D&D General "A Special Warning Regarding the Deadliness of this Module" (or Adventure Design Philosophy)

[el-remmen]

Speaking as someone who exclusively runs Original/Classic D&D (not 1st edition AD&D, but everything 0th edition from the white box through the Rules Cyclopedia), I prefer to avoid modules at all costs. For the most part, they're just really, really, terribly bad examples of what a good game of early D&D looks like. Even when they aren't cribbed from tournament modules, they're usually either too boring, too deadly, or too railroady. Most modules, even the beloved early entries in the B- and X-series, just aren't worth the trouble of reading through them and trying to implement them.

As someone who used the Caves of Chaos and a re-drawn "ruined" Keep on the Borderlands I can't say I agree! Then again, I used what was there to build a kind of eco-system and network of monsters and ruins for the characters to explore and engage with. It was a heck of a lot of fun. They were like big game hunters, but monster-hunting. That is exactly the kind of flawed adventure I prefer. The flaws are places for me to play and add and adapt without having to do stuff from scratch.

 

[werecorpse]

I think I’m the opposite. I try and read adventures from any D&D iteration or any rpg game, or indeed adventure story I can find to see if I can access a different or new adventure twist. Then I use the bare bones that inspired me and heavily convert it to fit my game.

 

[Shiroiken]

Adventure design isn't specific to challenge the players/characters, I just design what makes sense. At lower levels (and major battles) I double check them against either the DMG or XGtE chart, simple because I don't want them to be too deadly (low levels) or easy (major battles). The specific moments are not normally designed to focus on a specific character, partially because the player (and thus character) might not be present, making it much harder than it should be.

As for a campaign, it depends on what I'm trying to do. In every case, I try to make the players decisions matter. I've run an AP style campaign where I've had to switch part of the middle due to the players decisions. I've also run totally open sandbox games where I offer up numerous plot hooks and let the players decide (although I require them to do so at the end of a session to give me time to prep). Both can be a lot of fun.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

In my experience, it all depends on the shared style of DM and players. I always ask my players the level of difficulty they want for the campaign: easy, normal, difficult, or deadly. (They almost always choose normal)
It's true that there are written modules that are very hard, almost impossible to conclude (Tomb of Horrors, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Savage Tide, Labyrinth of Madness...) but as a DM I can always adjust difficulty.

 

[Oofta]

If I purchase modules it's to mine them for ideas, NPCs and encounters that I may or may not use as written.

Since I'm playing remote, I do have to plan things (especially maps) out more than I prefer but I never create "modules" per se. I create NPCs, groups, events, environments and ongoing stories that may or may not ever have an impact on the game. So I will plan out encounters that make sense for the party, have a general outline of what's going on and then see where the PCs go.

This extends to pretty much all my planning. I have "mini-arcs", usually a session or two as well as overall story and world arcs. But the PCs don't have to do anything, and frequently could not pursue all options. Instead at the end of a session if we don't leave off in the middle of something, I'll present a series of options, rumors and plot threads. They can also suggest something if they want, and occasionally do. Then the group votes (I've started using ranked voting) on what to do next. That gives me the option to get a general idea of where they can go if they want.

The balance, of course, is giving them direction(s) without so many options that they feel like there is no good choice. At the same time I don't do a railroad, but I have gotten good at improv and re-skinning encounters if needed.

I find this works well for me and is less work than prepping modules.

 

[cbwjm]

This warning was due to the whole taking your characters from one game to another that they did back in the day, right? Where you'd bring your favourite wizard from Randy's game to a game being run by Mandy. Mordenkainen was running around joining games with different DMs so if Gary didn't want him to die, pregens were the best way to go.

 

[el-remmen]

This warning was due to the whole taking your characters from one game to another that they did back in the day, right? Where you'd bring your favourite wizard from Randy's game to a game being run by Mandy. Mordenkainen was running around joining games with different DMs so if Gary didn't want him to die, pregens were the best way to go.

Oh yeah! Definitely!

 

[Imaculata]

You can't really do a sandbox module. By definition, you're giving them a series of things to do. You might be able to have some of then be optional, or some of them be done in different orders - but the structure of what is to be done is there. And that is not really sandbox.

Sandbox, as it is most often used, requires you to be able to go off the tracks and explore any nook and cranny of your choice. There may be goals and plans at work amongst NPCs, but the PCs can ignore them or alter them radically without changing the module - because the finish line and future elements are not known. You write the script as you go as opposed to reading the book to give you the path.

There are many kinds of sandboxes. Most sandbox campaigns I think, are cordoned off areas in which the players are free to explore many predesigned locations in any order they like. The DM may know how the story starts, and how it will roughly end, but perhaps not how the group will get there. The story can be linear or flexible to the choices of the players.

 

[Rhenny]

When I design a campaign, I start with a hub and create a web that may spin off in 3 or 4 directions. The pcs explore the hub and its environs and then touch on the off shoots. They have full choice which to follow. As the campaign grows, I continue the web design, but after a while, it becomes more of a pathway/linear, with a few side treks or contingencies. By that time, the players have pretty much committed to the story arc, so they don’t need as much free reign.

To me, linear with contingencies or alternate paths that can be inserted at different intersections is the easiest for me to manage, yet still give players choice when they want it.

 

[jgsugden]

There are many kinds of sandboxes. Most sandbox campaigns I think, are cordoned off areas in which the players are free to explore many predesigned locations in any order they like. The DM may know how the story starts, and how it will roughly end, but perhaps not how the group will get there. The story can be linear or flexible to the choices of the players.

If you know the end, there is a destination, and that means you're on tracks. There may be many paths, but you're still on tracks. Even being flexible means there is still an end goal to get to ... which means you're on tracks.

The idea of a sandbox is that there are no tracks. You can play anywhere in a sandbox and do anything - because you're not trying to get anywhere. You're there to have fun. You just organically play and see what happens. A lot of people think they're running sandboxes because they let the players take path A, B or C to get to a destination. That is still being on tracks. If your players have a goal you expect them to pursue, then you've moved out of the sandbox.

However, there is nothing wrong with having both sandbox and tracks in a campaign. If you watch Critical Role, Mercer is very good at melding both approaches. The Mighty Nein began on a rail - there was a mystery at the circus, and they had to solve it. Then he let them explore and built adventures as they explored. As he did so, he began to pepper in things that related to their backgrounds, things that laid a path ahead for them to follow, etc... In other words, he let them play in the sandbox, but put bright lights around a train station at the edge of the box and lured them to it. They would then get them on a train which they'd follow to complete an adventure, and then enter another sandbox. However, whatever they decided to do, he let them go do - even if it took the train off his tracks.