Firstly, every author and Writing Director I know really, really wants more adventure feedback from players. The larger the sample size, the better we (they) can adapt and improve the quality of work.
However, it is important to differentiate between providing feedback on a gaming experience, and adventure feedback. A gaming experience involves so many more factors than the adventure alone. In most cases the primary factor is the DM, but the players themselves and the party composition are also important contributors.
So, when feedback from a gaming experience is presented as adventure feedback, responding can often be a frustrating exercise for an author or administrator. Too often the adventure is incorrectly blamed for factors beyond its control and well, nothing constructive ever comes of it.
That isn't to say LFR adventures are faultless - of course not. If the adventure itself is lacking, go ahead and say so. ;)
At the moment, I feel many people do not want to post feedback on these boards because they are concerned about being shut down. On available evidence, that is a reasonable concern. But I believe that informed, constructive adventure feedback would be very welcomed by all.
So please, give authors the opportunity to receive feedback, discuss the writing process and help shape the campaign. Just keep in mind that this is hard to do without reading the adventure yourself.
Cheers,
Joe Fitzgerald
Event Manager
Dragon Coast
In fact, the existence of DME almost guarantees no mod will ever be run quite the way it was intended.
Perhaps when intending to give constructive feedback, players ought to first ask DMs what they changed.
I get what you are saying (I think), but there is no way to seperate the gaming experience from the adventure experience.
I know that playing a module is different to running it, and that different DMs and players make for vastly different experiences - I could name DMs in Brisbane, but I'm sure you get the point.
So all people can do is report on their experience.
I think important feedback can be gained by looking at the gaming experience as it will often inform you as to how DME was used, which informs authors etc how DMs are altering a module. If a particular item of DME is used repeatedly then that is something to look at for the author for future mods.
Also gaming experience provides insight into what people enjoywhich can provide Authors and Admins guidance in writing future modules.
If you had a bad experience as a player, my advice is to try and to get and read the adventure to see where the problem lies.
If the problem were unlucky dice (either yours or the DM), twunked out PCs, or a DM runnign an adventure cold and missing the relevant parts (it happens), then it is probably not the best idea to start a rant.
If you find an issue with the adventure (wrong stats, unclarity, etc), then let know.
Note that dificulty of ane ncounter is often very much in the eye of the beholder. I have ahd serious trouble with encounters others walked, and vice versa.
Also, if you have ideas or suggestions that you think would have made things easier or more fun, you can let know, and we can try to incorpotate this in future adventures - though be aware that we can't include all player options, and have to leave some to the creativity of the DM.
Gomez
Finally, why would people fear reactions from posters on their own reviews? If people make specific comments, it is mostly by pointing out that a particular event had nothing to do with the adventure or how to modify it to make it run smoother. Why would that chase away people? After all, it helps other people run the adventure. Most replies are about players giving their own opinion on that adventure, which might be totally different from the original poster's opion, but only a fool would expect everybody shares the same opinion ;)
If you ask what are the best 1-1 mods, for example, the same names come up time and time again, likewise certain mods come up frequently when asking for people's least favourite adventures.
I don't know any DMs that make much use of heavy DME. I see combat encounters tweaked occasionally to change monster HP, levels or number appearing, but rarely more than that.
Finally, why would people fear reactions from posters on their own reviews?
I don't know, but that seems to be the case in this forum upon occasion.
In any case, I'm not advocating that people ignore their play experience when providing a review, rather that they avoid making definitive statements about adventures - when all they have to go on is that one play experience.
We have a terrible play experience. The dice went sour; the bad guys always had the better tactics; the encounter x took 2 hours to do, etc. We barely escaped a TPK in encounter y.
with:
This adventure sucks! It is the worst LFR adventure ever. I will never replay it, in fact, I will never play an adventure from that region again.
Play experiences have three components: the actual adventure as written, the DM performance and the players performance. All will affect the play experience. Unless you actually read the adventure, it is very hard to critique the adventure itself.
