What do YOU think makes a "good" adventure?

[Eyes of Nine]

I see all the time people talking about whether xyz module/AP/WotC HC is a "good" adventure. (Or more often, the opposite)

To be honest, I don't actually have the critical lexicon to be able to assess whether an adventure is "good" before I've played/run it. Even once I've run it, I might say "oh, that adventure wasn't good for THAT group of players, but maybe this other group will like it!"

So, here's a question for EnWorld - how do you judge an adventure?

I'm interested not just in what factors do you consider - although I'm interested in that too.

But I'm also interested in the actual how you do it - do you skim it first? Do you note the NPCs and special monsters? Do you look at the map to see if there are cool terrain set pieces? Do you try to do a quick or detailed flow chart of the adventure and spot gaps? Literally - what are the actual steps you take to assess an adventure? So if you are willing to share, I'd be thankful.

 

[Parmandur]

I judge an Adventure by the number of options it provides for my toolbox to pull from in the future, and by the subjective quality of "fun" found on these new tools.

A bunch of NPCs and encounters that are boring and uninspiring (I've read some C level old Judges Guild stuff...)? Eh, the DMG gives me tools to whip up better stuff randomly just as easily.

A few options that are very exciting and well focused (say like Lost Mines of Phandelver or the Sunless Citadel)? Now we are talking.

A ton of NPCs, locations, encounters and events that get my blood flowing (Curse of Strahd or Tomb of Annihilation, for example)? Bellisimo.

 

[aco175]

I like a good descriptive paragraph, a "back cover" so to speak. It gets me at least interested. The world may have something to add as well. Right now I'm playing in Phandalin and would look closer at a module from there. Generic settings are ok to look at as well in case I can modify it.

 

[Umbran]

To be honest, I don't actually have the critical lexicon to be able to assess whether an adventure is "good" before I've played/run it. Even once I've run it, I might say "oh, that adventure wasn't good for THAT group of players, but maybe this other group will like it!"

So, here's a question for EnWorld - how do you judge an adventure?

Well, you already hit on it. I judge it for the players and characters I'm working with.

From that basis - I skim it looking for the themes and tactical situations it contains, noting what is apt to be fun for, or a problem for, my players. Too many on the problem side, I just don't use the thing.

 

[Fenris-77]

As a book I might purchase, I look at both the story, for cool factor, and the mechanics, for usefulness. I buy a lot of stuff to strip out the mechanics and some cool bits, with no intention of running it as-is. To actually run, with no more than minor tinkering (which I always do) it needs to be a pretty perfect storm of cool ideas and themes that also match the strengths and interests of my players. In that regard an adventure that was just pretty good could move to awesome if the players I was running it for changed.

 

[Aldarc]

Replayability with variability.

 

[Lanefan]

There's two questions in one here:

What do I think makes a good adventure before running/playing it?
What do I think makes a good adventure after running/playing it?

So far most of the answers have dealt with the first question, but often there's no way to know if an adventure's going to be any good until you've either played through it, or run it, or both.

Why is this? Well, simply because some adventures play better than they read (L1 Bone Hill is a good example*) and some read better than they play (H1 Keep on the Shadowfell is one such).

* - and also absolutely nails @Aldarc 's point above regarding 'replayability with variability' - this one goes differently every time I touch it!

That all said, some red flags to watch out for on first read, or even first glance:

--- The encounters or rooms are all in a line, like a string of beads on a wire, where to get to any one you have to have gone through the one before
--- More pages are devoted to backstory and lead-up than to the adventure itself (Pathfinder, I'm lookin' right at you here)
--- The boxed descriptions or encounter write-ups (or battlemaps!) give away more info than the PCs would be able to know without more exploring
--- The boxed descriptions or encounter write-ups assume the PCs always approach from a particular direction yet the map shows they could just as easily approach from at least one other direction
--- Notes in the introduction suggesting the party must have at least one [fill-in-a-class] character in order to succeed at the adventure.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Investment of the players into the adventure. If the players get into the game that makes it one. Players have to like and have fun in the adventure.

 

[delericho]

So, here's a question for EnWorld - how do you judge an adventure?

I'll review a product according to how it is sold. So if you sell me an 'adventure' that is actually a really good setting book, that's getting a poor review.

I'm also interested in how well the product executes its promise. I'm generally not interested in the concept of the thing, as some really good adventures have come from relatively vanilla concepts ("Lost Mine of Phandelver", and the original "Ravenloft"), while some adventures with excellent concepts have turned out to be poor ("Storm King's Thunder").

I'm also not particularly interested in replayability, nor the ability to pull out bits of the adventure for separate use - I have enough adventure material to last me for the rest of my life without repeating, so I just don't need that.

Beyond that...

I like to see interesting choices in the adventure. So a map with multiple different routes through it to allow the PCs to take different approaches, or giving the party multiple competing goals, or things like that. And I'll accept that those choices necessarily mean some redundancy as some material never gets used. (But it is important to put the choices in the right places. The best bits of SKT are five dungeons, of which a successful group will only see one. That's not a good use of resources.)

I also like to see good use of the lore within the adventure, so that the PCs can figure out what's going on (and benefit from doing so), and so that there's a glimpse of a much wider world out there. But it's important that the PCs actually can see that lore and figure things out. (Again, SKT is an example of mediocrity. The "Shakespearean Giants" concept is excellent, but my group spent months wandering around in Chapter Three with almost no means of accessing the actual plot of the adventure. It's only much later that it all starts to come to light - and that's way too late.)

Finally, I need to be able to use the adventure as-is, without needing to fixing of issues, remixing of material, or otherwise digging to get at the good stuff. I use published adventures because I just don't have time to generate my own, so what I need from them is to actually do the work for me. (Here my go-to example of a poor adventure is "Expedition to the Demonweb Pits" for 3e - another wonderful concept, and there's a really good adventure in there somewhere. But the actual adventure as presented is sorely disappointing.)

One last thing: production values. I'm generally neither particularly bothered or particularly impressed with these. Funnily enough, most professional adventures are published to a suitably professional standard. So they'd need to either be exceptionally good or exceptionally bad for me to take note - the only example that springs to mind is the woeful "Scourge of the Howling Horde", which in addition to all its other failings was clearly intended to be printed full-colour but was actually printed in greyscale. This meant that some of the sidebars should have been brown-on-yellow and were instead light-grey-on-marginally-darker-grey.

I hope some of that is helpful!

But I'm also interested in the actual how you do it

I read it cover-to-cover and then make my assessment. If I later run it, I'm likely to revisit that opinion - but I'll only tend to run adventures that I've already considered good. The dross gets shelved never to be used again.

This, of course, means that adventure needs to read well before it gets a chance, and then it needs to play well.

 

[aco175]

If I get an adventure module, I tend to look at the map first and then the appendix where NPCs, items, and new monsters are. I tend to judge if I find the monsters and such as silly or just made to be filler. I like when the NPCs come with a paragraph of description and playing notes. The map helps when I skim the layout of the adventure. I like nice maps, but something that is usable first is better than pretty, unless it is a player handout. I like to see a few avenues for the PCs to enter and move around like others said. Some can be hidden at first like the the entrance in Sunless Citadel.

I also like to see some some sort of cohesion or reason for things to be in the dungeon. Think back to old 1e dungeons where random monsters are sitting next to other random monsters and dragons are down 5ft halls to rooms only slightly larger than themselves. There needs to a reason why orcs are living next to gnolls and a dragon is down the hall. I know people like to vary things and if you always fight goblins, then it gets boring. Mixing the goblins with wolf and a hobgoblin boss is good like the first part of LMoP.