D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[sidonunspa]

I meant "bigger" as in planned for the MMO and Organized Play. Which is bigger in the real world and in-world. There's more to coordinate and worry about, and the events have to be farther reaching with more things involved. Pathfinder's APs seldom extend beyond a single nation, often being confined to a city or sub-region. And the stakes are not always as high. They can be, but sometimes the story is just much smaller and focused around the PCs.

You can still build a story with interesting twists and deep NPCs with complex motives, murder at baldur's gate did this VERY well, but it's not an AP.. (wish it was expanded into one... such a good story to springboard into other events)

Now, let me just say, I'm REALLY looking forward to Rage of Demons storyline, because of who is writing it... I have high hopes

 

[wedgeski]

16 years..........

Yeah, that number smacked me in the face a bit as well.

 

[delericho]

wow we went so off topic waiting for some OGL news

I wouldn't worry. Come the 17th it will be time for the monthly news check, and we'll be right back to the topic. Or, rather, the cycle of a bunch of people saying "no news", some others complaining about the thread being bumped, and yet more saying they've given up hope.

It will be interesting to see what this month's derailment is, though...

 

[Jester David]

I disagree. I would say the Starter Box adventure, and Princes of the Apocalypse, are both equal to what Paizo's been producing lately.

For instance, Pathfinder's most recently completed AP is Iron Gods. I would put both those adventures at roughly equal to Iron Gods. A common complaint about Iron Gods is it's 3 good volumes/adventures stretched out to 6 volumes/adventures by way of grind-based encounters designed to get you the XP you need to reach the levels you need to be to complete the adventure path. That's not to say Iron Gods isn't a good overall AP, I am just saying I think those two offerings I mentioned from WOTC recently for APs are roughly equal to it.

I'd go back further than that, as well. I'd say the 4e AP Madness at Gardmore Abbey (which came out shortly before the 5e playtest) was also equal to the recent Pathfinder APs.

I think sometimes people are a bit overly harsh in their judgement of WOTC's APs, and too lenient on Paizo ones, based on expectations and reputation alone. In terms of actual on the page content, I think WOTC's been doing pretty good with their APs overall, with some exceptions.

It's a volume thing. Paizo has produced almost 17 APs so the good ones stand out and the bad ones are forgettable. And they've done some modern classics and styles of adventure people have been asking about for years.

For 5e, WotC has produced two "superadventures", four Sundering adventures, and a collection of small adventures. Most of which have been terrible and deeply flawed. And my thoughts on Princes of the Apocalypse are public record. There's Murder at Baldur's Gate. Other than that, you have to go back to 4e and Gardmore, which itself was an anomaly of quality against the Tomb of Horrors and Revenge of the Giants.

 

[Mistwell]

It's a volume thing. Paizo has produced almost 17 APs so the good ones stand out and the bad ones are forgettable. And they've done some modern classics and styles of adventure people have been asking about for years.

For 5e, WotC has produced two "superadventures", four Sundering adventures, and a collection of small adventures. Most of which have been terrible and deeply flawed. And my thoughts on Princes of the Apocalypse are public record. There's Murder at Baldur's Gate. Other than that, you have to go back to 4e and Gardmore, which itself was an anomaly of quality against the Tomb of Horrors and Revenge of the Giants.

I thought Legacy of the Crystal Shard was good too, and so was Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and Scourge of the Sword Coast. I never read or played Dead in Thay but I heard good things.

It's hit or miss, but I'd say more hits than misses lately for WOTC.

 

[Kramodlog]

It isn't that comparing WotC's two APs to Paizo's 17 is unfair, it is that WotC doesn't have a good track record with adventures, that APs are ambitious projects and if you want to put then at the center of your RPG strategy, you would need to wow the crowds with an above average products. So far the wow factor is not there and they haven't managed to change their image when it comes to adventures.

When Paizo started doing its own thing, it had its record at Dungeon mag and the Age of Worm AP to make people optimistic and they delivered with Rise of the Rune Lord.

 

[Hussar]

See, I'm not sure if that's fair [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]. I think that perception is a bit... biased. I look at EN World's Reviews of WOTC's adventures, and I get 19 products. Only three of those 19 are ranked at around 50% approval. Seven are ranked at over 80%. Just about half. Not a bad bunch of reviews really.

But, for some reason, people insist that WOTC has such a bad reputation for adventures. I'm not really sure that that's warranted to be honest. It's more that WOTC just, for a long time, was never really interested in producing adventures. But, several seasons of organised play later, I'm thinking they've got their game together.

 

[Kramodlog]

See, I'm not sure if that's fair [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]. I think that perception is a bit... biased. I look at EN World's Reviews of WOTC's adventures, and I get 19 products. Only three of those 19 are ranked at around 50% approval. Seven are ranked at over 80%. Just about half. Not a bad bunch of reviews really.

But, for some reason, people insist that WOTC has such a bad reputation for adventures. I'm not really sure that that's warranted to be honest. It's more that WOTC just, for a long time, was never really interested in producing adventures. But, several seasons of organised play later, I'm thinking they've got their game together.

Yeah... How many of those critics are made the day the adventure was bought and a few pages read? Plus, you know, there is a certain enthousiasm around any D&D products...

Tiamat's fun adventure came out before the review section of ENworld went online. I'm willing to bet that if that section had been online when the adventure was released, you would have gotten a lot of 4 and 5 stars reviews around the launch of that AP.

 

[delericho]

See, I'm not sure if that's fair [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]. I think that perception is a bit... biased. I look at EN World's Reviews of WOTC's adventures, and I get 19 products. Only three of those 19 are ranked at around 50% approval. Seven are ranked at over 80%. Just about half. Not a bad bunch of reviews really.

Three problems with that:

- ENWorld's review system is itself very new. WotC's bad rep for adventures is considerably older than that - going back to 3.0e.

- Only 6 of those 18 products have 10 or more reviews. So it's a miniscule sample size.

- And none of those products is from before 2012. Again, WotC's reputation for adventures predates that significantly.

I do agree that WotC have upped their game significantly recently - Lost Mine may be their single best adventure ever, and I've heard good things about both Princes of the Apocalypse and (slightly older) Gardmore Abbey. But their record prior to that has not been good, and wasn't good for a very long time.

 

[Alzrius]

I do agree that WotC have upped their game significantly recently - Lost Mine may be their single best adventure ever, and I've heard good things about both Princes of the Apocalypse and (slightly older) Gardmore Abbey. But their record prior to that has not been good, and wasn't good for a very long time.

Just out of curiosity, how much of the recent "upping" of their game is due to them outsourcing the production of their adventures? I haven't been following very closely, but I thought that several of their major adventures were written by other companies under contract (e.g. Kobold Press, Gale Force 9, etc.).