Bruce Nesmith Interview: 1 month, 1 32 page module

According to James Jacobs, a 32-page module should be approx 20k words, and 2k of workable writing per day is considered an average day's work. So, 10 days to write, then 20 days for the editing and other work to turn it from raw text into a product? That doesn't actually sound so bad.

However, being expected to write an adventure from just a title and with no further guidance is considerably more problematic.

(And, of course, being asked to do it over and over, every single month, may well also have become an issue quite quickly. I'm just not sure the required word/page output is unreasonable.)

 

[delericho]

The question of whether old or new adventures are better is one best summed up thus: YMMV.

As regards smaller standalone adventures, though, I would be extremely surprised if we ever see them again from WotC. There are a few reasons for this, but the big one is about production costs: bigger products simply give better return on investment. Indeed, I doubt we'll ever see a product from WotC again that isn't hardback, full-colour, at least 250 pages, and at least $35 in price. So we might just see a compilation of several standalone adventures into a single book, but I doubt we'll ever see a single such adventure. Unless WotC decide to start doing PDF-only products, but I think that's even more unlikely.

But also, WotC aren't actually in the markets for adventures, not even Adventure Paths. What they're doing are "storylines", of which the TTRPG adventure product is just one part. Each "storyline" also features various other associated products - CRPG expansions, novels, t-shirts and other merchandise, and so on. And, of course, an AL season to go with it. Each is supposed to be an event, something they can hang their marketing focus around for 6 months to keep the game 'fresh' (and, as a bi-product, hopefully to generate some IP they can then license on to other parties). Standalone adventures don't do that for them.

What I was hoping for was a revival of Dungeon magazine, which would have helped fill the void for anyone who wanted standalone adventures, or who wasn't gripped by the current "storyline", or who simply wanted more material. However, given the content of Dragon+, I'll again be surprised if that happens.

 

[VengerSatanis]

Good writing is always some kind of superhuman feat.

VS

 

[delericho]

Good writing is always some kind of superhuman feat.

Dickens was an alien?

 

[VengerSatanis]

Dickens was an alien?

Sure.

 

[Jester David]

Umm...it's the lack of guidance that is the point. To put it another way, newer adventures hold the PC's and the DM's hands *far* too much for my liking. If the PC's join the Giants in the G series...I can still use it quite easily. The Good Guys would/may hear of their betrayal. Then, fearing "insider knowledge" about the Good Guys defenses, leaders, magical capabilities, etc, make a hasty decision and gather a small army and hire mercenaries in order to assult the Steading of the Hill Giant. I could use that entire module as-is for the PC's. They could shore up defenses, make plans for defence and offence, try and infiltrate the Good Guys army for recon, etc. I then grab ye' old War Machine (my go-to D&D mass combat system; the one from basic D&D...works fine with 1e/2e) and stat up some of the good guys forces. Then we play out a large Siege of the Steading, with the PC's as the 'leaders'...or at least significant generals.

It's *because* there is a "lack of guidance" throughout the entire module that allows it so much freedom. The "story" of G1? : "Giants are up to something in the nearby hills. Check it out". In a nutshell. What exactly are they up to? That's 'semi-spelled out', but easily ignored. Nothing in the module hinges upon something that happened before it. Could it be important that the PC's did something (or didn't do something)? Sure, but that's up to the DM to decide. He doesn't have to "ignore" something later on or otherwise "rewrite" an entire 'chapter' of the adventure because the PC's did something unexpected. At most he makes a few notes about likely outcomes and then rolls with it.

That is why I feel older style adventure modules are superior. Plain and simple. They fit my preferred DM'ing style, and I think they fit the "purpose" of D&D much better. Looking back at OLD D&D, like really early 1e, or 0e, the point of the game was basically "Heres a deadly underground dungeon filled with traps, treasure and monsters! See if you can live long enough to gain power and prestige, and enough riches to retire on! Ready? GO!". All the "extra stuff" (story, campaign time line, character development, etc), all came about *through play*. It wasn't presented as "Here's the dungeon, and here is a 4 page story script to try and stick to".

By *not* having all that extra, in-depth story stuff it made the "story" that came about through play unique. It made each campaign and each individual DM's running of the module different and interesting. As I said...I've ran Dwellers of the Forbidden City a half dozen times or more. Each different, some radically so. I didn't have to "ignore" much of anything, nor did I have to re-write anything. I just used it as is, filled in the blanks throughout play, and bingo-bongo-bango... it's like a "new adventure path" each time.

Newer adventures are just too much work for too little gain if the PC's do something unusual... or if the DM wants to use the module differently. Bare-bones skeleton upon which I can hang my own dressing...easy. Fully fleshed out story-structure which I have to strip, dismantle, reassign and then hang my own dressing on? Much more work intensive.

