Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6391652" data-attributes="member: 59082">It is one way to (re-)introduce settings, although what it doesn't provide are the necessary guidelines and information to run further adventures in those settings, at least not without having or buying setting material from past editions. So for me it really makes sense to not only have an adventure arc book, but at least a gazetteer to go along with it - for &quot;Further adventures in...&quot;I think the best you can hope for is a mega-adventure and supplemental book in Ravenloft. For better or worse the tone is just too specific for them to dedicate their few resources to a &quot;Ravenloft mega-event.&quot; I'd love to see WotC create some kind of big span campaign arc, that crosses generations. Probably won't happen, though.This is exactly why I think having only adventure arcs and not setting and splats is not a good idea. If they are really following Pathfinder's model they should remember that while the adventure paths are central, Paizo also puts out a few hardcover supplements each year, as well as a setting book to go along with each adventure path. I think it is a good model and my biggest worry for 5E is that we're only going to see mega-adventures and supplements to those adventures.I personally think one good approach would be to have each year focus on one setting, with two adventures arcs in that setting, and perhaps one or two splat books per year. And then invite 3PPs to design adventures in those settings, giving them a schedule of the next setting so that they can prepare. So, for instance, if the &quot;gamer year&quot; ends and begins at GenCon, 2014-15 would be the Forgotten Realms, and we have Tyranny of Dragons this year and the Apocalypse one in March, and 3PPs could produce further adventures for the Realms if they want. Then you'd have the Realms setting book at 2015 GenCon to offer further adventuring, with an announcement of the next setting/adventure arc, which would start that fall. Or something like that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6391652, member: 59082"] It [I]is [/I]one way to (re-)introduce settings, although what it doesn't provide are the necessary guidelines and information to run further adventures in those settings, at least not without having or buying setting material from past editions. So for me it really makes sense to not only have an adventure arc book, but at least a gazetteer to go along with it - for "Further adventures in..." I think the best you can hope for is a mega-adventure and supplemental book in Ravenloft. For better or worse the tone is just too specific for them to dedicate their few resources to a "Ravenloft mega-event." I'd [I]love [/I]to see WotC create some kind of big span campaign arc, that crosses generations. Probably won't happen, though. This is exactly why I think having [I]only [/I]adventure arcs and not setting and splats is not a good idea. If they are really following Pathfinder's model they should remember that while the adventure paths are central, Paizo also puts out a few hardcover supplements each year, as well as a setting book to go along with each adventure path. I think it is a good model and my biggest worry for 5E is that we're only going to see mega-adventures and supplements to those adventures. I personally think one good approach would be to have each year focus on one setting, with two adventures arcs in that setting, and perhaps one or two splat books per year. And then invite 3PPs to design adventures in those settings, giving them a schedule of the next setting so that they can prepare. So, for instance, if the "gamer year" ends and begins at GenCon, 2014-15 would be the Forgotten Realms, and we have Tyranny of Dragons this year and the Apocalypse one in March, and 3PPs could produce further adventures for the Realms if they want. Then you'd have the Realms setting book at 2015 GenCon to offer further adventuring, with an announcement of the next setting/adventure arc, which would start that fall. Or something like that. [/QUOTE]

Verification