Help me make WotC adventures better.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Speaking of authors - are there any adventures from Rob Schwalb? The articles he writes often seem to contain a lot of good and enjoyable fluff. Does this reflect in good adventures, too (this is directed toward those that know such adventures). If yes, figure out what he does. If not, figure out why not and organize adventure writings teams that capitalize on the authors strengths.

[Sigurd]

You guys produce a lot of adventures. If every writer does not please 10% then you don't please a lot of people. You also please a lot of people who are less vocal.

You have consistently great art. (Keyed and unkeyed art is a must)
You have a fair whack of new\special monsters. ("If you loved the adventure reuse the monsters!")

To some extent your market place means you define the norm. Everyone who does better than you shines and everyone worse receives no attention.


Strategically, If I had advice it would be:

Web Teasers - My players like a carrot and I like something they can get (without too many spoilers) to get them excited. I can tell them details but there is a sense of bargain if they can download it themselves. None of my players have stayed with your forums since 4e but when you had the forums they still mostly used the web enhancements.

Cultivate Writers - I think players have the sense that your products are committee made and faceless. I am not saying this is true but I think that is the sense. Invest more in a profiles for writers who are good at a type of thing. I think players have more loyalty to a Sean Reynolds, Monte Cook or (Insert name) adventure they do to an adventure they see as a number. I think your arms length approach to some of the great settings (planescape etc...) has disenfranchised your franchises because people feel you've deserted their pet world and you're not letting anyone else fill the gap. (I am not talking reality but perception.)
As you undoubtedly know gamers are very loyal to what they feel speaks to them individually. That means they need 100 options to find the 12 they like and reject the 88 they need to reject. I think at this point you need to generate excitement around something they can easily feel personal loyalty to. My suggestion is to showcase authors who have been successful in 3.e as well.
Give the authors a little more artistic freedom to create more unique adventures in their own style.



Without Harping - backlash from 4e and the way 3e was shut down (separate issues).


My advice would be high profile low cost acts of goodwill.

A million dollar idea - start a habit of including a small cleaned up example of players work at the end of modules the way polyhedron piggy backed on Dragon. A 4-5 page 'All Star' with one map (hopefully reuse or from the cutting room floor) and a list of that Writers 5 fave Books and 3 fave links.
Try not to raise the expectations on the example get too high and have your readership hope to get some attention.


That's the best advice I can give. If I'm ever near your office - I want a tour.


Sigurd

[DragonHeart]

I know some others stated this:

1. I loved the 1e modules that put the map on the detachable card stock cover (that doubles as a DM screen).

2. If I use a pre-published module, I like when the parts that the DM were to read were in a box or shaded.

[arscott]

I haven't read many of your more recent adventures, so much of this criticism may be out of date, but:

As I see it, WotC adventures have two major problems: Pacing, and Theme.

Pacing:
Look at the map of an adventure from twenty years ago--It looks quite similar to the maps you're putting out today: big mazes with rooms full of monsters to fight. The problem is, you're working with a very different game today that you had 20 years ago. It used to take 10 minutes to fight that room full of monsters--today, it takes an hour. You need to recognize this, and adjust your dungeon design accordingly. Excise every encounter that doesn't further the plot or reinforce the theme. Pick the two or three coolest fights in the dungeon, and ditch the rest.

You also need to put more non-combat encounters in your dungeon. Fight after fight after fight, and all fights get boring, no matter how cool the fights are (and you guys are pretty good at cool fights). Instead, mix it up. For every fight, have some other non-combat challenge that takes up a non-trivial amount of time. Non-hostile inhabitants that the party can speak to. Puzzles that test both character skill and player ingenuity. Rooms that the players can search and explore to gain information about the dungeon ant its inhabitants.

