What I'm looking for in commercial adventures

[Skyscraper]

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?

My first post (a bit long, I admit) doesn't do the trick, I assume?

Let me try to restate what I previously posted, first explaining my theory and then giving a concrete example.

For an AP I think that having the narrow-wide-narrow design (since it has a name, apparently! ) is unavoidable. You need choke points where the story will converge towards something predictable to be able to design your later adventures. For the sake of this example, let's assume I design an AP that comprises 10 adventures, each spanning an expected advancement of 2 levels for PCs, thus bringing the PCs from about level 1 to level 20 in my AP.

The start and end of each of the ten adventures are the choke points. This is where you want to know where the PCs are to be able to bridge each pair of successive adventures. You may prepare, for example, key encounters at each adventure start and ending.

Between these choke points, the idea is to leave the area almost totally opened. What will the PCs do between choke points? Well, here is how I see how one adventure is structured:

1) storyline: the adventure provides a storyline that relates to the NPCs only (or just about, it might refer to the PCs at time = 0 for that adventure, since we only know where the PCs will be to start with). This storyline tells us what the NPCs will do, assuming that the PCs don't intervene. Some of these elements might be unavoidable (e.g. the king from a faraway land rides with his army to invade). Otherwise, the PCs may change the course of the events (e.g. if they kill NPC Alfred, then all events relating to Alfred are out of order and the DM improvises for anything missing. Normally, for predictable plot modifications, you can give options to the DM. The storyline is a day-by-day or week-by-week account of what's happening, and it's up to the DM to allow the PCs to cross that storyline by presenting them with role-play or battle opportunities, or clues.

2) Since battles will (or can) occur, the module includes a series of creature "encounter groups" that are not preassigned to a specific encounter or to a specific location. These are just pre-rolled baddies, set up in user-friendly groups usable by the DM whenever, during improvised play, a battle seems like the good thing to add at that point. Important and semi-important NPCs are provided with a bio, to link them to the setting.

3) Maps: you don't know where the PCs will go, so you need maps of the region and maps of buildings. Important places should be mapped out, and a number of generic maps (e.g. house, dungeon, castle, temple, street, forest, ...) should be provided for when the PCs will go someplace unexpected or generally elsewhere than in the few, main areas that are specifically mapped out.

*************

I'll give a concrete example of a campaign of mine that I played out for 2 years with my players in 3E.

Initial situation: the heroes start in a village that is attacked during the night and most inhabitants are killed or made prisoners - the latter fate for the PCs. They escape and want to avenge their village and learn what is going on (long story short). This is choke point #1, the start of the campaign.

Now the area is opened. I had some ideas of what they would do, but I wasn't sure. I had left clues leading towards three different areas that had minotaurs, orcs and lizard men, but they chose to go to a nearby town to warn the officials. I was not prepared for the town, but I had NPCs that were ready and I used them in the city as corrupted officials to confront the PCs. They fled the city and opted to infiltrate the orc hideout. I had that ready from the outset. They found stuff there and decided to go back to their old village to find more clues. I had not thought of this, but again used NPCs that were simply idly waiting for introduction in the campaign, and used them in the now destroyed village's ruins. And so on, until:

Choke point #2: they visit a large city where they find allies that will provide them with key information, directing the campaign towards somethign new.

Enter new open area, they attend a costumed party and meet a nuch of NPCs (I was ready for that one), they go to a nearby castle full of baddies (I was ready for that one too), they start a battle while spying in the basement of a noble's manor (not ready, but I used pre-prepared NPCs again), etc...

Until: choke point #3: they embark on a boat towards another kingdom, where the truth about the attack against their village lies.

And onto open adventuring again.

Etc...

*************

Only a small proportion of my encounters were pre-prepared. Most of the time, I just prepared NPCs in advance knowing that they might be useful and though about who hung around with who. Some were never used (minotaurs, lizard men) but I'd say 75% of what I prepared I eventually used. This is what I'd like to have prepared for me now.

