D&D General Orcs on Stairs (When Adventures Are Incomplete)

[Lyxen]

I don't think that's the issue here. @Retreater isn't complaining about not having every contingency covered. He's not complaining about having to spend time preparing an adventure and adjusting it for his players. He's complaining about having to spend too much of that prep time fixing all the glaringly obvious plot holes and flaws just to be able to make the adventure playable, never mind adjusting it to suit the tastes of his own players. Those are different issues.

Hmmm, the title and the anecdotes "Orcs on Stairs" seem to be more about one encounter design than about global plot holes in a campaign.

But for me, it's he same thing. If you run a module, read it from start to end. If you run a campaign, read it from start to end, and if you find plot holes due to your (positively) biased reading with the lens of your experience and the expectations of your group, make the necessary decisions. A campaign is even more variable and complex than a simple module and even more a simple encounter, so it's even more necessary to make your own sanity check. Once more, it's easy to say "all publications suck" without publishing something yourself, I'm pretty sure that if all the complainers tried, they would realize how easy it is for readers to tear new holes through their plot.

Of course, I'm not saying that all publications are perfect, but they are designed to inspire you and give you element, not do the job of DMing for you.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

He's complaining about having to spend too much of that prep time fixing all the glaringly obvious plot holes and flaws just to be able to make the adventure playable, never mind adjusting it to suit the tastes of his own players. Those are different issues.

Setting aside issue the OP outlines has nothing to do with plot, the idea that you think plot holes matter is so - quaint.

I mean, have you ever seen a movie?!!

I mean consider the early D&D adventure I mentioned earlier, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. It's very existence makes no sense whatsoever. Who built it? Why? What do the creatures who live there eat? Why do they never leave their rooms? How do they avoid triggering the traps? Why are they immune to the poison gas? Who resets the traps? Why is a nereid taking a bath in some mouldy underground hole? the answer to all of these is "it doesn't matter".

Now D&D has an added point - the players only know as much as their characters know. They should not expect to be able to make sense of everything when they only have access to part of the story. That in itself would be an unrealistic plot hole.

 

[Lyxen]

Sorry, shouldn't laugh.

Actually, while looking for the module in my archive, I also found the (as usual) incredibly entertaining play-through map, and, I kid you not, it says:

I laughed (again)...

This from, of course:

 

[Mort]

Of course, I'm not saying that all publications are perfect, but they are designed to inspire you and give you element,

Sure, and that's how I use most adventures. Get inspired, and use elements from the adventure but making it my own.

not do the job of DMing for you.

But they ARE supposed to make the DMs job easier; that's how they are marketed/sold. So when an adventure has pieces/elements missing that are clearly necessary for the DM to actually run it like it's supposed to be run? That's extremely frustrating for someone who thought it was supposed to be an aid.

 

[Lyxen]

But they ARE supposed to make the DMs job easier; that's how they are marketed/sold. So when an adventure has pieces/elements missing that are clearly necessary for the DM to actually run it like it's supposed to be run? That's extremely frustrating for someone who thought it was supposed to be an aid.

And is it really necessary ? Or just necessary in some extreme cases ? Or even very common cases ? I agree that if it's the last one, it's probably badly written, but out of all the published adventures, I don't think I've found any. If anything, the adventures often run more on the "railroading" side of things to make sure that it does not happen, it's usually the more sandboxy ones who would have such a plot hole, but then, if it's "sandboxy", it obviously requires more work from the DM.

I can understand some frustration but shouldn't it rather be called an opportunity to check that you have understood the module and for you to provide some input ?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This "Orcs on Stairs" phenomenon happens for a multitude of reasons, but if I had to pinpoint the primary cause, I would assert that it happens because many modules are designed to be read and enjoyed, not actually run by a DM.

DING DING DING winner!

Yeah this has been like, increasingly a phenomenon since the 1990s. The first time I really saw it was with some World of Darkness adventure/campaign books, which really seemed like they were mostly about the writer telling a story, rather than trying to make a playable adventure. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought this - I forget where I read it (perhaps in an article here, perhaps elsewhere), but one of the main White Wolf guys was continually annoyed by other writers focusing on their NPCs and their stories rather than making playable adventures which made the PCs the centre of things.

Much as I've praised Paizo's Adventure Paths, I think they encouraged the phenomenon even further.

Generally what I've found is the chances of a module being written to read rather than play is directly proportional to the length of the module. Short adventures? Like a few pages? Whilst they may have a showy plot, they're nearly always written to play. Massive campaign-length deals with really prominent NPCs? High odds that's basically written to read.

