Settings and adventures modules design: providing useful products

I'm an advocate of the return of 'adventures modules' for TT rpg. I do find that over the years the systems we have at our disposal did 'improve' a lot: we have so much choices today, supporting very different kind of game play (you might prefer some over others, this is not my point).

Sadly (or is it?), I do think that the design of settings and/or adventures modules have not evolved with the same diversity. Is it due to the epic failure of the WoD? I don't know, but I do feel some kind of resignation about this subject: 'this is impossible', 'we do not need those'. Honestly, the common settings out there do not please me either and I do not find them very useful, but I do believe other types of products are possible. Aren't we (I mean the DMs) all inspired by books, graphic novels, video games or movies, teleseries for our game? Isn't there anyway to provide something designed for our needs, that could be useful?

I'll briefly describe what Avalanche (my project) and Point of Light proposes as new approaches for this stake (I believe they both try to attain the same goal, but with different design):
- they are both system independant
- they both propose quite 'typical' setting
- they both never mention the PCs
- they provide some kind of 'hooks', some sort of a big box of ideas
- they use very specific design with strong structures (hex coordinates and events in a calendar)
- they are designed to be robust: your players can break some parts
- they provide the feel of a living world: a world that is not waiting for your players and expecting something from them
- each game with those products should be different (as opposed to traditional adventures)
- it is not possible to use all of the product with a single group (and the products are designed that way)
- they do not have a linear structure (they are not chapter based)
- they provide some kind of 'skeleton', leaving room for the DM to incorporate their ideas and in fact complete the product.
- they are much more about immediate stakes, situations and not about a fixed world
- Avalanche (and a little bit PoL) tries to help the DM manages the time in game play (the fictionnal time of the setting)
- note that PoL is mid level description as Avalanche is very high level

Questions:
- I know it is not to everyone's taste, but do you think there is [more] room for those types of products?
- what do you need to find a setting/adventure module useful?
- do you think those types of products might be useful to attract new players?

Note: I start this thread following my mistake with this one, as the subject interests me. Terribly sorry for the threadomancy.

good ideas here...me personally i am gravitating more towards smaller books/modules now. i like the way dragon age rpg did theirs (64 page phb and 64 page dmg)...with supplements along the way. more bite sized chunks and less 3 course meal . it's tough for me to buy a 300 page sourcebook...only liking certain parts...largely skipping thru most of it. the larger books are more handsome but really become unwieldy for practical use.

[MENTION=6774980]ExiStanc3[/MENTION] That's a nice intro you've set up there - skimmed it and I like the approach, and your artists are great! Great characters too! Thebold seems a little bit of a plot device, but still a fascinating one.

In that sample you linked to I did notice two things missing that help me as GM (most probably because you have a work-in-progress):

1. One or two page flowcharts to explain complex storylines. When dealing with complex stories like you are presenting I favor graphical tables of contents that help me organize things in my mind and at a glance.

2. Player character hooks galore. For example, providing a list of PC themes and then referencing those themes in the adventures.

I've never run a system-less adventure before, and wonder of anyone wants to comment on how much work they are to convert? I mean, it would probably be easy for a game like FATE, but for a meatier game like D&D...well, with an old module I at least would have a system to convert off of.

@Selkirk: it's nice what they have done with dragon age. A quick question: are you refering to dragon age as a system and for the adventures modules? By the way, one of the strength of PoL is how easy it is to 'get' (very slim sourcebook).
I understand your feeling about not using all the parts of big books. That's one of the issue we want to address with Avalanche. That said, it's true you won't be using all of the book, but that's for a single game. As Avalanche presents the main events of the whole region, your players can't interact with all of them (when they are in the north, the events in the south for that specific period of time won't be useful), but it will be different for each game you play (maybe next time you play it, your players will interact with the south). We're aiming to provide a very high replay value.

@Quickleaf: thanks for the kind word.

Quickleaf said:

1. One or two page flowcharts to explain complex storylines. When dealing with complex stories like you are presenting I favor graphical tables of contents that help me organize things in my mind and at a glance.

Click to expand...

Just to make sure, are you looking for graphs to understand what we're trying to do, the structure we're using (if that's so, here's a presentation, a little bit too wordy). Otherwise, we're trying to provide you something much more efficient, a website. We will be trying to finance this website thru a KickStarter campaign, starting at the end of the month.

