D&D 5E Why (and when) did "Adventure Paths" replace modules?

[jmoolaman]

I enjoy adventure paths, they allow for DM's that don't have all the time in the world to run something. The only issues I have is that all of the adventure paths are rehashes of adventures they have already done. Tyranny of Dragons, that was done with Scales of War, same big bad. Princes of the Apocalypse, hey look its the Elder Elemental Eye for the third time. Out of the Abyss, actually the single unique adventure path. And now Curse of Strahd, just once I would like a Ravenloft adventure that doesn't involve a Dracula ripoff.

 

[S'mon]

Are the PF APs you have run written in such a way that you know all you need to know before running part one?

Everything you need to know to run Part One is in Part One. It's useful to look at the end of Party Six early on to get an idea how the designer expects things to end, that can help deal with inconsistencies in the various books - eg running Curse of the Crimson Throne the various authors' portrayals of
Queen Ileosa vary quite a lot, so understanding the intended end-state is useful.
I remember getting to Book 4 of Crimson Throne and realising it didn't fit with developments IMC, that it was a shaggy-dog railroad, and that I should discard (most of) it. As a result I don't I ever did read most of
Book 4 in depth. I don't think my campaign suffered for that.

 

[S'mon]

I've run modules with almost no prep before. Maybe a 10 minute skim. Works fine if you're just using it for a pre-made dungeon.

That's my experience. I'm running Against the Giants currently and have not read most of
it. With Castle Amber I had to read the whole Averoigne section - about 4 pages -
once the PCs passed through the Gate of the Silver Key, because the PCs have to get
various items to get home and the adventure encourages the GM to make this possible. But I didn't read all the dungeon rooms while they were in the Castle, and indeed they skipped the East Wing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not the only one. Henchmen and hirelings always underwent a series of rolls when first met and during the trials of dungeon exploration or far out in the wilds. Sometimes being a turncoat to save one's neck when outnumbered by bandits is the only way to ensure the next group of PCs had someone to hire!

Add 1 more person who has.

 

[ExploderWizard]

e. But I didn't read all the dungeon rooms while they were in the Castle, and indeed they skipped the East Wing.

The party didn't get to meet Little Ape? Super fun RP encounter gold there.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Feeling like you are being rushed through an adventure path is usually up to the DM, not the path. SOME paths have modules that back on to each other (ie - you hop straight out of X into Y), but plenty don't really push that sort of approach. When our group went through Wrath of ashardalon for instance, there were downtimes measured in years between the adventures. When I ran shattered city, I put multiple month breaks between the sections that could handle it.

I'm sure that if you request more downtime from your DM, he'll be able to fit it in.

I find this varies from AP to AP. Some APs seem to have a timeframe wired into the adventures and it is quite a bit of effort for the DM to extend the timeframe out. Others could easily be spread out without a major problem.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I find this varies from AP to AP. Some APs seem to have a timeframe wired into the adventures and it is quite a bit of effort for the DM to extend the timeframe out. Others could easily be spread out without a major problem.

Which APs do you have in mind here? Like I said, sometimes the adventures in an AP dovetail in such a way that the end of one is immediately the start of another, or where giving the adventurers time off is problematic, but outside of that the timeframes are completely arbitrary and I'm at a loss to think of an adventure path where that isn't the case.

 

[delericho]

Are the PF APs you have run written in such a way that you know all you need to know before running part one?

You can certainly run Part One without any knowledge of what comes after - and, indeed, Part One always has a synopsis explaining something of what's coming in the later chapters to help the DM with at least some foreshadowing.

However, I always find that the later parts give additional context to the earlier ones that can prove helpful. As such, and given that I have plenty of APs I've never used to choose from anyway, I don't think I'd ever be tempted to run one of them until I had, and I had read, all six parts.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Indeed. We've moved from "mostly standalones" to "mostly paths"; other than right at the start, I don't think we've ever been all one or the other. (WotC, despite focusing their marketing on paths, still produce standalone adventures for the AL. They just don't get the same attention.)

Actually, with Season 4, the CoS tie-in adventures, this will not be true. In a preview for the new season, the AL folks stated that the adventures should be played in order, as they tie together much more than previous seasons. So Season 4 will be its own mini adventure path.

 

[delericho]

Actually, with Season 4, the CoS tie-in adventures, this will not be true.

A fair point. Though it of course remains to be seen if this is a permanent change or if season 5 goes back to standalones. My best guess would be the latter - if the premise of AL is that people move from group to group and so can't guarantee they'll play any specific adventure on any specific week, it makes little sense to insist they play them in a specific order!