Help me make WotC adventures better.

[Daern]

I agree that shorter modules might be less overwhelming to a campaign. The big mods so far feel like a mini-campaign each. Which can be cool!
The things that printed mods can do that Dungeon can't is handouts and poster maps. These are my favorite parts of the H/P/Es. Cardstock handouts and poster maps go a long way towards getting me to buy even if I don't think I'll run the module.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

My opinion is that WotC adventures (3e as well, but it seems worse in 4e...not neccessarily due to the game, but likely because it was simply heading in that direction already...it was worst in 3e as time went on) lost the goal of "telling a story".

The combat elements are fine. WotC adventures have been described (frequently) as "all dungeon crawls". By this, I think people mean that their focus is on combat to combat...with plot as a mere means to get to the next combat. A dungeon crawl need not happen in a dungeon.

What I think provides great adventure is when the players are invested in more than "set pieces" as characters. 4e gets (unfairly) criticized as not good for roleplaying. I blame WotC adventures for this.

Emphasize story. Emphasize roleplaying and character decisions. Make them nonlinear (even if the events are the same, perhaps how they play out is different, like an npc who wants to help or hurt the pcs based on decisions/roleplay).

In short: MAKE PLAYERS FEEL LIKE THEY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE OUTSIDE OF COMBAT (and, again, not just a difference in how fast they get to the next combat).


The best (read: only good) 4e adventures I have seen have all been by Open design. I suggest strongly that you check those out.

 

[Windjammer]

My opinion is that WotC adventures (...) lost the goal of "telling a story".

Perhaps to you. If you look back at page 3 you'll find an eloquent post by Peter (Seckler) who says the complete opposite - how he finds the lack of a pre-scripted story, or even outline thereof, something in favour of a good module.

I expected this to happen fairly soon to this thread - as DMs we have varied expectations regarding what makes an adventure module 'ideal'. (Something Rodney sure knew when going in with the OP.)

The design approach of codifying a story into a module is what typifies Paizo's products. When 4E lead designer Mike Mearls wrote a module for them ages ago ("Three Faces of Evil"), people complained about the lack of 'story' and about it being a huge slugfest with unmotivated combat end to end.* Here's Mearls' reply:

Someone in this thread made a comparison between Three Faces and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. That's a very apt comparison - if you didn't like RttToEE, you probably aren't going to like Three Faces.
I have an adventure design style that veers about as far into 1e and away from 2e that you can get. I write adventures that let the PCs, rather than the NPCs or the DM, drive the action. If the players want to roleplay, they can try to negotiate with the denizens of the mines. If PCs want to kill them, that's what they're going to do. There's nothing in the adventure that dictates a specific course of action that the PCs must take to "solve" the adventure.

This design tenet surfaces quite a bit in Revenge of the Giants, my favourite 4E module to date.

*Read the thread. I think a lot we've been saying here is echoed over there, which proves that the dissatisfaction is pretty editions-neutral.

 

[Dausuul]

Perhaps to you. If you look back at page 3 you'll find an eloquent post by Peter (Seckler) who says the complete opposite - how he finds the lack of a pre-scripted story, or even outline thereof, detrimental to modules.

I expected this to happen fairly soon to this thread - as DMs we have varied expectations regarding what makes an adventure module 'ideal'. (Something Rodney sure knew when going in with the OP.)

Undoubtedly. Still, there are some common threads - for instance, it looks like most folks agree that WotC's recent adventures have been sloggy, with too many fights one after another. The people who like sandbox adventures feel like they're being railroaded through endless battles and the people who like plot-driven adventures want to get on with the plot.

It might be worth creating two different types of adventure, with explicitly different expectations. Call them Adventure Settings (sandboxy, PC-driven) and Adventure Arcs (linear, plot-driven).

 

[Stoat]

It's hard to see the big picture. Especially when the "complete dungeon map" is in one book and then each room has its own map in the other, and the numbering doesn't match up. "The guards in area 2 will hear. 'Area 2? Where the heck is area 2? All I see here is an H and a Q.'"

I wanted to pull this out of the Gneech's post, because I agree. I think a lot of the complaints about 4E adventures lacking story comes from the fact that the story is crammed into a few short pages seperate from the encounters -- which take up the bulk of the adventure. I find that this makes it harder for me to keep up with the overall plot of the module, particularly in Dungeon, where moving from the "story" to the "encounters" requires scrolling through a .pdf instead of glancing from one book to another.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The most common complaint I hear about WOTC adventures is "not enough fluff." You need to put out stuff to satisfy people who want story heavy adventures.

Oddly enough, there are people who complain about not enough flavor and also people who complain about too much flavor form the PoL setting. Let's not give the OP mixed signals here...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I read that as "not enough flavour about the adventure; too much flavour about the world defaults".

 

[The_Gneech]

I read that as "not enough flavour about the adventure; too much flavour about the world defaults".

Yes, what RC said. I don't care about the PoL setting -- but I want a very flavorful description of this dungeon.

-The Gneech

 

[Plane Sailing]

Perhaps to you. If you look back at page 3 you'll find an eloquent post by Peter (Seckler) who says the complete opposite - how he finds the lack of a pre-scripted story, or even outline thereof, something in favour of a good module.

I'd like everyone to ensure that they don't post to 'take issue' with anyone else's comments, please. That way is likely to lead to arguments and conflict.

For the purposes of this thread, Let Rodney decide what he wants to take from each individuals contribution. That means everyone is free to give their examples of good and bad, without concern about how other people might react.

Thanks

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, what RC said. I don't care about the PoL setting -- but I want a very flavorful description of this dungeon.

-The Gneech

Very well put. "Keep on the Shadowfell" should be pretty agnostic as to what big evil extraplanar power is behind everything, but give us chapter and verse on Kalarel's motivations and history, his lieutenants and their motivations, the Keep itself, et cetera.