D&D 5E What do you want in a published adventure? / Adventure design best practices?

[Li Shenron]

Tell me more about this hypothetical direct-to-run adventure!

You have an ongoing campaign, presumably, so do you need to know how to integrate it into your game? Or does it stand on its own merits and any necessary modification is left up to you?

Also, presumably, you come across sections where you realize you want more information to understand the big picture of the adventure (e.g. a key NPC's motives)... How does this hypothetical adventure accommodate you there?

In short, tell me about the details of this adventure that allow you to do what you say!

Just brainstorming thoughts here...

- I would like the adventure to stand on its own. Modifications can always be done on a voluntary basis. Avoid instructions to do so, they are always obvious.

- It could be either setting-specific or setting-generic, depending on the adventure. In the latter case, I would prefer it to remain local i.e. to introduce maybe small towns and NPCs, but not kingdoms and organizations or new monsters, because these would alter the setting. Setting-generic should really mean "droppable" into any setting that allows basically everything in the core books, without adjustments needed. OTOH if setting-specific then of course the adventure can refer to the larger scale.

- It better be complete, no "fill this room with something" blanks. I don't know why this idea was ever so popular. Complete is better because the DM can still substitute anything with something else. If something's blank instead, this works against the purpose of being usable without preparation.

- "Read aloud" boxes will probably be the key and they should be plenty. Without them, the DM has to read stuff in advance and then figure out what to say based on that. Thus to make the adventure runnable in real time (without reading in advance), I would imagine to be able to just read the "read aloud" box which would also tell me stuff for the first time, and then after the box I can find the DM-only information to read silently while the players comment with each other about what I have just read aloud instead.

- A possible idea to improve usability is keying the different scenes, for example at the end of a section have a short list of the most likely PC's decisions or outcomes, with a key number to skip to the next section to use. Something like: if the PC's battle or confront the orcs go to section #4, if the PC's avoid battle and pursue the orcs go to section #7... then in section #4 you'd have encounter details (MM page ref. for Orc, stats for the unique Orc leader, checklist of Orc's motives and knowledge in case the PCs choose non-combat confrontation...) and more keys to continue depending on how the encounter ends. This helps navigating in real time through the adventure material without having to read everything between.

- If the story is non-linear, perhaps add a chart that tries to summarize the most likely paths depending on major PC choices.

- Maps are always good. Better if detachable or even printable (e.g. via a web enhancement) or something else so that you could (if wanted) keep them visible on the table without exposing the book. Ideally I like "mute maps" that show stuff which is safe for the PCs to know (such as terrain and major cities) while not showing other stuff that is supposed to be discovered during the adventure, and is added later by the DM on top of the map.

- As I mentioned before, avoid introducing new monsters. There are already plenty of creatures in the MM, there is no need for every adventure to increase the catalogue... and it forces the DM to add those monsters to the setting. It also requires page space for the new monsters stats. I would rather have adventures that make my MM feel useful and worth its money. Some important NPCs can have their own unique stats however, but try to keep these to a minimum, and favor additions rather than complete design when sufficient (e.g. the Orc leader could be just "use the standard MM Orc, add Battlemaster's maneuver X at-will and feat Y").

- When you really want something unique, put it in the middle of the scene page only if you expect it to be just killed at the first meeting. Important NPCs usually stay around for the whole adventure are thus are not nailed to a single specific scene, in which case I'd prefer their stats to be available in the appendix, so that they can either be detached or photocopied. Same for unique magic items descriptions, I like to print them out on small pieces of paper, I don't want them to be buried in the middle of a page.

 

[Lanefan]

Nice list. The only one I'd quibble with is...

- As I mentioned before, avoid introducing new monsters. There are already plenty of creatures in the MM, there is no need for every adventure to increase the catalogue... and it forces the DM to add those monsters to the setting.

Not necessarily, if the new monsters are unique (or can be made unique) to that specific adventure or series with the assumption that the entire population will be either killed off or captured or otherwise dealt with during the course of the adventure(s).

A perhaps-too-obvious example is a previously-unknown alien species that just crashed on a spaceship (the reason for the PCs' presence is they are investigating said crash) and is trying to gain a toehold on this world.

