What's more important: core rules or adventures?

[C_M2008]

I typically buy one or two adventures when a system first comes out to get a feel for the system and gain a better understanding of it's strength's and weaknesses. Unfortunately some publishers don't release solid adventures at time of release and this can make getting a handle on the system difficult and far less interesting. It definitely reduces my interest in further products in a system.

WOTC take note: Keep on the Shadowfell (which was what was available at 4e release) was awful.

 

[delericho]

Core rules are, of course, most important - without them there's no game, so adventures are moot.

That said, adventures are extremely important in their own right. And 4e's biggest weakness right now is that the first-part adventures are, on the whole, absolutely woeful.

 

[chaochou]

I played Call of Cthulhu long ago, not because I cared about the system so much (although it was easy and worked), but because I thought the adventures were awesome.

If you look at game design over the last, say, 15 years you can see more and more systems for which pre-writing an adventure is redundant.

You can look at designs like FATE (The Dresden Files etc), Fiasco, Apocalypse World and see that 'the adventure' is created there at the table, rather than written down beforehand.

The distinction between 'system' and 'adventure' was fairly generally accepted (in my recollection) back when Call of Cthulhu was written, but I think it's becoming increasingly blurred, and in some games the two are one and the same.

However, I agree that there are many systems that do pre-suppose a GM will write or buy an adventure, and if that's how you write your system it seems odd not to provide them.

At WoTC, why is there so much emphasis on the optimal D&D rules, and so little emphasis on making an award-winning adventure module?

No idea. Especially when you see Paizo appearing to make such a success of that approach.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Not likely. I don't use many published adventures. My campaigns are usually strongly driven by the characters and their individual personalities and choices. Published adventures, when the can apply at all, need a great deal of reworking to fit, so that I don't find them to be much savings.

OK, so for DMs, there seems to be a split (what's new?) on preferring published vs homebrew adventures.

How about on the players' side? If your players demanded/begged/pleaded to play the Super Amazing Adventure We Read About (and they even pitched in to pay for it, so that financial concerns are not an issue) would you theoretically agree to switch from homebrew to this published one?

These are just semi-rhetorical questions; however, I find it interesting to see if homebrew vs published is at the DM's sole decision or a game group decision.

If the playes do have a say in the matter, then RPG publishers can market to players as much as DMs.

 

[the Jester]

Probably 20% to 50% of what I run is pre-made adventures, so yes, I'd be interested in a "New Greatest EVAR!" adventure, but not sight unseen.

As to the players asking to play a certain adventure- maybe as a side game or something, but the players imc determine what they are playing in-game, not out of game, and I'm pretty strongly dedicated to campaign play.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Core rules are, of course, most important - without them there's no game, so adventures are moot.

That said, adventures are extremely important in their own right. And 4e's biggest weakness right now is that the first-part adventures are, on the whole, absolutely woeful.

But, doesn't that in part, depend on how you define core rules? WotC got a little greedy with 4e declaring everything core and everything inclusiving and pleading with GM's to be 'Yes' style GM's until they came out with Dark Sun and said, "Well, sometimes it's okay to say no... like when you use Dark Sun and it's specifics..."

 

[Sadrik]

If you sell coffee, it is a good business model to sell cream and sugar too. As you sell more coffee you sell more cream and sugar. Not every coffee drinker adds cream and or sugar to their coffee but many do. If you can capture those sales you will maximize your saturation of the market and add value to those that do like to drink coffee with cream and or sugar. If you make them go to another vender to buy their cream and sugar, you just lost those residual sales. Because you know they are buying...

That said, it seems like these days mega-campaigns, mini-mega campaigns and hardcover adventure extravaganzas are the seemingly viable adventure source for WotC. I harken back to the 1e adventures that were short and sweet, perhaps 8 pages, and very playable as a pick up game. My preferences are stringing a few dungeon magazine sized adventures together rather than a long all encompassing campaign set up by someone else. The bits that go on around the adventures is my providence. To long a published adventure and we lose sight of the context surrounding the adventure itself.

 

[the Jester]

That said, it seems like these days mega-campaigns, mini-mega campaigns and hardcover adventure extravaganzas are the seemingly viable adventure source for WotC. I harken back to the 1e adventures that were short and sweet, perhaps 8 pages, and very playable as a pick up game. My preferences are stringing a few dungeon magazine sized adventures together rather than a long all encompassing campaign set up by someone else. The bits that go on around the adventures is my providence. To long a published adventure and we lose sight of the context surrounding the adventure itself.

I would love to see a good large 4e sandbox area full of short adventures of all different sizes without pre-made hooks to lure the pcs in. Go explore! Find stuff! See what's out there! Use random rumor charts!

L1 was great for this: a town and the surrounding areas, given in good detail and including multiple dungeon sites, outdoor areas with adventure, and tons of potential action in the town itself.

 

[Umbran]

How about on the players' side? If your players demanded/begged/pleaded to play the Super Amazing Adventure We Read About (and they even pitched in to pay for it, so that financial concerns are not an issue) would you theoretically agree to switch from homebrew to this published one?

Sure. My tendency to use homebrew isn't a matter of principle, but of practicality. If the players actively want it, sure, I'll run it - I'm a "service oriented" GM. If the players want a particular single adventure, or an adventure path, or even an entirely different system, I'm open to it.

Mind you, I'm the only member of my group that spends notable time on messageboards (or the internet in general), doing RPG related stuff. So, as a practical matter, they're highly unlikely to learn about any particular published adventure.

That last is probably pretty common, and would be a major barrier to trying to sell adventures to GMs though the players - it is more difficult and costly to get the marketing message to players.

 

[Alasomorph]

I play 4e and I have a subscription to DDI. I also have a subscription to Paizo's adventure path because I love adventures. I can't help but think that Wizards under rate the importance of adventures. Maybe they are not the money generating products but to me they define the game.