D&D 5E Thinking about 5E releases...

[HobbitFan]

Do you guys think that WOTC's use of their AP hardbacks in the triple roles of multi-media tie-in, Adventure League material and traditional RPG product might be holding back their adventures from being better?

I'm not meaning this as a slam against WOTC, merely that it occurs to me that there may be conceptual and structural flaws in 5E's presentation methodology.
For example, is WOTC focusing on the Realms and on the Sword Coast in particualr because its central to any of their stories? Or are they choosing the locale for ease of linkages with Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends?
Have their hardback adventures been stories that you couldn't tell elsewhere? Are they adventures DMs could set anywhere?
If they are so generic why are they using the Realms? Name-recognition alone?
If storyline is so important why aren't there tie-in novels?
Why aren't their narrative connections between the adventures?

Another concern I have is that the design of the adventures so far seems to be driven in part by the need to also use the hardbacks in Adventurer's League as organized play material. I'm not sure, honestly, that this has been to any benefit of the two storylines thus far. Writing for organized play puts resctrictions on writers and game designers that if they wer just trying to write the best adventuers they could they wouldn't have to mess with. Not saying that organized play is bad, merely that it might be better to have that stuff specially written (as some of it already is) to tie into the storyline but not utilize the adventure path material.

Basically, I think they are using their adventures to do too much. Having to serve in more than one capacity seems to be bringing down their storytelling, making the adventures feel fairly bland and designed by committee.

I'm not saying that I have any magic answer to this problem but there does seem to be one here.
Is WOTc aware of this you think?

 

[TerraDave]

Its good to have threads about the same thing over and over.

Lets see, we have a sample size of two. One got sort of mixed reviews, but was first, with incomplete rules, and was actually pretty ambitious, with a number of unconventional elements--right from the very start--that not everyone liked.

The second one has gotten good reviews, is a little more conventional but still original in some ways, but not out that long, so its hard to really judge.

On top of all that, adventures are never, ever as popular as core rules. Not even. You can take Ravenloft or Against the Giants or whatever and lots of people will have never run and lots will say why they suck, even if other people love them. Its just the way it works.

So, based on that flood of data, its really hard to say.

 

[Evenglare]

Its good to have threads about the same thing over and over.

To be fair, when we only have 3 core books, and 2 adventure path books since August, I really can't blame the board for talking about the same stuff over and over given the extremely tiny amount of new information that we have gotten. It's either talk about that stuff (which inherently gives us a small pool of topics given the material) or basically talk about nothing at all since we have pretty much covered most everything we can 50x over.

 

[aramis erak]

Do you guys think that WOTC's use of their AP hardbacks in the triple roles of multi-media tie-in, Adventure League material and traditional RPG product might be holding back their adventures from being better?

I'm not meaning this as a slam against WOTC, merely that it occurs to me that there may be conceptual and structural flaws in 5E's presentation methodology.
For example, is WOTC focusing on the Realms and on the Sword Coast in particualr because its central to any of their stories? Or are they choosing the locale for ease of linkages with Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends?
Have their hardback adventures been stories that you couldn't tell elsewhere? Are they adventures DMs could set anywhere?
If they are so generic why are they using the Realms? Name-recognition alone?
If storyline is so important why aren't there tie-in novels?
Why aren't their narrative connections between the adventures?

Yes, they linked to the regions because of NW. They've said so.
The stories could, individually, be told elsewhwere... the hardbacks, especially. They are, however, good fits for where they're put, and some elements of each are pretty much "Realms or Homebrew only" - like the Mythal seen in one city in HOTDQ. Of course, that's really a throw-away, but still.
Novels tend to take 2-3 years lead time. If they had a good novel, then we'd probably see the storyline about the same time it hit, because the modules have about a 6-9 month lead time. They'd likely delay the novel the 6 months to rush everything else.

As for narrative connections between modules? There have been between the hardcover and the expeditions modules. I've not seen any between hardcovers, and I'm actually glad for that.

 

[MerricB]

Another concern I have is that the design of the adventures so far seems to be driven in part by the need to also use the hardbacks in Adventurer's League as organized play material.

You'd have to enlighten me as how that is the case, because the adventures are certainly NOT written for AL play. They are playable within the AL, but that's a completely different thing.

 

[HobbitFan]

You'd have to enlighten me as how that is the case, because the adventures are certainly NOT written for AL play. They are playable within the AL, but that's a completely different thing.

I didn't mean to say that they were written for AL exclusively. I do think there are elements (factions for example) that seem to be included for organized play purposes.
The two adventures utilize the factions different ways and to a different degrees but they both include them.

 

[MerricB]

I didn't mean to say that they were written for AL exclusively. I do think there are elements (factions for example) that seem to be included for organized play purposes.
The two adventures utilize the factions different ways and to a different degrees but they both include them.

That's fair enough. It's probably as far as it goes, though! Structurally, Rise of Tiamat was a pain to run in the AL because it assumes milestones (not allowed by AL rules). Loved the adventure, but I had to do a bunch of rebalancing.

 

[Agamon]

I didn't mean to say that they were written for AL exclusively. I do think there are elements (factions for example) that seem to be included for organized play purposes.
The two adventures utilize the factions different ways and to a different degrees but they both include them.

