Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9353946" data-attributes="member: 90374">This is a two part equation and always has been. I do think adventure quality matters, but GM execution is the most important aspect. The "ran it as written; and it sucks" types never take any responsibility for the experience. I often see criticism of published adventures and I ask myself, "if its so bad why would a person bother running it in the first place?" I think there are a few answers to that. One is they expect the module to do all the heavy lifting, but found out the hard way thats not the case. Another is popularity amongst gamers. If so many people like an adventure it must be good; right? No adventure can be written to instantly fit all types of play styles and interests. The two have to work in conjunction to produce a good experience.  Looking at the adventure design piece for a moment, I think the system is going to matter. Bespokes have an advantage in that they narrow play focus. The adventure can lean into the intentional and specific play loop to provide what everyone expects. The waters muddy with generic universals as they are meant to be a toolkit that provides a myriad of experiences. Folks often forget this as they badger on about how adventure design isnt good because it doesn't fit them like a glove. So, I think mindfulness of the product is in order when one considers adventure quality. That ties directly into the question, "are GMs enabling poor design?". No, its the need to design a module that works for a community in a one size fits all aspect. You are not getting a tailored suit here, you are getting sweatpants. Super comfy for some, too informal for others. GMs may need to tailor themselves, which is something some GMs are very interested in doing. A good adventure design includes a tailor kit for these purposes.Digging deeper into specifics I'd look closely at the development of GM and player facing material. Many of the beginning modules back in the day had a habit of intertwining GM and player facing material. What I mean about this is, text boxes to be read aloud, details on chargen, and setting background etc.. Enter the campaign players guide. I am one of the biggest proponents of players guides in adventure designs. Instead of making the GM dole out items at particular times, or untangle them from their adventure material, the players guide puts everything front and center. Its a major bummer when I as a player ask about guide details and am told, "thats fluff stuff I didnt bother reading" by a GM. I bring this up becasue I think it speaks to both adventure design quality and the idea that adventures are for GMs alone. I as a player very much dig into the details and get into the spirit of a campaign (much the chargrin of a few GMs I've had). I think having a clear line of whats intended for whom is a good adventure deisgn quality. (Also, its there, so use it GMs! If you are not interested in the material, pelase be upfront about that becasue its not on the module if you think the fluff is not important.)Finally, "better" is highly subjective. At this point, ill stop making excuses for why adventure writers get an automatic "C".     Often, the adventure writer is not a rules guy. Early edition cycles have the shakiest quality as the writers find their footing. This is the part for game designers to be mindful of what they are producing. Mechanics are there and should work accordingly. If plots are constantly convoluted or easily bypassed, then its time to consider what the system toolkit provides. Having good organization for table use and reading is important for any written product. These things should be expected and demanded from customers. However, no product is going to instantly, easily, and provide to complete satisfaction fun. The execution is on you the GM, the details are on them the writers.</blockquote>

Verification