What Is a Good Adventure?

After my grumbling last week about the quality of published adventures, maybe I should do some commentary on what makes a good published adventure that I would consider running.

The first thing I look at is the ability for the scenario to take different shapes. This doesn't have to be major. If there's a cool optional asset or disadvantage or choice to make, that's going to be a plus in my book. A simple railroad is not going to cut it for me.

On the other end of this, there's the "mini-sandbox." A lot of OSR adventures tend to be this. There's no strict order to the encounters, and there's no real assumption regarding how you engage with any of the encounters.

And let's not forget that there's a lot of room in between all of this. A dungeon might have a story and a final boss to defeat and also include lots of side rooms and details that the party can explore.

The other thing I look for are mandatory die rolls. Does the adventure list a die roll to access a necessary part of the plot? This is just lazy design. I suspect it largely comes from the idea that "making a die roll" and "doing something" are inherently the same thing. If someone doesn't make a Search check, are they really searching? That sort of thing.

But what happens if the party fails that roll? The GM has to fudge something to keep the scenario on track and those are rarely satisfying.

Both of these things are elements that tell me that an adventure is good or bad. But there is one other thing that will keep me from running an adventure, regardless of quality: Managing NPC agendas. This is just something that I don't believe I can do effectively. 

I also dislike lying to players, even through a mouthpiece NPC. A hidden villain, or other NPC with a major secret, that the PCS are interacting with through the course of the adventure is a non-starter for me.

I would like to improve that, but it's something that's going to have to come with time and effort.