D&D General (SPOILERS for Vecna: Eve of Ruin) Are My Standards Too High for Adventures?

[delericho]

I think the Rod of Seven parts looks a bit weird and looks more like a double bladed crystal blade thing more than a souped up looking Quarterstaff.

Granted, I don't know if the Rod ever had an official image of it fully assembled before the 5E look.

I don't know if there's an image, but the 2nd Ed "Book of Artifacts" describes it as a 5 foot long, black, unadorned pole.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I don't think it is entirely subjective. Yes, whether one likes something is subjective, but adventures have a purpose and they can have an objectively bad design if they do not succeed at that purpose. If an adventure is a pain to read and run, if it isn't fun, if it is hard to use at the table, if it is convoluted in plot or has a rigid structure that cannot survive contact with the player characters, it is objectively bad.

And I don't think Vecna Eve of Ruin is any of those things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If an adventure is a pain to read and run, if it isn't fun, if it is hard to use at the table, if it is convoluted in plot or has a rigid structure that cannot survive contact with the player characters, it is objectively bad.

But how many people are required to get together and make the decisions on what a good version of those things are? Tell us what the "objective" version is? Because until you have an established baseline of what a good version of "easy to use at the table" is... then how can anyone make an objective statement on it?

Subjective? Absolutely! Everyone can have subjective opinions on whether a particular adventure is "convoluted in plot" or not. Or isn't "a pain to read and run" or not. But objective? I don't think any of us has the knowledge, let alone the authority, to determine the objective goodness or badness of some D&D adventure.

I mean, I certainly know that some of the things all you people talk about here on the boards as being immensely important to your enjoyment of Dungeons & Dragons are things that I think are utterly silly. So I wouldn't believe anything any of you might say as being objectively correct. Just like I wouldn't expect any of you to agree with me on what I think makes for a useful product. Nor should you.

 

[Reynard]

And I don't think Vecna Eve of Ruin is any of those things.

A few of those came directly from things mentioned in this thread. I don't own EoR because why would I if it appears to have some of those bad design elements?

 

[Shardstone]

I cannot stress how little it matters that we are calling this a subjectively bad adventure. There is no point in highlighting the fact our opinion is subjective. Thank you, everyone in this thread, for reminding us that some people like the adventures. No one says they can't. We really gotta move on past this "Yeah but what if freakin' Bob down the street loved it?!" If you like the adventure, tell us. If not, can we all agree that all opinions are subjective and we don't need to qualify that with every post?

 

[MockingBird]

I'm reading through it now, is it a bit rail ready? Yeah but what adventure isn't? So far it seems like it will be fun to run and play.

 

[dave2008]

I don't know why folks are giving WotC a pass here because high level adventures are hard or because anniversary or whatever.

WotC has one job: making good D&D books. Maybe they should get back to focusing on that.

No, WotC has many jobs. The D&D team has one job: making good D&D books.

I think in general they have made good books, if not great ones. With regards to adventures specifically, well I am not a good person to ask. I have yet to see a published adventure (from any publisher) that I have liked. So either it is really hard to do, or I am really picky, or somewhere inbetween!

 

[MerricB]

I'm reading through it now, is it a bit rail ready? Yeah but what adventure isn't? So far it seems like it will be fun to run and play.

"Rail ready"? Hehe.

The amount of player buy-in differs from adventure to adventure, but there's no doubt that you need a minimum level of buy-in for ANY published adventure. "We're not going anywhere near the Caves of Chaos! We're off to join up with the Black Baron!"

Whenever you get to a big campaign adventure of 8+ levels, heck, even 5+ levels, there's almost certainly a mostly linear path through it. Wizards have experimented with non-linear paths - Storm King's Thunder is the big example of such, where massive sections of the book won't be used. (And yeah, it was criticized for that!)

Adventure settings (like Keep) tend to work best with a limited level range. I think the adventure from Wizards most like that is Rime of the Frostmaiden, but I haven't played it yet - and it runs into problems tying things together (probably because it was several teams working on it rather than a strong central hand).

Five sessions in, we're having fun with Eve of Ruin, though parts of the design definitely frustrate me.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[MerricB]

No, WotC has many jobs. The D&D team has one job: making good D&D books.

I think in general they have made good books, if not great ones. With regards to adventures specifically, well I am not a good person to ask. I have yet to see a published adventure (from any publisher) that I have liked. So either it is really hard to do, or I am really picky, or somewhere inbetween!

You're really picky.

The books from Wizards I would term as "great" are the 5E Player's Handbook, the 5E Monster Manual, and Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Adventure-wise, Curse of Strahd. (Tyranny may be in my top 5 adventures of all time, but I know that's not universal).

There are several other adventures I would term as "very very good", including Storm King's Thunder.

There are very few adventures over the history of D&D that are actually at that level. Even the ones we regard as "classic" are mostly that because they were first, not because they live up to modern design standards.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Parmandur]

You're really picky.

The books from Wizards I would term as "great" are the 5E Player's Handbook, the 5E Monster Manual, and Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Adventure-wise, Curse of Strahd. (Tyranny may be in my top 5 adventures of all time, but I know that's not universal).

There are several other adventures I would term as "very very good", including Storm King's Thunder.

There are very few adventures over the history of D&D that are actually at that level. Even the ones we regard as "classic" are mostly that because they were first, not because they live up to modern design standards.

Cheers,
Merric

Probably the weakest 5E Adventure books are Tyranny of Dragons and Dragonheist...but, well, those both worked in practice for me, still?