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

[LordEntrails]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION],

I get your points. I think the question of what to include incline is more about what level of detail should be included in the encounter? Everything needed? Or just enough of a reminder for a DM who already knows something about the creature? (Of course, the difference is a really big grey area.)

This one is actually hard for me to say because now I exclusively DM with Fantasy Grounds (so full stat blocks are a click away, and things like saves, AC, and HP are handled automatically for me.

I guess it doesn't hurt to include more info rather than less

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION],

I get your points. I think the question of what to include incline is more about what level of detail should be included in the encounter? Everything needed? Or just enough of a reminder for a DM who already knows something about the creature? (Of course, the difference is a really big grey area.)

This one is actually hard for me to say because now I exclusively DM with Fantasy Grounds (so full stat blocks are a click away, and things like saves, AC, and HP are handled automatically for me.

I guess it doesn't hurt to include more info rather than less

Yeah, I've been trying to focus our conversation on universal principles of adventure design, but it's true that medium (print, PDF, a VTT like Fantasy Grounds or Roll20, or web-based) matters.

The ideal is to deliver an adventure in as many ways as possible, but there are limitations because in addition to "what do DMs and players want?", a publisher needs to consider "is this added functionality / alternative medium worth the cost?"

For example, there's a free adventure on DM's Guild called Bulette Storm by Chris Bissette, who also runs the Loot the Room blog. It features a convenient interactive PDF in landscape format (ideal for screen viewing). However, Chris admits on his blog that it was a huge investment of time. Anyone familiar with Acrobat Pro DC who looked at Bulette Storm likely had my two-sided reaction: "Wow! That's impressive! and "Yikes! That's a huge time sink! Is it really worth it?"

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You can shorten this down considerably without losing anything by simply having the three indented lines and the CR/XP bit become one single series separated by semicolons, thus

Spells: at-will detect magic; 3/day enlarge/reduce, tongues, true polymorph; 1/day conjure (fire) elemental, gaseous form, invisibility, major image, plane shift, wall of fire. CR 11 (7,200 XP); MM 145.

Lan-"though my preference would be to list the spells in highest-to-lowest level order within each time limit, reversing what you've got here"-efan

 

[Quickleaf]

You can shorten this down considerably without losing anything by simply having the three indented lines and the CR/XP bit become one single series separated by semicolons, thus

Spells: at-will detect magic; 3/day enlarge/reduce, tongues, true polymorph; 1/day conjure (fire) elemental, gaseous form, invisibility, major image, plane shift, wall of fire. CR 11 (7,200 XP); MM 145.

Lan-"though my preference would be to list the spells in highest-to-lowest level order within each time limit, reversing what you've got here"-efan

We may be veering into the realm of personal preference, but here's a question: Which caster NPC abbreviated stat block reads more easily?

[section]Flame mage. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 11 (14 with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6) cantrips control flames, fire bolt, light, mage hand; 1st (4) burning hands, detect magic, mage armor; 2nd (3) flaming sphere, pyrotechnics, suggestion; 3rd (3) dispel magic, fireball, haste; 4th (1) wall of fire; CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/section]

or

[section]Flame mage. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 11 (14 with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6)

cantrips control flames, fire bolt, light, mage hand;
1st (4) burning hands, detect magic, mage armor;
2nd (3) flaming sphere, pyrotechnics, suggestion;
3rd (3) dispel magic, fireball, haste;
4th (1) wall of fire;​

CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/section]

 

[Lanefan]

We may be veering into the realm of personal preference, but here's a question: Which caster NPC abbreviated stat block reads more easily?

[section]Flame mage. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 11 (14 with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6) cantrips control flames, fire bolt, light, mage hand; 1st (4) burning hands, detect magic, mage armor; 2nd (3) flaming sphere, pyrotechnics, suggestion; 3rd (3) dispel magic, fireball, haste; 4th (1) wall of fire; CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/section]

or

[section]Flame mage. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 11 (14 with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6)

cantrips control flames, fire bolt, light, mage hand;
1st (4) burning hands, detect magic, mage armor;
2nd (3) flaming sphere, pyrotechnics, suggestion;
3rd (3) dispel magic, fireball, haste;
4th (1) wall of fire;​

CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/section]

I don't care how easily it reads - I want substance over style, which means for print purposes (the only ones that matter to me) the most amount of information in the least amount of space.

Also and only tangentially related - why is the alignment listed here as "any evil" when you're talking about what seems to be only one individual? Shouldn't it be specifically LE, NE or CE?

 

[pogre]

We may be veering into the realm of personal preference, but here's a question: Which caster NPC abbreviated stat block reads more easily?