Quickleaf said:

2. Player character hooks galore. For example, providing a list of PC themes and then referencing those themes in the adventures.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know. And hooks could be so numerous. That said, that's our goal with the player's guide we intend to produce: a guideline for the players to choose what type of games and adventures they'd like to be part of. An introduction to the world.
For the moment, you can use our stories (at the very beginning of the pdf) which are very strong hooks for very type of gameplay (horror, high adventures, political intrigues ...).

Quickleaf said:

I've never run a system-less adventure before, and wonder of anyone wants to comment on how much work they are to convert? I mean, it would probably be easy for a game like FATE, but for a meatier game like D&D...well, with an old module I at least would have a system to convert off of.

Click to expand...

I'd really like to have comments on this. Are people being afraid of the adaptation and time it may take?
That said, with Avalanche, you don't have to stat everything from the ground up as you won't be using all of the product. We're aiming to provide free pdf with stats bloc and advice for FATE, Pathfinder, 13th Age, SW and the Solar System.

Existanc3 first of all love the avalanche website (clean design with great style) and the game looks very intriguing. my only worry with system less/rules light games (i felt this way about esteren too...and i actually am a fan of rules light games but esteren is almost all setting) is that the vagueness can work against the game. having a system that is robust but light is the challenge and i think the idea of a multiple system game has obvious appeal but each game should play a bit differently(hopefully better) with it's own mechanics.

and i like dragon age less as a system and more as presentation. 2 64 page books just make more sense to me. slim but packed with the game..then you have room to flesh out the world. i see small publishers sometimes making the mistake of releasing everything at once and then the content cycle dries up. smaller bites keeps the interest going and one isn't left with the feeling of game abandonment. further advantage is price...if i want all in on a game i can buy the sourcebook...but what if i just want the bestiary as a pdf? keeps the price down for the gm just looking for something new. but looks like you guys might be on this model at least partly with the kickstarter..stretch goals and everything else. game looks killer so far .

Selkirk said:

Existanc3 first of all love the avalanche website (clean design with great style) and the game looks very intriguing. my only worry with system less/rules light games (i felt this way about esteren too...and i actually am a fan of rules light games but esteren is almost all setting) is that the vagueness can work against the game. having a system that is robust but light is the challenge and i think the idea of a multiple system game has obvious appeal but each game should play a bit differently(hopefully better) with it's own mechanics.

Click to expand...

First, thanks for the kind word. We're used to design and deliver websites for our customers, but this time it is OUR project. So yes, I prefer clean and streamlined design.
About the systems. I've played Avalanche with dnd, The Shadow of Yesterday, some kind of werewolves like system and Burning Wheel. They all worked fine. That said, I do believe it really depends on what type of game play the group wants to have. Are you going with a high adventure scenario (either in the west, fighting brigands or in the north opposing the orcs), I'd say go with dnd or PathFinder. If you're more into political intrigues, BW or TSOY might be more appropriate. If you wish to really 'shake' the world (which Avalanche supports well), then I would recommand 13th Age. There is a LOT of room in Avalanche for a LOT of types of games.
Well I guess this is my 'answer' to your 'concern'. I hope I make sense here.

Selkirk said:

and i like dragon age less as a system and more as presentation. 2 64 page books just make more sense to me. slim but packed with the game..then you have room to flesh out the world. i see small publishers sometimes making the mistake of releasing everything at once and then the content cycle dries up. smaller bites keeps the interest going and one isn't left with the feeling of game abandonment. further advantage is price...if i want all in on a game i can buy the sourcebook...but what if i just want the bestiary as a pdf? keeps the price down for the gm just looking for something new. but looks like you guys might be on this model at least partly with the kickstarter..stretch goals and everything else. game looks killer so far .

Click to expand...

A couple of things (your point is interesting):
- Avalanche doesn't work like a typical setting/adventure. In fact, you would be buying a 'storyboard': it describes all the main events for the region (400 pages). But when you come to play it, you won't be able to use it all (Avalanche uses time as a constraint). I'd say you would use about 15% (that's your 60 pages). But, if you play it with another group (of PCs or persons), you'll have a whole different experience, using an all different 15% fo the book (you might even want to use a different system). But still, it is familiar to you.
- This high replay value (due to its non linear structure) makes it, I believe, very different from an economic point of view. In fact, the same could be told about PoL.
- We're starting with Avalanche, Spring, which is the first part. This provides material for about 12 sessions (each time you start it).
- The price range, as you can see on our KS page is 40$ for the pdf.
- From a publishing point of view, and just about the 'content' (continuing the adventure), we intend to release three more seasons. Each season covers 12 weeks, thus providing game play for 12 sessions. We intend to release a season a year. It would priced at about 20 to 30$.
- So, see it more like a magazine ...
- That said, this doesn't prevent us from releasing 'separate components': dungeon maps, hexcrawl for some regions ... they would be sold separatly.

