D&D 5E WotC Is Designing Adventures With Shorter Content Chunks

In a recent interview, WotC’s Jeremy Crawford talked about how WotC’s D&D design accommodates streaming and busier adult gamers by dividing adventures into shorter, bite-sized content.

Gizmodo | The Future Is Here

Dive into cutting-edge tech, reviews and the latest trends with the expert team at Gizmodo. Your ultimate source for all things tech.

www.gizmodo.com.au

“So you’ll notice that around the time we came out with the Essentials Kit and then continued on with a lot of our adventure content — even when it’s a large, epic campaign, like last year’s Rime of the Frostmaiden —they’re much easier to divide up into digestible segments that where … if the DM wants to just read a part of this big book, or just run one of these little quests, we’re making that easier to do. Not only to make things less arduous for a brand new Dungeon Master, and with new groups of players coming to D&D for the first time, but also because of that format of play, also suits streamed games better.

“We know streamed games, with the exception of maybe Critical Role, tend to be shorter than a lot of [traditional] tabletop games. You know, in the old days and even today, a lot of people’s tabletop games [sessions] might range between three and four hours, although we’re seeing the average length go down — most streamed games are often sometimes as short as two hours, or even 90 minutes.”

 

[toucanbuzz]

Good philosophy. I liked it about 15 years ago when Pathfinder expanded D&D 3rd edition and modeled Adventure Paths. 6 modules. Link them together for one big adventure, or take one and plop it into your own campaign. It's not a novel concept, as mentioned by @pming, when this was done decades ago with smaller modules. Nothing wrong with taking lessons from the past of what worked, and what didn't.

 

[Dire Bare]

Why can't they just bring back Dragon and Dungeon Magazine? This was what Dungeon Magazine was for. Then you can fill the books with other material that normally wouldn't be there cause you're sticking in adventures mixed with it.

Personally, I would love a return to the montly magazines, Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron . . . .

But times, they are a changin! A monthly magazine format would be incredibly hard to pull off successfully today. For WotC, the DMsGuild takes up some of that space, and there's also OGL products to fill that need. There is a growing community of fan-creators putting out zines, bite-sized RPG content, but it isn't quite the same format as a regular monthly magazine.

The only successful RPG periodical I'm aware of is the Pathfinder Monthly, which is also a different beast from the classic Dragon Magazine (no ads, higher price point, focus on one game & setting).

 

[CharlesWallace]

Personally, I would love a return to the montly magazines, Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron . . . .

But times, they are a changin! A monthly magazine format would be incredibly hard to pull off successfully today. For WotC, the DMsGuild takes up some of that space, and there's also OGL products to fill that need. There is a growing community of fan-creators putting out zines, bite-sized RPG content, but it isn't quite the same format as a regular monthly magazine.

The only successful RPG periodical I'm aware of is the Pathfinder Monthly, which is also a different beast from the classic Dragon Magazine (no ads, higher price point, focus on one game & setting).

Definitely check out Arcadia from MCDM. You might really enjoy it.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, I managed the transition okay in the run I'm currently DMing, but if I were to run it again I'd pick a selection of the quests in each of chapters 1 and 2 and string a plotline through them rather than using the plot hooks and rumours.

But why? Players will build their own arcs if you let them and encourage them to do so.

 

[Dire Bare]

Definitely check out Arcadia from MCDM. You might really enjoy it.

Good call, I had forgotten about Arcadia. I've got the first two issues and they were a lot of fun!

But it's still not Dragon Magazine. That's not a criticism of Arcadia, just the fact that the monthly periodical model isn't really valid anymore, or at least, it's a tough one to make work.

Arcadia, at the moment, isn't a regular periodical and is finding it's feet issue by issue (unless there's been new development since last I've tuned in). It's also fairly short, and isn't available in print. In short, it's a zine, not a magazine/periodical . . . at least, not yet.

But again, not really a criticism, Arcadia is awesome and worth the $7 price per issue (up to five issues now?) . . . . and I'll add somewhat off-topic here, y'all need to pick up MCDM's "Illrigger" class book, based loosely off the illrigger alternate paladin from Dragon Magazine!!!

 

[Hussar]

But why? Players will build their own arcs if you let them and encourage them to do so.

I imagine it's down to how much does a given DM add/change a module. If the DM runs it straight from the book, then, sure, no problems. Me? I tend to add quite a bit even though I buy modules on Fantasy Grounds where all the work like setting up encounters, lines of sight and lighting and all that is already done. Problem is, it's done with the maps that WotC includes in its modules, and, as much as I respect @Dyson Logos for the creative genius that he is, the line art, hand drawn, black and white maps look very sad on a Virtual Tabletop when there are things like Inkarnate and whatnot around.

I would actually probably pay more money for the modules on Fantasy Grounds, if they would actually use more colorful maps. Instead, I have to redo all the maps for every adventure, which means a fair bit of prep work for me.

 

[Reynard]

I imagine it's down to how much does a given DM add/change a module. If the DM runs it straight from the book, then, sure, no problems. Me? I tend to add quite a bit even though I buy modules on Fantasy Grounds where all the work like setting up encounters, lines of sight and lighting and all that is already done. Problem is, it's done with the maps that WotC includes in its modules, and, as much as I respect @Dyson Logos for the creative genius that he is, the line art, hand drawn, black and white maps look very sad on a Virtual Tabletop when there are things like Inkarnate and whatnot around.

I would actually probably pay more money for the modules on Fantasy Grounds, if they would actually use more colorful maps. Instead, I have to redo all the maps for every adventure, which means a fair bit of prep work for me.

As someone who runs almost exclusively on FG now, I agree. Dyson's maps are great but they lack a certain quality on FG. Luckily, there are always plenty of options available on the DMsGuild and Rime in particular has some really good maps.

 

[BrassDragon]

This is probably for the best. I've found the overall narrative design of their big 5E campaign books severely lacking... the individual setpieces / encounters / dungeons are great but the overarching plots are often inconsistent, convoluted, invisible to players or poorly structured requiring remixes, DMG material or a lot of prep to make workable or even coherent.

It's baffling how much WotC seems to struggle with this but I suppose scoping down / narrowing the focus is one way to deal with the problem.

 

[CleverNickName]

Myself, I prefer larger, longer adventures. But I don't mind this change in direction at all. It's easier to add extra stuff to a published adventure and pad it out, than it is to remove things and slim it down.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, this is a good thing - I found some years ago that the published campaigns just didn't fit with the sessions I was running at the time, so found I had no choice to go to homebrew. The 5e adventures are definitely better structured for my needs... or, at least, the needs I had those years ago.