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

[BMaC]

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.

 

[devincutler]

I am not a big fan of adventure paths either, but with the limited attentions spans of much of today's youth they are necessary, as many groups like to finish a "campaign" in a few months and then move onto the next campaign with new characters. Another example of the video gamification of RPGs.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's new with 5E. Pathfinder has shown APs to be a more profitable venture than stand alone adventures, so WotC followed suit. Not everyone is happy with this, but we're in the minority. I'm simply converting my favorite 1E adventures to 5E for my campaign.

 

[werecorpse]

It could be said to have its roots in 1e or 2e with the GDQ series or DragonLance but it really took off with Paizo publishing linked 1-20 level modules in Dungeon magazine starting in the 3e period. These particular issues of the magazines were extremely popular and Paizo knew it was on a winner. In fact when Paizo lost the rights to the magazines they became solely a publisher of adventure paths. The first 3or4 paizo adventure paths are 3.5e while they waited to see what WOTC would do with 4e. When they found 4e licence and system wasn't what they wanted they created Pathfinder. Pathfinder was originally created to allow them to continue to make and sell their adventure paths.

Many of them are designed to impose a time is of the essence/save the world mentality which is not conducive to characters doing any more than taking a day or maybe weeks rest between adventures and never deviating from the mission - they are heavy on the railroad. But they often have interesting stories. We have played a few as written and now are working to tweak the storyline to give the party room to breathe. We use them as the spine to a campaign, not as the whole campaign.

Tell your DM - if they have time it's do-able.

 

[delericho]

The 'when' doesn't have a definitive answer, as it was rather a case of APs becoming more prominent with time and standalones becoming less common. But even today standalone adventures are still produced - see the Pathfinder Modules line, or "Lost Mine of Phandelver", or the AL adventures.

That said, I would suggest two key milestones along the path: the first of these would be the publication of "The Shackled City" in 2003/04. This was the first of the paths in Dungeon magazine, and proved to be wildly successful - although it wasn't the first path, it was probably the game-changer. The second was the end of the print Dungeon in 2007, and the consequent start of the monthly "Pathfinder Adventure Path" line - which is, obviously, nothing but paths.

The 'why' is also quite complex, in that I don't think there's a single root cause, but I can think of at least four contributing factors:

- Overworked DMs have found utility in a "campaign in a box", and have found* that they are less work even that cobbling together standalone published adventures. (* This is not universal - some DMs find they have to do a lot of work adapting a path before they're happy with it.)

- There's a value in a common experience, and saying "we're playing "Rise of the Runelords"" works better for that than naming individual modules.

- 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.

- Producing two Paths in the year effectively gives you two "seasons", which is really good for marketing purposes - it gives you a focus on which to hang your advertising campaign, and it also provides nice, easy, and regular "on ramps" for new players. Standalone adventures tend to be less good for that, because they tend not to be such a big event.

I should note that I may be wrong about any, or all, of the above.

 

[delericho]

I am not a big fan of adventure paths either, but with the limited attentions spans of much of today's youth they are necessary, as many groups like to finish a "campaign" in a few months and then move onto the next campaign with new characters. Another example of the video gamification of RPGs.

This isn't new. Back when they were developing 3e (that is, well before Paths were common), WotC did extensive market research. One of the findings of this was that most campaigns lasted about 8 months, with roughly weekly play and about 4 hours per session - making a campaign roughly 140 hours of gameplay. That's one of the reasons 3e was structured as it was - under the default assumptions you could probably just about get from 1st to 20th level in that time.

That 8 months figure shouldn't have been a surprise: it's roughly the length of an academic year. Then the group would split up for the summer, and people may or may not return for the next year.

 

[meomwt]

The 'when' doesn't have a definitive answer, as it was rather a case of APs becoming more prominent with time and standalones becoming less common. But even today standalone adventures are still produced - see the Pathfinder Modules line, or "Lost Mine of Phandelver", or the AL adventures.

That said, I would suggest two key milestones along the path: the first of these would be the publication of "The Shackled City" in 2003/04. This was the first of the paths in Dungeon magazine, and proved to be wildly successful - although it wasn't the first path, it was probably the game-changer.

When 3e was released, WotC put out a line of linked adventures (starting with The Sunless Citadel) which they called an "adventure path." Paizo then appropriated the name for Dungeon magazine.

I played (as a player, not DM) in a couple of those adventures, and the links between them were minimal, from what I remember. There certainly wasn't the emphasis put on trying to plough onto the next adventure that is present in later AP's.

That said, The Age of Worms (the second of the adventure paths to appear in Dungeon) had plenty of wiggle room in the early adventures for players to have downtime, and there were plenty of hooks in Diamond Lake for side-quests and RP experiences. Add in a trip to the Free City (of Greyhawk!) and you can add a bit of sight-seeing to the mix as well!

The idea of "campaign in a box" isn't new, though: 1e had The Temple of Elemental Evil which took players from level 1 up to about level 8 (but far more sandboxy than an AP today), plus GDQ as already mentioned; 2e had The Night Below, Dragon Mountain and a few others. It's just that WotC's marketing now is complete campaigns to the exclusion of all else.

 

[delericho]

When 3e was released, WotC put out a line of linked adventures (starting with The Sunless Citadel) which they called an "adventure path." Paizo then appropriated the name for Dungeon magazine.

Yes, I know. Hence "although it wasn't the first path..." Other early examples would be GDQ, Dragonlance, and A1-4.

I played (as a player, not DM) in a couple of those adventures, and the links between them were minimal, from what I remember.

Yep, and deliberately so - WotC didn't want to lock people into a series because that would mean anyone who didn't like "The Sunless Citadel" wouldn't even look at the other seven adventures.

IIRC, the links mostly consisted of a bunch of names - Ashardalon, Gulthais, and the dwarven lord who ruled the "Forge of Fury".

That said, The Age of Worms (the second of the adventure paths to appear in Dungeon) had plenty of wiggle room in the early adventures for players to have downtime...

Yep. A lot of the Pathfinder paths try to build in opportunities for downtime as well, though not always successfully. There's no reason downtime and APs are necessarily incompatible.

The idea of "campaign in a box" isn't new, though: 1e had The Temple of Elemental Evil which took players from level 1 up to about level 8 (but far more sandboxy than an AP today), plus GDQ as already mentioned; 2e had The Night Below, Dragon Mountain and a few others. It's just that WotC's marketing now is complete campaigns to the exclusion of all else.

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.)

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I am not a big fan of adventure paths either, but with the limited attentions spans of much of today's youth they are necessary, as many groups like to finish a "campaign" in a few months and then move onto the next campaign with new characters. Another example of the video gamification of RPGs.

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One reason is because of the profit margin on individual modules. The hardback format is the absolute worst way to deliver adventure content for use at the table, but it is the best way to make the most money.

Now that 3rd parties have an OGL to work with, the market for individual adventures will be more widely served.