What turns you off in a purchased adventure?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

1) Throwing too much crunch. This includes adding non-core PrCs to villains. This is less of a problem if the adventure states it is a psionic adventure or an FR adventure or what not, in which case PrC use should still be kept to a minimum. (No Red Wizard/Archmages, you hear?)

2) Throwing in artifacts or NPCs - in the former case, this is especially true if it's giving metagame benefits. An artifact is supposed to be a plot device. The latter can be handled appropriately, but often it's better not to do so.

3) Making the villain something overused, such as a half-dragon, a drow (without a good reason, anyway), and so forth.

 

[Sir Elton]

Personally, they do bother me. They break the verisimilitude of the module from the "get go"; that is, from the time that I initially read through it.

Also, the idea behind a module is to minimise the amount of work for the DM. Changing names so that they "don't suck" (I realise that this is, of course, a very subjective thing) can be more of a pain than changing the initial adventure background (the background largely appears at the beginning; names can be scattered through the module).

Real World Names are often the easiest to pronounce. Also, Monte Cook has suggested to change the spelling of existing real world names to make names that roll off the tongue easily.

Take Edward. In English, this is pronounced Ed-WARD. Change the name to a "v" and you get the phonetic spelling of the German pronouncation: Edvard.

Take a name like Merlin. A Celtic name, no doubt, but change the rl to ls and you get "Melsin." Rolls off the tongue quite easily. Finally, take a woman's name like Anfisa (a Russian girl's name). Change the "f" into "sh" and you get Anshisa. Likewise, you can also turn the "s" into a "v" and you get Anshiva, an instant easily pronouncible Hindi name. Using real names aren't a cop out, they make perfect sense.

I mean, names like Mallac'thai and Msdevdal aren't easily pronouncible, in English at any rate.

 

[Derulbaskul]

(snip) Perhaps the best alternative is to drop the whole notion of a module and replace it with a combination of settings, events and encounters with a stack of plot paths that can utilise them. For example you might have a swamp based book that contains the settings: trecherous bog, drowned ruins or border region; events like: beast migration or luna eclipse and encounters like: Lizardman tribe or hag trio. (snip more good ideas)

Actually, that's how I would prefer my modules. I suppose that's why I quite like the larger NecGames products because they take this approach and, frankly, it's the approach I tend to use when I homebrew an area.

I'm not a big fan of large dungeons (and haven't been ever since I bought that thoroughly disappointing piece of turgid dreck known as T1-4, Temple of Elemental Evil, back in the mid 80s); I would prefer a plethora of smaller encounter areas and types with a few "easter eggs" thrown to create some plot or story links.

 

[Derulbaskul]

(snip) Take Edward. In English, this is pronounced Ed-WARD. Change the name to a "v" and you get the phonetic spelling of the German pronouncation: Edvard. Take a name like Merlin. A Celtic name, no doubt, but change the rl to ls and you get "Melsin." (snip) I mean, a name like Mallac'thai and Msdevdal aren't easily pronouncible, in English at any rate.

Good points and I agree with you and now you have shown how easy it is to create a non-real world name that is easy to pronounce.

I suppose I should have also added that as much as I dislike seeing Thomas the Strifeleader the raw and rampant stupidity of using random syllables with randomly inserted apostrophes is just as frustrating. Then again, I have a thing for apostrophes: my autistic bones rattle every time I read a messageboard post where someone has used "it's" instead of "its" as the possessive form of it. Please stop: I don't want to be corrupted...!

 

[Dinkeldog]

I hate silly or anachronistic NPCs. E.g., Black Flags over Freeport has an NPC named Billy Bones, who is basically a psychotic Old West gunfighter. Makes me nuts. How are players supposed to take a villain seriously if the villain is nothing but a caricature?

Does he die early and pass on a treasure map to the PCs?

 

[MerakSpielman]

oh, another thing that pisses me off.

Odd-sized rooms.

