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

[Radaceus]

I've never used AP's, but then again, I havnt DM'd a module in 30 years

 

[rooneg]

Aren't most of the AL adventures designed to be played in a single sitting? Because if that's the case, it is just not the same thing at all.

Yes. The AL stand alone adventures are typically designed to be run in 4 or 8 hour convention time slots (with each season also getting an intro adventure that contains 5 1 hour mini quests).

 

[Mark CMG]

OotA is a sandbox adventure with an overarching plot running through it.

These ideas are at odds with one another.

There are various events that are going to happen, and the players can jump from place to place in the sandbox with relative freedom until they pick up on what's happening (and then end up on their quest to solve the problem in the second half). That means that yes, you need to read chapter 2 to learn how to run the "we're walking through the Underdark from point A to point B" parts of the story, and you should probably have some vague idea of what can/will happen at the various places they might go. You don't need complete understanding of everything that happens at Gracklstugh until your players get there though, for example.

What you're describing is not a sandbox. If all roads lead to Rome, no matter the choices of the PCs, it is not a sandbox. You've typed out all of the clues that it isn't a sandbox: "various events that are going to happen," "end up on their quest," "point A to point B," and "what can/will happen." None of these markers are elements of a sandbox. This is one of the differences between modules (mini-setting) and adventure (planned narrative) I was pointing out above. Mind you, NOTHING is ever pure sandbox or pure railroad; it's a sliding scale. But early modules were very far toward the sandbox side and this is clearly mush closer to the other from your description but with some strong sandbox elements or you wouldn't be calling it one, I am sure. Nevertheless, when the natural language you use to describe a sandbox are all elements of not-a-sandbox, it's clear what is being discussed.

I admit, they probably could have done a better job of providing you with the "big picture" part first, as opposed to assuming you were just going to read the whole damn thing (well, more like "the whole damn half", since the first and second halves are pretty independent of each other), but all in all I think it works pretty well.

There's another marker of a narrative: "big picture."

On a different note, the idea that designers can't assume someone would "read the whole damn thing" before running it speaks to another point being discussed in this thread regarding attention spans. I cannot imagine someone buying a module/adventure and not reading it all AT LEAST once before attempting to run it. Reading it at last twice is the assumed norm, as well as spending time making notes (in it or on the side, perhaps in a GM's notebook), making player handouts like maps if not provided, putting together the necessary minis and terrain if you use such things, etc. GM's Day is a week from tomorrow and the ones who do the leg work are the ones who get the best GM's Day gifts!

 

[rooneg]

These ideas are at odds with one another.

What you're describing is not a sandbox. If all roads lead to Rome, no matter the choices of the PCs, it is not a sandbox. You've typed out all of the clues that it isn't a sandbox: "various events that are going to happen," "end up on their quest," "point A to point B," and "what can/will happen." None of these markers are elements of a sandbox. This is one of the differences between modules (mini-setting) and adventure (planned narrative) I was pointing out above. Mind you, NOTHING is ever pure sandbox or pure railroad; it's a sliding scale. But early modules were very far toward the sandbox side and this is clearly mush closer to the other from your description but with some strong sandbox elements or you wouldn't be calling it one, I am sure. Nevertheless, when the natural language you use to describe a sandbox are all elements of not-a-sandbox, it's clear what is being discussed.

Sure, I'm more than willing to admit that OotA is not a pure sandbox. WotC doesn't do that. They craft an overall storyline for their various properties and the big adventure is designed to fit into that storyline. There are elements of them (especially in OotA) where the players have more agency than usual though, and things can play out in various ways which is why people refer to it as sandboxy.

On a different note, the idea that designers can't assume someone would "read the whole damn thing" before running it speaks to another point being discussed in this thread regarding attention spans. I cannot imagine someone buying a module/adventure and not reading it all AT LEAST once before attempting to run it. Reading it at last twice is the assumed norm, as well as spending time making notes (in it or on the side, perhaps in a GM's notebook), making player handouts like maps if not provided, putting together the necessary minis and terrain if you use such things, etc. GM's Day is a week from tomorrow and the ones who do the leg work are the ones who get the best GM's Day gifts!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I expect you'll at least want to skim through it before you start, but it's a 256 page book, expecting a detailed read of every part before playing the very beginning seems unreasonable to me. You're not going to retain it all anyway!

 

[Mark CMG]

Quite frankly, I want Dungeon magazine again. They gave you multiple adventures of various lengths in each issue. Heck, if they just scanned in all the old TSR-era issues and sold them in some pdf collections I'd be satisfied.

The old ones can be bought on the secondary market singly or in bunches at quite reasonable prices. I know a game store that has piles of them at the front of the store in various states of condition for a buck or two a piece. Unless you've had them all and have run every adventure in them all, I can't see why the old ones wouldn't be just as useful to you as anything new.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sure, I'm more than willing to admit that OotA is not a pure sandbox. WotC doesn't do that. They craft an overall storyline for their various properties and the big adventure is designed to fit into that storyline. There are elements of them (especially in OotA) where the players have more agency than usual though, and things can play out in various ways which is why people refer to it as sandboxy.

