Are adventures/modules more important than system?

[billd91]

More important? No. Important to creating and maintaining a successful product line? Probably. Important to have at least one good example of an adventure ready to go for early adopters of the system? Yes.

 

[dkyle]

Certainly not to me. I have next to no interest in published modules. Almost all of my RPG experience has been with homebrew campaigns.

I do see the value for new DMs/groups, and for those that simply enjoy them, but I don't see that as coming anywhere close to rivaling the mechanics themselves in importance.

 

[jshaft37]

What about Keep on the Borderlands? That adventure nearly defines B/X, which is beloved to this day (although B2 was released before B/X, they were packaged together when B/X was released).

Which begs the question, should it be the aim of WotC to release an Iconic entry adventure with Next (assuming that an initial adventure is necessary)? Meaning, should they put equal effort into the adventure creation as system creation?

If that is the case, should the adventure be as sandbox/dungeon crawl-centric as B/X, or is it necessary to have a more developed plot in this age of gaming? Is it possible to create a either a sandbox or plot entry module that would not turn off a significant portion of players, or are both options needed?

 

[Herschel]

The system is easily the most important part.

However, good published modules are important for bringing in and teaching new gamers.

 

[rogueattorney]

It depends.

If the system is completely incompatible with what's gone before it, then the system is more important.

If the system is more or less easily compatible with what's gone before it, then the adventures are more important.

If you need to buy the new rules to use the adventures, you best make sure your new rules are great. If you don't need the new set of rules to use the adventures, make your adventures rockin'. WotC took the former approach rather than the latter one with both 3e and 4e.

 

[Alan Shutko]

It's important that any new adventures launching a game are not so bad that they turn people off. Not many people will say "Wow, I just had a miserable time playing that game, but I'm pretty sure the system is great."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It needs to represent the system perfectly.

So while not more important than the system, it must be exactly as good as the underlying system. Else it will represent it very badly and as KotS fail to attract new customers/players.

5e needs a cheap box with full low level rules for few iconic races and classes:

elf wizard,
halfling thief
human cleric and dwarven fighter (or vice versa)

a very good adventure and some cheap minis (even if they are paper minis...
there are quite some games that work well with this setup)

 

[messy]

I've been thinking about the transition from 4e to Next, as well as a look back at iconic material, and it makes me wonder if the adventures (including materials to use in home-brew adventures) are possibly more important than the system.

considering how many game systems, house rules, and from-scratch homebrewed systems there are, i think you might be on to something. many gaming groups might need their own individual system, but quality adventures can be adapted to fit just about any system.

 

[jshaft37]

I'd guess that most players making the transition in 2008/2009 from 3.5 to 4e probably started by playing KotS.

I have the feeling that many people purchase a new system and want to play with the adventure material that's immediately available to them. I know that I learn best by doing, rather than just reading, plus it is exciting to try something fresh and new.

It's likely that many people are probably going to play the introductory adventure for the system. I don't anticipate people creating initial homebrew adventures for a system they have never run before. From there they may keep playing published adventures or move to homebrew adventures.

So if we establish the need for an initial adventure for the system release (or maybe even the playtest!), what type of adventure would be best? Consider that experienced and inexperienced DM's will be running the adventure and everyone will be new to the system.

 

[TwinBahamut]

would you like for system/setting agnostic hooks, inns, towns/cities/villages, npcs, factions, etc? is that material useful to you to cherry pick, or do you completely ignore it? for example, as a continuation of Reavers of Harkenworld, I reskinned the Neverwinter setting to create Sarthel which is under the control of the Iron Circle.

I pretty much just ignore it. I just don't use that kind of thing. Details like that are better custom built, or at least I always prefer to custom build them (or my DM does...).

I'm not totally against the idea of settings. I like Eberron, and I'm certain there must be others out there I'd like. But fine detail stuff, adventures, and so on don't have a lot of appeal for me.