Are adventures/modules more important than system?

[delericho]

One interesting thing is how Sunless Citadel occasionally is mentioned as a classic. SC is a pretty decent adventure but nothing out of the ordinary. However, since SC was the first adventure in the 3E line it gets a mention anyway. I think people wish SC was great even though it wasn't (please feel free to disagree).

Okay.

The reason "Sunless Citadel" is a great adventure is not because it's anything out of the ordinary, or because of the stunning plot, or excellent characterisation, or anything else. In fact, it's precisely because it is ordinary.

"Sunless Citadel" encapsulated a large part of the iconic D&D experience in a very neat package. It's a competent (if not exceptional) dungeon crawl, featuring nasty monsters, dangerous traps, and treasures to be found. It even manages to cram in opportunities for roleplaying (Meepo, and that gnome), and interesting choices (do the PCs ally with the goblins? The kobolds? Both? Neither?).

It's certainly not a perfect adventure. And it's almost certainly not an adventure that I'd run for experienced players.

However, if someone needed a first-level adventure to run for new players as an introduction to the game, I would recommend it without hesitation. If for no other reason than that I ran it for new players as an introduction to the game, and they loved it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Adventures need to be tailored to your particular players. What they want out of the game, and what they like in a game are different to every individual. Cookie cutter adventures are never as good as adventures tailored for that group of players.

Modules are tools. You are supposed to tailor them to your groups and style. They come in a cookie cutter form because of the medium, but there has always been an exoectation that the GM customizes modules. In many ways they take more work to run than your own material. The reading alone is significant time investment,

Some people say they "have no time" to GM. I say that's hogwash. It doesn't take that long to plan an adventure.

Those that don't even have an hour a week, well they are either lying or just are not managing their tasks effectively. Who the heck can't find an hour a freaking week? (You need to quit gaming because you have bigger problems. You need to focus on you life, and maybe be just a player for a while.) I would ask how much time they surf the internet, watch tv, or play video games. I have a wife, two kids, a full time job, and several clubs I am in. I volunteer for my community and develop open source software on the weekends. I still manage to juggle everything effectively. I can go on weekly dates with my wife, go to all of my children's sporting or musical events, work at work, work at home, and work some more, and still have plenty of time to have the best green lawn on my block. It's about efficiency. Those that get the most done are often the same that have the most extra time.

Most people I know spend a lot more than an hour preparing for a game. As a general rule I say you at least need to to put in one hour for every two of play at the table. But realistically I usually spend more like 4-8 hours prepping for games. Heck, statting a single NpC properly can take an hour sometimes. I guess this largely depends on the kinds of adventures one runs. But an hour seems entirely inadequate time for most GMs.

 

[Beastman]

A good systems does not make bad adventures good and a good adventure is useless for a bad system that is no fun to play. so, both are equally important.

 

[Sadras]

I've been thinking about the transition from 4e to Next, as well as a look back at iconic material, and it makes me wonder if the adventures (including materials to use in home-brew adventures) are possibly more important than the system.

I feel you are speaking on something which appeals mostly to experienced DMs not necessarily new DMs. For instance - give me a great storyline, interesting and rich scenarios/settings with its monsters and mysterious NPCs...I could easily weave that adventure. I've played enough editions before to know how to roleplay the monsters, create damage & effects on the fly that will fit into the narrative I meld into my players' imaginations. That's easy - WotC have done the hard/long part (prep), I just bring it to fruition and bend/make the rules as I imagine them in the world...systems bend to narrative everytime with experience DMs.

However to new/inexperienced/poor DMs or group, systems are the only thing constant, mess with that and it might send them into chaos or worse still taking it out on the DM for messing with the written law.

On a personal note - I would definitely purchase well woven stories with hooks and plots, with very little mechanics. Besides DMs do it all the time, take stories without mechanics by stealing from movies, literature, history and life... Mechanics are just aids.

Having said that, a good system in a detailed player's handbook with its fluff does inspire roleplaying to both the old and the new.