Yeah, but from your description, it is way at the other end of the sliding scale away from being a sandbox. Too often I see folks describe a supplement (module / adventure) with just a handful of sandbox elements and calling it such. I'm guessing such folks have never seen an actual sandbox or played in one, let alone run one.

A sandbox is a wide open design which allows for ALL player choices to matter and allows players to do anything and go anywhere. This can be done with a ton of prep work or by a GM who is good enough to wholly improvise, perhaps with the help of encounter tables and random dice rolling. A sandbox shouldn't feel as if no choice matters but rather that ALL choices matter. A sandbox is ultimate player agency.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I expect you'll at least want to skim through it before you start, but it's a 256 page book, expecting a detailed read of every part before playing the very beginning seems unreasonable to me. You're not going to retain it all anyway!

"Skim?" No. "Expecting a detailed read of every part before playing?" Yes. Of course. Retain it all? No, not a chance. No one equates reading with memorization or expects that. Folks that can memorize at a glance could actually get away with skimming. But absolutely "Yes," a GM is expected to have fully read and understood what they are going to run. Man, oh, man, this is what happens when the general gaming populace is led to believe that just any old person can GM a game. Yes, yes, I know. "Get off of my lawn" and blah, blah, blah, but GMing an RPG is not like officiating a minis skirmish game. It takes work, the least of which is reading the materials in advance. The LEAST of which. I can't believe this is even a conversation. I'll be back to this later but I have some stuff to prep for Gary Con next weekend My god! He'd be rolling over in his grave . . .

 

[rooneg]

"Skim?" No. "Expecting a detailed read of every part before playing?" Yes. Of course. Retain it all? No, not a chance. No one equates reading with memorization or expects that. Folks that can memorize at a glance could actually get away with skimming. But absolutely "Yes," a GM is expected to have fully read and understood what they are going to run. Man, oh, man, this is what happens when the general gaming populace is led to believe that just any old person can GM a game. Yes, yes, I know. "Get off of my lawn" and blah, blah, blah, but GMing an RPG is not like officiating a minis skirmish game. It takes work, the least of which is reading the materials in advance. The LEAST of which. I can't believe this is even a conversation. I'll be back to this later but I have some stuff to prep for Gary Con next weekend My god! He'd be rolling over in his grave . . .

Look, all I'm saying is that I don't think it's hugely important for the DM to be completely conversant in events that are going to take place at level 8 (approximately 6 months of weekly sessions from now) so that they can run the events that take place at level 1. Should they have the general idea of how the adventure is supposed to play out? Sure. Should they be conversant in the various locations and NPCs that are likely to show up? Of course, especially in something like OotA where various parts can be visited in different orders and the PCs have a lot of agency. But no, you don't need to be completely conversant in the details of what happens in Gracklstugh if you players are currently being held captive by the drow in chapter 1 and aren't going to get there for weeks.

Part of the problem here is that the word "Adventure" is kind of overloaded. Should a DM have completely read through, ideally multiple times, the 4 hour long adventure they're planning on running next week? Absolutely. Should they be pretty conversant in the next month or so of stuff that's supposed to happen in their ongoing campaign? Sure. Do they need to have read in detail events that are going to happen 6 months from now? No. They don't. Heck, in some Adventure Path style campaigns it's possible that the stuff that's supposed to happen 6 months from now literally hasn't been published yet.

But hey, whatever helps you with feeling superior to the rest of us.

 

[Mark CMG]

Look, all I'm saying is that I don't think it's hugely important for the DM to be completely conversant (. . .)

I fully understood your position before and still totally disagree with it now.

Part of the problem here is that the word "Adventure" is kind of overloaded.

It's the crux of everything I have posted in this thread and the very first point I made, i.e. that there are misconceptions regarding what modules and adventures were meant to be and what they have become and how that fits with the idea of an adventure path. I'm guessing you have only skimmed my posts.

But hey, whatever helps you with feeling superior to the rest of us.

See, now you're just kinda flailing around. No need for this sort of behavior when opinions differ, even strongly.

 

[delericho]

Do they need to have read in detail events that are going to happen 6 months from now? No. They don't. Heck, in some Adventure Path style campaigns it's possible that the stuff that's supposed to happen 6 months from now literally hasn't been published yet.

There are an awful lot of people, including all the Pathfinder GMs I know, who won't even consider starting one of their APs until all six parts are out and have been read.

256 pages really isn't that many. If the DM can't find time to read through the whole book before he starts his campaign, he probably doesn't really have time to run the campaign in the first place.

 

[S'mon]

I like to have the whole Pathfinder AP before I start running, but I definitely don't read the whole thing (terrible, I know). I generally skim the book (eg book 1) before starting, and try to read the chapter within that book in reasonable detail. From what I've found, an hour spent reading material likely to be used next session is vastly more useful than an hour spent reading stuff 5 books away.