What I'm looking for in commercial adventures

[renau1g]

I think they're just popular because they are fantastic.

Agreed, but needed to spread XP around...

to be fair to Paizo, they didn't have their own market when they published their first 3 and yet they were still incredibly popular (I think?), they were just one of the many companies publishing under the OGL.

 

[Skyscraper]

That can certainly work; although you'd then lack really cool defined set piece encounters/events.

Yes, but isn't it a bit unfulfilling as a player to know that your decisions had pretty much nothing to do with you ending up at an encounter, the game just led you there the same way everyone else did? Isn't a strong advantage of tabletop RPG over, say, computer gaming software, being able to venture into unknown territory and to improvise?

If the DM is good enough to come up with those on his own, then it's a good model. But the market for APs is "DMs who want an entire campaign arc which requires little work". Otherwise, they'd design their own. APs are pretty much for those of us who simpy don't have the time to devote to creating our own campaign.

So, yeah - I agree that idea could work; but it would have to be marketted at a different group of people: those DMs who want an AP and also have the time to put extra work into it. I suspect that's a much smaller group than the former, which is why it isn't really done much.

I use APs a lot - running WotBS now, of course - because I really don't have the time to create individual encounters. If I had more time, I think I wouldn't use an AP at all - I'd spend the time creating my own campaign perfect for me and my group. I'm not sure there's enough market for the middle ground option.

Would it require that much more preparation by the DM?

This last post you're replying to is exactly along the lines of what I was talking about in my OP. I'm thinking: isn't possible to give not only encounter stats, but also guidelines concerning alternate encounter models, and you simply pick the one that is applicable in a particular circumstance? This would be a ready-to-go encounter for the DM, however he would need to improvise an encounter location at worst; or at best the module also includes encounter location maps, although they are usable however the DM feels like it, i.e. no predetermined creature positioning since you don't even know what creatures will be there anyway (e.g. two forest maps, one swamp map, a full detailed map of the keep and you pick where the battle occurs during the dungeon crawl that the PCs have decided to do, ...)

What is it that I don't see and you do, that would make this approach much more work for the DM?

It would probably be more work for the designers, but not much IMO. This additional work to provide different encounter models would be compensated by the fact that they would not need to prepare a set encounter with full tactical details.

Sky

 

[Morrus]

Yes, but isn't it a bit unfulfilling as a player to know that your decisions had pretty much nothing to do with you ending up at an encounter, the game just led you there the same way everyone else did? Isn't a strong advantage of tabletop RPG over, say, computer gaming software, being able to venture into unknown territory and to improvise?



Would it require that much more preparation by the DM?

This last post you're replying to is exactly along the lines of what I was talking about in my OP. I'm thinking: isn't possible to give not only encounter stats, but also guidelines concerning alternate encounter models, and you simply pick the one that is applicable in a particular circumstance? This would be a ready-to-go encounter for the DM, however he would need to improvise an encounter location at worst; or at best the module also includes encounter location maps, although they are usable however the DM feels like it, i.e. no predetermined creature positioning since you don't even know what creatures will be there anyway (e.g. two forest maps, one swamp map, a full detailed map of the keep and you pick where the battle occurs during the dungeon crawl that the PCs have decided to do, ...)

What is it that I don't see and you do, that would make this approach much more work for the DM?

It would probably be more work for the designers, but not much IMO. This additional work to provide different encounter models would be compensated by the fact that they would not need to prepare a set encounter with full tactical details.

Sky

Basically, I think you fall right in that "middle ground" - the market which exists but is too small to profit from.

I'm no expert, admittedly, but I see three types of DM in really broad strokes (in this context - obviously DMs, being people, have infinite varations):

1) The DM with little time. Wants a whole campaign which requires little work but provides a fairly good - even if not utterly perfect - experience. It's good for most, but not perfect for any.

2) The DM with a little more time. Wants a whole campaign but is willing to work hard at it in order to make it perfect for him and his group. The AP trusts him to create the encounters, etc., while providing the overall storyline. This is perfect for a few, but awful for most, because it's highly subjective.

3) The DM with plenty of time. He tends to write his own stuff, or really heavily modify pubilshed stuff.

The two biggest groups are (1) and (3). You can't really accomodate (3) because he will change it all anyway; so you write for (1). Group (2) is simply too small a market.

This may have something to do with the ages of players. Many of us are 30+ with full-time jobs and families. In our teenage years we used to design worlds on graph paper and spend hours on our adventures and settings. We simply cannot do that now. I barely get time to briefly read the adventure before my session.

That's partly why I think the AP is in ascendance. The gamers are getting older.

 

[Skyscraper]

I understand what you're saying Morrus, I'm unsure if you understand what I'm saying because my intent is not to propose an adventure where the DM needs to prepare half the stuff because only half is prepared for you.

Let me rephrase my question then: would it not be possible to design an open-ended adventure (or AP) that doesn't require additional prep time by the DM?

