D&D 5E What do you want in a published adventure? / Adventure design best practices?

Charles Rampant said:

Happy to help! For your reference, and to help anyone following along, this is what the page in question looks like.

On the other topic, I really don't mind the standard 5e model of monster names being Bold for reference to Volo's or the MM; but then I tend to pre-build all of the combats in a combat tracker on my iPad, so it's actually helpful to be able to read through the rooms and just note down the bold names. Page flipping is inevitable in RPGs - the moment your dungeon is longer than two pages long including map, it's going to involve page flipping - and efficient usage of space is not something that I associate with in-room combat descriptions. Lich Queen's Beloved, to refer to the other thread, can be a bit of a chore at times with page-long statblocks given longform in the text; it makes it a bit tough to work out what's in the room otherwise. Others seem to really want inline descriptions; I'm not sure I see the benefit unless that monster never reappears, or you're going for the 3e combat summary style mentioned by Shoak1.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm experimenting with different things in my own adventures, but I tried the "short form" stats for one encounter and realized I was producing a lot of text for monsters that all appeared in other parts of the adventure...

[SECTION]Mamluk of the Imperishable (14). Medium humanoid LN; AC 15 (17 with shield); HP 19; Spd 30; Senses 13; Lang common, ignan; Resist fire; Saves Str +2, Dex +1, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +0; #Att 1 longbow +3 (150/600 ft), 5 (1d8+1) piercing and 3 (1d6) fire; longsword +4 (5 ft), 6 (1d8+2) slashing; Special pack tactics, solidarity; CR 1 (200 XP); p. #.

Agha of the Imperishable. Medium humanoid LE; AC 16 (18 with shield); HP 90; Spd 30; Senses 14; Lang common, ignan; Resist fire; Immune exhaustion, frightened; Saves Str +7, Dex +5, Con +6, Int +1, Wis +4, Cha +6; #Att 3 flametongue +7 (5 ft), 8 (1d8+4) piercing and 7 (2d6) fire; longbow +5 (150/600 ft), 6 (1d8+2) slashpiercing and 3 (1d6) fire; Special commands (burning exhortation, march of flames, shield wall), beyond death; CR 7 (2,900 XP); p. #.

Shig’harakhi. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 14 (with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6)
CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.

Magma Mephit (familiar). Small elemental NE; AC 11; HP 22; Spd 30, fly 30; Senses 10 (darkvision 60); Lang common, ignan; Vulnerable cold; Immune fire, poison, poisoned; Saves Str -1, Dex +1, Con +1, Int -2, Wis =, Cha =; #Att 1 claw +3 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing and 2 (1d4) fire; fire breath (re6) Con DC 11 (15 ft cone) 2d6 fire/half; Special deathburst (Con 11, 2d6), Innate Spells (save DC 10) heat metal; CR 1/2 (100 XP); MM 216.[/SECTION]

Then in another room I have...

[SECTION]Mamluk of the Imperishable (2). Medium humanoid LN; AC 15 (17 with shield); HP 19; Spd 30; Senses 13; Lang common, ignan; Resist fire; Saves Str +2, Dex +1, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +0; #Att 1 longbow +3 (150/600 ft), 5 (1d8+1) piercing and 3 (1d6) fire; longsword +4 (5 ft), 6 (1d8+2) slashing; Special pack tactics, solidarity; CR 1 (200 XP); p. #.

Shig’harakhi. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 14 (with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6)
CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/SECTION]

And in a third guard room I have...

[SECTION]Mamluk of the Imperishable (2). Medium humanoid LN; AC 15 (17 with shield); HP 19; Spd 30; Senses 13; Lang common, ignan; Resist fire; Saves Str +2, Dex +1, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +0; #Att 1 longbow +3 (150/600 ft), 5 (1d8+1) piercing and 3 (1d6) fire; longsword +4 (5 ft), 6 (1d8+2) slashing; Special pack tactics, solidarity; CR 1 (200 XP); p. #.[/SECTION]

And that's not even including the area descriptions!

I have to question [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] are "short form" stats really a good idea across the board?

Or only for very specific types of small "fun house/monster menagerie" dungeons?

Quickleaf said:

When you say "every" room...that's a very high standard to hold an adventure to given the cost of commissioning art.

I'd say the vast majority of published adventures I've used have not met that standard. And for good reason. Too expensive for anyone except for *maybe* a WotC or FFG to pull off.

But maybe you didn't mean that to sound as absolute as it does? Maybe just having a map which covers the whole dungeon, including all rooms, is what you meant?

