Modules and the right amount of setting detail

[howandwhy99]

Think about a quest-giver. Let's say this adventure names the quest-giver Dacarde, leader of the King's Special Forces. His background is relevant because the adventure involves infiltrating/breaking a dragon cult, and that's the sort of thing you'd imagine someone in his position getting involved with. It's an easy enough swap-out for another NPC (say a prominent cleric in your campaign).
-Does this intrude too much on setting because it assumes there's a king and a dragon cult?
-Does it intrude too much on setting because it names a character type who may be defined in the official setting material?
-Or is it an entirely reasonable amount of setting?
-Can Dacarde's presence be limited to the read-aloud text/limited interaction PCs are expected to have with him in the adventure?
-Certainly he wouldn't need more than a brief description and no stat block?
-Would your view change if this was a long adventure or adventure path?
-Would you need to know more about Dacarde upfront?

I believe any NPC can be substituted with a current NPC in the game if there isn't contradicting material already in place. Can some of the adventure material change to fit the campaign? I'd hope so, but we need to keep enough so the adventure module doesn't fall apart either. Personally I don't use NPCs as exclusively quest-givers or write adventures as quests, but that design example helps to understand where you're coming from. To the questions:

-The adventure is the dragon cult, so you're adding it if it isn't there already. Is the existence of the king playable and key to the module? I'm guessing not, but Ducarde needs something on his side to offer or threaten the PCs with. Authority and a king's worth of holdings work nicely.

- If I put a "paladin" in a module which isn't the official paladin, then it's a different subclass. The name likely will be changed, but the class design doesn't have to be barred.

- Dacarde as presented isn't much setting at all. He needs to be written with an eye towards game rules, but these aren't always known to the module writer as different games can use the module.

- I don't care for boxed text and wouldn't use it for interacting with NPCs beyond an identifying catchphrase or something. Dacarde should have his character defined to cover the gameable interactions with in the module. That means rumors, beliefs, goals, relationships, personality, goods, and even combat stats. He'd eventually get them anyways if the players focus on Dacarde, but he needs only what he needs for the module to work.

- Quest adventures with quest-giving NPCs sound like 2e adventures that are somewhat scripted and adventure paths today. If that is the adventure design, than only give what little is necessary for it.

- What I would do for Ducarde is fill out all the stats like I mentioned above as well as put him in a position where the PCs are likely to seek him out or vice versa. Then if the PCs ignore the quest offering, they can still investigate and play with him.

Now, what if the adventure assumes more than what Starfox you mentioned as the urban/dungeon/wilderness divide? What if it makes kindgom scale assumptions, for example, that there is a bastard heir, or the names of the royal family, or the existence of a King's Special Forces... Is kingdom scale stuff that you'd prefer be off limits to a module? IOW, should modules be restricted to "local scale" issues and sites? Does that answer change depending on if it's a sandbox vs. adventure path? I'd assume that sandbox DMs would answer "yes, modules should be local scale."

Scale of an adventure is going to determine a lot of a game system's level of playability. Going on a quest to fight dragons is commonly high level in D&D and high level design should be accounted for. Dealing with kings is also usually high level, but certainly can be done at low levels too because PCs in an aligned kingdom have greater access to high level threats than an opposed aligned dungeon. I mean, king and kingdom are titles, but the creature's stats, sufficiently large holdings, and accompanying forces as defined in the game rules are what ultimately rates the whole force as one level or another.

Your dragon cult without a dragon might be low level. Your kingdom middle level. And your sly dragon watching behind the scenes high level. But I'd agree adventure design should focus on a tightly-knit group of elements within a particular span of levels or we threaten to lose what modules do well, maybe are, and end up with a list of tenuously connected elements of vast level difference. I.e. largely setting material.

IME adventure paths don't require as much balancing for adventures because the range of engaging with different elements is limited to a prepared course. This encounter is combat. Another is a discourse. A third is a trap to be discovered and removed. In this case, only prepare what is needed and don't worry about scale and threat levels outside of the path.

I find one of the main keys to creating a sandbox campaign is that the adventure modules are designed and selected before the campaign setting. When a kingdom is to be added into a sandbox then game modules can be used to inform its design. That means putting in high level adventures like Dacarde's. IME sandbox games should have all levels of game play available to the PCs at start, but the lowest level is in full detail at the campaign starting area as that is the level PCs begin at. Sandboxes grow as the campaign grows and including high level adventures early means they are leveled into along the way as well as being altered by low level play beforehand.

 

[N'raac]

Let's move back to the term "module". What does it mean? To me, it means a component part suitable for insertion in a larger whole. So that implies a module set in "a large seaport", not one set in a specific location on a specific game world, but a module that can plug into a large seaport on any gameworld I care to use.