Included, but completely ignorable. Even better, they can give non-AL DMs some ideas or interesting NPCs.

Trust me, if the adventures were AL intrusive, I'd have little to do with them. I appreciate that there are those that enjoy AL, but that style of game is not for me.

 

[Jester David]

I do worry that the structure and requirements of the Adventurer's League and video games are causing problems.

For example, we have the Underdark expansion in Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends with Drizzt. I wonder if those were two somewhat different things, but because Sword Coast Legends was going to be out at the right time they decided to merge the two stories (demon invasion and Underdark). Because they seem like very different things.

The requirements also mean there needs to be thematic bad guys that can be causing problems in multiple regions of the world at the same time. The villains need to be causing problems in Neverwinter, around the Moonsea, and wherever the storyline hardback is set. This pushes towards villainous groups and organizations that can have varying cells. I.e. cultists. This limits the stories dramatically. So far this doesn't look like it will be much of a problem, as the Elemental Evil campaign in Princes of the Apocalypse is super localized that I don't see any way it connects to Neverwinter and its Elemental Evil expansion looks to be elemental cultists coincidentally causing problems at the same time as in Red Larch.
It does makes it harder to have exploration based adventures where the PCs are not facing a unified threat. It also makes nation-based stories trickier because they have be connect to the Moonsea or Neverwinter. So there can't be the "overthrow Szass Tam" adventure or "fight against the Shade" storyline.

While the adventures are ostensibly set in the Realms, this is mostly just place names at this point. The veneer of being setting specific. They could have been set anywhere. So far there have been few that tell actual Realmsian stories with the world. Which might also be a requirement: stories that fit into the Realms but are also generic enough that other people will play.

 

[Kramodlog]

Do you guys think that WOTC's use of their AP hardbacks in the triple roles of multi-media tie-in, Adventure League material and traditional RPG product might be holding back their adventures from being better?

They have multiple constraint that do affect the quality of their APs. Like having to be generic, not taking risks, having it all set on the Sword Coast (too much of a good thing...). Tie-ins aren't really the problem.

For example, is WOTC focusing on the Realms and on the Sword Coast in particualr because its central to any of their stories? Or are they choosing the locale for ease of linkages with Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends?

Yup, the video games are central to their business plans and dictate the location of the APs.

Have their hardback adventures been stories that you couldn't tell elsewhere?

Yes. DragonLance, Greyhawk, Planescape. The adventures aren't very realmsy. Althought what is realmsy? A "feel" is hard to qualify and quantify.

If they are so generic why are they using the Realms? Name-recognition alone?

Name recognition and some of the more known/popular characters. Drizzt comes to mind for some reason. Elminster probably at some point. They really want Sword Coast Legends to be a success. Putting Drizzt in it the video game and make him central to the promo is very telling.

If storyline is so important why aren't there tie-in novels?

Rage of Drizzt will have a tie-in novel written by R.A. Salvatore. "Archmage" I believe it is titled.

With their limited staff I think it took them some time to get their tie-in model up and running. Now that the core rules are done, they can spend more time on other things and it shows with Rage of Drizzt. They started the promo way more in advance than with Elemental Evil. Why? Probably because it is already done or close to be done. We thought they were holding things close to their chest because they were being secretive just to be secretive. It was just that they wanted to make sure their product was going to see the light of day. Digital platforms are announced the day they are released because they want to avoid vaporware like Dungeonscape and 4e's VTT again. Sword Coast Legends is already announced probably because they have more confidence in it and it probably is central to their business model (thus why the APs are all set there). Maybe it is that triple A game they want.

Why aren't their narrative connections between the adventures?

The APs? Cause the storylines stand alone. Even Paizo does that. Except fot Shattered Star that was connected to Rise of the Rune Lord, they all stand alone. This way you do not need to buy all the APs to play one. A campaign guide is what ties it all up.

Basically, I think they are using their adventures to do too much. Having to serve in more than one capacity seems to be bringing down their storytelling, making the adventures feel fairly bland and designed by committee.

Making storylines central to their products and having all sort of tie-ins is a good idea. It isn't why their APs are bland and generic though. That is the choice they make. Paizo ties its organize play, novels and cards with its APs and it works fine. They still do experimental, non-generic APs. Generic is a conscious choice WotC makes.

Part of the disatisfaction we get from 5e's business model right now comes from two elements. Focusing only on the AP when it comes to the RPG is part of the problem. No AP, splatbook or source book will sell as much as the core books. But by selling only APs they aren't getting money from players who are more interested in splat or campain settings. It is like refusing to catter to two thirds of customers (ok their are some people who just buy everything, but you get what I mean). Splat and settings can also be tied-in to storylines. So, I'm not sure I get their strategy for the PnP RPG, unless it is really secondary. That the AP is just a legacy product that gives a little credibility to the storyline. Maybe they see the RPG as more of a liability than a source of revenue past the release of the core books.

The other part of the problem is that they want generic storylines because the lowest common denominator sells more. At least that is generally corporate logic. Mixing technology and magic in an AP and in a video game might be too weird for the general public (at least this is what WotC might be thinking), so an AP like Iron God that Paizo wrote is out of the question. Too much Realms specific fluff or too much D&D multiverse fluff might turn people away. So generic it is.