I can understand caverns and whatnot being irregular. That's fine. But what I can't stand is when the whole map is neatly divided up into a 5' grid, but every single friggin' wall doesn't follow the grid lines. Corridors vary from 7' to 9' wide. Rooms could be 14' x 27'. The designers sometimes feel it is essential for a good map to get across the exact thickness of the walls, in scale, so that cumulatively, over the course of the map, the walls get further and further from the gridlines.

I'm all for realism - but how realistic does a map really need to be? Especially one only the DM will ever see? I find myself transcribing maps onto my own graph paper, following the lines, just so I have something that works for me.

 

[Glyfair]

I dont know why a lot of people seem to dislike real world names. I agree that they would seem a bit strange on an Elf or Dwarf. But I do not mind if they are used for Humans.

Oddly, my pet peeve is the opposite. I hate names that are unpronouncable or difficult to remember. Everyone feels the need to create a new name or language, which often is a mess and distracting.

Sometimes the simple names are the best. Sure, you want to avoid names that break the feel of a fantasy game, usually. However, nothing is wrong with some simple names like Michael or Arthur.

 

[psyekl]

oh, another thing that pisses me off.

Odd-sized rooms.

I can understand caverns and whatnot being irregular. That's fine. But what I can't stand is when the whole map is neatly divided up into a 5' grid, but every single friggin' wall doesn't follow the grid lines. Corridors vary from 7' to 9' wide. Rooms could be 14' x 27'. The designers sometimes feel it is essential for a good map to get across the exact thickness of the walls, in scale, so that cumulatively, over the course of the map, the walls get further and further from the gridlines.

I'm all for realism - but how realistic does a map really need to be? Especially one only the DM will ever see? I find myself transcribing maps onto my own graph paper, following the lines, just so I have something that works for me.

I'm the exact opposite:

I want the adventure maps to be as realistic as possible because I want real environments for my characters to interact in. I absolutely DESPISE maps that are drawn to the fit a grid. It is VERY important that the adventure's maps are as realistic and well-drawn as possible to aid in the DM's believability of the environment, and to aid his/her translation to the players. To a PC the grid is irrelevant, and as a player I want as real of an environment as possible. The grid is only truly helpful to the GM, and a well run game will only need the grid when miniatures are involved (It's the DM's job to determine weather that fireball blast impacts the goblin around the corner, you just need to know that there's a corner there). When mapping, I usually just use a series of bubbles and lines to show room relations and corridors. The characters will rarely require the precise dimensions of a room, and the map is just to note locations and paths anyhow. Trying to keep maps that are too detailed will just slow the game down.

 

[DragonLancer]

Nah. Give me maps where the rooms fit nicely into 5x5 or 10x10 squares. Sure its lazy, but its also a lot easier when you have players (like I have) who map everything.

 

[Ed Cha]

1. Excessive railroading. Modules are designed to be used. They're not novels. I need multiple suggestions for situations, especially endings.

2. Poor or scant artwork. To this day, I am impressed by the amazing artwork in "S2: White Plume Mountain", which by the way, was only 16 pages long, but packed with beautiful illustrations. Too much variation in style or format also bugs me.

3. Lack of descriptions. If it's just a bunch of rooms with monsters, I can do it myself. I want some atmosphere or feeling to the environment. I want characters and locales that come alive! Show me what a tavern looks like. Show me what a bugbear colony looks like. Show me how a dryad behaves and where she dwells. Show me what's inside the village elder's house.

4. Unnecessary variations in hit points. Do we really need goblins (hp: 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3)? Just give me an average number for smaller creatures like this. I can understand if there's variation for a few ogres or owlbears though.

5. Silly names, especially ones using puns. Once in a while is okay, but too much, no thanks. I also don't like a lot of overused, standard fantasy names like Gothmog mentioned. Bad naming can get irritating and ruins the mood for me making me want to stop reading any further. I think there is a beauty to naming. Just look at Tolkien's work. Although I think his naming conventions have been borrowed far too much these days.

6. Modules that are not truly modular. Once in a while, I like the story-oriented ones, but I prefer ones that I can break apart and take an NPC, settlement, special situation/encounter, or creature's lair and use it, while dumping the rest. So obviously, there have to be a lot of good parts that make up the whole.