Theme:
Everything seems so disconnected in your products. Scales of War never felt like a connected series of adventures--It felt like an assortment of random adventures that had an ongoing plot shoddily grafted on. Even within adventures, you've got some headscratcher monster team-ups. Take Keep on the Shadowfell--The adventure is about a deathpreist and his goblinoid servants trying to summon an evil creature, but in addition to goblins and undead, you also wind up fighting oozes, gnomes, kobolds, kruthiks, and who-knows what else. One or two unconnected monsters in an adventure is okay--thirty is a bit extreme.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Moridin

So, what I'd like to hear from the community is what you think would make published adventures better. What areas are WotC adventures lacking in that could be improved? What makes a good adventure for you, and why are the published adventures so far not doing that for you?

If you want to just post some thoughts, that's fine by me, and I'll be eager to read them. However, if you REALLY want to be a superstar, when you talk about something that can be improved, give me an example of a WotC adventure that does that thing badly (or not at all), and an example of an adventure that does that well.

Hey Rodney, Peter Seckler here. I do a lot of DMing with the Living Realms campaign, DM 4E at least twice weekly (and sometimes more) and I have a habit of changing up published adventures as well as writing my own.

I have some suggestions.

I've run two of the "official" published adventures: Scepter Tower of Spellguard and Prince of Undeath.

Of the two, Scepter Tower is better but it has some problems: (The oracle bit is really good, I like the monastery..) but the 3 dungeons are somewhat problematic. Each is completely linear. The wall dungeon, the tunnels, and the tower are all completely linear and must be run in order.

Prince of Undeath kinda has the same issues, (and has nothing redeeming like the monastery or the oracle that the Dm can make his own) but I was so excited about epic level gaming that I did my best to ignore them (and I hacked in a stopover in the City of Brass between the Red Hold and the Forge of Four Worlds, as well as a subplot about one of the PCs being a prince of hell and being allied with the devils in the Forge of Four Worlds). It's also completely linear (and scripted to the point that ship-based encounters on the Abyssal ship are scripted at intervals).

The encounters are GOOD, don't get me wrong here, but this adventure has low value for play (it's just too scripted) and no replay value. It's not like you can try an alternate path through the adventure.

ok, so my advice:

Detail out the entire area, and the NPCs, and keep creating cool encounters. But please, please please AVOID trying to create an adventure story. This is off limits to designers. You can create the story of a place before it has been explored (ala Barrier Peaks/Isle of Dread) but let the players and the DMs come up with the story of what happens once the adventure is in play.


When I write adventures myself I have a few encounters planned and printed out, and I have the area/location detailed out, and of course I have my NPCs and so on.. but I never really know what is going to happen in the adventure or which way the players are going to choose.

More paths, more branching.

[Stoat]

1. When 4E first came out, WotC made it a point to say that each single encounter should include multiple rooms. You stuck with this for a while, Shadowfell in particular does it. You've moved away from it. Go back to it.

2. I like the Delve format ok, but part of the purpose is to include all the necessary information on a single page or two-page spread. Some of the later Scales of War adventures have Delve-style encounters that run three, possibly more pages long. At that point, you've lost a lot of the value of the Delve format.

3. Too many of your epic adventures don't really let the PC's accomplish anything. Consider Scales of War:
No matter what the PC's do, Bahamut dies. No matter what the PC's do, Amyra brings him back to life. No matter what the PC's do, the rebel Efreet agree to help them.
Or consider E3:
The PC's stay one step behind Orcus the whole way, and no matter what they do, Orcus is going to mortally wound the Raven Queen.
Don't be afraid to let the PC's fail. Railroad less. Be less linear.

[Plane Sailing]

Thanks for giving people the opportunity for input, Rodney!

Firstly, I'd like to endorse all the previous comments by Rechan and Mustrum, which express many of my thoughts but with greater clarity of expression than I could muster.

I've DM'd Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire, and I'd like to make a few comments based on my experiences there.

1. Too much fighting, not enough talking

As written, KotS seemed to revolve almost entirely around fighting at every opportunity, it didn't have any opportunities written in the adventure for negotiation, for Kalarel to have visitors (or adventurers pretending to be visitors).

As a related issue, I don't remember exploitable tensions between dungeon denizens. Sunken Citadel (all those years ago) had the ongoing turf war between kobolds and goblins which gave rich roleplaying opportunities. KotS could have been dramatically improved by having some motivations for relationships between kobolds, goblins and hobgoblins, including reasons why they might turn on one another.

