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

[Olaf the Stout]

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.

I don't think there are entire APs that do this, but most seem to have a few parts that basically roll over right into each other.

Without meta-gaming it and agreeing to it outside of the game, I find it hard to work long breaks into campaigns as the players inevitably want to chase up various leads straight away (if they have something to go on), or are left wandering around aimlessly (if you don't give them a clue to follow-up, with the intention of giving them time to do other stuff).

 

[delericho]

Without meta-gaming it and agreeing to it outside of the game, I find it hard to work long breaks into campaigns as the players inevitably want to chase up various leads straight away...

If the players choose to proceed straight into the next part, I'm not sure the published adventures can be criticised for not allowing downtime.

 

[spectacle]

If the players choose to proceed straight into the next part, I'm not sure the published adventures can be criticised for not allowing downtime.

You can't really criticize the players for wanting to chase down the evil cults instead of giving them time to grow stronger either. There's a difference between allowing downtime and actually enabling downtime. It would be meta gaming for the players to assume that their enemies will just sit around and wait if they don't hunt them down ASAP.

It is in the nature of published adventures that they present the opposition as an immediate threat, since the author has no idea of who the PC's will be and what their motivations are, so you need to come up with a hook that almost everyone has a good reason to follow.

 

[delericho]

You can't really criticize the players for wanting to chase down the evil cults instead of giving them time to grow stronger either.

I'm not. It's their choice, and it's a valid one, whichever way they go.

There's a difference between allowing downtime and actually enabling downtime.

There is, and I was talking about the former - Olaf the Stout talked about the timeframe being "wired into the adventures".

 

[Corpsetaker]

This is why we need more setting regional books that allow DM's to create their own sandbox using hints, rumours, dungeon locals, etc... I always loved the small modules that you could throw into the setting to keep the players going if you happen to run out of ideas.

 

[ehenning]

There are plenty of 3rd party modules still out there that you can purchase and insert into your ongoing campaigns. I am doing that now in the PotA campaign I am running now. I think sandbox APs really allow the DM to add in whatever they want, if they do the work.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I think we are seeing a lack of original material to be honest. I would honestly like to see Perkins get the boot and bring in someone else.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I'd like to comment on the 'workload required for AP' topic in here. So I'm running PotA right now, and I'm finding that I do basically no reading or other preparation before each session. I mean, they decide to go into the next part of the dungeon, and I spend five minutes before the game glancing over those rooms and noting which monsters are there; or they decide to visit Womford, and I glance over those pages and start speaking. But the flipside of this is that I carefully read the book twice before running it. I first read it cover to cover, like a kinda boring novel, and then I skimmed through it while writing down every named NPC and the pages on which they appeared. I revised it, in academic terms. I focused on the NPCs on the theory that the biggest problem I would face is players asking, "What was that guy's name? Where did we meet him?".

My observation is that successfully running an AP does involve a fair amount of time on the DM's part, but that that time is mostly front-loaded. I am running the book exactly as written, so that affects my experience, but it is clear that the time and effort spent is mostly located prior to the campaign's start. This is in contrast to my homebrew game, where not only did I have to do world building before the game started, taking easily as long as reading the PotA book, but I also have to spend time every week thinking up plots, trying to decide how to direct the players forward, and deciding upon an outcome for each story element in play. There is more work to be done in my (low plot, but not quite sandbox) campaign than there is for the Adventure Path. The latter has the considerable benefit that I have basically completed all of the work that I need to do for it, and I can now coast through the rest of the campaign upon my memory and understanding of the book's contents.

I found the same for Ravenloft I6, it is worth noting. That would be a friggin' nightmare to run without reading it cover to cover first - you really need to understand the castle's layout as the DM, since the players certainly won't.

 

[S'mon]

You can't really criticize the players for wanting to chase down the evil cults instead of giving them time to grow stronger either. There's a difference between allowing downtime and actually enabling downtime. It would be meta gaming for the players to assume that their enemies will just sit around and wait if they don't hunt them down ASAP.

I think best thing may be for the GM to have a metagame discussion - "I'd like to take a time jump now before the next part of the AP. What are your PCs doing in the meantime?"

What I'm doing now in my second AP-based campaign is to combine two APs (Runelords + Shattered Star) so that there will often not be an obvious linear trail to follow; indeed there can be total failure on one AP branch while the other continues; the high level PCs if successful can then deal with the consequences of failure on the other branch.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I'm not. It's their choice, and it's a valid one, whichever way they go.



There is, and I was talking about the former - Olaf the Stout talked about the timeframe being "wired into the adventures".

I did say that and I do think it’s wired into the campaigns. If the PCs know there is an evil cult working to achieve some great evil (which many APs are) and the party have a lead on where to go next, what do you think is likely to happen next?

Option A – The PCs chase down that lead
Option B – The PCs take a month off to relax, train, enjoy the spoils of the campaign so far, etc.

To me, if the AP does not specifically build in time breaks into the campaign, you need to expect that the players won’t stop chasing down the evil guys until they’ve defeated them.

It is possible to build those breaks in, but most APs don’t seem to have them.

For example, the PC know the cult needs to go to location X and get item Y. However location X is only accessible when the first rays of sunlight of the day of winter solstice hits the mountain top. The winter solstice is 4 months away, so the PCs know the cult can’t do anything until that point in time. It also gives them a lead, but one that they can’t really follow up on straight away (since the cult won’t be at location X now, but they will definitely be there in 4 months time).

Without that, you're basically relying on meta-gaming between the players and the DM to extend the timeframe of the campaign out (which is a valid option, but can break the in-game immersion a little).