 

[steeldragons]

The other thing to consider, maybe or maybe not, is the kind of adventure we're talking about.

Yes, obviously, once the game is out, new modules for groups are a given/necessity...if for nothing else than mining for plots, monsters, ideas of all kinds, if not actually running them as written.

But let us remember, as I really only just did today, that the starter Red box of BECMI (and I persume B/X) incuded a solo adventure in the players manual to get people's feet wet.

In Search of the Unknown was written as a solo module also, wasn't it?

The Expert/Blue set (BECMI, B/X) also contained the Isle of Dread...which, as written, seemed to be for group play...even if only a very small group.

The presumption being, that you had the book...and probably your friends didn't, at first, and you had to "find people" to play with.

So, I got to wondering, is that an assumption that should be maintained? Should an introductory adventure in the [or "a"] beginning set (or first released/packaged with the PHB) be written/presumed for solo play and/or (if possible) a duo or trio and no more?

Put another way, should 5e have a "Bargle" and "Aleena" of their own for the 2010s?

 

[delericho]

But let us remember, as I really only just did today, that the starter Red box of BECMI (and I persume B/X) incuded a solo adventure in the players manual to get people's feet wet.

So, I got to wondering, is that an assumption that should be maintained? Should an introductory adventure in the [or "a"] beginning set (or first released/packaged with the PHB) be written/presumed for solo play and/or (if possible) a duo or trio and no more?

Put another way, should 5e have a "Bargle" and "Aleena" of their own for the 2010s?

The "Red Box" is probably the model for whatever Starter Set 5e has. And, certainly, that should be written in a "just add friends" manner - it should include introductory adventures suitable to get people playing right out the box.

A mini solo adventure taking a complete newbie through the basics of the game is probably also a good thing - the sooner you get people playing, instead of reading about playing, the better.

Finally, the core set (PHB/DMG/MM, or even just Core Rulebook) should also probably include a short introductory adventure, again to help people get up and playing as soon as possible.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

System is more important.


You can have a game without adventures (other RPGs do it all the time) - now they won't have the mainstream success that D&D has, but it happens.

If you have adventures and no system, well, you can't do anything.

So by simplifying it to "can one work without the other" the answer, obviously is system.


However - adventures are very good things to have. I've run non D&D games for over decade only using 3 or 4 normal (not lifepath sytle) adventures in that whole time frame; and I"ve have 1 year old D&D games that hinged on adventures, and would likely have failed without purchased ones.

I would love to see a flood of third party adventures like we saw a the dawn of 3rd - the mini modules and all the way through Rappan Athuk or The Worlds Largest Dungeon. Because adventures are not essential to a game system, they can be really important.

 

[Zaukrie]

Sigh. Of course I did not mean "no one" literally. I find the condescending tone of "those who like adventures are bad somehow" in this whole thread to be depressing. There is no one right way to play the game, or enjoy the game.

Some of us might have time to write adventures, but choose to golf, or do yoga, or whatever the heck we want instead, yet we still want to DM or play.

And, I know I won't convince some of you, but it is clear to me from the discussions on these boards that the shared story of games (video or table) is important to a lot of people.

 

[NN]

5E needs to hit the ground running with half a dozen great adventures, including

1) a newbie handholder
2) a 1st level sandbox
3) a mix of higher level stuff that showcases whats 'better' about 5E

 

[SensoryThought]

I feel published adventures are essential for new players trying to learn what D&D is all about. I will never buy an adventure - as a DM of 20+ years I have far more fun writing my own. I buy game worlds though as for maps, adventure hooks, and flavor they make the creative process easier for me.

For new DMs, dungeon crawls are probably the easiest to write for as sandboxes give too many options.

What I'd love WOTC to do is have a D&D video introduction online where they show an actual game session to show how to improvise, play in character and 1st person speak, share the spotlight, run a streamlined combat, and all the other things that it is easier to SHOW new players than TELL in a rulebook.