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

[Benjamin Olson]

Secondly for anyone who has even causally read them it’s clear that the books are comprised of sections that would be referred to as a module in any other edition. Want a city based investigation of a corrupt noble family - use the first part of DIA. Want one of a dozen jungle locations - use the central part of TOI. Want a frost giants steading or a cloud giant’s flying castle - its in Storm Kings thunder.

Oh, so if I try to use a book as what it purports to be rather than what "anyone who even casually read" it automatically knows I'm a chump who hasn't seen the true brilliance of it. Well that's just a different way a product can be bad in my book. If that's what they're selling thay should come right out and say it. They could even have some notes on what elements to strip out or modify if using a given "module" on its own and save people doing that a lot of work.

I'm glad you've consistently found a use for these books, because to me, and I'm sure many other people who've bounced off of them, they seem bordering on a scam. The thing we are sold is "you can just run this prewritten thing" and then we find it is often more work than just coming up with something from scratch.

To me personally the issue is that I find being able to run these campaigns with confidence requires essentially committing them half to memory so I can understand all the moving parts and adjust for player decisions and whatever elements of my own I introduce. Other people's mileage will naturally vary wildly, just understand that as written they do not work well with my brain which does not struggle with most aspects of running D&D, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Maybe someone in this equation just needs to suck it up and get gud, but I, as the paying customer feel the onus should be on WotC to publish accessible material more than on me to get better at accessing it.

It frustrates me that they draw a disproportionate amount of flak. When I see criticism of the implementation it’s often the most nit-picky personal gripes that get brought up. “I wouldn’t do it this way and therefore this product is worthless.” Or balance is criticized as if there is any universal standard of balance. Worse of all, people complain that the links between chapters or elements don’t make sense but they then want anthologies of adventures that don’t have links at all. If you can make up your own links then stop complaining about the ones in the campaign book - just use your own!

An adventure in an anthology does not require me to read the other adventures to know what elements are only there to set something up for a different adventure, or to reference back to some earlier part for info on an NPC, much less to divine which parts are actually secretly separate modules.

If "links" between chapters and elements are not clearly identified as such for evaluation and possible removal then they are in fact worse than no links at all to anyone who dislikes them, as they actively create work to tease out and expunge them before the DM can create their own.

Yes, people have some real minor nit-picks sometimes, but often these are just the most articulatable things that caused them to give up on or turn on a product that they bought hoping it would make their DMing life easier, only to find it didn't or didn't in the way they anticipated. I would hazard that most often people's bugaboos about an adventure are the things that made them realize partly through running it or prepping to run it that they were going to have to do far more work than anticipated to make the campaign what they want it to be. It might be the smallest thing in the world to anyone else, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

Firstly the Campaign books are living examples of how a 1-10 (14) campaign can run. The themes are strong. They inspire me far more than individual adventures do. Tomb of Annihiltion really makes me want to run a jungle campaign. Rime an icy wasteland. Dragonheist a city campaign. Out of the Abyss makes me crave the Underdark. Inspiration matters to me as much as implementation. Not to mention all the spinoff products they inspire.

I do actually agree with most of that. The underdark travel chapter is why I bought Out of the Abyss and I wasn't disappointed with that part, and, despite my complaints about WotC campaign books, I'm currently running Waterdeep Dragon Heist (because I played in it years ago and had a blast) and while I think it is way too much work for the DM as written somewhere under that campaign there is a pretty good toolbox for running urban adventures (I just kind of wish I could directly access that toolbox without having to peel away the adventure layer).

I do see the value in having some sort of giant campaign books as an example of what a big campaign could look like, I just wish the examples they made were more accessible to more people. As is I suspect they've encouraged as many people to bounce off DMing as embrace it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, so if I try to use a book as what it purports to be rather than what "anyone who even casually read" it automatically knows I'm a chump who hasn't seen the true brilliance of it. Well that's just a different way a product can be bad in my book. If that's what they're selling thay should come right out and say it. They could even have some notes on what elements to strip out or modify if using a given "module" on its own and save people doing that a lot of work.

I'm glad you've consistently found a use for these books, because to me, and I'm sure many other people who've bounced off of them, they seem bordering on a scam. The thing we are sold is "you can just run this prewritten thing" and then we find it is often more work than just coming up with something from scratch.

To me personally the issue is that I find being able to run these campaigns with confidence requires essentially committing them half to memory so I can understand all the moving parts and adjust for player decisions and whatever elements of my own I introduce. Other people's mileage will naturally vary wildly, just understand that as written they do not work well with my brain which does not struggle with most aspects of running D&D, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Maybe someone in this equation just needs to suck it up and get gud, but I, as the paying customer feel the onus should be on WotC to publish accessible material more than on me to get better at accessing it.



An adventure in an anthology does not require me to read the other adventures to know what elements are only there to set something up for a different adventure, or to reference back to some earlier part for info on an NPC, much less to divine which parts are actually secretly separate modules.

If "links" between chapters and elements are not clearly identified as such for evaluation and possible removal then they are in fact worse than no links at all to anyone who dislikes them, as they actively create work to tease out and expunge them before the DM can create their own.

Yes, people have some real minor nit-picks sometimes, but often these are just the most articulatable things that caused them to give up on or turn on a product that they bought hoping it would make their DMing life easier, only to find it didn't or didn't in the way they anticipated. I would hazard that most often people's bugaboos about an adventure are the things that made them realize partly through running it or prepping to run it that they were going to have to do far more work than anticipated to make the campaign what they want it to be. It might be the smallest thing in the world to anyone else, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.


