Fair enough. But I think the association there is more closely related with the nature of the Dragonlance series itself than the author. I don't see a Hickman-railroad connection per se, but I DO see a Dragonlance-railroad connection. Even then, I believe that part of the problem was trying to do something new with the modules (recreate an already told story) and having little experience as to how best to do it.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Adventure Design Philosophy (was: Best D&D Adventures)
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Fair enough. But I think the association there is more closely related with the nature of the Dragonlance series itself than the author. I don't see a Hickman-railroad connection per se, but I DO see a Dragonlance-railroad connection. Even then, I believe that part of the problem was trying to do something new with the modules (recreate an already told story) and having little experience as to how best to do it.
Having thought about it, the distinction that I see is that many of the early modules provided a setting (the dungeon) and one possible purpose for exploring the setting. However, fulfilling the purpose rarely required exhaustive exploration of the setting, and thus the setting could support many other purposes.
Later modules provided a setting that was much more tightly integrated with the purpose, or plot, of the adventure. This cut out a lot the stuff on the periphery that gave DMs freedom to expand and create their own plots from the setting. I think it's a trade-off that depends on personal preference. A tightly integrated setting and plot allows the module to present a more compelling plot and reduces the requirement for the DM to create interesting plot elements. An extreme example of this would be the Barrow of the Forgotten King. A loosely integrated setting and plot provides many tools and ideas for the DM to use and provides more freedom for the players to direct the action outside of the presented plot. An extreme example of this would be Dwellers of the Forbidden City.
I think both are fun when done well, but my best experiences have been with the more loosely integrated setting/plot of modules from bygone eras.
Later modules provided a setting that was much more tightly integrated with the purpose, or plot, of the adventure. This cut out a lot the stuff on the periphery that gave DMs freedom to expand and create their own plots from the setting. I think it's a trade-off that depends on personal preference. A tightly integrated setting and plot allows the module to present a more compelling plot and reduces the requirement for the DM to create interesting plot elements. An extreme example of this would be the Barrow of the Forgotten King. A loosely integrated setting and plot provides many tools and ideas for the DM to use and provides more freedom for the players to direct the action outside of the presented plot. An extreme example of this would be Dwellers of the Forbidden City.
I think both are fun when done well, but my best experiences have been with the more loosely integrated setting/plot of modules from bygone eras.
Then again, it's not very accurate to compare a 96-page campaign module with a 32-page adventure module. In fact, this type of module design (open-ended, lots of exploring opportunities) exactly typifies many of the 1e or BECM modules, but due to scope and size is not as exhaustive as more recent offerings.
ExploderWizard
Hero
This is exactly what it boils down to. Each DM likes more or less integrated plot in thier choice of published adventures. I am happy with just maps, stats and some notes because I can create stories and NPC motivations on the fly. Some DMS prefer a ready made story "out of the box". There is plenty of room for all kinds of adventures because each DM is looking for something different.
Jan van Leyden
Adventurer
In one corner we have the 'classic' style. It is basically one or more maps, a lot of tbk inhabitants and sometimes some memorable treasure. Hook, plot, and context have to be provided for by the DM.
If run without preparation by the DM, this adventures are basic examples of the Enter-the-room-kill-the-monster-take-the-stuff style. If run by a creative DM investing time and work for the preparation, adaption, and personalisation of the adventure, there are no limits of what level of play can be reached.
In the other corner we have the 'railroad' style. Taken to its extremes, it is little more than a game-book, where the story is interspersed with decision points.
If run without preparation by the DM, players will experience an illusion of a story where their characters are the actors. As long as the illusion persists, i.e. the players believe that they actually control their characters and, thus, the story, they may experience a great adventure, but as soon as the illusion breaks down...
Oh wait! We have a third corner over there! The string-of-pearls style! It tries to combine the advantages of both its competitors. The DL-series is, as far as I know, the first example of this style. Each single adventure is a lot like in the classic style: the players enjoy a lot of freedom, the actual plot is not overly enforced. But to proceed from one advenuter (pearl) to the next you have to maneuver through the connecting string.
When I lived through the series as a player, our DM tried to give us free reign. After destroying Kisanth in Xak Tsaroth, he let us go wherever we wanted to.
We got hopelessly distracted (left the string) and nearly didn't 'find' the next adventure.
The string-of-pearls style with pearls of freedom connected into a compelling plot is my favourite style of adventures. This model scales very well; you can actually use it to construct a single adventure made up from several parts. A good example for this would be the first adventure in the Age of Worms AP.
The bad news is that I have yet to see such an adventure or campaign actively using this structure. The connection points or interfaces are in most cases not well defined and described. With 'interface' I mean all the information necessary to proceed from one pearl to the next. What do the characters have to achieve/get/know in order to proceed? What triggers (for plot driven adventures) can trigger the next 'pearl'?
This information is essential but usually well hidden in the text or sometimes even not clearly expressed at all: "The heroes can use the Key of Utmost Importance to open the door... ? Uh, but my players don't have the key. Damn, I don't even remember where and when this KUI was to be found!
Uh guys, you can't open this door... there is actually no way to open it at all 
"
Ah well, enough rumblings for now. Hungry children waiting for their dinner
Huldvoll
---Jan van Leyden
If run without preparation by the DM, this adventures are basic examples of the Enter-the-room-kill-the-monster-take-the-stuff style. If run by a creative DM investing time and work for the preparation, adaption, and personalisation of the adventure, there are no limits of what level of play can be reached.
