What do YOU think makes a "good" adventure?

[R_J_K75]

I agree with a lot of what other people have said here from the posts Ive read. I do think that a lot depends on the DM and the group of players how an adventure plays and most of the time even a mediocre adventure can be somewhat salvaged.

What I look for in an adventure is brevity, one that covers 1-2 levels of character advancement and something I can complete in 1-2 four hour sessions, give or take, roughly 32 pages. Much more than this I consider a mini-campaign at the least. I don't want a sandbox because if that were the case I would just start and run my own campaign, which is what I normally do now. I want a straight forward plot that doesn't force me to railroad the players but has a little leeway with a few options so the players can make their own decisions. It shouldn't take too long to set the stage and get the adventure on its way. There should be a clear cut objective and the hook not be contrived. It has to make sense as to why the party is undertaking the task. I also want it to be linear, to move things along at a steady pace, but again there should be decision points for the party along the way. It must be challenging and perhaps even have a few player deaths, while the objective still being obtainable. Minimal window dressing is all I need, maybe a tavern, a few NPCs and one or two unique monsters. I can fill in the rest.

When gauging an adventure, I'll read it front to back, look at the maps, monsters NPCs, new spells and magical items and then decide if its something I want to run. One of my main considerations is how is the module laid out? If its pretty linear then its good, if its all over the place where I'm going to do constant page flipping then its not worth my trouble. The later 3.5 and 4E formats were ridiculous the one page layout that forced you to flip from the descriptive page to the mechanics page to run an encounter. I generally don't want phone book size entries for rooms, areas, histories or NPC backgrounds, again a solid foundation is all I need and I can fill in the rest. Same thing goes for town or wilderness map locations, less is more. When it comes to new rules I consider it on a case by case basis. A short new rule for s specific circumstance is OK if not welcome but I don't want new races, classes, subclasses or backgrounds, I don't use them. Rule sub-systems as well, for instance the seafaring rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh, while they rightly belong in that book, a free download off WotC site would be nice with just the mechanics so I don't have drag out the book every time I need to reference them. Finally the more an adventure is self contained the better. When an NPC has a spell or there's a monster from another source outside of the 3 core books it just makes it that more cumbersome to run. 9 out of 10 times if I've taken the time to read the adventure I run it, but I'll probably modify it somewhat to suit my needs if its relatively easy to do so.

 

[Campbell]

I want situation, not story. I want a compelling situation with NPCs and monsters that have clear agendas. Hopefully with competing groups. Something like Castle Amber, Keep on the Borderlands, DCC Modules, or Redbox Vancouver modules.

Do not want linear plots or assumptions of PC behavior.

 

[Shiroiken]

Things I look for in a good adventure (in generally the order I read the adventure):

1. Adventure overview - letting me know upfront how the adventure is likely to go. Before play this is useful to help understand where the specific chapters are going (an easier read). During play this is useful to help get the party back on track if they wander off.
2. Compelling story - some of the best published adventures have a memorable story with them. I can make up a good story, but it helps to have a frame of reference. A location with lots of stuff going on isn't an adventure unless it has a plot hook. I can make my own, but I really like it if at least 1 or more are available. Without a hook, it tends to make the players less motivated (except for kick-in-the-door type games).
3. Setting details - this is a double edged sword, because a really detailed one can be hard to implement in an existing setting. In general I like have a good amount of details of the area the adventure is taking place in, as I can always make some changes if I need to.
4. Expansion - while not necessary, and generally not useful for Adventure Paths, I like having options to expand in/around the adventure. While I often don't, some of the best/memorable campaign starting adventures (such as the classic Keep on the Borderlands for Basic D&D) have springboards for use after the adventure concludes. Side quests during the adventure are another aspect of this that's useful.
5. Following the rules - while I'm used to having to make some adjustments to use any published adventure, one thing I've found that drives me batcrap crazy is when it doesn't follow the rules of the game it's published for. Sometimes it's explained as part of a plot device, and I can accept that, but sometimes it's just out of nowhere (had an Alternity adventure where the party was requried to jump over a 30 ft lava flow under 1G, and assumed starting characters would be successful).

 

[R_J_K75]

Following the rules - while I'm used to having to make some adjustments to use any published adventure, one thing I've found that drives me batcrap crazy is when it doesn't follow the rules of the game it's published for.

I remember seeing this in 2E AD&D modules, I cant remember specifically but its probably somewhere in "Beneath the Twisted Tower" or the Randal Morn trilogy of modules. There were some instances that included some ad hoc rules for one encounter or another in a sidebar that clearly was a hybrid of an existing rule in the PHB or DMG. It made sense in the context of the adventure, and work so it saved me from opening another book. In these cases I'm OK with it, but if the designer is clearly making up rules because of their lack of knowledge of the core rule system then its not OK. At that point I have to take undue time and energy to figure out how resolve or eliminate a poorly conceived encounter. Unfortunately sometimes you don't realize these things when reading through it.

 

[Gilladian]

I passionately HATE modules that start ith a detailed breakdown of 400 years of history, including a current war. Or a dense political treatise. Or a presumption of a weird magitech level, like regular use of airships.

Give me a ruin on a hill, a generic “ empire that failed” and a list of rumors. That is enough background. A few plothooks, a couple of interesting NPCs. And a list of things that are NEEDED to make the adventure work.

Clear maps, readable map keys, a plot summary, and an appendix with all new monsters, etc... are really valuable.

 

[R_J_K75]

I passionately HATE modules that start ith a detailed breakdown of 400 years of history

Pretty useless. at the most I would say it should only go back as far as anyone in the immediate area is old enough to remember. If there's someone advanced enough in the settlement to have more knowledge than that then they probably don't need the adventurers.

 

[pogre]

Am I excited by the premise enough that I would want to play it? If yes, then I will probably buy it and read it. After reading it, I evaluate if my players would enjoy it. I am looking for interesting encounters and one decent hook for my group. As others have said, I don't need tons of background or a geo-political treatise before I hit the meat of the adventure.

I really don't need the module to be innovative or different. A well done caravan escort or dungeon is great for me.

edit: If the adventure fires me up to paint some new miniatures or create some terrain that is a bonus!

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Pretty useless. at the most I would say it should only go back as far as anyone in the immediate area is old enough to remember. If there's someone advanced enough in the settlement to have more knowledge than that then they probably don't need the adventurers.

History, if at all, should be in the back. Or better yet, on a web site somewhere that I can immediately ignore and not have to pay for either.

 

[R_J_K75]

History, if at all, should be in the back. Or better yet, on a web site somewhere that I can immediately ignore and not have to pay for either.

I went through a phase where I was reading alot of FR sourcebooks and novels and thinking I was going to incorporate a bunch of it into my campaign only to realize it was a foolish endeavor and even if I did my players wouldnt have cared less.

 

[Bawylie]

A proper structure, a strong aesthetic, and one or more developed themes.

Edit to add: (I missed the HOW bit). I skim first to look at the aesthetic, then if that’s gripping, I read more deeply to look at the structure and try to imagine how it might play out over several sessions (looking for natural breaks, rising and falling tension, and changes in the types of stuff we’re gonna be doing). While reading, I try to look for themes and if they are not obvious I try to look for where i might make them more explicit and how I might play them up.