The necessity of an introductory adventure with a new RPG

[gamerprinter]

In addition, most of those introductory adventures I've seen tend to do a poor job of actually... y'know, showcasing the game. There's nothing about them that speaks to how the game is different from any other RPG. I think including one is a good idea still, and kind of traditional, but I hardly have high expectations for them anymore. There are very few that I've actually enjoyed. And games that come with several? Usually a bad idea. It really starts to feel like wasted space.

An introductory adventure should really highlight what makes this game unique, focus on kick-starting a potential campaign, (i.e., feel like a starting point, but leave the conclusion somewhat open-ended) and avoid the cliches as much as possible. If it's just going to be cliched, well heck, I don't need pagecount devoted to that. I can do that on my own.

My favorite ones tend to be from modern horror themed games. "Exit 23" that came with the original Dark•Matter setting for Alternity is a great one that I've adapted and run several times. I also think "Jenkin Lives!", the d20 Call of Cthulhu web enhancement adventure was quite intriguing.

Again; they manage to take the unitiated character types and show off the main draws of the game that they're playing, by contrasting it in many ways with the kinds of adventures that you might be running if it were D&D, or something. They're also quite moody and well done, IMO. Great, great little adventures. I especially like modifying "Exit 23" to be a con-game.

Rite Publishing's The Curse of the Golden Spear - my intro trilogy to Kaidan was practically a step-by-step showcase of the setting rules, complexities and specifically what sets this setting apart from any other. I didn't have a setting handbook behind the adventures, so the modules had to serve that as much as being a compelling set of adventures in of themselves. This was true more so in the first adventure than the rest.

 

[darkwing]

I just got Descent 2nd edition and most of the reason I love the game is the way the quests are written. There are some rather innovative concepts that anyone interested in writing good adventurers should see for themselves. Most interestingly, the heroes can never die but they can lose. Regardless if they win or lose individual quests the campaign continues (until the final battle). Which later quests (and story text) the heroes get is determined by success or failure of the earlier quests.

The overlord (think adversarial DM) always has tactical objectives that are not (and can not be) "kill all of the adventurers". This usually has the effect of setting a "timer" or "race" for the encounters that allows for failure without ending the adventure (as opposed to TPK). Basically the whole concept turns most RPG theory on its head. The DM doesn't need to hold punches if the result of hero failure isn't death but merely a different story direction and different follow-on quests.

Also, it's thematic and fun!

 

[Ahnehnois]

So what do people think?

As far as I'm concerned, a published adventure is antithetical to what I'm trying to do with an rpg: tell my own stories. The only one I ever played nearly ended my rpg career. I much prefer to spend money on products that haven't wasted space on this kind of thing. The very presence of such a thing thus dissuades me.

 

[darkwing]

As far as I'm concerned, a published adventure is antithetical to what I'm trying to do with an rpg: tell my own stories. The only one I ever played nearly ended my rpg career. I much prefer to spend money on products that haven't wasted space on this kind of thing. The very presence of such a thing thus dissuades me.

I'm the exact opposite. I've seen hundreds of rpg rulebooks (I roll my eyes every time I see another d20 based game). But good published adventures are few and far between.

 

[gamerprinter]

As far as I'm concerned, a published adventure is antithetical to what I'm trying to do with an rpg: tell my own stories. The only one I ever played nearly ended my rpg career. I much prefer to spend money on products that haven't wasted space on this kind of thing. The very presence of such a thing thus dissuades me.

Which is great for experienced game referee, like you and I, but not everyone has the imagination, or simply lack the experience to jump into a new set of rules and start running a game. For people like that having a step-by-step look at the rules being used in a prepared adventure can lead them to eventually running their own stories.

I'm the exact opposite. I've seen hundreds of rpg rulebooks (I roll my eyes every time I see another d20 based game). But good published adventures are few and far between.

Whether I even choose to use a new rules system that I look at depends on what is the expected play experience - rules by themselves do not inspire stories. I need at least to see the designer's imagined rules in play to judge whether I'll use a new set of rules.

Yeah, an RPG rules set with no accompanying adventure is like a programming language book with no examples of written code - kind of a useless thing.

 

[Erekose]

I'm the exact opposite. I've seen hundreds of rpg rulebooks (I roll my eyes every time I see another d20 based game). But good published adventures are few and far between.

This is part of my point. When I see another d20 based game I want to see a (good) introductory adventure that highlights how the game is different (beyond the implied setting).

 

[Lwaxy]

I don't think introductory adventures are absolutely necessary, but they sure help a lot - if they are good. In my view, those adventures should be of the type you still remember years later, not just any other dungeon crawl.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is great for experienced game referee, like you and I, but not everyone has the imagination, or simply lack the experience to jump into a new set of rules and start running a game. For people like that having a step-by-step look at the rules being used in a prepared adventure can lead them to eventually running their own stories.

My point was that, IME, a published adventure does more harm than good to the development of a young gamer, as it inherently tries to impose a style on you that isn't yours. If anything, if one absolutely had to use published adventures I'd wait until the person had enough experience to know how to use prepped material and make it his own (i.e. not an introductory adventure).

I'm the exact opposite. I've seen hundreds of rpg rulebooks (I roll my eyes every time I see another d20 based game). But good published adventures are few and far between.

That's not really the opposite; I also believe that there are very few good published adventures. I just think that this is a) inevitable and b) perfectly fine.

 

[gamerprinter]

If anything, if one absolutely had to use published adventures I'd wait until the person had enough experience to know how to use prepped material and make it his own (i.e. not an introductory adventure).

I'm not sure how a designer of a game system is going to know when a given reader has enough experience to run prepped material on his own?

I get that a given publisher might not be able to best create a published adventure, but if a reader is less experienced, perhaps even looking at running his very first RPG, how are they going to handle the system without seeing a sample adventure - or at least the start of one, so he better understands the rules in use.

If a given GM/reader of the book is a good GM in other games, and can grasp the new set of rules, I can see that GM chosing not to run the intro adventure and running his own game from the start, because he might be able to run a better game. But that should be a choice, not forced upon the new GM.

I still think an intro adventure is mandatory.

Unless you're a game designer that never intended to write an adventure, writing systems only, why design a game, if you can't create a good adventure? I wonder if you can't write a good adventure, why you are even designing RPG games in the first place?

In the creation of my game setting, I made sure to have members of my team capable of doing whatever it is, I wasn't best at. We had someone who write a great adventure, but if I hadn't I probably wouldn't be wasting my time creating a setting in the first place.

The Curse of the Golden Spear trilogy are great intro adventures for the Kaidan setting. If they weren't I wouldn't have a productline to sell. Had I done so without the adventures, I'd have much dimished returns.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not sure how a designer of a game system is going to know when a given reader has enough experience to run prepped material on his own?

The point would be to sell it separately, rather than with the rules.

I get that a given publisher might not be able to best create a published adventure, but if a reader is less experienced, perhaps even looking at running his very first RPG, how are they going to handle the system without seeing a sample adventure - or at least the start of one, so he better understands the rules in use.

I think most people have some basic notion of what roleplaying is, and can do fine improvisationally. Not that the first session is likely to be a masterpiece, but it's likely to be a good learning experiece. Mine was.

But that should be a choice, not forced upon the new GM.

Well nobody's forcing them not to buy an adventure (or advertise it, from the company's perspective). I just don't like when large portions of books that I consider buying are spent on things that I have no conceivable use for.

Unless you're a game designer that never intended to write an adventure, writing systems only, why design a game, if you can't create a good adventure? I wonder if you can't write a good adventure, why you are even designing RPG games in the first place?

I think writing rules and writing content are actually pretty disparate skills.