Click to expand...

This last part is what I meant.

But I will note that many adventures don't even have that. And I personally find that unacceptable. Even many WotC adventures don't have even have thematic maps for some locations. Hey, if it's just an ambush on the side of the road, no map necessary (I get the issue about costs of artwork for someone like WotC).

Though I will go back to my point that you can create your own maps that are near professional quality without an extensive investment in cost or time. I'm not artist, and with CC3+ I can make damn good looking maps in an hour after only using the s/w for about 50 hours total. (sure, their is a LOT I can't do well, but battle maps are easy!)

As proof, I will point you to this thread; http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?38853-Lord-Entrail-s-Maps
Anyone of those (by me) I would find acceptable quality for a DMsGuild or Drivethru RPG publication.

Quickleaf said:

One thing I saw in Out of the Abyss was notation like "4 myconids", with the bolded text referencing a monster stat block that either appeared in the MM or in the monstrous appendix of that book. Presumably this is done to save space and make room for new, interesting stuff in the pages of the adventure. It sounds like you're strongly down-voting that approach in favor of the AD&D ease-of-use approach, right?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

And page count isn't as much of an issue if you again go 1e style - smallish font size, not too much artwork, substance over style.

A follow-up question: Let's say there are developments – reactions the monsters might take to the party of intruders, such as sending reinforcements (or sacrificial propitiations) to the MAIN TEMPLE ROOM. Would you want those developments notated under each room in which they occur, or in a separate "Developments" section?

Click to expand...

Developments.

Part of what I'm driving at is that – at a certain point – you risk bloating a single area description with stuff the DM may or may not need. I'm trying to hone in on what that ambiguous line looks like.

Click to expand...

I think the room description should include whatever would go on or be there in the absence of any adventurers or intruders; and that there be two developments sections. The first would be a day by day (or other suitable time scale) timeline of what would happen in the absence of any intruders, and the second is a precis of how the occupants of the complex will react to intruders if able.

fjw70 said:

I prefer the adventures to reduce m prep time as much as possible. As a compromise between having stat blocks in the adventure and not is to have PDF reference sheets for each room with stats blocks, traps, treasure, etc. Maybe this could be a DMs Guild supplement for each adventure. It could include more detailed maps as well and eliminate the background story and art work.

Click to expand...

Yes, but then I have to print it all out. I'm paying for the module in part because they've printed it all out.

Oh, and one other important-to-me thing I completely forgot to mention in my initial response, for what a module should have:

Detached two- or three-fold maps (usually on the back of the module cover), on card stock thick enough to support itself when stood up - both to avoid page-flipping between maps and write-ups and so the module cover can do double duty as a DM screen.

Lanefan

shoak1 said:

Because there are many of us that play that way and eschew sandbox....

Click to expand...

So by this do you mean you want no choice points in an adventure at all? No hallway junctions without an obvious direction to take? No mazes?

Also, I'm beginning to tthink you're using the term 'sandbox' differently than most people here. Usually, sandbox play is what can happen between adventures/dungeons as the party are largely left to their own devices when it comes to determining/finding out about/locating what to do next, as opposed to being more or less led to it by the DM.

Before your recent posts here and elsewhere I've never heard the term sandbox used to describe what might happen within a single adventure module.

Lanefan

Quickleaf said:

I do something similar when prepping an adventure. Earlier, I'd floated the idea of a "Monster Index" with abbreviated stat blocks which [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] soundly rejected because it would involve ANY amount of page-flipping.

But it sounds like there's a middle ground, where you have the abbreviated stat blocks in the text, and then the "Monster Index" just gives you page-by-page lists of monster types and #s?



Is that common practice? I haven't seen many recent adventures do that, and certainly it was not common practice back in AD&D.

My sense is, outside of a Mike Schley or other cartographers employed by WotC, that what you're asking for really isn't done because it's an added expense which would mean higher markup on the adventure's price.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it's common or not, but it'd be really handy. And something I'd pay for as an add on.
The various 5e modules have great looking maps. Just presented so tiny that they're useless. I mean why bother making them pretty? The player's will never see that.

Lanefan said:

So by this do you mean you want no choice points in an adventure at all? No hallway junctions without an obvious direction to take? No mazes?.....Also, I'm beginning to think you're using the term 'sandbox' differently than most people here. Usually, sandbox play is what can happen between adventures/dungeons as the party are largely left to their own devices when it comes to determining/finding out about/locating what to do next, as opposed to being more or less led to it by the DM.