Sir Kalarel could have been a really interesting character in KotS, but I felt his story was a bit confusing (and, in fact, the whole temple thing with the skeletons where he was seemed a poor fit together, not terribly cohesive?)

2. Jack-in-a-baddie

Both KotS and Thunderspire had a final baddy who pops up at the last moment. We've not seem him before, we've barely heard of him before, nobody has any reason to hate him. He has no reason for knowing anything much about them, he doesn't really know their capabilities and strategies as he would if he had a previous encounter of some kind.

Also, there isn't really much roleplaying opportunity here (unless they can get him soliloquising, (nods to The Incredibles))


3. Linearity

KotS would have been improved IMO if there had been some options included such as a Hobgoblin attack on winterhaven in reprisal after successful adventurer attacks into the upper levels.

The side adventure to the excavation site could have been really interesting, but wasn't tied into the adventure well enough. It would have been good if the adventurers choice of which order to follow up clues had a real impact - what if the PCs had got the maguffin from the crater first, so that Kalarel has to negotiate with them? What if they left the crater to last and so find evidence that their friend has been taken off by slavers one way, and an artifact has gone down into the dungeons?

I like to see adventures which give the PCs the opportunity to make meaningful choices with consequences.

4. Surprises

I think a great adventure contains some mysteries and some real surprises/shocks for the PCs (and the players). Of Sound Mind was particularly good in this respect, as anyone who visited the farm will know.

Cheers

[Drkfathr1]

Alot of really good ideas here, this is an excellent thread.

I haven't played alot of the published 4E adventures yet, but I have a few. I can sum up my ideas with:

Less combat, more exploration and story development.

Plots and storyline need interaction, discovery, and conversation, not an endless string of combat encounters.

I realize page count and leveling issues can constrain this, but maybe offer more XP rewards for the non-combat encounters, and maybe bite the bullet and publish larger adventures.

[Pbartender]

Off the top of my head...

A Modular Module. As others have said, follow 1E's lead, here... Put the maps on inside of the cover, and let the cover be detachable. For the module itself, have two separate booklets... one for the adventure, and one for all the stat blocks. Hand outs should be included on their own separate sheets, or in a fashion that makes them easy to detach and hand out.

Organization. If you put stat blocks in a separate section or booklet, don't put them in there alphabetically. Group them by organization, or by plot stages, or something similar.

Presume, for example, all the stats for Sarshan's shadar-kai, dark creepers and other mercenary followers from Shadow Rift of Umbraforge are listed on three or four consecutive pages in a booklet separate from the actual adventure. I can have the adventure booklet open to the relevant page for the encounter, I can have the fold maps propped up as a screen, I can have the monster booklet open to the relative pages for the stats, and I can easily mix and match the creatures to tailor the encounter for possible reinforcements and other unexpected circumstances, without flipping too many pages. Plus, it eliminates unnecessary reprinting of maps and stats throughout.

What's My Motivation? Enemy NPCs and organizations should each have a short right-up including their motivations for doing what they're doing. Not only does it make the adventure plot make more sense, but it gives the DM a means to judge what the NPCs are doing in the background when the PCs aren't there, and also helps the DM decide how the NPCs are likely to react when the PCs jump the rails... Is Sarshan just a neutral mercenary monger, or does he have ulterior motives? If Modra is in such big trouble with Sarshan, why is he so intent on returning to Umbraforge? Where do Tusk's advance scouts go, if they aren't stopped in the tunnels beneath the Monestary?

More Talking, Less Fighting. The WotC adventures have a tendency to add in extra encounters that have no real connection to the plot and honestly don't make much sense in the context of the adventure other than to provide the XP require to ensure the PCs are at the proper level by the end of the adventure. Get rid of them.

