Adventures will set the tone more than the system

[Dannager]

I propose a motion: that when referring to a series of adventures that link together we henceforth use the term "adventure arc" or, failing that, "story arc".

But I like adventure path.

 

[delericho]

I agree that good adventures are an absolute must for the new edition.

But writing good adventures is hard. And writing linked adventures is harder - a trilogy is harder than a standalone; an AP is harder than a trilogy.

WotC are yet to convince me that they know how to write consistently competent adventures, never mind good ones. There have been some outstanding adventures from them ("Red Hand of Doom", "Sunless Citadel", "The Sinister Spire", and allegedly "Gardmore Abbey"), but by and large their output has been poor.

So...

I believe WotC should put together a crack team of designers specifically to look at producing the best possible adventures for the game. (My 'dream team' is probably Bruce Cordell, Ari Marmell, Wolfgang Baur and the Alexandrian for his work on "node-based design".)

However, their target should first be to produce a set of good standalone modules for the game. Once they've gotten the hang of writing an adventure for the game, they should then look at doing a trilogy. And only once they've mastered that, they should move on to an Adventure Path.

Ideally, I think the target should be to have two adventures published on the same day as the Core Rulebook, plus at least one further one on DDI. Thereafter, they should aim to have at least two per month in eDungeon (one per tier would be better). And, eventually, a mix of standalone adventures, setting-specific adventures, and Adventure Paths.

But, yeah, learn to walk before you try to run!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think you miss my point. Adventures are not only for lazy people, they are also for the ones that want to know what D&D is all about. They showcase the strengths of the game. Unfortunately TSR and WotC only published good (or average one in my opinion) adventures at the end of the life of each edition...

That's fair; I don't mean to suggest that people who use published adventures are lazy or incapable.

However, I think you miss my point. D&D is "all about" the interests and passions of the people at the game. If they happen to find a published product that interests them, that's fine, but it's purely an option for those who want it, not an inherent part of the D&D experience.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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.

I don't think the OP was saying to design the game around the AP. I think he meant that the AP should be designed to show off 5E's strong points.

I'd be all for several different types of adventures - some APs, a sandbox game, as well as a hybrid site/event game.

Going back to my old days of D&D, people remember going through The Keep on the Borderlands out to the Caves of Chaos, surviving the Tomb of Horrors, going up Against the Giants, entering the Vault of the Drow, etc, etc. How many newcomers to the game for 3E, 3.5E and 4E are going to have similar memories of classic adventures? Not nearly as many.

So, I think having some quality adventures would definitely be a good path for Wizards to follow.

 

[Rhuarc]

If Chris Perkins would be a full-time adventure writer for WotC all our complaints would be gone...

 

[Tymophil]

I second this motion.

Maybe a different bersion would be to do several stand-alone adventures and then give a rough guideline how they can be strung together into an arc if so desired.
I propose a motion: that when referring to a series of adventures that link together we henceforth use the term "adventure arc" or, failing that, "story arc".

That's what I had in mind.

A series of adventures covering different styles... Because I hope that D&D5 will be usable with any kind of adventure type, and with any awesome idea I can come up with.

And I hope that WotC will be bright enough to showcase this with its first published scenarios...

 

[MarkChevallier]

They need a real classic of an adventure to kick the game off. Remember really good adventures? They did exist, back in the day, though I'm not sure how much was nostalgia!

Not just for D&D either, but Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Runequest, they all had classics - and those classics are, often, still remembered today. They need something with that quality and impact.

Red Hand of Doom was the last decent WoTC adventure I interacted with (as a GM). I played two 4E adventures, but I didn't enjoy the game, and that was partly down to the adventures and their focus.

 

[hanez]

They need a real classic of an adventure to kick the game off. Remember really good adventures? They did exist, back in the day, though I'm not sure how much was nostalgia!

Not just for D&D either, but Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Runequest, they all had classics - and those classics are, often, still remembered today. They need something with that quality and impact.

Red Hand of Doom was the last decent WoTC adventure I interacted with (as a GM). I played two 4E adventures, but I didn't enjoy the game, and that was partly down to the adventures and their focus.

The first 4 that WOTC published for 4e were really really really bad. Total mini battle fests with tacked on stories. I completely agree, that at least the first few adventures need to be intriguing and allow for a variety of play styles.

 

[Jawsh]

I made an analogy once:

The Core Rules are the DVD player. The adventures are the films. Also novels and campaign setting sourcebooks.

I wish I had been into gaming during the glory days when TSR was putting out hundreds of setting books per year. I still think that model is correct, but only if the cost is lower than the price (Commerce 101 anybody?). And if the RPG market is growing, then you wouldn't have to worry about splintering fans of different campaign settings.

Plus, even if groups have a favourite setting, TSR had the brilliant idea of connecting all the settings through Spelljammer and Planescape. (My preference is definitely Planescape).



But, it's important to note an important and deliberate philosophy on the part of WotC, which they expressed back when they developed 4th Edition D&D:

"the players are the story"

In other words, it's not about the novels, campaign setting sourcebooks, or adventure paths that WotC publishes. The story is you. The rock stars of D&D, the bestselling novels of D&D, are the stories that you and your friends make up in your dorms and basements.

The only question is, does that work for making money? How can that idea be spread and marketed around the world?



Maybe both philosophies can exist together. Throw in an Open Gaming License, and now there's a real possibility that you could type out your home campaign setting, put it in PDF, and sell it over the internet. You really could be the next D&D rock star.

Or participate in a Campaign Setting Search, and make Eberron.

 

[Croesus]

(My 'dream team' is probably Bruce Cordell, Ari Marmell, Wolfgang Baur and the Alexandrian for his work on "node-based design".)

Sounds good, though I'd be inclined to include a few from these boards, like Wickett.