Future releases for 5th Edition: official announcements and what we want to see


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Since the previous thread that had some comments on this (Pathfinder vs. 5th Edition) got locked for other issues, I thought I would start a fresh thread for this topic. I will start by copy/pasting the replies I got to my question from that thread:

Adjule wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
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.

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.


TheRavyn wrote:


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.


Adjule wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:

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.


Adjule wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
Adjule wrote:

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.

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.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I'd like to see a big book of backgrounds and a few extra archetypes for each class.

Adventure wise, I've an insatiable appetite really. The more the merrier. I really liked tyranny of dragons (though I'm only just reading it through in depth) and I'm hopeful the partnership with external companies brings more benefits than inevitable costs (I suspect it's going to add to delays and schedule changes).

Campaign setting wise, I've resigned myself to more realms stuff which doesn't bug me if it returns to the grey box style, but I'm not holding my breath. More positively, I'm mildly optimistic that we might see a greyhawk release - it kind of ties in with the "back to our roots" feel they're going for with 5E.

I don't have any interest in more magic items or more spells, though I suspect I'll get them.

I look forward to a fiend folio - there are still some classic monsters I'm missing. :)

At a "not going to happen" level - I'd dearly love a paizo AP for 5E. Maybe if greyhawk becomes a reality Erik might be persuaded to dip his toe in. (Hey, I can dream....)

Liberty's Edge

I think it would be perfect business for paizo to make/convert their modules to be 5E compatible. Spend the same amount of effort on the product but reach twice the customers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Ellestil wrote:
I think it would be perfect business for paizo to make/convert their modules to be 5E compatible. Spend the same amount of effort on the product but reach twice the customers.

In my view, such a conversion is not a negligible effort, so I don't think the boost to customer numbers is quite as free as this suggests.

Also, although I don't think they're true competitors, I think there is a certain conflict for market share between PF and 5E. As such, one of paizo's great strengths when marketing pathfinder is their awesome adventure support. If those adventures were also available to players of D&D then pathfinder loses some of its competitive advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to see something that is both very sandboxy and very ready to run. Chock-full of interesting encounters, setups and locations.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Ellestil wrote:
I think it would be perfect business for paizo to make/convert their modules to be 5E compatible. Spend the same amount of effort on the product but reach twice the customers.

In my view, such a conversion is not a negligible effort, so I don't think the boost to customer numbers is quite as free as this suggests.

Also, although I don't think they're true competitors, I think there is a certain conflict for market share between PF and 5E. As such, one of paizo's great strengths when marketing pathfinder is their awesome adventure support. If those adventures were also available to players of D&D then pathfinder loses some of its competitive advantage.

I think they spend most of their AP budget on art though, don't they? Compared to making the art, coming up with characters, and planning the plots and dungeons and such, the stats seem the smallest amount of work in an adventure.

I think some people might play Pathfinder now just because Paizo's APs are built with it. Who knows how many others will play something like Tyranny of Dragons though because it is the only AP officially available for 5th edition though. My group is in the latter. I for one would like to play in some of the great Golarion-based APs in 5th edition though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I hope they keep a tight rein on rules bloat. The only thing I would be remotely interested in would be a few more archetypes/sub-classes for each class but even that might be a problem as it seems invariable that later released stuff is usually more powerful/"better" than the stuff in core releases (see: every rulebook released by Paizo after the Core rulebook.)

I suspect that we will see more backgrounds, feats and spells as well as the additional sub-classes I mentioned.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, if we're talking about what we don't want, more PHB type books I don't want.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a LOT of holdovers from newer editions (*cough* 4th Edition *cough*) which I don't like currently in 5E: spammable cantrips, hit dice healing mechanic, ignoring negative hit points and short rests "recharging" powers to name just a few. The problem I am having is determining how to "balance" a game if I strip all of those things out.

While I think a decent DM can just house rule stuff himself, I wouldn't object to seeing a supplement that provided an official, comprehensive list of options to make 5E more like another system, in my case like 1st Edition AD&D. It would be reassuring to know that the guys and gals at Wizards had vetted these options (hopefully, some play testing would have been involved as well) and made sure that the game didn't "break" if they were implemented or could give advice on what other aspects of the game might need to be tweeked if one were to make significant alterations to the game.

