I have reason to believe (but can't share how or why) they are actively considering other settings as well.
You would have releasing a greyhawk book would be popular enough to sell. Same with a dragonlance book?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems.So, Lisa Stevens lied about her findings? Told us half-truths? Do you think she is trying to push some agenda? If so, to what end? TSR is dead and gone, and Paizo is making her lots of money...
No, I don't think she lied. I think she's mistaken on the entirety of the problem. Also, take a step back and breath. Don't be a fanboy about this and take everything as some sort of personal attack. I'm having a rational and reasonable discussion, I'd appreciate if you do the same.
Please pay very careful attention to that sentence.
"I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems."
Note that I didn't say it WASN'T a problem. I'm saying it wasn't the PRIMARY problem. Look at some of the other things I said. Do some research, feel free to disprove those points I brought up. Reducing the collapse of TSR to any single thing is a massive error that fails to take into account the complexity of that companies problems. I would put the entire list of problems something like this:
- poor money management
- bad bookkeeping
- failed new product launches (Dragon Dice/Spellfire)
- Random House deal failure (large cash hit at one time)
- Spending too much company focus on products that don't sell well (campaign supplements)
- pushing products at too fast a rate
See, I put the campaign settings in there, twice even (it's involved in both of the last 2). TSR was not a well managed company. That includes their management of the campaign settings.
For example, if TSR was only producing 1 adventure OR 1 supplement for each campaign setting per year, it really wouldn't have been a big deal. The problem was they were trying to push multiple adventures and multiple supplements for every setting, every year. That means employing more writers and designers to get all your projects done, but the sales of those products didn't warrant hiring that many people. The thing is, sales of those products will be low regardless of how many different campaign settings you produce.
Think of it like this, core books are the bench mark of sales. Typically you sell more core books than any other related product. So we'll represent core books as the base 1:1 ratio, everything else will be compared to this.
Generic rules supplements 1:2 to 1:4 (1 rules supplement for every 2-4 core books sold)
DM rules supplements 1:5
Campaign settings 1:15
Campaign rules supplements 1:20
Adventures 1:30 (but as high as 1:300)
Campaign specific adventures (difficult to convert or set in other campaigns) 1:100 (as high as 1:300)
Consider it this way, in 1989 TSR probably sold just over 1 million copies of their core rules that year alone. Adventures could sell around 3,000 to 45,000 for their entire publication history.
TSR often published 6-8 adventures per year.
TSR published new core rules every 5-6 years.
A lot of their focus (time, energy, money) was spent on less profitable publications. Part of the reason they probably did this is because they had horrible bookkeeping. They couldn't track effectively what was selling and what wasn't selling. Their business strategy was often to just shotgun the market and see how much money they made in total, then rinse and repeat.
Lisa might not have vocalized (or realized) that she learned these other lessons from TSR, but clearly Paizo is much more restrained in how they publish and produce products. They've learned how big the market is for each type of product and they make new ones at the rate that the market can bear, and print the correct number of copies. Paizo seems to put a lot more care and thought into managing their products.
When Paizo has tried completely new products (like video games, miniatures or card games), they've been smart. Instead of betting the farm on these new products, they go in carefully and they separate that aspect of the business from Pathfinder (even if they're related by IP, the financials are separate). They don't use their existing business to leverage (using this as the financial debt term) themselves into another business, which if it failed, would take down their original business. This is something that TSR tried with Dragon Dice and Spellfire. Both were tied into other IP's that they owned, but they treated the whole thing as one big business and took on large debts in order to compete quickly with GW and WotC. Both ventures failed and it ate their business.
EDIT: a lot of these ratios are probably still to high, few things sell even 1/4 as well as the core book for a game.
|
Honestly, all speculation aside, I can't see me personally buying more than the three core books for a long while.
I have something like 6 or 7 Paizo campaigns I can run, with little effort from me in converting to 5th ed rules. That's the joy of the rule set in fact. It has enough going for it that similar systems from the past mesh perfectly.
My players will likely buy more options books though. If it gives more variability for them throughout the different campaigns they play, it's likely to sell.
Books that detail the campaign setting will also sell. By this I mean ones that both players and GMs can read to get a feel for world and make it more immersive. We're all avid readers and interesting worlds or creatures or cultures often inspires our gaming.
However, those books are likely to be a one per table deal. We share our resources pretty heavily.