First, I'd recommend Princes of the Apocalypse because it's story is pretty paper thin. It's pretty much "evil cults are doing evil" followed by thirteen dungeon locations. It sounds pretty close to exactly what you want.

Second, it's really not that hard to ignore a plot in an adventure. It's really a matter of just ignoring some details and just using the adventure location and included monsters. It's as close to zero effort as possible. If you wanted to take one of the Tyranny of Dragons modules and pull out all the adventure locations and repurpose them, it's super, super easy.
What's not easy and effortless is taking a barebones skeletal location and making it part of adventure. Turning a location and giving it a plot. That's work. And it's not even work you can do on-the-fly at the gametable but requires some forethought and preparation.

Ditto the guidance. I don't need a lot of help running or planning an adventure, because I have 20+ years of experience at D&D. But I can't fault people for being less experienced than me. And just because I learned how to do adventures with almost no hand holding, doesn't mean I fault other people from not wanting to do the same, for wanting a little assistance.
The easier it is to pick up an adventure and start playing, the easier it is for new people to get into the hobby.

I'm try to be pretty open to other playstyles and encouraging people to do what they want. Which is why I'm arguing with you. You're pushing for your playstyle at the exclusion of those who do want story. You'd rather they do a LOT more work so you don't have to do a minor amount of extra work.

 

[pming]

Hiay!

First, I'd recommend Princes of the Apocalypse...

It's definitely one I'm looking to pick up, yes. Right now, $$$ is really tight (I've been out of work since August) and just had to pay off a big'ish debt. PotA does seem a lot more "free style", from what I've read. It could be one that me and my group could really get into.

As for "arguing with me", I don't see us arguing....I'd call it... "slight, but firm, disagreement". I mean, we (I should include Husar in this too) just seem to have different preferences and expertise. I like a LOT less "story driven" modules with a LOT more "location based" stuff (give me half a page of backstory, half a page of DM stuff (weather table, a small list of 'important' NPC's in the town...don't need their stats, a name, race/sex/age is good enough..., maybe a wandering monster table or two). Now add in 5 pages of simple b/w maps...dungeons, ruins, overland, etc. Finally, the last 24 or so pages can be the "stocked dungeon areas". Like: "Oval Room: 30' oval room, rough grey granite, cold, frost, small ice puddles; bones of a long-dead warrior in the center; a Wraith lairs here". This is all I need, but modules usually write it all out in sentences, which is fine, but it all breaks down into those "important things", so that's how I write my adventures most of the time.

For an example of the kind of module I like, either Dyson's Delve (a basic-D&D style; https://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/maps/dysons-delve/ ), or Tomb of the Iron God (a Spells & Wizardry [1e/0e] adventure by Frog God Games; https://www.froggodgames.com/tomb-iron-god ...for $4! ). In particular, the "small and consistent map layout" of Dyson's Delve is really nice. One page had the map and EVERY room on it written up. One page. It made it an absolute joy to run! I clipped the page onto my DM screen; on my right I had my pad of paper and could write down all the cool stuff that happened and that popped into my brain during play (NPC names, god holy symbols, sub-plot notes/ideas, etc). On my left was a paper for game mechanic stuff...mostly HP's of monsters when combat occurred, but also marching order notes, who had what light source, etc. That adventure, is one of the most fun I've ever had running. We played it for about 8 months, where the PC's got down to level 9 (?). I played it with 1e AD&D in my homebrew world of Eisla. So...8 months, 9 small dungeon levels. Looking at what is there on the page, you'd think it would be "impossible" to have a fun and fulfilling adventure...but we did. It was so-o easy to just, well, let my creative storytelling liquids flow and just play. ...love that adventure... With Tomb of the Iron God, they did a really cool thing; something I've been doing for years. Under their room description, they have a blank box with "Location ## Notes" on top. The DM can make his own notes here for whatever he needs. When I ran it, I was actually running the Dominion Rules rpg system (free; http://www.dominionrules.org ). I used those spaces for notes about substituted spells, monsters, etc., or for conversion of rules-system stuff (like difficulty for some task). Lots of fun in that adventure too!

Anyway, it still boils down to this: I still think "bare bones" is better... even for someone new to the game ...than a much more "fleshed out" (re: story-line A-B-C-D style) adventure is. I learned just fine "the old way". You (JC) learned just fine the old way. I'm pretty sure Hussar also learned just fine the old way. The old way -works-. It makes new DM's actually learn how to DM. I'd bet dimes to dollars that if you had two new DM's, one learning the "old way" (re: very much DIY style), and one learning the "new way" (re: very much more hand-holding, most everything is done for you, style), and both were given a year... I'd put my money on the "old way" style DM having a much better capability to handle off the wall situations, or Player ideas that were definitely not 'covered' in some adventure module. I just have more faith in "learning why" than I do "memorizing how".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mavkatzer]

February, of course, was a slightly more stressful month...

