A different model of adventure writing?
- Thread starter Pielorinho
- Start date
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Interesting responses, folks. I definitely see the advantage of site-based adventures; the one thing that I think it missing from many of them, however, is interesting motivations on the part of the villains. It's one thing for a dungeon to be stocked chock full of monsters. It's another thing for the dungeon to be stocked chock full of monsters led by two groups, the first of which wants to build a force capable of taking over a nearby dwarven settlement and the second of which wants to increase the mining operations in the dungeon with the ultimate goal of uncovering a forgotten artifact forged by the gods.
I can come up with interesting motivations, mind you -- but I can also come up with interesting maps, if it comes to that. And I'd pay folks good money to start me off with some motivations for the NPCs that I wouldn't normally think of.
I think that good NPC motivations are even more vital to a fun adventure than good locations, and lead to cohesive and wonderfully complicated stories.
If a timeline has too much railroading (not that I think it necessarily has to have), what if an adventure simply contained detailed motivations for the major NPCs? That way, the DM would have a lot more to work with, I think.
Daniel
I can come up with interesting motivations, mind you -- but I can also come up with interesting maps, if it comes to that. And I'd pay folks good money to start me off with some motivations for the NPCs that I wouldn't normally think of.
I think that good NPC motivations are even more vital to a fun adventure than good locations, and lead to cohesive and wonderfully complicated stories.
If a timeline has too much railroading (not that I think it necessarily has to have), what if an adventure simply contained detailed motivations for the major NPCs? That way, the DM would have a lot more to work with, I think.
Daniel
It has been mentioned, but I think it bears repeating that essentially, the DM is responsible for making things work, and work for his players in particular. Published adventures (the good ones anyway) are designed to do as much of the work for the DM as possible. But no adventure can do it all (otherwise, you would not need a DM and we would all be playing Warhammer Quest). basically, I see a pre-written adventure as a shooting script, while the actual game session itself is the finished movie.
Games are entertainment, and for most groups that is analogous to movies and books. Movies and books absolutely brim with coincidence and "advantageous" plot twists. they have to in order to keep the story moving and keep the audience entertained. i don't think games are any different really. Being "director", the DM has to manipulate those coincidences and plot hooks into a reasonably plausible framework.
However, players are often forgot about in discussions like this. Player contributions cannot be overstated, as this is a cooperative hobby. The best players are not just the ones who know the game or get into character or "play by the rules". What makes good players is the recognition that they, too, are creating a story. When the DM says "The Oakburner Clan of gnolls has suddenly stopped raiding the merchant caravans" or some such, the players know that the adventure is about, or at least begins with, the Oakburner Clan of gnolls. Good players will go out of their way to motivate their characters into seeking out the gnolls and investigating why they have so suddenly changed their behavior. Bad players will decide to go cockatrice hunting two baronies over. Personally, i have never been able to understand the kind of player that is constantly at odds with the DM on that level. At the very least, that player should let the DM know what kind of adventure he or she wants to go on. But that is a rant for another day.
Games are entertainment, and for most groups that is analogous to movies and books. Movies and books absolutely brim with coincidence and "advantageous" plot twists. they have to in order to keep the story moving and keep the audience entertained. i don't think games are any different really. Being "director", the DM has to manipulate those coincidences and plot hooks into a reasonably plausible framework.
However, players are often forgot about in discussions like this. Player contributions cannot be overstated, as this is a cooperative hobby. The best players are not just the ones who know the game or get into character or "play by the rules". What makes good players is the recognition that they, too, are creating a story. When the DM says "The Oakburner Clan of gnolls has suddenly stopped raiding the merchant caravans" or some such, the players know that the adventure is about, or at least begins with, the Oakburner Clan of gnolls. Good players will go out of their way to motivate their characters into seeking out the gnolls and investigating why they have so suddenly changed their behavior. Bad players will decide to go cockatrice hunting two baronies over. Personally, i have never been able to understand the kind of player that is constantly at odds with the DM on that level. At the very least, that player should let the DM know what kind of adventure he or she wants to go on. But that is a rant for another day.
Eosin the Red
First Post
While not site based - I found Witchfire to be exactly what I am looking for as a DM (except, I run WoT not steampunk). Many complain that it railroads characters but as others have pointed out the DM should use an adventure like this as a script not a finished product.
Several villians (3 or 4) cannot die over the course of these modules - I can make sure they escape without overtly cheating or I can have them escape later (this gets older faster than the villian who escapes combat) or IF the players come up with an awesome way to beat the villian I might allow it. Then I have to figure out who/how the story stays on track. If you know where you are ending
Survive, Adapt, and Overcome!