Instead, replace them with non-combat encounters that provide that XP. Or, start giving out bits of bonus XP reaching "plot milestones"... The PCs found the ransom letter? Bonus XP! They uncovered the secret portal in the basement of the back alley tavern? Bonus XP! They gained extra information from a prisoner they captured? Bonus XP! Some of this is already done with Skill Challenges and Quests... Do it more. Enough that you can use it to replace combat encounters.

Run Away! Don't be afraid to suggest that bad guys retreat. In 4E, we have easy triggers to determine morale, such as bloodied hit points. Not only does it allow for recurring bad guys, but it helps keep the tougher combats from slogging on for too long.

Treasure... Picking treasure parcels is personally my biggest time-suck for published modules. A handful of suggestions (make it 4, 6 or 8, so we can choose randomly, if we want) for each treasure parcel would be exceptionally helpful, and wouldn't really take up that much more space what you already devote to treasure parcels in the adventures.

[Raven Crowking]

This is not going to be the best response in the thread, for which I apologize. However, I can certainly tell you things I dislike in modules:

1. The Delve Format. Feel free to ignore this comment; I'm sure lots of folks love the format.

2. Encounter Order. I know that it is easier to write an adventure if you know the order that the encounters will occur in, but making the map funnel adventurers into the encounters in a preset order (or close to) minimizes the impact of player choice during play.

3. Encounters = Combat Encounters. Few encounters should automatically be combat encounters. An encounter should be a possible range of actions and reactions, which may or may not include combat. Again, anything that "scripts" how the PCs must react to a situation is bad, because it minimalizes the impact of player choice. For that matter, minimalizing the impact of DM choice is not so hot either, unless there is a clear benefit to doing so.

Related to this, I recommend looking over some of the 1e TSR modules, as well as some of the better 3pp 3e modules. Most of the ones that are usually selected as "classics" or "best modules" are those that can be taken from, and lead into, a number of different directions. While offering a solid framework, they attempt to maximize the impact of player (and DM) choice. I do not mean on just the tactical/skirmish scale, either.

4. Skill Challenge Challenge: Perhaps 4e was not intended to be a game of traipsing around the Feywild talking to pixies, but the skill challenge system can and should be used to do just that.

Instead of just X successes vs. Y failures, consider skill challenges that require the PCs to make choices as to how to proceed, where those choices determine the skills that may be used. Further, at each step, success or failure changes the optimal choices that are left. Some things become harder; some things become easier. Success overall is based not on the numbers on the character sheet, but on being able to understand the overall situation, and how it shifts, in order to meet it with the proper response.

I've actually been working (sporadically) on converting some 4e materials from Dungeon, so I'll try to come back with specific examples later.


RC

[Deadline247]

I’ve only run two of your published 4e adventures, H1: Keep on the Shadowfell and now E1: Death’s Reach. Some of my suggestions may or may not match up with the majority here, but I’ll share them anyway.

• I wish villains were more fleshed out and gave the PCs reason to care other than wanting to beat the XP and magic items out of him.
• Someone else mentioned that today’s encounters generally take much longer than they did in the old days. Please keep this in mind when creating your adventures.. For example, I just finished DMing my 4th weekly session of Death’s Reach and my group still has two fights to go before they actually get to speak to the Raven Queen, which is where the adventure is REALLY supposed to start. I may not be the best DM in the world, but I think that 5 or 6 weeks worth of pre-adventure is a bit much.
• PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, make unmarked maps for each adventure available through DDI. I don’t mind printing them out myself and tiling them together, but the fact that I have to spend time Photoshopping out all of the NPC markers is incredibly annoying and time-consuming.
• This probably won’t be popular around here, but I personally would like to have monster tokens included with published adventures (or at a bare minimum, downloadable through DDI). My minis collection is rather small and I either have to use the same minis over and over or else I make my own tokens from the artwork you post. And someone who is brand new to the game is going to be stuck using coins or buttons or whatever is handy…which is lame.
• On occasion, why not tap into your stable of fantastic novel writers for adventure storylines and let your in-house team populate it with encounters? Personally, I would love to play a 4e adventure co-authored by R.A. Salvatore, Margaret Weis, or Tracy Hickman. These people know how to craft engaging stories!