What takes time to prepare an adventure or AP? I'm thinking: the story, the maps and the creatures (NPCs, monsters).

Option 1, traditional modules: "on the basis of this story, use the sequence of encounters A then B then C on maps X, Y then Z"

Option 2, my option: "here are creature groups A, B, C, D, E and maps X, Y, Z: use whichever you want in whatever order to fit this story".

In both cases, you have a storyline. It will be different in option 2 because you cannot base it on a sequence of actions by the PCs because you do not know what their actions will be. Instead, you stick to what the NPCs will do unless they are stopped.

In both cases, you have maps. They are a bit simpler in option 2 because you don't need to set up starting locations for creatures, but a bit more elaborate in that they take in more of the region. (For example, an entire temple as opposed to a corridor segment and two rooms. 1E-style, to some extent.)

In both cases, you have creature groups. Option 1 is organized in preset encounters, while option 2 is organized in preset groups of creatures ready to use in encounters depending on PC action. You probably want to prepare a bit more creature groups with option 2, but essentially they're the same.

And then with option 2... Improvisation. The DM should not prepare the game in advance - what would be the point? The idea is that the game reveal itself as the players decide what to do. The module gives everything to the DM to wing it. I think most DMs could handle that, no? Everything is there, all the DM needs, at least as best as I can see.

Sky

 

[RangerWickett]

Skyscraper, I prefer a mix of the two ideas.

For the longest time, Piratecat has been an advocate of the narrow-wide-narrow design for adventures. You prepare an adventure by saying, "This is where I want to start," and "This is where I want to end," and then, "Here are a bunch of things that are going on in the middle."

The middle can happen in any order, but the rough shape of the ending is not going to change much.

When I worked up the initial adventure outline for War of the Burning Sky, I tried to keep that structure in mind. For instance, the third adventure goes:

[sblock]Beginning
1. PCs approach the town of Seaquen, which is accepting refugees fleeing the 'evil empire.' The PCs are attacked by witches in the swamp, and probably rescue a prisoner the witches have taken captive.

2. The PCs reach the town, and the NPC they rescued tries to nudge them to get involved with the fledgling Resistance being started up to fight back against the empire.

Ending
9. The PCs have a chance to thwart an assassination attempt, and in its aftermath (whether they succeed or fail) they get enough clues to figure out where the villains' base is.

10. The PCs go to the flooded ruins at the edge of town, and stop the villains before the hurricane they're conjuring destroys the nascent Resistance.[/sblock]


So we know pretty much how things are going to end, but the ultimate shape of things in the adventure's aftermath depend on what else the PCs accomplish in the meanwhile. For instance, they can:

[sblock]
3. Figure out that the NPC they rescued is a spy.

4. Help unite factions of the Resistance by resolving a religious dispute.

5. Earn the trust of the factions by stopping some criminals in town.

6. Track down and kill a succubus summoned by the villains, who is wreaking all manner of trouble with her charms and illusions.

7. Get on the good side of representatives from nearby nations who might ally with the Resistance.

8. Bargain with a dragon in the swamp, returning its stolen egg in exchange for use of its lyre of building, which will help create housing for all the refugees.[/sblock]

The middle is a sandbox, with different mini-adventure and sub-goals that interconnect in a web that is sturdy enough to stay up even if the PCs start going off in wildly unexpected directions.

Even if the PCs screw up in the middle, they still get a chance to thump the bad guys great at the end, though they won't necessarily end up in as great a place. (And if the players miss the cues and are about to fail utterly, we include suggestions for how to steer them on the right course without it looking like too much of a railroad.)


The new Campaign Saga
E.N. Publishing is working on another campaign saga, and I assure you the last thing I want is to make 12 adventures that are each just a line of encounters that go in a row. Adventure 1's climax will point to adventure 2's beginning, but the in between will be filled with wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff.

With luck, we can even attract Russ's group 2 from above. Heck, I only ever ran 1 and a half Dungeon adventures, but I subscribed for a long while because I liked the inspiration. I stole the basic idea of Nic Logue's "Chimes at Midnight" trilogy set in Sharn, tore out the guts, and tweaked it for my own players, and I was still glad for the module because it was a genuinely compelling idea.

That's what I hope to work on: adventures that are great if you run them as is when you don't have free time to make you own, but which are cool enough to make GMs who do have the time to tinker still want to take a crack at them.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm no expert, admittedly, but I see three types of DM in really broad strokes (in this context - obviously DMs, being people, have infinite varations):

3) The DM with plenty of time. He tends to write his own stuff, or really heavily modify pubilshed stuff.

The two biggest groups are (1) and (3). You can't really accomodate (3) because he will change it all anyway; ...

And why will (3) change it all anyway? In my case, usually because it's either not complete enough, not good enough, or there's a bunch of extraneous setting and backstory stuff I need to prune off so I'm left with just the core adventure to fit into my campaign.

