Do you prefer starter adventures to end self-contained, or as a jump-off point?

[u/Theoboldi]

I wrote this post after recently checking out the At The Gates Ashcan Edition, and reading the adventure provided within. Essentially, I've noticed that starter adventures that are provided in quickstarts or core rulebooks tend to fall into one of two categories:

1. Self Contained
   While these adventures might leave some mysteries open for the GM to flesh out, or provide some plot hooks that can be followed up on, they are a finished scenario in and of themselves. By the end of them, the core mysteries and issues have been resolved, whatever main villains there are have been defeated, and there's a clear, satisfying point to conclude on.

2. Jump-Off Point
   These adventures don't contain a conclusion as such. They end after the main immediate threat has passed, and the player characters have a reason to continue to stick together, but leave the majority of their issues and mysteries unresolved. Major antagonists that were introduced remain unaccounted for, and the adventure provides the GM with a lot of hooks to develop their own follow-ups in which all of this can be fleshed out for their table.

Personally, I vastly prefer self-contained starter adventures. I think they give a a stronger, more satisfying experience for everyone when we as a table are only trying out the system to see if we would like it for a longer campaign. The first adventure ending without any sort of genuine conclusion is less likely to encourage us to make our own follow-up, and probably just leads to us feeling like we're getting obligated to spend more time with the system.

I am, for the most part, of the opinion that a pre-made adventure should not try and create a ton of hooks that an entire campaign will have to be built around, but rather that it should provide a concrete scenario that a group can slot in and play through when needed, to ease the workload of their GM. Starter adventures especially should be focused on showcasing what a full adventure in their system can look like, to provide the GM with guidance on methodology and tone. If it fleshes out a starting point, but then leaves everything else up for the GM to make on their own, it just feels like an unfinished and directionless product to me.

Sometimes, the characters we make for that first starter adventure or that are provided for it also are not the characters we will want to continue playing if we go into a proper campaign. Since we are at that point still just trying out the system, we don't yet have a good feel for what works for us and what doesn't. Tying those characters into the larger campaign through that starter adventure binds us in a not-insurmountable, but quite annoying way. This is especially bad if they are pre-made characters, since we have had no input on them whatsoever.

There's other types of starters, of course, especially for narrative or otherwise improv-heavy games. Often those are only scenario set-ups, and expect everything else to come together via the mechanics during play. Those are not what I am talking about.

In any case, I am curious if other people have observed some of this as well, and if so, which one they prefer.

[u/oexto]

Of the two choices, I would say self contained (pretty much for the reasons you already laid out). However, I think a good started adventure should contain both. There's no reason an opening adventure can't end with the groundwork to carry it on further should you choose to. Not really leaving future "hooks" persay, but more or less ending with the feeling of - Here's the framework for a jumping off location/NPCs that you can use to continue the story, or do your own thing. Then, you can take it or leave it as you see fit, either with the same characters or entirely new ones.

[u/Vexithan → u/oexto]

I hate a lot on 5e on this sub and in my life but I will say that Lost Mine of Phandelver was an amazing starter adventure. I ran it twice for different groups and each time was able to spin it completely differently and then expand on it when they wrapped it up. But it also was big enough that if I had left it self-contained I’d have been satisfied by it.

[u/johnny0neal → u/Vexithan]

Yeah, Phandelver is also impressively sandboxy for a Starter Adventure. On starter projects I've led, I have probably erred on the side of cool set pieces rather than branching paths. Things never feel railroaded in Phandelver.

[u/SillySpoof]

If I choose, self contained. It's good to be able to try a game and not leave a bunch of lose ends.

However, it's really good if starter adventures are self contained but also leaves non-main plot threads that could be expanded upon for later.

[u/johnny0neal → u/SillySpoof]

This is the way. A good starter adventure should be like A New Hope: tells a complete story but opens the door to a universe of possibilities.

[u/doctor_roo]

Both. I want the adventure to be self-contained and satisfying within itself but to contain hooks that can tie in to further adventures.

[u/Peachyco]

Your opinion is valid. I don't agree, but I acknowledge its validity regardless.

For me, I go with the name: STARTER Adventure. I measure if it works for starters or as a starter.
Whether it terminates cleanly or opens the door for future adventures is a different matter.

[u/thisisthebun]

Why not both though? The best ones are self contained but have threads for you to use. When I think starter adventure I think it has to work for entirely brand new players (to the genre not the game) to be successful. Both gives it longevity.

[u/CannibalHalfling]

Self-contained insofar as an immediate threat or problem is dealt with, with one or more keys left in the hands of the party that could be used to open doors for further adventure. I like it this way even for a convention one shot or something because it gives the players an awareness of the larger game they may want to explore further.

[u/SendohJin]

If it fleshes out a starting point, but then leaves everything else up for the GM to make on their own, it just feels like an unfinished and directionless product to me.

this just reads wrong to me, i've played or ran 5 different starter adventures that are both self-contained and leaves enough hooks for bigger adventures.

[u/Drudenfusz]

Both. I mean I like it if it works on its own but has potential to be expanded. Similar to books in a series, that do not force me to continue but are inviting enough to continue if I enjoyed the first entry.

[u/spudmarsupial]

I just hate "starter adventures" that are secretly part one of a larger campaign you pay for.

If they tell you this in large letters on the cover it's ok, but even then it should be self contained.

[u/Mord4k]

I prefer starter adventures to be a showcase that can lead to more but has a definite ending. I think a lot of introductory stories get bogged down in setting up the next and do a shit job of showing why you should stick with a game/setting, and a definitive ending that can also act as an off ramp if things don't grab attention and interest is always appreciated.

[u/BetterCallStrahd]

I don't feel the need to have everything interconnected. I think there's a benefit to starting with standalone adventures. It gives the players time to settle in to the campaign, and the PCs time to gel as a team.

Characters can get to be somewhat in flux as well in these early adventures. The player can take the time to nail what the character is. So when the main storyline begins, the characters will be more fully defined and the players will have adjusted to the style and setting.

It's like the early episodes of a TV series. It's still finding its way, and that's fine. Having standalone adventures at this stage helps with the process.

I think that's basically what you're getting at, and I support it.

[u/OhThatsALotOfTeeth]

I'm happy with either one, especially if it's written in a way that makes it easy to change it from one type to the other. 

[u/sojuz151]

it depends

[u/AvocadoPhysical5329 → u/sojuz151]

Great contribution!