Something that @thehumblebard said has me thinking: We’ve been discussing for years that maybe rules & adventures have screwed up primacy, but WOTC has put their money down on that thinking with their current handling of adventures.
And, obviously, it didn’t come from nowhere. WOTC’s been thinking about what adventures publically since 3e, and probably since long before that. With all the rules shifts between editions, it’s easy to overlook the advances & changes in adventure tech.
Anecdotally and conversationally, the way that people have talked about Strahd and are starting to talk about Tomb is way more positive and engaged than any other recent example I can think of.
That’s really awesome and exciting.
That’s really awesome and exciting.
To unpack the underlying thought: Which published thing is more important to an RPG - the rules or the adventures?
No right answer, of course, and the questions itself is flawed because neither are strictly necessary, but assuming they are, it’s an interesting question.
No right answer, of course, and the questions itself is flawed because neither are strictly necessary, but assuming they are, it’s an interesting question.
I will often hear “Equally important”. I will very rarely hear Adventures are more important. I will sometime hear rules are more important, and in practice, I *see* rules treated as more important most of the time.
This is not entirely unreasonable, especially if one takes the view that rules are what you use to create adventures, but it’s definitely a bit of a narrow view. The counter case is that adventures are closer to what’s really *played*, and are what have the things people *want*
Obviously, I don’t think there’s one right answer, but I think it’s an important question, especially if it pushes us to do more interesting things with adventures. I *love* @cndreisbach’s Solar System, but it’s not why Lady Blackbird is one of the best games ever made.
So here’s the dark, personal confession:
I think writing good rules is WAY easier and VASTLY less risky than writing good adventures.
I think writing good rules is WAY easier and VASTLY less risky than writing good adventures.
Rules are testable, and you can be reasonably confident that they work.
Adventures are messy. You can test elements of them, but there’s no “success”, only fewer people that it pisses off. Rules can fall into the zone of mediocrity with less pain than an adventure.
Adventures are messy. You can test elements of them, but there’s no “success”, only fewer people that it pisses off. Rules can fall into the zone of mediocrity with less pain than an adventure.
An adventure will also be much more abused in other people’s hands. With rules, you have the defense that people didn’t follow instructions, so it’s not *your* fault, and that is good ego armor.
The equivalent for adventures (“You suck as a GM”) is a non starter
The equivalent for adventures (“You suck as a GM”) is a non starter
(Though you will sometimes see defensive adventure writers blame bad GMing for the reception of their adventure, those are mostly cautionary examples, because it’s never a good look.)
Bottom line: Adventures are REALLY HARD, and it is no surprise that WOTC is doing interesting things with them (as are other people, with little attention or acclaim).
