Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6898203" data-attributes="member: 37579">You mentioned a wiki. I was uncertain if you were referencing one of the myriad D&D related pages on en.wikipedia.com or another wiki. It's not always easy to find specific D&D pages on wikipedia: there's a lot of false positives for searches. No. That's why I was asking the clarifying question. But… if all you care about is that " it's good and I have fun running it" why does it matter if it covers ten levels or three?The speed of levelling and reliance solely on experience based levelling is also a factor. You levelled much, much slower in 1st Edition. Plus, there wasn't experience for traps (which took up space) or quests. You can replicate this pretty easily: just start the published adventures at a higher level. Pair this with an increase in the amount of experience needed to gain levels and longer adventuring days, then run the adventure. Instead of Storm King's Thunder being a level 1-10 adventure, play it as a level 7-10 adventure. What's gained by doing so? It doesn't take any longer to play through the adventure. You don't have any more combats or roleplaying opportunities. The story doesn't change. The only change is that you level up fewer times over the course of the experience. But… leveling up is fun. It's one of the big reasons you play. It's the tangible reward for your actions. What's the gain from reducing this?You're making the claim. The onus of providing the proof is on you (and citation), not the person making the refutation.Yes, you are correct. WotC is publishing fewer adventures in terms of absolute numbers. Unlike 3e or 4e where they published three or four or five adventures each year. However, again, when looking at page count, WotC is publishing far more actual adventure content. Somewhat comparable to early 4e, where they released adventures that covered the entire Heroic Tier in three adventures with 96-pages. By this time next year, we've has as much adventure for 5e as we ever had for 4e, and likely more than was released for 3.5e. Logic.They're a business. They do what they can to make money. As a publisher, if a book will generate enough profits and makes business sense, they publish it. They're not publishing small modules. Therefore they either do not generate enough money or do not fit their business model. Well… or they're terrible at their job. But given Paizo has also moved away from small modules, and the small modules on the DMsGuild are not doing gangbusters I feel safe saying small adventures don't have the same market as superadventures. Lots of things have appeal. That doesn't mean they're viable products or desirable by a majority of the fanbase. True. But couldn't the exact same be said about small adventures or ones with limited levels?</blockquote>

Verification