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

[delericho]

The problem comes when 'more bang' becomes an 'arduous slog'. Especially when the current style of adventure presentation requires so much preparation from the DM, with maps buried in amongst the text, and monster stats all at the back of the book turning it into an exercise in page turning.

Sure. It was said up-thread that the hardback book is quite possibly the worst format for providing adventure material. The problem is that it's also by far the most cost-effective, both for WotC and for us.

Now, that said, there are certainly things WotC could do to make their current adventures more user-friendly - things like moving the stat blocks into the main text (less efficient, yes, especially when they have to repeat the same creature multiple times, but probably worth it for ease-of-use), or making the maps available for download from the site, or things like that. I think we're probably stuck with the hardback, but we're not necessarily stuck with them exactly as they are now.

I have in front of me one of the best 1E modules, both in terms of layout and adventure quality. UK4 - When a Star Falls. 2 loose card covers containing all the adventure maps (more than 10 of them), and a 32 page booklet detailing 4 major encounter areas, plus a couple of side areas and other encounters, a description of the plot, and a couple of new creatures. This adventure would likely take a group 15-20 hours to complete. The story is solid. The text is concise and well presented (bold highlighting of key items and monsters). The maps are neat and well detailed. All the monsters most important stats are within each location description. It would take a DM a couple of hours to get ready for play at most - it's so easy to use!

Great. Now, would you pay $20 for it?

And, if yes, when you stack two(-ish) such adventures up against an "Out of the Abyss", are you really sure you wouldn't think you'd had a raw deal... especially since there's no guarantee that the quality of those two (as adventures) would be any better than OotA - after all, WotC engaged the service of some of the very best in the business to produce that storyline.

 

[krakistophales]

I played 1st edition AD&D from 1979 until 1989. I dabbled in 2nd edition for a year or two and then gave up on it when I went off to college/wife/job/kids. Fifth edition and a cohort of sound players brought me back. Fifth edition is outstanding--I'm a big fan. However, one thing I don't understand is the decision to eliminate stand alone modules. Maybe this was done in 3rd or 4th edition--I'm not sure. Our group did the Tiamat arc in 12 months, and now we're doing Out of the Abyss. To be honest, I want downtime. I want to build a keep and roll on a followers table.

I think there are several reasons:

1. Its more profitable to sell a 50 dollar "book" every couple months than a 10 or 20 dollar "concept" or "setting", since people are much more likely to buy a complete adventure than a module.

2. These days, it's hard enough finding people to play D and D AT ALL, nevermind getting a DM to create an entire world/mythos/setting/storyline with branching options from scratch. They either do a poor job of it, get burnt out after a few months, or simply have no desire to.

3. As with the abovementioned getting someone to DM is hard enough, new DMs are often scared brownpants and so they will use the adventure paths as their first few gos at DMing, and once they feel comfortable enough they'll start to branch out on their own.

4. Players are even worse. Most players think that selecting the backgrounds in the PHB is already a hassle, and the fact that they have to roll/choose and adhere to the personality traits/bonds/etc. is a nightmare for most twitchy new players these days, so an adventure path that has major choices made for them is a welcome remedy and will actually save many groups from dissolving.

5. From what I've seen in my experience and on forums, most groups don't make it past level 12 or so. Most adventure paths are built with that sweetspot in mind. I personally hate this, since the game was designed for 20 levels of play and there's absolutely no reason to not play until then, but that's what seems to be the majority, so they're definitely pandering to the majority demographic with these adventure paths and how they're designed. This also goes into the fact that most groups want to finish a "campaign" in a few months and then roll new characters and a new adventure, rather than having a long, drawn out, legacy campaign like used to be the case.

Hope this helps. It's just a sign of the times, and honestly, thank **** they have these adventure paths, because I fear that, without them, a significant margin of new players and DMs would simply pass D and D 5th edition, and tabletop gaming in general, right by.

