The shared experience of D&D adventures

[delericho]

I think there's a problem with building a 'shared experience' - there are just too many adventures being produced for any one of them to have enough of an audience to really get to that point. This is distinct from the 1e days when there were very few releases generally, and very few adventure releases, and so everyone played them.

I might be wrong, of course. I do feel, though, that a 'shared experience' would be very good for the game, and for the community. I just don't know if it's possible.

I also feel that shorter adventures have more of a chance of becoming a 'shared experience', since I expect very many more groups will start any Adventure Path than will eventually finish it, and a lot of groups may well not embark on an Adventure Path because of the commitment implied.

Of the early 3e adventures, I expect "Sunless Citadel" is closest to being a 'shared experience', with perhaps "Death in Freeport" also being close. "Red Hand of Doom" may well get there as well. I suspect RttToEE won't, largely because it's just not a particularly good adventure. (Far far too much dungeon crawl, IMO.)

 

[Steel_Wind]

I disagree Delricho. While the broad "shared experience" is diminished by the sheer mass of material, the Dungeon Adventure Paths are as close as it gets right now.

If you should have any doubts about that, the 20,000 posts or so in the Age of Worms forum on Paizo's site should diasbuse you of that notion. And yes, there are a lot of people on ENWorld who've played or run the first adventure in it as well.

It might not be the Village of Homlet - but for 3E, the APs are as close as it gets - and as close as it's likely to get.

Of course, we also have three WotC hardcovers coming this year in AP format - with the first one, Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave, due out next month.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Well... as a DM, I could use the AP adventures many times with different groups. I wouldn't run it again with the same group. However, what I learn about adventure construction from using the AP helps me with my self-created game.

Now that's a valid point. Thanks for asserting that, because I had not considered that angle.

 

[RFisher]

I have a suspicion we're moving into a new era of shared-experience D&D adventures, with the success of the Adventure Paths of Dungeon Magazine, and with Wizards publishing new, and some surprisingly good, adventures.!

& once again, I don't share in the shared experience. (u_u)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Obviously, only adventures with huge distribution have a chance of rising to this level.

It also seems to me that it is in WOTCs interest to put out fewer--but better-- adventures. Two, maybe three really, really good adventures per year, with plenty of time in between to play them and for the myth to spread.

Building the shared experience is good for the game in a way that "having plenty of adventures to choose from" isn't.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta go with delericho on this one. The shared experiences from 1e stem from the fact that, for any given level, there were only a small handful of modules. If a player played a module, it's pretty likely that anyone else playing at the time would also have played it.

 

[MerricB]

I think there's a problem with building a 'shared experience' - there are just too many adventures being produced for any one of them to have enough of an audience to really get to that point.

Mind you, there's a big difference between "There's a lot of adventures being produced" and "There's a lot of adventures being produced by Wizards".

Cheers!

 

[Voadam]

It also seems to me that it is in WOTCs interest to put out fewer--but better-- adventures. Two, maybe three really, really good adventures per year, with plenty of time in between to play them and for the myth to spread.

Building the shared experience is good for the game in a way that "having plenty of adventures to choose from" isn't.

I like the choice of options. I know one of the players in my group is in another where they ran through Age of Worms so I wouldn't want to run him through it as well. Having alternative options to make my game new and surprising for him by using different adventures instead of duplicating his experience from that other game is a significant plus for me.

I remember one of my friend's brothers saying he had been through the giants adventures three times and thinking that I'd therefore prefer to run something different if his character in my game got to that level.

I like the plethora of adventure options. It is more unlikely that my players will have already played or read the adventures I plan on using.

 

[Desdichado]

Well... as a DM, I could use the AP adventures many times with different groups. I wouldn't run it again with the same group. However, what I learn about adventure construction from using the AP helps me with my self-created game.

What I get most out of adventures is plundering them for plot ideas, maps, NPCs, monster stat blocks, etc. which I don't necessarily use together, but remix in different ways. You could easily run, say, Age of Worms, but then plunder the entire Age of Worms arc for ideas in a completely different campaign. If you're smart about it, even your players wouldn't necessarily realize that they'd been using recycled material. If you play with more than one group, you're easily golden there.

Within the context of the Eberron campaign setting, I think the early WotC "adventure path" of Eberron adventures may be a shared experience. I can't remember all the titles--Whisper of the Vampire's Blade was one, IIRC, though. Of course, if you don't play the Eberron setting, you probably haven't played those adventures, though.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I like the plethora of adventure options. It is more unlikely that my players will have already played or read the adventures I plan on using.

So, you don't want a shared experience. You want each of your players to have a unique experience.

I think you proved my point... shared experiences grow from having fewer options. Unique (or distributed) experiences grow from having more options.

Obviously we disagree as to whether a shared experience is good or not. I maintain that it is good for the brand while fully accepting that what is good for the brand is not always the best thing for any given DM or group. I've taken a more holistic view of D&D in recent years to the point where I accept that what is good for the brand is good for me in the long run.

I, and many like me, don't have the luxury of having more than one campaign to choose from. I can't even fathom having a player in my group who has time to play in someone else's campaign, even if he could find one.