I'm not sure how unique my group is in this regard. If it's pretty wide spread though, the getting new players in is a better deal. When we were new we bought everything. Now we're a little more jaded, and experienced enough to just convert what we've already got.
|
@Houstonderek, I absolutely know why they went with FR as the setting. It's popular, and is the setting they have the most for already. If the game does take off with a newer audience, it means they have tons of stuff they can rehash for the new audience relatively quickly.
I just personally can't stand FR. I personally love Eberron. I don't think I'll get much Eberron love from WotC though, because my instincts tell me they'll focus on the one setting for some time, to help avoid splitting the player base more.
As for my comments about Paizos model, I was referring to them only focusing on one setting. I'm not a huge fan of Golarion either, but the company has managed to support its one setting by having multiple approaches in the one world.
The Realms has a diversity of climates and cultures as well. They just don't have robots and space ships. Everything else Golarion had in it can be found somewhere in the Realms though.
A lot of the Realms "diversity" came when they tried to tie other settings to Faerun to boost sales, out had little or nothing to do with making the setting better. It became a kitchen sink because Ed wasn't running it and TSR was run by bean counters and not people that understood gaming. Golarion was alway a pander to the fanboy mess.
|
|
For what it's worth, they rereleased Greyhawk a week ago. So, it looks like they are still thinking about other campaign settings.
That's been released for 1st edition though (according to that site). I must admit I kinda forgot they were still re releasing previous work for their previous editions as well.
I guess I'll just wait and see what pans out.
Im excited about this system like I havent been for quite some time. It works for my gaming style and time commitments as they are now. If it had come out 15 years ago, it would probably have been different since I much preferred more complex systems back then (I had more time to read and learn them, and more time to write my own stuff as well.)
Also, just to check peoples feel for them, who has the two campaign books that Kobold Press did. The dragon Queen books?
I love Paizo AP's, but I found these ones a nice change to be honest. They gave far more leeway in roleplay aspects but there's still a railroad to follow. As an experienced DM I have great fun runnig it and catering to the group I run for at the LFGS. One of the younger fellas in that group has picked up the first one and wants to run it now as well. He feels a little overwhelmed though as he doesn't feel it gives enough guidance in some areas.
Thoughts?
|
|
A lot of the Realms "diversity" came when they tried to tie other settings to Faerun to boost sales, out had little or nothing to do with making the setting better. It became a kitchen sink because Ed wasn't running it and TSR was run by bean counters and not people that understood gaming. Golarion was alway a pander to the fanboy mess.
I'm going to have to take your word on that Derek. I never got into the realms stuff in terms of game material until 3rd ed was released. I was playing Warhammer fantasy roleplay and Earthdawn back in the 90's when the TSR thing was going on.
I also agree that Golarion is a nod at every possible setting. As a company I think that makes good sense for what they wat it for. As you said, Golarion is the tool they use to sell their AP's, not the other way around. They have a series of great campaign ideas they wat to run, each based on different themes, so they created a world to make sure each theme would work. Good model for their business which was mostly selling adventures when it all started. Not so good for a few of us though.
As a GM, I'd choose only one small area and run my campaigns in there. Likely to be Ustalav and its surrounding nations to be honest. I like what's going on in that part of the Golarion world. The rest of it I can just leave. Most of it is not enspiring to me at all.
|
|
A lot of the Realms "diversity" came when they tried to tie other settings to Faerun to boost sales, out had little or nothing to do with making the setting better. It became a kitchen sink because Ed wasn't running it and TSR was run by bean counters and not people that understood gaming. Golarion was alway a pander to the fanboy mess.
I'm going to have to take your word on that Derek. I never got into the realms stuff in terms of game material until 3rd ed was released. I was playing Warhammer fantasy roleplay and Earthdawn back in the 90's when the TSR thing was going on.
I also agree that Golarion is a nod at every possible setting. As a company I think that makes good sense for what they wat it for. As you said, Golarion is the tool they use to sell their AP's, not the other way around. They have a series of great campaign ideas they wat to run, each based on different themes, so they created a world to make sure each theme would work. Good model for their business which was mostly selling adventures when it all started. Not so good for a few of us though.
As a GM, I'd choose only one small area and run my campaigns in there. Likely to be Ustalav and its surrounding nations to be honest. I like what's going on in that part of the Golarion world. The rest of it I can just leave. Most of it is not enspiring to me at all.
The three biggest ill fitting pieces they mashed into Faerun were Kara Tur, Al Qadim, and Maztica. They were originally meant to be stand alone settings, but didn't sell well, so they shoehorned them into Faerun in an attempt to make them more popular.
|
|
A lot of the Realms "diversity" came when they tried to tie other settings to Faerun to boost sales, out had little or nothing to do with making the setting better. It became a kitchen sink because Ed wasn't running it and TSR was run by bean counters and not people that understood gaming. Golarion was alway a pander to the fanboy mess.
