Which of these would you like to see in 2015 from WotC?

[Staffan]

I must say I am very happy to see more rules in second to last place. Nothing made previous versions worse than heaps of rule splat books.

I think a moderate amount of new rules would be nice. Part of what made splat books bad was that they were just that: books for a particular splat. Doing 160 pages of stuff relevant to fighter-types is hard. But I think something like "D&D Companion 2015" could do well - a hardback of similar size to the Complete X books from 3.5e (or maybe a bit smaller) with a little for everyone - a new bardic college, a cleric domain or two, some new maneuvers for battlemaster fighters, a bunch of new spells, maybe some of the sub-systems that didn't make it into the core rules. Doing a book like that per year is, I feel, about the right pace.

 

[Morrus]

The problem I have with APs is that adventures don't actually have any business including stories. What they should do is provide the ingredients for the players to create the story.

No, that's a sourcebook.

There are different types of product. Adventures generally have a plot of some kind. Settings detail an area and often provide plot hooks. Sourcebooks provide tools and rules you can use to help you create stuff. Sometimes books combine these functions.

In many ways, that does make them settings. Settings for adventure.

So buy settings, and steer clear of adventures, and you should be fine! And if you want to call your setting books "adventures" that's fine, too, though you might run into some communication difficulties!

 

[Staffan]

No, that's a sourcebook.

There are different types of product. Adventures generally have a plot of some kind. Settings detail an area and often provide plot hooks. Sourcebooks provide tools and rules you can use to help you create stuff. Sometimes books combine these functions.

Not necessarily. Some adventures, particularly old-school ones, just provided an adventure site (usually a dungeon), but didn't give any particular reason as to why PCs were there (other than "there's treasure here"). Often there was a nearby village that could provide some rumors about the place, but nothing along the lines of "You're here to rescue kidnapped cult victims" or whatever.

 

[Parmandur]

Unfortunately, I think the chances of Mystara or Greyhawk coming back are fairly low, because of their similarity to FR. The same goes to a lesser extent for Dragonlance and maybe even Eberron (though Eberron has a fairly strong identity of its own).

There are very few things you can do with Mystara/GH that you can't do with FR. Sure, the countries are different, but they're all still fundamentally "basic D&D-style fantasy" settings. Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and Al-Qadim (just to take some of the stronger flavors) all have their own hooks: Planar travel + Sigil, Savage deserts/sword & sandals-style, SPACE!!!, Gothic horror, and 1001 nights-style Arabia.

Well, the DMG does go out of the way to emphasize Greyhawk as a Sword & Sorcery setting, distinct from the Forgotten Realms High Fantasy vibe. They have said they have ideas to use all the old settings, though of all mentioned in the DMG, Mystara probably is of the lowest priority.

I want to see setting box sets, personally; the Starter Set is a good start, but I think they can up the ante.

 

[Scorpio616]

Dragon and Dungeon Magazines in print! Give me dead tree or you are dead to me!

 

[Rune]

No, that's a sourcebook.

There are different types of product. Adventures generally have a plot of some kind. Settings detail an area and often provide plot hooks. Sourcebooks provide tools and rules you can use to help you create stuff. Sometimes books combine these functions.



So buy settings, and steer clear of adventures, and you should be fine! And if you want to call your setting books "adventures" that's fine, too, though you might run into some communication difficulties!

Modules such as Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, even Ravenloft (not to mention To Slay a Dragon), which contain story ingredients, but don't actually provide a predetermined plot are usually deemed adventures, but if you prefer to think of them as "settings" because they don't have any plot expectations written in stone I can live with that. You're not wrong.

Not necessarily. Some adventures, particularly old-school ones, just provided an adventure site (usually a dungeon), but didn't give any particular reason as to why PCs were there (other than "there's treasure here"). Often there was a nearby village that could provide some rumors about the place, but nothing along the lines of "You're here to rescue kidnapped cult victims" or whatever.

Exactly. Story ingredients for the players to make the plot out of.

 

[Morrus]

Modules such as Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, even Ravenloft (not to mention To Slay a Dragon), which contain story ingredients, but don't actually provide a predetermined plot are usually deemed adventures, but if you prefer to think of them as "settings" because they don't have any plot expectations written in stone I can live with that. You're not wrong.

To Slay A Dragon very much has a plot. You have to travel across the kingdom to kill a dragon in its lair and rescue Ariadne.

Story ingredients for the players to make the plot out of.

You mean plot hooks? Plot hooks are often found in settings. And, indeed, in monster books and sourcebooks.

 

[Morrus]

Not necessarily. Some adventures, particularly old-school ones, just provided an adventure site (usually a dungeon), but didn't give any particular reason as to why PCs were there (other than "there's treasure here"). Often there was a nearby village that could provide some rumors about the place, but nothing along the lines of "You're here to rescue kidnapped cult victims" or whatever.

I think there's a reason they called those things "modules" and not "adventures". They're adventure sites. Otherwise known as "settings".

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think there's a reason they called those things "modules" and not "adventures". They're adventure sites. Otherwise known as "settings".

I'm not sure that's a distinction most people would recognize, though it's an interesting insight to how the game was played.

 

[Rune]

To Slay A Dragon very much has a plot. You have to travel across the kingdom to kill a dragon in its lair and rescue Ariadne.

You don't have to anymore than you have to kill Strahd in Ravenloft. Sure, the story will be different if you don't, but it won't be spoiled. In contrast, an AP (like the Dragonlance adventures, to name some classics) just doesn't work if it's predetermined plot doesn't happen.

You mean plot hooks? Plot hooks are often found in settings. And, indeed, in monster books and sourcebooks.

Well, yeah, that's part of it. So are NPCs with motivations.

I think there's a reason they called those things "modules" and not "adventures". They're adventure sites. Otherwise known as "settings".

This is the disconnect. Like I said, you're not wrong, but look how long it took to get us to this clarified distinction. And this is just in one thread that many will never see and will soon be forgotten, anyhow.

There will still be people who refer to adventure site modules as adventures. And many of them will still view APs as slavishly adherent to preconceived plot.