D&D 5E My biggest hope for 5E

[Nemesis Destiny]

(Oh, and see also Adventure is Key.)

The biggest issue for me that the author of that blog missed, is that I (and I assume others) write my own adventures because cookie-cutter modules (yes - even the "good" ones) aren't set in my campaign world. Sure, I can (and have) dropped modules in, but it takes a lot of re-writing to disguise that fact, to the point where most of the time it's less work to just write from scratch. And if you don't take the effort to do so, it feels very "drop in."

The reverse is also true. I'm currently struggling with re-writing one of my own modules to be generic enough for a submission to Dungeon. It's hard. My stuff is all peppered with references to my campaign world, story arc(s), and even the specific character(s) involved.

That said, Paizo does do decent adventures. It's their biggest selling point for PF. The rub is that WotC can do decent adventures as well (and they have); they are every bit as capable of producing excellent modules as Paizo, they just, for whatever reason, choose not to. It's baffling.

 

[KidSnide]

The adventure that killed my 3.x campaign was Heart of the Nightfang Spire.

Seriously. I tried running that too. It was pretty fun up until we actually got into the spire. Ugh.

Maybe I've just grown impatient, but I don't want to play through more than 3 or 4 encounters before something interesting happens. I6 is a good example. Sure, the PCs are exploring a giant creepy house, but the action is mostly in getting ambushed by Strahd and his minions de encounter. The dynamic is in the give-and-take with the terrifying NPC, not in a weirdly episodic (retreating to rest) room by room slaughter.

-KS

 

[Gryph]

I've heard it said many times, that modules were never a good profit stream.

EGG writing in Q&A threads on this forum stated more than once that the modules were nicely profitable for TSR in the late 70's and early 80's when he was actively running the company.

I think the shift to uprofitablility during Lorraine Williams management had a lot to do with the quality level and volume that were put out. I still believe that the early TSR/Paizo module of a steady stream of good quality (for their day) modules is a profitable one.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the problem is less about overall quality and more about where stylistic issues hit up against reality.

Pazio does pretty good adventures--in the style that they do. It is moderate to heavy on background, mostly plotted, a few "event-based" nods to more complicated plotting, etc. I'm not particularly blown away by this, because if you like doing that, and are paying attention to what you are doing, those are by far the easiest adventures to do well. Not that people can't screw them up in execution, or pick such lousy plots that nothing would save it, but this is more craft than art.

TSR and WotC try (sometimes) for a more varied set of things--and thus are more erratic. (A notable exception were many of the early 4E modules which tried to finesse this issue by not having a style--and thus were pretty much working with one hand tied behind their back throughout.)

You want to write a good sandbox module, or many of its variant styles, you are up against a much tougher task. To a lesser extent, the same thing applies to a loosely plotted adventure driven primarily by NPC motivations--and thus fully supportive of throwing that plot out the window, the first time it gets in the way. You want to write a good module that teaches these styles? Even more difficult. This is why a lot of the decent modules along these lines aren't really modules at all. They are glorified setting source books, with thin, throw-away plots layered on. And of course people that prefer the Pazio style hate that.

Doing these other modules well is still a lot of craft (maybe slightly less than the plotted ones). But it is a heck of a lot more art, too. There is a lot of room for misunderstanding. So I still say that "better modules" isn't the answer. Rather, "better teaching, support materials" is the answer, with a variety of modules as only part of that.

 

[fredal]

Quality would definitely need to be improved back to the levels of the early 80s. The recent stuff has mostly been crap.

The thing that modules would give you is something to market to the nostalgia, time limited, occasional player. Hasbro doesn't need to sell modules to the hard-core gamers - we design our own adventures and once we buy the source books, we're pretty much set. This is the reason for all of the additional class books (as you all are aware).

For the casual player, you're looking at someone who only has a few hours a month (5-6) to play, and minimal time to prepare (i.e. they don't have time or desire to write their own adventures). If you create high quality modules that can be sold for $6-$8 and release 4-5 of them a year, you're looking at a much more constant revenue stream. You also won't see a dilution of the core ruleset - there is no need to release additional core material when you're making profit from the modules. Also, by marketing to the casual group, you'll sell a lot more rulebooks (especially as they bring more casual friends into the group).

I think that this strategy has already been recognized by Hasbro (see essentials, red box release). It's just that the weaknesses in the 4E system prevent it from being fully successful.

 

[KidSnide]

I think WotC hurt themselves in module design by setting up the 4e campaign guidelines the way they did. I'm not sure it's strictly wrong to decide that a 1-30 campaign should have 300 encounters. Similarly, I'm not sure it's wrong to decide that a typical encounter should be interesting/complicated enough to be express on 2 pages.

But, when your first and second major set of adventures are supposed to be 30-level adventure paths, you kill the module writers by telling them that they need to include 30+ major encounters. How many adventures have enough interesting stuff going on to justify 30+ major encounters?

Also, encounter design in 4e is far more sophisticated and difficult than in previous editions and a number of the early monsters didn't work as intended. No wonder so many of the early modules fell flat! Frankly, it's a testament to the module writers that the HPE and Scales of War didn't suck even more.

In comparison, consider the more recently designed introductory modules in the DM's Kit and Monster Vault. The designers were more familiar with the system and the modules were supposed to be shorter.

-KS

 

[Herschel]

That the forum won't be littered with 6E threads.

 

[fredal]

That the forum won't be littered with 6E threads.

At least until 2035, when I'm teaching the grandkids to play...

 

[Herschel]

Dang, you're a young'un.

 

[delericho]

The biggest issue for me that the author of that blog missed, is that I (and I assume others) write my own adventures because cookie-cutter modules (yes - even the "good" ones) aren't set in my campaign world.

Sure. I do the same for that reason (amongst others). In fact, these days I'm pretty much only interested in Adventure Paths - I'll run pregen modules if those are the campaign, but I'm typically not interested in adventures to add to a campaign.

I'm not saying good adventures are absolutely required. But they're sure nice to have!

That said, Paizo does do decent adventures. It's their biggest selling point for PF.

Indeed. I'm not a great fan of the Pathfinder RPG. It's more complex than 3.5e, a game that I already consider to be too complex (even in the core rules).

But I'm very likely to run Pathfinder at some point, because I want to run Kingmaker, or Serpent's Skull, or their next AP. It's easier for me to just run the adventures in PF itself, rather than convert, even back to 3.5e. And a 1-15 campaign is probably two solid years of gaming, so I wouldn't be surprised to see my players picking up a few of the sourcebooks to expand their options - for two years of gaming, that's not a bad investment.

Conversely, it's highly unlikely I'll even run 4e again. Just about the only thing that could compel me to do so is if WotC were to publish an adventure or adventures that screamed to me "you must run this!"

The rub is that WotC can do decent adventures as well (and they have); they are every bit as capable of producing excellent modules as Paizo, they just, for whatever reason, choose not to. It's baffling.

Actually, I'm not convinced they still can, at least not consistently. Every so often, they hit one out of the park, but their average is pretty damn poor. And I'm sure they're trying to make the best adventures that they can, so why are so many of their attempts so weak?