An open letter to Randy Buehler

[Runestar]

Honestly, was offering an overview before ever a problem? I didn't think it posed an issue back then, and doubt that it will now.

The only real advantage of the overview is that we can see where the story is going and that we can decide we like it.

And that alone is more than enough justification to want to include an overview, IMO.

Ultimately though, the overview is irrelevant. What matters is if the individual adventures are good or not. And if they are not, the best overview of the world will not make them better.

Good individual adventures are always a plus factor, but it is far from being the only thing which matters in dnd. Unless your party happens to enjoy running what basically amounts to little more than a series of 1-shot adventures loosely linked together by the most tenuous of plots, you will still want a deep and immersive plot to tie everything together. The overview lets me know how well (or poorly) the entire module will accomplish this.

They have to give us good adventures. If then the entire AP still goes into a direction you don't care for, jump off the boat. If it goes interesting places, keep running it.

Why not decide for yourself right at the start whether the adventure path is worth running or not? This path is going to last at least 2 years. Do you want scenarios where the DM invests 6 months to a year of their time in it, only to find it taking an unexpected twist he does not like for whatever reason? The solution then would be to either continue running a now unpopular module, start a new campaign arc all over again from scratch, or try to adapt it. Neither sounds like a palatable option to me.

We don't trust WotC to get it right. And this trust can't be established by an overview.

Trust has nothing to do with it, IMO.

What people are simply asking for is a summary informing them as to what the adventure will entail, so that they can then make an informed decision about whether they want to run it or not. It is like asking me to buy a random splatbook without first knowing what it is about or what material it contains. It doesn't matter how useful the book is, I will still only buy it if I have use for it. For example, draconomicon may be one of the best 3.5 books ever printed (hypothetically). But I still may opt not to get one since I know that dragons are unlikely to factor into my campaign, and so, the book is of minimal benefit to me.

Whether something is good or bad really boils down to a judgement call made by the individual player, IMO, not wotc. Wotc is in effect creating a 1-size-fits-all campaign and attempting to cater to the entire dnd population, irrespective of their own unique tastes/preferences. It cannot possibly be good for suitable for everyone.

You say there is no reason to have to include an overview. I say there is not enough justification to not to want to include one. Imagine if your players discover in the middlle of the campaign that the BBEG is orcus himself, and orcus happens to be a reformed paragon of virtue in your setting...

 

[Fenes]

And what will avoid this happening if you have the overview? The Overview might want you "this guy is important", but that doesn't protect him from your player characters. And if you give him statistics to match that overview, all you get is the risk of a TPK if the parties want to kill him anyway.

I will not elaborate on this particularly example, but generally speaking:
Why do we assume that an overview would fix any of this problems.

The only real advantage of the overview is that we can see where the story is going and that we can decide we like it. Ultimately though, the overview is irrelevant. What matters is if the individual adventures are good or not. And if they are not, the best overview of the world will not make them better.

And our worry that the story-line will not be good, that there will be surprises that are wrecked by player interaction, all show just one thing: We don't trust WotC to get it right. And this trust can't be established by an overview. WotC has to do one thing first, and the rest is irrelevant: They have to give us good adventures. If then the entire AP still goes into a direction you don't care for, jump off the boat. If it goes interesting places, keep running it.

And as gamers, we only have to consider: WotC is not a faceless entity that's just out to get our money with no regard to its fans. There are designers and developers at work there that are part of the community. They have played D&D and other games for a long time. And it is them (plus freelancers, that are equally part of the community) that are creating the adventures. Not some corporate executives, not a marketing expert, not a Hasbro CEO.
Let's not forget this. We should give them some trust - like that they know how players can wreck plots, and that they hear us complaining about lack of overviews and lack of adventure quality, and that they will try to address them.

Instead of complaining about "Do they want to define fun for us?", address the things that help us all to figure out what we want and what they might be lacking. Didn't like the first two adventures in the path - Why? Were the BBEG boring or to clichéd? Didn't you like the skill challenge in scene Y? Did you miss a big map of the dungeon area? Was the hook disappointing? Were some of the monsters broken or boring? Where the encounter setups uninteresting? Was the basic story idea weak? How would you improve on the flaws? What was missing?

Knowing the outline gives big hints to whether or not you'll like the path. It'll also allow you to change parts more easily.

And since WotC themselves said an outline is useful and why in their advice to DMs (DMG 4 p. 141) it is either stupid or hypocritical for them not to heed their own advice.

 

[Nifft]

Saying I rather have X than Y doesn't imply that I have to choose. It means that if I had to chose, I would choose X.

Ignoring the snide regional comments, you at least are aware that you're setting up a rhetorical choice. The problem is: there is no rational choice. The two issues you're setting up a choice between are orthogonal.

- - -

I guess I'll just skim the summaries and listen to the buzz online to decide which adventures merit pillaging.

Cheers, -- N

 

[amethal]

I guess I'll just skim the summaries and listen to the buzz online to decide which adventures merit pillaging.

The buzz so far seems to be that none of them are.

However, I find it hard to tell how much, if any, of this is due to some people's anti-fourth edition bias.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The buzz so far seems to be that none of them are.

However, I find it hard to tell how much, if any, of this is due to some people's anti-fourth edition bias.

Well, as far as I know, Jac99 is "pro-4E", so if he says he didn't like it, he probably didn't like them because of something else then 4E. Which doesn't tell me or anyone else explicitely that we'd feel the same, but it's a start. But that's why I prefer people talking specific, what they like and what not, and figure out how to improve on it.

I haven't looked at them closer, since I am running the modules in print, and don't want to spoil my fun if someone else runs them. Which might happen, as our Torg campaign ended with a tragic TPK, and with one of the players already having to hold back since he already played the adventure, we'll have to do something else.

 

[Fenes]

The buzz so far seems to be that none of them are.

However, I find it hard to tell how much, if any, of this is due to some people's anti-fourth edition bias.

I think those who do not like 4E won't really play the adventures, so won't comment on their quality either.

 

[Lackhand]

I think those who do not like 4E won't really play the adventures, so won't comment on their quality either.

That would be nice, but I am not so great an optimist as you

 

[Nifft]

The buzz so far seems to be that none of them are.

However, I find it hard to tell how much, if any, of this is due to some people's anti-fourth edition bias.

True, and true. I'm more interested in the high-level stuff (16+) because to me those levels are "harder" (less intuitively obvious); however, I'm also more worried about WotC doing a good job there, because it'll be harder for me to spot their mistakes.

Oh well, it's hard to get too upset about the quality of stuff that's free. At worst, I'll end up ignoring it entirely.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think those who do not like 4E won't really play the adventures, so won't comment on their quality either.

I think you must be on a different internet than me.
4e haters will read them and post about them authoritatively, they just need to be bored and irritated enough to do it.

But, I think the real "bias" you need to look for is anti-WotC bias. "This adventure sucks, DCC is much better." "Paizo's adventure paths were a lot better, WotC was stupid for taking over Dungeon."

For myself, I'm not DMing 4e, so I haven't read the adventures, so cannot comment.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Oh well, it's hard to get too upset about the quality of stuff that's free. At worst, I'll end up ignoring it entirely.

Cheers, -- N

My problem (In theory) with no overview is that with a year run, at some point during the AP, they will be going For Pay, I think. (AFAIK they didn't announce yet when, but they've established a price, so it's gotta be on the way.)