D&D General What are the minimum standards for a published adventure campaign?

[TheSword]

The better WotC campaigns assume less, IMO.

To my mind the problem is not the writers assuming whether players will engage with the specific content of the campaign… but more assuming that the interaction will go the way they predict..

For Instance - there is an assumption in one of the campaigns that the players will go to the underworld. The writers should then take into account for several different approaches and outcomes to the players interaction there.

There is a tension here - Predicting one singular approach is bad. Wasting paper anticipating and commenting on every possibly wacky interaction is also bad. There has to be a happy medium - freedom to act but an assumption that the players are engaging with the campaign and not wanting to watch the world burn as mentioned above.

 

[MGibster]

I feel as though players have a responsibility to create characters who want to engage with the scenario. This applies to every game whether the GM is using a prepublished adventure or their own creation.

 

[Lanefan]

We're not talking about unexpected or chaotic actions that make sense within the context of the scenario, it's unexpected or chaotic actions undertaken for the expressed purpose of messing with everyone that we have a problem with. Some players just like to watch the campaign burn, and if you've never gamed with someone like that then I am very happy for you.

I've gamed with some like that and IMO they're often the most entertaining players to have in a game as long as everything stays in character.

 

[payn]

We're not talking about unexpected or chaotic actions that make sense within the context of the scenario, it's unexpected or chaotic actions undertaken for the expressed purpose of messing with everyone that we have a problem with. Some players just like to watch the campaign burn, and if you've never gamed with someone like that then I am very happy for you.

I've heard these folks referred to as chuckleheads, and I've taken to using that description.

 

[MGibster]

I've gamed with some like that and IMO they're often the most entertaining players to have in a game as long as everything stays in character.

This is one of those times when I feel that I'm either not quite communicating what I mean for whatever reason or the recipient has a much, much different idea of what constitutes fun. If those kinds of players are you and your group's idea of a good time then I say more power to you. If you're all having a great time, I'm genuinely happy for you.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is one of those times when I feel that I'm either not quite communicating what I mean for whatever reason or the recipient has a much, much different idea of what constitutes fun. If those kinds of players are you and your group's idea of a good time then I say more power to you. If you're all having a great time, I'm genuinely happy for you.

One of those things DM and players have to be compatible on.

My players have described me as LN in terms of DM.

Had 1 fatality last few years and that was my wife's character. No favourites

 

[Shardstone]

Every wotc campaign assunes playets engage with the matetials. ToA doesnt assune youll leave chult for 10 levels and come back for instance.

 

[Quickleaf]

I feel as though players have a responsibility to create characters who want to engage with the scenario. This applies to every game whether the GM is using a prepublished adventure or their own creation.

That’s 100% on point. I do, however, think that published adventures can “lend a hand” to players figuring out their PC’s hook into the adventure / to GMs pitching the story to get players’ imaginations working.

It is part of the player’s responsibility, and also not all published adventures are equal in how they support players figuring that out.

For example, Rime of the Frostmaiden has character secrets that…most of them do not provide clear motivation linking into the adventure. So there’s more work for GM/players up front to figure that out.

 

[payn]

That’s 100% on point. I do, however, think that published adventures can “lend a hand” to players figuring out their PC’s hook into the adventure / to GMs pitching the story to get players’ imaginations working.

It is part of the player’s responsibility, and also not all published adventures are equal in how they support players figuring that out.

For example, Rime of the Frostmaiden has character secrets that…most of them do not provide clear motivation linking into the adventure. So there’s more work for GM/players up front to figure that out.

Paizo is really good at the player facing material.

 

[Zardnaar]

Every wotc campaign assunes playets engage with the matetials. ToA doesnt assune youll leave chult for 10 levels and come back for instance.

Yup when you agree to play a prepublished adventure it helps if players engage.

I run fairly sandbox but ask my players what sandbox they want to play in. They chose ancient Greece.

Put about 20-30 hours prep into that campaign. Any new poster I would expect to want to engage in what I've designed.

I wouldn't mind if they wanted to leave the main area and sod off to Athens but if they say wanted to depart to Egypt and discover the source of theNikle that's a problem.

I could run a game like that but tell me that to begin with. If DM and players can'tconme up with something between them odds are no campaign. My players pick from a curated list of themes (they can suggest themes).

I'll offer sonething like.

Greek
Drow
Egyptian
Norse
Forgotten Realms (aka generic)
Eberron
Midgard (Mostly generic)
Ravnica

Well 5 of them anyway done Egypt, Drow, currently Greek themed)

Players who d9nt want to engage are somewhere between disruptive or incompatible. Forners annoying latter just means they're not interested in what I'm offering no big deal.