If the module is an actual large seaport, laid out with NPC's and factions within the seaport, it should be a seaport I can plug into my existing game world, which is tougher to do as we need to find a place on the map to plug that seaport into. So limited setting details.

If the "module" is specifically designed to be played in Forgotten Realms 3.5e Waterdeep, it's really not a "module" any more, it's a Forgotten Realms adventure.

The nomenclature "Adventure Path" seems to acknowledge that these aren't "modules" any more, but combinations of adventure and setting not designed to plug into one's existing campaign world. However, one might well find other modules out there to plug into the Adventure Path itself.

Many older modules used to be quite specific that the module might be "set in the world of Greyhawk" or "suitable for use in any D&D campaign". Some older modules used to indicate good locations in multiple campaign settings, although as the flavour of various settings moved further afield from "generic fantasy setting with standard D&D elements", this became less practical (ie if it has Kender, it doesn't fit outside Dragonlance, and if it has halflings it doesn't fit in Dragonlance).

So I guess "it depends". If the "module" promises a fully-fleshed out seaport and its local environs, it needs that setting detail to live up to the promise, but it's less modular than an adventure which can be set in any medium to larger seaport.

 

[Quickleaf]

Let's move back to the term "module". What does it mean? To me, it means a component part suitable for insertion in a larger whole. So that implies a module set in "a large seaport", not one set in a specific location on a specific game world, but a module that can plug into a large seaport on any gameworld I care to use.

If the module is an actual large seaport, laid out with NPC's and factions within the seaport, it should be a seaport I can plug into my existing game world, which is tougher to do as we need to find a place on the map to plug that seaport into. So limited setting details.

If the "module" is specifically designed to be played in Forgotten Realms 3.5e Waterdeep, it's really not a "module" any more, it's a Forgotten Realms adventure.

The nomenclature "Adventure Path" seems to acknowledge that these aren't "modules" any more, but combinations of adventure and setting not designed to plug into one's existing campaign world. However, one might well find other modules out there to plug into the Adventure Path itself.

Many older modules used to be quite specific that the module might be "set in the world of Greyhawk" or "suitable for use in any D&D campaign". Some older modules used to indicate good locations in multiple campaign settings, although as the flavour of various settings moved further afield from "generic fantasy setting with standard D&D elements", this became less practical (ie if it has Kender, it doesn't fit outside Dragonlance, and if it has halflings it doesn't fit in Dragonlance).

So I guess "it depends". If the "module" promises a fully-fleshed out seaport and its local environs, it needs that setting detail to live up to the promise, but it's less modular than an adventure which can be set in any medium to larger seaport.

Ok...by your definition, the B-series were not modules because they were set in Mystara.

But back to my question...so you've set up two kinds of modules: one that should be setting independent and presumably setting-light? And the other which is setting-dependent and presumably should be setting-medium or heavy?

 

[DMZ2112]

My rule of thumb for a standalone is that if a setting element can be seen from space, it's probably best not to name it in the module. Anything smaller is fair game. A decent corollary to that rule is that if a setting element visible from space is completely circumscribed by the module -- meaning that the adventure touches every part of it and appropriate detail is provided -- you are probably not dealing with a module anymore, and have started writing a campaign boxed set. Adventure paths are really just episodic boxed sets.

For instance, let's say I'm writing a module about a town, on a river, in a region. I'd name the town, and go into some detail about its layout and citizens. I'd name the river, because it isn't important to the adventure that the river be a major artery like the Mississippi, Danube, or Nile. If it were -- for instance, if the adventure visited multiple destinations along the river -- that might change. Finally, I would only describe the region in broad terms and not give it a name, so that the adventure can more easily be dropped into an existing setting.

If the adventure visited every port of call along the river, from its mouth to its source, as a major plot element, or if it visited a series of locations in the region meant to define the region in the minds of the players, then I'd say it's not a module anymore; it's a boxed set or adventure path.

 

[Quickleaf]

- Quest adventures with quest-giving NPCs sound like 2e adventures that are somewhat scripted and adventure paths today. If that is the adventure design, than only give what little is necessary for it.

That's an assumption. For example, the dragon cult and it's environs could be a site-based adventure the PCs could approach any number of ways. All the quest-giver does is provide the DM with an easy direct method of getting players hooked. It's optional, but it's a quick effective option.

For example, a quest-giver could be provided alongside a list of PC Hooks by Race/Class that let the players/DM come up with why the PCs are involved with investigating the dragon cult. If the DM doesn't like quest givers he/she can use these hooks instead. Anyhow, that's off-topic...