I'm going to have to take your word on that Derek. I never got into the realms stuff in terms of game material until 3rd ed was released. I was playing Warhammer fantasy roleplay and Earthdawn back in the 90's when the TSR thing was going on.
I also agree that Golarion is a nod at every possible setting. As a company I think that makes good sense for what they wat it for. As you said, Golarion is the tool they use to sell their AP's, not the other way around. They have a series of great campaign ideas they wat to run, each based on different themes, so they created a world to make sure each theme would work. Good model for their business which was mostly selling adventures when it all started. Not so good for a few of us though.
As a GM, I'd choose only one small area and run my campaigns in there. Likely to be Ustalav and its surrounding nations to be honest. I like what's going on in that part of the Golarion world. The rest of it I can just leave. Most of it is not enspiring to me at all.
Yeah, I prefer my settings to at least make a little sense. Golarion doesn't even come close, from a thematic POV. From a sell APs POV, it makes perfect sense to be all things to all people.
|
"I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems."
I'm not taking it as an attack, but I believe Lisa Stevens has the credibility to take what she says at face value...
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter of course, but as far as I know, you've not claimed to have seen the actual financial records of TSR, and Lisa has... In fact, it was her very job to look over the actual financial records to find out what happened to TSR.
How can a person who is on the side-lines, "arm-chair quarterbacking" as they say, without ever having seen the actual financial records, form any kind of believable opinion that another person (with credibility) that has actually seen those records is somehow mistaken?
Now, if Lisa had never said that she had gone over the financial records of TSR, then forming an opinion as a mere consumer on factors one sees in sales trends, hears in tales told by former TSR employees (who themselves probably never saw the financial records), and other such information, that is (IMO) something worth continuing to speculate...
If you have indeed seen those records, and I am mistaken about you just being a consumer, please, feel free to correct my error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have reason to believe (but can't share how or why) they are actively considering other settings as well.
They've publicly stated as much - I believe Spelljammer was one of the ones mentioned as "on the list".
I must confess to having my confidence shaken somewhat based on the announcing/cancelling/amending nature of the release schedule near the end of 4E, plus the (imo) tentative approach regarding sourcebooks for 5E. To me, it gives the impression of not having confidence in their way forward. I get not announcing things too far in advance and also the deliberate slowing of releases, but I feel they've become just a tad too conservative in this respect.
|
|
"I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems."I'm not taking it as an attack, but I believe Lisa Stevens has the credibility to take what she says at face value...
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter of course, but as far as I know, you've not claimed to have seen the actual financial records of TSR, and Lisa has... In fact, it was her very job to look over the actual financial records to find out what happened to TSR.
How can a person who is on the side-lines, "arm-chair quarterbacking" as they say, without ever having seen the actual financial records, form any kind of believable opinion that another person (with credibility) that has actually seen those records is somehow mistaken?
Now, if Lisa had never said that she had gone over the financial records of TSR, then forming an opinion as a mere consumer on factors one sees in sales trends, hears in tales told by former TSR employees (who themselves probably never saw the financial records), and other such information, that is (IMO) something worth continuing to speculate...
If you have indeed seen those records, and I am mistaken about you just being a consumer, please, feel free to correct my error.
Well, my "armchair quarterbacking" was just about 100% confirmed by Lisa and Jacobs. But then, I lived through the times (started when I was nine in '79) and have a knack for figuring out things from scant evidence. ;-)
|
|
A lot of the Realms "diversity" came when they tried to tie other settings to Faerun to boost sales
I wouldn't say "a lot", because while a few pre-existing modules were brought under the FR logo, they only actually tied one pre-existing setting (Kara-Tur) into the Forgotten Realms. Areas such as Mulhorand, with its Eygptian theme, and The Moonshea Islands, with their Celtic and Viking themes, were already a part of the setting once TSR published it.
Maztica, and The Hoardlands as far as I know, were designed to be an expanded part of the Forgotten Realms. I think there was discussion about making Al-Qadim a separate setting, but (if I'm remember hearing about this correctly) that was well before anything for the setting was even written
Now, it is true that these areas were never a part of Ed Greenwood's FR, but that is neither here nor there...
|
|
A lot of the Realms "diversity" came when they tried to tie other settings to Faerun to boost salesI wouldn't say "a lot", because while a few pre-existing modules were brought under the FR logo, they only actually tied one pre-existing setting (Kara-Tur) into the Forgotten Realms. Areas such as Mulhorand, with its Eygptian theme, and The Moonshea Islands, with their Celtic and Viking themes, were already a part of the setting once TSR published it.
