D&D 5E (2024) No 5.5 AP Yet?

[bedir than]

Im kinda using Ice Spire Peak as a template.

Scatter various short adventures around and let the PCs sandbox it.

Kinda feel sorry for Ice Spire peak in a way though.

Oh!
I meant Stormwreck being more linear. I owned Icespire, but hadn't used it so gave it to friends with teen kids.

Phandelver, Rime, Icespire, Annihilation, Strahd all do the 'yam shape design' where the order of events in the first third to two-thirds of the campaign don't matter much. I only want that style (and it seems like both new boxed sets do it).

 

[Zardnaar]

He is the guy who was largely responsible for the poor quality of WotC adventures over the last 10 years or so.

The game was OPEN ENDED - ergo level 20 was no more "complete" than any other level.

It was the fist 1-20 campaign and D&zD had 20 levels since 1989.

And people had been asking for it since around 1998 in Dungeon magazine. Not sure if you were aware.

If you can't see the appeal of a 1-20 campaign in 2002 thats on you.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's probably because higher level stuff is harder to sell.

They did it once with HotDQ and RoT. Didn't do it again.

I would argue that that is because they don't do it properly.

For example, if "higher level" is harder to sell, then WHY do they want "world-shattering" stakes in their AP's? The answer is, I think, "people like world-shattering storylines". So do those. Where they belong. At mid-to-high level play. It's not like Storm King's Thunder, for example, would have likely sold worse, had it been designed for Level 7-12, while being a sequel to something "smaller" in scale that went Level 1-7, and ended in a cliffhanger leading up to it.

RoT sold poorly because HotDQ was poorly received, and the format was questionable, not in the level spread, I think, but in other parts of the presentation.

Of course, it would help if high-level play was all that well put together.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Every time I see this claim I am flabergasted. NONE of the campaign modules tell the users to divide it up into different modules. They are ALL meant to be played front to back. This claim is just not true.

The claim IS true, but you're right that it's opaque. The designers have talked about it quite often, that that is the intent, but they sure as heck don't make it clear with the product. They leave it to the "clever thief" DMs to figure out for themselves.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I’ve played most of both, as I know you have, and it’s a hard disagree here. But a lot is down to personal preference. I don’t expect everyone to like WotC adventures. So much comes down to aesthetic and style.

Just offering a counterpoint to the negging on some great Adventure books.

I think most of the adventures are great, but I also think that they could be a lot better, and much of that comes down to presentation. I particularly think that they could tell the same stories while being organized in a much better way for DMs to actually use them. To me, that is their weakest feature.

And I think that comes down to the sacrifices made to make them present more readable to the buyer who only buys them to read and not to run, but I don't think that has to be the case. I think that there is a better-fit line between the two, where you could achieve both goals more effectively. Or more precisely, I think that if you had to sacrifice a little of the readability for improved playability, then I think that would be worth doing. It's what they're ultimately for, after all.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would argue that that is because they don't do it properly.

For example, if "higher level" is harder to sell, then WHY do they want "world-shattering" stakes in their AP's? The answer is, I think, "people like world-shattering storylines". So do those. Where they belong. At mid-to-high level play. It's not like Storm King's Thunder, for example, would have likely sold worse, had it been designed for Level 7-12, while being a sequel to something "smaller" in scale that went Level 1-7, and ended in a cliffhanger leading up to it.

RoT sold poorly because HotDQ was poorly received, and the format was questionable, not in the level spread, I think, but in other parts of the presentation.

Of course, it would help if high-level play was all that well put together.

World shattering events sound cool. Running them however......

Any high level adventures you recall that do it well? Paizo stopped doing higher level stuff.

 

[Reynard]

The claim IS true, but you're right that it's opaque. The designers have talked about it quite often, that that is the intent, but they sure as heck don't make it clear with the product. They leave it to the "clever thief" DMs to figure out for themselves.

I am of the opinion that if the product doesn't say or include something, it doesn't exist. Buyers cannot be expected to hunt down interviews and blog posts

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am of the opinion that if the product doesn't say or include something, it doesn't exist. Buyers cannot be expected to hunt down interviews and blog posts

I agree with you that buyers shouldn't be expected to hunt down interviews and blog posts, but I can't come close to agreeing that something doesn't exist just because you can't see it in front of your face. That's just not how reality works.

But in case I haven't been clear - I absolutely agree with you that the books could (and probably should) be formatted in a way that makes them more obviously made of stealable parts. I think WotC agrees with this, too, because we've seen a lot more books formatted this way lately. So many, in fact, that people are clearly starting to miss the other style. Much like I've said in other posts all morning, I still think it's possible to have a better-fit-line between the two.

 

[whimsychris123]

Paizo stopped doing higher level stuff.

They did?

Revenge of the Runelord (most recent AP) - levels 12 - 20
Hell's Destiny (releasing in June) - levels 11-20

It seems like every other AP that Paizo releases is high-level.