scenario formats

[Soraios]

What is your preference for scenario formats?

Traditional: separate map, descriptive key.

Facing pages: map on one page, truncated short-form key on the other.

One-page: map with extreme shorthand notes thereon.

Put another way, is completeness of information or ease of use your primary consideration?

Bonus question: do you want stat blocks for every encounter? Just the unusual monsters? Full stats or just the key/unusual stats?

 

[howandwhy99]

The standard calendar map design used for so many years is my preference.

Plus, use Town & [-]Country[/-] Dungeon design for most adventures for easy inclusion to a campaign.

Modules really need to be graded by level of difficulty / class level too.

In terms of completeness versus ease of use, this is a balancing act for the author. I want everything that needs to be in there and everything presented in an easy to comprehend manner. I don't think the two need be contradictory.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think that's an impossible question to answer generally because the format should suit the content. If it's an adventure path like the old Dragonlance modules or Pathfinder modules, then you probably aren't going to rely mainly on large single, double-paged, or fold out maps with keys. Instead you have more of an encounter format, which depending how heavily the game relies on miniatures, might follow Dungeon Delve format or might not even have a battlemap. Then again, there might be micro dungeons within that railroaded adventure where that's exactly the format you'd want for a couple pages.

The answer in this case really is "it depends."

 

[Soraios]

I think that's an impossible question to answer generally because the format should suit the content. If it's an adventure path like the old Dragonlance modules or Pathfinder modules, then you probably aren't going to rely mainly on large single, double-paged, or fold out maps with keys. Instead you have more of an encounter format, which depending how heavily the game relies on miniatures, might follow Dungeon Delve format or might not even have a battlemap. Then again, there might be micro dungeons within that railroaded adventure where that's exactly the format you'd want for a couple pages.

The answer in this case really is "it depends."

You don't have a preference?

 

[Quickleaf]

You don't have a preference?

Well my preference is that the format/medium suit the content well. So with the way you framed the question, no I don't have a preference.

 

[aco175]

I like to have most maps on one page or even a double page with the legend on it someplace. Big country size maps are on blueprint size paper but towns and dungeons can be on one page. I like the encounters broken down like Dungeon Delve so that they are on facing pages. Although I like them to fall in line with the rest of the module and not in the back of the module. I know it is for layout and space constraints, but it does not read well for me.

 

[olshanski]

I like traditional:

Full map+keyed description.
and/or
Flowchart/Timeline+scenes

Bonus question:
I insist on stat blocks for every encounter (thus I play rules-lite systems were a stat block is a few lines at most). I also want to see background or motivations for NPCs/Monsters. I also want to see sample dialogue where appropriate.

Basically, the more work the author can do the better. I pay a premium for the author's work and artistry.

I don't give a crap about "adventure seeds". Adventure seeds are a dime a dozen, the hard work is fleshing them out.

Extra credit for player handouts. (like Tomb of Horrors or Masks of Narlyhotep)

 

[ExploderWizard]

I prefer a series of maps of increasing scale. The smaller scale maps will have have key points of interest noted and the larger scale ones will show how the smaller maps relate to one another as a whole.

For fleshing out areas I like to start on a macro scale and note who and what is generally in a given region. A few encounter tables for each area and some notes about anything unique is a good start.

From that point I add more detail to the areas that will probably see the most play. Any towns, villages, and dungeons are mapped and keyed at this stage.

Next the area is populated with power players and/or groups along with their motivations and goals. Some notes including statistics, and what resources they have to work with are also included.

Aside from a few colorful npcs and some rumors the area is ready for adventurers. There are usually several different ways for the players to get mixed up in the plans of various npcs and their associates. Events develop around a timeline of things "going to plan" for the various factions and the actions of the players which may alter some or all of these plans.

I like to start with a rather large overview just in case the first idea the players have is to explore in direction X. At a minimum I will have a record of what can generally be found in that area. This is also why I prefer game systems where monsters and npcs can be statted on the fly.

 

[trancejeremy]

The one page/facing page format is certainly easier for reading and getting a grasp of the adventure, but I think the traditional method with the separate map is easier to run.

Although you could have both, really, which is the best of both worlds.