D&D 5E Thinking about 5E releases...

You aren't comparing like for like.

Having 8 different short term modules, each with it's own plot, is a lot better than having one 200 plus page AP with only one plot.

You can't sit there and say Wizards is publishing the equivalent of 16 adventures. An AP is one adventure no matter how many pages it has.

But many of those were series that tied together for a bigger story! GDQ, A series, DL series.yes there were many standalones and at the same time comparing fifth to first at this point it lines up pretty well with the early days. GDQ was early in first's existence, as was A. Even Homlett was part of what was supposed to be a four part series. When we hit three years, then we compare. I'd not be surprised by shorter adventures appearing suddenly for a more regular release schedule with gazetteer treatments in them, focusing on smaller stories.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Here is what I'm seeing in all these threads and its pretty simple. People are complaining about the release schedule, I get it. In 2e through 4e there was a crap load of material coming out, especially 2e. Setting material, player character material etc. And it opened up whole new vistas in the game for players. But the money makers were core rules. They were the ever green product with diminishing sales on supplemental material. I don't know many groups that had lots and lots of supplements and my original game used the core rules, the first four PHBR books and every now & then random FR materials though we didn't really play in the Realms. They were nice, tight etc. We mostly used a 1e pub with a 2e DMG and the white box for our games. We picked the white Bok and phb up at a yard sale. What that taught me, going into converting to 2e was that supplements weren't necessary but nice. I grew up in a small town in southeastern Ohio, to get more material we had to drive 45 minutes away to get them. There was more than enough stuff in the DMG to create new things and useour imaginations to make the game play how we liked it including building new classes, races etc. After I got a job I had money to burn on d&d and comics and got some cool stuff out of that but didn't ever really use it. It was nice to read.

I don't see a need for a dearth of material like started being churned out in 2e, especially with the guidelines in the new DMG. But here's what I see and you can call foul all you like, but I see people who came up in 3e where everything needed WOTC to hold our hands because it was so damn easy to break the system and throw everything off kilter in making up our own classes etc and that changed the way the game is played. It went from characters to builds. It went from a game of imagination to a game of "tell me what I can play oh might wizard of the coast!" And the focus became "is this class balanced with this one, what build is better for such and such" and that my friends is munchkinism". Balance before was not letting player A outshine player B. You gave each player something to do with his character in mind, not who was more powerful or who had the bossest items. This is what supplementitist leads us to, how do I build a damage monster and people saying "the ranger is weak and the Blade Pact Warlock sucks" without looking at what that class "build" *vomit* is meant to do and how to do it. We forgot how to play the game outside the game! We forgot about how bad ass our Blade Pact is and how it evokes that Elric like archetype we all wanted to play before we heard of Drizzt! How close that ranger is to Aragorn! Our archetypes have been replaced with numbers on a sheet of paper! Our characters with builds! Our imaginations with supplements!

For years all there was was Greyhawk or the scantly defined known world. So we made stuff up. What's stopping you from making stuff up? I had more fun writing about the City of Vadaneir and the followers of that vile Necromancer Kultha Zif than I ever did reading about Waterdeep and the Machinations of the Zhentarim! More fun creating the Warg Rider tribe of Goblins and their sorcerous Queen Cashtetz (yes, Cash :):):):)) and how they harassed Sasha Quickblade and co. than Obould Many Arrows and his orcs. I was more excited about my Kender Thief/Druid accidentally killing the dark god Hurst and becoming the god of death than TSR telling me about the Planes and Kelemvor with his wall of the faithless.

I remember making a barbarian class for a player because he wanted to play Conan, working with my DM to create a trollkin race based on Pip the Troll from the Warlock comics, even a race called the Him to emulate Warlock.

This stuff stands out in my mind as a ton more fun than when I played third edition and first tried crafting these things and seeing how intricate the system was and how easily it broke and then listening to players beg me to let play race A with template W and class combination C to deal the most damage, requiring five supplements and a web enhancement. When we first started 3e I had a player that had a paladin and on a whim I gave him a magic tattoo that enabled him to do things like we would make up in my old games. It was then that I realized, it doesn't work that way anymore because his character then broke the game because breaking up the party was a no no now and without his character the other players were SOL in most encounters and with him they needed a CR rating three higher than their level for it to challenge him. Net result, lots of needless death. In the old days we would all wind up doing our own things within the context of the adventure. The tattoo wasn't that damn powerful in the old days but in 3e it was a campaign killer. I had to rely on WOTC to give me material to keep the game balanced within the party climate. If I wanted Kobolds that exploded on death, well, it wasn't as easy to figure out what it meant as the old days. Hand holding ensued. Bah humbug on that!

