Adventures will set the tone more than the system

[Tymophil]

Here is what I hope Wizards of the Coast will do to build up the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
1. Study the weak points of D&D4.
2. Fix the problems in the system, test the fix in actual play.
3. Create adventure path that will illustrate the strong points of the new system and set the tone for the new edition.

The adventures must be, in my opinion, the core of the work. If WotC comes up with something as dull as The Keep on the Shadowfell, then D&D5 will fail as D&D4, somehow, failed.
If the adventures are awesome, then people will feel compelled to play the game, even if the rules are not 100% to their taste. The tone of the first adventures will set the tone for the whole edition, as was the case for every edition. In the past, TSR made terrible adventures, but everything was new then, and they could afford such adventures.
Nowadays, WotC must send a message: “ D&D5 is a game where you play awesome adventures and not dull ones. ”

 

[Lanefan]

Here is what I hope Wizards of the Coast will do to build up the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
1. Study the weak points of D&D4.
2. Fix the problems in the system, test the fix in actual play.
3. Create adventure path that will illustrate the strong points of the new system and set the tone for the new edition.

The adventures must be, in my opinion, the core of the work. If WotC comes up with something as dull as The Keep on the Shadowfell, then D&D5 will fail as D&D4, somehow, failed.
If the adventures are awesome, then people will feel compelled to play the game, even if the rules are not 100% to their taste. The tone of the first adventures will set the tone for the whole edition, as was the case for every edition. In the past, TSR made terrible adventures, but everything was new then, and they could afford such adventures.
Nowadays, WotC must send a message: “ D&D5 is a game where you play awesome adventures and not dull ones. ”

For some reason the "give-out-ExP" button is gone so all I can do is say "HEAR HEAR!" [edit: about the adventures part. I'd rather not see 5e be just a rebuild of 4e]

And if the adventures are awesome, people will play them in any edition. Look how many times we hear of people converting 1e adventures to 3e or 4e, for example.

Keep on the Shadowfell had the potential to be a pretty good adventure. However, it got somewhat crippled by also being expected to introduce a whole new system and all its shiny bells and whistles, and many of its encounters seem to have been designed with that in mind. Let's hope that mistake does not get repeated.

Lanefan

 

[mach1.9pants]

I agree, I don't know how many 4e groups started with Keep on the SF but it sucked. And was a combat grind, as we're 2 &3 of the series. I liked 4e inspite of the modules. An awesome kick ass (free PDF?) module to start off would kick the game in the right direction. I almost always run a module for my first game of new rules

 

[Tymophil]

I agree, I don't know how many 4e groups started with Keep on the SF but it sucked. And was a combat grind, as we're 2 &3 of the series. I liked 4e inspite of the modules. An awesome kick ass (free PDF?) module to start off would kick the game in the right direction. I almost always run a module for my first game of new rules

I am not sure that the people at WotC are so minded. The first adventure they talk about is the Caves of Chaos. And it looks like the Caves of Chaos from the old days Keep on the Borderlands.

I think they mistook nostalgia for real eagerness to play such adventures anymore. I played this more than 30 years ago. What I want is the magic of a new experience (as was the case when I discovered D&D Basic Set), not a mere reload of old, worn-out ideas.

I want something to baffle me, not to remind me of my youth !

To be frank, I almost gave up on D&D when I tried to play this module with my friends. So I have no nostalgia for this title... Fortunately, I found that you could write your own stuff soon enough to renew my interest in roleplaying games...

 

[NewJeffCT]

A strong adventure path, a la Paizo, would be a huge help for somebody like me. Something like one of those paths, or a Red Hand of Doom epic adventure. That way, you can really get immersed in the D&D experience from level 1 through level XX.

(Yes, I know Red Hand of Doom was like level 4 to 13 or something...but, it was a lot more than the typical module that covered 3 levels at a clip)

 

[rogueattorney]

Personally, I don't like the typical event-based adventure path design. There are exception, but I generally find them more annoying than useful.

I prefer site-based adventure modules like the original Keep on the Borderlands much more.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can't think of a faster way to get me not to buy than to design a game around an adventure (*) path specifically.

Now, if they want to do an adventure (*) path, and a site-based/event-based hyrid and then also a wide-open sandbox--and then show how the game works in all three, then I'm interested.

The assumption that the adventure (*) path is the guiding light would pretty much convince me that the designers were incapable of even understanding what I would like, let alone producing it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The adventures must be, in my opinion, the core of the work. If WotC comes up with something as dull as The Keep on the Shadowfell, then D&D5 will fail as D&D4, somehow, failed.
If the adventures are awesome, then people will feel compelled to play the game, even if the rules are not 100% to their taste. The tone of the first adventures will set the tone for the whole edition, as was the case for every edition. In the past, TSR made terrible adventures, but everything was new then, and they could afford such adventures.
Nowadays, WotC must send a message: “ D&D5 is a game where you play awesome adventures and not dull ones. ”

I think that adventures are important for a small subgroup of the gaming population, but I believe (purely my opinion) that the majority of people run their own games and don't use published adventures at all.

Personally, I have a lot of opinions on 4e, but absolutely none of them derive from its published adventures. I also happen to think PF's focus on published adventures, while obviously a business success, is one of mine and others' turn-offs about the game.

I understand that some people either aren't interested in or can't create their own game, and I'm fine with some company doing part of the work for them if they're willing to pay, but I don't want to see them heavily emphasized. I try to encourage every player I meet to make the game theirs and tell their story.

 

[grimslade]

Adventures do set the tone for a RPG. I don't think an adventure path is the right way to start off a new iteration. A good one shot starter adventure for launch to showcase the strengths of the system and demonstrate its flexibility would be great. KotB was a terrible adventure but it showed off Basic D&D well. Isle of Dread was a better effort and again showed the X rules off. A better quality adventure for 5E would be great. Too bad Monte Cook isn't... Wait a sec!

 

[DonTadow]

Yeah, adventures are the least of my concerns, simply because that is the easiest area for a 3rd party publisher to get into. I don't like the pathfinder paizo adventures, they are too mechanical, but i love most 3rd party adventures.

I do think that adventures say what something about the sytem. 4e intro adventures were grind happy, and told me this was a hack and slash system.