"Organic" Adventure Design

[Zhaleskra]

Organic may not be the best word, but flexible sounded too casual. Because 1. I have games that base XP on goals, and 2. because people can and do plan things linear adventures aren't designed to react to, I was thinking about using goals to make an adventure that has natural reactions to what happens in game.

Of course, there will still be parts that are linear: there are only so many directions you can go in a dungeon, you teleported through THAT wall? Well, now you're outside the dungeon, or maybe pushed back in because that's where the wall connects with unworked rock.

As I may have mentioned, when I write my own adventures, I have given up on writing "scripts". I write outlines: here's what the PCs know is happening, here are the facts, go do stuff. Goals give NPCs more wiggle room than NPC-A does such and such at a particular time. I think this could help people engage more with the world in question.

Why can't NPC-D impose martial law? Well, technically he could, but with current relations between the two peoples, it's probably not a good idea. As an example, of course. Basically, I'm thinking of an outline, then if then statements based on characters doing things.

 

[Haltherrion]

Well, there aren't any unnatural pesticides and fertilizers in my setting so all the creatures the party kills are organic. And they just let the corpses rot in place so that seems kind of organic too

More seriously, it's been a very long time since I wrote a script. I like to capture likely NPCs and creatures, the basic situation, jot down some notes on encounters and interactions that could happen and let it go from there.

More of a here's who knows what, here's what they want, here's where and why they are where they are. Works for more RP type situations as well as more combat type.

My last two session notes have been along the lines of:

1. Party was returning to the surface after years of being lost underground (the lost bit was out of game)
   • Described several paths they could take (while being open to other options if they didn't like those)
   • Had a list of the sorts of things they might find on each path regarding signs of recent threats in this part of the underworld
   • Had a few encounters worked up that I would use as circumstances warranted
2. The next session (yet to run)
   • Described the exits to the surface in this part of the world
   • Described their status
   • Described why they are all currently block, by who and how effectively
   • Described a set of caverns serving as, essentially, a big refugee camp
   • Described three factions of underworlders each with their own goals regarding the surface and the current situation
   • Tossed in a few more NPCs that might be handy

So, stage setting but no scripting. Certainly there is an expectation that the players will continue to press for the surface but their PCs all have strong in-game motivations to do so. Besides, food in the underworld isn't so good...

 

[the Jester]

Organic may not be the best word, but flexible sounded too casual. Because 1. I have games that base XP on goals, and 2. because people can and do plan things linear adventures aren't designed to react to, I was thinking about using goals to make an adventure that has natural reactions to what happens in game.

Of course, there will still be parts that are linear: there are only so many directions you can go in a dungeon, you teleported through THAT wall? Well, now you're outside the dungeon, or maybe pushed back in because that's where the wall connects with unworked rock.

As I may have mentioned, when I write my own adventures, I have given up on writing "scripts". I write outlines: here's what the PCs know is happening, here are the facts, go do stuff. Goals give NPCs more wiggle room than NPC-A does such and such at a particular time. I think this could help people engage more with the world in question.

Why can't NPC-D impose martial law? Well, technically he could, but with current relations between the two peoples, it's probably not a good idea. As an example, of course. Basically, I'm thinking of an outline, then if then statements based on characters doing things.

That's a pretty sandboxy approach to an adventure, which is just my style. I suggest you try it out and enjoy the glorious scenario that unfolds. Then, when the pcs realize how terrible of a mess the situation they are in is, they'll look up at you with a baleful glare and you can say, "But it's all because of what you guys did!" It's a fantastic rat-bastard DM moment, that look of dawning horror as the pcs realize that the only reason the doppelganger assassin killed the king is because they stopped the villains from their ritual that would have summoned the demon that would have killed the doppelgangers off first.

 

[The Shaman]

I don't write adventures per se.

I create a bunch of npcs and organizations with goals they're pursuing - some are overt, others covert.

I roll up random encounters, many of which involve named npcs - through interaction with the npcs the adventurers may become involved with the npcs' goals, or with organizations with whom the npcs are affiliated. Some of the random encounters are rumors which may lead the adventurers to the npcs and organizations.

I create adventure locations to explore - they can be 'dungeons,' towns, cities, planets, whatever the setting and the genre require. Usually there are npc connections to these as well.

I may have a setting timeline - frex, our Flashing Blades campaign began in 1625, and I'm allowing the historical timeline to play out until or unless the adventurers do something to change it. Sometimes I use a random generator to introduce events in the background - for Traveller I used the random event tables in 1e AD&D Oriental Adventures, and this became the 'metaplot' of the evolving setting.

And then I toss in the adventurers.