Dacarde should have his character defined to cover the gameable interactions with in the module. That means rumors, beliefs, goals, relationships, personality, goods, and even combat stats. He'd eventually get them anyways if the players focus on Dacarde, but he needs only what he needs for the module to work.

So this gets back to my question about level of detail. In this model, you've got a periphery NPC totally pinned down and described. Should all NPCs - no matter how central they are to the adventure - get similar coverage? Or would you make some other argument, like there should be no periphery named NPCs in an adventure?

And...where do you stop? Does the King who Dacarde serves need to be detailed? And then all knight/men-at-arms who serve the King (because they're potential recruitable NPCs)?

- What I would do for Ducarde is fill out all the stats like I mentioned above as well as put him in a position where the PCs are likely to seek him out or vice versa. Then if the PCs ignore the quest offering, they can still investigate and play with him.

For my example, you can just assume the example adventure begins like most 1e modules: "There's a Cult of the Dragon. You're investigating it. Do you seriously need more details? Work it out with your DM."

 

[Quickleaf]

My rule of thumb for a standalone is that if a setting element can be seen from space, it's probably best not to name it in the module. Anything smaller is fair game. A decent corollary to that rule is that if a setting element visible from space is completely circumscribed by the module -- meaning that the adventure touches every part of it and appropriate detail is provided -- you are probably not dealing with a module anymore, and have started writing a campaign boxed set. Adventure paths are really just episodic boxed sets.

Wow, that's the firs time I've ever heard something like Planescape's campaign box set compared to something like Rise of the Runelords!

For instance, let's say I'm writing a module about a town, on a river, in a region. I'd name the town, and go into some detail about its layout and citizens. I'd name the river, because it isn't important to the adventure that the river be a major artery like the Mississippi, Danube, or Nile. If it were -- for instance, if the adventure visited multiple destinations along the river -- that might change. Finally, I would only describe the region in broad terms and not give it a name, so that the adventure can more easily be dropped into an existing setting.

That makes sense. But let's say that river is an important feature, or more broadly, that overland travel is an important feature of the adventure. How much detail is enough? Could there be different effective ways of handling overland travel as an important feature, as in hex crawl vs. plot-teleport vs. sum up smaller settlements along the way?

If the adventure visited every port of call along the river, from its mouth to its source, as a major plot element, or if it visited a series of locations in the region meant to define the region in the minds of the players, then I'd say it's not a module anymore; it's a boxed set or adventure path.

So specific locales (presumably without political centrality) should be/are the focus of modules?

And adventure paths/boxed sets should/do focus on a broader region?

 

[howandwhy99]

Let's move back to the term "module". What does it mean?

For me a module is quite simply a game. Sort of like modules for Advanced Squad Leader. They are pieces to place within the larger campaign setting, but they aren't a road that must be completed. In fact, completing them is a bit like emptying a dungeon. Unless you set up shop there more proverbial bears are going to find this cave and begin hibernating in it.

As games modules are tightly balanced and set up with appropriate game elements in appropriate locations. They are designed like any other wargame, cardgame, or boardgame to have a maximum amount of variety with only a few amount of materials. The more possible outcomes and connections there are between the game elements (i.e. the greater number of game states), the more interesting the module is.

This is a good definition of a module as compared to a campaign setting. Campaign settings are less connected. Sure, they are towns and cities, dungeons and ruins, random collections of magic items and monsters, assortments of cultural behaviors and strategies. But D&D settings are like genres: disconnected as a whole, but with defining features which identify them. Sort of like people who define a duck based upon components rather than their interrelationship with everything else.

In a sandbox game the adventure modules are basically the cluster of game components at a given starting time with a high degree of connections between them. That and the adventure modules are designed as game challenges for each of the classes offered by the game. Campaign material is all the extra stuff that isn't related to the classes, but still defines the world. We don't have modules for being the best artisan in a village or running an inn in a fantasy city. We have combat, magic, clericism, and thieving cut through in everything published.

 

[DMZ2112]

Wow, that's the firs time I've ever heard something like Planescape's campaign box set compared to something like Rise of the Runelords!

It might be more accurate to compare Rise of the Runelords to, say, Hellbound, but the comparison is broadly relevant.

That makes sense. But let's say that river is an important feature, or more broadly, that overland travel is an important feature of the adventure. How much detail is enough? Could there be different effective ways of handling overland travel as an important feature, as in hex crawl vs. plot-teleport vs. sum up smaller settlements along the way?