Some other possible examples of where new monsters don't have to be added to the setting:
- unique constructs or golems made only by the wizard whose ruined castle-dungeon-tower complex you're exploring (thus they only exist here)
- unique undead types created only by the necromancer whose ruined castle-dungeon-tower complex you're exploring (thus they only exist here)
- creatures new to the game because the adventure is off-plane, or is a dream, or is an illusion (thus they don't exist on your usual game world but are very much part of this particular adventure)
- creatures that are in fact completely unique (i.e. there really is only one) for whatever reason

It also requires page space for the new monsters stats.

Sadly, perhaps, not that relevant these days, particularly if the module is not to be hard-printed. And there's ways of cutting down on printed page count, mostly involving text compression and less white space and intentionally ignoring silly publishers' guidelines that only seem designed to keep the pulp and paper companies in business.

I would rather have adventures that make my MM feel useful and worth its money.

Problem is, there's some players who know the MM inside out. New monsters are what keeps these types on their toes, as they don't already know what it is and-or its strengths and weaknesses.

Lan-"that's the problem with being the last of something, Jack: sooner or later there's none left at all - Capt. Barbosa"-efan

 

[LordEntrails]

Just brainstorming thoughts here...

- I would like the adventure to stand on its own. Modifications can always be done on a voluntary basis. Avoid instructions to do so, they are always obvious.

Is this good though to assume all DMs can make these changes? I agree that you shouldn't try to re-educate a DM on how to make changes, but a paragraph with suggestions on how to adapt the adventure to a specific setting seems like it would be valuable.

- It better be complete, no "fill this room with something" blanks. I don't know why this idea was ever so popular. Complete is better because the DM can still substitute anything with something else. If something's blank instead, this works against the purpose of being usable without preparation.

Agree wholeheartedly on this. I'm guessing this used to be done to keep to a specific page count. IMO, page counts should no longer be a consideration for most publications.

- "Read aloud" boxes will probably be the key...

I agree with you, but I find it interesting that so many DMs hate text boxes (which can more easily be ignored or modified than created.)

- A possible idea to improve usability is keying the different scenes, for example at the end of a section have a short list of the most likely PC's decisions or outcomes,...

Strongly agree with this one. Very important in anything but a short linear adventure.

- Maps are always good. Better if detachable or even printable (e.g. via a web enhancement) or something else so that you could (if wanted) keep them visible on the table without exposing the book. ...

Absolutely. Maps are critical. And having both DM and Player versions are essential.

What I've been doing is in the adventure (in place in the text) I put a small DM version of the map (i.e. keyed) and then always in the appendix or as an attachment a larger player version of the map.

 

[Quickleaf]

- As I mentioned before, avoid introducing new monsters. There are already plenty of creatures in the MM, there is no need for every adventure to increase the catalogue... and it forces the DM to add those monsters to the setting. It also requires page space for the new monsters stats. I would rather have adventures that make my MM feel useful and worth its money. Some important NPCs can have their own unique stats however, but try to keep these to a minimum, and favor additions rather than complete design when sufficient (e.g. the Orc leader could be just "use the standard MM Orc, add Battlemaster's maneuver X at-will and feat Y").

This one stood out to me for two reasons.

First, if you try to design a high-level adventure using the Monster Manual, you're quickly going to meet some severe design limitations due to the paucity of high level monsters. While limitations can sometimes lead to creative ideas, in this case I feel confident asserting the opposite of you: You SHOULD introduce new monsters when called for, especially for a high-level adventure.

This also gets back to repeated comments about folks wanting something new in the adventures, including new monsters. Look at the overall positive reception new monsters appearing in the various WotC hardcover adventures has received.

Second, we were talking about this in the context of your hypothetical run-right-after-opening-the-book adventure....and then you go into monster modifications that require the DM to crack open the PHB – to 2 separate sections no less – in order to run an Orc leader. That approach seems to work contrary to your stated desire for a run-right-after-opening-the-book adventure.

 

[LordEntrails]

In line stat blocks...

I know we discussed this before, but not sure what (if anything) was decided on.

I feel full SRD/MM type stat blocks should be included in the appendix. That way they can be printed and the module is stand-alone (without need of anything else). (Of course, this is only possible if the license you are publishing under permits this).

But how much info should be included in the encounter description itself? Just enough for someone who is familiar with the creature?