Dark Archive

Logan1138 wrote:

There are a LOT of holdovers from newer editions (*cough* 4th Edition *cough*) which I don't like currently in 5E: spammable cantrips, hit dice healing mechanic, ignoring negative hit points and short rests "recharging" powers to name just a few. The problem I am having is determining how to "balance" a game if I strip all of those things out.

While I think a decent DM can just house rule stuff himself, I wouldn't object to seeing a supplement that provided an official, comprehensive list of options to make 5E more like another system, in my case like 1st Edition AD&D. It would be reassuring to know that the guys and gals at Wizards had vetted these options (hopefully, some play testing would have been involved as well) and made sure that the game didn't "break" if they were implemented or could give advice on what other aspects of the game might need to be tweeked if one were to make significant alterations to the game.

I think I broke my mouse trying to add more favorites to your post Logan. As it stands - I have read parts of the 5e DMG (at the store) and some of the takeaways are good, just not enough or with enough detail for me to dive in.

A system emulator for both 1st and 2nd ed would be appreciated.
Using modern 5e concepts with some supplemental material for swapping new rules (spam cantrip, hd healing, etc) for old (updated) ones. The 5e DMG alt-rules section was incredibly short, short enough for me to hold off on picking it up. I was very disappointed when I read through parts of the book at the game store.

Shadow Lodge

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Personally, I'd love to see a move away from Adventure Path campaigns and a move back to more one-shot modules.

My biggest complaint about Paizo's adventures is how much of an afterthought the module line is.


Auxmaulous wrote:

A system emulator for both 1st and 2nd ed would be appreciated.

Using modern 5e concepts with some supplemental material for swapping new rules (spam cantrip, hd healing, etc) for old (updated) ones. The 5e DMG alt-rules section was incredibly short, short enough for me to hold off on picking it up. I was very disappointed when I read through parts of the book at the game store.

I'd like to see conversion guidelines in the other direction, too, along the lines of how to convert adventures written for earlier editions and settings to use 5E rules. Stuff like converting monsters and NPCs, recommended levels for modules, conversion for specific player races, etc. It would probably move units at dndclassics.com, too, if they just linked to a few modules at the end of the conversion guide. There's so much old material out there already, having a cheat sheet to make them 5E compliant would really help to tide us over while we wait for new content.


As Auxmaulous said, an Edition Emulator Guide is a good idea. Though is wouldn't have to be so fancy as to be published in a tree-killing way.

A similar need I can see is a Setting Emulator Guide.

This would work for most of their old alternate settings where the geography wasn't as important as the alternate rules/flavor. Thinking here of things like:

Dark Sun
Planescape
Red Steel
Al-Qadim
Birthright
Hollow World
Spelljammer
Ravenloft
and so on...

Other products like Eberron, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance will need more support, like a regular setting.

As for Conversion Guides... not so much.

The key with conversions is to understand thoroughly the setting you are converting to. It helps to know something about the product you are converting from, but really that's not key.

Shadow Lodge

Edition Emulators already exist. They're called retro-clones. You can get one for any edition of the game.

Or you could just play with the actual edition itself, as well.


@Kthulhu: For mechanics, sure, but settings? I'd love to see an OSR-ish take on the classic 2e settings. Things like "1d100 random Arabian Nights-isms", "Athas Hexcrawl" etc. Much of the material from the box set era is eminently readable but hard to adapt to something playable.


Kthulhu wrote:

Edition Emulators already exist. They're called retro-clones. You can get one for any edition of the game.

Or you could just play with the actual edition itself, as well.

Well, yes, but at this point one doesn't need anything "official" to play D20 games at all... except a D20**.

Because, one can find online, legitimate and free, just about any setting one could ever hope to run.

In the age of the Internets buying "official" TTRPG products is about as necessary as buying the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Some of us will of course continue to do so, but I can see a day not so very distant when that won't be the case. And, as I've said elsewhere, I think Kickstarter and it's clones will hasten the arrival of that day.

** and for that you can just use a d10 & d6 rolled simultaneously to get an equal range of values from 1 to 20.

Shadow Lodge

Quark Blast wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Edition Emulators already exist. They're called retro-clones. You can get one for any edition of the game.