Maztica, and The Hoardlands as far as I know, were designed to be an expanded part of the Forgotten Realms. I think there was discussion about making Al-Qadim a separate setting, but (if I'm remember hearing about this correctly) that was well before anything for the setting was even written
Now, it is true that these areas were never a part of Ed Greenwood's FR, but that is neither here nor there...
I'm just saying it didn't get weird for a while, until 2e and that whole mess at TSR. It started out nice, consistent, and believable (for a fantasy setting). It made sense and had internal logic. Golarion, once they took Jacobs' home brew and added every played trope to it they could find, never had that luxury. It came out of the gate a mess.
|
|
For what it's worth, they rereleased Greyhawk a week ago. So, it looks like they are still thinking about other campaign settings.That's been released for 1st edition though (according to that site). I must admit I kinda forgot they were still re releasing previous work for their previous editions as well.
Yeah, Wizards has been re-releasing the PDFs of the older edition material, and the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set is just one older product of hundreds of other older products already available on that site...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Wizards has been re-releasing the PDFs of the older edition material, and the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set is just one older product of hundreds of other older products already available on that site...For what it's worth, they rereleased Greyhawk a week ago. So, it looks like they are still thinking about other campaign settings.That's been released for 1st edition though (according to that site). I must admit I kinda forgot they were still re releasing previous work for their previous editions as well.
I dig that they're doing that. I love some of the old 1e modules, and don't really want to pay extortion prices for written on, beat up copies on line.
|
|
At the same time a healthy does of common sense is all that is needed sometimes as well. I don't need a dieticien to tell me that too much sugar and salt is bad for one health.
Anyone with common sense could see that TSR was headed for ruin. The sheer amount of product even at the best of times seems excessive. I knew gamers in the hobby that played FR, Dragonlance and some Spelljammer. Most avoided the other settings. Sourcebooks, cards whatever. Anything they could publish and sell they did. Even at that young age I could see that the hobby simply could not support the sheer amount of product imo.
|
|
At the same time a healthy does of common sense is all that is needed sometimes as well... ...Anyone with common sense could see that TSR was headed for ruin.
I agree, and speculating on thing based on appearances, without knowing the full behind-the-scenes story is fine.
But then, when someone comes along and says "Hey guys, I know how to run a successful business here, and I actually looked at the hard cold facts [that you don't have access to] on what happened over there at "X", and here is what I found..." and then, having not seen those same hard facts yourself, say: "I think you're mistaken" is quite another thing indeed (unless, you don't find that person to be credible, which is fine, as long as you also state that little fact when making your opinion known).
Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?
Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?
Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?
Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?
Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?
Getting back to the original question...
For me, they seem to scratch different itches. Stylistically, i'm liking 5e's presentation better, because it is very similar to 2nd edition or late 1st edition AD&D in style, compared to PF's very Wotc-3e style.
Mechanically, it's quicker in combat resolution, quicker to get a PC up and running from scratch, BUT i'm still not happy with the way skills are handled, preferring the PF ability to range from hard specialization to mere dabbling. I do like the emphasis on the mystery of magic again in 5e, and the much scaled down gold-piece rat race and christmas tree effects of needing magic items to keep up with the Joneses. (Keeping up with the Baggins'?) and BY GOD the monster template tables in the DMG are still great to have, glad they kept that concept from 4e.
That said, i do like the sheer number of custom options in PF that 5e will probably never have due to different design goals, but it's down to deciding if i want to scratch the "hundreds of dials and knobs" itch, or the "just drop some dice and play" itch.
I must confess to having my confidence shaken somewhat based on the announcing/cancelling/amending nature of the release schedule near the end of 4E, plus the (imo) tentative approach regarding sourcebooks for 5E. To me, it gives the impression of not having confidence in their way forward. I get not announcing things too far in advance and also the deliberate slowing of releases, but I feel they've become just a tad too conservative in this respect.
Yeah, I wish there were at least one or two officially announced future supplement releases besides just the DM Screen coming out in a few weeks. They have not even announced yet the next module in the Tyranny of Dragons series.
"I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems."I'm not taking it as an attack, but I believe Lisa Stevens has the credibility to take what she says at face value...
