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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In lots of adventures you never have 6-8 encounters per day.

No, but the average has 4 or 5. Says so right there in the book. Besides, it's not necessarily the # of encounters, but the # of hours. Polymorph is 1 hour. Out of a 24 hour day. And even during that hour, the caster is extremely limited for reasons already posted.

So yeah, if I had a player who wouldn't stop whining about being outbarbarian'd by a 7th level caster doing that one spell per day, I'd tell him or her to knock it off.

 

[TerraDave]

...Almost all of the adventures considered classic were written in the period 1978-83. After that, the quality of adventures goes downwards sharply - and I'm not so convinced at the merits of some of those in the first five years, either. There's a lot of nostalgia at play, rather than good criticism of those adventures.

Of the 30 greatest modules that Paizo's Dungeon #116 listed, only nine are legitimately post-1983. EN World's top 15 list has three post-1983 (possibly 4 if you include ToEE).

The fact is that really good adventures are pretty rare...

Cheers!

Thanks Merric for bringing this up. In fact you can see how well they do in this table, which has everything from 83 and earlier. (Terradave rankings refer to some surveys I did here some time ago):

View attachment 68579

You can debate first mover advantage vs nostalgia vs going overboard on story to the detriment of other thing starting in 84 vs total collapse in quality control starting in 84. In any case, a lot of the early ones are very good. I have been running some Bs, and we certainly have enjoyed them. (and they are easy to run in 5E).

I do think that left out of the linear vs sandbox approach is what I consider the "normal" approach adopted by these early modules. In this this, the DM hooks the PCs--hopefully with good motivating hooks, like Treasure!--into a scenario, mostly but not just dungeons--and then the PCs have a lot of freedom in that scenario. Repeat and thematically link as desired. I still find that this can work quite well.

 

[delericho]

You can debate first mover advantage vs nostalgia vs going overboard on story to the detriment of other thing starting in 84 vs total collapse in quality control starting in 84.

Worth noting also that a lot of the early modules were originally tournament modules that had been playtested extensively (at those tournaments) with several different player groups. That probably meant that the published version was a lot more polished as a result.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Worth noting also that a lot of the early modules were originally tournament modules that had been playtested extensively (at those tournaments) with several different player groups. That probably meant that the published version was a lot more polished as a result.

Heh. No, not really. In fact, as far as I can tell (looking at mine), there was no real difference. It is worth noting that tourny modules are intentionally designed to kill PCs, as the goal was to see how far each party got and not completion of the adventure, so it's interesting that the most deadly adventures are some of the most fondly remembered.

 

[TerraDave]

Worth noting also that a lot of the early modules were originally tournament modules that had been playtested extensively (at those tournaments) with several different player groups. That probably meant that the published version was a lot more polished as a result.

Personally, I think much more effort went into them. I think a lot of them drew on peoples home games, they where play-tested at TSR, they where played a ton at tournaments. People put more thought and creativity into them and tried to make them distinct and original while still following certain conventions. And the people making them where or at least until recently had been playing tons and tons of D&D. We know that, say, in much of the 2E era that was not the case.

 

[TerraDave]

Heh. No, not really. In fact, as far as I can tell (looking at mine), there was no real difference. It is worth noting that tourny modules are intentionally designed to kill PCs, as the goal was to see how far each party got and not completion of the adventure, so it's interesting that the most deadly adventures are some of the most fondly remembered.

Modern adventures look much more polished...maybe thats not the right word. But a given page of one of those adventures tends to have a lot more to it then the great majority that came latter.

Your deadly comment is completely true. Though a party that is not rushed and approaches things a little more carefully can survive in some of those. Its possible.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, you can add me into the camp that is not as enamored with the pre-1983 "best adventures ever" modules, nor finds them to be as good or as useful as its seems many other people think they are. Every time I go back and take a look at them in hopes of finding something to use for my own game... the modules tend to all be filled halfway with some random town and descriptions of the 30 or so buildings players might walk to, and the second half is a single location with a complete hodge-podge of monsters just hanging around interspersed with traps-- with no real plot, story, or raison d'etre to speak of. It's an adventure site that you are expected to just go into and kill things and take their stuff. Which of course makes all the sense in the world as to why Munchkin was such a logical design decision and game creation.

All those adventures are great for the segment of DMs who wish to come up with their own stories and can then plug this adventure full of encounters into it. I unfortunately fall into the opposite group that wishes for modules that gives cool stories and plots, and I can then drop in monsters/encounters to populate them as needed. You give me the full scenario and story of what cultists are doing at the Caves of Chaos, what they are trying to accomplish, what their timetables are, why they have spies at the Keep on the Borderlands, when and where the spies will act, what they will do, and what happens if the cultists are or are not stopped... and I'll put in the random collection of kobolds, hobgoblins, and minotaur as necessary to fill the Caves out. But suspect I might be in the minority on that score.

 

[spinozajack]

Because that's what we need, a new spell called Ghost Horse that lets us travel over water or run on air. I'd much rather they make the originals better.

This "no errata" errata policy is going to cause system bloat / glut.

Instead of fixing known balance issues with feats they're talking about making small races even more powerful? Why not give halflings +2 strength while they're at it. And darkvision. Otherwise no fair, my halfling barbarian isn't quite as brutal as a half orc. Let's make all races absolutely identical mechanically, because, balance?

Giving darkvision to half elves and elves is a solution in search of a problem that never existed. I don't remember ever reading or even hearing that non-drow elves should have darkvision. Maybe some of that Seattle halfling herb was involved in a design session or two.

 

[Parmandur]

Thanks Merric for bringing this up. In fact you can see how well they do in this table, which has everything from 83 and earlier. (Terradave rankings refer to some surveys I did here some time ago):





View attachment 68579





You can debate first mover advantage vs nostalgia vs going overboard on story to the detriment of other thing starting in 84 vs total collapse in quality control starting in 84. In any case, a lot of the early ones are very good. I have been running some Bs, and we certainly have enjoyed them. (and they are easy to run in 5E).





I do think that left out of the linear vs sandbox approach is what I consider the "normal" approach adopted by these early modules. In this this, the DM hooks the PCs--hopefully with good motivating hooks, like Treasure!--into a scenario, mostly but not just dungeons--and then the PCs have a lot of freedom in that scenario. Repeat and thematically link as desired. I still find that this can work quite well.

Your description at the end sounds like Lost Mines or Princes of the Apocalypse to me.

 

[Parmandur]

My only published adventure experience in play so far is Keep on the Shadowfell (meh), Lost Mines (AWESOME), and Hoard of the Dragon Queen (fun).

Looking at what people rank as top modules, latter day ones seem to share the features of open and adaptable, and crazy deadly.