Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Just curious what kinds of adventures people prefer the most. There is some overlap between these categories. Feel free to pick multiple choices.
Last edited:
Your Favorite Kind of Adventure
- Thread starter Bedrockgames
- Start date
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
I clicked "Other" which is more accurately described as "All of the Above." My favorite adventure has elements of at LEAST two or three, if not more, of the options put forth.
The more of the above elements you can get in there (making sense/a coherent story, I mean, not just cramming them in there for numbers sake) the "better" (iow, "more enjoyable for me") the Adventure is.
Have fun and happy adventure building.
--Steel Dragons
The more of the above elements you can get in there (making sense/a coherent story, I mean, not just cramming them in there for numbers sake) the "better" (iow, "more enjoyable for me") the Adventure is.
Have fun and happy adventure building.
--Steel Dragons
David Howery
Hero
as a DM, I loved running wilderness adventures. For one thing, it did away with the 'two awesome fighters stand in the corridor and block all the enemies from getting around them' tactic... nothing like having the enemy attack from all sides to make life interesting for the mage. Second, I was always a fan of 'go find the lost city' stories like "King Solomon's Mines", so D&D was a natural for copying that...
Ahnehnois
First Post
I didn't want to spam the poll so I didn't vote, but I would have said all of the above and more, except dungeons as a setting.
The question of setting and style presented here is sort of like asking whether I like Lovecraftian horror, raunchy black comedy, or high fantasy adventure. They're all good. I wouldn't want to limit myself to only one style.
Even within my last D&D campaign, I ran sessions that included little to no combat, and one that was mostly combat, some that were in the jungle and some in a big city and some in a farming village (and some in a desert). There was exploration, there was character exploration, and there was so much intrigue between numerous powerful groups it was hard to track; and that's just over 12 sessions. So, yeah. All of the above.
The question of setting and style presented here is sort of like asking whether I like Lovecraftian horror, raunchy black comedy, or high fantasy adventure. They're all good. I wouldn't want to limit myself to only one style.
Even within my last D&D campaign, I ran sessions that included little to no combat, and one that was mostly combat, some that were in the jungle and some in a big city and some in a farming village (and some in a desert). There was exploration, there was character exploration, and there was so much intrigue between numerous powerful groups it was hard to track; and that's just over 12 sessions. So, yeah. All of the above.
kitsune9
Adventurer
For me, I'm all about the hack-n-slash, kill things, and take their phat lewt. I'm a player with simple tastes.
I like to GM adventures where there is a good story arc, negotiation, roleplay, exploration, and end with a small or big dungeon crawl to get to the villain.
KidSnide
Adventurer
With the exception of an adventure that begins with: "<Party generates situation>", pretty much every adventure should have this structure. Even a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl should reveal something about the situation that allows the PCs to make an interesting decision about how to resolve the situation.
-KS
Aberzanzorax
Hero
Not sure if this is dodging the question or not, but it's my honest answer:
I prefer none of, and all of, the choices (and pretty much equally).
What I really prefer is an adventure that has all of the proposed elements to various degrees. Even short adventures have the capacity to involve some investigation, some exploration (in more than one locale) as well as diplomacy and combat.
What I DON'T like is when an adventure is a "wilderness adventure" "involving combat" and...and that's it.
If an adventure is an single thing (e.g. only a dungeon) then it needs to be a fantastic representation of that to make up for lack of diversity (and could make up for lack of one type of diversity with other types e.g. a dungeon that involves exploration, combat, investigation, puzzle solving, diplomacy, factions, unique subsections, etc etc).
Again, I don't know if I tried to dodge the question or not, but I hope that was a helpful answer.
I prefer none of, and all of, the choices (and pretty much equally).
What I really prefer is an adventure that has all of the proposed elements to various degrees. Even short adventures have the capacity to involve some investigation, some exploration (in more than one locale) as well as diplomacy and combat.
What I DON'T like is when an adventure is a "wilderness adventure" "involving combat" and...and that's it.
If an adventure is an single thing (e.g. only a dungeon) then it needs to be a fantastic representation of that to make up for lack of diversity (and could make up for lack of one type of diversity with other types e.g. a dungeon that involves exploration, combat, investigation, puzzle solving, diplomacy, factions, unique subsections, etc etc).
Again, I don't know if I tried to dodge the question or not, but I hope that was a helpful answer.
Most if not all adventures expect the party to act decisively to affect the situation.
I find a lot of published adventures omit the step <Party determines "true" situation and their position>. It is replaced with <Party is assigned a position in a clearly defined situation>. That greatly reduces the potential for investigation, party interplay, and consequential choice.
Similar Threads
- Poll
