[UPDATED] Out of the Abyss Reviews Have Started Rolling In

I just found one of the first reviews of Out of the Abyss. I thought it could be nice to keep all links to reviews in one thread, so here is the first I found:

http://diehardgamefan.com/2015/09/0...he-abyss-dungeons-dragons-fifth-editiondd-5e/

The previews have been okay, but this review is what has me stoked. This kind of adventure is right up my alley. Can't wait for it to show up!

 

[Quickleaf]

I agree with that donuts review. I knew right from the start that I'd have to do a lot of reading and prep work before running this.

On the bright side, the way the book is written, even if you don't ever run the campaign, it can easily be used as a campaign setting guide for the Underdark. Tons of random tables lots of independent areas you can drag and drop into your own campaign. I would go so far as to say the entire first half of the book is 95% campaign setting, 5% actual campaign plot stuff.

Yep, that's my thinking too! I'm glad to hear you validate my hunch.

Pre-ordered.

 

[zoroaster100]

While I agree improvements could be made to organization of the material, I like the approach of the big campaign every six months with campaign source material included. If I want a short adventure its easy enough to get one from the 3rd party publishers but only WOTC is making these adventure paths for 5e right now.

 

[Eric V]

I believe they are doing the opposite of what you said simply because of one thing:

Release only one book at a time and EVERYBODY buys it.

The time for a FLGS shelf with multiple new releases where you can simply pick the one you fancy and ignore the rest has passed.

Hasbro has probably told WotC to step up their game and sell each book in the hundreds of thousands, or else.

But back to the reviews, please...

And it works, because so few products come down the line, and with a significant time between them, that people gobble them up (since, apparently, they sell best this way).

Myself, I spent WAY more money under the old TSR 2e paradigm, and almost as much under the 3.X WotC model, but it seems I am in a minority that way.

 

[JohnnyZemo]

On the topic of how the hardcovers are organized, I've been running Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and I copy all the stat blocks to 3x5 cards before each session. This significantly reduces page-flipping. Wizards should let Gale Force 9 put out a pack of monster cards so that I don't have to do this work myself. I would buy them.

On the topic of Out of the Abyss, the maps in the new book are MUCH, MUCH easier to read than the maps in HotDQ, so that is a big plus. The maps in HotDQ are muddy and too dark, as though whoever designed the book didn't know what paper stock the book was going to be printed on. Plus some of the maps are missing labels. But I digress....

One other thought about Out of the Abyss: it's very strange to me that WotC keeps telling everyone that Alice in Wonderland helped inspire this book. I've read Alice twice, and I don't see the connection. I think the advance publicity may give people the wrong idea about this book. If I read this book without being told in advance that Alice was an influence, I would never have guessed it.

 

[Barantor]

I no longer buy these books. After buying HotDQ and reading friends copies of the other books I have come to the conclusion that they are just too much campaign setting material. I am not a fan of the Forgotten Realms setting, so I don't get much use out of a book whose references are mostly based under the assumption that you are using their 'standard setting'.

For those that will inevitably say "Change the setting to yours!" I will say that I did for HotDQ and the Mines of Phandelver, but the amount of effort it took to do that was almost equal to just making my own adventures that are custom to my group, so I ended up going that way.

It saddens me that they are not as quick with the OGL or whatever they are going to do and they continue to publish only FR material that goes along with video game sales. I would buy adventures that aren't tied to a specific setting, but not ones where I have to do so much work to change them.

 

[Jester David]

My review will likely be in a few weeks. Money is a factor for me, so I'm having to go amazon rather than FLGS, getting it for $32 rather than the $64 the store will charge. Darn Canadian dollar.

 

[Jester David]

I no longer buy these books. After buying HotDQ and reading friends copies of the other books I have come to the conclusion that they are just too much campaign setting material. I am not a fan of the Forgotten Realms setting, so I don't get much use out of a book whose references are mostly based under the assumption that you are using their 'standard setting'.

Did you not see the 8-page appendix in Princes of the Apocalypse on converting the adventure to other settings?

I don't play in the Realms but I can't fault WotC for this. It's not like Paizo or Kobold Press or any other adventure publisher decides to publish adventures in a setting neutral environment. Even back in the day ("the day" being pre-2e), adventures were set in Greyhawk by default. The only D&D adventures to ever be setting neutral were 4e, which were set in the non-setting of Nentir Vale. But that was tricky as it meant the adventure writers also had to be world builders and invent history and setting for backstory and locations.

 

[Uder]

I run a homebrew campaign, different enough from the Realms that I expect to have to do major reworking... but am I crazy that I think that's fun? I did it with Age of Worms and it was very rewarding.

I just hope it's good, and the situations aren't just side stories for famous Realms NPCs.

 

[Zardnaar]

Worth buying? NZ dollar has gone down so it is goign to be stupidly expensive compared to 5E launch ($20 more roughly). Once postage is added even on Amazon I will likely be paying the $50 if not closer to $60 for it which is $100 over here.

 

[Barantor]

Did you not see the 8-page appendix in Princes of the Apocalypse on converting the adventure to other settings?

I don't play in the Realms but I can't fault WotC for this. It's not like Paizo or Kobold Press or any other adventure publisher decides to publish adventures in a setting neutral environment. Even back in the day ("the day" being pre-2e), adventures were set in Greyhawk by default. The only D&D adventures to ever be setting neutral were 4e, which were set in the non-setting of Nentir Vale. But that was tricky as it meant the adventure writers also had to be world builders and invent history and setting for backstory and locations.

This isn't completely true. When the first series of adventures for 3E came out they were setting neutral (starting with Sunless Citadel) even though it is heavily thought to be in Greyhawk, they don't specifically state that fact anywhere at all. I found this refreshing as a DM at that time, because I could set these adventures up anywhere I liked in any setting in which the story worked, without a ton of effort. There were also the Thunder Rift series of adventures that were made to introduce new players to the game via some tabletop/board game style aspects.

LMoP wasn't that difficult to change because it has less setting detail and more adventure detail, also it trying not to overwhelm new DMs too much.

That is beside the point though because.....

I don't fault WoTC for doing what they are doing, but it doesn't mean I have to spend money on their adventures either if they don't work for me or my group.

I saw the change options in PotA and I liked the thought of them, but it isn't enough for me to buy the book. I'm pretty picky on what I buy/use as far as things beyond the core rules though and maybe in the future that adventure might see my bookshelf, but for now it is too much of a "complete game" rather than something I can just use as part of an existing campaign.

I guess I need the OGL/whateverthing to come out so that I can get smaller adventures that can actually say they use the 5E rules and don't encompass months/years of game time