Bruce Nesmith Interview: 1 month, 1 32 page module

According to James Jacobs, a 32-page module should be approx 20k words, and 2k of workable writing per day is considered an average day's work. So, 10 days to write, then 20 days for the editing and other work to turn it from raw text into a product? That doesn't actually sound so bad.

However, being expected to write an adventure from just a title and with no further guidance is considerably more problematic.

(And, of course, being asked to do it over and over, every single month, may well also have become an issue quite quickly. I'm just not sure the required word/page output is unreasonable.)

 

[Jester David]

I was initially rather irked by the statement but once you break it down it makes sense.

It seems like an achievable goal and a good way of tracking workload in a writing based company. So people know if they're working on too much or too little, and the expected production length of a project is known. You don't want staff overworked or underworked. And a "module equivalent" is as good a guideline as anything, especially before the advent of easy word counting programs.

 

[delericho]

~2k words a day is doable but a lot. Nanowrimo, where you write a 50,000 word novel in a month only expects 1,600.

I can't comment on that. But this thread did remind me of WoAdWriMo, which set people the goal of writing a playable 32-page adventure in a month.

Having the title set and cover done does seem awkward, but is good inspiration for a mandated product. It's not like people aren't working with set titles and stories these days. The lack of an outline is funky though.

Yeah, there were definitely some issues with the way TSR went about producing products, and those do indeed explain some of the problems we saw, especially in later materials. I'm just not convinced the expected word count is really one of those problems.

 

[Vampyr3]

Video for those that want to see it.. This was on the Kickstarter page for all to see by the way...

https://vimeo.com/130464877
password: SirChrisLee

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewpascal/dungeons-and-dragons-a-documentary/posts/1261155

 

[Remathilis]

That said, while 32 pages /month is certainly doable, it leaves little room for finesse details. This would probably explain why 2e era modules were railroady (its easier to write one linear path than create multiple branching paths that criss-cross), general balance issues (too easy/hard encounters, unbalanced treasure), and some really goofy editing (missing paragraphs, cut stat blocks). The breakneck pace really didn't leave much room for QC.

I mean, as a DM I write two adventures (roughly) per month sometimes, but they aren't nearly as fleshed out as a TSR module and I usually have the benefit of knowing my players/characters and being able to ad-lib when things go down a different path; things a module writer rarely has the benefit to do. Tied in with some of the strange artwork on covers (which I now know was done before writing was done) and I see why 2e era modules varied in quality from stunning to atrocious.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

@pming - note, you're talking about 1e modules and the article about 2e. I'm not sure if that 1 month time limit applied to classic modules. Then again, lots of those classic modules were pretty forgettable too, so, it's not like everything back then was wrapped in gold. Just maybe wrapped in rosy hues.

Ok, 2e modules...not so great. Then again, there were a bajillion of them, so the ratio of good:bad may skew things a bit more. Point taken.

However, the second part, the whole alluding to "rose colour glasses"? No offense to you, but this is one thing that just really nibbles my jiblettes! Every time I read something like this, it's basically saying "Oh, you like something old? You must like it because of nostalgia...". It's like anything "old" couldn't possibly also be good, because, you know, it's old. Everyone knows that new is better. Always. :rollseyes:

No, it's not nostalgia. It's personal preference in DM'ing style and, IMHO, a superior way to write "adventures for D&D". I'd rather pay $40 for a pristine copy of, say, I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City... than pay $40 for a band new copy of "Hoard of the Dragon Queen". Why? I feel that I1 is a *much* better adventure module in virtually every way. I've DM'ed I1 at least a half dozen times, easy. All of those with many of the same players. You know what? Every single time that I've DM'ed it, we've had a vastly different story, feeling, outcome and overall play experience. One time involved Horan the Wizard, and a huge aerial battle involving flying carpets, fly spells, tasloi on giant wasps and summoned air elementals. Another time was very conan-esqe, with giant apes, huge snakes and savage cannibals stalking the shadow-cloaked ruined streets of the city...all while the PC's searched for the Chief's son in order to rescue him. Another time had the bullywug's on a holy crusade throughout the city..."converting or cleansing" the non-believers and sacrificing them to the Great Lake God (the Pan Lung); and the 'good guys' were the yuan-ti, trying to stop this desecration of their ancient city. I could go on and on.

