Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6207141" data-attributes="member: 59082">Thanks for the replies - they're very helpful and a lot of fun to read. Keep 'em coming!The reason I think we need to start with "fun" as a criterion is that it helps us weed out adventures that might be, say, conceptually brilliant but not so enjoyable as an RPG experience. I can't think of an adventure off the top of my head, but the RPG Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth comes to mind. I love the concept of it, but it seems fairly unplayable. So while it may be entirely subjective, it is important to include because, first and foremost, rpging is about enjoyment - it is a shared experience. I can think of movies or books that are profound or executed with amazing craft, but just boring to slog through (Hal Duncan's Vellum comes to mind - gorgeous prose, but boy is it tediously pretentious).That said, as serious-to-diehard RPG fans, we all experience much, even most, of the hobby outside of social interaction, outside of a shared experience. We're reading books, designing worlds and adventures, etc. An adventure might be our favorite on the level of being a fun read, but not so great as an actual gaming experience (I've wondered about this for Ruins of Undermountain, which is a lot of fun to browse through but I imagine would become tedious to actually play).I suppose another way to look at it is that by "good adventure" I'm thinking more along the lines of entertainment value trumping the RPG-equivalent of literary merit or artistic value. The best of art is both; classics, I think, are often quite entertaining and of great artistic merit--at least the very best classics; many books and such that are considered "classics" I find to be quite tedious. For example, I'd much rather re-read the poorly written but enormously entertaining Dragonlance Chronicles than slog through The Grapes of Wrath again. But that is, again, subjective - which is why I'm asking for "favorite" adventures.Sure, I can agree with that - but do you think that an adventure can be "good design" but generally un-enjoyable for most?This becomes a much larger conversation about art vs. entertainment, which I touched upon above. I think what you're saying is that the artistry is important and has some kind of objective, or at least, inter-subjective valuation.In a similar sense that Russian River Brewery's Pliny the Elder IPA is, to any with a developed palate for beer, a far superior brew to Budweiser. Your average frat boy might prefer Budweiser, but that doesn't mean it is a superior beer. The craftsmanship, complexity of flavor, and quality of ingredients all make Pliny on a completely different order than Budweiser, so that they don't even seem like the same category of consumable. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with preferring Budweiser, but it does equate with a certain lack of "beer sophistication," what snobs call "boorish."I suppose the equivalent of boorishness in D&D would be the most blatant hack-and-slash adventures which are entirely about Killing Things, Taking Their Stuff, and Leveling Up. What is usually pejoratively referred to as "power-gaming." Again, nothing "wrong" with it but it is rather un-sophistication compared to the most cutting edge Indie RPGs. But the problem, then, is that many Indie RPGs are designed for the sake of design - and for other designers. They might be conceptually clever and novel, but as experiences of wonder and joy, might be quite lacking or limited in scope, or without wide appeal. Like Transdimensional Bunnylords. Maybe fun for a tipsy one-off, but for a long-term, immersive experience?I think there's an artistry to game design - to adventures, game engines, settings, etc. And all types of art have a kind of aesthetics scale, from lesser to greater. That said, this scale is largely determined by an inter-subjective discussion by a "community of the adequate." Picasso isn't "objectively" a great artist; he is great in relation to the history of art, and the zeitgeist of his time, as exemplary of a moment in the development of Western culture. The Beer Advocate doesn't rate beers based upon fraternity or dive bar polling, but on the impressions of people who are "adequate" to the task, that is, those who have a developed palate.Pardon the soapboxing!Exactly - that was what I was trying to get across. It was meant more as an impressionistic illustration of what a good adventure is, but not definitive in any strict way.</blockquote>

Verification