Adventure Design

[Umbran]

I'm starting to note that adventure design can depend strongly on what kind of experience the adventure is attempting to provide for the players.

A typical D&D module is not the same as a Deadlands adventure, which is in turn different from an Ashen Stars procedural/mystery adventure.

This leads to several different modes of failure:

1) the adventure itself is not well-designed to provide the desired experience
2) the adventure's goal experience is not what you want/expect
3) The actual content is okay, and everyone's on board with the intended experience, but the presentation, arrangement, and layout of the material is not well done for this intent.

Which amounts to: There's actually a lot of ways to screw up with an adventure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm starting to note that adventure design can depend strongly on what kind of experience the adventure is attempting to provide for the players.

A typical D&D module is not the same as a Deadlands adventure, which is in turn different from an Ashen Stars procedural/mystery adventure.

.

To me this is pretty crucial. When I read reviews of adventures where the reviewer doesn't is judging say a D&D module by Deadland standards, or vice versa, it isn't particularly helpful to me as a GM. What is helpful is for the reviewer to talk about what the module is trying to do, the kind of adventure it tries to provide, and whether it seems to achieve those things (and within that context I am also perfectly happy to get the reviewer's individual take on whether that sort of design is good or bad). Too often I feel like people blend all these things together and that isn't just confusing for GMs, it is potentially confusing for game publishers putting out material. I also think some modules, particularly for big games like D&D, probably need to hit more of a mean where they can be used a number of different ways by GMs with different preferences and also hit the right notes for a range of players. So I generally expect those to be less focused in their design, more broad in their appeal.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] Terrific observation!

I certainly understand why folks like less wall of text, and I do think there can be places where this is really annoying. But I also have to admit, as a GM, I like reading a module and getting pulled into the material a bit in advance. So I'll happily buy something that has that sort of thing.

Ultimately what does need attention regardless of approach to me, is what the players see, feel and interact with. For example, what an NPCs name, profession and background is might be less Important than how they smell, act, behave and are doing. So often, situations are static when they are hardly ever that way.

Good topic. Can you elaborate on what you consider to be a "wall of text" and what alternatives there are to explaining the author's vision of the adventure to the reader? If, for example, every sentence is useful, does that mean it's a "wall of text," or does it require a certain amount of less useful "fluff" in there? I'm trying to get a feel for when something crosses over into the wall of text category.

There's sort of two extremes when it comes to how an adventure communicates the author's vision to the reader (GM). Show or Tell.

"Show" is more like what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is getting at, where the adventure writer tries to bring the reader/GM's mind into the adventure's themes and motifs, so that once the GM gets it, he or she describes scenes and NPCs from that framework. For example, a Ravenloft adventure would draw the reader's mind into the Gothic Horror point of view, trusting their words to evoke something in the GM, and then trusting the GM to convey that as he or she sees fit to the players.

Personally, I like that approach because it emphasizes the strength of the tabletop RPG: interaction between the gamers. My group will experience the adventure a little differently (or perhaps a lot differently!) from your group and that's OK, in fact it's to be desired because it shows we're tailoring the experience to our groups.

"Tell" is more like what [MENTION=1830]Waylander the Slayer[/MENTION] is getting at, where the adventure precisely describes what the PCs sense. Traditionally this was handled with boxed text. In many ways this is the opposite of "show" because it doesn't trust the writer's words to evoke something in the GM, nor does it trust the GM to convey the adventure's themes or motifs without exacting coaching. For example, an adventure would include a breakdown of the main NPC's daily schedules, a brief blurb describing their appearance, roleplaying notes, and something akin to boxed text describing their lair/home.

Personally, I like "tell" less than "show", but I especially like it for situations where precision is important in the adventure (e.g. mystery stories) and as a teaching tool for new DMs.

Obviously, most adventures are both showing and telling, but some lean very hard in one direction or the other. When it comes to "flow of text" and "not getting eye strain", I've noticed that how deftly a writer switches from showing and telling (coupled with the art & graphic design) can do a lot to keep me as a reader engaged.

 

[Bedrockgames]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] Terrific observation!







There's sort of two extremes when it comes to how an adventure communicates the author's vision to the reader (GM). Show or Tell.

"Show" is more like what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is getting at, where the adventure writer tries to bring the reader/GM's mind into the adventure's themes and motifs, so that once the GM gets it, he or she describes scenes and NPCs from that framework. For example, a Ravenloft adventure would draw the reader's mind into the Gothic Horror point of view, trusting their words to evoke something in the GM, and then trusting the GM to convey that as he or she sees fit to the players.
.

