D&D General How Important Is The "Shared Experience" To You?

[Reynard]

Just curious:
The "shared experience" of having explored Undermountain, beaten the Storm King or descended into Avernus is a thing some people find valuable and is one of the features of playing pre-written campaigns, APs and organized play seasons.
Is this shared experience important to you? Do you like comparing experiences with other players who have gone on the same adventures? Is it a selling point for you?

 

[Laurefindel]

If I like it? Yes
Is it important? Kind of…
Is it a selling point for me? No

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think there is something to be said for it.

Just something as simple as me saying "oh man let me tell you about the time our 3rd level group beat a mind flayer"
you know what a mind flayer is
you know that should be a SUPER deadly encounter
hearing how that went down you may think it bs (the DM let you win) or you might think it amazing ingenius or lucky... but

If I say "Oh man let me tell you about the time our 3rd level group beat Neroeny" or "Let me tell you about how we fought Praxton" neither of those mean anything to you without more context of who Neroeny and Praxton are. Both are BBEGs I have used across multi editions (although never in the same world) and I have 2 players that faced both in multi editions

 

[payn]

I love it. I have been able to sharpen and deliver some great experiences by listening to other GMs and players. The Paizo sub-forums for the APs were invaluable for running them. I gained so many new ideas on things to add, pitfalls to avoid, and elements to look forward to.

I know lots of folks turn their nose up at published adventures, but I think they make excellent learning tools. Precisely because they are a shared experience. Folks can drop a line or two and I know an entire adventure and can discuss their running/playing of it. Homebrew needs painful level of detail and explanation to do so in the same vein.

There are a few misconceptions too that a published adventure can be run page by page as written. I have never seen them that way and always as a foundation. Its true, that the best published adventures limit the amount of work required, but every single one needs GM input. The shared experience makes that so much easier and better at the table. Clearly, however, YMMV.

 

[Burnside]

For me, it's very valuable/helpful as a DM to have other DMs as a resource to see how others handle certain encounters or adventure elements for their groups - and I also enjoy helping other DMs with advice for running the official adventures. In some cases, being able to call on the collective wisdom and experience of other DMs who have run the official stuff has made a big difference in the pleasure and playability of a published adventure.

On the other hand, as a PLAYER, this aspect really doesn't matter to me very much - I just care about my own group's experiences. Mostly because to avoid spoiling stuff for myself I will deliberately avoid seeking any communal knowledge about the adventure until after we've finished it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just curious:
The "shared experience" of having explored Undermountain, beaten the Storm King or descended into Avernus is a thing some people find valuable and is one of the features of playing pre-written campaigns, APs and organized play seasons.
Is this shared experience important to you? Do you like comparing experiences with other players who have gone on the same adventures? Is it a selling point for you?

I used to actually value this a bit, and it was fun to compare notes with people who'd played the same campaigns and stuff back in the '90s.

However, WotC (and to some extent TSR) have put out so many crap or mediocre products as their big "shared experience"-type adventures/campaigns, so many of which require the DM to scramble and rebuild or modify them to make them really functional (it's practically the hallmark of WotC's 5E campaigns at this point), that I no longer value it at all as a player.

As a DM I only value it in that people running the same broken stuff may have ideas on how to fix it.

This is why releasing bad/lazy adventures is bad, WotC... maybe think about that before publishing more...

 

[payn]

On the other hand, as a PLAYER, this aspect really doesn't matter to me very much - I just care about my own group's experiences. Mostly because to avoid spoiling stuff for myself I will deliberately avoid seeking any communal knowledge about the adventure until after we've finished it.

Interesting point. As a player I love the players' guides for adventure paths and published adventures. Not because they give away campaign details, but because they tease them! I have a lot of fun talking to other players about the type of character they would run in a game about being pirates, or discovering lost artifacts, etc...

I also love hearing about how other players experienced the adventure. How did they accomplish their goals? Did they go left instead of right? How did that turn out? I could talk for days about this stuff.

 

[iserith]

Yes, it's interesting to me to compare notes with other DMs and groups. I don't want to read someone's session log, but getting a general idea of what they experienced is interesting to me. Another good reference point are actual play podcasts. Often I like to see how much faster or more effectively we can get through content than others.

 

[payn]

I used to actually value this a bit, and it was fun to compare notes with people who'd played the same campaigns and stuff back in the '90s.

However, WotC (and to some extent TSR) have put out so many crap or mediocre products as their big "shared experience"-type adventures/campaigns, so many of which require the DM to scramble and rebuild or modify them to make them really functional (it's practically the hallmark of WotC's 5E campaigns at this point), that I no longer value it at all as a player.

As a DM I only value it in that people running the same broken stuff may have ideas on how to fix it.

This is why releasing bad/lazy adventures is bad, WotC... maybe think about that before publishing more...

I hear this about WOTC stuff and its too bad. I did play in a 5E adventure and thought it sucked, but also the GM did a poor job bringing it to life.

 

[Burnside]

Interesting point. As a player I love the players' guides for adventure paths and published adventures. Not because they give away campaign details, but because they tease them! I have a lot of fun talking to other players about the type of character they would run in a game about being pirates, or discovering lost artifacts, etc...

I also love hearing about how other players experienced the adventure. How did they accomplish their goals? Did they go left instead of right? How did that turn out? I could talk for days about this stuff.

Can you give an example of a non-spoiler-y player's guide for a published adventure? I don't think I've really seen this for 5E.