This creates an environment around the adventurers in which their actions create repercussions. I don't know with whom they will interact or how that interaction will play out until it happens; there's no 'plot, no sequence of 'scenes.' There's only what the adventurers do, and don't do, and how the world reacts to that.

 

[Ariosto]

Basically, I'm thinking of an outline, then if then statements based on characters doing things.

That's one way to open up a bit something that remains essentially event-ordered.

An old-style dungeon (or wilderness, or town) is generally not -- except in a solo scenario such as the many for Tunnels & Trolls -- modeled as a sequence of events, even with branches, that one can map in advance.

The map instead is a literal, geographical one. Common features are keyed -- for instance, the typical appearance of Wayland's Armory, including the presence of Wayland himself and his apprentice.

Other things are randomized -- such as who and what one meets while walking down Grog Street on the occasion in question ("Look! A three-headed monkey!").

Events, whether instigated by the DM or by players, pretty naturally can create chains of other events in response. Someone steals something from Wayland. Upon discovering this, he sends his apprentice to seek the hire of a certain worthy oft found in the Horse Head and Eels. Later, both Ironmongers' Way and Grog Street will be abuzz with rumors.

The DM's adjudication depends largely on sketches of characteristics of people and places, causing them to respond in conformance with their natures. Rolls for reactions and other things help both to "keep it honest" and to keep the DM entertained with surprises.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Part of the inspiration is "making NPCs not be robots", and the other part is "not assuming the players are going to be dumb."

I have a series of linear adventures that form a small campaign (should take players to level 10, plus they get a cool template near the end that has an unusual eligibility requirement), and near the beginning the PCs will have to fight with an NPC they thought was their friend. By the time of this fight, they know of his betrayal, so assuming that the PCs don't set a watch would be stupid. Part 1 of the adventure says if they don't kill him, he becomes a recurring villain.

Also, I want to play this guy smart. He knows the PCs are onto him, so he's going to be prepared to make his ambush as stealthy as possible. There are also earlier bits of the game that could change what this guy does based on what the PCs do.

 

[Haltherrion]

Then, when the pcs realize how terrible of a mess the situation they are in is, they'll look up at you with a baleful glare and you can say, "But it's all because of what you guys did!" It's a fantastic rat-bastard DM moment, that look of dawning horror as the pcs realize that the only reason the doppelganger assassin killed the king is because they stopped the villains from their ritual that would have summoned the demon that would have killed the doppelgangers off first.

Meh. The referee better have done a very, very good job of presenting the full context before we the players made our ill-fated choices before I'd take that kind of response from the ref with good grace (assuming it was made seriously and not just as a jest).

Sure, the referee has a good idea of all the consequences of various actions (partly because he can consciously or not weed out the consequences he isn't partial to). But the players do not. They make their decision based on the campaign information available and, being human, on the referee's past behavior as demonstrated earlier in the campaign and in past campaigns. The human brain is a great inference engine. If for the last 35 times when they've met demon-summoner type guys, the correct response was to kill them, then you can't really blame the players if you suddenly change the rules. Nothing says you can't step your game up but mocking them for missing the transition is bad form.

In your particular example, without a good reason ahead of time for sparing the demon-summoners, the whole thing is going to feel like a setup on the DM's part. A very annoying setup whereby the ref is trying to get his kicks by messing with the players without good reason. Put another way, it seems to violate the covenant that the ref will be fair to the players in return for the players taking his game seriously. This smacks of manipulation.

Now if you've, as a ref, established all along that the world is a bit more complex and the players made a knee-jerk decision without exploring the full situation, then sure, mock away.

 

[Ariosto]

They make their decision based on the campaign information available and, being human, on the referee's past behavior as demonstrated earlier in the campaign and in past campaigns.

If they are still new to this referee's campaign, they may even be basing their responses on habits ingrained by other refs.

Zhaleskra seems to be taking a gradual approach, which may ease the transition from a more to a less linear setup.

 

[Haltherrion]

If they are still new to this referee's campaign, they may even be basing their responses on habits ingrained by other refs.

Very likely true; we're all human

Zhaleskra seems to be taking a gradual approach, which may ease the transition from a more to a less linear setup.

Gradual is good. Even abrupt is fine. If you have a new vision you want to try, go with it, just be considerate of the players as they adapt to the new style. Not really fair to malign them for playing by the "old rules" during the transition.

The only thing I'd object to as a player is having the ref rub such things in my face if it was abrupt. It's fine that there are hidden ramifications to actions but implying the player's screwed up, if the ref suddenly starts creating hidden actions when previously there was none is a bit much. Players need a chance to adapt as well. My reply was in response to The Jester's post and he may have been joking, however, in which case all is good.

 

[nedjer]

In the middle of a series about exactly this topic on blog in sig.

It distinguishes itself by containing a picture of some delicious cloudberry jam, which makes you