I do actually agree with most of that. The underdark travel chapter is why I bought Out of the Abyss and I wasn't disappointed with that part, and, despite my complaints about WotC campaign books, I'm currently running Waterdeep Dragon Heist (because I played in it years ago and had a blast) and while I think it is way too much work for the DM as written somewhere under that campaign there is a pretty good toolbox for running urban adventures (I just kind of wish I could directly access that toolbox without having to peel away the adventure layer).

I do see the value in having some sort of giant campaign books as an example of what a big campaign could look like, I just wish the examples they made were more accessible to more people. As is I suspect they've encouraged as many people to bounce off DMing as embrace it.

Nothing wrong with you. A lot of tge adventures are crude.

Sone have turned out to be decent books to mine ive found.

Early 2014 PotA. First 5 levels were good. Kinda doubled as a 2nd MM for a bit and using the cultists. Lots of naps and encounters. .

DiA. We used it as a sourcebook for BG3.

This is more plan B though. This adventure sucks but I bought it. Out of the Abyss vas adventure and very limited options.

Any adventure can be goid with right DM and a hit of work. My idea of a goid adventure us running it more or less as is with minimal prep and rewrite.

Alot of the typical adventures that are "mud" coukd also work with right DM and players.

Others are more niche. Witchlight for example I own than. Its not bad imho but I can see why people wouldn't like it. Its all over the place on ratings. Some love it some hate it. I regard it as a B tier adventure.

Most are C tier. Theres only 2 I would put in A or higher (I dont own everything however). A couple more might be A tier ymmv of course.

Then theres the niche ones.

 

[Reynard]

Secondly for anyone who has even causally read them it’s clear that the books are comprised of sections that would be referred to as a module in any other edition.

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.

 

[TheSword]

It drives me potty.

New DMs can and do just pick these books up and run with them because they aren’t expecting them to be Shakespearean works of art. They’re just learning the rules and having fun. Linked encounters around a theme that give some structure to sessions and instead of having to parse a million individual products get them neatly bundled in one attractive hardcover.

On the other hand experienced DMs can sort the pretty trivial challenges that inevitably come up when something has a bit of depth. They can put the work in and make something that really does play brilliantly and suit their group perfectly.

The problem I find is DMs that expect Shakespeare but also expect it to fall in their lap like mana from heaven. It won’t, and in 35 years it almost never has. But neither do anthologies or unconnected modules.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

This. Its not a bad thing to do but its not clear.

 

[Zardnaar]

It drives me potty.

New DMs can and do just pick these books up and run with them because they aren’t expecting them to be Shakespearean works of art. They’re just learning the rules and having fun. Linked encounters around a theme that give some structure to sessions and instead of having to parse a million individual products get them neatly bundled in one attractive hardcover.

On the other hand experienced DMs can sort the pretty trivial challenges that inevitably come up when something has a bit of depth. They can put the work in and make something that really does play brilliantly and suit their group perfectly.

The problem I find is DMs that expect Shakespeare but also expect it to fall in their lap like mana from heaven. It won’t, and in 35 years it almost never has. But neither do anthologies or unconnected modules.

Paizo had a reputation of quality APs for years.
They had a great run roughly from Shackled City through to Kingmaker roughly. WotC its most dud after dud with 2 good ones maybe another 2.

So we know its possible. The anthology generally have a higher hit to dud ratio even the meh ones.

 

[TheSword]

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.

We shouldn’t need written permission to do things that are patently obvious. I’m flabbergasted that you can’t imagine them being butchered for parts.

Every single campaign book from Hoard to Vecna is made up of chapters that for the most part stand on their own two feet.

If you are incapable of conceiving of the Tomb of the Nine gods as stand alone without a trek through the jungle first, well I’m sorry there’s no helping you.

 

[TheSword]

Paizo had a reputation of quality APs for years.
They had a great run roughly from Shackled City through to Kingmaker roughly. WotC its most dud after dud with 2 good ones maybe another 2.

So we know its possible. The anthology generally have a higher hit to dud ratio even the meh ones.

Paizo APs generally start well but collapse under the weight of the rules and bloat at around part 4. The first two parts are always amazing and then they tend to go down hill,

It’s why I’m very glad the Wizards books keep to a tighter more manageable range

 

[Reynard]

We shouldn’t need written permission to do things that are patently obvious. I’m flabbergasted that you can’t imagine them being butchered for parts.

Every single campaign book from Hoard to Vecna is made up of chapters that for the most part stand on their own two feet.

If you are incapable of conceiving of the Tomb of the Nine gods as stand alone without a trek through the jungle first, well I’m sorry there’s no helping you.

Except I am not the neophyte GM that needs to be told this explicitly. Of course experienced GMs can pull stuff out of these books they like. But that is NOT the same thing as saying it is intended to be used that way. If it were, there would be explicit advice at the beginnig of every chapter to that end.

So you can pretend to be confused why I would respond this way all you want, but there is literally no evidence that this is what WotC intends with its publications.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The problem I find is DMs that expect Shakespeare but also expect it to fall in their lap like mana from heaven. It won’t, and in 35 years it almost never has. But neither do anthologies or unconnected modules.

I also wouldn't want a module written by William Shakespeare. Trying to improvise or expand anything in Iambic pentameter seems like a nightmare, I suspect his adventures would be very railroady, and of course the name attached would make it so famous and revered that I'd feel obligated to give it a go.