In the other corner we have the 'railroad' style. Taken to its extremes, it is little more than a game-book, where the story is interspersed with decision points.
If run without preparation by the DM, players will experience an illusion of a story where their characters are the actors. As long as the illusion persists, i.e. the players believe that they actually control their characters and, thus, the story, they may experience a great adventure, but as soon as the illusion breaks down...
Oh wait! We have a third corner over there! The string-of-pearls style! It tries to combine the advantages of both its competitors. The DL-series is, as far as I know, the first example of this style. Each single adventure is a lot like in the classic style: the players enjoy a lot of freedom, the actual plot is not overly enforced. But to proceed from one advenuter (pearl) to the next you have to maneuver through the connecting string.
When I lived through the series as a player, our DM tried to give us free reign. After destroying Kisanth in Xak Tsaroth, he let us go wherever we wanted to.
We got hopelessly distracted (left the string) and nearly didn't 'find' the next adventure.
The string-of-pearls style with pearls of freedom connected into a compelling plot is my favourite style of adventures. This model scales very well; you can actually use it to construct a single adventure made up from several parts. A good example for this would be the first adventure in the Age of Worms AP.
The bad news is that I have yet to see such an adventure or campaign actively using this structure. The connection points or interfaces are in most cases not well defined and described. With 'interface' I mean all the information necessary to proceed from one pearl to the next. What do the characters have to achieve/get/know in order to proceed? What triggers (for plot driven adventures) can trigger the next 'pearl'?
This information is essential but usually well hidden in the text or sometimes even not clearly expressed at all: "The heroes can use the Key of Utmost Importance to open the door... ? Uh, but my players don't have the key. Damn, I don't even remember where and when this KUI was to be found!
Uh guys, you can't open this door... there is actually no way to open it at all "Ah well, enough rumblings for now. Hungry children waiting for their dinner
Huldvoll
---Jan van Leyden
knightofround
First Post
If I'm understanding what you're describing correctly, I would recommend checking out the drow war series by mongoose publishing. Essentially its a bunch of adventure "pearls" stringed together by the PCs actions. The PCs are constrained by a timeframe, but are given free roam to pursue whatever activities they may choose. Basically its the sort of the story where if the PCs get the Key of Utmost Importance it can play an important role in the plot, but if they don't get it there's no big deal, alternate paths are provided for that are in many ways even more interesting than if the PCs do everything "right" and complete the adventures "correctly".
Dragonbait
Explorer
In my old groups, the classics were not the old 1ed modules, but adventures like:
The Rod of Seven Parts, Doors to the Unknown (Planescape), Hardiger House (Planescape), and The Eternal Boundry (Planescape)
Each had dungeons, but we grew up on 2ed and jumbo dugeoncrawls were reviled by us. We didn't start doing dungeons until 3E and that was because those were the only adventures we could find.
The Rod of Seven Parts, Doors to the Unknown (Planescape), Hardiger House (Planescape), and The Eternal Boundry (Planescape)
Each had dungeons, but we grew up on 2ed and jumbo dugeoncrawls were reviled by us. We didn't start doing dungeons until 3E and that was because those were the only adventures we could find.
It's really funny how different my experience is from everyone here. I started out with 3e. I think the first adventure I ever bought (outside of Dungeon mags and "The Red Mask of Red Death" Ravenloft box, thinking it was a D&D game) was "The Speaker Of Dreams". I really liked it; never ran it, but I still dig it a whole lot, and wish I could run it sometime.
Only recently have I been looking up the "Classic" adventures. I crack them open, find just maps, list of rooms, and I scratch my head and say "What the hell is this? This is what people rave about? What's so great about it, and where's the plot?" The only old skewl module that seems to have a backstory is The Night Below.
In fact, this is the sole reason I pick up modules. I've only ran two out of the box ("Three Days to Kill" and "The Hangman's Noose"). Others, I just rip off set pieces, villains, plots, or monsters. For instance, I am severely tempted to buy Thunderspire Labyrinth, purely for the adventure sites inside it. (Granted, I would've ran Paizo's Crimson Throne adventure path if my players had been interested).
[sblock]So you go into one dungeon to rescue hostages. You go through, get a few, and then WHOOPS, you find out that there is another survivor in another dungeon. Rinse, repeat. That can be very frustrating, instead of rewarding.[/sblock]
Only recently have I been looking up the "Classic" adventures. I crack them open, find just maps, list of rooms, and I scratch my head and say "What the hell is this? This is what people rave about? What's so great about it, and where's the plot?" The only old skewl module that seems to have a backstory is The Night Below.
I think many DMs are not afraid to yank something good out of an adventure. For instance, taking Paizo's "Burnt Offerings", and using the starting town for their own game unrelated to the rest of the adventure.
In fact, this is the sole reason I pick up modules. I've only ran two out of the box ("Three Days to Kill" and "The Hangman's Noose"). Others, I just rip off set pieces, villains, plots, or monsters. For instance, I am severely tempted to buy Thunderspire Labyrinth, purely for the adventure sites inside it. (Granted, I would've ran Paizo's Crimson Throne adventure path if my players had been interested).
Except that it can be equally as frustrating. For example, take Thunderspire Labyrinth:
[sblock]So you go into one dungeon to rescue hostages. You go through, get a few, and then WHOOPS, you find out that there is another survivor in another dungeon. Rinse, repeat. That can be very frustrating, instead of rewarding.[/sblock]
Last edited:
I succumbed to the temptation yesterday after reading the review on RPGnet, but haven't had a chance to have a look at it yet.
Similar Threads