I really like D&D5's exploration system for overland travel; if I'm not going to use something like that, I generally resort to plot teleportation. I do not like the recent movement toward overland travel being described in terms of encounters -- for instance, "While traveling from A-burg to B-town, you are ambushed by bandits!" I understand that the encounter might be relevant and even important to the plot, but it makes the rails underlying the adventure torturously visible. Organized play events are particularly bad about this.

Generally my preferred style is to provide a map with a few landmarks or points of interest in addition to the destinations, in conjunction with a table of random encounters. Any more detail than that and the exploration becomes the whole of the adventure.

So specific locales (presumably without political centrality) should be/are the focus of modules? And adventure paths/boxed sets should/do focus on a broader region?

Generally speaking, I'd say so. More specifically, you can theoretically write modules that cross great expanses of space or time, or boxed sets that provide exacting detail regarding a comparatively small area. But the former will require some excellent writing to avoid calling attention to the voids between important areas and events, and the latter will be so specific as to be functional for only a very small subset of users. These options require a delicate hand.

 

[howandwhy99]

That's an assumption. For example, the dragon cult and it's environs could be a site-based adventure the PCs could approach any number of ways. All the quest-giver does is provide the DM with an easy direct method of getting players hooked. It's optional, but it's a quick effective option.

For example, a quest-giver could be provided alongside a list of PC Hooks by Race/Class that let the players/DM come up with why the PCs are involved with investigating the dragon cult. If the DM doesn't like quest givers he/she can use these hooks instead. Anyhow, that's off-topic...

Good points here. I agree an NPC who may potentially direct the PCs isn't necessarily part of a plotted adventure. In fact, we might stop thinking of them as hooks too.

So this gets back to my question about level of detail. In this model, you've got a periphery NPC totally pinned down and described. Should all NPCs - no matter how central they are to the adventure - get similar coverage? Or would you make some other argument, like there should be no periphery named NPCs in an adventure?

And...where do you stop? Does the King who Dacarde serves need to be detailed? And then all knight/men-at-arms who serve the King (because they're potential recruitable NPCs)?

In a sandbox campaign everything the players can interact that is game-related should be able to be generated beforehand. It sounds like this adventure isn't a campaign, but like a convention one-shot. The players must go to the cult of the dragon and their whole time will be spent there beating the adventure. In that case, Ducarde isn't necessary at all. Make an explicit list of module objectives for the players to achieve for the tournament and have them listed from in game perspective. "A representative of the king meets and declares such and such before sending you off to this here place..."

If you allow players to interact with the NPC, then they must be built of game content. Of course this means question and answering, but goods Dacarde has on hands to offer them for sale too and all the rest.

At the actual adventure site, where the actual game is to take place, everything about everything that is related to the classes should be defined. The make up of rocks, the design of traps, what NPCs know, how monsters behave, the course of future events for the finite space and time the adventure covers.

This doesn't mean you can't simplify greatly. Most of game design in D&D is knowing how to cover vast amounts of detail in a small number of statistics. In the case of "named NPCs" we're talking about the actions of core figures in the adventure. Do the linkboys and torchbearers get names and knowledge and can have their 3d6 stats rolled? Yeah, but that's easily aggregated and all the non-module related stuff can be ungenerated for DMs to include from their specific home campaign.

For my example, you can just assume the example adventure begins like most 1e modules: "There's a Cult of the Dragon. You're investigating it. Do you seriously need more details? Work it out with your DM."

That's a like a tournament adventure. Players can be drawn into tournament adventures in home campaigns just by playing in a starting adventure within an interconnected game setting. For example, the PCs might start in Hommlet and exploring a moathouse, but the nearby activities of the Dragon Cult have begun to reach the ears of people in town (hence easily discovered by the PCs) due to trade traffic. Maybe some members of a nearby Temple of Elemental Evil have sent out feelers to possibly learn and recruit these cultists? Maybe wandering monster cultists are recruiting in a nearby hidden town called Nulb? In a campaign these connections exist. Ducarde is tied to the City of Verbobonc, a game structure which at some point must have generated if the PCs head that way. He is a representative of the current leader there and therefore enough of the city must be created to know what that means. As to his role in the adventure, he might be look to recruit locals to help with his own quest to wipe out the Dragon Cult, something that may or may not be openly spreading as a rumor, and something he plans fully to supervise safely from town.

 

[Starfox]

Ok...by your definition, the B-series were not modules because they were set in Mystara.

I donöt have a problem with a module being placed in a specific named setting. THe name alone then allows me to picture much of what the adventure needs in terms of my own campaign (if it is a setting I know). It is even easier to port and adventure from "the Republic of Darokin in Mystarra" than from "a small town on an important rural highway".

An adventure doesn't stop being a "module" until it becomes to large to seamlessly insert in any campaign world.