Unpopular Opinion: People Shouldn't Review Adventures They Haven't Run

[Li Shenron]

The thread is old, but the topic is very actual.

I think reviews (of everything) and generally a really good thing, they allow us to make much more informed purchase decisions than we used to do before the internet. Whether you're buying a car, a coffee machine, or a D&D adventure, it's definitely a good idea to read some reviews first.

But then, you need to be able to parse and weight those reviews. Know where to look for trusted or professional reviewers, but be aware that even those need to be read properly. The bigger the purchase, the more informed you should be, so generally I wouldn't say to spend that much time for a D&D adventure compared to when you buy something more onerous. I definitely have no interest for "shiny and new" purchases, to the point that I scorn people who queue for hours outside a shop to be among the first to buy the latest mobile phone or something like that.

That said, the vast majority of people do not know how to write a review. They buy something and immediately want to share their feelings, but what they are really sharing doesn't help others if they haven't used what they bought.

The primary difficulty with reviewing a D&D adventure (or a computer game, or a RPG product in general) is that they can be played in many ways, that's the beauty of a RPG book! Even if you follow the adventure "by the book" as much as possible, no two groups will experience the same thing, and if an adventure doesn't work for a group it doesn't mean it's the adventure's fault. In theory, the more playtest reviews are written the more reliable the overall picture, because some DMs might have failed at running the adventure, a few others might have had a fantastic time only because their DM are awesome anyway, but the extreme cases balance each other out eventually.

Unfortunately, a read-only review is worth much less, although it's not completely worthless, because the reviewer can only imagine how the adventure will be played out: at best, they can have a useful opinion on the general plot and the editorial qualities of the book (layout, text, art...) which is still useful information but doesn't tell you how it really works. It has the same value of all those mobile phone reviews written on the same day of the purchase, with the reviewer all hyped up about their new shiny toy, but they won't tell you that the iCrap screen will be scratched after a week, the battery needs to be charged twice a day, and the memory will be already full after you install a couple of more apps.

The best thing to do with a RPG, unfortunately for the publishers, is wait... and wait... and then wait a bit more... After a few months since publication, then you will really start seeing people who actually played the adventure / used the book, and you can get a better idea by seeing what is the most common opinion, even if you just collect comments rather than full reviews.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

With others, like @Bedrockgames, a person writing a review should lay it out on the table in the top, FIRST sentence.

Example:

"Adventure of Amazing Awesomeness"

NOTE: I have only read the adventure, not run it in an actual game. I have 40 years of DM'ing experience under my belt, so take that for what it's worth. I also favour the more 'old school' style of adventures, overall. Here is my 2¢...

(...followed by content review...)"

That would go a LONG way to helping folks looking to pick up an adventure. For me, an adventure that is heavy on the integrated NPC plots, sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots is pretty far down on the list of what make an adventure "good" for me to use. As an example, I find B/X B2: The Keep on the Borderlands to be significantly superior to ANY of the "adventure paths" that I've played or run (for Pathfinder, 3.5e and the Hoard of the Dragon Queen that we ditched after the 2nd (?) session).

If I ever give my opinion on an adventure to someone who asks, I always make sure to tell them where I'm coming from, as far as DM'ing preferences.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[bryce0lynch]

Unfortunately, a read-only review is worth much less, although it's not completely worthless, because the reviewer can only imagine how the adventure will be played out: at best, they can have a useful opinion on the general plot and the editorial qualities of the book (layout, text, art...) which is still useful information but doesn't tell you how it really works. It has the same value of all those mobile phone reviews written on the same day of the purchase, with the reviewer all hyped up about their new shiny toy, but they won't tell you that the iCrap screen will be scratched after a week, the battery needs to be charged twice a day, and the memory will be already full after you install a couple of more apps.

Again, what you are describing is not a review, but rather a session report. IF you care about things like encounter balance then a session report may be of use, but, otherwise, 99% of what a DM needs in a review can come from a read-through. The problem with adventures is not "how they will play out." The problem with adventures is that 95% of them are written by people who have no idea adventure writing is technical writing. And I'm including just about every "famous" writer and EVERY large publisher in that 95%.

 

[Eilathen]

I don't think you need to have run it (or in case of RPGs played it) to be able to review it. BUT you should make clear that it is a read-only review. And that, for me is the minimum, you have to have read through the Adventure and/or RPG at least once and with care. But if you have done that and clearly state that in the review, I am fine with it.

 

[macd21]

As long as you’ve actually run adventures from published materials before, you should be able to gauge the quality of an adventure from a read-through. I know I certainly can. It’s not that complicated - the adventure either provides what you need, or it doesn’t. I’ve never been half way through running an adventure and been surprised by how terrible it was.

 

[Voadam]

And then, after the initial rush, there's nothing. Try and find a review for an adventure from a year after its release by someone who ran or played through it. Exceedingly rare.

I would not say the answer to that problem is to tell people not to do reviews until they have run the adventure.

I would much rather have a non-playtest review of an adventure I am considering getting than no review.

I consider and get a lot of 3rd party PDFs and you are lucky to see three reviews on a big one like say Razor Coast. Even something like Demon God's Fane from Monte Cook, an early high level d20 adventure from a big name author has zero reviews on drivethru.

 

[delericho]

I don't think it's realistic to insist on the reviewer having played the adventure before reviewing - as noted, there's a timeliness to reviews after which they're of limited value. And getting the adventure read and played within that window can be a tall order.

Besides, even playing the adventure gives only a limited perspective, especially if the adventure includes significant redundancy (Storm King's Thunder) or is intended for replayability (Ravenloft) - all you know is how it went for you - you can never know the path not taken. (Plus, many if not most DMs will modify the adventure, potentially heavily, and may well mask the weaknesses as they go. But if the DM fixes it as they go, is it really a good adventure?)

What I do agree should be done is that the reviewer should state the experience they have with the material - did you read it? Play it? Or is this just based on some cool illustrations and the fact that you like "The Thing"?

Edit: I also think reviewers should note if they paid for the product, or if they were sent a free copy for review purposes (or, indeed, have been paid for the review by the publishers). Being given a freebie doesn't necessarily render the review invalid, but it may at the least impact on a "value for money" judgement. The reader of the review would therefore benefit from knowing that.