Oh, by the way, thanks for your time and enthusiasm.

I think it's very interesting idea, let's hope it's well received!

Being system-indipendent is a great feature.

Ideally, that's how I would prefer also campaign settings to be, but it's hard because then player characters are expected to be designed in way tied to the settings (i.e. using races, classes, spells etc. which highlight the defining flavor of the setting) and that means the players expect to find "crunch" in settings books.

But for adventures it should be easier, at least since you are assuming a fairly traditional generic fantasy setting. If your adventure is designed for ~12 sessions of play (not short, but with typical RPG systems that covers only a small bunch of character levels), then it is not needed to have character crunchy material.

ExiStanc3 said:

- they provide some kind of 'skeleton', leaving room for the DM to incorporate their ideas and in fact complete the product.

Click to expand...

Don't overdo this... IMXP as a DM I have never felt that an adventure or settings had too little room for my own ideas! But the opposite, i.e. too much blank space, gives me the feeling that I spent full money for only a half-full product. I can tolerate that for old-school dungeon-crawls where the purpose is just going from one battle/trap/danger to another, and I can just roll randomly or pick something from the DMG/MM. But from a published adventure generally I want all the work already done for me, thus no gaps! As I said, this never prevents me to add more events, characters, or connections, because there is no upper limit really.

ExiStanc3 said:

- they are both system independant
- they use very specific design with strong structures (hex coordinates and events in a calendar)
- they are designed to be robust: your players can break some parts
- they provide the feel of a living world: a world that is not waiting for your players and expecting something from them
- they are much more about immediate stakes, situations and not about a fixed world
- Avalanche (and a little bit PoL) tries to help the DM manages the time in game play (the fictionnal time of the setting)

Questions:
- I know it is not to everyone's taste, but do you think there is [more] room for those types of products?
- what do you need to find a setting/adventure module useful?
- do you think those types of products might be useful to attract new players?

Click to expand...

First thoughts:
1) To run a setting faithfully, a GM must do a lot of reading. Well, we live in a busy world, so while I'm sure there are GMs willing to do their background work, I think that demographic is diminishing.
2) To run a living world, especially a printed one that the players can examine objectively, a GM must do a lot of homework. It's not too bad to manage a handful of towns. But given the continent or world that settings usually present, a GM can't hope to keep up. Possible solution:
[sblock]As long as you're web-enabled, you could create a user-supported world that updates itself. In theory, any GM can modify the world elements, and sans GM intervention, the elements also run themselves. Basically, each has a script. Whenever any GM accesses the web and updates the world, he doesn't do whatever he wants: he gets a list of options. Say his game group kills a ruler (and all rulers are automatically replaced by another ruler). Well, he goes to the menu for that ruler, chooses events (versus, say, details, locations, relationships or inventory), and adds a killed-on date, possibly getting to add who did the killing and other details. The game world doesn't crash - because the system fills his position with another ruler.[/sblock]
3) I think a module is more useful (to me) when it's system-neutral. So good on you! One complication is that once you apply your system of choice, the system brings so much flavor with it that it can end up conflicting with the setting. Which can result in unwanted work for some people.
4) To what are you trying to attract new players? Your setting? To RPGs? I have no idea what the generic player is looking for these days, but it's possible that they want a cool setting. It's possible they're just looking for cool equipment, races, powers, or fun ways to roll dice.

Li Shenron said:

I think it's very interesting idea, let's hope it's well received!

Being system-indipendent is a great feature.

Ideally, that's how I would prefer also campaign settings to be, but it's hard because then player characters are expected to be designed in way tied to the settings (i.e. using races, classes, spells etc. which highlight the defining flavor of the setting) and that means the players expect to find "crunch" in settings books.

But for adventures it should be easier, at least since you are assuming a fairly traditional generic fantasy setting. If your adventure is designed for ~12 sessions of play (not short, but with typical RPG systems that covers only a small bunch of character levels), then it is not needed to have character crunchy material.

Click to expand...

