What's more important: core rules or adventures?

[delericho]

But, doesn't that in part, depend on how you define core rules? WotC got a little greedy with 4e declaring everything core...

Ah yes, of course. Ignoring WotC's "everything's core" nonsense is such a reflex for me that I simply forgot it.

Where "core rules" are defined as "the minimum set you require to play the game" (which would be the PHB/DMG/MM for most editions of D&D), then I'll stand by my assertion that that must be primary over adventures.

Are adventures more important that good supplementary rules? I dunno. I want both. But, if I have to choose... I think I'll take good adventures. I find that too often supplementary material really isn't up to par with the core rules, and tends to bog it down, and so I'm often better without. YMMV, of course.

 

[scourger]

While both are important, I find the core rules to be more important. I will run a game if the core rules are solid, but I have only once been so motivated by an adventure that I picked up the rules to run it: Karak Azgal for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Rules, story (adventure) & minis (with some painted or counters) are the 3 parts of my RPG perfect storm these days. I can pull different elements from different sources together for those 3 things, but I find that I have to have them all to get a game to the table. I don't have the time or the inclination to start from scratch on any one, especially for the core rules for a given game.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Mind you, I'm the only member of my group that spends notable time on messageboards (or the internet in general), doing RPG related stuff. So, as a practical matter, they're highly unlikely to learn about any particular published adventure.

That last is probably pretty common, and would be a major barrier to trying to sell adventures to GMs though the players - it is more difficult and costly to get the marketing message to players.

I concur.

I might run a published adventure if my players really wanted a specific one. But honestly, I've never met a player who cared what specific adventure I ran. Some players prefer certain adventure styles (sandbox, plotmobile) and some prefer certain worlds (FR, Eberron), but I've never heard a player say "I wish I could find a DM to run the Super Awesome Adventure!"

IME, most players just want to choose from the game's eleven jillion options to make their toon and then go kill some orcs.

 

[AeroDm]

Honestly, the most important thing is probably marketing. RPGs need a fan base and that base comes with a brand and solid marketing. D&D is the king of that. To adapt this theory to your question, it'd have to be "core rules" because core rules are the publication that gets a big marketing push. Adventures certainly help make a game more enjoyable to run, but they really are only read by about 20% of the group and then only if you are already playing that game.

 

[Celtavian]

Speaking for myself, I have to go with adventures.

My ideal game system is something more like GURPS. Even to this day, I would love to play GURPS. But it doesn't produce many adventures, thus it takes far too much time to consistently run and prepare for.

D&D has always had a great many adventures to make their game easy to play. At the end of the day a great ruleset without adventures is hard to play and get other people to play. If the DM just has to read a module, do a few modifications here and there, then it makes the entire game easier to play.

I do believe adventure support is where D&D and Pathfinder beat just about every other game system out there. I believe this has been a major factor in making them the top dog gaming company.

 

[pemerton]

At WoTC, why is there so much emphasis on the optimal D&D rules, and so little emphasis on making an award-winning adventure module?

I know that there's not a lot of money in publishing adventures, but if you heard about the Most Amazing Adventure Ever, wouldn't you want to play or at least think about playing it, despite the system?

Twenty years ago I would have said that mechanics trump adventures every time. Over the past 10 years, thoug, I've definitely developed more of an appreciation for good adventure design - although I've always been happy to adapt a good adventure from other systems to my own preferred system.

At the moment, as a 4e player, I wish that WotC could write adventures that demonstrate the potential of the system, or live up to the sorts of adventure ideas in some of their supplements (Underdark, Plane Above, and now MV: Threats to the Nentir Vale). Not so much that I want to buy those adventures, although I might, but that I would like my preferred system to come off life support (which is where it seems to be at present)!

 

[pemerton]

If you look at game design over the last, say, 15 years you can see more and more systems for which pre-writing an adventure is redundant.

You can look at designs like FATE (The Dresden Files etc), Fiasco, Apocalypse World and see that 'the adventure' is created there at the table, rather than written down beforehand.

The distinction between 'system' and 'adventure' was fairly generally accepted (in my recollection) back when Call of Cthulhu was written, but I think it's becoming increasingly blurred, and in some games the two are one and the same.

However, I agree that there are many systems that do pre-suppose a GM will write or buy an adventure, and if that's how you write your system it seems odd not to provide them.

I think that this is a good point.

But some of these modern games can still benefit from pre-prepared lists of fictional elements - be they background choices for PCs, or relationships between prominent NPCs that relate to those backgrounds, or etc.

Some of the 4e books come close to offering this sort of material, but seem to fall slightly short. In part it's an issue of editing/organisation - the relevant material is not easy enough to extract/refer to in the course of actual play. But also a little bit of extra effort in suggesting how an element might be used, or how a particular mooted encounter staged, could help.

Threats to the Nentir Vale perhaps comes closest to this, but still seems to me to leave the GM with a lot of work to do eg there is no attempt to group or index monsters by theme or mechanics - so if I suddenly need an antagonist, during play, who will play well against (say) an elf, or against a party of divine PCs, or against a defender-heavy party, or whatever it might be, I have to remember all the descriptions and join the dots myself.

I would love to see a good large 4e sandbox area full of short adventures of all different sizes without pre-made hooks to lure the pcs in. Go explore! Find stuff! See what's out there! Use random rumor charts!

Threats to the Nentir Vale comes close to this. (But you'll have to add your own rumour charts.)

 

[Bluenose]

I would love to see a good large 4e sandbox area full of short adventures of all different sizes without pre-made hooks to lure the pcs in. Go explore! Find stuff! See what's out there! Use random rumor charts!

The Chaos Scar adventures, perhaps? Collected into a book/box, add some more detail to the town, and you'd be ready to go. Though I don't quite get the 'short adventures of all different sizes'.

If you look at game design over the last, say, 15 years you can see more and more systems for which pre-writing an adventure is redundant.

You can look at designs like FATE (The Dresden Files etc), Fiasco, Apocalypse World and see that 'the adventure' is created there at the table, rather than written down beforehand.

I'm not sure that this is quite as new as you suggest. If you've got a supply of pre-made 'enemies' and a willingness to create a map as the characters explore it, you can do it with a lot of systems. I think some systems make that easier, and FATE would be one, but the possibility was always there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Bluenose]

Core rules are the engine; adventures are the gas.

If you really want to go somewhere, you need both.


RC

There's no need for either. Some GMs make their own engine; many tinker with other engines; a lot make their own gas.