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Re: Re: A different model of adventure writing?
This was always my problem with Call of Cthulhu.
My suspension of disbelief only goes so far. Sure, I can accept towering other-worldly monstrosities that seek to devour the entire universe. But once I've accepted that, there's no way in hell I can accept the premise of a real-world "adventurer" that wants to tangle with THAT.
My characters have absolutely ZERO interest in heading out to the graveyard at midnight to dig up an ancient tome and stand around while some other idiot reads it aloud.
I pretty much get through character creation and immediately assume the fetal position.
Wulf
Pielorinho said:
DMaple said:
This was always my problem with Call of Cthulhu.
My suspension of disbelief only goes so far. Sure, I can accept towering other-worldly monstrosities that seek to devour the entire universe. But once I've accepted that, there's no way in hell I can accept the premise of a real-world "adventurer" that wants to tangle with THAT.
My characters have absolutely ZERO interest in heading out to the graveyard at midnight to dig up an ancient tome and stand around while some other idiot reads it aloud.
I pretty much get through character creation and immediately assume the fetal position.
Wulf
Ah but in Cthuhlu you don't usually know of the danger at the start and once you discover it you are usually the only thing between it and its plans to over-come the world / eat your family / eat you / etc. So hiding your head in the sand only means it will bite on your rump first, much better to at least die fighting.
Also characters face much worse things in an average game of D&D what with undead and demons and the like, and you don't see them running off to the hills or hiding and hoping it will all go away, why should your character be any less heroic just because its a CoC game?
Also characters face much worse things in an average game of D&D what with undead and demons and the like, and you don't see them running off to the hills or hiding and hoping it will all go away, why should your character be any less heroic just because its a CoC game?
Last edited:
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
When I was learning GURPs, the GM gave me tongue-in-cheek advice: always buy the disadvantage "foolhardy", and always buy the disadvantage "curious." Since these were pretty much traits of PCs anyways, and since most adventures require the PCs to investigate dangerous things with no regard for personal safety, it was like getting points for free.
While it's possible to run games without suicidally curious PCs, it's definitely a break from the norm.
Some folks seem to think that I'm describing an adventure modelt hat requires railroading PCs in a particular direction -- but I don't see that as what I'm describing at all. Rather, I'm talkinga bout starting an adventure with the plans of the bad guys, rather than the locations of the bad guys. In my mind, this actually leads to more flexibility. If the PCs attack the bad guys and retreat, the DM has some good stuff to work with: the DM knows what plans got interrupted, and some ideas of how the bad guys are likely to respond. In a site-based adventure, if the DM wants the bad guys to do anything beyond sit in their dungeon and twiddle their thumbs, he has to do the work himself.
Of course, bad-guy-plots could easily be overlaid on top of a site-based adventure, and to a large degree they'd need to be. But by having complex motives for the bad guys in the adventure, it can lead to weird and cool and unexpected outcomes.
For example: the bad guys want to create two dozen ghouls, capture or command them, and send them to a nearby village to terrorize the commoners there. When the game begins, teh bad guys have a magic item that can generate ghouls, and they plan on using it at a dinner party that evening.
Except that when you run the adventure, maybe your PCs find out about the item and get it before the dinner party, and they decide to put it on a ship offshore until they figure out how to destroy it. Fine: an unexpected outcome, an unexpected location. You, as the DM, look at the bad guys' plots and motives, aand realize that htey need that artifact to proceed; instead of sitting in their hideout, they launch an assault on the ship.
This is a simplified example, but you see what I'm saying, I hope. With complex plans and motives on the bad guys' parts, it's easier to have them act plausibly and proactively. And while I can come up with those motives myself, it's sometimes nice to work with someone else's ideas -- it can break me out of a rut, can keep all my bad guys from seeming the same.
Daniel
While it's possible to run games without suicidally curious PCs, it's definitely a break from the norm.
Some folks seem to think that I'm describing an adventure modelt hat requires railroading PCs in a particular direction -- but I don't see that as what I'm describing at all. Rather, I'm talkinga bout starting an adventure with the plans of the bad guys, rather than the locations of the bad guys. In my mind, this actually leads to more flexibility. If the PCs attack the bad guys and retreat, the DM has some good stuff to work with: the DM knows what plans got interrupted, and some ideas of how the bad guys are likely to respond. In a site-based adventure, if the DM wants the bad guys to do anything beyond sit in their dungeon and twiddle their thumbs, he has to do the work himself.