Is that any clearer? I'm doing the best I can!

Sky

 

[Morrus]

1) storyline: the adventure provides a storyline that relates to the NPCs only (or just about, it might refer to the PCs at time = 0 for that adventure, since we only know where the PCs will be to start with). This storyline tells us what the NPCs will do, assuming that the PCs don't intervene. Some of these elements might be unavoidable (e.g. the king from a faraway land rides with his army to invade). Otherwise, the PCs may change the course of the events (e.g. if they kill NPC Alfred, then all events relating to Alfred are out of order and the DM improvises for anything missing. Normally, for predictable plot modifications, you can give options to the DM. The storyline is a day-by-day or week-by-week account of what's happening, and it's up to the DM to allow the PCs to cross that storyline by presenting them with role-play or battle opportunities, or clues.

2) Since battles will (or can) occur, the module includes a series of creature "encounter groups" that are not preassigned to a specific encounter or to a specific location. These are just pre-rolled baddies, set up in user-friendly groups usable by the DM whenever, during improvised play, a battle seems like the good thing to add at that point. Important and semi-important NPCs are provided with a bio, to link them to the setting.

3) Maps: you don't know where the PCs will go, so you need maps of the region and maps of buildings. Important places should be mapped out, and a number of generic maps (e.g. house, dungeon, castle, temple, street, forest, ...) should be provided for when the PCs will go someplace unexpected or generally elsewhere than in the few, main areas that are specifically mapped out.

So would you be dispensing with pre-designed set-piece encounters and so forth, since you don't know where the PCs will be or when?

Is that any clearer? I'm doing the best I can!

Kinda; I meant an example in terms of an adventure path. Is the above one adventure, or is it levels 1-30? How do these choke points break down per adventure?

Only a small proportion of my encounters were pre-prepared. Most of the time, I just prepared NPCs in advance knowing that they might be useful and though about who hung around with who. Some were never used (minotaurs, lizard men) but I'd say 75% of what I prepared I eventually used. This is what I'd like to have prepared for me now.

See, I'm just seeing that as an AP with the encounters removed. If I'm understanding what you're saying, it sounds a lot easier than a regular AP to design - one is simply leaving the design to the DM instead.

That's certainly an option; and doable. But I would hazard a guess that most DMs who buy APs want the encounters designed for them. Otherwise, we're really talking about a plot outline and an attached monster manual, with an area sketched out?

 

[Jhaelen]

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 don't see how. It's not so much about the things you need to prepare, it's about the things you need to be prepared for. You definitely have to do a lot more thinking things through. It requires a degree of familiarity with the adventure material that I usually only achieve by creating an adventure by myself.

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.

I don't think it's that easy. First, not every creature group will work with every map. Combat encounters work best if the terrain plays to the creatures' strengths. Fire giants tend to enjoy fighting near fire sources or lava, ice giants want frozen ground. By linking encounter areas and creatures you can also provide the DM with fledged-out combat tactics. To provide the same level of detail without the linking you'd need to provide information for every permutation of terrain and creatures.

Do you know 'Secrets of X'endrik'? It used an interesting approach of separating storyline from adventure locales. For each storyline there would be two or three adventure locales you could use. They also didn't use fixed monster lists, so a DM would be able to use them at a variety of levels. That's pretty cool! But: These aren't really adventure modules. It just provides the components required to 'assemble' an adventure module. 'Assembling' the module is where the work for the DM is.

It's even more difficult regarding the story-line. With the possible exception of 'Masks of Nyarlathotep' I don't know a single adventure that would allow a number of set pieces to be played in any order, unless there is no overarching story.

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.)

Two problems:
1. As already mentioned: Suitable tactics aren't (and cannot be) provided. I don't know about you but when I'm preparing for a session, I'm looking over the abilities of the monsters they're likely to encounter in it to get a good idea on how to utilize them in combat. Now, granted, I'm still mostly DMing 3e, so it can be quite a list. E.g. our last combat included an encounter in Limbo against 12 slaadi, 2 or 3 of every colour trying to storm a fortress-monastery of githzerai. Running such a combat well is no easy feat, even with plenty of preparation.

