'New Classics' Module Survey

[Rechan]

I think I'd enjoy working with a group on a project like that. If there was a group that wanted to actually put something out.

We had a really good time playing it, but for that adventure it was the stuff we had added to the module that had made it especially memorable for our group, so in the end I kept the DM notes, sold the module.

A few things.

1) A classic is something that is a shared experience - everyone (or most people) played it.

2) It has situations that can be experienced, but many of those situations can come out differently. Even after multiple playthroughs. Example: The Sunless Citadel and Meepo. I've heard of people playing Keep on the Borderlands multiple times. (Tome of Horrors is different; once you go through it, you sort of know the answers).

3) It's a great enough framework that lets DMs add to it.

4) But it needs to have a good enough base quality to be worth it.

 

[Rechan]

old school Megadungeons ala the OSR[/qutoe]
I'm unfamiliar with this. Is this a 4e adventure or are you referring to something earlier?

 

[Pour]

old school Megadungeons ala the OSR

I'm unfamiliar with this. Is this a 4e adventure or are you referring to something earlier?

While there aren't any 4e megadungeons, they're something I'd like to see, legitimate and expansive crawls in the vein of Undermountain, Dwimmermount, Stonehell and Rappan Athuk. While probably well-suited to 4thcore for their general lethality, megadungeons kind of have their own flavor separate from anything else, rooted in the early traditions of the game, and I figured they needed their own shout out in that list.

 

[Rechan]

What could you see as a uniquely 4e adventure, what is your opinion of fresh and exciting, what might it have to include, and what shouldn't it?

OK so there's a lot going on in this initial question, as well as in this thread.

What about 4e can be Unique in an Adventure

A 4e adventure should showcase the strengths of 4e. While it was cited earlier about the unique story of 4e, which is indeed nice, one must consider that using Erathis and the like may not gel with homegames. Many of your classics did not have very strong World ties - they could be anywhere, instead of making waves in the setting. That said, things like the Planes are strongly 4e.

But beyond the story, the real strength of 4e is the system. The adventure therefore should use the system's tools to the maximum. Those tools are:

• Terrain, Hazards and Set pieces. This is most underutilized, but easiest way to make a fight more interesting, unique and memorable. You can have a fight take place on a set of logs floating in a slow moving river. Or a crumbling floor. Or alternate moving platform. More encounters than not should have something going on. The threat of terrain/set pieces is that they're too complicated or too large to track, nor too tedious for players. The trick is strategy, challenge, or both.

• Exceptions Based Design. This means that a creature can do anything we need it to, in order to reflect the monster's feel, reflect what we need for the scene, and story shore up the story. We can do the same with terrain and set pieces - you can create something that exists only in that situation, making it inherently unique.

• Skill challenges. This is one of those hairy areas. A good skill challenge is great, a bad one is an excruciating experience. It's risky, but a very intriguing tool that should be used to its fullest potential.

• Opposing Teams. Because 4e has monsters with many roles, and they fight PCs as a group, the monsters should be designed like a team. You see threads about optimizing a Party so powers compliment - the same should be true for monsters. With that said their battleplan should not be too complicated (lots of moving parts - something falls apart), nor too hinging on one power working. Also things such as Minions, Solos who have Stages or Phases, etc.

• Rewards. Using 4e, we can do unique things. We can repackage magical items as powers (see the Boons, etc in the DMG2). Offer temporary unique benefits (That are not fiddly bits), and so on. Do not be afraid to try something different. Hell, let's give them a power card for it.

The Adventure Should

Once we've gotten past the things that make the adventure 4e-y, what about the adventure itself? The content, the meat, what should that have?

• Ambition. Don't be afraid to try something a little new. Something like tower defense - defending a location for a set period of time. Even giving players control of minion troops, letting them allocate them, etc. Some sort of Objective Based Encounter would be absolutely lovely. Dead by Dawn is a great example of both of these.

• Something new. Similar, but different, to the above: the adventure should present something new. Not just a new monster or whatever, but an encounter, a set-piece, a something that you just can't get somewhere else. Give DMs a reason to want to run the adventure after reading through it. They need to read it and go "I have to run this." If for no other reason than to tear it out and put it in their own game.

