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

[Lanefan]

-I tend to veer sandboxy and simulationist when I run a game. When an enemy in the first room of the castle gets away or sounds an alarm there's a whole castle of enemies that's going to crash down, the captive might get killed, the evil wizard might get his fireball scroll out of storage, everything will be out of intended place, etc. I woudl like a module to think through and offer suggestions for the consequences of major ways things can not go according to intention, both because it helps me run games but also to discourge gamemasters from panicking and having the PCs improbably kill the escaping enemy or whatever simply because they're afraid they'll mess something vital up if they have to adjudicate consequences on the fly. If this is not feasible, I would like to at least see rooms of locations not presented as though they are scenes that must begin the same way under all circumstances.

This is a flaw in a lot of modules - they don't deal with any of the obvious "what if"s.

The classic example of this: pretty much any D&D module intended for PCs of 5th level or higher never goes into any detail about how to handle PCs who approach from the air, even though Fly is a 3rd-level spell and devices of flight are relatively common (and in 5e some PC species come with flight built in).

-Monsters/enemy/npc statblocks should not need to be cross-referenced to another book.

Personally I don't think they should be cross-referenced anywhere, instead they should be right there in the write-up for the area in which they are found.

That said, situations where the monsters and foes are intended to be mobile within the dungeon/adventure site might call for another approach, and detached cards could be the answer here.

-I'm not opposed to read-aloud boxed text, when used sparingly. It's okay to occasionally set a scene, give a villain a grand entrance, or make sure something like a puzzle is presented by the GM in a very specific way. But it should be rare enough that when the GM starts reading blocks of prose out word for word the players know it's time to listen.

I like boxed text because in theory it hits all the relevant and obvious details, where if I'm winging it I'm more likely to miss or forget some of them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Another feature that would have been obvious if I'd chosen a dungeon location is that every room also has all the exits listed at the bottom of the room entry telling you what kind of door it is and where it goes.

According to allegations, doing so would turn RPGs into "Choose Your Own Adventure".

 

[Fenris-77]

According to allegations, doing so would turn RPGs into "Choose Your Own Adventure".

Allegations can kiss my lilly white buttocks.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think I said that everything in the scenario should be organized in random order. Why should a scenario's text assume the order in which physical locations will be encountered? I'm not saying a scenario can't point PCs in one direction or another, but why not just list them alphabetically in their own section called "Locations"? Same for the NPCs. Just have a section called "NPCs" and list them alphabetically. (I would also encourage lots of graphical elements like icons and symbols to tag locations and NPCs to make connections between them easier to remember.) GMs can just print or photocopy the pages they need for a given session.

Hard, hard no.

If I'm paying for a printed module I don't expect to then have to pay again to print or photocopy it, thank you very much.

We should move past the era when "easy to run" means "don't need to flip back and forth in a book."

Again, hard no. If you make a module easy to run from a book (i.e. minimize page flipping because everything you need right now is right there) you're also making it easy to run from a screen as you've minimized page-hopping and-or scrolling.

Many opinions about scenario presentation suffer unconsciously from this point of view. This isn't 1982 and people aren't publishing Champions II using typewriters and mimeographs. Why should we cling to the idea that a GM needs to have an entire physical book in front of them during a session? Design your product's pages so that sections can be printed and used without the book at the table. Tell GMs that's why your book is presented the way it is and encourage them to do that.

Meaning the GM has to pay twice for the same material - once to buy it and once for the ink to print it out? Again, no thanks. (printer ink is the biggest legal ripoff going these days)

 

[Lanefan]

I sympathize, but I think the form would improve if we all got past that reluctance. I think people tend to confuse how RPG scenarios should be treated because scenarios are presented like books. A lot of folks don't like the idea of writing in their books.

But if you call it a "workbook," suddenly everyone's reaching for their pencils. RPG scenarios should be written like workbooks.

So, disposable rather than collectable?

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I think 'easy to run' has a ton of overlap with 'I don't have to flip about looking for things'. Hyperlinks can help, for sure, but they aren't a cure all and lots of people still prefer to use actual dead-tree books at the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

So, disposable rather than collectable?

To be fair, I think the school of thought that at least some parts of RPG books are manual rather than fiction is pretty accurate. IDK if that gets us all the way to workbook, but it's not completely off base.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, I sympathize, but people need to shift their perceptions on this. RPG scenarios should be thought of like tools, not heirlooms.

Huh. I've got some modules here that are worth a fair bit of money (relative to their purchase cost) these days in part because I didn't write in them when I ran them. I also unknowingly at the time cost myself somewhat dearly by writing in some modules that turned out later to be worth a fair bit.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

To a point this is fine, but the obvious risk is crossing the line into advising the GM to lead the players by the nose such that the situation or scenario works as intended. And far too many GMs by default need the opposite advice!

To the thread topic: while writing a module as a hard railroad does in fact make it easier to run, particularly for inexperienced GMs, this is one case where making it easier is the completely wrong thing to do.

 

[Lanefan]

I spend a lot of time on layout to try and make my adventures as easy to run as possible. One thing that I think is helpful there is to include everything the GM needs to run a room/location on the same page as the location. No flipping for stat blocks or maps. So I put inset maps up in one corner and have a sidebar in my layout that I use for GM advice and monster stas blocks. Like so...

View attachment 422591

Too much white space for my liking (to me white space = wasted space) but I really like having the thumbnail map at the top corner of each page. Brilliant idea.