Comments

"beat the xp and magic items out of him." Classic!

[nedjer]

More of a heroic leap than an epic fail Your willingness to consult on this level immediately suggests that you're the guy to turn out some great modules/ scenarios . . .

Id like to offer a helpful reply but need to delay, as I've been know to cause the odd misunderstanding by teasing the occasional poster into debating a sticky/ touchy point.

And I've access to a tame scientist/ academic who specialises in active learning and case based learning methods. His view's would be more interesting than mine. I'll just rattle his cage

Later.

[im_robertb]

I like combat encounters to be fleshed out in a page or two, with everything present (encounter map, terrain, monster statblocks, tactics). This is part of why I like the Delve format; it actually gets this done.

Encounter maps need to be designed in a way that allows for easy map setup in in-person play. I consider myself a DM with a lot of options for the miniatures; I have 1 copy of 5-6 different sets of dungeon tiles, as well as a dry-erase battlemat (28x19 squares, which is just the laminated paper battlemat from the 3.5 DMG), but some the Scales of War encounters are just atrocious in terms of map setup.

Good Examples:
Dungeon 156, Rescue at Rivenroar: Indoor maps are simple and not excessively large. Outdoor maps, while large, have simple, sweeping features that can easily be drawn in a few sweeps of the marker.
Dungeon 160, Den of the Destroyer: In the fortress, most rooms are of reasonable size, and the ones with walls that don't conform to the gridlines are smaller and simpler. Despite this, every encounter area is still interesting.

Bad Examples:
Dungeon 159, The Lost Mines of Karak: P.76, the encounter on the dunes.
Dungeon 161: The Temple Between: Most encounters in the temple, but particularly M6: The Grand Cathedral (P 44). The room is 22 x 36, with multiple heights, and slopes that it took me 3 readings to understand. Consider how much my PCs will struggle with that. Knowing I'd come to this encounter at some point is one of the things that turned me off of running Scales of War.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Drkfathr1

Alot of really good ideas here, this is an excellent thread.

I haven't played alot of the published 4E adventures yet, but I have a few. I can sum up my ideas with:

Less combat, more exploration and story development.

Plots and storyline need interaction, discovery, and conversation, not an endless string of combat encounters.

I realize page count and leveling issues can constrain this, but maybe offer more XP rewards for the non-combat encounters, and maybe bite the bullet and publish larger adventures.

That's a good suggestion, I like that.

Seriously, if that adventure needs to cover 3 levels and all you have are two dungeons to work with, considering "cheating". Use skill challenges and many high value Quests for extra awards.

Maybe an approach here would be: Every time the PCs gather important information, meet a crucial NPC, or make an important decision (preferably one that changes the adventure in a meaningful way and not favoring one in the design of the adventure), this could be a Quest.
- PCs interrogated Luisa Krause: Minor Quest.
- PCs discover that the Mayor has been replaced by a Changling: Major Quest.
- PCs convince the Kobolds to rebel against Irontooth: Major Quest
- PCs kill all Kobolds serving Irontooth: Major Quest
- PCs steal the Red Dragon's hoard while he's absent: Major Quest
- PCs kill the Red Dragon: Minor Quest
- PCs found the great Kobold Waterfalls: Minor Quest

The players might be unaware such a quest existed, but still quests provide the "mechanical framework" - a justification, so to speak - to give XP for stuff that's not combat. It allows you to keep the desired progression rates without forcing a great combat density. You can reward stuff that is not just combat-combat-combat. The last example with the waterfall could be a reward just for exploration - and whatever a game rewards will become what the players want to do. Even in a dungeon-heavy adventure, this can make a difference, as the PCs are driven to explore the dungeon and discover features, even if they don't help stop the evil ritualist or drive the kobolds out of the region.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, I just remembered a more "minor" thing - sometimes I don't understand what's supposed to be going on. This can apply to weird trap descriptions (I still don't know how the trap with the Otyough in the Pyramid is supposed to work - Understand the mechanic, but not the visuals) or to PC powers whose names are not sufficient to explain or visualize the effect.