Better modules please.

[Ratinyourwalls]

The last four years have been nothing but horrible module after horrible module. WotC: You can do better. If you are going to shove a new edition down our throats it's essential that you start doing better when it comes to adventure modules.

Even the best 4E modules made by WotC are still crap compared to the average Pathfinder module and that really needs to change.

 

[Stormonu]

Shove? I thinks that's a rather harsh look at 5E.

While I agree that I haven't been enthused about a WotC module since Forge of Fury, This is not the proper way to get their attention.

I've seen both good aspects about the Slaying Stone and Cairn of the Winter King. Both still had aspects I didn't much like (everything was fight, fight, fight and no encounter was avoidable), but it felt like they were trying harder to get better as of late.

It feels like they have put in place for themselves some sort of stricture on their structure that inhibits their storytelling. If they would relax whatever that stricture is (I mostly blame the delve format), I think they could have some good stuff.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

They could do worse than to outsource adventure production to Paizo.

 

[edhel]

You have not found a single good module from all the modules published for 4e? And how is anyone forcing a game down your throat? You don't have to buy it or play it, man. Chilax.
Personally I really liked Thunderspire Labyrinth as a setting for adventuring and Madness at Gardmore Abbey looks at least as good, though I haven't run it yet.
In general I don't like the encounter format very much, but I don't like Paizo's wordiness either. It takes them a page to say that there's a marsh, go kill goblins. Still, I've run both WOTC's and Paizo's adventures, as well as old 3e and AD&D modules.
There are so many adventures out there that you can easily find the one you'll like, if you bother to try.

 

[Gilladian]

I didn't much care for 4e modules, from the couple I played through online. They seemed very fight oriented.

I do think some great iconic adventures that we would all be able to experience would also help draw people back into the game.

How WotC will do that, I don't know. Drop the delve format, loosen up their concept of what is IN an adventure, and be a little more creative, I think. Don't pick ONE style to use for all adventures. Try some different things!

 

[delericho]

It's not just the last 8 years. WotC have produced maybe half a dozen good adventures, ever.

And, in fact, TSR put out painfully few good modules in the whole of 2nd Edition, and indeed much of the 1st Ed output was of questionable content. And, indeed, virtually every game, ever, has either had little adventure support, or those adventures have been generally poor.

To a certain extent, it's because "adventures don't sell", and that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because adventures don't sell, they're done as an after-thought, not given the resources they need, or worked on by inexperienced people. Thus, the quality suffers. Because the quality is poor, word gets around and people refuse to buy. And because they don't sell, the next batch get even less attention...

It is quite notable that the companies who make adventures the centre of their business (primarily Paizo now, but in the past that included Necromancer, Goodman and even Green Ronin) became noted for their adventures, saw decent sales, and were thus able to thrive. Good adventures sell, but you have to build (and keep) a reputation for good adventures, or you're sunk before you start.

So, I would dearly love to see good adventures for 5e (whether from WotC or the third-party publishers). But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not just the last 8 years. WotC have produced maybe half a dozen good adventures, ever.

And, in fact, TSR put out painfully few good modules in the whole of 2nd Edition, and indeed much of the 1st Ed output was of questionable content. And, indeed, virtually every game, ever, has either had little adventure support, or those adventures have been generally poor.

I agree strongly with the first paragraph. WOTC has generallybdone a bad job of making modules (for me their redo of Castle Ravenloft stands out as an example of how not to design a module----and it was based on great material).

Disagree very strongly with the second paragraph. 1e and 2e modules were largely excellent. They both suffered from fads that were in at the time (2e began to lean heavily on story-heavy railroading...but this was easy to work around), however I still have them on my shelves and still go to them for inspiration. In fact I ran a 2E Ravenloft campaign last year and ran some of the classic Ravenloft modules. Stuff like Feast pf Goblyns, Castles Forlorn and even The Created (for all its flaws) are wonderful. They usually did a good job of providing enough setting material (particularly adventures like FoG and CF) so even if you never ran the thing it was still worth the purchase.

 

[Transformer]

Please lord yes. Wizards, here's what you do:

See all the things you do when you design modules? Stop doing those things. All of them. Now, see all the things Paizo does when it designs modules? Do all those things. Please.

And fewer combats. Combat takes forever. Combat will always take forever. I am sure one of 5e's goals will be to reduce the length of combat. I am sure it will see some very modest success in that area, and then combat will still take forever. If a group is good at running combat efficiently, then it still takes forever. Interesting RP encounters, stretches of exploration, and not 30 combat encounters strong together, alright?

I am excited about 5e. It would be great if it came with great adventures. And I doubt Paizo will be abandoning their current cash cow, so it's up to you, Wizards. Do better.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Good adventures would go a long way toward making the new edition successful. The encounter format needs to be dropped. Events in campaign games feel more natural when they are not divided up into preset scenes.

This doesn't mean that every module has to be just a map and a key. There are ways to have plotted elements included in an adventure without leading players by the nose from scene to scene.

A classic 1E module L2, featured an assassination plot and was primarily and investigation scenario. Events happened and the clock was ticking with regard to the bad guys' movements and activities. There were no pre set scenes and it wasn't assumed that the PCs would do any particular thing at a given time. The adventure wasn't just a static collection of foes and treasures yet the PCs didn't feel forced down particular paths.

It is possible then, to produce adventures featuring plots without being a massive railroad. I don't know why this has become such a lost art.

Of course there is also nothing wrong with B2 styled adventures which are simple site based scenarios. This gives the DM a lot of freedom in coming up with the thematic elements for it that best suit his/her campaign. The caves of chaos are so iconic in part because of what isn't there.

 

[delericho]

Disagree very strongly with the second paragraph. 1e and 2e modules were largely excellent. They both suffered from fads that were in at the time (2e began to lean heavily on story-heavy railroading...but this was easy to work around)

In large part, it's those fads that I was referring to. Whether or not it was easy to work around, the presence of heavy railroading still made the "Volo..." adventures extremely poor.

Likewise, in 1st Ed, while people hold A1-4 Slavers and I6 Ravenloft up as great adventures (and they are), the edition also had things like the Dragonlance railroad and the two "Wonderland" adventures. To a certain extent, nostalgia works to have people forget the bad and remember only the good.

In fact I ran a 2E Ravenloft campaign last year and ran some of the classic Ravenloft modules. Stuff like Feast pf Goblyns, Castles Forlorn and even The Created (for all its flaws) are wonderful.

Interesting. It may well be a setting thing - some settings had better modules than others. Either that, or I have reverse-nostalgia working - forgetting the good and remembering only the bad.