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.

Ah, nope. Sorry. For a very experienced DM used to and comfortable with winging it? Maybe.

If I provided you with all the required ingredients for a gourmet seven-course feast, elaborate recipes and state-of-the-art kitchen equipment, would you be able to actually prepare the feast for your gaming group? I wouldn't.

And what do you do if one of them turns out to be a vegetarian or vegan you didn't know about? One of them happens to be allergic to one of the ingredients, one's on a diet, one is a muslim, and one a jew? What if they're also two hours late and they want to start with the dessert?

(These questions reflect the difficulties of creating an adventure module that works for every group and some of the challenges in adjusting to different player preferences and ideas)

 

[RangerWickett]

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

The way I figure it, we just do one better. We say "Here are some sample encounters you can use for the adventure's middle if you're in a rush. If you need to change stuff on the fly, you can still use these stats."

I mean, we could choose to just put in stats of different groups with no pre-designed encounters, but that to me does not feel like we're giving the customers their money's worth. If you're going to write up encounter groups, why not put in a tad more effort? A pre-designed encounter not only helps time-strapped DMs; it also can provide inspiration for those who do have time to tweak and fiddle.

 

[Skyscraper]

So would you be dispensing with pre-designed set-piece encounters and so forth, since you don't know where the PCs will be or when?

You can include pre-designed set-piece encounters at choke points.

Is the above one adventure, or is it levels 1-30? How do these choke points break down per adventure?

The above concrete example is an excerpt from an AP, it spanned about 4-5 levels with, say, three different adventures. The choke points I would see mostly between adventure 1 and adventure 2, but I guess you can use them within an adventure too; however if you start putting too many choke points in the adventure, you're back on the railroad.

That's certainly an option; and doable. But I would hazard a guess that most DMs who buy APs want the encounters designed for them. Otherwise, we're really talking about a plot outline and an attached monster manual, with an area sketched out?

Yes, I guess this is pretty much what I'm talking about. Of course, for it to work, the plotline, the NPC backstories and and the areas have to be properly linked. But otherwise, you've pretty much simplified in one line what took me several long posts to describe

Sky

 

[Skyscraper]

I don't see how. It's not so much about the things you need to prepare, it's about the things you need to be prepared for. You definitely have to do a lot more thinking things through. It requires a degree of familiarity with the adventure material that I usually only achieve by creating an adventure by myself.

That's a good point, but this is where I think the challenge lies: in providing a storyline, NPC bios and area descriptions that allow the DM, with little prep time, to run a game that makes a lot of sense.

I don't think it's that easy. First, not every creature group will work with every map. Combat encounters work best if the terrain plays to the creatures' strengths. Fire giants tend to enjoy fighting near fire sources or lava, ice giants want frozen ground. By linking encounter areas and creatures you can also provide the DM with fledged-out combat tactics. To provide the same level of detail without the linking you'd need to provide information for every permutation of terrain and creatures.

I think you're underestimating DMs. They can do it. If you don't allow DMs room to create - or rather, if you don't promote an environment of creation, DMs will simply apply the storyline and encounters by the book. Which is certainly one way to go about it and it's fine that some adventures would be like that for those who are looking for this kind of format; but I'd like to have adventures that promote DM and player creativity.

Do you know 'Secrets of X'endrik'?

I'm afraid I don't. I'm looking at something that would be more ready to use however, if I undersand your description correctly.

It's even more difficult regarding the story-line. With the possible exception of 'Masks of Nyarlathotep' I don't know a single adventure that would allow a number of set pieces to be played in any order, unless there is no overarching story.

There is an overarching story. It regards the NPCs. Events are occuring, and it's up to the players to try to influence them. However, the story will be open to modification according to player actions. Again, it requires that the DM and players be creative. The choke points rally everyone back to determined events at regular story intervals.