Now with 5e I see a game that harkens back to the days of yore, that encourages me to use my imagination as a DM and player. To work with my DM and players in a symbiotic relationship to make what is fun and not fear the breaking of the game. Classes are back to inside and outside of combat. I have solid, easy to use guidelines to make things up that I want to make up. Could I have done it in 3e? Yeah with a lot of work or buying this here supplement.

Now what I'd like to see down the pipe, yeah I'd like to see more products. I'd like to see a book on undead or something like Dungeonscape from 3e. New Monster Manuals. But I want them done well and rare. One thing we learned in 2e through 4e is more supplements do not make for a better game but those high quality ones we got every now and then were awesome. I'd rather see a 128 page gazetteer for the Realms than a book with a Gazetteer and a bunch of new rules that are shaky. The problem with those sorts of books though is they take the game out of the DM and player hands. They also make it easier to pull from but I'll tell you, sometimes my ideas are just better for me and my games and no amount of Libris Mortis will make my players personal war with Kultha Zif any better. A dungeon book? That can inspire me to make a kick ass dungeon with cool traps and riddles. But I love using my imagination more than reading what WOTC has in mind for how a dungeon works or how goblins behave etc.

Essentially, use your imaginations like us old Grognards had to.
 


But many of those were series that tied together for a bigger story! GDQ, A series, DL series.yes there were many standalones and at the same time comparing fifth to first at this point it lines up pretty well with the early days. GDQ was early in first's existence, as was A. Even Homlett was part of what was supposed to be a four part series. When we hit three years, then we compare. I'd not be surprised by shorter adventures appearing suddenly for a more regular release schedule with gazetteer treatments in them, focusing on smaller stories.

Actually, were there a lot of standalone modules? IIRC, most modules of the time were part of a series and they were linked together. T1-4 (elemental evil), A1-4 (Slave Lords), S1-4 (ok, those ones are stand alone :D), GDQ are closely tied together. So on and so forth. Very few, AIR, were strictly stand alone modules.
 

All of those original GDQ, A series , etc., adventures differed in a significant way. They are location/site based and perfectly playable as stand alones. They were designed for single sessions at tournaments, not pre-formulated story arcs for wannabe Novelists like modern adventure paths (regardless of what company produces them ).

I can and have run all.of those modules as separate entities with no issues since their introduction.

Comparing the design philosophy and business intent from 1977 to 2015 is apples and oranges.
 

And a good modern day equivalent of those GDQ series would be something like the first three Pathfinder adventures....Crypt of the Everflame, Masks, and City of Golden Death. Fine as standalone, or can be linked.
 

Because there are roughly that many 1e-era modules within the AP. It's a string of loosely related mini-adventures, with each mini-adventure roughly the equivalent of those 1e modules. The adventures are essentially the same, with the only difference is there is a vague link between them so you can run them together if you wish, and they're all published in one larger hardback book rather than many much smaller soft cover modules. And the price for the big book is much lower than the combined costs for the modules. Therefore, it's the equivalent of 16 adventures.

Have you run either of the two APs HobbitFan? Why DON'T you think they are equivalent?

I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse right now and I'm playing through both Hoard and Rise. So yes....Ive read and interacted with these adventures first hand.
I don't think they are equivalent to a collection of shorter old-school modules becasue they weren't written or intended that way.
If they were, where are the end points and start points of the modules within the series? They aren't there.
These are big modules with chapters...there's a lot of material here..that doesn't mean its equivalent to a sereis or even a collection of old school modules.

Think of it this way. You have a whopping big novel, one written as a whole not a trilogy that is broken into chapters. You also have a trilogy of novels, also broken into chapters but with a build to a climax for each book and then for the whole. You don't see the same pacing in the big novel. The difference is in how they are written, the structure of the plot laid out.

Think about my novel example and then about the current adventure paths.

I'm saying the current adventure paths are different because to my mind they are. By definiation they are, just like my novel example.
You can chnage your definition, your understanding and say they are equivalent but you are doing intellectual gymnastics to do so.

edit: Why is it important to you to say they are equivalent? Are you trying to make that point to somehow make poeple think that WOTC is providing more material than they are?
 
Last edited:

L
All of those original GDQ, A series , etc., adventures differed in a significant way. They are location/site based and perfectly playable as stand alones. They were designed for single sessions at tournaments, not pre-formulated story arcs for wannabe Novelists like modern adventure paths (regardless of what company produces them ).

I can and have run all.of those modules as separate entities with no issues since their introduction.

Comparing the design philosophy and business intent from 1977 to 2015 is apples and oranges.
There are 13 dungeons in Princes of the Apocalypse, all as loosely connected as early modules. It'd be exceedingly easy to pull out one for a home game; very little would have to be changed.
PotA is basically Dungeon Delves 2, only with a connective tissue between the adventures.
 

