Adventure Design

[InzeladunMaster]

On a basic level, what makes for a good Sword and Sorcery adventure?

Here recently, it seems like I have to look at or deal with horrid adventures composed of random events, uninteresting (or even implausible) hooks, enslaving the PCs to get them somewhere, NPCs who do most of the interesting stuff to make sure the storyline works, lack of conflict, or even "slice-of-life" crap.

To me, a good adventure should be written like a short story- where every event has something to do with the plot and nothing is introduced that is extraneous. Adventures should also have plot, conflict and something that motivates the characters. Free-flowing randomness does not cut it, neither does drawn out "Role-playing" experiences, such as shopping or talking to the locals for the sheer Hell of it, and neither does politically-correct, non-conflict style "adventures."

 

[EnderTheElder]

Tension and meaningfulness make a good adventure no matter the style. You have to have to sense that your characters actions effect the outcome of the story and thus you have the power to either screw things up or save to day. But too much tension (just as too little) can result in making the game feel meaningless because if every second of every game is life or death (particularly of the ref save DC 50 or die type) then ultimately the danger becomes meaningless and so does the game. Variation of situation becomes the key to making a good adventure. Characters should be given chances to express their character meaningfully by role-playing, kick some ass and get theirs handed to them every now and then.

I think of old x-men comics, most story lines the team dealt with threats that were dangerous but not deadly if they worked together, but often the threat was deadly and people got seriously hurt or killed (and then were brought back from the dead which eventually made this kind of thing meaningless), and occasionally their be an issue dealing with just the team interacting. And remember their is nothing that says "characterization" style plot elements should be both meaningful and have tension.

So tension, meaningfulness and variation.

 

[thormagni]

On a basic level, what makes for a good Sword and Sorcery adventure?

Well, I would expand the question a bit honestly. What makes a good "fantasy fiction" adventure? Because sword and sorcery is really just a subset of fantasy fiction. And while sword and sorcery does require the obligatory fights, and the resolution to almost everything is a fight, a fantasy adventure could be set up in such a way that the main conflict is actually NOT a fight. Perhaps there is a mystery to solve or a court intrique to counter. I can envision a game where the main conflict involves skills and spells other than combat-related ones to bring everything to a close.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

So tension, meaningfulness and variation.

I agree there. Tension is brought about by some form of conflict, which can be physical, mental, emotional or time. Meaningfulness I think can be brought about by character motivation - the character should have a vested interest in what is happening.

I recall reading an adventure where the PCs were brought to the king of a land out of the blue and ordered to go investigate his daughter's disappearance on the pain of death. He doesn't use loyal cohorts because he doesn't want anyone in his kingdom to know his daughter has vanished. Then, once the PCs are on their way, the king sends loyal cohorts to assassinate the PCs, the daughter and everyone else involved (which invalidates the reason for sending PCs to begin with).

While one could argue character survivability is a motivation and brings meaning, ultimately, this hook fails, to me. Perhaps another characteristic we can add to our growing list is logic and coherence.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Well, I would expand the question a bit honestly. What makes a good "fantasy fiction" adventure? Because sword and sorcery is really just a subset of fantasy fiction. And while sword and sorcery does require the obligatory fights, and the resolution to almost everything is a fight, a fantasy adventure could be set up in such a way that the main conflict is actually NOT a fight. Perhaps there is a mystery to solve or a court intrique to counter. I can envision a game where the main conflict involves skills and spells other than combat-related ones to bring everything to a close.

Well, as I write Conan materials, the sword-and-sorcery genre is the one that is most on my mind, but you are right, we can extend the question further. Adventures can be set up without fights - but I think having a conflict is key, regardless of its ultimate solution. Even winning a race (a time-conflict) can be satisfactory. One of my favourite adventures I ran required the PCs to reach the wizard in so many rounds. As I ticked off the rounds, the PCs became more frantic in their efforts. When they reached him and disrupted the world-shattering spell, there was a cry for joy.

 

[Bob_Probst]

Much of what makes an adventure great has more to do with the players and GM than the written text. Some well written adventures might fail because of poor implementation by the group and some crappy adventures might be the most memorable because the group is hitting on all cylinders.

If we assume all things being equal on the player side: I agree with Ender's assessment though the interpretation of those terms could very well be subjective. Above all, for me, "[Players] should be given chances to express their character meaningfully by role-playing".

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I agree completely - however, that is hard to write into an adventure (perhaps a "Please do not play unless everyone is on the ball tonight" clause?). What is "meaningful role-play" and how can it be implemented? Most of the best stories have some sort of character growth involved - is it possible to codify that into a written adventure? Perhaps via gaining something through sacrifice of something valued, or loss of something because of a refusal to sacrifice something at the end of an adventure?

Also, the term role-playing leaves me a little cold. Some people take that mean something akin to out-right acting. I don't like doing that; I don't see these games as being a poor-man's thespian league. My ability and willingness to talk "in-character" is not all that high; to me role-playing is about making choices that are reasonable for the character chosen. I am sure there are other definitions out there also. In writing adventures, am I to provide opportunities to "roleplay" by giving characters a chance to make ethical or moral choices, or to provide opportunities to "act" and "interact" with NPCs in character-voice?

What defines a character? Their choices or their orally-acted interactions with NPCs?

 

[Fyrestryke]

What defines a character? Their choices or their orally-acted interactions with NPCs?

Both. Take Alexander and Zografos for instance. They are as much defined by the choices/actions they make/take as they are by some of the wonderful dialogue that they have had with some of the NPCs in Inzeladun.

 

[EnderTheElder]

The decision to engage in orally acted interactions with NPCs is just as much of a choice as running the same NPC through with a sword. I think the reason why talk about "role-playing" leaves you cold, most people who talk about "role-playing" don't understand that combat is just as much part of the story as talking.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

True. It is the "acted" part that sometimes bothers me. A skill check can be just as much role-playing as acting out a conversation. If a character decides to make a Diplomacy check instead of combat, then that shows a choice and is role-playing. A lot of players I hear about (mostly by reading RPG boards) insist on such things being "acted-out" yet do not insist on "acting out" combat. To me, roleplaying is about making choices appropriate to the character played, not about pseudo-acting.