Moreover, everyone has different tastes. If you prefer combats and hate investigation/problem solving, then an adventure which is heavy with investigation or problem solving will not be to your taste. Confusing that preference with quality of the adventure is not a fair critique.
I recall a local newspaper film reviewer who hated all SF & fantasy movies. Therefore, they were all bad in his eyes. Needless to say, I was not impressed and ignored his reviews.
If you can share in a spoiler, specifically what happened, that can be helpful.
Please try to not give away any surprises.
Keith
This adventure sucks! It is the worst LFR adventure ever. I will never replay it, in fact, I will never play an adventure from that region again.
That is not even feedback on a play experience ;) It is a rant, or troll bait. Obviously any feedback needs to be specific to be of any help to us, the campaign administration, or other people running the adventure.
I don't know any DMs that make much use of heavy DME.
I have to admit I don't use much. I might tweak things a bit, or if the players are going crazy or ask something unexpected (I once had a player ask if there was a temple of Waukeen in CORM1-1). But the only time I'll use heavy DME is if the mod is particularly bad. And in such a case I've probably volunteered to run any other mod so I wouldn't get stuck with the bad one :P
I think part of the confusion in feedback is from players who have never been on the other side of the screen in LFR. Until you run a few yourself, it can be very hard to get a feel for what's part of the module and what's due to the DM.
I know that, but if a player tells us what he does and does not like it is actually pretty easy for people who do know the adventure to see what is and is not DME. For example, there were some people complaining about how nasty a particular monster's ability was since it hit the whole group in the first round, while the adventure has the setup of that fight so that it should be practically impossible for the whole group to be hit by that power (if at all).
For example, there were some people complaining about how nasty a particular monster's ability was since it hit the whole group in the first round, while the adventure has the setup of that fight so that it should be practically impossible for the whole group to be hit by that power (if at all).
Actually, I thought that discussion was particularly interesting because it showed how the author's theory that it was practically impossible didn't match up with the placement of the figures on the map such that it was possible to actually hit the whole group two rounds in a row if initiative went sour. That's a very specific type of thing that only comes out with a real thorough examination of the details.
I've met DMs that rush through skill challenges, assuming the table doesn't care. I've met DMs that love to describe combats, making them really vivid. A mod can change greatly under different hands... or in different players. Sometimes we can recognize this, such as the discussion of defenses in EAST1-4, but many times it is harder to recognize why one table was frustrated and another was not. Playing up or down also can make a difference, as well as which roles were higher level or lower level amongst the PCs.
Authors have the unenviable task of reading over the comments and trying to discern which ring true as the adventure will play out over most tables. That is hard to do. We see time and time again one person label an adventure as terrible and another as a favorite.
One thing that is nice is that increasingly posters are learning how to provide tips. We don't just complain. We also explain what makes the adventure work.
Actually, I thought that discussion was particularly interesting because it showed how the author's theory that it was practically impossible didn't match up with the placement of the figures on the map such that it was possible to actually hit the whole group two rounds in a row if initiative went sour. That's a very specific type of thing that only comes out with a real thorough examination of the details.
I completely agree. Even a review of play experience helps authors and reviewers with making adventures better. It still was a review about a play experience and not the adventure since that adventure rather specifically discusses the situation and flat out states the environment and tactics are as it is to prevent said frustration. Of course, whether or not that is good monster/encounter design is a completely different discussion ;)
From a playtest perspective, I often find the best feedback to be the playtest DM's detailed writeup of the adventure itself (having read and judged the module), followed by 6 play experience writeups (one from each of the players).
Before labeling anything on these forums as "feedback," posters should really read an adventure they are reviewing first. Posting about a particular play experience is fine, as long as it is labeled as such.
Actually, I thought that discussion was particularly interesting because it showed how the author's theory that it was practically impossible didn't match up with the placement of the figures on the map such that it was possible to actually hit the whole group two rounds in a row if initiative went sour. That's a very specific type of thing that only comes out with a real thorough examination of the details.
If this is the encounter I'm thinking of, it was actually included in the tactics text that it was supposed to be impossible to hit the bunched up PCs.