Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mad Zagyg" data-source="post: 7680050" data-attributes="member: 47680">Yes, that's right. I don't think that has anything to do with the format whatsoever. That's because they've been marketing it well. Room for improvement remains.Yup, tons of people are running them. What's impossible to know is how many people would rather the contents be presented in a more palatable format.My topic is how they could improve the format, not whether or not people are doing just fine running them. I'm doing just fine running Princes of the Apocalypse, but I am distinctly aware of how the presentation is not optimal.That's what I'm saying.Hyperbole.That's not what I was saying, but can see where it wasn't clear. I'm not saying that people are finding that they are running through the adventures too fast. In this case I poorly segued into the experiences of my D&D Encounters groups that are running into the problem of not being able to finish the last adventure before the new adventure season begins. I recognize this is only a D&D Encounters issue and did not make that clear. Apologies. We keep having situations where groups are split in their choice of what to do when a new season starts. Some don't want to stop the previous season with the campaign left unfinished, while others become interested in starting anew with the latest adventure. Most groups don't even come close to the halfway mark. As you say, it's a different argument and probably belongs elsewhere since it has no bearing on home games.The initial release schedule was very satisfying. Starter Box interspersed with three core books and a two-book adventure story. It has, however, been five months since the last release for D&D (Princes of the Apocalypse). The book prior to that was Rise of Tiamat, which was released in November (around 6 months). So, it appears as though they have decided that after the initial release, one book every five or six months is a good model. I disagree.Splitting the big adventure books into a trilogy of softcovers as I described would improve the release schedule and would allow the adventures to be organized into a more palatable format.Do you have some data on this? I'd like to see where this has been true for WotC products. I don't mean that in a "prove it" kind of way; I'm just really curious if it's true, and if so, consider the real reason why that might be. Red Hand of Doom sold very well, as I remember. Better than many hardcover books from that era. Late 3.5 and 4e probably don't make for the best barometer for reliable data because of the climate then (restlessness/boredom/dislike). I think the folio adventure format would work very well with 5e's slower release schedule and real focus on adventures. At minimum, I'd like to see them do a box set instead of a hardcover. Lost Mine of Phandelver was delicious, and I'd like to see a LOT more of it.</blockquote>

Verification