. If that's the case, then that's also not so much "the expectation of continual originality" either.

 

[TheSword]

I think that WotC probably believes that you can though. Would it be that hard, for example, to "just drop the Hell adventure in the middle of" Greyhawk City or Sharn or "Homebrewpolis"? Probably not. Besides, I believe that TheSword has indicated on multiple occasions that they mostly play adventure paths rather than more sandbox games.


I'm beginning to suspect that WotC does not build its adventure books strictly like you expect them to (i.e., Paizo). WotC very often uses these adventure books as stealth GM resource books for a variety of settings, themes, and campaign types (e.g., urban, naval, jungle, etc). WotC uses this as extra incentive to get people to pick up books that they may otherwise not have an interest in running. They may prefer running their own adventures, for example, but Adventure Book X has guidelines for running desert campaigns, so now they're more interested in buying it. I suspect that they figure that you can either run a "bog-standard, quasi-medieval...vanilla setting" on your own or that there are more than enough such adventures already out there. So I don't think that they are not driven so much by "the expectation of continual originality," but, rather, "the expectation of further consumer utility."

If you want an adventure with more "bog-standard" themes, encounters, and the like, then either you or WotC needs to think of a compelling selling point of utility other than a preference for "bog-standard" fantasy.

It's also worth considering that maybe 5e is moving on from being "bog-standard" as a result of the changing demographics of the wider playerbase. It may not be as interested in "bog-standard" fantasy as you are. If that's the case, then that's also not so much "the expectation of continual originality" either.

I think that is a really good point about wanting to add more rules and resources into the game and using the Campaign books as a vehicle to do that. You can do this without going to Hell, Hoth, The Jungle or Neverland. Are we honestly saying new rules couldn’t be introduced from Neverwinter, Amn, Luskan, the Dales, Cormyr, Sembia etc etc?

To be clear I’m not saying campaigns have to be set in a 20 mile radius of Daggerford either. Just that for every campaign set in Avernus or the Faewild can we please have one set in a more recognizable setting that I can fit into a greater variety of places.

I also would say that while technically you can drop Descent into Avernus or Wild beyond the Witchlight into any campaign… the fact that it takes the PCs somewhere completely different leaving behind the characters, and world the PCs have been getting acquainted with, means it might as well not start there.

Bog standard is pejorative. There are plenty of early adventures set in the less extreme locations of the realms that are interesting and engaging. Same for Pathfinder. It is only as time goes on that fans get jaded and want new new new!

 

[Aldarc]

I think that is a really good point about wanting to add more rules and resources into the game and using the Campaign books as a vehicle to do that. You can do this without going to Hell, Hoth, The Jungle or Neverland. Are we honestly saying new rules couldn’t be introduced from Neverwinter, Amn, Luskan, the Dales, Cormyr, Sembia etc etc?

I'm sure that WotC could, but there may be new options/rules/etc. that come more readily to mind for other locations. But I also strongly suspect that WotC never thought that setting one of their adventures in Icewind Freakin' Dale would get them accused of overly relying on novelty and exotic locations.

What further rules/options/tools do you think the game could use and how would these locations you list work in tandem?

I also would say that while technically you can drop Descent into Avernus or Wild beyond the Witchlight into any campaign… the fact that it takes the PCs somewhere completely different leaving behind the characters, and world the PCs have been getting acquainted with, means it might as well not start there.

I suspect that WotC still likes to connect these adventures to locations that tables may be using in their popular settings (e.g., Baldur's Gate), especially as possible links between the Sword Coast region of the D&D Starter Box and subsequent adventures.

Bog standard is pejorative. There are plenty of early adventures set in the less extreme locations of the realms that are interesting and engaging. Same for Pathfinder. It is only as time goes on that fans get jaded and want new new new!

How much time? D&D 5e comes out in mid-2014, and it is now 2021. Pathfinder 1 comes out in late 2009. What are its adventures like in 6-7 years on? Say in 2015+?

Also, I don't think that it's just fans that get jaded. Imagine, if you will TheSword, having to constantly write and publish these adventures. How long would it be before you wanted to write something different?

 

[TheSword]

I'm sure that WotC could, but there may be new options/rules/etc. that come more readily to mind for other locations. But I also strongly suspect that WotC never thought that setting one of their adventures in Icewind Freakin' Dale would get them accused of overly relying on novelty and exotic locations.

What further rules/options/tools do you think the game could use and how would these locations you list work in tandem?


I suspect that WotC still likes to connect these adventures to locations that tables may be using in their popular settings (e.g., Baldur's Gate), especially as possible links between the Sword Coast region of the D&D Starter Box and subsequent adventures.


How much time? D&D 5e comes out in mid-2014, and it is now 2021. Pathfinder 1 comes out in late 2009. What are its adventures like in 6-7 years on? Say in 2015+?

Also, I don't think that it's just fans that get jaded. Imagine, if you will TheSword, having to constantly write and publish these adventures. How long would it be before you wanted to write something different?

I’m not saying don’t write something different. I’m saying remember your roots/base and write a bit about that every so often too.

 

[John R Davis]

I am old. I still like the bog standard with the then odd but of quirk. To me, both Paizo & Wizards are going a bit too quirk. IMO as an long time old player.
I play in two groups:
One is old like me and just about agrees with my POV, that too much odd is just too much odd
One is young, with several new to DND in the last 1-3 years. They quite like quirk but some of them are now thinking like me. That is quirk for quirks sake verges on the edge of silly.
I guess sales will be the true indicator.