[section]Flame mage. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 11 (14 with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6) cantrips control flames, fire bolt, light, mage hand; 1st (4) burning hands, detect magic, mage armor; 2nd (3) flaming sphere, pyrotechnics, suggestion; 3rd (3) dispel magic, fireball, haste; 4th (1) wall of fire; CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/section]

or

[section]Flame mage. Medium humanoid any evil; AC 11 (14 with mage armor); HP 38; Spd 30; Senses 15; Lang common, ignan, jhatab’enar; Resist fire; Saves Str +0, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +6, Wis +5, Cha +0; #Att 1 fire bolt +6 (120 ft), 2d10 fire; dagger +4 (5 ft), 3 (1d4+1) piercing; Special geased; Spells (save DC 14, attack +6)

cantrips control flames, fire bolt, light, mage hand;
1st (4) burning hands, detect magic, mage armor;
2nd (3) flaming sphere, pyrotechnics, suggestion;
3rd (3) dispel magic, fireball, haste;
4th (1) wall of fire;​

CR 6 (2,300 XP); p. #.[/section]

I prefer the second. Easy to read is a big bonus for me.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I wasn't thinking of high-level adventures since I haven't even got to high-level in 5e yet. If monsters get scarce at high level, I'd still prefer looking into advancing/modifying existing ones before creating new monsters.

I like totally new monsters when they are unique, so the examples of a special golem or dragon or demon etc. are all good for me. That's because a unique monster doesn't really alter the nature and ecology of a fantasy setting.

What I do not like, just to be more clear, is adventures which introduce new species of monsters, because you have to allocate them into the world. The worst would be the yet another humanoid race with an animal twist, which end up socially identical to all others.

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.

If you ask me what I want, I tell you what I want, not what I think others want...

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.

Yes this is true, it's a conflicting feeling for me because on one hand the dream is to be able to run short adventures without preparation, and on the other hand I am always intrigued by ideas for modifying monsters in simple ways.

For an adventure meant to be read while running, it might be best to just stick with stock MM monsters, plus a very few "uniques" with full stats provided in the adventure appendix itself.

 

[Quickleaf]

Also and only tangentially related - why is the alignment listed here as "any evil" when you're talking about what seems to be only one individual? Shouldn't it be specifically LE, NE or CE?

I omitted the monster numbers for simplicity. I also changed the name for simplicity. The actual entry I was copy-pasting was: Shig'harakhi (3).

I don't care how easily it reads - I want substance over style, which means for print purposes (the only ones that matter to me) the most amount of information in the least amount of space.

I prefer the second. Easy to read is a big bonus for me.

I think your differing tastes is a great demonstration of how this is really a question of personal preference, and not any kind of "objective" best practice for adventure design. I put "objective" in parentheses because best practice is really a matter of consensus.

 

[Charles Rampant]

A few comments on the last few pages' worth of discussion:

One thing that 5e WotC adventures are confident in doing is very quick modifications to a monster. Princes of the Apocalypse is the best example. In one place, the book says, "this is an aquatic Troll, it can swim 30ft. and breathe underwater." In another, it says, "The leader of the Minotaurs can breathe fire as an action. Save DC 14, 30ft. cone, Dexterity save for half damage, 6d6 damage." It's elegant. Sometimes you can go overboard with this method, however - Iymrith from SKT was highlighted by Power Score for this, as her Storm Giant profile had a hefty list of changes, enough to suggest that they should have just printed it out entirely.

As for mundane rooms... well, it firstly makes me think of Terry Pratchett's comment that "When creating a fantasy city, start with the sewers. How do they get rid of the waste?" But, then again, his work focused on poo for comedy purposes For dungeons, it isn't necessarily wrong to have five boring rooms in the dungeon, especially when you are realistically going to only have a very small number of words to describe them so it isn't that big a deal. Sometimes you can just skip them; especially if, for example, your dungeon is only a small part of a larger settlement, so it is easy to assume that the boring bits are elsewhere. Sometimes you can make them interesting; my group is now at the end of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and are wandering around the Cloud Giant castle. They found a kitchen, within which they saw twenty Kobolds and a griffon, the latter sitting on a perch in the rafters and ensuring that the Kobolds don't slack off. That one simple detail - taking only a line of text - was enough to give that room a distinct hook, and the players certainly seemed more impressed by it than the usual kitchen description!

If you must have inline monster stats, at least make them legible. The first example there wasn't, so I'd consider it a double failure.

There's something else interesting that was discussed, but I can't remember it now. Ah well.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think the in-line stats should be more readable. A few lines (depending on column width) are worth the more friendly formatting. Though I still have a hard time thinking that type and alignment should be there, but that is really just my play style.