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

[Reynard]

It is very multifactor.

I am running a 5e conversion of the Pathfinder 1e Iron Gods adventure path and it has a fantastic theme and interesting plots and environments and mini stories that come together but I have been frustrated on certain organizational things that are poor.

Just looking up the names and quick descriptions of the various Lords of Rust at the table for social encounters to impart information to the PCs while running the second module The Lords of Rust was fairly awkward even with the PDF open and using Ctrl F. There is a breakdown of them on page 35 with exactly the quick info I wanted when they started interacting with people around page 17, but it is fairly buried and does not show up on the Table of Contents or in the PDF bookmarks. Searching on "Lords of Rust" leads to a huge number of hits, so not really a help.

In module 3 The Choking Tower the map for the town of Iadenveigh has 16 numbered entries for its key. The text descriptions for the town has 19 numbered notable locations that do not match the numbers on the map. Big editing fail that can lead to problems when trying to run it at the table, particularly as a sandbox type of thing. Also handling the party first entering the town is just skimmed over, nothing about likely interactions as they come in the one main gate the way the AP did for the prior module when they entered the sandbox city of Scrapwall.

I ran IG for 5E as well and it was, frankly, exhausting. The important information is buried and the editing isn't great to begin with. Which is too bad because the themes and aesthetics are right up my alley. I'm considering a full conversion for a much lighter game system like Wordls Without Number or Savage Worlds.

 

[amethal]

It is very multifactor.

I am running a 5e conversion of the Pathfinder 1e Iron Gods adventure path and it has a fantastic theme and interesting plots and environments and mini stories that come together but I have been frustrated on certain organizational things that are poor.

Just looking up the names and quick descriptions of the various Lords of Rust at the table for social encounters to impart information to the PCs while running the second module The Lords of Rust was fairly awkward even with the PDF open and using Ctrl F. There is a breakdown of them on page 35 with exactly the quick info I wanted when they started interacting with people around page 17, but it is fairly buried and does not show up on the Table of Contents or in the PDF bookmarks. Searching on "Lords of Rust" leads to a huge number of hits, so not really a help.

In module 3 The Choking Tower the map for the town of Iadenveigh has 16 numbered entries for its key. The text descriptions for the town has 19 numbered notable locations that do not match the numbers on the map. Big editing fail that can lead to problems when trying to run it at the table, particularly as a sandbox type of thing. Also handling the party first entering the town is just skimmed over, nothing about likely interactions as they come in the one main gate the way the AP did for the prior module when they entered the sandbox city of Scrapwall.

I find the various "GM's Guide" threads on the Paizo website to be invaluable when preparing to run one of their adventure paths. They point out potential pitfalls, suggest alterations and generally allow me to take advantage of other GMs' experiences in running them. They are usually not things I'd have spotted from just reading - and Paizo have said they design their adventurers to be read as well as played.

It does help that we are way behind on running these things - it's not much help if you run adventures soon after they come out.

 

[Voadam]

I find the various "GM's Guide" threads on the Paizo website to be invaluable when preparing to run one of their adventure paths. They point out potential pitfalls, suggest alterations and generally allow me to take advantage of other GMs' experiences in running them. They are usually not things I'd have spotted from just reading - and Paizo have said they design their adventurers to be read as well as played.

It does help that we are way behind on running these things - it's not much hekp if you run adventures soon after they come out.

I found them very helpful in running my pre-pandemic 5e Carrion Crown conversion campaign and the bits I have read for Iron Gods and 5e conversion experiences. They definitely made my games better.

I am at the point though where reading the module itself and preparing FG 5e conversions for the immediately upcoming week's game is about as much prep time as I have the bandwidth to devote to it and have not even opened up the Choking Tower thread on Paizo's forum.

 

[Mannahnin]

As for White Plume Mountain, I've run it twice. The inhabitants are there because a mad dungeon master put them there. That was all the logic needed in the early days of D&D. The idea that the world should be coherent, logical, and resemble the real world hadn't been invented. It's about as logical as Monty Python and the Holy Grail. But that doesn't have to stop you enjoying it.

Well, the idea had been invented. WPM was published in '79, and Richard Gilbert's seminal Let There Be a Method to Your Madness article from Dragon #10 advocating logic/realism/verisimilitude in dungeons and fantasy scenario design was two years prior. While definitely the original '74 set presented wholly irrational funhouse megadungeons, I think we saw folks in fanzines pushing back on that or advocating coherent fantasy worlds probably as early as '75, if I'm remembering correctly from readings in places like The Elusive Shift.

