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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6208771" data-attributes="member: 22424">Of course. But I would argue that the former is still a bad module - the weaknesses may be disguised, but they're still there and they're still weaknesses. The latter is better... but could be better still given another round of polishing. Given the choice between style and substance, I'll certainly prefer substance. But I'm greedy - if were talking about good adventures, then I want both.The problem with a requirement for "minimal backstory" is that it really limits what the adventure writer can do. In a lot of cases, the design of the dungeon should itself imply a backstory, and even things like the choices of monsters and traps may well tie in. Even something as simple as a temple used by an evil cult isn't immune - I would expect a temple to Orcus to be rather different from one to Pazazu.And yet, on the other hand, I can certainly see the other side. Very few adventure modules (and certainly standalone adventures, as opposed to Adventure Path instalments) are used strictly as-is - there's at least some adaptation to the ongoing campaign. And that means that the adventure needs to be flexible to allow for that sort of adjustment.Yes, absolutely.(And, incidentally, this is why I don't consider something like "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" to be a good adventure, even though I don't doubt groups had fun with it - there's basically one way into the adventure, then one route through the encounters until the BBEG is encountered. And if the players jump the tracks, the DM is basically on his own.)Agreed again. I've broken these two away from the others, though, because while the previous ones are about the design of the adventure itself, these are really about the design of the physical product. If you will, it's the software/hardware split. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Going forward, I think companies will need to be aware that many, if not most, adventures are going to be electronic products (certainly as well as, if not instead of, physical products). That makes things like the "detachable map" a bit less of a concern. At the same time, it does mean that they should be looking at ways to leverage the technology - there should be a map, and it should probably link each keyed entry on the map to the relevant text in the module itself.</blockquote>

Verification