 

[Gadget]

I think the realities of the the publishing world dictated the end of the 'module' long before the 'Adventure Path' became a thing. Even at the release of 3rd Edition, there was talk from WOTC about how the old module system was not sustainable from a profit standpoint: the overhead and design work they had to put into producing a module at a price point people would buy made it cost prohibitive. Sure, they produced the 3.E line of adventures as a loss-leading showboat for 3.e, but they really directed people toward Dungeon magazine for a lot of adventure needs. Indeed, one of the attractions of the original OGL was that WOTC figured they could off load adventure modules and their razor thin profit margins to 3rd parties; it is just too bad that many of the 3rd parties, like WOTC, realized that producing player oriented splat books were where the money was and glutted the market. Modules usually only sell to DMs, but splat books with more feats, spells, etc. could potentially be sold to players and DMs.

It wasn't until Pazio figured out how to make good bank on the 'Adventure Path' model that making and selling adventures became more feasible.

 

[ThirdWizard]

- Paizo have certainly noticed (and I'm sure WotC have as well) that a lot of people buy their adventures to read and not necessarily to play. If it's just for reading, though, an Adventure Path is probably a better bet than a standalone module - certainly, the heavy plot seems to lend itself better to a beginning/middle/end structure.

This is true. I purchased Dungeon 139-150 just for the adventure path content, even though I did not plan on running it.

 

[delericho]

Sure, they produced the 3.E line of adventures as a loss-leading showboat for 3.e, but they really directed people toward Dungeon magazine for a lot of adventure needs.

Yep. In my crazier moments, I sometimes wonder if a Dungeon-like e-mag would be feasible - say three short adventures per month, PDF only, $10.

But I fear the answer is "probably not". Instead, I think the closest to that possible already exists, which is a 'magazine' done by Patreon with some adventure content. That being EN5IDER, of course.

 

[JeffB]

I think its purely a business decision related to costs and branding.

And one that I feel, frankly, ®%¡\<> *&£ ™©[]^. (Thats me sugarcoating it for Eric's Grammy).

Hopefully the recent changes will result in more and higher quality third parties taking up the "module" mantle, though so far it seems to be 2000-2003 repeating itself with the deluge of %®€©¢ (more sugarcoat) ..and few gems. But it's early still.

 

[Mark CMG]

(a DM plays it twice: once in their head as they read, and again at the table as they play)

A simple but astute point.

 

[devincutler]

I'm not sure that argument holds up, at least in my experience with the adventure paths. It took us 3+ years of fortnightly play for our group to finish the Shackled City AP (we went from level 1 to level 19/20).

Even if we played weekly there is no way we would have been completed in a few months.

Was referring to the current 5e APs.

 

[devincutler]

Yeah! Or as I put it, the novel-ication of RPGs. Those terrible novels, with their beginnings and endings and characters, and whatnot. Whatever happened to the good old oral tradition. Somebody needs to take that guy who built the printing press and tell him what for, hrum hrum hrum.

RPGs are not novels. A feature of APs is the extensive longterm railroading they HAVE to do in order to sustain your beloved novelization. Good campaigns also have a beginning, middle, and end....but they are developed over longer periods of time and allow for much broader character development and include potentially significant downtime. I have run campaigns lasting a decade in real time and the PCs have had strongholds and children who have grown up to become adventurers.

I am not trying to denigrate those who like APs. But they are designed to be, effectively, the fast food of the RPG world. Prepackaged, easily consumed, and easily forgotten when you roll up new PCs and start the next AP 6 months later.

 

[ddaley]

I really like the idea of an adventure path. I like the involved story with all of the setting material. I like the overarching theme that the characters can play through. If I were a player, I think I would really enjoy playing through one.

As a DM, though, there are so many things that I want to take my players through. I am finding it difficult to commit to playing through an AP. I wish it were easier to integrate other content into the APs. My players didn't even make it through Lost Mine of Phandelver before I had them kidnapped and whisked away into the Underdark