The necessity of an introductory adventure with a new RPG

[Erekose]

Just started wondering if I would be supporting the Kickstarter project for Monte Cook's Numenera and upon reading the funding options saw the option of an introductory adventure.

This made me wonder about how necessary an introductory adventure is. I remember when I first started roleplaying with the D&D Basic Set how useful B2: Keep on the Borderlands was. Even now when buying a new RPG (even when it's a version of a d20 RPG) I tend to buy one of the adventures to get a flavour of how the authors envisage the rules being implemented.

So what do people think? Whether by accident or subconsciously I've now realised that I find it useful if not key.

 

[delericho]

It depends on the game.

For something like D&D or Star Wars, where players already have a pretty strong grasp on what the game is for, I think an introductory adventure is very useful to showcase the system, but not strictly necessary - if need be, the GM should be able to come up with something on his own.

However, for something new and offbeat, where it may not be quite so obvious what adventures the designers envisage, I think an introductory adventure is necessary. Otherwise, there's a likelihood that GMs will read it, think "that's neat"... and then put it on a shelf because they don't know what to do with it.

I think it's also important that any introductory adventures be good adventures, because a bad first experience with the game more or less guarantees that there won't be a second experience. These mini-adventures that many games have in their Core Rulebook are okay, but only from a strict "showcase the system" point of view. Viewed as adventures, they tend to be very poor - too short to be anything other than extremely linear, very limited, and generally not too good. They're better than nothing... but only just.

 

[Erekose]

I think it's also important that any introductory adventures be good adventures, because a bad first experience with the game more or less guarantees that there won't be a second experience.

I couldn't agree more - particularly for new people to roleplaying as opposed to just being new to that particular game.

 

[prosfilaes]

Nobilis certainly could have used one; I still don't remotely know what to do with it. I think if you're doing fantasy and it's a strict D&D retroclone, you should probably include one so people don't pull out an old D&D module and miss the differences.

 

[S'mon]

My general view is that it's absolutely vital, to give an idea of what you can do with this game, and how the designer envisaged it being played. Without one it's very unlikely I'll ever play the game. With good ones it's much more likely I'll try it.

However, introductory adventures do set the tone for a game, and I partly blame the linear introductory adventure in the 4e DMG for setting the 'my precious encounter' tone that has plagued the game, in contrast to the sandboxy Fallcrest setting also included there.

 

[S'mon]

Examples of decent introductory adventures would include the one (Castle Mistamere?) in the Mentzer D&D Basic Set, B1 and B2, and all the ones in BRP Call of Cthulu but most notably The Haunted House.

Example of a game that suffers from a lack of introductory adventure would be Fading Suns d20, which I picked up last year - it makes no effort to explain what you do in that setting. A lot of other d20 games were similar - Conan, Slaine, & Judge Dredd from Mongoose are three I recall.

 

[Erekose]

. . . A lot of other d20 games were similar - Conan, Slaine, & Judge Dredd from Mongoose are three I recall.

Judge Dredd had Full Eagle Day very close to launch which was OK but not as good as IMHO it should have been - for example compare it to The Awakening.

Conan and Slaine did suffer from a huge gap from launch until initial adventures were released.

 

[S'mon]

Judge Dredd had Full Eagle Day very close to launch which was OK but not as good as IMHO it should have been - for example compare it to The Awakening.

Conan and Slaine did suffer from a huge gap from launch until initial adventures were released.

Introductory adventure MUST be bundled with/included in the core rulebook IMO. You only get one chance to make a first impression.

 

[Erekose]

Introductory adventure MUST be bundled with/included in the core rulebook IMO. You only get one chance to make a first impression.

From the subject of this thread I agree but having at least an adventure available at or around launch is the next best thing. Not having any adventures until months (years?) later or never is clearly much worse.

 

[Leviatham]

I think adventures are pretty key with a core setting.

For starters, if you have it and the player/GM doesn't need it, nothing is lost. But if you need it but don't have it, it might be easier to go onto another, more approachable and complete game, than to persist with one that starts letting you down (somewhat).

I would also say that something as useful (if not more) than adventure, are adventure hooks. When you're reading the setting and keep reading "this could be used for this type of adventure" or "this NPC could hire the players to do this or that", etc, that can spark the imagination and allow the players create content pretty much "on the fly".