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter of course, but as far as I know, you've not claimed to have seen the actual financial records of TSR, and Lisa has... In fact, it was her very job to look over the actual financial records to find out what happened to TSR.
How can a person who is on the side-lines, "arm-chair quarterbacking" as they say, without ever having seen the actual financial records, form any kind of believable opinion that another person (with credibility) that has actually seen those records is somehow mistaken?
Now, if Lisa had never said that she had gone over the financial records of TSR, then forming an opinion as a mere consumer on factors one sees in sales trends, hears in tales told by former TSR employees (who themselves probably never saw the financial records), and other such information, that is (IMO) something worth continuing to speculate...
If you have indeed seen those records, and I am mistaken about you just being a consumer, please, feel free to correct my error.
Seeing as you just spent your entire post going after ME and not the actual information I presented, I have no further interest in your words.
|
|
Seeing as you just spent your entire post going after ME and not the actual information I presented
It was not my intent to "attack" you, but I am sorry if I came across that way...
I was merely stating things as I saw them, and those are:
You said she was mistaken on the entirety of the problem... She saw the actual numbers, you didn't...
You formed an opinion based only on evidence you had access to... She saw the entire picture... You (along with the rest of us) are missing arguably THE most important pieces of the TSR puzzle...
I think she has more than enough credibility to take her words at face value...
The story that Lisa among others looked at the books and came to the conclusion that splitting the base was the problem has often been repeated.
Without doubting their word that that was the case, I'm curious to see how they came to that conclusion. It seems like an interesting economic detective case.
Things like overprinted books, problematic developement cycles etc, those I can see how they would show up in the numbers, but how would splitting the base show up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things like overprinted books, problematic developement cycles etc, those I can see how they would show up in the numbers, but how would splitting the base show up?
For this example consider two product pools. We have core rulebooks which are applicable to any setting, and setting specific books.
In a situation with split bases, I imagine the sales of products in the first pool will remain constant, but sales for individual products within the pool of setting specific books drop off though the amount of sales of books in the second pool remains constant.
In short, the same amount of overall sales, but spread over a larger amount of books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The story that Lisa among others looked at the books and came to the conclusion that splitting the base was the problem has often been repeated.
Without doubting their word that that was the case, I'm curious to see how they came to that conclusion. It seems like an interesting economic detective case.Things like overprinted books, problematic developement cycles etc, those I can see how they would show up in the numbers, but how would splitting the base show up?
I think people often misquote or misinterpret Lisa's analysis of TSRs problems, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes in an attempt to back up their own opinions.
TSR tanked due to its own hubris, overprinting, and not listening to their fans, not due to any "Basic v. AD&D" split, a myth I often see repeated.
Everything you need to know about TSRs death rattles is right here: http://insaneangel.com/insaneangel/RPG/Dancey.html
Yeah, I wish there were at least one or two officially announced future supplement releases besides just the DM Screen coming out in a few weeks. They have not even announced yet the next module in the Tyranny of Dragons series.
I must confess to having my confidence shaken somewhat based on the announcing/cancelling/amending nature of the release schedule near the end of 4E, plus the (imo) tentative approach regarding sourcebooks for 5E. To me, it gives the impression of not having confidence in their way forward. I get not announcing things too far in advance and also the deliberate slowing of releases, but I feel they've become just a tad too conservative in this respect.
Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat are the only modules. WotC is apparently only releasing 2 modules per "adventure path". And I think they are releasing only one story per year (2 modules = 1 story), though I hope I am wrong about that. Next adventure story will be Elemental Evil.
Honestly, I would like if they did similar to Paizo, 1 module per month, 6 modules per adventure path, 2 paths per year. I don't know how well Paizo's publishing strategy would work for WotC, but it seems to work for Paizo. 1-2 large hardcovers per year, 12 adventure path modules per year, a player companion every 1-2 months (not sure exactly if they are monthly or not), and 1 large stand-alone module every 3 months.
I would love to see something like that for 5th edition, though maybe cut down on the number of "player companions" for every year. Though WotC's aversion to non-hardcover books isn't exactly the best. I liked their softcover books from early 3rd edition (masters of the wild, sword and fist, etc) and wish they would go back to softcovers again. I liked it better than nonstop hardcover books.
Iirc, there will be a 2-book campaign released every 6 months. The Elemental Evil campaign is also getting an "Adventurers Handbook" which I gather will be like a PHB2 specifically geared towards the one campaign.
I'd be very surprised if there were no more Monster Manuals on the horizon.