Here's my own personal take.

I came up with D&D in the 80s and early 90s, so if you asked me in 2014 what I wanted in terms of product support from 5e, I would have said, "Two more Monster Manuals. A Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide with both some new player options and campaign advice and tools for the DM. A series of 32-page adventures, some standalone while others could be linked into an Adventure Path. A campaign setting book for each major past campaign setting, with maps available online." But to be honest, I would have expected to homebrew my own campaign setting, using some of the adventures in that setting, while creating my own as well, and probably only buying an MM II and the DSG and WSG. I'd only suggest APs and campaign settings in consideration of other folks who would be more inclined to use that then me.

But you know, that'd really only work for me if I had the time and opportunity to play that I did back in the 80s and 90s. Right now I'm playing in a semi-weekly game, but there can be months when I can't play that at all. I'm running an internet game for my old group back in the States -- we try to get together every week, but there are times when our schedules don't sync for weeks. I've just started running another local game -- we're going to try for a monthly game, but scheduling looks like it will be irregular. And one thing I've found is that, between work, family, and other commitments, I have no time for prep for any of these games, no time to come up with new adventures of my own, or really design a campaign world. Even creating my character and leveling him up for the game I'm a player in often ends up being a last minute affair. Really, I think I'm at my limit with the current schedule, and I really agonized about starting up the irregular monthly group.

So I have more reliance on published adventures, preferably ones that can last a while. In that sense, the APs WotC is putting out is working better for me. I'm not a big Realms fan, but it's a generic yet flavorful enough setting for my purposes. And the release schedule is working out perfectly. Come September I'll have to start thinking about new adventures for the groups I'm running. Out of the Abyss initially didn't really interest me, but seeing the concept art has gotten me intrigued. So there's a decent chance I'll get it. As a matter of fact, while I initially considered simply only ever using the Basic Rules, I've ended up buying every product WotC's put out for 5e so far. They're simply putting out the kind of material I need, at the pace and price that works for me.

I consider myself on the hardcore side of casual, since I'm involved in 3 games and participate on RPG related forums. But I'm by no means a completist, and am actually averse to purchasing more player options, since my character preferences are heavily informed by B/X. I can no longer afford to buy books that will see little actual use. If WotC actually went with the plan I imagined above, they would have gotten very little money from me relative to the money spent to develop those adventures and campaign settings. With the plan they are implementing now, they have nearly perfect ROI as far as I am concerned.

I suspect that the D&D customer base is a normal distribution, with people for whom RPGs are their primary hobby on the far right, and people who only infrequently play on the far right, and a big ol' hump of folks in the middle. I'm probably on the right side of the middle. If I had to guess, I would say the basic D&D customer is someone who only plays or DMs in one regular game, who does not have great investment in exploring the intricacies of the game, but likes getting together with their friends or family for role-playing hijinks. It's a hobby, but not their major one. Their spending is going to be sporadic. For pure players, it's pretty much going to start and stop with the PHB. For player/DMs, the Core Three, and then maybe some published adventures they can use right away. So to target them, adventures are what's needed. But if WotC puts out a lot of short, 32 page adventures, some will be bought by some people, others will be bought by other people, and only the folks well on the right side of the distribution are going to buy most or all of them. So APs give WotC the best ROI. Hardbacks are a good investment for them because its how they can compete against smaller companies putting out similar material.

In the end, RPGs are games that least need expansion products, because the essence of the game is that it allows infinite variation just with the core rules. They tried relying on short adventures to keep the game bringing in revenue, but that didn't work, so they tried campaign settings and splats. That didn't work so they tried a Core Book planned obsolescence model. But that hasn't worked, so they're trying something new: big adventures released so that one comes out just as the previous one gets wrapped up in play. I don't know if it will ultimately work, but I am surprised how well it's been working for me.
 

Here is what I'm seeing in all these threads and its pretty simple. People are complaining about the release schedule, I get it. In 2e through 4e there was a crap load of material coming out, especially 2e. Setting material, player character material etc. And it opened up whole new vistas in the game for players. But the money makers were core rules. They were the ever green product with diminishing sales on supplemental material. I don't know many groups that had lots and lots of supplements and my original game used the core rules, the first four PHBR books and every now & then random FR materials though we didn't really play in the Realms. They were nice, tight etc. We mostly used a 1e pub with a 2e DMG and the white box for our games. We picked the white Bok and phb up at a yard sale. What that taught me, going into converting to 2e was that supplements weren't necessary but nice. I grew up in a small town in southeastern Ohio, to get more material we had to drive 45 minutes away to get them. There was more than enough stuff in the DMG to create new things and useour imaginations to make the game play how we liked it including building new classes, races etc. After I got a job I had money to burn on d&d and comics and got some cool stuff out of that but didn't ever really use it. It was nice to read.

