I really am not a fan of the way that wizards publishes their adventures. Currently, about once a year, wizards publishes a MASSIVE 10+ level adventure. These are not bad adventures at all. In fact, from what I've played of them, they're a lot of fun, great gimmicks, NPCs, and encounters, and they shouldn't go away entirely. What I take issue with is their extremely limited use case. When starting a new campaign, you have about two options: commit to running custom adventure the whole time, or commit to running one big adventure, with nothing of your own content.
The first option leads to DM fatigue, and takes a lot of time to prep, and sometimes you just forget to prep. The second option can be boring for the DM, and it limits your options, not to mention there's a good chance your players have already read/played/run the adventure. It also limits you conceptually. There's a limited array of flavors of adventure, due to the limited number of adventures, which can usually only cover one or two themes a piece.
My proposed solution is simply to mix in a short module every one or two months, or whenever a designer is sitting there, twiddling his thumbs. The current format is fun, and great for new DMs, but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. To some extent, wizards is already addressing this problem with the Extra Life adventures, and the compilations (ghosts of saltmarsh and tales from the yawning portal). And, yes, I know about DDAL adventures, but those are of mixed quality. Not mad at wizards, but I think they're overreacting to the criticisms of 3e and 4e.
Anyway, semi-rant over. I'm interested what other people think about this. I think the current style of publishing needs work.
Personally I think D&D is more suited to the old model of modular adventures rather than these pseudo-campaign-length behemoths they publish in hardcover. Presumably marketing dictates that the gargantuan hardback model is more profitable, and that is why they do it. But to me, modularity is always preferable to having something massive.
I don't think it's more work to make up your own adventures though -- I think it's actually less work. I know my adventures backward and forward. I don't have to read, re-read, and study up on a couple hundred pages of something someone else made, which as like as not is completely counter-intuitive to my way of running things and will have to be adapted anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
My issue with the current publishing model is that if you want more "stuff" (i.e., rules, new mechanics, feats, or equipment) you have to purchase one of these adventures. I really prefer the 3e days when you had resources like the campaign setting for the Forgotten Realms, then various splat books and more-focused Realm areas (the North, the Dalelands, the... pick your region). Published adventures are great, as they help to move along the over meta-story, but I personally don't use them much. I tend to read and cherry-pick what I use in my own games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Don't forget that there are loads of content creators out there producing amazing modules that fit this format. For example, the Uncaged anthology features across 4 (very reasonably priced) PDFs maybe 100 one-shots and short form adventures that span all levels.
Wizards presumably has the metrics on what works, what sells and what customer surveys say. Across all the adventures we have:
Introductory Adventures
Lost Mine of Phandelver - 1-5
Dragon of Icespire Peak - 1-7
Storm Lords Wrath - 7-9
Sleeping Dragons Wake - 9-11
Divine Contention - 11-13
Anthologies and Multiple Playthroughs
Tales from the Yawning Portal - 7 isolated dungeons from levels 1 to 20
Ghost of Saltmarsh - 7 adventures that span levels 1 to 12 and can be run concordantly
Waterdeep Dragon Heist - 1-5, can be played 4 times
Long Form Adventures
Curse of Strahd - 3-12 (or 1-12 if you do Death House)
Hoard of the Dragon Queen + Rise of Tiamat (1-15)
Out of the Abyss (1-15)
Prices of the Apocalypse (1-12)
Storm King's Thunder (1-12)
Tomb of Annihilation (1-12)
Descent into Avernus (1-13)
Megadungeon
Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage - 5-20, 21 levels that can be split up and run individually
Miniature Adventures
Infernal Machine Rebuild - 5-10
Rrakkma - 9th level
Lost Laborayory of Kwalish - 5-10
Setting Introduction Adventures
Kreno's Way (Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica) - 1-2
Forgotten Relics (Eberron: Rising from the Last War) - 1-2
The Orrery of the Wanderer (Acquisitions Incorporated) - 1-7
Tide of Retribution (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) - 1-3
Dangerous Designs (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) - 1-3
Frozen Sick (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) - 1-3
Unwelcome Spirits (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) - 1-3
I think that there's actually a lot more short form content than people think, they just assume the long form style is dominant. They've embraced the modular approach with Dragon of Icespire Peak and the miniature adventures.
I personally really like the current approach to adventures because the long-form adventures give DMs who might not run the adventure a lot to play with. I've not used anything from the shorter content, but I've repurposed loads of stuff from Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd for example
My issue with the current publishing model is that if you want more "stuff" (i.e., rules, new mechanics, feats, or equipment) you have to purchase one of these adventures.