Before your recent posts here and elsewhere I've never heard the term sandbox used to describe what might happen within a single adventure module.

Click to expand...

Good question. Rather than try to answer that question directly, let me give you an example that might better articulate what I seek. Let's look at curse of strahd.

CoS is a sandbox module that allows PCs to venture wherever they wish, to any of the areas therein regardless of level. A linear adventure however, would put up strong roadblocks to deviating from the course outlined therein on p.6. Of course in between those two extremes there are many other styles and options re. strength of either "roadblocks" or the lesser control method we might call "steering mechanisms."

I would like to have seen a half page sidebar with "roadblocks" that could be used to support linear play as well as "steering mechanisms" that could support a halfway sandbox/linear style. In actuality they provided just storyline elements ("nudging mechanisms?") that gently nudged players in certain directions, and an outline on p6 that showed a possible sequence by level.

It doesn't seem like what I am asking for is too much, and it would provide a much more ready to use module for those of us who eschew sandbox play or prefer a hybrid style.

shoak1 said:

I would like to have seen a half page sidebar with "roadblocks" that could be used to support linear play as well as "steering mechanisms" that could support a halfway sandbox/linear style. In actuality they provided just storyline elements ("nudging mechanisms?") that gently nudged players in certain directions, and an outline on p6 that showed a possible sequence by level.

Click to expand...

Hm, I'm confused. Didn't Curse of Strahd do that with gentle nudging and a possible sequence by level? Or am I misremembering?

Or are you saying you want *more* clear guidance than what you just described?

Lanefan said:

Why does an adventure need a linear path?

Click to expand...

An adventure doesn't. Most published adventures should. Remember, DMs who are comfortable with running sandbox/open world campaigns are not the target for most published adventures.

Though I have to say my basis for that opinion is purely conjecture with minimal empirical evidence and only a limited amount of relevant anecdotes. IMO, those of us on this forum and in this discussion are not the target audience for most published adventures.

Ideally a good adventure never plays the same way twice, mostly because it's possible for a different approach to be taken by the party each time you run it.

A fine old-time example of this is the dungeon part of L1 Secret of Bone Hill. There's multiple ways to enter the castle/dungeon complex, multiple ways to go once inside including several closeable loops, and no guarantee for the DM what order things will be found/encountered in. Great design!

Click to expand...

"Linear" is a charged word, and maybe not what I was thinking of with that statement. To me, Bone Hill was still a pretty linear adventure (note that is has been a few decades since I last played or read it). Yes it has options for the PC's, and various closed loops, but it is still Do A, Do B, etc. It's just that there are many ways to accomplish A and B. And I too thought it was well designed.

I still think the target audience for most published adventures (80+% ?) is for those DMs that are; inexperienced, not comfortable with improvisation, or don't have or want to take the time to create their own adventures. Therefore published adventures should be easy to run.

For instance, I like PotA, but it is not easy to run. Unless you completely railroad the party along a proscribed path, then it's not a good adventure. But, if you run it open, then it's a good adventure (path) but the module organization is difficult and it requires a great deal of DM prep to run it well. To me, it's not a good "published adventure" and is much closer to a campaign setting or plot.

(Then again, part of that goes back to my feelings that an adventure should be something that takes a level or 3 to accomplish, and a campaign is something that takes 10, 15, or 20 levels to accomplish.)

ccs said:

I don't know if it's common or not, but it'd be really handy. And something I'd pay for as an add on.
The various 5e modules have great looking maps. Just presented so tiny that they're useless. I mean why bother making them pretty? The player's will never see that.

Click to expand...

Note, many of the cartographers WotC uses have personal websites where you can buy high resolution images of the adventure maps.

LordEntrails said:

IMO, those of us on this forum and in this discussion are not the target audience for most published adventures.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I was using Out of the Abyss as an Underdark sandbox, and I've chatted with a friend about trying roundtable DMing with Tomb of Annihilation.

I still think the target audience for most published adventures (80+% ?) is for those DMs that are; inexperienced, not comfortable with improvisation, or don't have or want to take the time to create their own adventures. Therefore published adventures should be easy to run.

Click to expand...

It's one thing to say "make it easy to run", but what does that mean in clear terms?

It sounds like you're saying at the top of that easy-to-run list is: Provide an unambiguous linear path option. Is that right?

(Then again, part of that goes back to my feelings that an adventure should be something that takes a level or 3 to accomplish, and a campaign is something that takes 10, 15, or 20 levels to accomplish.)

Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly concur.