If WotC publishes more adventures....

[Eremite]

From http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=13992

Wizards of the Coast is planning to put out more adventures in the future, as there has been a perceived reduction in publication of them in the d20 market. They said they had shied off from putting out many adventures in the past, as there were many d20 publishers putting them out. But with a reduction in the number of adventures being produced lately, this is an area where they feel they can provide service by re-filling that niche.

For 3E and 3.5E we have had:

- the adventure path of eight or so small adventures;
- a Greyhawk mega-adventure, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil;
- a Forgotten Realms mega-adventure, City of the Spider Queen; and
- Eberron adventures.

I believe that CotSQ convinced WotC to stay away from adventures until now despite the earlier plan to release one mega-adventure a year. However, and this is the point of this thread, I think CotSQ was a strategically and tactically bad move for the following reasons:

- Lack of portability to other worlds: CotSQ was not a generic (drow) adventure that could be easily ported into another world as one of the major background issues was the Silence of Lolth a matter that still remains unresolved in yet another interminably long FR novel series.
- Lack of complete background information for the DM: The Silence of Lolth is still unresolved some three years after the module was released.
- Lack of FR regional tie-in. This was released around the same time as Silver Marches but is set half a world away.

Anyway, my question, if WotC publishes more adventures, whether for the generic "Greyhawk-lite" core world, FR or Eberron, what should it avoid and what should it embrace to ensure that the line is a success?

 

[RangerWickett]

This will, of course, spur many d20 companies to publish more adventures. *grin*

 

[Clint]

Don't Necromancer Games and Dungeon Mag cover most adventure needs?

At this point, I'd be less likely to buy an adventure from WotC, since they haven't made any in a while, and their last few efforts were mixed at best (CotSQ, one of the Eberron ones... even the Adventure Path series is a mixed bag).

 

[Frostmarrow]

Adventure modules need a very high profile to succeed. Wizard's main problem is that they (and the community) support too many worlds for any module to gain such a high profile. It worked for RtTTOEE but I don't see this happening again. The Eberron-series is a good try, though.

Serioulsy, they need to blow up a whole lot of worlds!

 

[Eremite]

(snip) Seriously, they need to blow up a whole lot of worlds!

Unfortunately, they leave that for the novel line.... :\

 

[Doug McCrae]

World's Largest Dungeon seems to have been a big hit. I wonder if WotC will do something similar.

 

[3catcircus]

All they need to do for me to buy it is...

1. Make a decent scenario with an interesting assortment of killing, political intrigue, and detective work.

2. Have a sidebar that tells you what location the module will be set in each of their supported campaign worlds.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Anyway, my question, if WotC publishes more adventures, whether for the generic "Greyhawk-lite" core world, FR or Eberron, what should it avoid and what should it embrace to ensure that the line is a success?

First, published adventures should be designed to require the core books only. Any extra monsters, spells, items, etc., should be included in the adventure. And, WotC could go a long way in making friends among the community by making the extras OGC. I avoid things that, in effect, require that I buy either a gaming system I don't have, or a bunch of resource books I don't have. If an adventure or series of adventures comes out that requires (for instance) Unearthed Arcana, or Book of Vile Darkness, or Monster Manual III, I simply won't buy it.

Second, while Web Enhancements and Errata published for free on their web site is nice, it sometimes looks like an excuse for poor planning and rushed work in the first place. I'd imagine that the better adventures out there took some time to create, play test, and edit--and that's what I'd prefer. I've been gaming for two decades already, I'm in no hurry. Quality over quantity, thank you very much.

Third, it seems like there's this tendency to create new monsters (the moon calf? c'mon ,that was weird, even for D&D) for adventures. I don't know how many new creatures were introduced from Sunless Citadel on up, but there were more than too many. A new creature here or there to spice things up is fine, but I'd prefer they stick with what DMs are familiar with. Anyone else remember Against the Giants? Nothing new with giants, but you can't go wrong with your run-of-the-mill bad guys.

Fourth, a recurring enemy is okay in a series of adventures, but it definitely has to work. The red dragon in the original offering of modules was okay, because he was introduced bit by bit. I think that was fairly well done. Something similar would be nice.

Dave

 

[DaveMage]

Just make 'em fun and don't use them to advance a campaign setting's plot line.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I love web enhancements. IMO, any module worth its salt should have 'em. It shows the designers/publishers care. It's sort of like DVD extras; it's not necessary in the core product but it's something that would be in it if there was the time/space available.

Personally, I kinda liked some of the early WotC adventures. I agree they should be generic. But I also think they should be more memorable and "epic" so that they don't just get lost in the glut of products out there. I guess what I'm saying is more quality, less quantity.