• A strong opening. I know that you need some generic hooks so it applies to most groups. And many classics begin quaintly - it's just a rumored dungeon, or it's just a Keep on the Borderlands. But, between that initial hook and the adventure's second act, it needs to be strong. Good examples of this are Sleeper in the Tomb of Dreams and Dark Heart of Mithrendain both have this. It doesn't need to be combat, but it should be compelling or tempting. Poor examples of this are Keep on the Shadowfell, which has a limp first half.

• Player Choices. The players should get to decide something, that effects the outcome, that has consequences. Not just "Defeat the bad guy, win the day", but something they Do should have some significance. Maybe this is hard moral choice (although that could be optional).

• Optional Encounters. Compare KoS to Trollhaunt. The former had a long slog of room after room you couldn't avoid. Trollhaunt had encounters that weren't necessarily part of the adventure, but if PCs wanted to explore (read: went off road), they were right there. An adventure with alternate routes PCs can make would be great.

• An interesting NPC. Just one NPC that stands out, either because they're funny, quirky, different, or compelling. This is one thing that will make memories.

What should the adventure Not be?

What should we avoid?

• Well-trodden ground. Look at what most of the available adventures have in common, in terms of story and monster mix. For instance, you would be hard pressed to find a 1-2 level adventure that did not focus on Goblins, Kobolds, super weak undead (zombies/skeletons) and/or silly monsters like Bullywugs. Slightly higher level? Orcs. It's been done. If that horse has been beaten beyond death, let's avoid repeating the obvious. This includes the plot (villain setup) and the hooks.

• Too Exotic. We want this to be able to be dropped into a game with as little work as possible. So an adventure in the middle of the Desert is harder to incorporate. I love me desert/jungle adventures, but unless it's the beginning of a campaign (1st level), it's hard to transition your group to the area where it starts. Same wtih alienating your readers - I know Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is a classic, but it's sci fi aliens, guys; that's going to alienate (no pun intended) many groups. On the other hand, there are many types of adventures that are few and far between (adventures on a ship, Urban adventures, etc).

• Encounter after Encounter of the same relative enemy composition, without much variation. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Final Thoughts

Guys, there are a ton of good blogs and podcasts out there with 4e design advice. Do not let their words go to waste. Comb them. Pluck out their gems. Use that from the ground up.

 

[Rechan]

One last thing to keep in mind.

I don't think you're going to be able to make a "Classic". Especially not with a free online product. You have to be able to reach the non-4e-Blog-Reading, non-Internet using groups, and reach a lot of them.

So trying to live up to the title of Classic is setting up for failure. Don't try to make the Best 4e Adventures. Go for Great.

 

[Zaukrie]

I cannot recommend the Open Design work from Kobold Quarterly strongly enough. Every one of them is unique, and well written with interesting stories and combats. I really enjoy them a lot.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The Kobold patronage model, by tell of just about every review and my own experience, is a complete success. I think there are a few differences between community effort and the patronage projects that make it so. Firstly, given there is a set product pitch for each project, say the Northlands or Planes, I think that helps focus contributions a little. There are large brainstorming threads where everyone piles ideas into, spin off threads that build off one another, and then I believe they go through rounds of weeding until there is a general consensus enough for the lead designer to make his final, informed picks that see further development.

Having a lead designer is also crucial, as he kind of observes, contributes and makes important judgement calls (in conjunction with patron voting) along with Wolfgang. To a lesser extent, I think having to pay a patron fee welcomes people serious about design, and the page count also keeps things from getting too unruly per project (though there is PDF and article support for extra bits cut from print but worth producing).

Pumping out regular adventures? No, I think they mostly focus on supplements and setting stuff, largely tailored for the Midgard campaign setting at this point, but every one has been of outstanding quality. I think where a hodgepodge breakdown would occur, however, is if they tried to produce a single adventure meant for more than one edition.

These are good elements to think about for community projects. I'm still kind of partial to dividing willing persons into different design teams, then rotating their work amongst all teams so it has the maximum number of eyes and brains (and hopefully play tests) before it gets back to them for a sort of finalizing. Then maybe a lead designer could be designated to gel whatever editing and organization had to come next.

