Module Design: Questions, not Answers.

[Kzach]

My strength as a DM is improvisation. The less work I do before a game, the better my sessions seem to run. Which works for me because I'm inherently lazy

The problem with this method is that it doesn't gel very well with more recent systems. I learned to DM AD&D (1e & 2e... really a hybrid since I didn't differentiate between the two and used the rulebooks mostly as a DM screen or writing pads) where you HAD to improvise almost everything, at least until the Powers & So-Called Options books and plethora of Handbooks came out and turned everything into a rules-fest.

Anyway, point being is that 3e and 4e sort-of require you to know the rules. Now I KNOW that you can improvise in any system. The logical part of my brain tells me that. But I also truly believe that people are hard-wired to follow-the-leader and fall into lock-step. So regardless of knowing this, I still tend to follow the rules and use them as written (or with houserules). And in part, this is also because everyone at the table expects me to do so. They all came to play 4e, not AD&D 4e.

This is one of the reasons why I'm quite excited by one of the aspects of 5e that has been touted, ie. bringing back improvisation and supporting it within the fundamental mechanics of the system. So even though I know I could just run a 4e game using page 42, having it as an expectation within the system makes my life a lot easier as a DM. The players expect that type of game and I don't have to fight the urge to fall into step with the rules.

This all leads me to module design. One of the things that has always put me off using modules is the sheer amount of information you have to take in to run one properly. Worse are the little tidbits of information that the module turns on and that if you forget or muck-up, you can muck-up the entire module. Referencing modules in-game are big pet-peeve for me as both a player and DM.

In the end, I just end up not using them altogether. I don't want to have to read through thirty pages of snore-fest and memorise it all in order to just run a few sessions. And what's more, is that invariably I find that players don't follow the clues laid out before them anyway and since it's a module, I end up having to rail-road them towards the conclusions just to keep the game moving forward.

Most of the problems of modules, I feel, comes from providing answers instead of just questions. The fun and engagement of improvisation comes primarily from seeing just how players deal with problems. Trying to predict outcomes for situations that have so many variables it's impossible to do so, ultimately leads to a sense of forced conclusion and disbelief on the part of the player.

So why provide the answers at all? Hell, why even provide suggestions? Imagine a module that ONLY provided questions? Forget stat-blocks, just give a very brief description of an NPC's personality and let the chips fall where they may. Present problems, traps, situations, dangers, etc. but without answers the DM and players are then left to engage each other in providing the solutions.

Now of course, this may have already been done elsewhere and if it has, I don't really care. That's not the point of this thread. The point is to discuss the merits of doing things this way as opposed to the way I've seen Dungeon, and every other D&D module I've ever bothered to read through, do it.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm having trouble groking just what this "questions only" module you're proposing would look like or consist of. Can you point to or provide an example?

What springs to mind is the DM book in Al-Qadim boxed set which lists "secrets" for each city/region, but instead of saying "this is what it is" they provide hints, multiple possibilities, or sometimes no answer at all.

If that's what you have in mind, how does tht translate to a module?

 

[BobTheNob]

This is probably my key desire. I want a game that isn't hundreds or pages of rules with a one paragraph concession saying "oh, and you can improvise".

I want the rules to be about how to improvise, rather than how to resolve. Tall order, but having read FATE I can't help but feel that there is some room for reviewing what the rules are actually there to do.

 

[tlantl]

I write very simple adventures for my group that aren't super complicated, merely outlines in most cases, therefore they could never pass muster as a publishable adventure since 90% of the details don't exist until the players start playing it.

I can see where this could be fun for those of us who run things from the seats of our pants, but I can only assume that the vast majority of people need a little more information. Professional writers make their livings using words. Professionals are the people who get their stuff published. It's kind of hard to be a professional writer if you don't actually write anything.

[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION];

Perhaps a little clarification regarding the questions part of your post might be helpful since I don't really see how questions fit in this situation. If the dungeon has a story line and a deep plot it needs to be communicated. If a creature is likely to be used in combat it's stats are needed.

I know for a fact if I give one of my outlines to one of my friends to play I'll need to spend an hour explaining how it works in the context of my game, or how to use it in his.

 

[Kzach]

I'm having trouble groking just what this "questions only" module you're proposing would look like or consist of. Can you point to or provide an example?

Two examples spring to mind that aren't quite what I'm talking about but lean enough in the right direction to provide some sort of insight into my meaning. Those are War of the Burning Sky (ENW's own adventure path) and the recent Neverwinter Campaign Book.

Neither hit the mark spot-on, as I mentioned, but both provide you, the DM, with many questions to pose to the players and less answers than traditional modules. Instead of presenting a problem like, for instance, "The McGuffin is over here," and then trying to provide solutions like, "The PC's can do X, Y or Z to retrieve it," it simply states the problem with enough additional information to give the DM and players what they need to come up with creative solutions.

This requires a creative DM and creative players who are willing to engage each other in a co-operative manner that results in an effective solution. It's this sort-of imaginative and creative play that I have all my best memories of D&D from because it engaged ME as a player THROUGH my PC. I needed both to come up with a solution and I needed the DM to creatively facilitate that solution.

