Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eyes of Nine" data-source="post: 9120519" data-attributes="member: 99786">I always wonder&nbsp; and am curious - what are people's criteria for whether an adventure is &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;? For me, my assessment might be different depending on whether I have an idealized or actual play-group I'm considering running an adventure for. For an actual group - it'll depend on the group of course. For the &quot;ideal&quot; play-group, I guess I'm looking for a good set of combat, role-play, puzzle/trap encounters. Maybe faction play.An example. I have read White Plume Mountain a couple of times, and played in it once (until my wizard blew a fireball in a 15x15 room (AD&amp;D) that we were standing in at the time. TPK, and also the end of that campaign as the DM moved away soon after. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤣" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" title="Rolling on the floor laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :rofl:" data-shortname=":rofl:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😭" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f62d.png" title="Loudly crying face&nbsp; &nbsp; :sob:" data-shortname=":sob:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> ) I read it and thought it was a fun funhouse dungeon. But I read it with the &quot;ideal&quot; group in mind. When I ran it for a specific group - for that group there were too many traps and puzzles, and not enough role play - and what role-play there was didn't actually make sense (like... why are these people here in this dungeon?!?)So to my point, White Plume might be a fun dungeon to read; but in play with a real group - it didn't go very well. I didn't catch that the NPCs really had no reasons to be in the dungeon; which led to strange NPC interactions.What are your criteria for quality when you first read through an adventure?(no need to defend White Plume, it's still one of my favorites as a read. If I was to run it again, depending on the group it might require so much modification it wouldn't be worth it probably)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eyes of Nine, post: 9120519, member: 99786"] I always wonder and am curious - what are people's criteria for whether an adventure is "good" or "bad"? For me, my assessment might be different depending on whether I have an idealized or actual play-group I'm considering running an adventure for. For an actual group - it'll depend on the group of course. For the "ideal" play-group, I guess I'm looking for a good set of combat, role-play, puzzle/trap encounters. Maybe faction play. An example. I have read White Plume Mountain a couple of times, and played in it once (until my wizard blew a fireball in a 15x15 room (AD&D) that we were standing in at the time. TPK, and also the end of that campaign as the DM moved away soon after. 🤣 😭 ) I read it and thought it was a fun funhouse dungeon. But I read it with the "ideal" group in mind. When I ran it for a specific group - for that group there were too many traps and puzzles, and not enough role play - and what role-play there was didn't actually make sense (like... why are these people here in this dungeon?!?) So to my point, White Plume might be a fun dungeon to read; but in play with a real group - it didn't go very well. I didn't catch that the NPCs really had no reasons to be in the dungeon; which led to strange NPC interactions. What are your criteria for quality when you first read through an adventure? (no need to defend White Plume, it's still one of my favorites as a read. If I was to run it again, depending on the group it might require so much modification it wouldn't be worth it probably) [/QUOTE]

Verification