What Should An Introductory Scenario Look Like?

[R_J_K75]

A recent thread got me thinking about what a good introductory scenario for an RPG should look like.

start with a small, self-contained location with a very clear motivation, then expand to a wider environment, then expand again to an even wider one, and then bring it to some sort of (hopefully satisfying) conclusion.

@Reynard I can tell you what I think it shouldn't look like.

I ran "the Fouled Stream" this Monday evening from the 2024 DMG. It's a one-page adventure meant to be banged out in a session, but it is pretty lacking. The adventure is based in a small village that gets 2 small paragraphs in another section of the DMG so there is quite a bit of leg work to be done if you want to continue using the location after the adventure is over. There is no map, and very little detail on anything in the village that is affected by the threat of the scenario. As @delericho commented, I started really small. Grabbed a village map offline and started giving it some detail. The adventure couldn't be bothered to provide any monster stat blocks, or maps outside of the village pertinent to the adventure either, so I had to hunt these down. Could the session have been played just using the one-page write up? Maybe but it would have been a pretty thin plot with little depth and extremely linear with the DM leading the players from point A to point B, and so on. I think a more fleshed out 1st level introductory adventure would have been better than the 5 outline adventures. I understand they were trying to promote the one-hour minimal adventure prep, for one game short sessions but this fell flat as there was more fleshing out required than I thought should have been required. My current impression is that the Greyhawk sample campaign setting, and the 5 mini scenarios could have been detailed more than they were. I liked the 1-page adventure premise, but the execution left something to be desired.

 

[overgeeked]

An intro scenario should try to show the players the unique things about its setting, assuming there is one, along with making a point of teaching the system in at least the broad strokes.

Does your game have three pillars of play? Then the intro scenario should feature all three equally. Does your game favor one of those pillars to the near exclusion of the other two, that should be reflected in the scenario.

Right now the top two intro scenarios I’ve found are Fabula Ultima’s Press Play and the starter adventure in the back of Pirate Borg. I’m tempted to say Eat the Reich as well, but that’s a one-and-done game. Not something open ended like most RPGs.

 

[payn]

A recent thread got me thinking about what a good introductory scenario for an RPG should look like. How should* a designer design a scenario meant to teach a group how to use their game?

Id say a one shot that highlights the play design. Although, not something too complex. For example, if you have a monster/enemy.NPC that uses special rules, try and isolate that situation so the rules are repetitive and easy to follow. Do not have a room full of routine baddies and the special rules guy where some of the players will encounter those rules, and some will not. Or, they engage then disengage and need constant refreshing of the rules and mechanics.

How should a experienced GM design a scenario to teach new players the game?

Use their experience with the system to design a one shot that highlights the design.

Are these significantly different?

I dont think so. However, as a GM you may find examples that work better that were not included by the designer in their intro product. Or, you may have come up with ideas to expand or make the intro product work better.

The designers are working for all groups, a GM is working for their group. That makes a difference and a GM has the luxury of tailoring to their folks specifically.

And, as an aside, is it better if this is a stand alone "quickstart" type product, a specifically designed "starter set", or something in the core rules/main book?

All three? I think at the very least you ought to have one of those things.

*Yes, I used the word "should." Don't overthink it.

I didnt.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Given the answers here, what time frame are people thinking of when they think a session?

 

[overgeeked]

Given the answers here, what time frame are people thinking of when they think a session?

Should be about 3-4 hours.

 

[R_J_K75]

Should be about 3-4 hours.

Our sessions average about 3 hours with about 2-1/2 hours of actual game time, give or take

 

[Reynard]

Given the answers here, what time frame are people thinking of when they think a session?

For an introductory session I would use the convention game model: 4 hours set aside, but a decent chunk of the first hour is going to be introducing things, explaining rules, picking characters and so on.

 

[Autumnal]

I don’t have a lot of firm opinions, but:

Talk to the reader. I’m a continuing fan of how Rob and Jonathan do it in 13th Age. Point out things that shape the design of the scenario.

Show off the game’s cool features.

Include meaningful choices. My emphasis here is on “meaningful”.

And make the rewards things that are cool and notable for the setting, even though they’re at a power level suitable for new characters.

 

[Retreater]

I have my complaints about PF2 as a system, but their Beginner Box adventure is a pretty solid tutorial (I haven't GMed it post-Remaster, however).

The needs of an introductory adventure varies depending on the system's gameplay loop, but here's how it works well in PF2. You learn skill checks, puzzles, grappling, resistances, cover, with each encounter focusing on teaching an element of the game. The final encounter might be a little too difficult (not including spoilers here), but I think that it is do-able.

A system with a "bad" introductory adventure, which pains me to say because I love the system, is Dragonbane. If you want to kill a new group's interest in a system, run them through the Quick Start adventure of Riddermound. Let them face a final boss that is designed to be impervious to all their attacks and just demolish the party. All the while, all the wilderness exploration that makes the system come to life is ignored for a standard dungeon crawl.

Here are elements that I think are generally useful:

• Pre-generated characters, with nicely formatted sheets to show what you're rolling (and when)
• The characters should be specifically useful in the adventure. (Like don't have a trapsmith in an adventure without dungeon traps.)
• Bitz, tokens, cheat sheets, maps, etc., to help visualize the gameplay
• A fairly simple adventure that encompasses at least one element of all major pillars of play
• If there are key concepts to your rules, make sure they are used and explained. Provide a textbox for the GM to know what concept is being taught in that encounter so it can be reinforced. Don't hide the rules and purpose of the encounters from the GM.
• If you're not specifically teaching something in the encounter, don't include it as an element. (For example, if the point of the encounter is NOT to teach grappling, don't put a grappling creature in it. If it's NOT about AoE attacks, don't give enemies blast template grenades.)

 

[uzirath]

I don't like intro scenarios to be too sandboxy; it's ok for things to be a bit linear for first-timers. The adventure backstory should be tightly written—just a few paragraphs. Beyond that, as others have mentioned, it's helpful to include situations that intentionally highlight particular aspects of the rules: social encounters, exploration, traps and puzzles, combat, spellcasting, etc. The central scenario should be compact and doable in a 3-4 hour session, but there should be explicit suggestions for how to expand the adventure.