It's not for everyone. But I find that, more and more, it's what I feel I've been missing from my games ever since Powers & Options and the Handbooks of 2e started move towards a more strict adherence to rules and a less imaginative and creative approach to solutions in-game. I'm not saying 3e or 4e are bad because of this, simply that it seems to have been a trend in D&D that reached its peak in 4e and now seems to be on the decline. 5e, I'm hoping, is the harbinger of a hybrid of strong, simple, well-rounded rules, with the flexibility inherent within them to facilitate creative solutions and ad-hoc play.

Perhaps a little clarification regarding the questions part of your post might be helpful since I don't really see how questions fit in this situation. If the dungeon has a story line and a deep plot it needs to be communicated. If a creature is likely to be used in combat it's stats are needed.

Umm... ok, I'll try to keep this simple and straightforward. You have a pit trap. It's 10'x10'x30' and there are no spikes below, just rocks and some skeletal remains. The trap is in a cave system and was probably a natural formation that someone has taken advantage of, most likely the kobolds you're currently chasing. The passageway it's in is 10'x15' so it entirely blocks your path forward.

The above is the problem. It's the question. Now in a traditional module, I'd now go on to provide several answers to how the PC's could go about solving/answering this problem. I'd provide DC's and various potential scenarios that would provide various negative or positive outcomes.

What this does, without many people realising, is that it locks you into those solutions. Some people can ignore them entirely and that's great, but in my experience on either side of the screen, I find that if you provide people with answers like this, then they tend to get a sort-of tunnel-vision and can't think outside the box, so to speak. Both as DM's and players.

Now, instead of providing any answers whatsoever, the system itself has within it every means necessary to provide a solution... it just requires the creative input of the players in co-operation with their DM to find it. This, to me, was the essence of AD&D.

Don't get me wrong, I love 4e and there was a reason why I stopped playing AD&D, which was primarily because I found myself constantly having to come up with house rules for every table in order to handle things that should be covered by the system and weren't. But on the flip-side of that coin, I also don't think 4e is flexible enough, or encourages the sort-of ad-hoc play that AD&D did.

Again, I KNOW that 4e CAN be played much like what I'm saying, but you have to sort-of go with me on the whole notion of people artificially limiting themselves because they willingly or unknowingly stick to the rules. Therefore if 5e can manage to be an effective hybrid of AD&D and 4e, in terms of giving you a solid rules foundation whilst encouraging ad-hoc play, then I will be not only quite happy, but very impressed.

The idea that I'm putting forward in this thread, however, is that we should take advantage of such a system and create modules to support it. Instead of wasting space with a bunch of potential solutions or answers to all the problems and questions we pose in a module, simply have more questions and problems!

 

[mkill]

Is your complaint about game rules or module design?

Are you talking about improvising puzzles and challenges? Allowing players to come up with innovative ideas and rolling with it?

Or are you talking about improvising plots, i.e. allowing them to march off the red thread of a published adventure and walk into uncharted territory?

 

[Kzach]

Is your complaint about game rules or module design?

Are you talking about improvising puzzles and challenges? Allowing players to come up with innovative ideas and rolling with it?

Or are you talking about improvising plots, i.e. allowing them to march off the red thread of a published adventure and walk into uncharted territory?

I think the only way I'm going to get across the idea is to design a module and publish it

 

[tlantl]

I think I see where the problem here lies. You don't want open ended questions you want open ended situations.

If I use a prepared module I usually rip out the guts and adapt it to my group's motivations, play styles and my game world. Most of them bear little resemblance to the original when I'm done.

For the casual gamer it is important for the prepared module to have all of the possible outcomes listed and the smallest detail laid out so the DM only has to get familiar with the contents to play it. The more work they need to do to set up the module the less likely it's going to be used, especially if the DM is limited to a minimum of preparation time.

I get a lot of time off during the winter so I can draw up elaborate adventures but once spring comes my schedule fills up quickly and being as I'm not a young man any more it takes it's toll. I don't have a lot of time to play and often don't for the whole summer.

On those occasions where I have the time and feel up to dealing with my group's foibles, I might take on a published module to save me the time it takes to write up my own. The only up side of writing dungeons for 3e as opposed to AD&D is the combats take so much longer that the stuff I prepare can last three or four weekends.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think the only way I'm going to get across the idea is to design a module and publish it

Heh. Look out world

So I get the "adventure setting" vs "adventure path" distinction and that you want more of the first and less of the second.

But is there more to it than that?

 

[Minigiant]

If it is module design, then I get it...

It's DM time and DM fiat vs Rules and the narrow view. If the game doesn't give the rules, the DM has to manually create the situation from scratch, ad hoc the resolution method for it, and have fiat over the whole situation. If the game does provide the rules, then there is less burden on the DM but the player's view may be focused on the rules so hard they can't see other options. A common issue.

For example, I've been in many situation where the party has to defeat a person that they don't want to harm. It always plays out 4 ways.

1) The game provides disarming rules. The party spam disarms and nonlethal attacks while ignoring other methods to disable the foe.
2) The game provides disarming rules. The party spam disarms and nonlethal attacks while using other methods to disable the foe.
3) The game doesn't provides disarming rules. The party ask for disarming rules. DM makes up favorable rules. Encounter is easy.
4) The game doesn't provides disarming rules. The party ask for disarming rules. DM makes up unfavorable rules. Encounter is hard and half the time, the party just kills/injures the foe or uses different methods to take out the foe.

If it is module design... then it is a time thing for the DM.