What does well designed mean?

[Akrasia]

.... That's why I like modules. It cuts my prep down. However, if the module is only a bare skeleton, then I have to do more preparation to make the module function in the game. For me, that is not fun. I like running the game, I don't particularly enjoy prepping...

I'm busy in my life as well, so I like modules too.

But I definitely prefer the 'bare skeleton' version, since I'm quite happy to fill in the details myself! It is easy to do, not tedious (unlike statting up NPCs and monsters), and a module that is only skeletal in form is easy to fit into most campaign settings.

This is why I love the 'Keep on the Borderlands' model. That module takes care of all the boring stuff (plans for the keep, stats for the monsters, etc.), while being 'skeletal' enough to let me add my own creative touches (make the secret 'evil priest' in the keep a beautiful woman who worships the Goddess 'Xathia') and fit it into my campaign setting.

....
To me, there has never been a sense that I am going to "discover what happens next," in a module because, as a DM, I always know what's going to happen next...

Wow, that's rather sad. :\

For me, 80 percent of the fun is finding out 'what happens next'. Players often surprise me.

That's another reason I like 'site-based' as opposed to 'plot-based' adventures -- the former kind let me see where the players go, as opposed to forcing some 'story' on them.

 

[Akrasia]

A well-designed adventure module sets the stage, and that's all.

I quite agree.

One of my favorite modules for any genre is Lost Abbey of Calthonwey....

I've never heard of this module. Any additional info?

 

[Hussar]

For me, 80 percent of the fun is finding out 'what happens next'. Players often surprise me.

But, even in a site based adventure with zero plot, you still know what's going to happen next. You know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that if they enter Room B21, they are going to meet 12 skeletons. There is no sense, for me, upon reading a module that I'm going to sit back and wonder what happens if they enter Room B21. I know precisely what's going to happen. It doesn't matter if the adventure is massively railroaded or as open ended as it can possibly be.

For me, there's never any surprise while I'm reading the module. Sure, I might get surprise out of an encounter, but, then its the players, not the module. As you say Akrasia, your players frequently surprise you. How often have you run a module, the party opens the door and you've said to yourself, "Hrm, I wonder what's in this room?"

To me, a well designed adventure has both a plot and a site. One doesn't necessarily negate the other. The Adventure Paths do both for example. The Slave Lords series (A1-4) also do so. So long as the plot isn't overwhelmingly railroading, and is nestled nice in the background, it adds a great deal to the adventure.

 

[Psion]

Back in good ol' Philosophy 101, we set forth that the virtue of something is determined by how well it performs its function.

The answer to such a question immediately follows from "what is its function." Where you choose to draw that line is often quite subjective.

As for me, being a cantankerous reviewer, I usually decide to define that in terms of what I feel such a product should be delivering to the customer rather than the way the designer defined the functions. In short (and much to the chagrin of the editor of DDG who suggested otherwise...), the goals of a design are worth questioning.

The original post in the series was Tomb of Horrors. The purpose of the Tomb of Horrors can be summed up as "to show munchkins who is boss." Which is well and good. But when you ask how good an adventure module it makes, I prefer to analyze it in terms of more general goals assigned to adventures. Where, IMO, it receives a poor score, since it is basically made to show up players and kill their characters, and that's not what I buy adventures for.

 

[malladin]

Back in good ol' Philosophy 101, we set forth that the virtue of something is determined by how well it performs its function.

The answer to such a question immediately follows from "what is its function." Where you choose to draw that line is often quite subjective.

Agreed, my stance is that designers should be clear in what that function is and then users can determine if it succeeds or not, though your not going to get agreement all the time and then there's the meddling of those pesky reviewers

Nigel

 

[Quasqueton]

Also, how much does formatting/readability affect one's opinion of the design quality of an adventure module?

For instance, most (if not all) of EGG's modules were written in an almost "stream of consciousness" style. There was little or no attempt to arrange the information/text into an easily readable form. Sometimes a creature's stats were spread out through the paragraph of text. Often treasure value was mentioned right in the description of the item (sometimes a problem if the DM was reading the description aloud).

As creative as EGG's adventures were, they were often complicated to read, and difficult to play without strong familiarity (from reading it multiple times). Does this reduce one's opinion of it's design quality?

Quasqueton

 

[gizmo33]

Back in good ol' Philosophy 101, we set forth that the virtue of something is determined by how well it performs its function.

I would suspect that most people would say that the purpose of a module is to entertain. Yet the "good design" threads have explicitly ruled out certain types of answers to the question.

The thing I notice alot on these boards is an apparently strong desire from many people to equate their subjective opinion about what's fun with some sort of objective measure like "good design" as if we're talking about building bridge or something. I started out being really uncomfortable with that aspect of the threads, but I've noticed that the threads have managed to be interesting anyway - probably because people have just been more specific about what they like.

 

[DaveMage]

• 1. How easy is it to use this book? How much work do I have to do in order to use this in my game? To me, the best design would be a book that I read, and then immedietely use with no changes. The more work I feel I have to do in order to use X in my game, the more poorly it is designed.
  
• 2. Editing and production values. This is a big one for me. Typos are brutal and make it hard for me to read. Mislabeling entries causes all sorts of problems in the game. While I'm not terribly concerned about artwork and the like, it is nice and part of this is, can I actually read what's on the page? If they use funky colors in the background that makes the text hard or impossible to read, then it is a poorly designed product.
  
• 3. Mechanical accuracy. Again, if the mechanics in the product are screwed up, fix it before selling it. The best designed books don't need errata.

What you said + fun.

 

[diaglo]

How do you determine if a gaming product is well designed? What criteria do we use?

form and function.

if i buy a product for use in my OD&D campaign i rate it based on the elements of design that are compatible with OD&D.

so in most part anything with the d02 label is poorly designed for my use.

 

[bento]

I'm a big fan of modules for the same reason - I don't have time to prep, and it's spent more on seguing to the next adventure.

Big issue for me is logic flow and story development. I've played one module recently that, while having a great backstory, it logically did not provide the DM with an opportunity to have it told to the players. All the creatures were set on "fight to the death" and while it's interesting to know why the party of robbers were turned into undead, they really don't have a chance to tell the players while they are being destroyed.

I want a module to feel like there's more than going from room to room killing monsters. There should be a purpose and a level of suspense that continues to build until the end.

Another problem I have is when the module offers only one kind of encounter or exclusively relies on one type of monster. The same module I mentioned above was 95% combat and 75% of that with kobolds. After a few weeks of playing it, I was feeling like I needed to escape and get some fresh air. A good module should have more puzzles and traps as well as a few unique rooms and rarely encountered monsters.

My next module: either the 3.5 version of "White Plume Mountain" or the DCC "The Rat King's Revenge."