That's because they know people want the feats, mechanics, and equipment even if they have no need of or wish to run the adventure, and they will buy the adventure to get the feats, skills, and so on. Of course on DDB you can buy these things individually for a small amount of money, but WOTC does not publish only with or even mainly with DDB in mind. They publish with the intent of selling hardbacks. Want this new background feature? Someone in your game group needs to buy the adventure, even if you have no other interest in Curse of Strahd or whatever the adventure is.
It's the same reason cable companies have resisted for so long giving customers the ability to only select individual channels for a per-channel price. They know that most people only watch a handful of channels and would not pay hundreds of dollars for hundreds of channels they don't watch, if they could just buy the 3 or 4 they do watch for $10 a month or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really am not a fan of the way that wizards publishes their adventures. Currently, about once a year, wizards publishes a MASSIVE 10+ level adventure. These are not bad adventures at all. In fact, from what I've played of them, they're a lot of fun, great gimmicks, NPCs, and encounters, and they shouldn't go away entirely. What I take issue with is their extremely limited use case. When starting a new campaign, you have about two options: commit to running custom adventure the whole time, or commit to running one big adventure, with nothing of your own content.
The first option leads to DM fatigue, and takes a lot of time to prep, and sometimes you just forget to prep. The second option can be boring for the DM, and it limits your options, not to mention there's a good chance your players have already read/played/run the adventure. It also limits you conceptually. There's a limited array of flavors of adventure, due to the limited number of adventures, which can usually only cover one or two themes a piece.
My proposed solution is simply to mix in a short module every one or two months, or whenever a designer is sitting there, twiddling his thumbs. The current format is fun, and great for new DMs, but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. To some extent, wizards is already addressing this problem with the Extra Life adventures, and the compilations (ghosts of saltmarsh and tales from the yawning portal). And, yes, I know about DDAL adventures, but those are of mixed quality. Not mad at wizards, but I think they're overreacting to the criticisms of 3e and 4e.
Anyway, semi-rant over. I'm interested what other people think about this. I think the current style of publishing needs work.
I did NOT eat those hikers.
Personally I think D&D is more suited to the old model of modular adventures rather than these pseudo-campaign-length behemoths they publish in hardcover. Presumably marketing dictates that the gargantuan hardback model is more profitable, and that is why they do it. But to me, modularity is always preferable to having something massive.
I don't think it's more work to make up your own adventures though -- I think it's actually less work. I know my adventures backward and forward. I don't have to read, re-read, and study up on a couple hundred pages of something someone else made, which as like as not is completely counter-intuitive to my way of running things and will have to be adapted anyway.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
My issue with the current publishing model is that if you want more "stuff" (i.e., rules, new mechanics, feats, or equipment) you have to purchase one of these adventures. I really prefer the 3e days when you had resources like the campaign setting for the Forgotten Realms, then various splat books and more-focused Realm areas (the North, the Dalelands, the... pick your region). Published adventures are great, as they help to move along the over meta-story, but I personally don't use them much. I tend to read and cherry-pick what I use in my own games.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Don't forget that there are loads of content creators out there producing amazing modules that fit this format. For example, the Uncaged anthology features across 4 (very reasonably priced) PDFs maybe 100 one-shots and short form adventures that span all levels.
Wizards presumably has the metrics on what works, what sells and what customer surveys say. Across all the adventures we have:
Introductory Adventures
Anthologies and Multiple Playthroughs
Long Form Adventures
Megadungeon
Miniature Adventures
Setting Introduction Adventures
I think that there's actually a lot more short form content than people think, they just assume the long form style is dominant. They've embraced the modular approach with Dragon of Icespire Peak and the miniature adventures.
I personally really like the current approach to adventures because the long-form adventures give DMs who might not run the adventure a lot to play with. I've not used anything from the shorter content, but I've repurposed loads of stuff from Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd for example
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
That's because they know people want the feats, mechanics, and equipment even if they have no need of or wish to run the adventure, and they will buy the adventure to get the feats, skills, and so on. Of course on DDB you can buy these things individually for a small amount of money, but WOTC does not publish only with or even mainly with DDB in mind. They publish with the intent of selling hardbacks. Want this new background feature? Someone in your game group needs to buy the adventure, even if you have no other interest in Curse of Strahd or whatever the adventure is.
It's the same reason cable companies have resisted for so long giving customers the ability to only select individual channels for a per-channel price. They know that most people only watch a handful of channels and would not pay hundreds of dollars for hundreds of channels they don't watch, if they could just buy the 3 or 4 they do watch for $10 a month or something.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.