Pitches could be made by anyone willing to work on said project, made to the larger pool of designers, during an open window period, and after the deadline this design pool could vote on all the projects they'd be interested in working on. The one with the most votes becomes the next community design project.

EDIT: I did indeed see the first Zeitgeist adventure, and it is an excellent model to base further efforts. I also happened to catch M1: Hateblossom from 4thcore and was thoroughly impressed. 4e 3rd party may be small, but it is quality. Definitely looking to contribute to that high standard.

Right, the patronage model works for a few reasons. First you've got a very strong lead designer who has total dictatorial control of the process. When you're patronizing a project Wulfgang is working on you get to discuss it with him and have a lot of input on direction and maybe put together some pretty specific elements. You'll have a good bit of input, but in the final analysis he's the cook. It takes a good experienced lead to do this well, both taking input and at the same time developing and sticking to a strong overall story and theme. It is FAR different from a 'group project' where volunteers all have equal input and the vision for the project can wander all over the place. All the patrons have a stake in the patronage project and it has very clearly defined goals and vision from the start. You do need that. It is POSSIBLE a group of volunteers can achieve that, but I think you'll find there would be the same one strong leading vision and voice. It is tough to hold such a group on course though.

I agree with Rechan's points pretty much on making a good adventure. The things that are going to make a good adventure that is going to shine in 4e are going to be things 4e is strong at.

 

[Pour]

Very comprehensive list, Rechan. I agree with a lot of the points, and you're right, there is a metric TON of great advise for creating 4e material out there. With any luck these gurus may join the efforts of expanding 3rd party beyond what some of them already have.

It's true, we may not ever make a classic, but I agree aiming high and making great modules in the attempt is well worth the time and effort.

Two Strengths
I think I've actually stumbled on another strength of community-based design as I begin organizing some more concrete efforts. With a large number of contributors, the burden of time, responsibility and testing are greatly reduced, and that really helps take the doubt off of single designers who have great ideas, any number of skills necessary for a project, and the will to contribute, but are overwhelmed by everything that goes into releasing something they find acceptable or their personal best (and, frankly, there's some impressive quality standards in joining the current 4e 3rd party- not necessarily discouraging upstarts, really inspiring them, and setting the bar at a place many will not be satisfied until they reach).

I know I've felt that back-and-forth pull myself. Realistically any amateur designer is constrained, also, by the time and responsibilities of a full time job or some form of intensive schooling. I've seen my individual projects start strong and dwindle within a few days or weeks just for my inability to juggle my ambitions with my life. Conversely, single designers might be working diligently on their personal projects, intending to support 4e, but consistently miss deadlines, turning a 2 month project into a 4, 6, 8 or forgotten and forever-to-be-personal project.

This community model could effectively utilize the gifted blogger, inspired ENWorlder and even the established freelancer, anyone who has commitments but still wants to contribute.

-

There's also the notion with so many community members involved in the project, there is potentially room for a lot of buzz throughout the development stages, publicity up to and including the release, and of course reviews. I know we may not exceed the confines of the internet fan base through this contributor synergy, but then again, maybe. It certainly couldn't hurt.


Ideas on the Process
Clearly the more the better, as the wider the pool of designers, the more can be supported. Initially, I'd imagine the pool work on a single project, divvying up portions depending on preference and strengths, then forming smaller design teams, which create their designated piece. Then, with these initial offerings saved in an 'Evolution' folder or thread somewhere, everyone rotates their work to the next design team, allowing for fresh eyes and ideas, which is saved as a second version, and on and on throughout the teams till it gets back to the original design team. Through this rotation, I imagine a lot of conversing between team members and even other teams, ideas being shared, with a general leaning more on the side of experimental and unique than tried and safe. Once these portions have been given a finalized draft from the originators, they'd likely be collected by a designated lead designer or designers (no more than 3) who have the awesome responsibility of putting it all together, after which the entire pool can playtest and comment.