And certainly it's not wrong to treat the market that way - most of the people I know who own tons of campaign-length adventures don't even actively DM! Some of them don't even actually play RPGs! But they read the adventures for sure.

It's what, in 4E, caused me to stop buying adventures. I finally got to the point where literally the majority of adventures I bought made me do more work than it would take to just write my own adventure, because they were being written for people to read, not to actually run.

Sure, and that's how I use most adventures. Get inspired, and use elements from the adventure but making it my own.

See, if that's all an adventure is good for, to me, I feel hugely ripped-off and won't buy from that author (and maybe not that publisher) again. As you can imagine, I stopped buying WotC adventures because of this. I want usable material. I want massive time savings. Otherwise why am I giving you money? Ideas I have by the boatload. Time I sometimes do not. The idea in buying an adventure for me is I exchange my money for your time and effort. I'm not buying it to admire it!

And is it really necessary ? Or just necessary in some extreme cases ? Or even very common cases ? I agree that if it's the last one, it's probably badly written, but out of all the published adventures, I don't think I've found any.

I've personally found tons in published adventures. 4E's initial trilogy (?) of official WotC adventures were wall-to-wall with confused, contradictory, or missing information. Were they badly written? Yes they were. I agree that DMs need to be able to handle basic stuff, but these were rife with weirdly missing info, and contradictions. In many cases you couldn't see the contradictions until you played the adventure, but then they became immediately clear, and the players noticed them. It's not just WotC either - another 4E adventure I bought from a 3PP had a delightful plot/concept but like the entire back half of the adventure was vague and unfinished-seeming, and the whole thing nearly got derailed because the PCs just said "Well that's obviously a trap" to one area of the castle it was set in and refused to enter.


Back on the OP's point, i.e. adventures that don't give out pretty vital details or basic considerations, that does happen, but my experience has been much more that published adventures often:

A) Directly contradict themselves.

Especially where multiple authors worked on a project. The same NPC might be described two different ways, with very different attitudes or even abilities, for example. You might not pick that up on a read-through unless you're taking careful notes, and it is my view you should not need to take careful notes to run a published, paid-for adventure (free, sure).

B) Have elements so nonsensical that it causes a problem and cannot easily be swept under the rug.

4E WotC adventures were godawful for this. Players are curious and intelligent. We know this. Not sensible. Curious. They will pry into any mystery, and 4E's early WotC adventures were stuffed full of "mysteries" that were purely the result of bad writing, not the result of intentional creation of mysteries. Just lazy stuff like "Oh there's X monster in this room", even though it makes no sense, which was fine in like, 1984, but not so fine in 2008, when the adventure is trying to make out it makes sense and isn't just a random series of encounters lol.

C) Present the PCs with a choice, where you can predict "adventurers" are basically going to select Choice A 50% of the time, but the adventure only works if the PCs select Choice B. "But thou must". It's like, don't put in a choice like that if you're not going to support it. I'd rather have a railroad than a false choice.

This is one of my most-hated things published adventures, and it's pretty common. I've seen it really screw newer/less-experienced DMs, because they trust the adventure (the poor fools), and they present the choice, and then either they realize they're screwed because the adventure doesn't account for the obvious choice. One guy I know just straight-up ended a campaign because of this. I mean, was it a learning experience for him? Sure. Did he go on to be a great DM? Sure. But did he need to get a boot to the nuts from a badly-written adventure he trusted? No. (That was a WEG Star Wars campaign, IIRC.)

Oh a sort of subset of this is adventures which are incredibly easy to "short-circuit" in an obvious way. Like, if the players just decide to get suspicious of a certain NPC early on, the adventure stops, and the entire logic of the adventure depends on this. We once had a CoC adventure end because one of the PCs just straight-up shot an obviously-evil NPC he didn't trust, and whilst we then had the adventure of "covering up a murder", the entire plot derailed because of it. Also covering up a murder in the 1920s was way easier than defeating Mythos stuff!

I tend to put adventures out of my mind so I don't have immediate specifics but if they come to me (and they may), I will add them to the thread.

 

[Mort]

See, if that's all an adventure is good for, to me, I feel hugely ripped-off and won't buy from that author (and maybe not that publisher) again. As you can imagine, I stopped buying WotC adventures because of this. I want usable material. I want massive time savings. Otherwise why am I giving you money? Ideas I have by the boatload. Time I sometimes do not. The idea in buying an adventure for me is I exchange my money for your time and effort. I'm not buying it to admire it!
.

Yes, and that was the second part of my post. Many, if not most, people use adventures as a time savor and if it doesn't accomplish that goal, it's failed.