The point is: older modules were written to be used by any DM and plopped into their own campaigns, fitting into their own stories. The modules were designed to be *used as a DM aid in creating a memorable game*. Nowadays, modules have done a 180; with only lip service paid to the DM 'plopping it into his own campaign'. Today's "adventure modules" should be renamed to something like "story-line books"; they expect that the DM will run it as it is, with only minor changes to the set dressing (if that). The main story has been meticulously planned out, with all the tropes of a "good story or novel". Great! ...if we were reading a story or novel. However, we are trying to play a game based on our own choices and imagination. Can a superior DM re-write major sections of, say, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and have it all play out well? Certainly! My point is that the older modules made this a MUCH easier thing to do...for all DM's, not just those with oodles and oodles of experience.

Anyway, sorry for the derail a bit there. The whole "rose-coloured nostalgia glasses make old modules seem better than they are" cr@p just chafes my chicken.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Kramodlog]

Hehehe. F you playtesting, editing and originality.

Still, this sort of production method produced some great content.

 

[Hussar]

Hiya.



Ok, 2e modules...not so great. Then again, there were a bajillion of them, so the ratio of good:bad may skew things a bit more. Point taken.

However, the second part, the whole alluding to "rose colour glasses"? No offense to you, but this is one thing that just really nibbles my jiblettes! Every time I read something like this, it's basically saying "Oh, you like something old? You must like it because of nostalgia...". It's like anything "old" couldn't possibly also be good, because, you know, it's old. Everyone knows that new is better. Always. :rollseyes:

No, it's not nostalgia. It's personal preference in DM'ing style and, IMHO, a superior way to write "adventures for D&D". I'd rather pay $40 for a pristine copy of, say, I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City... than pay $40 for a band new copy of "Hoard of the Dragon Queen". Why? I feel that I1 is a *much* better adventure module in virtually every way. I've DM'ed I1 at least a half dozen times, easy. All of those with many of the same players. You know what? Every single time that I've DM'ed it, we've had a vastly different story, feeling, outcome and overall play experience. One time involved Horan the Wizard, and a huge aerial battle involving flying carpets, fly spells, tasloi on giant wasps and summoned air elementals. Another time was very conan-esqe, with giant apes, huge snakes and savage cannibals stalking the shadow-cloaked ruined streets of the city...all while the PC's searched for the Chief's son in order to rescue him. Another time had the bullywug's on a holy crusade throughout the city..."converting or cleansing" the non-believers and sacrificing them to the Great Lake God (the Pan Lung); and the 'good guys' were the yuan-ti, trying to stop this desecration of their ancient city. I could go on and on.

The point is: older modules were written to be used by any DM and plopped into their own campaigns, fitting into their own stories. The modules were designed to be *used as a DM aid in creating a memorable game*. Nowadays, modules have done a 180; with only lip service paid to the DM 'plopping it into his own campaign'. Today's "adventure modules" should be renamed to something like "story-line books"; they expect that the DM will run it as it is, with only minor changes to the set dressing (if that). The main story has been meticulously planned out, with all the tropes of a "good story or novel". Great! ...if we were reading a story or novel. However, we are trying to play a game based on our own choices and imagination. Can a superior DM re-write major sections of, say, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and have it all play out well? Certainly! My point is that the older modules made this a MUCH easier thing to do...for all DM's, not just those with oodles and oodles of experience.

Anyway, sorry for the derail a bit there. The whole "rose-coloured nostalgia glasses make old modules seem better than they are" cr@p just chafes my chicken.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Would you pay 40 bucks for Quagmire? Or how about 40 bucks for The Bane of Llywelyn (I actually owned that one once upon a time) or The Lost Island of Castanamir? Or any of a dozen completely forgettable modules that were produced? It's easy enough to be able to say, with 100% hindsight, "Yeah, those old modules that I'm cherry picking from a sea of crap are fantastic and so much better than what we get today". That's my "nostalgia glasses" criticism of your point.

Is Hoard a bad module? Sure, lots of people seem to think so. Funny how examples like yours never point to Lost Mines of Phandelver or Princes of Apocalypse, both, very well received and considered to be fantastic modules, with all the freedom that you see as hallmarking great modules, in full and glorious presence.

Were there fantastic 1e modules? Of course there were. Sturgeon's Law applies. But, jeez, pointing to ten years of modules and cherry picking the dozen or so good ones and then comparing it to less than a year of production hardly seems fair does it?

