D&D General How do you know an adventure is "good" just from reading it?

[Eyes of Nine]

For my money id keep it in PF1 over 5E. Mainly because so far I think this AP makes great use of the skill system, which I think is awful in 5E. That said, I think converting the encounters would be pretty easy.

Hah - if modules are supposed to reduce my work load, learning PF1 enough to actually run a game in it would NOT reduce my workload, since I have never played much less run PF1 or 3/3.5

 

[payn]

Hah - if modules are supposed to reduce my work load, learning PF1 enough to actually run a game in it would NOT reduce my workload, since I have never played much less run PF1 or 3/3.5

Yeap, that would be a lot of work then. I played 3E and PF1 extensively so its like riding a bike for me. I just really really dislike the skill system of 5E. Its the one part that keeps me from playing 5E regularly.

 

[R_J_K75]

I was just looking at Paizo's site and they have 48 modules of the non-adventure path type for PF1. I don't know if they make them for PF2. They also have hundreds of PF society scenarios which are made for a 3-4 hour window. They do vary in quality, but you could easily nabs these and run a west marches game. Grandpappy's game modules are still out there, they just are not prominently featured like the APs are.

Yeah I ran a few of PF1 modules when we were playing that system. Youre right they do vary in quality. I ran the first Carrion Crown adventure and some of the mechanics were kinda whacky, like the Haunts.

Hah - if modules are supposed to reduce my work load, learning PF1 enough to actually run a game in it would NOT reduce my workload, since I have never played much less run PF1 or 3/3.5

This is how I feel and why I quit playing the system, it was 3.5 on a super dose of steroids, way too many player options to keep up with as they were releasing alot of books at one time.

All of the WotC "campaigns" are actually pretty easy to break down into classic Modules: usually each Chapter is a unit that can be separated with very little work, and is structured like an 80's or 90's short book. I can see the big book being unwieldy at the table, but I suppose a lot of people use Beyond for that reason.

I'm guessing that parsing out a particular chapter to run would probably require me to read a good portion if not all the book, which in that case I might as well just run the campaign. For me the books are just too unwieldy for me, too much page flipping. Thats why when I write my own, they are linear, and I can include all the monster stats, magic item and spell descriptions, etc right where I need them.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm guessing that parsing out a particular chapter to run would probably require me to read a good portion if not all the book, which in that case I might as well just run the campaign. For me the books are just too unwieldy for me, too much page flipping. Thats why when I write my own, they are linear, and I can include all the monster stats, magic item and spell descriptions, etc right where I need them.

No t particularly, actually: one of the main criticisms of WotC campaign books is that they are disjointed moat of the time...and thar is because they are separable modules with a taped together plot that takes nearly no effort to disentangle.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

No t particularly, actually: one of the main criticisms of WotC campaign books is that they are disjointed moat of the time...and thar is because they are separable modules with a taped together plot that takes nearly no effort to disentangle.

I actually think WotC design philosophy would push this forward as a feature; and maybe phrase it in a different way - "Our adventures are unified stories or modules on a theme that can also very easily be pulled apart in whatever way you want to be used in your own campaigns!"

 

[Parmandur]

I actually think WotC design philosophy would push this forward as a feature; and maybe phrase it in a different way - "Our adventures are unified stories or modules on a theme that can also very easily be pulled apart in whatever way you want to be used in your own campaigns!"

I would agree with that, and I have absolutely heard Chris Perkins say exactly that (on Drsgon Talk, for example).

 

[Parmandur]

I actually think WotC design philosophy would push this forward as a feature; and maybe phrase it in a different way - "Our adventures are unified stories or modules on a theme that can also very easily be pulled apart in whatever way you want to be used in your own campaigns!"

Like here, when Perkins discusses the updated Tyranny of Dragons:

 

[Neonchameleon]

I ask myself two questions:

• Does this inspire me?
• Does the thought of preparing this make me tear my hair out?

Then if it passes those two I read it a second time but this time imagine I'm reading to play it as a group of cantankerous PCs who are trying to tackle the adventure in good faith but creatively and sideways. And do I feel that if I were the DM the adventure would support me there?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Inspired by @Neonchameleon's post about their process, I have a follow up question from my OP, which folks can engage with if interested.

How do you read an adventure? For example, I typically go through the first time and read pretty much every word - except monster stat blocks. Those I skim.

If I am going to actually run it, then I read the initial sections, and only read what I need to to be ready for the next session in play. I think that's not an optimal way to engage with an adventure!

I'm looking for how other people read their adventures - and interested in hearing if "the how" changes depending on the various use cases: expecting to run it; hoping to run it; reading for pleasure; etc

 

[Parmandur]

Inspired by @Neonchameleon's post about their process, I have a follow up question from my OP, which folks can engage with if interested.

How do you read an adventure? For example, I typically go through the first time and read pretty much every word - except monster stat blocks. Those I skim.

If I am going to actually run it, then I read the initial sections, and only read what I need to to be ready for the next session in play. I think that's not an optimal way to engage with an adventure!

I'm looking for how other people read their adventures - and interested in hearing if "the how" changes depending on the various use cases: expecting to run it; hoping to run it; reading for pleasure; etc

Read straight through, then it's in the memory banks and I know where to go to look for stuff when I need it.