Of course, bad-guy-plots could easily be overlaid on top of a site-based adventure, and to a large degree they'd need to be. But by having complex motives for the bad guys in the adventure, it can lead to weird and cool and unexpected outcomes.
For example: the bad guys want to create two dozen ghouls, capture or command them, and send them to a nearby village to terrorize the commoners there. When the game begins, teh bad guys have a magic item that can generate ghouls, and they plan on using it at a dinner party that evening.
Except that when you run the adventure, maybe your PCs find out about the item and get it before the dinner party, and they decide to put it on a ship offshore until they figure out how to destroy it. Fine: an unexpected outcome, an unexpected location. You, as the DM, look at the bad guys' plots and motives, aand realize that htey need that artifact to proceed; instead of sitting in their hideout, they launch an assault on the ship.
This is a simplified example, but you see what I'm saying, I hope. With complex plans and motives on the bad guys' parts, it's easier to have them act plausibly and proactively. And while I can come up with those motives myself, it's sometimes nice to work with someone else's ideas -- it can break me out of a rut, can keep all my bad guys from seeming the same.
Daniel
Henry
Autoexreginated
Re: Re: Re: A different model of adventure writing?
CoC does have a hard time coming up with reasons why a group of investigators would want to risk their necks in a serialized fashion. You'll notice that old Howard Phillips himself never wrote about the same character more than once - usually because they were dead or insane by the end of the story.
It's fine to accept being trapped in a situation out of your control ONCE, but twice? THRICE??? What idiots go around uncovering plots that threaten their lives and objects of affection every darned month?
I ran a rather successful five game scenario of CoC with a group of investigators who were "in it for the money" once. They inherited a nice mansion, and even had several clients (Kind of like Angel Investigations, but without the vampaire and the hotel.)
Delta Green was one of the best things to happen to CoC. It introduced the concept of "Men in Black" to Cthulhu gaming, and gave us a reason for idiots willing to expose themselves to Shoggoths on a weekly basis (plus the supplemental info in that book is unbelievable!).
Wulf Ratbane said:
CoC does have a hard time coming up with reasons why a group of investigators would want to risk their necks in a serialized fashion. You'll notice that old Howard Phillips himself never wrote about the same character more than once - usually because they were dead or insane by the end of the story.
It's fine to accept being trapped in a situation out of your control ONCE, but twice? THRICE??? What idiots go around uncovering plots that threaten their lives and objects of affection every darned month?
I ran a rather successful five game scenario of CoC with a group of investigators who were "in it for the money" once. They inherited a nice mansion, and even had several clients (Kind of like Angel Investigations, but without the vampaire and the hotel.)
Delta Green was one of the best things to happen to CoC. It introduced the concept of "Men in Black" to Cthulhu gaming, and gave us a reason for idiots willing to expose themselves to Shoggoths on a weekly basis (plus the supplemental info in that book is unbelievable!).
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Unfortunately (or fortunately for them) my current players are the exact opposite of suicidally curious.
They find scrolls of divine magic written as prayers to an unknown god - and burn them.
They find a set of drums and instruments behind a secret panel in a hidden crypt dominated by a cthuluoid monstrosity altar and carefully don't bang them and store them away before destroying them later.
I don't know whats wrong with these guys
They find scrolls of divine magic written as prayers to an unknown god - and burn them.
They find a set of drums and instruments behind a secret panel in a hidden crypt dominated by a cthuluoid monstrosity altar and carefully don't bang them and store them away before destroying them later.
I don't know whats wrong with these guys
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
DMaple said:
Because the premise of D&D is that I am a fantasy character in a fantasy world, where undead and demons are a relatively well-known fact of life. The heroes of this world choose to become adventurers.
The premise of CoC is that I am a rational, common man in a rational, common world where-- until the events of the campaign begin to unfold-- soul-devouring visitors from astral space have gone largely unnoticed. The heroes of this world do not choose to become adventurers (unless they are already mad).
Back to the topic-- I think Daniel's adventure format works even BETTER for CoC. The "Bad Guys Have a Plan and This Is How They Will Do It" setup works better because the stakes are higher and the repercussions of PC apathy are so much greater. Cataclysmic universe-devouring episodes just don't work in D&D as well as they do in CoC. (They get tiresome and stretch believability.)
The PCs know going in to a CoC adventure that they don't really have another option than to be curious and heroic. I don't see this as railroading the PC's-- it's simply a core concept of the setting.
On the other hand, it would seem perfectly acceptable (in Daniel's example above) for the party to bypass the ghouls/priests and move on to the next adventure. After all, there are other adventurers around to handle it, and other adventures to tackle just down the road.
Wulf
Similar Threads
