D&D General WotC Reveals New Information and Covers for 'Keys from the Golden Vault'

Due in just a few weeks, Keys from the Golden Vault has receoved little fanfare so far. However, a cover and descrioption has appeared on the Wizards Play Network site. Wizards Play Network (WPN) is a network of WotC-approved stores.

An anthology of 13 heist-themed adventures for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
 
Some jobs require more than simply wielding a sword or slinging a spell. Whether it’s procuring a well-guarded item or obtaining crucial information from an imprisoned contact, these tasks require careful planning and flawless execution. The secretive organization called the Golden Vault specializes in hiring crews for such jobs, and for the most daunting assignments—pursuing fabulous treasures and stopping dire threats—that crew is your characters.
Keys from the Golden Vault™ is a collection of 13 short, standalone Dungeons & Dragons adventures designed for characters levels 1–11. These adventures can be placed in any setting and you can run them as one-shot games or link them together into a campaign. This book also includes in-world maps to help players plan their heists, plus advice for running nontraditional games with high risks and huge rewards.

Contents:

• Book of 13 stand-alone adventures spanning levels 1–11, each focused on a single heist
• Adventures can be set in any D&D or homebrew world and can be played individually or as part of a full campaign
• Introduces the Golden Vault—a mysterious organization for which the player characters can work as heist operatives
• Each adventure includes a map to guide Dungeon Masters and a map to help players plan their heists
• Adventures emphasize player choice with each heist having multiple paths toward success
• Includes advice and detailed information for Dungeon Masters running nontraditional adventures with high risks and huge rewards

There's also an alternate cover.

 

[eyeheartawk]

This is where I agree that D&D is "under monetized" - NOT in milking the extant players for more money to play the same game. D&D has ALWAYS been under monetized by short-sightedness.

You would think making $150 million a year in revenue in a business that, at its base level, requires a very modest one-time purchase and then really nothing else ever again, would be enough. Like, they were making all that money in spite of that fact, it would seem like bad business to try and tie a subscription onto that. If anybody over there running things actually understood the business they are in, they would see that they are making a ton of money already, and that their existing customers are already, voluntarily, over-monetizing themselves. They just need to focus on getting more people to play.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Us retailers had to order the book 2 months ago, with nothing more to go on than the title. Honestly, this book has been abandoned by WotC. What a shame.

So, have you seen any sign of movie tie-in stuff that's actually stuff for the game, rather than tie-in swag?

Barring that, did they offer you all branded standees or anything?

 

[Mind of tempest]

You would think making $150 million a year in revenue in a business that, at its base level, requires a very modest one-time purchase and then really nothing else ever again, would be enough. Like, they were making all that money in spite of that fact, it would seem like bad business to try and tie a subscription onto that. If anybody over there running things actually understood the business they are in, they would see that they are making a ton of money already, and that their existing customers are already, voluntarily, over-monetizing themselves. They just need to focus on getting more people to play.

they can never be satisfied not even if everyone living and dead was buying from them, way the things work.

 

[Parmandur]

So now, @Parmandur I'm asking you. Have you ever read or run a 3PP adventure? If so what? I know you're not keen on 3PP stuff, but it's huge deal to your perspective here.

And that's exactly the perspective I'm using - "how most people play" - that is the benchmark. That is why adventures like those by The Arcane Library are absolutely brilliantly designed and presented, compared to WotC's adventures. I have no idea what other measure you think I'd be using? What did you think I was using?

Mostly only run DCC stuff, though I've read some others.

What I'm proposing, however, is a change of the frame: the weird features of WotC you are noticing are precisely those that I believe arise from extensive playtesting, rather than the lack of it. More tightly written Adventures are more likely not nearly as widely playtested which is why they are tighter. They are based on a priori design principles, instead of the mass scale playtests that WotC does which end up with the loosey-goosey approach.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You're insisting 3PPs would do such a scenario differently when as far as I'm aware there are a lot of 3PPs and people writing for them. I know you're not going to find an identical example, but I'd like to know specific examples of 3PP products and/or designers who you do think would have done it better so that I might could check them out for myself. 3PP is admittedly a blindspot for me.