And is it really necessary ? Or just necessary in some extreme cases ? Or even very common cases ? I agree that if it's the last one, it's probably badly written, but out of all the published adventures, I don't think I've found any. If anything, the adventures often run more on the "railroading" side of things to make sure that it does not happen, it's usually the more sandboxy ones who would have such a plot hole, but then, if it's "sandboxy", it obviously requires more work from the DM.

I can understand some frustration but shouldn't it rather be called an opportunity to check that you have understood the module and for you to provide some input ?

It's necessary WAY more often than it should be. Take Dragon Heist, not only is it a railroad it's even a bad railroad. There is connective tissue missing between the various chapters making it hard for the DM to get the PCs from points A-B-C etc. without doing quite a bit of work outside of the module. This is quite frustrating for anyone who thought they bought a complete product that the players could just run through.

Sure it's not usually hard for an experienced DM, but for a new one, or for an experienced one hoping to save time - it's not great. Especially when it's billed as a complete product, but is anything but.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Especially when it's billed as a complete product, but is anything but.

Yeah this is what gets me.

Like, you want to sell me an adventure/campaign framework, or a scenario, sell me it as that. Be clear on the limitations, be clear what you're offering and what you're not so I can make a decision about the value. Because it's not just the money. It's the time it'll take me to read the adventure - and it's kind of worse if I have to read for an hour or three before I realize this isn't going to work, or that huge chunks are missing.

Sometimes modules are really clear on their limitations, esp. 3PP stuff - I've come across ones which really clearly said "Yeah we did X but you'll need to fill in Y". But WotC always markets pretty much all its adventures as complete/finished and in my experience, they're some of the least finished on the market (factoring in 3PPs).

Even if you're going to market it as complete, or just fail to mention it isn't, the preamble to the adventure should make it clear where the DM is going to need to "fill in the blanks" if significant sections aren't complete/present, but again, it's extremely rare to see that.

And even reviews often don't help, because they tend to be capsule, not playtest reviews, and the reviewers are often so busy praising the aesthetic or conceptual elements of the adventure they don't even notice the missing bits. So it's more like, after a while you start to see for people asking for help with certain adventures and not others. Like, I presume The Wild Beyond The Witchlight isn't missing as much as some, because I haven't seen any "Argh pls help" or "Let's improve" threads about it (I may just have missed them though), whereas Dragon Heist has caused countless (and having looked at it when I had access via DDB - I may still, not sure - I could see why).

 

[Dausuul]

This sounds, to me, like one of the fundamental ideas behind what Dungeon World calls "Draw Maps, Leave Blanks." That is, you know enough about the mountain(/tower) to know what it can do, in this context. You leave blank things that don't need to be specified until such time that they do need to be specified.

The point of drawing maps and leaving blanks is a) to save yourself work and b) to leave space to introduce new story elements.

Neither one applies here. In the amount of space required to write "A fall would probably be fatal," you could just as easily write "The drop is 500 feet." And if you're trying to leave room for new story elements, a cliff of unknown height offers about the least scope of any "blank" I can imagine.

Furthermore, by introducing opponents with weapons designed to knock PCs off the ledge, the author is making it likely that the distance will need to be specified, and therefore the author should do it. Writing a module means you can't simply wait to see if it becomes relevant in the game, because you aren't the one running the game--it is your job, for which you are (theoretically) being paid, to put some thought into anticipating these things.

 

[el-remmen]

Three things that reading this thread have brought to mind:

1. I don't think plugging some holes and gaps in a published adventure is nearly the same in terms of time and effort as writing your own adventure. So, I think the "I might as well write my own adventure" response to finding some is either hyperbole or myopia. I mean, I am certain there are some adventures that are so fragmented that perhaps it would be easier to write your own, but most are not.

2. What is a gap or hole or something we want the module to tell us varies from DM to DM and table to table. My guess is that it is literally impossible for a writer/editor team to notice and catch them all because frame of reference is different.

I guess it bears mentioning that I find many such gaps and holes to be happy accidents of the type described above that allow a DM to fit their own take on what matters there. So for me the bug of #2 is a frequently a feature for me.

3. And this is not directly related but in one of the WotC D&D previews last week, one of the lauded features of the spelljammer adventure (I think) was that every chapter ends in a cliffhanger! But my immediate thought was, how can I or the module writer know when and how and where the PCs will be when a chapter ends? I could be wrong, but to me that sounds like the adventure assumes the PCs will be brought to a certain place or point for each chapter - which I understand some people like, but to me that level of narrative detail is a straitjacket that is more troublesome to get around than almost any technical hole or gap, like the height of some stairs or how a trap is reset.