D&D General What makes a good Adventure

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, a good adventure must have:

1. Enough flexibility to respond to changing player ideas. It's fine to expect a certain amount of buy-in (e.g., the players aren't going to join forces with the wicked necromancer, the players will try to save the beautiful dragon from the rapacious princess, etc.), but embracing both clever and boneheaded maneuvers by the players is essential.
2. Enough lore and depth that folks who like that stuff (hello! hi!) can sink their teeth into it, but not so much that folks who aren't into it have to wade through it to get what they need.
3. Good combats! Having two or three really memorable, exciting combats in an adventure is a great way to leave a lasting positive impression.
4. Care when writing NPCs, whether friendly or unfriendly. Villains can be dag-nasty-bad or complex multifaceted sob stories, but they need to pull it off. It's quite possible to write a great "pure evil" villain, and quite possible to write a terribad "deep" villain. Allies need to be likable to some extent, otherwise they're grating bores or (worse) twee, cutesy burdens.
5. Lastly, but still pretty high up there, a good hook or premise. Doesn't have to be world-shaking, but it needs to be enough to intrigue, something that naturally draws the eye or the ear.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I've found modules are far more work than making something from scratch. It's why I don't bother with them. That and once there's set prep involved, players seem to be able to smell it and go the other direction.

I think donjon is cool. I also like using parts of modules but damn if it isn’t hard for me to remember person in 25a might run into the hall if there is combat in the hallway by 28b.

I am better off knowing what it is in the room and then judging what happens when combat starts in the hall.
I can make reasoned decisions vs memorizing minutia.

And I cannot read an adventure path and synthesize the whole thing. A module is one thing. And AP is another.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think that the idea that there are prescribed story/plots is the biggest misconception of published adventures

I don't play many RPGs these days but from the ones I have they all seem stuck in this same paradigm where at its core game play there are unnecessary complexities in PC creations and game play conflict resolution. Games I've played since dumping 5E are Modern AGE and we're making PCs for GI Joe now; both just seemed a little too complex for its own good. Maybe I'm wrong, was Alternity like that?

 

[FrozenNorth]

What do think makes a good adventure. What do you want?

Cool thread. One element that is important to me that you didn’t mention is a cool core concept.

I’ve avoided playing or DMing games where I don’t think the core concept works (Extinction Curse and Agents of Edgewatch), and I’ve been enthused where I find the core concept interesting (Skulls and Shackles).

 

[Clint_L]

For me a good adventure has to have room for players to make meaningful choices that will profoundly affect the outcome. I stay away from apocalyptic scenarios because there's no real stakes to them and unless you are willing to blow up the whole campaign and setting, the story is on a railroad: the players basically have to win.

I think one of the reasons the original Phandelver is such a good adventure is because there are tons of side quests and interesting NPCs with their own stories, any one of which can be spun off to become a lot bigger. And in the end, if the players don't even bother with Wave Echo Caves and, presumably, the Spider wins...eh. That's okay. Maybe when they are level 10 the players will revisit the area and have to deal with the consequences, but the world won't end or anything.

So I prefer adventures where the stakes are personal, and where the players can go on a tangent and the world won't end. Which is why my revisions to the new Vecna adventure are becoming massive.

 

[Reynard]

A good adventure is like a cookbook or LEGo set: it should provide material that can be used by a DM to prep at their table. So, NPCs, maps, situations that can inspire.

I wish they would just publish them this way, then. Instead they include a plot and actively work against you adapting it to.your group.

That is what I would like to see: drop the plot entirely. Just present a situation and all the connected locations, people, factions, etc... maybe a couple "what happens if" sidebars but that's it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally.

1. Interesting premise. Basic idea makes you want to run it or is Interesting. Wizard dud it not sonmuch last remnant of xyz empire......

2. The hook. Partly related to 1.

3. Basic sandbox. Not to rail roaded but with a clear and logical layout/flow.

4. Interesting NPCs

5. Execution. Basically is it done well.

 

[Maxperson]

In response to some recent threads complaining about adventure design (Are My Standards Too High for Adventures? & How Many Actually Good Adventures Are There?) and in the spirit of the EnWorld "Enhancing series (Enhancing Vecna: Eve of Ruin SPOILERS & How Many Actually Good Adventures Are There?) ; I want to know what you think makes a good adventure. Don't tell me what is bad - what's the good stuff!

Personally I have never had a good time with published adventures from 1e - 5e from Paizo, Chaosium, TSR or WotC. I just don't know how to use them. They all seem terribly unhelpful to me. However, I do have ideas of what I would want. So in my mind, what I want, what I think is a good adventure (similar to what @Reynard said here: SAKS), is a non-adventure. I want:

1. A general area described. Depending on the scope it could be a region, a town, or castle. Not in great detail, but with general locations, adventure hooks and ideas. Major NPCs, factions, and forces at work described, but not detail. Not much story baggage.
2. Discrete detailed encounters. These should include expected level ranges (and suggestions on how to revise the level / challenge), scenarios packed with interesting and engaging information, and options for combat and/or social and/or exploration as needed.
3. Adventure ideas. A series of suggestions and ideas how these different encounters might link up. Suggestions on how an different resolutions of different encounters might affect other encounters.

I could see, depending on scale, that these could even be broken out into several books / pamphlets. Either initially or through expansions.

So, this sounds like good adventure design to me. Ideas and suggestions only, no prescribed story or plot.

What do think makes a good adventure. What do you want?

The cool reveal at the end(unless the PCs figure it out earlier) that causes the players to remember all the clues that were right there for them to piece together. The "I see dead people" sort of thing. It's tough to pull something like that off, but when it's done right, it's amazing.

 

[Parmandur]

I wish they would just publish them this way, then. Instead they include a plot and actively work against you adapting it to.your group.

That is what I would like to see: drop the plot entirely. Just present a situation and all the connected locations, people, factions, etc... maybe a couple "what happens if" sidebars but that's it.

Easier to remove the thin plot than to build one from the ground up.

 

[Reynard]

Easier to remove the thin plot than to build one from the ground up.

Except they usually don't have a thin plot. It is integrated into the whole thing, at every step.

But you and I have been over this before. You think I interpret it to rigidly and I think you are too forgiving. Probably best we just agreed to disagree.