 

[TerraDave]

Jim Ward was in charge. This implies late 1E and 2E pre WotC. Nesmith was there for a while, so could have covered both editions.

My challenge would be: try to remember some good modules from that era. I am not saying there are none, out of the vast number produced their almost has to be some.

Still, try to remember. You probably know ones before it (aka all the famous ones), I bet you know some after, but in an era when hundreds where produced, name a few.

 

[Parmandur]

Jim Ward was in charge. This implies late 1E and 2E pre WotC. Nesmith was there for a while, so could have covered both editions.



My challenge would be: try to remember some good modules from that era. I am not saying there are none, out of the vast number produced their almost has to be some.



Still, try to remember. You probably know ones before it (aka all the famous ones), I bet you know some after, but in an era when hundreds where produced, name a few.

I agree with your overall point, and I am not personally familiar with any modules pre-4E: but Ruins of Undermountain, City of Skulls, Night Below have made it to top module lists at least. Heard good things about the Al-Quadim modules, too.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Would you pay 40 bucks for Quagmire? Or how about 40 bucks for The Bane of Llywelyn (I actually owned that one once upon a time) or The Lost Island of Castanamir? Or any of a dozen completely forgettable modules that were produced? It's easy enough to be able to say, with 100% hindsight, "Yeah, those old modules that I'm cherry picking from a sea of crap are fantastic and so much better than what we get today". That's my "nostalgia glasses" criticism of your point.

Is Hoard a bad module? Sure, lots of people seem to think so. Funny how examples like yours never point to Lost Mines of Phandelver or Princes of Apocalypse, both, very well received and considered to be fantastic modules, with all the freedom that you see as hallmarking great modules, in full and glorious presence.

Were there fantastic 1e modules? Of course there were. Sturgeon's Law applies. But, jeez, pointing to ten years of modules and cherry picking the dozen or so good ones and then comparing it to less than a year of production hardly seems fair does it?

I actually just kinda "randomly choose" those. I thought LMoP was definitely a step up from what the 3.x stuff I've played/DM'ed. I was quite dissapointed when Hoard came out and obviously didn't follow the same sort of "sandbox'ey with story (or not) background". Anyway, I choose Hoard because it was kinda right there in front of me when I looked around my desk here. I haven't DM'ed it...did a quick scan and look see for it. I wasn't impressed, and I guess I'm not alone in that. The Princes of the Apocalypse has had some good reviews; I don't have it though, and I'm not forking over the $$$ for it until I have $40 to blow ...or invest happily...depending on if I like it or not. But $40 on a chance I'll like it is unlikely at this point. I lost faith in "modules" at the mid to end of 2e, mostly. The only 'modern' modules I've liked (generally speaking) have been the Dungeon Crawl Classics (even if they were made for 3.x), the actual "DCC RPG" modules, and a lot of the ones put out in the name of the "OSR movement" (or whatever you want to call it).

As for I1, again, it was kinda just here. Yes, it is a great module. And yes, *it* is worth $40 to me. Is Quagmire? Doubt it; I'd have to dig it out or find out who I lent it too. Lost Island of Castanamire? Have it...never got around to playing it, so I don't know what my 'value' of it would be. Bad 1e modules I own? Hmmm... Didn't like "Baltron's Beakon", "The Forest Oracle" (mainly due to it having absolutely horrid editing!) or "Castle Greyhawk" (the "funny ha-ha" one with the pink cover). Definitly wouldn't pay anything for that last one! *fume* (EDIT: Wait...is that one even 1e? Or is that one on the 'cusp' of the change over into 2e? Either way, it sucked donkey snacks!)

But in all honesty, I find just about every 1e module significantly more useful than just about any 3.x/PF, and yes, even 5e...but modules are still a bit scarce for it. If I could have "$250 worth of either 1e modules, or 3.x/PF/5e modules", I'd choose 1e in a heartbeat.

I look at my 1e modules and am hard pressed to find more than two or three that I feel are absolute stinkers. About another two or three of "meh" ones. All the others range from "Yeah, decent and workable" up to "OMFG This Module Is AMAZING!" (Decent/Workable = "To Find a King" // OMFG!!! = "Dwellers of the Forbidden City").

^_^

Paul L. Ming