Unpopular Opinion: People Shouldn't Review Adventures They Haven't Run
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
LordEntrails
Hero
Well, as you know, totally depends on the group etc.
For an example, when I ran PotA, I think my group ran that ~4 hours/week for 10 months? So that would have been about 160 hours of game play. And I didn't run it as written, but really as a sandbox and there were many small parts we did not run and some other parts I expanded upon.
So, if running a game in order to write a review was a full time job, that would be 4 weeks after release.
As other said, "Reviewers" just need to be honest, and readers need to be aware. All reviews are opinions, and rarely have little basis in objective useful facts.
I have no problem with reviews based on a reading, rather than playing of a module or whatever. You can tell in about three sentences whether or not the author is competent or not, and a good review by someone who understands games design and how that game gets implemented in practice is a fine thing, and worth reading. A significant part of an RPG book review is about things other than practical implementation anyway. Book layout, quality, editing, accessibility - these all matter too. If that review isn't pretending to be something it isn't (i.e. a review of actual play) then I don't see the problem.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Interesting example, as I've converted and run this one without ever realizing it was supposed to be a Dark Sun adventure!
And this is worth considering in a broader sense: not everyone is looking at a product with the specific intent of using it exactly the way the designer intended. With MotDS, for example, had I consulted reviews beforehand I wouldn't care whether it was a good module for Dark Sun. I'd be looking to find out whether it's a good module AT ALL. A review that got hung up on the existence of the stream and ignored most else would be kinda useless to me.
======
As for reviewing without playing, while I absolutely agree that some modules read better than they play and vice versa, a non-played review can still be very useful:
It can give a sense of how much of the page count is taken up with backstory vs actual adventure
It can showcase the module's format: Detachable maps? Encounter maps-writeups-stat blocks on same page or different? Etc. (in other words, how easy/difficult have things been made for the DM?)
If the reviewer is halfway thorough, the read-over will find and call out editing errors, typos, map-vs-writeup inconsistencies, and other such annoyances.
Now you've got me wondering how I could run MotDS in an Eberron campaign, and actually get some use out of the darn thing, so thank you.
And, let us remember that's a full time job for a group of people. Is an RPG review going to pull in enough clicks to cover a months' wages for a team of 5 (4 players, 1 GM)? Probably not.
Um... Given that the experience of the game is not an objective thing... objective facts won't be that useful in determining if the game product will be fun for you. The reviewer's subjective opinon is the thing that's valuable and useful.
LordEntrails
Hero
Said better than I did.
bryce0lynch
Explorer
I strongly disagree, even though I'm quite late to the party.
A review, based on play, is not an actual review. They tend to be more of a session report. My group did this. My DM did things this way. We had fun. Nice, maybe some tips, but not a review. Is your DM any good? Did Bob loose his job today? Mary had a hard drive over? DM unprepared? A million different things influence a session and one of those is the actual published adventure. This is why I am dismissive of rebuttals that say things like "well, WE had fun." I'm glad you did. But that generally happened IN SPITE of the adventure, not BECaUSE of it.
Because the purpose of an adventure is not to have fun. The purpose of an adventure is to help the DM create fun for you at the table. It's a tool for the DM and only then, by consequence, of interest to the players. Thinking about it more, recall that the primary objection to most people to adventures is that they are hard to run, take too much prep time, etc. These adventures (which are the vast VAST majority of adventures) are failing at job 1: being a tool for the DM at the table. Thus, the primary objection being "pain to run" then one of the focuses should be "easy to run."
Having staked out this position we can talk about what makes something easy for the DM to run, what makes it possible for the adventure to facilitate the DM creating "fun" (whatever that means to you.) These elements then almost certainly DO NOT come up in actual play. Do you have to spend 12 hours preping the adventure? You know that by reading it. Does the adventure excite you, the DM, to run it? Does the writing style lends itself to being able to reference easily during play? Can you locate information easily? Are the descriptions evocative, causing the environment to spring in to your brain where you mind fills in the rest? That's good evocative writing if it does. Is it an interactive adventure? Does it contain the possibilities for more than just stabbing things? Don't get me wrong, I lvoe stabbing things, but are there people to talk to, plot against, conspire, buttons to play with, riddles, and do on that bring those core elements to the game?
All of that, what I would assert is THE MOST IMPORTANT parts of an adventure, are easily discernible through a read-through. And those elements, if present, will be a home run of an adventure that has done every thing possible to allow the DM to create a fun game night for the players with little prep on their part.
Session reports are their own thing and not to be trusted as a review. First and foremost: can the DM use it easily at the table.
A review, based on play, is not an actual review. They tend to be more of a session report. My group did this. My DM did things this way. We had fun. Nice, maybe some tips, but not a review. Is your DM any good? Did Bob loose his job today? Mary had a hard drive over? DM unprepared? A million different things influence a session and one of those is the actual published adventure. This is why I am dismissive of rebuttals that say things like "well, WE had fun." I'm glad you did. But that generally happened IN SPITE of the adventure, not BECaUSE of it.
Because the purpose of an adventure is not to have fun. The purpose of an adventure is to help the DM create fun for you at the table. It's a tool for the DM and only then, by consequence, of interest to the players. Thinking about it more, recall that the primary objection to most people to adventures is that they are hard to run, take too much prep time, etc. These adventures (which are the vast VAST majority of adventures) are failing at job 1: being a tool for the DM at the table. Thus, the primary objection being "pain to run" then one of the focuses should be "easy to run."
Having staked out this position we can talk about what makes something easy for the DM to run, what makes it possible for the adventure to facilitate the DM creating "fun" (whatever that means to you.) These elements then almost certainly DO NOT come up in actual play. Do you have to spend 12 hours preping the adventure? You know that by reading it. Does the adventure excite you, the DM, to run it? Does the writing style lends itself to being able to reference easily during play? Can you locate information easily? Are the descriptions evocative, causing the environment to spring in to your brain where you mind fills in the rest? That's good evocative writing if it does. Is it an interactive adventure? Does it contain the possibilities for more than just stabbing things? Don't get me wrong, I lvoe stabbing things, but are there people to talk to, plot against, conspire, buttons to play with, riddles, and do on that bring those core elements to the game?
All of that, what I would assert is THE MOST IMPORTANT parts of an adventure, are easily discernible through a read-through. And those elements, if present, will be a home run of an adventure that has done every thing possible to allow the DM to create a fun game night for the players with little prep on their part.
Session reports are their own thing and not to be trusted as a review. First and foremost: can the DM use it easily at the table.
the_redbeard
Explorer
The reviewer should state whether they ran it or not. Often times, an adventure is bad enough that the reviewer doesn't want to run it. Other potential purchasers should be warned.
I think there's a far bigger problem with adventure WRITERS not having had an independent run (or even having run it themselves) of the adventure before publication.
I know it's an undertaking to finish and publish something. But there's overwhelmingly more chaff than wheat in the adventure market.
I think there's a far bigger problem with adventure WRITERS not having had an independent run (or even having run it themselves) of the adventure before publication.
I know it's an undertaking to finish and publish something. But there's overwhelmingly more chaff than wheat in the adventure market.
There's also a timeliness issue, the time it takes to run a module is far greater than just to read it. And for most reviewers, reviewing a product is better the closer to release is better than later.
I don't think playing it is required, but I do get the challenge ... playing and reading are two different experiences. I find Paizo adventures read better than they play, for example.
I don't think playing it is required, but I do get the challenge ... playing and reading are two different experiences. I find Paizo adventures read better than they play, for example.
