Dragonlance "You walk down the road, party is now level 2."

[Umbran]

The problem isn’t that you can’t adjust the leveling speed, the problem is the WotC adventure paths try to cover too big a level range for the page count. “A level 1-10 adventure!” I did something of similar length from scratch, and it was level 3-8.

Is page count really what players care about, though?

I would put player experience before page count, and probably think of it in terms of cost - "player enjoyment per dollar" basically.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is page count really what players care about, though?

Well, amount of content really. If the pages have lots of combat encounters then levelling will be slower than if they are full of social stuff. But I find that a situation where players gain more than one level during a three hour session has a very negative impact on the player experience, and that happens if you use milestone levelling as directed in some WotC adventures. And if you don't award the levels the difficulty becomes too high, leading to TPK, also a negative player experience. These problems can be dealt with by having fewer level up points and changing encounter CRs to reflect that that the party are lower level, but that wouldn't be needed if WotC didn't try to fit so many levels into the adventure path.

 

[Distracted DM]

Well, amount of content really. If the pages have lots of combat encounters then levelling will be slower than if they are full of social stuff. But I find that a situation where players gain more than one level during a three hour session has a very negative impact on the player experience, and that happens if you use milestone levelling as directed in some WotC adventures. And if you don't award the levels the difficulty becomes too high, leading to TPK, also a negative player experience. These problems can be dealt with by having fewer level up points and changing encounter CRs to reflect that that the party are lower level, but that wouldn't be needed if WotC didn't try to fit so many levels into the adventure path.

That's a good point, they don't have to add more content if they reduce the level range of the adventure.. but I guess "a level 3-7 adventure" doesn't sound as enticing to players as 3-12. 3-12 kind of promises "a grand campaign" and players know they'll get their characters up there or further.

OTOH, Red Hand of Doom (I swear I cite this adventure more often than is healthy) is a 5-12 adventure and uses XP- ofc it's a 3.5e adventure and I've never compared encounters/day etc. XP against 5e's... but man it's a great ride.

Back on point.. I do get the feeling that 5e's adventures are marketed to players, thus the need for the large level range. As a GM, I'm happier with smaller ranges in a product. It's much more manageable and modular.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a good point, they don't have to add more content if they reduce the level range of the adventure.. but I guess "a level 3-7 adventure" doesn't sound as enticing to players as 3-12. 3-12 kind of promises "a grand campaign" and players know they'll get their characters up there or further.

OTOH, Red Hand of Doom (I swear I cite this adventure more often than is healthy) is a 5-12 adventure and uses XP- ofc it's a 3.5e adventure and I've never compared encounters/day etc. XP against 5e's... but man it's a great ride.

Back on point.. I do get the feeling that 5e's adventures are marketed to players, thus the need for the large level range. As a GM, I'm happier with smaller ranges in a product. It's much more manageable and modular.

Why would they market adventures to players? They're not the ones buying them.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why would they market adventures to players? They're not the ones buying them.

So they can read them and wistfully imagine playing that adventure. On some level though I think that there is merit to the Idea that 5e hardcover adventures are published with players who read it as the primary market of concern. Either that or when there is a layout/content choosing catering to the needs of the GM or desires of a reader it's an a choice where extreme deference is given to readers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So they can read them and wistfully imagine playing that adventure. On some level though I think that there is merit to the Idea that 5e hardcover adventures are published with players who read it as the primary market of concern. Either that or when there is a layout/content choosing catering to the needs of the GM or desires of a reader it's an a choice where extreme deference is given to readers.

IMO they should state that intention flat-out, if that's the case. Stop trying to make people think its about using these books in a game.

 

[Distracted DM]

Why would they market adventures to players? They're not the ones buying them.

You're right of course- with the exception of some player options most of the adventure is going to be for the GM. And it's known that GMs are the ones that spend most of the money that WotC gets. But I'm in a weird spot, I have a dozen+ players and so I get requests to run adventures.. and usually the requests that I get are the marketed 5e adventures.

Why I think that? It's all silly tinfoil hat stuff. When the Vecna adventure was being pushed, I really didn't feel like the adverts/promo stuff was targeting GMs- that it was targeting players, selling the idea of this adventure where they saved the multiverse.
But you're right- unless players are going to be buying and reading the adventure just for the fantasy of playing through it, or begging their GMs to run these adventures, it must be marketed to GMs.

 

[Azzy]

Wow, a poorly written DragonLance module. I'm shocked I tell you, just shocked.

Right? Why start being good now?

 

[MerricB]

Right? Why start being good now?

As these things go, I feel the Dragonlance adventure is one of the better D&D adventures of the last few years.

(Yes, I've run it).

I just feel it's a dreadful Dragonlance adventure.

It's hardly flawless, but there's a lot of solid design there. (The early stuff is not part of the solid design. Again, it's an adventure that really wants to be level 3+, but it tries something new for the level 1 stuff. I don't think it works that well. But it is trying to do something innovative).

 

[Velderan]

As these things go, I feel the Dragonlance adventure is one of the better D&D adventures of the last few years.

(Yes, I've run it).

I just feel it's a dreadful Dragonlance adventure.

It's hardly flawless, but there's a lot of solid design there. (The early stuff is not part of the solid design. Again, it's an adventure that really wants to be level 3+, but it tries something new for the level 1 stuff. I don't think it works that well. But it is trying to do something innovative).

Did you use the board game with it to resolve the battles?