April's D&D Feedback Survey Results

WotC has revealed the results of its latest monthly feedback survey. Last month's survey dealt with game scheduling habits, character races, and Adventurer's League content. Additionally, a new survey has been posted covering problem spells, the DRAGON+ mobile app, and the Waterborne Adventures UA column.

The new survey is here. April's survey results are here, but below is a quick list of the take-home points.

• It turns out that that 1st-6th level games are still the most common a year after D&D 5E's launch.
• The most likely end point of a campaign is 10th-12th level.
• There is a preference for more open, sandboxy adventures.
• Smaller races are seen as weaker options.
• Adventurer's League content is reasonably well received, with specifically designed adventures more popular than Tyranny of Dragons adaptions for AL.

 

[Parmandur]

I believe they mean the Expedition adventures written to be used at conventions and such. The AL has three sets of adventures they use... the Encounters program on Wednesday nights at game stores uses the opening sections of the AP books (Tyranny and Princes)... the Expeditions program run as 1-to-4 hour blocks at conventions use specially written modules specifically for those events... and the Epics program is the adventures written to be used at one or two of the massive cons per AL season that involve the massive amounts of tables all playing the adventure simultaneously.



So it's the short adventures used for Expeditions that seem to be more popular than the bits and bobs of the APs used at Encounters. And if I had to guess... would be the adventures most likely to be released for sale to the public (either individually on dndclassics.com or bound together in one large book) at some point in the future. Maybe once the third AP season starts will they release the Expeditions and Epic modules from the first AP so that there's enough of a gap to make going to the conventions (and most especially running the modules at conventions) more enticing?

I believe those adventurers are also available to play at stores, though I have not done AL myself.

 

[machineelf]

I think part of the problem is not enough high-level content. It's a negative feedback loop. My group is at 13th level now. Part of the reason why we are starting other campaigns at 1st level is because of the lack of content for anything above 15th level. So they don't produce high level content, so people don't play to high levels due to lack of content, and therefore they conclude people don't make it to the higher levels so they don't produce much content.

I get that high level adventure content sells less product, but that's another reason why we need an OGL.

 

[bedir than]

IMO, sandboxes as adventures seem to miss the point. They're gazeteers with plot hooks and some maps. The level of detail in an adventure product is usually pointless in a sandbox, as you arent expected to use all of it. The parts your PC's dont explore is wasted design time. So why detail 15 rooms of a dungeon a party might never set foot in?

The Paizo regional companions are perfect for this sort of thing. 64 pages of campaign detail, organizations, important NPC's, locales and hooks.

Which is why people want settings books. I know that's why I'm building my own setting.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think part of the problem is not enough high-level content. It's a negative feedback loop. My group is at 13th level now. Part of the reason why we are starting other campaigns at 1st level is because of the lack of content for anything above 15th level. So they don't produce high level content, so people don't play to high levels due to lack of content, and therefore they conclude people don't make it to the higher levels so they don't produce much content.

I thought both the main Adventures they have are beyond level 13?

For me and my group, it's the same story it's been for decades. By the time we get a PC up to level 10 or beyond, we want to try something new so we retire them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think part of the problem is not enough high-level content. It's a negative feedback loop. My group is at 13th level now. Part of the reason why we are starting other campaigns at 1st level is because of the lack of content for anything above 15th level.

Unfortunately, the loop goes around both ways. If I had to make a guesstimation... I'd say that more often than not the games that actually do high-level content are run by DMs who don't use as much published material and instead create their own. As a result, any high-level published content sells worse than lower-level stuff because it isn't as wanted/needed, and thus WotC's less inclined to publish more of it.

And in actuality... I would suspect that the AP model is probably in many ways the more likely way to get games that use published material up to those those high-level marks, because the story is such that it inspires games to go on until they're "complete". Whereas a 17-20th level module published on its own would see less use because you'd have to have your campaign actually reach that point using other material until such time the high-level module could be dropped in.

 

[famousringo]

Yeah, the little people are fine. I know some of the biggest DPR builds want STR and two-handers, but almost everything else in the game design is pushing DEX and finesse weapons. Awesome halfling and gnome racials more than make up for taking a couple build options off the table.

Heck, I think a dual-wielding stout halfling would make for a pretty awesome totem barbarian (with a little fighter dip).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unfortunately, the loop goes around both ways. If I had to make a guesstimation... I'd say that more often than not the games that actually do high-level content are run by DMs who don't use as much published material and instead create their own. As a result, any high-level published content sells worse than lower-level stuff because it isn't as wanted/needed, and thus WotC's less inclined to publish more of it.

And in actuality... I would suspect that the AP model is probably in many ways the more likely way to get games that use published material up to those those high-level marks, because the story is such that it inspires games to go on until they're "complete". Whereas a 17-20th level module published on its own would see less use because you'd have to have your campaign actually reach that point using other material until such time the high-level module could be dropped in.

As someone who's written and sold modules for a long time, I can say that adventures over level 10 don't sell nearly as much as lower level ones. And by a pretty big margin.


*Edit* OK, not by as big of a margin as I thought, but still. Here is the data for two series of adventure modules I have, year to date sales. All have been out more than a year, so they are all on equal playing field. Also, reviews have averaged pretty equal, so you don't have "that was a first really crappy module, so I won't buy any more" or "Wow, that first module was great, so I'll buy more!" The X axis is level range for the adventures

View attachment 68559

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's mainly the loss of heavy weapons that is the issue, which impacts more than a strength penalty. The loss of great weapon fighting feats pretty much means any 2 hander character wont be of those races and is a bit limiting.

I'm not really convinced this is Actually An Issue In Play (tm). The loss of heavy weapons should be a non-issue for a character created to be small and quick rather than big and strong. Feats are optional sauce, not a core part of race comparison.

Given that damage is partly abstract, why do they need any sort of weapon restriction to force them to use smaller die types? Have small greatswords with no damage penalty.

I see it mostly as a fictional thing - you are the size of an eight-year-old, you simply cannot effectively use a hunk of metal that is as long as you are and probably about as heavy, too - you simply don't have the mass for it. Instead, you take Finesse weapons. Certainly a gnome barbarian can still use some powerful weapons, but they'll play a bit differently from your half-orc (more agile, less mighty), and they probably should.

I don't know that I buy that a 3-ft tall halfling losing out on a few points of damage from the game's heaviest weapons is a weakness that eclipses the lucky trait, functionally (as much as it may in some people's heads).

 

[machineelf]

I thought both the main Adventures they have are beyond level 13?

For me and my group, it's the same story it's been for decades. By the time we get a PC up to level 10 or beyond, we want to try something new so we retire them.

There is still a void of content for levels 15-20. Also, in order to use those APs for higher levels, you have to have begun in them at 1st level and played until the end. Also, while there are some non-AP options for lower levels, there are none for mid to high levels. There always seems to have been fewer options for high level campaigns throughout D&D's history.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There is still a void of content for levels 15-20. Also, in order to use those APs for higher levels, you have to have begun in them at 1st level and played until the end. Also, while there are some non-AP options for lower levels, there are none for mid to high levels. There always seems to have been fewer options for high level campaigns throughout D&D's history.

Fair enough. That is an odd thing. That there aren't ANY adventures that start at higher than level 1 (level 3 if you use the optional start for Prince of Elementals).