Yeah, that stopped my players from enjoying it. Maybe my fault, as I tried to shoehorn it into an existing campaign and to put some big bad artifacts from my own campaign in there; and even drop some clues about my big bad

If I had just said "hey, we're going to play a funhouse dungeon - it will make no sense, really" I'm sure they and I would have enjoyed more

It was written without any idea that it might get published: Lawrence Scheck put it together with bits and pieces from his home Dungeons as a portfolio, and TSR just decided to publish the portfolio as a module.

Yup. I was going to say. The story goes that Shick threw together a writing/design sample showcasing all sorts of creative and wacky ideas as part of his application to work at TSR, and didn't expect it to be published essentially as-is. So the percentage of gonzo in there is higher than usual.

If we compare that to, say, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief from '78, we see that the earlier module has a more Gygaxian Naturalist approach, much less gonzo.

 

[R_J_K75]

There are basic literary criticism tools I apply.

• Does the plot hold up?
• Does it make logical sense?
• Are there compelling characters and motivations?
• Is it well organized? Can I find the information I need?
• Are the maps accurate and clear?
• Do I see glaring typos or incorrect rules usage?

These are pretty much the things I'd look for too.

Blunt answer to the thread title: you don't, and can't.

Some adventures read as great but play like crap. Others read as being crap but are excellent in play. And there's some where the 'read' and 'play' agree.

I agree 100%. Assuming that the adventure meets most or all of the above requirements so much still depends on the particular table that there really is no way to tell how an adventure is going to play out.

 

[Mannahnin]

Blunt answer to the thread title: you don't, and can't.

Some adventures read as great but play like crap. Others read as being crap but are excellent in play. And there's some where the 'read' and 'play' agree.

I agree 100%. Assuming that the adventure meets most or all of the above requirements so much still depends on the particular table that there really is no way to tell how an adventure is going to play out.

Isn't that kind of like saying that because you don't know whether any given TV show or movie or game is going to be fun and enjoyable, it's impossible to review or critically evaluate TV shows, movies, or games?

I agree that RPGs are organic experiences very much dependent on the participants. And I agree that because the play of a module is highly dependent on the competence of the DM and the way they use it, judging the merits of a module is tougher than judging a finished work like a TV or movie.

But I don't think it's impossible, by any means. Clear presentation of data and easy reference of information, maps and keys which agree and are easy to understand, descriptions which have evocative detail and put a clear picture in your mind... All these are qualities of a good module and failures in these areas will normally make any module harder to use and less interesting.

 

[R_J_K75]

I agree that RPGs are organic experiences very much dependent on the participants. And I agree that because the play of a module is highly dependent on the competence of the DM and the way they use it, judging the merits of a module is tougher than judging a finished work like a TV or movie.

But I don't think it's impossible, by any means.

I'm speaking from my own personal experiences. I'll agree that some modules are so poorly done that after reading even a portion it's clear that its terrible. But in the event that an adventure checks all the boxes that would lead one to believe that its good it could still end up a train wreck. The few times that I have run or played the same adventure twice the outcomes were very different.

 

[Voadam]

But in the event that an adventure checks all the boxes that would lead one to believe that its good it could still end up a train wreck. The few times that I have run or played the same adventure twice the outcomes were very different.

I have run White Plume Mountain three times. Once as part of a decade long 1e-2e AD&D Greyhawk campaign and twice as a 5e one-shot.

Experiences and approaches varied wildly, fleeing the vampire immediately, fighting the vampire and TPKing, powerhousing through to the Trident kicking butt the whole way.

All three groups had a fantastic time and enjoyed the funhouse challenges, even the long time serious campaign one.

If someone wants a bit more dungeon naturalism for White Plume I suggest checking out the 2e Return to White Plume Mountain which develops factions among the dungeon and devotes a lot more design space to there being an interesting story behind stuff to discover.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Blunt answer to the thread title: you don't, and can't.

Some adventures read as great but play like crap. Others read as being crap but are excellent in play. And there's some where the 'read' and 'play' agree.

Probably not the answer you were hoping for.

I'll add: Sometimes the adventure IS crap, but you fluke out and run it just right and your players do all the right things to make it awesome. Unfortunately, sometimes the adventure is quite good but you flub giving the right information at the right time to the right players and they don't engage with it (or sometimes you do fine but they don't engage with it through some fault of their own).

 

[Eyes of Nine]

WPM was written as a one-shot, not as part of an ongoing campaign, and (IMO) is best treated as a comedy. But at least it makes more sense than The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan (which is also awesome).

Also a good read - and also one I have dropped into another campaign (different set of players). This one the players are all relatively newly back to D&D - we played AD&D in 1983. I remember fighting Lolth at the end of Q1 with the Rod of 7 Parts while one of the other players had the Wand of Orcus. Anyway, in the intervening 40 years most of them have forgotten a lot about D&D. And back to the point - this time I had a frank conversation with them that this was more of a puzzle dungeon and were they ok with that? And got buy-in on the overall module. It's been going well so far...