I don't see a need for a dearth of material like started being churned out in 2e, especially with the guidelines in the new DMG. But here's what I see and you can call foul all you like, but I see people who came up in 3e where everything needed WOTC to hold our hands because it was so damn easy to break the system and throw everything off kilter in making up our own classes etc and that changed the way the game is played. It went from characters to builds. It went from a game of imagination to a game of "tell me what I can play oh might wizard of the coast!" And the focus became "is this class balanced with this one, what build is better for such and such" and that my friends is munchkinism". Balance before was not letting player A outshine player B. You gave each player something to do with his character in mind, not who was more powerful or who had the bossest items. This is what supplementitist leads us to, how do I build a damage monster and people saying "the ranger is weak and the Blade Pact Warlock sucks" without looking at what that class "build" *vomit* is meant to do and how to do it. We forgot how to play the game outside the game! We forgot about how bad ass our Blade Pact is and how it evokes that Elric like archetype we all wanted to play before we heard of Drizzt! How close that ranger is to Aragorn! Our archetypes have been replaced with numbers on a sheet of paper! Our characters with builds! Our imaginations with supplements!

For years all there was was Greyhawk or the scantly defined known world. So we made stuff up. What's stopping you from making stuff up? I had more fun writing about the City of Vadaneir and the followers of that vile Necromancer Kultha Zif than I ever did reading about Waterdeep and the Machinations of the Zhentarim! More fun creating the Warg Rider tribe of Goblins and their sorcerous Queen Cashtetz (yes, Cash :):):):)) and how they harassed Sasha Quickblade and co. than Obould Many Arrows and his orcs. I was more excited about my Kender Thief/Druid accidentally killing the dark god Hurst and becoming the god of death than TSR telling me about the Planes and Kelemvor with his wall of the faithless.

I remember making a barbarian class for a player because he wanted to play Conan, working with my DM to create a trollkin race based on Pip the Troll from the Warlock comics, even a race called the Him to emulate Warlock.

This stuff stands out in my mind as a ton more fun than when I played third edition and first tried crafting these things and seeing how intricate the system was and how easily it broke and then listening to players beg me to let play race A with template W and class combination C to deal the most damage, requiring five supplements and a web enhancement. When we first started 3e I had a player that had a paladin and on a whim I gave him a magic tattoo that enabled him to do things like we would make up in my old games. It was then that I realized, it doesn't work that way anymore because his character then broke the game because breaking up the party was a no no now and without his character the other players were SOL in most encounters and with him they needed a CR rating three higher than their level for it to challenge him. Net result, lots of needless death. In the old days we would all wind up doing our own things within the context of the adventure. The tattoo wasn't that damn powerful in the old days but in 3e it was a campaign killer. I had to rely on WOTC to give me material to keep the game balanced within the party climate. If I wanted Kobolds that exploded on death, well, it wasn't as easy to figure out what it meant as the old days. Hand holding ensued. Bah humbug on that!

Now with 5e I see a game that harkens back to the days of yore, that encourages me to use my imagination as a DM and player. To work with my DM and players in a symbiotic relationship to make what is fun and not fear the breaking of the game. Classes are back to inside and outside of combat. I have solid, easy to use guidelines to make things up that I want to make up. Could I have done it in 3e? Yeah with a lot of work or buying this here supplement.

Now what I'd like to see down the pipe, yeah I'd like to see more products. I'd like to see a book on undead or something like Dungeonscape from 3e. New Monster Manuals. But I want them done well and rare. One thing we learned in 2e through 4e is more supplements do not make for a better game but those high quality ones we got every now and then were awesome. I'd rather see a 128 page gazetteer for the Realms than a book with a Gazetteer and a bunch of new rules that are shaky. The problem with those sorts of books though is they take the game out of the DM and player hands. They also make it easier to pull from but I'll tell you, sometimes my ideas are just better for me and my games and no amount of Libris Mortis will make my players personal war with Kultha Zif any better. A dungeon book? That can inspire me to make a kick ass dungeon with cool traps and riddles. But I love using my imagination more than reading what WOTC has in mind for how a dungeon works or how goblins behave etc.

Essentially, use your imaginations like us old Grognards had to.
I agree. Either make stuff up or take all the bits of an AP and strip away the metaplot, or play the AP. Or buy a non WOTC product. Or run a 2e or 3e adventure and convert on the fly. There are loads of options.

However if you want extra rules and splatbooks, tough.
 

Remove ads

Top