 

[pemerton]

If the PC's join the Giants in the G series...I can still use it quite easily. The Good Guys would/may hear of their betrayal. Then, fearing "insider knowledge" about the Good Guys defenses, leaders, magical capabilities, etc, make a hasty decision and gather a small army and hire mercenaries in order to assult the Steading of the Hill Giant. I could use that entire module as-is for the PC's. They could shore up defenses, make plans for defence and offence, try and infiltrate the Good Guys army for recon, etc. I then grab ye' old War Machine (my go-to D&D mass combat system; the one from basic D&D...works fine with 1e/2e) and stat up some of the good guys forces. Then we play out a large Siege of the Steading, with the PC's as the 'leaders'...or at least significant generals.

In what sense is what you describe "using" the module?

You are writing a big chunkc of the major NPCs (mercenaries, good guy generals, etc).

You are drawing a good chunk of the maps (terrain around the Steading, the good guys' camp, etc).

You are having to decide what effect, if any, the orcs in the basement have on the events of the siege.

Etc.

I'm sure Hoard of the Dragon Queen has some maps of a village or castle, and some stats for the NPCs who live there. You could use those to run a siege just as easily as you could use G1.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

In what sense is what you describe "using" the module?

You are writing a big chunkc of the major NPCs (mercenaries, good guy generals, etc).

You are drawing a good chunk of the maps (terrain around the Steading, the good guys' camp, etc).

You are having to decide what effect, if any, the orcs in the basement have on the events of the siege.

Etc.

I'm sure Hoard of the Dragon Queen has some maps of a village or castle, and some stats for the NPCs who live there. You could use those to run a siege just as easily as you could use G1.

So what you're saying is that this is "bad"? Using our imaginations to take what is there and let a unique and exciting story unfold from a more "bare-bones" module is "less good" than trying to stick to the "plot and story" without colouring outside of the lines?

Ok, I know you didn't mean it exactly that way (I hope you didn't!), but that's what it kinda comes across as. Wouldn't you, as DM, enjoy deciding on what Major NPCs ...specific to your campaign world... are involved and their motivations? Are drawing cool maps with interesting terrain, maps of the Army of Good's encampments, maps of any other interesting terrain features (say, an unknown underwater cave in a lake that houses a small enclave of sirens?), and any other maps? Don't you like surprises? Like if something happens to agitate the orcs one way or the other? Maybe the PC's do something that really upsets them...and they "join forces" with the AoG to "put down their giantish overlords"? Maybe the orcs aren't as evil as other tribes, and have become more of a neutral "we just want to be left alone" and are more than willing to turn on the giants if the AoG allows them to leave after, moving deeper into the mountains where they can live their lives "in peace".

By not having everything encountered in the adventure spelled out for the DM, it allows more "imaginatory sparks", I guess is what I'm saying. A module that says "The orcs fear the giants, and do what they say. Captured orcs will betray the party at the first opportunity, hoping to gain favor with their giantish overlords" is one thing. Saying "The orcs fear the giants because [insert two or three sentences detailing exactly why]. Captured orcs will betray the party at the first opportunity [insert several sentences about who they will run to, what they will say, why they run to Giant NPC #7, what they will do if taken outside of the giant's control, and why, etc]"... is a completely different thing.

Give me the first version every time, thank you. Let me, the DM, decide why the orcs will betray the giants. Let me, the DM, decide how they will do it. Let me, the DM, decide who they run to. Let me, the DM, decide if any or all of that changes if they leave the control of the giants. Why have all that extra "hand holding" in there? That space could have been spent on adding another room or two to the dungeon.

Now, for "introductory adventures", I have no problem with it. But most adventures written shouldn't be aimed at "new players and DM's". Most adventures should be aimed at those with experience. Basically, a handful of level 1-3 adventures can be "Introductory Adventures", where it holds the hand of the DM throughout; giving helpful hints on how to handle some situation, or quick page number references for rules that are likely to come up in some encounter, etc. But, IMHO, any adventure that is aimed at level 4+ should be written with the assumption that the DM knows what he is doing, or at least isn't a complete newb.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pemerton]

So what you're saying is that this is "bad"?

No. I'm saying that Hoard of the Dragon Queen is probably no worse for this than G1. Which means it won't be any harder to "use" Hoard if the PCs join with the cultists, than to "use" G1 if the PCs join with the giants.