Paul Farquhar
Legend
The trick with foreshadowing is that it only has to be foreshadowing in retrospect...
D&D 5E Waterdeep: Dragon Heist Post-Mortem (Spoilers)
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I'd like to explore this. For many editions of D&D and lots of other RGPS there were plenty of non-Adventure Path adventures put out. So it was completely possible to run adventure-eposodic, but not at all sandbox. I've played with multiple DMs who did this.
But really, your comment brought me to a different place - could there be a call for uber-arc products, that's separated from individual adventures? Actual seeds to be built on that provide an arc, lots of ways to tie in other adventures, sample NPCs and pertanent things for NPCs to do to help tie things in, suggested foes and locations, some set pieces for various Acts, rumors, information and lore, and a big finale run. Designed so that DMs can run whatever adventure modules they want, from homebrew to 3pp to official. Something to layer on top of existing adventures.
The setting books they've been putting out lately are kind of this. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount in particular comes quite close to what you're describing. Bunch of locations with adventure hooks, seeds, NPCs with statblocks, factions, lore, information, plus 4 possible starting adventures each of which end with suggested hooks for continuing. Each location has different adventure hooks/seeds depending on what tier the characters are when they get there. Could use a few more maps but otherwise it's more or less what you are describing.
Lyxen
Great Old One
Of course. This was the default mode for us as well for many many years. I'm actually not sure when the first campaign appeared, probably around T1 into the Temple of Elemental Evil, or Maybe the Slave Lords. But GDQ was fantastic.
Hmmm, it's an idea, but I see some difficulties. For me, AP are great if you get the foreshadowing of the future well integrated in the modules. So basically, it would mean re-introducing the uber-arc elements back into the modules in a way that makes sense. Possibly not impossible, but will the modules be as good as modules created around the uber-arc ?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Probably Against the Giants -> Queen of the Demonweb Pits. But none of these where planned as a campaign, they where modules that spawned sequel modules. The first planned-from-the-start as a campaign would be Dragonlance.
Lyxen
Great Old One
I think you're right about GDQ, but I disagree about the "not campaign". I can't prove it about G1/G2. but in G3, clearly, the trail right up to D3 is there, there is clearly an arc.
LordEntrails
Hero
Wish I would have thought of using the Deck of Many Things. Much more fun than the Stone.
Hussar
Legend
Heh. To be fair, Dragon Heist, at least the adventure part, is about 32 pages long and it's not like a single line is a complex flowchart.
But, yeah, I totally agree with everything you said here.
Hussar
Legend
There is another point to remember. People get very, very bent out of shape about how AP's are railroading.
I've had players though, that are perfectly happy, I daresay happiest, when the DM is leading them by the nose. They are simply not interested in being the slightest bit proactive in how the campaign runs. The DM wheels up the plot wagon, spoon feeds the players, and then players then run through that.
It's not a rare thing either. I've seen lots of players who are perfectly content with this. I've also seen lots of players that, when confronted with a shopping list of choices, sit there and stare at me baffled, as if to say, "You're the DM, you tell US what to do and we'll happily do it." So long as whatever is presented isn't too different than what was presented before, they're content.
I think it's a mistake sometimes in these discussions, to presume that players are all highly proactive, deeply immersive players who want to take control of the game and tell their own stories. There are a LOT of players out there that have zero interest in shaping or creating their own stories. They just want to get in the car, and watch the scenery so to speak.
For those players, lockstep railroads where the only choices are basically, do we turn left or right at the fork in the dungeon, are happy players.
I've had players though, that are perfectly happy, I daresay happiest, when the DM is leading them by the nose. They are simply not interested in being the slightest bit proactive in how the campaign runs. The DM wheels up the plot wagon, spoon feeds the players, and then players then run through that.
It's not a rare thing either. I've seen lots of players who are perfectly content with this. I've also seen lots of players that, when confronted with a shopping list of choices, sit there and stare at me baffled, as if to say, "You're the DM, you tell US what to do and we'll happily do it." So long as whatever is presented isn't too different than what was presented before, they're content.
I think it's a mistake sometimes in these discussions, to presume that players are all highly proactive, deeply immersive players who want to take control of the game and tell their own stories. There are a LOT of players out there that have zero interest in shaping or creating their own stories. They just want to get in the car, and watch the scenery so to speak.
For those players, lockstep railroads where the only choices are basically, do we turn left or right at the fork in the dungeon, are happy players.
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
Yeah, it's accepted among most players I know that, if we're playing a prewritten campaign (and ESPECIALLY when playing an Adventure Path), that we're going to follow the plot coupons and not force the GM to completely abandon what they paid money to run and time to learn.
Similar Threads