The Arcane Library.

There's a free adventure. If you look at how well-organised, well-conceived, and well-presented the adventure is, and compare that to most WotC efforts that gives one a pretty good idea. I don't even like subject of the adventure very much but it's just really well-done.

And this is something I've seen from various 3PPs - this much higher level of writing, presentation (in the sense of giving you the information you need in usable formats, not as in "the prettiest" or w/e - WotC will usually win on pretty). Sometime it's just simplicity over needless complexity - if you do want to adjust an adventure in the way some people have been discussing it's usually better to have a simple, complete adventure rather than a flashy and complex but incomplete one.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What I'm proposing, however, is a change of the frame: the weird features of WotC you are noticing are precisely those that I believe arise from extensive playtesting, rather than the lack of it. More tightly written Adventures are more likely not nearly as widely playtested which is why they are tighter. They are based on a priori design principles, instead of the mass scale playtests that WotC does which end up with the loosey-goosey approach.

Better layout of adventures doesn't necessarily require testing.

I have a hard time believing senior WotC designers don't own a copy of Ptolus or haven't at least looked through it. (I suspect a lot of the doubters on this thread have done neither.) It is transparently a better design for a sourcebook.

Likewise, the Arcane Library adventures are formatted in a way that you take one look at it and say "oh, I get what the reviewers were saying now."

Everyone wanting to go to the wall for WotC adventures (that many of you also gripe about in different threads), go download one of the free Arcane Library adventures so everyone can be discussing the facts at hand, rather than reflexively defending WotC, which seems to be happening in at least some cases.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Mostly only run DCC stuff, though I've read some others.

What I'm proposing, however, is a change of the frame: the weird features of WotC you are noticing are precisely those that I believe arise from extensive playtesting, rather than the lack of it. More tightly written Adventures are more likely not nearly as widely playtested which is why they are tighter. They are based on a priori design principles, instead of the mass scale playtests that WotC does which end up with the loosey-goosey approach.

I flatly do not believe it.

You don't get giant holes in campaigns because of playtesting. You don't get no heists in an adventure called Dragon Heist because of playtesting. Playtesting leads you to finding the problems, not leaving the problems. And let's be clear - this isn't a "5E problem". This was a problem in 4E and to a lesser extent 3E. 4E had some of the absolute worst adventures WotC has ever put out - some border on the entirely incoherent. Don't even get me started on Keep on the Shadowlands.

It's not about "tight design" either, I'm not sure where you're getting that from - I'm talking about high-quality explanations and well-outlined plots and so on. Stuff that, in practice, means the DM isn't tripping over their feet when they run it. Sometimes it's about KISS too. The scenario discussed earlier was a good example of that - that was just a bad scenario design, and unnecessarily complex. They could equally have just had the PCs be in an alley, see the guys pulling the samovar out the window, and have the merchant be right next to the PCs and hand them the (super?) flying carpet to pursue - it would get you much closer to the actual starting scenario (120' distance, both groups on flying carpets). The needless complexity smacks of a DM who doesn't really know what they're doing (certainly in terms of writing adventures for others to run).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's a DMs Guild supplement that came out several years ago that adapts the Blades in the Dark system for D&D heists. (I DM for a lot of rogues.) Worth picking up. (Its name escapes me for the moment.)

I am totally trying to google that... (if you remember please let me know, I will post if I find it)

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Looks pretty cool. I do prefer the standard cover of this one.

I feel sorry for the creative team though.

Yeah, the people that produced this book are on a hiding to nothing through no fault of their own.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am totally trying to google that... (if you remember please let me know, I will post if I find it)

I dunno about the supplement, but Blood Money in Dungeon #200 by Logan Bonner has a system that's a bit like a cut-down version of Blades in the Dark, and long-predated Blades in the Dark.