Or you could just play with the actual edition itself, as well.

Well, yes, but at this point one doesn't need anything "official" to play D20 games at all... except a D20**.

You also need paper, pencils, d4s, d6s, d8s, d10s, d12s, and additional d20s.

[ Minor side note - I don't really consider Original D&D, Holmes Basic D&D, AD&D 1E, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 2E, or the D&D Rules Cyclopedia to be "d20 games". Yeah, they use a d20...so does Rifts. To me, d20 games implies the d20/3.x engine. ]

Shadow Lodge

2097 wrote:
@Kthulhu: For mechanics, sure, but settings? I'd love to see an OSR-ish take on the classic 2e settings. Things like "1d100 random Arabian Nights-isms", "Athas Hexcrawl" etc. Much of the material from the box set era is eminently readable but hard to adapt to something playable.

I don't quite understand what you're wanting here. You find 2E hard to make playable...but you want something OSR. The differences between the pre-3.x editions are pretty minor. A conversion of a 2E boxed set to 1E isn't gonna be too much different. And you can make that claim for a conversion to any of the other editions prior to 3.0 as well.


Kthulhu wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Edition Emulators already exist. They're called retro-clones. You can get one for any edition of the game.

Or you could just play with the actual edition itself, as well.

Well, yes, but at this point one doesn't need anything "official" to play D20 games at all... except a D20**.
You also need paper, pencils, d4s, d6s, d8s, d10s, d12s, and additional d20s.

I disagree. And that from experience.

Playing on the bus (field trips during the to and from) we used just the D20 roll and took the average for everything else. Granted this wasn't Epic level play but we did do everything else in our heads and verbal communication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Edition Emulators already exist. They're called retro-clones. You can get one for any edition of the game.

Or you could just play with the actual edition itself, as well.

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am a lapsed gamer who no longer has a regular gaming group and trying to find enough people who are willing to play "classic" editions or their clones is tough sledding. 5E allows me to find a larger group of people to potentially game with and, maybe, convince them to try some rules variants to emulate older, er...I mean classic, editions.

A few months ago, I tried starting a Labyrinth Lord game on this forum and got very few people expressing interest. I am considering running a 1E module (probably Village of Hommlet) in the near future using 5E (with rules variants to make it more 1E-like) and I hope to have a better response (fingers crossed).


Kthulhu wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're wanting here. You find 2E hard to make playable...but you want something OSR. The differences between the pre-3.x editions are pretty minor. A conversion of a 2E boxed set to 1E isn't gonna be too much different. And you can make that claim for a conversion to any of the other editions prior to 3.0 as well.

That's still all about the mechanics.

I'm talking about adventure design. 1e & Basic has lots of good modules and so does the OSR. I'm looking for something like that, but for the 2e era's settings. Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft. Because I like those worlds but find their "story-like" adventures hard to run with agency as compared to more location-based setups like B4 or LMoP.

Reading modules from the 2e through 4e era, it's a mix of either linear adventures that are all "this happens, then this happens, then this happens" (as opposed to spatial adventures that are more like "this is here, and that is there, then that is over there" that players can be let loose in) as well as source books that are like "read these dozen sixty-page books on Zakharan culture and learn it" (as opposed to "roll on this table of Zakharan encounters"),

I loved The Lost Mine of Phandelver. So many weird things happened just because the players interacted with the game world, its items and residents, in unforseen ways. So good.

I've switched from a mix of B/X clones to 5e and am very happy with the game as such. Just want more practical DM stuff like encounter tables, dungeon stocking etc and especially for some of the more unusual settings.


Kthulhu wrote:
The differences between the pre-3.x editions are pretty minor.

In one sense, there's a bigger gap between before the DL-series of modules, and after, than there is between late 2e and early 3e.


A thread about future releases gets flipped into an edition VS thread in less than 24 hours-----typical


2097 wrote:
I want to see something that is both very sandboxy and very ready to run. Chock-full of interesting encounters, setups and locations.

How do sandboxy and ready to run go together?

Isn't the essence of the sandbox letting the players pick what they're going to do, so that you'd wind up with much more content than they'll actually see?

