What makes a good adventure for DM's?

[Treebore]

OK, tell me something really meaningful, what modules/adventures have fit your respective bills?

My favorite modern (d20) adventures are The Grey Citadel, Lost City of Barakus, NeMoren's Vault, and the "coin" trilogy. However, I like a lot of other modules. Such as giant's Skull, Banewarrens, most of Necromancer's product line, most of Kenzers product line of modules, and Goodman Games and Open World Press (Ed Cha anyone?) are worth owning.

It also sounds to me as if i am more willing to go the "extra mile" to make a module useful to me. For example, if there is a cool backstory, and there often is, I make sure there are ways for the players to become aware of it at some point, usually after it will no longer mess up the module.

Another example, I found NeMoren's Vault to be very, ...difficult..., to run as written. So I rewrote and cross referenced what I thought was necessary because I thought the module itself would be a blast. It was. My players talked about it often afterword. This and Giant's Skull are why I am glad to hear Fiery Dragon will be doing more modules.

So I like modules, a lot of modules. So when I read everyone's requirements I am asking myself which one's don't they find worth buying? For example, I really don't like Necropolis, but it has awesome maps, decent monsters, and several "encounters" that have been worth the price of the book to me.

Another one I had a problem with is Banewarrens. I thought the time constraints were too much like railroading, so I got rid of them. Plus there were a number of encounters/traps that were way to deadly/lopsided for 6th or 7th level characters (DC 30+ checks, to many traps in one area) so I rewrote them to bring it in line with my 50/50 rule. That is a character will have no worse than a 50/50 chance to spot/disarm/save against any one effect.

I do agree with a previous poster that modules often have too much magic/treasure for my tastes, but that is easy to take care of.

So what modules do you like? What kind of modifications, specifically, are you willing to make? IE pick a module and tell me some of the specific changes you were willing to make and tell when it became "too much" to be worth your time.

I am asking this as a DM/player. I am not a game designer or writer. I am just curious as to why so many of you sound so much "pickier" than I am.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The background should be RELEVANT to the action thats in the module.

The monsters should be right for the PCs to fight, and the monsters should run away or surrender if it makes sense--bandits don't fight to the death.

The adventure should be modular.

I should have fun playing the bad guys.

 

[Emirikol]

I should have fun playing the bad guys.

You sick, sick, bastard

jh

 

[Emirikol]

So what modules do you like? What kind of modifications, specifically, are you willing to make? IE pick a module and tell me some of the specific changes you were willing to make and tell when it became "too much" to be worth your time. I am asking this as a DM/player. I am not a game designer or writer. I am just curious as to why so many of you sound so much "pickier" than I am.

This is an excellent question and one that doesn't deserve simple lists of scenarios that were fun as an answer Probably only 3.0-3.5 scenarios need to be detailed here because formatting has changed so much over the years.

I've edited a whole load of Living Greyhawk scenarios, which by and large are written by guys like us. Not game designers and having very little experience in writing scenarios in general. I've gotten picky on a lot of annoying mistakes that I feel that both professional and amateur writers alike make time and time again. I've noted them in my big post above.

My big Conan campaign ended in January, but my experiences were generally good with the following scenarios:

The Malady of Kings (Troll Lord): It was easily enough convertable to Conan, had a decent backstory, had decent maps and copyable handouts. The formatting was my preferred style: Read aloud THEN DM's text. The monsters were balanced and there was more than one way to solve several of the encounters.

Pandemonium in the Veins in Dungeon #96 (the Gladiator Issue paired with Dragon). It had an interesting backstory and some changeable elements of the backstory that worked well no matter what you did. The characters of opposing gladiators were interesting and the fights were great! There was room to add a lot more story too. Again, it had my preferred format: Read-Aloud text and THEN DM's text. The maps were useful from both Dungeon and Dragon (posters), however there could have been some numbering on the poster of the Pits underneath the arena.

Porphyry House Horror, Dragon #95 (Vile sealed section). This scenario was a behemoth. There was a giant map of the whorehouse and there was a lot of disgusting stuff going on in there. It was truly vile..in a sense that the sexual elements were fecal, bloody, and violent..it reminded me of that TOOL song, Prison Sex. The formatting was fine, but there was a larger map than necessary and the scenario was longer than it needed to be.

My favorite thus far for 3.0 has been "Dark Times in Sherwood" from Dungeon #82. It had a VERY cleaned up look to it compared to a lot of other scenarios I've seen. It had a strong plotline, excellent bad and good guys, great maps (although the Sherwood poster was a bit hard to see because it was so light). Lastly, although it is set on earth, there is MAGIC in it as well as pure evil and monsters. Players won't ever groan about 'low magic' again after playing this scenario.

I agree with you on Necropolis. The same can be said for Rappan Athuk and it's kind, as well as Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Dungeon crawls are fun if they can find a focus..instead of a map of random encounters with forced plots to try to bring them together.

jh





..

 

[Treebore]

I am using Rappan Athuk in my current campaign. I agree it doesn't have a tight backstory that sets it up so you want, or need, to go in again and again. There is a very broad story arc with the temples of Orcus and several key NPC's. I adapted by integrating several plotlines that will require going into RA to retrieve kidnap victims, stolen merchandise, and a lost holy weapon they will be charged with recovering. These will eventually require eliminating the temples of Orcus.