Maybe something like;
4 Goblins: AC 15, HP 7, Scimitar +4 (1d6+2 slashing), Shortbow +4 (80/320ft, 1d6+2 piercing), Nimble Escape, Stealth +6, Darkvision 60ft.

And then what about more complicated entries like spellcasters?
1 Efreeti: AC 17, HP 200, Multiattack (Scimitar or Hurl Flame), Scimitar + 10 (2d6+6 slashing +2d6 fire), Hurl Flame +7 (120ft, 5d6 fire), Innate Spellcasting (At will: Detect Magic, 3/day: enlarge/reduce, tongues, 1/day each: conjure elemental, gaseous form, invisibility, major image, plane shift, wall of fire), Elemental Demise, Saves (Int +7, Wis +6, Cha +7), Immune: Fire, Darkvision 120ft.

 

[Quickleaf]

In line stat blocks...

I know we discussed this before, but not sure what (if anything) was decided on.

I feel full SRD/MM type stat blocks should be included in the appendix. That way they can be printed and the module is stand-alone (without need of anything else). (Of course, this is only possible if the license you are publishing under permits this).

But how much info should be included in the encounter description itself? Just enough for someone who is familiar with the creature?

Maybe something like;
4 Goblins: AC 15, HP 7, Scimitar +4 (1d6+2 slashing), Shortbow +4 (80/320ft, 1d6+2 piercing), Nimble Escape, Stealth +6, Darkvision 60ft.

And then what about more complicated entries like spellcasters?
1 Efreeti: AC 17, HP 200, Multiattack (Scimitar or Hurl Flame), Scimitar + 10 (2d6+6 slashing +2d6 fire), Hurl Flame +7 (120ft, 5d6 fire), Innate Spellcasting (At will: Detect Magic, 3/day: enlarge/reduce, tongues, 1/day each: conjure elemental, gaseous form, invisibility, major image, plane shift, wall of fire), Elemental Demise, Saves (Int +7, Wis +6, Cha +7), Immune: Fire, Darkvision 120ft.

Here's an example of what I'm using:

Maqim, Efreeti. Large elemental, LE; AC 17; HP 200; Spd 30, fly 60; Senses 12 darkvision 120 ft; Lang Ignan; Saves Str +6, Dex +1 Con +7, Int +7, Wis +6, Cha +7; Immunities fire; #Att 2 (scimitar or hurl flame) scimitar +10 (5 ft), 13 (2d6+6) slashing and 7 (2d6) fire; hurl flame +7 (120 ft), 17 (5d6) fire; Special elemental demise; Innate Spells (save DC 15, attack +7)

at-will detect magic;
3/day enlarge/reduce, tongues, true polymorph;
1/day conjure elemental (fire only), gaseous form, invisibility, major image, plane shift, wall of fire;
​

CR 11 (7,200 XP); MM 145.

 

[Tobold]

I would like a published adventure to have a "default" mode: If the players do either nothing, or nothing that drives the story forward, what will happen next? What is the villain doing if he *isn't* stopped? Preferably in a way that makes it visible to the players that the other side is making progress towards their goals, so as to put some pressure on them.

 

[LordEntrails]

Here's an example of what I'm using:

Maqim, Efreeti. Large elemental, LE; AC 17; HP 200; Spd 30, fly 60; Senses 12 darkvision 120 ft; Lang Ignan; Saves Str +6, Dex +1 Con +7, Int +7, Wis +6, Cha +7; Immunities fire; #Att 2 (scimitar or hurl flame) scimitar +10 (5 ft), 13 (2d6+6) slashing and 7 (2d6) fire; hurl flame +7 (120 ft), 17 (5d6) fire; Special elemental demise; Innate Spells (save DC 15, attack +7)

at-will detect magic;
3/day enlarge/reduce, tongues, true polymorph;
1/day conjure elemental (fire only), gaseous form, invisibility, major image, plane shift, wall of fire;
​

CR 11 (7,200 XP); MM 145.

Seems long to me. A couple of things that don't seem necessary;
- type, language, average damage, CR info, and reference.
IMO, type and language don't come into play often enough to take up the space (not for page count, but for brevity needs). Is average damage used often enough to list it? (Personal preference I know!). CR info/XP I put for the entire encounter, and not for a single creature in the encounter. And if the full block is in the appendix, source reference not needed (though if you don't do that, this would be needed.

Thoughts?