I guess that's OK if you're willing to buy a 64 page module that you'll use about 20 pages of. I doubt it would be popular though.


Rick Ransom wrote:
A thread about future releases gets flipped into an edition VS thread in less than 24 hours-----typical

I'm not getting the "VS". I'm very happy to see people play any edition in any style. I'm glad Pathfinder is popular.

The thread is "What future releases do you want?". I want sandboxy stuff because that's what I want to use at the table.


thejeff wrote:
2097 wrote:
I want to see something that is both very sandboxy and very ready to run. Chock-full of interesting encounters, setups and locations.
How do sandboxy and ready to run go together?

Hence the "both". :)

Random tables. Getting a lot of mileage from just 20 out of 64 pages is awesome


2097 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
2097 wrote:
I want to see something that is both very sandboxy and very ready to run. Chock-full of interesting encounters, setups and locations.
How do sandboxy and ready to run go together?

Hence the "both". :)

Random tables. Getting a lot of mileage from just 20 out of 64 pages is awesome

I guess. I don't really see random tables as "very ready to run".


I'd like to see a free PDF conversion guide that gives both general conversion guidelines to go from any earlier edition to 5E and specific guidelines for particular adventures, simple things like area 5 change 4 orcs to 5 or whatever, etc. that assume you already have the original material.

I don't really see any reason to have a general backwards compatibility guide since most 5E rules are pretty simple and can be retrofitted into earlier editions with ease (ability based saves or advantage or inspiration or backgrounds) and if you want to play the earlier editions just play them (or their retro clones). It would be nice to have a specific conversion guideline for 5E adventures to earlier versions, at least 1E.

Otherwise, for 2015 I wouldn't mind seeing a second Monster Manual later in the year.


For future HC releases, I like the 2 adventures/year plan that appears to be moving forward. Ideally, at least one of these will be a non-FR setting. I get why they're making FR the default setting, but I'd like to see an official update for Planescape and Eberron at some point, even if it's just one story arc each.

Splat books are tricky. I like options, but it's a royal pain to pull options from multiple books without a decent digital solution, especially at the table. I'd love to see a "Codex of Infinite Rules" app that lets you consolidate and re-sort all your content into your own customized master rulebook. Like the 2E monstrous compendium concept, but digital only and for all the rules and player options, not just monsters, with sorting, filters, etc. I'm not holding my breath for that, though. I feel like this was kind of sort of what Trapdoor was shooting for with the ebook portion of Dungeonscape, and given how little Trapdoor was able to deliver on that concept before the plug got pulled, I'll be happy with any digital solution that lets me access the rules on my tablet offline.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To the people asking for the 1e/2e emulator stuff: if you already have it, it runs in 5e with minimal effort. They did a nice job of capping the numbers to well below 3x levels of inflation, and they work fairly well (with a tweak here and there) with the original stuff. It's even easier if you're intimately familiar with the AD&D engine, since, at its core, 5e is 2e (power curve) with a 3e/4e sprinkle to freshen it up. Invert armor classes and double check the hit points and most of the rest works fine in the new mechanics with no need to think too much about it.

As far as what I'd like to see WotC do with releases? Avoid splat hell (no "complete" nonsense), pick a couple settings (probably FR and Eberron) and flesh them out deeply, do a few one offs for Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc, or let 3pps flesh them out (Dragonlance). More monsters, of course, and some toolkit type books. One crunch type book for players, a monster book, a toolkit book, and setting materials/adventures annually, and do the fix up in five years (5.5, mostly errata and tweaks, maybe a one book guide to the changes), give the whole thing a ten year run, then on to 6e, I guess.


houstonderek wrote:

To the people asking for the 1e/2e emulator stuff: if you already have it, it runs in 5e with minimal effort. They did a nice job of capping the numbers to well below 3x levels of inflation, and they work fairly well (with a tweak here and there) with the original stuff. It's even easier if you're intimately familiar with the AD&D engine, since, at its core, 5e is 2e (power curve) with a 3e/4e sprinkle to freshen it up. Invert armor classes and double check the hit points and most of the rest works fine in the new mechanics with no need to think too much about it.

...

I'm curious, have you actually run any 1E stuff yourself using 5E rules? If so, can you provide any insight into which rules variants you used and their impact on the game?