You even did this in WotBS. There are some "if NPC Alfred is still alive, then the following happens: ...; however, if NPC Alfred is dead, then the following happens". It's not that far of a stretch from that.

Two problems:
1. As already mentioned: Suitable tactics aren't (and cannot be) provided. I don't know about you but when I'm preparing for a session, I'm looking over the abilities of the monsters they're likely to encounter in it to get a good idea on how to utilize them in combat. Now, granted, I'm still mostly DMing 3e, so it can be quite a list. E.g. our last combat included an encounter in Limbo against 12 slaadi, 2 or 3 of every colour trying to storm a fortress-monastery of githzerai. Running such a combat well is no easy feat, even with plenty of preparation.

Firstly, designing a battle with too many monsters that have too many abilities is something that should not be done in commercial adventures as far as I know. You can't expect a DM to run 8 different complex creature types efficiently. (This advice even appears in WotC publications, DMG or online, I can't remember.)

Secondly, most DMs are able to make an encounter interesting even if they don't have a map showing all creature positions at the start of battle. This is something that appeared late in 3E; before that, there were no encounter maps, it was up to the DM to wing it. Every single DM did it. Why is it now unthinkable?

Ah, nope. Sorry. For a very experienced DM used to and comfortable with winging it? Maybe.

I guess it depends what you're looking for. Creativity, or pre-determined tableaux that have been created by someone else? I think that passion will rise from games where creativity is a centerpiece, and with passion the game will rise to new heights. Now that's somewhat of a broad statement, there will be passion in any game, there will be creativity in any game; I'm just saying if the game design promotes additional creativity, I think the game experience can only benefit from it.

If I provided you with all the required ingredients for a gourmet seven-course feast, elaborate recipes and state-of-the-art kitchen equipment, would you be able to actually prepare the feast for your gaming group? I wouldn't.

And what do you do if one of them turns out to be a vegetarian or vegan you didn't know about? One of them happens to be allergic to one of the ingredients, one's on a diet, one is a muslim, and one a jew? What if they're also two hours late and they want to start with the dessert?

(These questions reflect the difficulties of creating an adventure module that works for every group and some of the challenges in adjusting to different player preferences and ideas)

Oh god, not an allegory! You know we could counter-argue with allegories that illustrate perfectly our respective points of view just about endlessly, don't you? For example: do you think your meal will be better if you serve a $3 pre-cooked meal from the frozen food section, or if you get pre-prepared ingredients that the cook can simply put in a pan and then into the oven to get gourmet cuisine? I propose that we stick with the matter at hand and let the cooks wonder about ingredients Edit: I understand what you're saying and the allegory does serve to illustrate your point, I don't want to come off as rude here. /End Edit.

As for personal preferences from each player (if your vegetarian and allergy example was meant to cater to that question), I think you need to trust the DM and players that they can come up with solutions that will be best suited for their group.

Sky

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

That's certainly an option; and doable. But I would hazard a guess that most DMs who buy APs want the encounters designed for them. Otherwise, we're really talking about a plot outline and an attached monster manual, with an area sketched out?

I, as a time strapped DM, agree with Morrus and Ranger Wickett. The War of the Burning Sky is a perfect AP from my POV as it provides a deep background, rich world, and sample encounters that can be tweaked as needed.

The only thing that would improve on it is a clearer following of the "3-clues rule" and push the 'narrow-wide-narrow' design deeper into the adventures. Most of the modules are set up in three acts, each with chokepoint bookends. Which means the 12 published modules are really like 36 mini-adventures... and in a once a month 4 hour game I don't have time to explore the 'wide' portions of the adventures. This has turned some of the modules, like #6 the Castle Korstull, into one massive railroad from stem to stern.
{that being said, WoBS is *still* the best AP out there! I just wish I had more time.... and I wish I had the 4e version for module #7 and #8 already. Still willing to proof-read them! }

Upthread I mentioned the CP2020 module 'Chrome Berets'. It was set up narrow-wide-question mark. Basically the writer set the stage with a starting point and detailed the various factions on the island. Where it went from there was totally up to the players and there were 4 or 5 options to how it ended. They included set-peice encounters, along with a 'how this develops if...' portion to assist in adapting the encounter if the players went the other way.