This break down is a little too binary for me. Just to be clear about my point of view. I am personally not a big fan of 'show don't tell' as writing or adventure design advice. There is nothing wrong with exposition that gets to the heart of things in a clear and concise way (especially if it saves me from reading 200 pages of boring 'show' text). But you can tell and still be moody, atmospheric and engaging. I am happy for the writer to 'tell' over the course of a fair amount of text where it is necessary. That said, I'd like the text to engage me. That doesn't mean it has to 'show', it just needs to hold my interest, inspire and pull me in. That can be done in very 'tell-like' text. For me 'show' is a tool, which can be effective, but it shouldn't be a rule of style. It really depends on the module in question.

For me, I am just fine reading large volumes of text or concise text because the way I use modules is I read them a couple of times before play or I cannibalize them for parts. And I read them the same way I read a lot of setting material, to get pulled in. I don't do the thing where I skim them, and pull them off the shelf when the players go into that area or something. But if someone is doing that, I completely understand why they want the concise text.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

This break down is a little too binary for me. Just to be clear about my point of view. I am personally not a big fan of 'show don't tell' as writing or adventure design advice. There is nothing wrong with exposition that gets to the heart of things in a clear and concise way (especially if it saves me from reading 200 pages of boring 'show' text). But you can tell and still be moody, atmospheric and engaging. I am happy for the writer to 'tell' over the course of a fair amount of text where it is necessary. That said, I'd like the text to engage me. That doesn't mean it has to 'show', it just needs to hold my interest, inspire and pull me in. That can be done in very 'tell-like' text. For me 'show' is a tool, which can be effective, but it shouldn't be a rule of style. It really depends on the module in question.

For me, I am just fine reading large volumes of text or concise text because the way I use modules is I read them a couple of times before play or I cannibalize them for parts. And I read them the same way I read a lot of setting material, to get pulled in. I don't do the thing where I skim them, and pull them off the shelf when the players go into that area or something. But if someone is doing that, I completely understand why they want the concise text.

Just want to say that this is very good discourse all around. I agree that it is not that binary, it is quite possible, and in fact rather easy to create verisimilitude, depth and atmosphere by using concise text. The other point i want to note is that the quality and active text and good module design has nothing to do with the overall length of the adventure either; good use of language, and adventure formatting and structure just gives you more space to add more fun content. For example, I am really enjoying reading Eye of the Stone Thief, a 375 page behemoth on a topic that I would usually not be a fan of at all- it just has loads of action, faction, evocative text, where a line or two can get my imagination running and gets the point across.

Wall of text = redundant/useless information

 

[Quickleaf]

Just want to say that this is very good discourse all around. I agree that it is not that binary, it is quite possible, and in fact rather easy to create verisimilitude, depth and atmosphere by using concise text. The other point i want to note is that the quality and active text and good module design has nothing to do with the overall length of the adventure either; good use of language, and adventure formatting and structure just gives you more space to add more fun content. For example, I am really enjoying reading Eye of the Stone Thief, a 375 page behemoth on a topic that I would usually not be a fan of at all- it just has loads of action, faction, evocative text, where a line or two can get my imagination running and gets the point across.

Wall of text = redundant/useless information

Ah, I see, so what you're describing as "wall of text" is not a specific length or word count, but an overall impression of how useful the text is toward the adventure's goals.

That makes sense.

There are some genres like the dungeon crawl where a couple lines can suffice to explain something.

There are other genres like a mystery where a couple paragraphs or even pages are needed to explain something.

 

[Umbran]

Personally, I like "tell" less than "show", but I especially like it for situations where precision is important in the adventure (e.g. mystery stories) and as a teaching tool for new DMs.

Eh. "Show, don't tell" is advice for an author of fiction about communicating with the audience.

The adventure designer is *not* providing a fiction for the audience (the GM). The *GM* is providing the fiction to the audience. The designer's job is, in effect, to enable the GM to show, not tell. They should give the GM the information and tools to provide the desired atmosphere. "Show" is not a tool I want the designer to use on me, the GM. Please *tell* me, so I know what I need to show.

 

[pdzoch]

Eh. "Show, don't tell" is advice for an author of fiction about communicating with the audience.

The adventure designer is *not* providing a fiction for the audience (the GM). The *GM* is providing the fiction to the audience. The designer's job is, in effect, to enable the GM to show, not tell. They should give the GM the information and tools to provide the desired atmosphere. "Show" is not a tool I want the designer to use on me, the GM. Please *tell* me, so I know what I need to show.