I never played 2E can someone tell me what differences there are between 1E and 2E besides the addition of character customization via kits? Houstonderek mentioned the "power curve" of 2E, is that in any way different from 1E?

Dark Archive

houstonderek wrote:
To the people asking for the 1e/2e emulator stuff: if you already have it, it runs in 5e with minimal effort. They did a nice job of capping the numbers to well below 3x levels of inflation, and they work fairly well (with a tweak here and there) with the original stuff. It's even easier if you're intimately familiar with the AD&D engine, since, at its core, 5e is 2e (power curve) with a 3e/4e sprinkle to freshen it up. Invert armor classes and double check the hit points and most of the rest works fine in the new mechanics with no need to think too much about it.

For the most part this is accurate - but they still kept the numbers inflation in one major area - hit points. This due to modifiers which start at score 12. So checking hit points isn't so much a small issue as its a total conversion and would need to be seriously addressed in any older edition conversion to 5e. Beyond that it wouldn't be too difficult.

I think what I am looking for (and possible others) is something that creates a 5e that feels more like 1e or 2e from a number of changes. Namely stripping out some 3e/4e-isms, but also adding in things like weapon vs. armor, a more detailed weapon/action speed system that is more than a throwaway paragraph as it currently stands in the 5e DMG. Not a conversion, but a true emulator.

TBH, I think I am just going to stick with my 2nd ed rules and just convert my Necromancer Games KS material over to 2nd or 1st ed.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
I never played 2E can someone tell me what differences there are between 1E and 2E besides the addition of character customization via kits? Houstonderek mentioned the "power curve" of 2E, is that in any way different from 1E?

Not sure if this is what HD is talking about, but late edition 1e and all of 2e had characters that are more powerful than they were in 1e core. This is primarily due to weapon proficiencies (late 1e) to kits in 2e.

The raw mechanical power increase was the weapon proficiencies and specialization - which is considerable. But this started with the original Unearthed Arcana (1e, late cycle).

Beyond that, the kits and few other customization options were just that - fluff with some supporting mechanics. There were a few things that slipped in that were broken, but for the most part 2e just added more mechanical details to characters that were not mapped in 1e.

So in 1e, you were a Thief who was more of a thug or brute you just stated so, with the DM in agreement ("this is how I more picture my guy" conversation). In 2e they had a kit for it with some supporting mechanics. Nothing on par with the splat releases power creep of 3.X and 3.X based games.


If anyone is interested I am running the Palace of the Vampire Queen, here on these boards as both a pathfinder game and as a 1e/5e experiment with two different groups of players. The pathfinder version I am running is pretty much just Core (with a couple of exceptions) while the 1e/5e is a 5e game with a slew of 1e house rules.


This is of course purely my opinion, but I kinda hope they release the Eberron and Dark Sun campaign supplements before any other setting. I know the Realms are their darling setting and that gets priority, but nothing bores me more than a standard, black and white fantasy setting like the Realms, Dragonlance, or Greyhawk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see a whole newly imagined Dungeon Crawl, with lots of new monsters, traps, and situations to put the characters in both Advantage and Disadvantage positions.


thejeff wrote:
How do sandboxy and ready to run go together?

Numerous site-based adventures, I would imagine. Linear campaigns are much easier to run, of course, but having numerous different sites with adventure hooks and allowing the PCs to choose their own path can be very enjoyable.


Tormsskull wrote:
thejeff wrote:
How do sandboxy and ready to run go together?
Numerous site-based adventures, I would imagine. Linear campaigns are much easier to run, of course, but having numerous different sites with adventure hooks and allowing the PCs to choose their own path can be very enjoyable.

Not in a single publication, I'd assume?

The trouble with doing that for a published campaign is that you have to detail everything and then let the players choose which they'll encounter, which means you're going to have to detail far more content than the group will use. This means the adventure is going to have to be much larger and far more costly than a more linear one.

In a home brewed game, that doesn't come up, since you can just lay out the adventure hooks and only detail the ones the PCs bite on. In a published ready to run adventure, you can't do that.


