What turns you off in a purchased adventure?

[Derulbaskul]

When I was looking through the various threads on classic modules the other day I was also thinking about what I disliked as well as what I liked in modules.

In no particular order, here are my pet hates:

1. Real world names. Verisimilitude is too important just to get lazy and wimp out on this. Even my favourite module publishers, NecGames, does this a bit.
2. Time travel. Hate, loathe and detest this. It offends every autistic bone in my body.
3. Novel tie-in. For me this started with DL. Why play a module when the events are also being played out in an "official" novel?

Any others?

 

[S'mon]

None of those bother me, though I've not bought a #3. Other things I don't mind include 'illegal' stat blocks & changes to official rules, esp if they serve the interests of the adventure.

I hate over-dense & indecipherable material (Necropolis), silly killer dungeons (Necropolis) heavily railroaded plots that punish independent thought by players (Necropolis), and bland excuses for a series of linked combat encounters (Bastion of Broken Souls - & the rest of the WoTC modules, from what I hear). I dislike detailed descriptions of NPC combat tactics that meet with disaster whenever I actually run them vs the PCs (Monte Cook).

 

[trancejeremy]

Yeah, real names irk me. Real names based on puns based on popular culture also annoy me.

Novel tie-ins can work, if they parallel the module, not tell the story of the module. For instance, IIRC, Curse of the Azure Bonds.

I really hate it when modules don't describe the NPCs physically. I'm not great at coming up with that on the fly.

 

[CombatWombat51]

Not having a good plot. That's the whole damn reason I buy modules! Anyone can throw together some rooms with baddies in it.

 

[trollwad]

I hate it when:

(1) the statblocks for the encounter, npcs, monsters, hps, etc is almost as large as the description of potential behaviorial and environmental circumstances and illustrations of such. for example, the 3.5e monster manual and most new monsters described in modules has far better described monster capabilities (with grab, poison, etc laid out in a logical consistent manner) vs. past editions but it actually devolved compared to the 2e or in some cases 1e soft writeup (of organization, society, tactics, behavior, etc.). For example, look at the writeup of three common monsters (say orcs, sahuagin and drow) in 3.5e vs 2e or the new writeup of creatures in the wotc adventure path modules compared to the writeup of say svirfneblin, drow, and kuo-toa in the 1e modules when they first appeared.

(2) more than a tiny percentage of potential foes are hyperspecialized or nonesuch in nature such as the half-tanarii, half-dragons with exotic polearms, improved trip, and a prestige class to boot. cmon module creators, use some of the world's immense cultural and historical variety on 'old' monsters

(3) railroading by established npcs in a setting particularly when it is obvious that the npc is someone else's pc (or the dm/creator wishes it were so) -- aka elmunchkining. oh yes, elminster sagely wants me to do what

 

[Gez]

Hmm. Never bought any D&D adventure (I did buy magazines that contained adventures for various games, including D&D, but I didn't bought these mags for the adventures, rather for the rest of the content).

The only adventures I bought were for Rêve de Dragon. Yum. Denis Gerfault is da man. But RDD is a special game, its mood is not that easy to transfer to D&D (and vice-versa).

 

[Ashrum the Black]

Things I dislike in published modules are:

1) Modules that are "light" on the details. An example is that in the course of the module the players visit a city and almost nothing is mentioned of the city in the module. I buy modules to help me run adventures when I'm low on time. Not giving me at least a few highlights of this city, and possibly a random encounter or two, means that I now have to spend the time fleshing these things out. My experience has been players will always want to explore a city. If for nothing else then to try and buy some more supplies before heading back out.

2) Modules that leave things purposely vague and unsettled at the end. I like having a conclusion at the end of the module. Tell me what the NPC's will do, list the BBEG's possible plan for revenge, tell me how the kings will shower them with rewards. I may not even use one of them in my own campaign, but if I'm having a mental blosck I've got something to point me down a path then.

3) I detest having to wait months on end for the next in a linked series of modules. My group, and many others from what I've seen, game once a week. We tend to push through the average published module in about a month to a month and a half's worth of gaming. (I tend to run a lot of little side trips to link into other plots) But when the next module of the series requires the characters to be of say forth level, and the previous module required them to be second to third, waiting four months for the next one is a deal breaker.

The delays in the witch fire series of modules (which is by far the best series I've ever run) ment I spent close to two weeks working on pumping up encounters to try and get them back into the ball park for the PC's. If the modules are linked, either make them release one each month until it's done, or set the next levels high enough that if considering average play they'll still be viable with minimal changes.

Just my .02 cp.

-Ashrum

 

[diaglo]

What turns you off in a purchased adventure?

1) if it has a d02 logo anywhere on it.

2) having to purchase another book or source material just to use the module.

3) too many stat blocks.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I dislike railroading. I also dislike little grey boxes of text your are supposed to read to the players.

I DO like a Deus Ex tying up of all the pieces ala the movie Paycheck. In early modules you might find an odd magical item that at the time seems pretty useless but when the plot ties up it is in fact key to success.

 

[Derulbaskul]

(snip) Other things I don't mind include 'illegal' stat blocks & changes to official rules, esp if they serve the interests of the adventure. (snip) and bland excuses for a series of linked combat encounters (Bastion of Broken Souls (snip)

Yep, I would also agree with those.

I forgot to mention another pet hate: unmappable maps. This is one area where I think 1E got it right: they weren't pretty but those of us who are autistic rather than artistic could at least reproduce them. Hmmm, perhaps a new condition should be inserted in the d20 licence that all maps must be produced by Ed Bourelle (love his maps; love his e-tiles).