I understand your aversion to show. Experienced DM's do not need the wordy "show" aspect of an adventure. Especially as we are quite experienced at catering to the events as they unfold. We mostly need notes on key events and features, and we got it from there. I seldom actually read the intended script from a published adventure because it often does not fit the story as it as unfolded (except, perhaps, at the beginning).

However, younger DM need, and probably want that "show." I've seen many young DM's read that "read-to-adventurers" boxes word for word. Without it, they sometimes struggle to paint the picture for their players. They get better, over time. However, I am not sure that alot of extra description is useful for these young DM. It can present a "wall of words" that are simply skipped because it is too tedious to read.

Unlike other authors and publishers, who generally know who their audience is, the adventure writers are writing material used by everyone from young children to old men, from grade school students to graduate degree holders, etc. Hard task.

Personally, I use a script outline that lays out the general flow of the story, key notes on NPC and events, and the necessary stats. The rest is totally in my head, and refined on the fly. Another DM probably could not use the material I use for an adventure. And I would be willing to bet that I could not use another DM's material either (unless we sat down and told each other the story).

 

[Quickleaf]

Hah, I think my use of the words "show" and "tell" are throwing you off from what I intended. After all, I was equating "tell" with read-aloud text & beginner players, whereas [MENTION=80982]pdzoch[/MENTION] equates "show" with read-aloud text & beginner players. So maybe those are the wrong terms to use...

I was framing two polar extremes as a way to discuss the OP:

Specifically, a lot of adventures appear to be designed to be full of "content" without any consideration of what the content is. Walls of text, with passive language seems to predominate with very little consideration given to what the players actually feel, see, smell and interract with. Back stories are great, if they are relevant. Relevance and user experience seem secondary than massive explanatory text.

I interpreted "what the players actually feel, see, smell, and interact with" as being about explicitly telling the GM what to tell the players. Boxed text is one form of this approach. Another form of this approach might be reductionist presentations like:

OOC: Vampire's Theatre: 20' x 25' foot room with a raised stage occupying half and seating for 20 human-sized creatures occupying the other half, the stage is separated from the seating by a scarlet curtain, dim light from black candles in small alcoves spaced every 5', heady smell of pig tallow from the candles, cool wind flowing under concealed door marked on map. 5 vampire spawn in masks behind curtain.

In the hands of some DMs that's perfect for their needs. It covers the physical parameters of the room, and from those parameters the DM can evoke a mood with his or her storytelling technique (DISCLAIMER: I'm using "storytelling" in the common sense of entertaining a group with changes in tone, voices, onomatopoeia, word choice, framing, etc. I'm NOT using it in a "you should railroad the party" sense that some gamers interpret it as.)

In the hands of other DMs, whether the text describes the candles as "black" or "purple", and whatever smells are in the room according to the text, is immaterial. Those are details that the DM can improvise in play IF the adventure makes it clear what motif/genre/theme it's working with. For these DMs, how well the adventure evokes and inspires their own imagination in a certain direction organically leads to the DM evoking the mood for the players with his or her description.

Basically, some DMs work best from physical description > describing the mood of a scene.

Whereas other DMs work best from a thematic description > describing the particular physical description of a location.

That was the core difference I was trying to describe.

And it's not "one or the other." Like with most things, adventure writing is a spectrum not a binary black/white switch. Setting up these sorts of poles, however, helps us discuss topics like this where someone says "adventures that do XY is bad."

 

[Umbran]

I understand your aversion to show. Experienced DM's do not need the wordy "show" aspect of an adventure. Especially as we are quite experienced at catering to the events as they unfold. We mostly need notes on key events and features, and we got it from there. I seldom actually read the intended script from a published adventure because it often does not fit the story as it as unfolded (except, perhaps, at the beginning).

However, younger DM need, and probably want that "show." I've seen many young DM's read that "read-to-adventurers" boxes word for word. Without it, they sometimes struggle to paint the picture for their players. They get better, over time. However, I am not sure that alot of extra description is useful for these young DM. It can present a "wall of words" that are simply skipped because it is too tedious to read.

Um, no, boxed text was not what I was responding to at all. I was responding to:

"Show" is more like what @Bedrockgames is getting at, where the adventure writer tries to bring the reader/GM's mind into the adventure's themes and motifs, so that once the GM gets it, he or she describes scenes and NPCs from that framework.

Boxed text does not do this - that's explicitly stuff to be read to the players. It is not attempting to bring the *GM's mind* into the adventure's themes and motifs. Boxed text is just the verbal equivalent of paper handouts for the players.