I would like a published adventure to have a "default" mode: If the players do either nothing, or nothing that drives the story forward, what will happen next? What is the villain doing if he *isn't* stopped? Preferably in a way that makes it visible to the players that the other side is making progress towards their goals, so as to put some pressure on them.

Hmm, so what happens if the players do nothing? You put the adventure in your pile and hope to come back to it in the future?

Seriously though, I can see a couple sentences about the path that things are going, but once the adventure hook sets, whatever the BBEG was going to do isn't nearly as important as what happens in response to common actions the PCs do. I can see in some complex scenarios a need to detail the BBEG evil plans if nothing happens. But in most cases even the BBEG assumes he's going to get interrupted at some point in his plan.

 

[ad_hoc]

The 2 things I most want in an adventure:

Good boxed text.

Good random encounter tables.

I find both difficult to do on my own. Especially the random encounters. I don't mean just a list of monsters. But actual detailed and unique encounters which will have an impact on the game but also just may never occur.

 

[Quickleaf]

Seems long to me.

I suspect most of the "it seems too long" actually comes from the formatting I'm using for a spellcaster to make their spells prepared easier to read. By way of contrast, here's a simple non-spellcaster monster:

Giant Scorpion. Large beast; AC 15; HP 52; Spd 40; Senses 13 blindsight 60 ft; Lang –; Saves Str +2, Dex +1, Con +2, Int -5, Wis -1, Cha -4; #Att 3 (2 claws, 1 sting) claw +4 (5 ft), 6 (1d8+2) bludgeoning and grappled (escape DC 12); sting +4 (5 ft), 7 (1d10+2) piercing and DC 12 Con (4d10/half) poison; CR 3 (700 XP); MM 327.

A couple of things that don't seem necessary;
- type, language, average damage, CR info, and reference.
IMO, type and language don't come into play often enough to take up the space (not for page count, but for brevity needs). Is average damage used often enough to list it? (Personal preference I know!). CR info/XP I put for the entire encounter, and not for a single creature in the encounter. And if the full block is in the appendix, source reference not needed (though if you don't do that, this would be needed.

Thoughts?

These are fine details that I suspect each DM is going to have their own personal preference for. Here are my thoughts...

Type is relevant mechanically for ranger favored enemy, paladin divine sense, some magic items, and some spells. It may also be relevant narratively for certain PCs or situations. Info worth having at a quick glance, especially when you start including monsters whose type might not be immediately obvious to a DM...is a hatori a beast or a monstrosity?...is a medusa a humanoid or monstrosity?...are goblins in THIS adventure actually fey?...is this monster detectable with Divine Sense or is detect evil and good required?...does my PC's giant slayer apply against an oni?

Language is easily overlooked. For example, did you know giants only speak Giant and genies only speak their respective dialect of Primordial (unless using tongues)? Did you even know that Ignan and Aquan are mutually intelligible dialects of Primordial? Maybe you did! But I'm guessing those are the sorts of fine points that a DM could easily forget. Of course, it's a DM's prerogative to make all sentient creatures in a dungeon speak Common, but that in turn invalidates choice of language and spells like comprehend languages or tongues. In game, knowing a monster's language can be useful if they're barking combat strategies to one another – can the PCs understand? Or if a rogue tries to sneak and eavesdrop on them? Or what if this particular giant scorpion is a polymorphed mage who speaks Common?

Average Damage depends. I've seen some DMs use it, I've seen some never use, and personally I tend to use it only when I'm dealing with a throw-away encounter (e.g. one sentry who gets one attack before getting dropped), damage between monsters & NPCs, and when running large numbers of monsters that I don't want to roll all those dice for. For example, "Guards (6)" I can roll damage dice for individually, but "Giant Vultures (24)", you bet I'm falling back on average damage!

CR / XP is used by some DMs who like to present balanced encounters, track XP on the adventuring day, or award XP for monsters slain. Personally, I don't do that, but I understand it's a style of play and wanted to support it. Also, for a monster that appears in the Monster Manual, my abbreviated stat block is the most that would appear in an adventure I were publishing; if the DM wanted the full monster stat block / ecology info I assume he or she would go back to the Monster Manual. Hence the reference. Also, the page reference can be useful for new monsters introduced in the adventure – that way the DM can flip (hot link) right to them without having to jump back to the table of contents or index to find that monster's page / hot link.