First, thanks for the kind word. For the crunch part, I believe that is the reason we (and PoL) opted for 'vanilla' setting. [Almost] any systems should be able to cover those common elements (elves, thieves, mages, paladins ...).

Li Shenron said:

Don't overdo this... IMXP as a DM I have never felt that an adventure or settings had too little room for my own ideas! But the opposite, i.e. too much blank space, gives me the feeling that I spent full money for only a half-full product. I can tolerate that for old-school dungeon-crawls where the purpose is just going from one battle/trap/danger to another, and I can just roll randomly or pick something from the DMG/MM. But from a published adventure generally I want all the work already done for me, thus no gaps! As I said, this never prevents me to add more events, characters, or connections, because there is no upper limit really.

Click to expand...

Well, I hear you about this, but you have to remember something: Avalanche is non linear (it is not chapters based, but calendar based). From a conversation I had last week: I'd say I'm providing you with the forest, and you manage the trees (not sure it is that clear ). For twelve weeks material Avalanche is 400 pages long. If I would provide everything, Avalanche would be at least 1000 pages. This new approach really changes the role of the DM (for the best I hope) and Avalanche is a very different beast. We wish to provide something familiar and yet new. Think of it as an homebrew campaign and how you would prepare it for the long term.

DMMike said:

First thoughts:
1) To run a setting faithfully, a GM must do a lot of reading. Well, we live in a busy world, so while I'm sure there are GMs willing to do their background work, I think that demographic is diminishing.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's with this in mind that we wrote Avalanche the way it is (PoL has the advantage of being very short and straightforward). Of course, Avalanche is not as easy to read as a novel, but I really hope it is more fun for the DM than the typical setting/adventure being sold out there.
Maybe another little thing: I believe that GM does somehow their homework. They read books (novels, graphic novels), see movies or TV series. It is just that the typical material we provide is very dull. It should provide inspiration and help for the game (not just one of the two).

DMMike said:

2) To run a living world, especially a printed one that the players can examine objectively, a GM must do a lot of homework. It's not too bad to manage a handful of towns. But given the continent or world that settings usually present, a GM can't hope to keep up. Possible solution:
[sblock]As long as you're web-enabled, you could create a user-supported world that updates itself. In theory, any GM can modify the world elements, and sans GM intervention, the elements also run themselves. Basically, each has a script. Whenever any GM accesses the web and updates the world, he doesn't do whatever he wants: he gets a list of options. Say his game group kills a ruler (and all rulers are automatically replaced by another ruler). Well, he goes to the menu for that ruler, chooses events (versus, say, details, locations, relationships or inventory), and adds a killed-on date, possibly getting to add who did the killing and other details. The game world doesn't crash - because the system fills his position with another ruler.[/sblock]

Click to expand...

Managing a very complex story, over a large place and a long period of time is our goal (we have writen a document about this). What you are proposing is a little bit what we have in mind for the website. Managing events, status of characters, the specific of your games ... But, in my opinion, the best way to present a world that does not crash is to present it from a very high point of view and provide lots, lots of events. So, even if your group breaks some parts, the big picture is still there and coherent. And the more important thing: can the GM still manage it with the current material.

DMMike said:

3) I think a module is more useful (to me) when it's system-neutral. So good on you! One complication is that once you apply your system of choice, the system brings so much flavor with it that it can end up conflicting with the setting. Which can result in unwanted work for some people.

Click to expand...

Sure, that is a problem, but note that how Avalanche is presented, a GM wouldn't need to stats everything out, but a little by little ... As for very specific system, yes, at some point it may contradict the setting (we're currently experiencing this with a current play test).

DMMike said:

4) To what are you trying to attract new players? Your setting? To RPGs? I have no idea what the generic player is looking for these days, but it's possible that they want a cool setting. It's possible they're just looking for cool equipment, races, powers, or fun ways to roll dice.

Click to expand...

Now, that's a good question, I haven't thougth of it that way. For one thing, sure, I hope this kind of presentation attracts current players to my setting!! Otherwise, I was more thinking about bringing new players to the hobby. I believe that if we can provide something fun to read, that's attractive (and god knows how bad fantasy novels sell well those days), we could attract new players. And I think that no stats bloc helps for this. I could see PoL, for instance, attracting boardgamers (hexcrawl is some kind of board after all). In all cases, I think we need to invent new types of product.
As for the players who just want feats, weapons and other crunchy parts, well, I guess they are not my customers.