NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AWizardInDallas" data-source="post: 6876949" data-attributes="member: 52605">I think it's even worse than that.  I've put a "pause" on buying adventures from anyone, because I agree with your assessment. Here's a list of what I think is wrong with adventures today, in no particular order:1. Reliance on the tired old gimmick of adding new magic items and monsters, which are: a) hard to use or reference elsewhere; b) often are not a value add to the game or adventure; c) are often of questionable quality and clearly not play tested.2. Maps have grown too complicated to draw quickly on vinyl during a session are often difficult to read due to their complexity and use of full color.  Color maps are not as easy or are impossible to modify or make notes on.  I like black and white maps I can write on or color code.  I like battle maps and reusable dungeon tiles and will abandon the original map in an adventure to make my life easier.  I also really liked the D&D 3.5 mapping that showed bad guy size and position, which has been abandoned (admittedly, probably really high effort to produce).  I will sometimes judge an entire adventure by its maps.3. (Agree) They are too verbose and, as you said, contain walls of passive, uninteresting text, making preparation seem like cramming for exams.  Content is supposed to be king.  It should never take two full color pages to describe a room.  Dungeon Magazine could once cover an entire evening's play in two pages.4. (Agree) Adventures are often poorly structured.  I particularly hate when there are keys to chests scattered everywhere, rooms that refer to rooms, that refer to rooms, that refer to stats, etc. and other bad referencing that slows play and causes fumbling, confusion, and boredom.5. I don't trust reviews.  I've done work in the industry and there is some schmoozing going on that's dishonest.  I can virtually guarantee you that very little or only light play testing goes on.  It costs time and money and time to market is the first consideration.  Bigger shops have editorial staffs that proof the crap out of their products so serious errors are almost non-existent.  Having said that, there are a couple of reviewers I will heed.6. Bad logic, poor "scene" construction, and plot holes you can fly a plane through.  I once read an adventure which started with the dramatic bursting open of a temple door.  Then it repeated it, with obviously less impact.  It sounded comic to me, rather than dramatic.  I'm beginning to think folks who write adventures should consider looking at how screen plays are written.7. High quality art that sells the adventure, but doesn't actually represent what's inside.  Use of ill-fitting stock art in smaller shops.I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.</blockquote>

Verification