Synopsis:[sblock]
A dictator on a island is having trouble with a civil war, so he hires the PCs to assist in asymetrical warfare and defeat his enemies. The PCs are handed control of the military and are left to thier own devices. Two corporations are involved, along with the Agency. The Players can run the battle from the command center, engage in combat in the field, try diplomancy, switch sides, convince someone else to switch sides, feed the battle to keep the kibble coming.... pretty much anything other than leave the island.
Ending options are 1: goverment wins, 2: rebels win, 3: war is sustained...
Winning can be by removal of corporate support, military defeat, diplomancy, or assasination.
[/sblock]

 

[Skyscraper]

The way I figure it, we just do one better. We say "Here are some sample encounters you can use for the adventure's middle if you're in a rush. If you need to change stuff on the fly, you can still use these stats."

I mean, we could choose to just put in stats of different groups with no pre-designed encounters, but that to me does not feel like we're giving the customers their money's worth. If you're going to write up encounter groups, why not put in a tad more effort? A pre-designed encounter not only helps time-strapped DMs; it also can provide inspiration for those who do have time to tweak and fiddle.

This is also a good point. I think the question is: do you want everything to be ready-to use to the point of limiting creativity by the DM and players (because, let's be frank, most DMs will simply stick to the adventure as written), or do you want to promote creativity by forcing DMs and players to improvise more of the PC storyline, without however asking more prep time by the DM?

I love 4E and I'm not thinking of going back to a prior edition (at least, not for now). But old-school gaming had its strong points. 1E modules didn't give you set-piece encounters, you needed to improvise them. And man did we have some fun doing that.

I have played the D&D Miniatures skirmish game, casually, with friends and with my girlfriend. I'm the only one in my group with the minis, so I prepare the warbands. My firends are all presented with warbands they are unfamiliar with and need to play out a combat encounter with it. The rules are almost identical to 4E D&D, for those that don't know the skirmish game. And my friends do just fine. Are they perfect? No. Do they play tactially? Yes. Do we have fun? Yes.

The bottom line, is that I think the designers should trust the DM - and the players - to come up with intelligent solutions by providing them all the tools to get there. Presently, I feel that the outcome of the adventure is determined well in advance and unless all PCs die, the adventure will fan out exactly the same way for different groups, give or take a few details (sure, one will use diplomacy here, the other will batlle an opponent there, but you get my point). By allowing full improvisation, you're trusting that the players and DM will find their own way through a labyrinth with multiple paths that lies before them, instead of have a single road that winds left and right to give an illusion of choices.

Trust the DM and players. They are intelligent people. And they are fully capable of creating an original story.

Sky

 

[Skyscraper]

I, as a time strapped DM, agree with Morrus and Ranger Wickett. The War of the Burning Sky is a perfect AP from my POV as it provides a deep background, rich world, and sample encounters that can be tweaked as needed.

Design challenge: develop open-ended module that requires no more prep time than conventional modules.

WotBS requires some prep time. I think with the same amount of preparation, an open-ended module could be achieved. With open modules, you cut down on encounter preparation time (since you improvise them), but you increase the storyline preparation time. It's more than a fair trade to me.

Upthread I mentioned the CP2020 module 'Chrome Berets'.

It looks like a fun storyline from my perspective. Did you run it as DM and, if so, did you find that the preparation time was increased significantly?

Sky

 

[MichaelSomething]

With the wide open OGL of 3rd edition along with countless Dungeon adventures, surely there is a preexisting product/adventure that should match Skyscraper's desires? One that he could simply point to as an example of what he wants? Isn't there? I guess I could go through my Dungeon magazines to find something to his tastes but I'm way to lazy to do so...