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

[delericho]

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.

FWIW, we took exactly 11 months (almost to the day), playing almost every week for 6-8 hours at a stretch. We had six PCs, who went from 1st level to 18th in the last session (they would have hit 19th had we awarded XP after that last session). Oh, and we played the 'magazine' version of the path rather than the hardback version with the extra chapter.

Ah, great days.

 

[Prism]

FWIW, we took exactly 11 months (almost to the day), playing almost every week for 6-8 hours at a stretch. We had six PCs, who went from 1st level to 18th in the last session (they would have hit 19th had we awarded XP after that last session). Oh, and we played the 'magazine' version of the path rather than the hardback version with the extra chapter.

Ah, great days.

Ah yes great days of weekend playing. I miss those. Nowadays we tend to play 3 hours once a week and the adventure paths are just too long to keep interested in really. We tend to nip in and out of the adventure paths. I would certainly like shorter stories

 

[delericho]

Ah yes great days of weekend playing. I miss those. Nowadays we tend to play 3 hours once a week and the adventure paths are just too long to keep interested in really. We tend to nip in and out of the adventure paths. I would certainly like shorter stories

Yep, that's pretty much exactly why I don't use the published APs either.

Well, that and the individual parts in most published adventures don't easily marry up to 3-hour sessions. Ideally, you'd reach a nice break point just as you're coming up to the end of the session, making it easier to put things on hold for a week and then pick up where you leave off. Most APs seem to work better with sessions that are both longer and more frequent than we manage.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

What's a "module"?

 

[BMaC]

What's a "module"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_modules

 

[ExploderWizard]

What's a "module"?

A module (for D&D purposes) is a self contained unit of material that can be integrated into an existing campaign. The utility of modules is their ability to be inserted into a campaign in different ways. A module is like a malleable puzzle piece that the DM can shape to fit a particular campaign.

For example the classic B2 Module, The Keep on the Borderlands can be used in a number of ways. The caves of chaos can be placed wherever the DM wants them and the Keep, if it is used at all, can be elsewhere.

I enjoy modules for their flexibility.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC could write eight adventures and sell them individually for $10 bucks apiece... hoping that DMs would buy as many of them as they could. Or they could put in the same amount of work writing eight adventures that could be combined together to form one long arc, and sell the whole package in one go for $50.

Sure, they would make more money overall should each DM buy all eight individual modules... but the odds of any DM actually doing that are much less likely than the number of DMs who buy the hardcover book. So we have to ask ourselves this... are they losing more money from people who refuse to spend the $50 for the full path than they would have gained by hopefully more people buying the individual modules piecemeal? I think the odds are pretty good that even with the additional DMs purchasing adventures, they're unlikely to be getting that average of 5 out of the 8 individual modules sold to equal out the money they get from selling the hardcovers.

The irony of all of this being that during 4E you could subscribe to DDI for like $6 a month and get on average 3 individual adventures in the online Dungeon Magazine for that month (let alone the online Builders, the Compendium, Dragon Magazine, and whatnot)... and there were oodles of people who REFUSED to do it because they thought it was a bad deal. Oh how times have changed.

 

[delericho]

Sure, they would make more money overall should each DM buy all eight individual modules... but the odds of any DM actually doing that are much less likely than the number of DMs who buy the hardcover book.

Aye. Not least since $50 buys you a 256 page hardback, while $10 probably doesn't even stretch to 16 pages these days. So that $80 for the eight individual adventures actually gets you considerably less than the $50 for the hardback.

("Hoard of the Dragon Queen" was $30 for 96 pages, SCAG is $40 for 160 pages, and "Out of the Abyss" is $50 for 256. You simply get more bang for your buck with fewer, larger adventures.)

 

[BMaC]

Remember this survey: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473102-Which-D-amp-D-Settings-Do-You-Play-In ?
At first I was surprised that Home-brew beat Forgotten Realms--the 'official setting.' However, when you consider that there is only SCAG for background and these APs which require a serious commitment, it's no wonder that people find it more attractive to homebrew. There's a great paragraph in the 5th ed. DM Guide that explains how downtime activities help the players feel engaged and connected to the campaign world. Home-brew adventures seem like the best option for achieving this.

 

[collin]

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.

Shorter adventure modules and campaigns are not just for the computerized young. When you get to be an old gamer, you have LOTS of other distractions that take you away from finding time to get a consistent group together and play an RPG. So I would say the Adventure Paths are not only for the very younger players, but for the middle-aged to older players who have kids and other responsibilities that take them away from regular weekly gaming.