I am also integrating several other modules that the core of my campaign will rotate around. Like the Lost City of Barakus (my whole campaign is based on Necromancer modules) has a city, Endhome, that is a large and thriving trade city. This city, along with Don Eamon from the Grey Citadel will be my main campaign cities around which RA, Tomb of Abysthor, and Barakus will be based. The city of Endhome encounters are very freeform, they told me who the major players are and what they are up to. When it comes time to run it I adjust their base stats to accomodate the parties level. The only other adjusting I had to do was decide where to locate everything on the Wilderlands campaign map.

Religious changes, or adaptations, are the only other work I have to do. Which is pretty easy since I am using the Book of the Righteous as the basis for the WL pantheon. The only real worries I have from this point is the treasure given in the modules. They tend to give out more than I would like.

That is the only kind of work I usually have to do on modules. Only NeMoren's Vault required more work.

So my checklist is:

Update deity info to fit my campaign
Locate in a geographically appropriate locale (especially for the Grey Citadel)
Write plot threads to integrate module into overall campaign arc
Check treasure levels
Make sure monsters/encounters are appropriate for my party/players abilities.

I rarely need to do any more than this with any module. Deciding to do this whole campaign based on Necro modules made the whole process a bit easier as well.

Since it is 3.0 I also need to update it with what I adapted from 3.5, which isn't much.

 

[takyris]

I want more comprehensive skill check difficulties and results. If my Bard with Negotiator AND Skill Focusiplomacy makes an absurdly high check and moves a minor villain from Hostile to Friendly, I want to know what he'll do. And if that means, "Nothing, he's going to attack no matter what," then I want to know that, too -- so that I can tell my players not to bother with social interaction PCs.

And yeah, as bottleneck-free as possible. If that minor villain HAS to attack the PCs to propel the plot forward, that's one less time the Bard or Cleric can do something useful with Diplomacy. If the PCs HAVE to find the trapdoor in the merchant's shop, then why do my PCs have ranks in search? Just put ranks in "Plot" instead, so that you can just say, "Yep, I get whatever I need to get to do that thing that moves us to the next encounter."

NPC to NPC plot stuff is great, and NPC to PC stuff is good, as long as it recognizes that PCs have a ton of abilities, and someone with a lot of social skills or high ranks in Sleight of Hand can fundamentally shift the nature of the adventure.

 

[takyris]

I want more comprehensive skill check difficulties and results. If my Bard with Negotiator AND Skill Focusiplomacy makes an absurdly high check and moves a minor villain from Hostile to Friendly, I want to know what he'll do. And if that means, "Nothing, he's going to attack no matter what," then I want to know that, too -- so that I can tell my players not to bother with social interaction PCs.

And yeah, as bottleneck-free as possible. If that minor villain HAS to attack the PCs to propel the plot forward, that's one less time the Bard or Cleric can do something useful with Diplomacy. If the PCs HAVE to find the trapdoor in the merchant's shop, then why do my PCs have ranks in search? Just put ranks in "Plot" instead, so that you can just say, "Yep, I get whatever I need to get to do that thing that moves us to the next encounter."

NPC to NPC plot stuff is great, and NPC to PC stuff is good, as long as it recognizes that PCs have a ton of abilities, and someone with a lot of social skills or high ranks in Sleight of Hand can fundamentally shift the nature of the adventure.

 

[Mighty Halfling]

Dungeon has been exceptional with their 3rd person Read-Aloud (aka boxed) text with the exception of the latest issue, where the PC's are insanely led by the nose from one encounter to the next with 2nd person-style writing (i.e. telling YOU what YOU are doing instead of what exists in view).

jh


..

Which Dungeon issue & adventure are you referring to?

 

[Emirikol]

THe new Dark Sun one. Read the Read-Aloud (aka boxed text) and tell me how many choices the PC's have had made for them... Count the number of times it say's "YOU," meaning the author is telling the PC's what they are doing instead of inviting them to participate...

The scenario is remotely interesting, however the Read-Aloud text is terrible.

jh

 

[Emirikol]

And yeah, as bottleneck-free as possible. If that minor villain HAS to attack the PCs to propel the plot forward, that's one less time the Bard or Cleric can do something useful with Diplomacy. If the PCs HAVE to find the trapdoor in the merchant's shop, then why do my PCs have ranks in search? Just put ranks in "Plot" instead, so that you can just say, "Yep, I get whatever I need to get to do that thing that moves us to the next encounter." NPC to NPC plot stuff is great, and NPC to PC stuff is good, as long as it recognizes that PCs have a ton of abilities, and someone with a lot of social skills or high ranks in Sleight of Hand can fundamentally shift the nature of the adventure.

Yes, we've found in Living Greyhawk scenario writing that bottlenecks are baaaaaaaaad. Any 'check' that is required in order to move the plot along is a baaaaaaaaad idea. That's a good joke about having 'ranks in PLOT' ha! ha!

Examples:
Must find a secret door to get to the final room
Must have a ranger or a tracker in the party in order to get to the next encounter (otherwise you have to go to town to hire somebody)
Must have a bard or someone with a specific knowledge skill along in order to understand the main meaning of the plots
Must have a good cleric to use 'turn undead power focus' to activate a door or gem
Must NOT kill a particular character in order to advance the plot
Must figure out a complicated OOC "trick" in order to get to final room
Must have a person with disable device in order to get to the next room
etc.

Adventures instead should have deliberate plots that players will remember, and be _enhanced_ by the actions of the characters. Skill checks should be rewarded and rarely are very effectively. I've seen parties of LG people say, "We don't need a Rogue, we'll just send the Barbarian in with his Trap sense. Rogues are worthless." Well, when a scenario considers the interesting things that each class can do, it can become a lot more fun for ALL players and the DM.

jh






..