I really loved The Lost Mine of Phandelver. Something like that but with extended random tables and more locations.
Like if you're writing a city, instead of making it a tome you have to learn, some ”random building" and "random encounter" table goes a long way.
There's a lot of this in the OSR, like Red Tide is a book that has lots of useful stuff.


So anyway I saw than the next three APs will also be Forgotten Realms, one bringing a Temple of Elemental Evil to the realms similar to Greyhawk and one bringing sort of Alice in Wonderland concepts. Weird because we just got A Red & Pleasant Land in 3pp.

And with that they also said that Tyranny of Dragons partially had been about bringing in Dragonlance concepts.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

The trouble with doing that for a published campaign is that you have to detail everything and then let the players choose which they'll encounter, which means you're going to have to detail far more content than the group will use. This means the adventure is going to have to be much larger and far more costly than a more linear one.

In a home brewed game, that doesn't come up, since you can just lay out the adventure hooks and only detail the ones the PCs bite on. In a published ready to run adventure, you can't do that.

I'm not sure I agree. Sandbox adventures have existed since the days of Judges Guild, and they didn't have exorbitant page counts. More locations are detailed, but they also tend to leave more things open or blank for the DM to tailor. They also save page count about the plot, since that is generally for the DM to supply (if needed/wanted).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enchanted wood for Dragon quest in 1981? was awesome sandbox with low page count. Lots tables is nice way to go, gm and pcs can add fluorish


thenovalord wrote:
Enchanted wood for Dragon quest in 1981? was awesome sandbox with low page count. Lots tables is nice way to go, gm and pcs can add fluorish

I guess.

I don't find random tables very exciting. And it still seems like you're going to do a lot of work fleshing the random rolls into something interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The trouble with doing that for a published campaign is that you have to detail everything and then let the players choose which they'll encounter, which means you're going to have to detail far more content than the group will use. This means the adventure is going to have to be much larger and far more costly than a more linear one.

True - detailing more content is more costly, but I believe it is the better way to go. Sort of like a choose your own adventure book. If the average person reads the book only once, there is going to be a lot of pages they'll never see.

To some, the optimal way to go then would be to identify the "best" adventure that can take place, remove all of the other options, and present that adventure as "the adventure". But knowing that there were other possibilities adds a lot of value.

Another possibility would be to present a big book of encounters that DMs could slip into their own campaigns where ever they need to.

Unfortunately, I think the success Paizo has had with the AP model is going to be a large incentive for WotC to try to replicate it, rather than put out materials that support DMs that are creating their own content.


Tormsskull wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The trouble with doing that for a published campaign is that you have to detail everything and then let the players choose which they'll encounter, which means you're going to have to detail far more content than the group will use. This means the adventure is going to have to be much larger and far more costly than a more linear one.

True - detailing more content is more costly, but I believe it is the better way to go. Sort of like a choose your own adventure book. If the average person reads the book only once, there is going to be a lot of pages they'll never see.

To some, the optimal way to go then would be to identify the "best" adventure that can take place, remove all of the other options, and present that adventure as "the adventure". But knowing that there were other possibilities adds a lot of value.

Another possibility would be to present a big book of encounters that DMs could slip into their own campaigns where ever they need to.

Unfortunately, I think the success Paizo has had with the AP model is going to be a large incentive for WotC to try to replicate it, rather than put out materials that support DMs that are creating their own content.

AP or not, most adventures published on their own fall into the pseudo-linear category. Dating back to all the classic 1E modules I remember. Putting them into a single big package just makes that easier to see.

The exception would be things like Dungeon magazine, which often had short adventures that could be slipped in as a GM needed them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Another possibility would be to present a big book of encounters that DMs could slip into their own campaigns where ever they need to.

Yes to this! For example, I'm prepping al-Qadim. In one of the books there's an interesting fish mermaid stuck in fish form. In another there are three giant sisters in the jungle who are artists. In both cases the meetings are part of linear and hard-to-run adventures and if I have to scour the boxes for things like that to use, I might as well be searching through the Arabian Nights.

Instead, having a big table full of these would be awesome. I'm going to try to make one I think.


Speaking of module style adventures, how about a big catalog book containing multiple modules of similar themes?
Like a book full of dragon lairs of all kinds, for example.

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Future releases for 5th Edition: official announcements and what we want to see All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.