Best practices for easy-to-run modules [+]

[Bill Zebub]

This is a side complaint of mine. I think having set stats for monsters is terrible game design. Something like you see in video games, dynamic difficulty, would be so much better from a game design perspective. But then I also love me some OSR-style universal monster stat blocks.

I have always longed for scalable monsters. One thing I hate is how a deadly foe is suddenly trivial once you've gained a few levels.

Of course, I eventually realized the problem was in level-based games themselves. I have developed an affection for games where progression is not measured in levels, and a foe that is deadly to new characters is still dangerous to veterans.

 

[overgeeked]

Again, I sympathize, but people need to shift their perceptions on this. RPG scenarios should be thought of like tools, not heirlooms. They should be treated more like legacy board games, products that aren't produced cheaply just because players are going to mess with them.

Sorry. If it’s going to be expensive the thing better damned well last a long time. I’d rather get a pad of tear-off sheets to use up with the hardback. Or a box with good glue-bound books plus cards and other buts. Dry-erase sheets or cards would split the difference.

I have shelves of old staple-bound supplements and modules and most are falling apart from use. I’m over that as physical media. For me it’s sturdy hardbacks or digital.

 

[EpicureanDM]

Yeah. There should be something going on, some goal or objective more than simply “murder everything.” One major reason most dungeons and modules are so boring.

Yes, but the designer has to tell the GM what that is. If your design has a purpose, don't take the chance that the GM won't read between the lines. This is what I mean by the designer and GM being behind the curtain together.

Maybe a sports metaphor works here? If a coach (scenario designer) has a play drawn up, he needs to explain it to the players (GMs). It's the players who have to execute the play. So talk (write) in a way that makes the play (encounter/situation) transparent for the people who need to do it (at the table).

Importantly, speak in terms of the rules! If the game supports it, the designer should be talking about how the GM can use the game's rules to serve the encounter/situation design. Isn't that what game design should be about? Using the game's rules to produce interesting play at the table? Assuming a scenario's design has some actual game design (and shouldn't it?) rather than just "narrative" design, the designer should be able to talk that way in the text.

 

[EpicureanDM]

Sorry. If it’s going to be expensive the thing better damned well last a long time. I’d rather get a pad of tear-off sheets to use up with the hardback. Or a box with good glue-bound books plus cards and other buts. Dry-erase sheets or cards would split the difference.

I have shelves of old staple-bound supplements and modules and most are falling apart from use. I’m over that as physical media. For me it’s sturdy hardbacks or digital.

Maybe you use more pressure when you write, but I've never had a book physically disintegrate because I wrote a lot of notes in it.

 

[EpicureanDM]

Speaking of legacy board games, why don't RPG scenarios come with stickers? I can't think of a specific example, but tracking events during play with stickers might help in more complex adventures.

 

[overgeeked]

I have always longed for scalable monsters. One thing I hate is how a deadly foe is suddenly trivial once you've gained a few levels.

Exactly the same here. My ideal monster stat block would be all the flavor and descriptions with markers for higher or lower stats in given areas so you can scale them at will.

And the great thing about having the ability to scale the monsters if you want is the people who don’t want to can just use set numbers. Goblins are always 1st level, etc.

Of course, I eventually realized the problem was in level-based games themselves.

I’d say it’s a math problem. And it’s got a solution. It’s easy to solve for that increase in games where the numbers go up every level. D&D did it in 4E. And plenty of people have done it for 5E.

I have developed an affection for games where progression is not measured in levels, and a foe that is deadly to new characters is still dangerous to veterans.

Again, very much the same.

Also games where “murder everything” isn’t the default, and quite likely isn’t an option for the real threats. Games like Dragonbane, Call of Cthulhu, Mothership, etc.

 

[EpicureanDM]

I thought of another potential idea.

In games like 5e where DCs are included in the text, I might put a probability percentage next to it. For example, I might write:

"It's a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) (60%) check to climb the cliff."

The 60% figure would tell the GM how likely I, the designer, think it should be for a PC to scale that cliff. The fighter in my personal 5e game might have a 60% chance of success thanks to their proficiency bonus and stats. Depending on the level of the adventure, I might assume that most PCs of the right level will have stats and bonuses that give them a 60% chance to make a DC 15 roll.

What that 60% figure does, though, is signal to GMs my intent behind setting the DC at 15. Every GM knows their own party and, in a game like 5e, should be able to calculate how many of their own PCs have a 60% chance to successfully climb that cliff. When the party comes to that cliff, the GM can decide whether to stick to what the design says or adjust it to fit their table. They can do that because I've given them insight into how my design takes the game's rules into account.

This is the kind of transparency we should be aiming for in order to improve how RPG scenarios are made.

 

[overgeeked]

Maybe you use more pressure when you write, but I've never had a book physically disintegrate because I wrote a lot of notes in it.

I wouldn’t know. I’ve never written in any book I’ve ever owned. Notebooks, sure. Book books, never. Highlighters? In textbooks, sure.

My old staple-bound books are falling apart from 40+ years of reading and use.

 

[overgeeked]

I thought of another potential idea.

In games like 5e where DCs are included in the text, I might put a probability percentage next to it. For example, I might write:

"It's a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) (60%) check to climb the cliff."

The 60% figure would tell the GM how hard I, the designer, think how likely it is that a PC could scale that cliff. The fighter in my personal 5e game might have a 60% chance of success thanks to their proficiency bonus and stats. Depending on the level of the adventure, I might assume that most PCs of the right level will have stats and bonuses that give them a 60% chance to make a DC 15 roll.

What that 60% figure does, though, is signal to GMs my intent behind setting the DC at 15. Every GM knows their own party and, in a game like 5e, should be able to calculate how many of their own PCs have a 60% chance to successfully climb that cliff. When the party comes to that cliff, the GM can decide whether to stick to what the design says or adjust it to fit their table. They can do that because I've given them insight into how my design takes the game's rules into account.

And that makes it easier to convert to other systems.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And that makes it easier to convert to other systems.

That's why I want the dedicated online adventure publishing platform. Go up to the system menu, scroll down to the system you want, click, and everything converts to that system.

(Then @Micah Sweet could click the "download as PDF" button....)