I suggest that you certainly can accommodate (3). Start by removing about 90% of the backstory and setting stuff you were going to write*, replacing it with more detail about the adventure itself and maybe a single page of suggestions on how to drop it into an existing campaign and-or to run it as a stand-alone. I'll throw Forge of Fury out there as a good example: sure there's a bit of backstory included if you need it, but most of the content is the actual core adventure written up in pretty decent detail...just like it should be.

* - note that I'm only talking about single stand-alone modules here, or at most two- or three-module sets e.g. U1-2-3. Full-ride adventure paths are a whole different breed of animal, where to some extent the setting you're using almost has to be built around the particular adventure path you want to run.

Lan-"was A-series the first (short) adventure path?"-efan

 

[Morrus]

Let me rephrase my question then: would it not be possible to design an open-ended adventure (or AP) that doesn't require additional prep time by the DM?

I'm not sure. Perhaps I'd grasp your idea better with an example or two?

Could you write a short example (doesn't have to be Shakespeare or anything - just legible!) which illustrates what you mean?

It could be that I'm just misunderstanding you; but as far as I can tell, the more open it is, the more work required by the DM. I'd love to see an example of something more open which required no more work, but also included the cool plots and set-pieces which characterize an AP. Hell, maybe I can learn something and use it; just my mind is bending round the idea right now from a design POV.

 

[Morrus]

And why will (3) change it all anyway? In my case, usually because it's either not complete enough, not good enough, or there's a bunch of extraneous setting and backstory stuff I need to prune off so I'm left with just the core adventure to fit into my campaign.

I suggest that you certainly can accommodate (3). Start by removing about 90% of the backstory and setting stuff you were going to write*, replacing it with more detail about the adventure itself and maybe a single page of suggestions on how to drop it into an existing campaign and-or to run it as a stand-alone. I'll throw Forge of Fury out there as a good example: sure there's a bit of backstory included if you need it, but most of the content is the actual core adventure written up in pretty decent detail...just like it should be.

* - note that I'm only talking about single stand-alone modules here, or at most two- or three-module sets e.g. U1-2-3. Full-ride adventure paths are a whole different breed of animal, where to some extent the setting you're using almost has to be built around the particular adventure path you want to run.

Lan-"was A-series the first (short) adventure path?"-efan

Sure; I was discussing APs here. With a single adventure, the sky's the limit - you can do loads of really cool things. You can open it up, close it down, whatever you want. With an AP, you need to do more than that, though - you can't just have the last bit of each tell you to go to the first bit of the next (well, you can, but in my opinion that's barely an AP - it's just a random series of adventures with tenous links).

An AP needs the story. Otherwise it isn't an AP, it's just a series of adventures.

 

[MerricB]

There were other shorter linked series before that, and there have been others of varying lengths since that, but I think Dragonlance stands up as a solid example of an early adventure path. Opinions on its quality are fairly devisive (it was quite railroady), but it was certainly an entire campaign from 1st-18th level or so, with a single story divided into a series of adventures - which is, as far as I can tell - the definition of an adventure path.

Dragonlance went from 4th to 15th level or thereabouts as I recall. (Raistlin was 3rd level in DL1, I think another PC was 6th level in the original adventure).

During the era of the supermodules, T1-4 (Temple of Elemental Evil), A1-4 (Scourge of the Slavelords) and GDQ1-7 (Queen of the Spiders) were linked together into one massive campaign, covering levels 1-18 or thereabouts.

In the early days of 2E, "Ruins of Adventure" and "Curse of the Azure Bonds" - conversions of the massive SSI/Gold Box adventure path computer game - came out, covering levels 1-12 or about that.

The first 3E adventures were vaguely linked together into an adventure path: The Sunken Citadel had hooks that paid off in the final adventure, Bastion of Broken Souls, and there were ongoing themes in the adventures.

Cheers!

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks for your input RangerWickett.

For the longest time, Piratecat has been an advocate of the narrow-wide-narrow design for adventures.

This is an actual, recognized design format? Cool. I called that the funnel effect in my first post, but this appears to be precisely what I mean. Usable for an AP or a long adventure, where you can't have a totally open-ended story for the PCs to follow (or at least, I don't know how I'd go about doing it).

You prepare an adventure by saying, "This is where I want to start," and "This is where I want to end," and then, "Here are a bunch of things that are going on in the middle."

The middle can happen in any order, but the rough shape of the ending is not going to change much.

This is part of what I have in mind, it's the general structure I envision. One difference is that I would suggest not providing pre-determined encounters, let the encounters be determined by player actions. You might say: well, this is what happens in WotBS #3; not quite, if I understand you correctly. In WotBS #3, players have the choice of going between a number of predetermined encounters (if they try to resolve the religious dispute, they go to part A of the module, etc...), whereas I would suggest that the DM simply be provided with encounter groups (militia, devil, religious group, ragesian traitors, assassins, ...) and that depending on what the players decide, you pick one of these encounter groups if needed and you throw it at them, in an area that fits the deal at that point.

Sky