Hopefully the process of evolving ideas won't be too offensive to select contributors during rotations as a final product takes shape, but that's really the risk of any collaborative, creative endeavor, so I take that more as the nature of the beast, not the model. There would also be an understood agreement that the lead designers would have final say, and access to all versions of a portion if they felt one was a little better fit than other. Everyone would get credit for the product, but the lead designers would get cover credit, and hopefully between the joy of working on something like this and the chance to be a lead designer, more will come, and more projects made.

 

[Rechan]

That sounds a bit messy. A few ideas as far as organization comes to mind. In part I think it depends on how we divvy things up.

Some ideas

Mini-projects

I really want to see a full on adventure tackled (if not bigger things). But, that's a big order (especially right out of the gate before the methods are smoothed out). It was suggested earlier in the thread to, instead of trying to tackle a big adventure, to do something in smaller bites. WotC has done these in the form of Delves and the Lairs (Open Grave/Draconomicon). I don't really think those were fairly popular, were they? How much use did they get?

Even so, there are some things that you can do, like Side Treks. I particularly love side treks, they're something you can drop in between points A and B, and typically something that lasts either an hour to half a session. They very well can consist of roleplaying encounters, or a single Encounter on a single battle. There was a series of 3rd Party PDF books in 3e called "En Route", which did things like this. I enjoyed those books. I've also seen 4e blogs put out such things (I recall one that took place on a glass balcony, another on a bridge of rotating platforms with a harpy).

Another option are Locales. Potentially adventure sites, or simply locations. There were some 3e 3rd party books of these - Urban Blight, Beyond the Walls and Beyond the Gates. Each had a location with NPCs. An example from Urban Decay was a tannery, the stats for its owner, who garments from human skin (disposing of the bodies via a pit of ghouls). Detailing Sweeney Todd and giving the description/map of his barber shop would have fit in.

An even smaller idea would be offering a detailed scene that a DM could drop into his adventure, like say "The Difficult River Crossing" or "The Building's on Fire", designing the terrain/set piece with its relevant rules but leaving the monsters out, so a DM has the rules for the unique situation at his disposal. Or you could design it around the monster, as the encounter itself; KM's Attacking the Eel sequence could count as one of these.

A product then could be made of putting several of these in one place. Like a PDF of several sidetreks, or several of the Scenic Rules.

Question is, would that be popular, would it get used? It's more a tool than a full on Adventure.

Design Models

So we could have a single team sit down with say, a delve/lair/whatever. That's their project. Or you could have team that just does fluff - coming up with several ideas that gets passed to another team that does the rules/map for it. If you have a large adventure, you could also split it up by saying "You guys, work on the first level of the dungeon"; in the article Pour links to in the beginning of the thread, they split the mega adventure up by saying "I'll work on the overall story, You work on the encounters Outside the building, You work on the encoutners Inside the building".

But, what if no one on Team A is good at doing X? What if, for instance, no one can come up with a good Terrain arrangement for this room, or a good mechanical interpretation. Instead of passing it to another group, having them try to do it, you could have thread dedicated to just "Help us make x". Like if you need a skill challenge built, you start a thread to get those who are good at skill challenge designs to do it. Not to mention a thread dedicated to "hey I had this idea but it doesn't fit in anything I'm doing, someone could use this"; a brainstorming or junk drawer thread.

 

[Pour]

Interesting ideas. I say we try them all and see which work better for future endeavors. I don't expect us to get it perfect from the get go, but it feels like we're moving in the right direction.

I definitely think it's a wise strategy to start small, and side treks, locales and set pieces sound exciting and really good precursors to tackling larger modules (I'm with you in wanting to produce those eventually).

I'm more partial to balanced design teams over a set fluff department and mechanics department, personally. For smaller projects, these teams could each handle so many side-treks, locales or set pieces, and then, as you illustrated, on larger projects tackle whole sections. I think there should be some sort of review of these elements beyond the checks-and-balances of the team itself, maybe not the rotation, but something, a contributor play test period or something before its all packaged.

Hah, my brain just tingles with the possibilities for the initial project. I think contributors should know what they're getting into when they sign up, though, in terms of design sensibility and direction. If we use some sort of project pitch we can set up expectations immediately in that regard. I'd want to ensure, also, that while we did keep usability in mind, we don't make things too mundane.