The story that Lisa among others looked at the books and came to the conclusion that splitting the base was the problem has often been repeated.
Without doubting their word that that was the case, I'm curious to see how they came to that conclusion. It seems like an interesting economic detective case.Things like overprinted books, problematic developement cycles etc, those I can see how they would show up in the numbers, but how would splitting the base show up?
I think people often misquote or misinterpret Lisa's analysis of TSRs problems, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes in an attempt to back up their own opinions.
TSR tanked due to its own hubris, overprinting, and not listening to their fans, not due to any "Basic v. AD&D" split, a myth I often see repeated.
Everything you need to know about TSRs death rattles is right here: http://insaneangel.com/insaneangel/RPG/Dancey.html
Yeah to be honest this is the first time I have heard of the Basic vs AD&D thing. Lisa's arguments are usually used in regards to publishing too many settings (which also ties in with overprinting)
I certainly could see multiple systems being a problem, but I never got the impression that AD&D and Basic had as many rules focused books, in comparison to say 3E or 4E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat are the only modules. WotC is apparently only releasing 2 modules per "adventure path". And I think they are releasing only one story per year (2 modules = 1 story), though I hope I am wrong about that. Next adventure story will be Elemental Evil.Honestly, I would like if they did similar to Paizo, 1 module per month, 6 modules per adventure path, 2 paths per year. I don't know how well Paizo's publishing strategy would work for WotC, but it seems to work for Paizo. 1-2 large hardcovers per year, 12 adventure path modules per year, a player companion every 1-2 months (not sure exactly if they are monthly or not), and 1 large stand-alone module every 3 months.
I would love to see something like that for 5th edition, though maybe cut down on the number of "player companions" for every year. Though WotC's aversion to non-hardcover books isn't exactly the best. I liked their softcover books from early 3rd edition (masters of the wild, sword and fist, etc) and wish they would go back to softcovers again. I liked it better than nonstop hardcover books.
Personally, I'd love to see a move away from Adventure Path campaigns and a move back to more one-shot modules. I grew up playing 1E in the (now derisively termed) murder-hobo style of gaming. Our party wasn't a group of "heroes" out to save the kingdom or world, we were just "adventurers" looking to kill some monsters and take their sh*t. No need for in depth "story" or "narrative", just give me a good old-fashioned fun house dungeon romp like White Plume Mountain and I'll be a very happy camper.
Personally, I'd love to see a move away from Adventure Path campaigns and a move back to more one-shot modules. I grew up playing 1E in the (now derisively termed) murder-hobo style of gaming. Our party wasn't a group of "heroes" out to save the kingdom or world, we were just "adventurers" looking to kill some monsters and take their sh*t. No need for in depth "story" or "narrative", just give me a good old-fashioned fun house dungeon romp like White Plume Mountain and I'll be a very happy camper.
Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat are the only modules. WotC is apparently only releasing 2 modules per "adventure path". And I think they are releasing only one story per year (2 modules = 1 story), though I hope I am wrong about that. Next adventure story will be Elemental Evil.Honestly, I would like if they did similar to Paizo, 1 module per month, 6 modules per adventure path, 2 paths per year. I don't know how well Paizo's publishing strategy would work for WotC, but it seems to work for Paizo. 1-2 large hardcovers per year, 12 adventure path modules per year, a player companion every 1-2 months (not sure exactly if they are monthly or not), and 1 large stand-alone module every 3 months.
I would love to see something like that for 5th edition, though maybe cut down on the number of "player companions" for every year. Though WotC's aversion to non-hardcover books isn't exactly the best. I liked their softcover books from early 3rd edition (masters of the wild, sword and fist, etc) and wish they would go back to softcovers again. I liked it better than nonstop hardcover books.
I have no problem with that style of play (the murder-hobo style), when it is used in dungeon crawls. I only have a problem with it when it is used during more narative type of games (like APs and such). I would personally love to do a few dungeon crawls again.
As for moving away from AP type campaigns... I have never used a module before Pathfinder. I had never played a module before Pathfinder, either. I tried running Kingmaker and Carrion Crown, and ran Master of the Tower (or whatever that 1st level module is called, with the ruined tower on the outskirts of town). For the longest time, I felt that those who use/used modules failed as a DM, because they couldn't come up with something on their own. While I realize that is a terrible viewpoint to have (and rather false), I still have troubles shaking it.
So whether they publish modules of any sort or not, doesn't really affect me. I always preferred the rulebooks over adventures. If I can't make an adventure of my own, then I don't feel like I should even play. But that's just me, and everyone is different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
