Best laid out non-dungeon module?

[Beoric]

Whenever someone starts off a sentence like this, I always interrupt to tell them whatever they were about to say they need not bother; they should consider me one of those people, whomever those people are.

People who base an identification around not being one of some people are boring, cautious, and seekers of social status.

So, you don't see your second sentence as being as dismissive as the conduct you are criticizing in the first sentence?

Well, I guess a few rounds of personal attacks will get us off politics.

 

[EOTB]

The conduct in the first sentence is not dismissive. It is conforming.

I agree my response is dismissive.

Also agree better to focus on layout.

 

[The1True]

People who base an identification around not being one of some people are boring, cautious, and seekers of social status.

You and my brother can totally go play D&D and gripe about Peter Jackson ruining your childhood together.

 

[The1True]

WotC's agenda is world-domination, of course!

Well obviously, but I still don't see how including headshots could be part of their increasingly (for better or mostly worse) woke announcements.

 

[squeen]

Yeah. Enough of this.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

IME, I don't find headshots useful. I also find a lot of NPC descriptions pretty padded and often structured in such a way that the very "quirks" and descriptions that are meant to be evocative are conveyed as dully as possible. I am firmly anti-quirk, and instead prefer to focus on the motive, means, and opportunities that NPCs have, since I think it pushes one to focus on what is relevant to their presence in the game. Even if you want to faff around chatting with the local merchants or whatever (and I love doing this), I find prepping this stuff provides a more solid foundation for doing that than the usual "Philip Simpson, NG human, was born in Boglesburg and is 40 years old and sells carded wool and wool products and he is married and he talks in a Scottish accent and he has 47 gp on hand at any given time blah blah blah" stuff.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I am firmly anti-quirk, and instead prefer to focus on the motive, means, and opportunities that NPCs have, since I think it pushes one to focus on what is relevant to their presence in the game.

I think we need to define something before I can respond in earnest: what do you consider a successfully-run NPC to look like? How do you know you have built a successful encounter with an NPC, and most importantly, by what measures are we to ascribe "success"? I think our answers may differ.

 

[Two orcs]

I consider a successful NPC to be someone the players can make and fail to make real predictions about based on their character. Basically, they seem real and distinct enough that players apply theory of mind to them instead of the GM. This opens up the possibility for reward (both in terms of strategic success and satisfaction) when the players make accurate predictions. When they think an NPC is real true surprise is also possible when their mental image is subverted.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I consider a successful NPC to be someone the players can make and fail to make real predictions about based on their character. Basically, they seem real and distinct enough that players apply theory of mind to them instead of the GM. This opens up the possibility for reward (both in terms of strategic success and satisfaction) when the players make accurate predictions. When they think an NPC is real true surprise is also possible when their mental image is subverted.

So, if I'm trying to understand your meaning correctly: your definition of a successfully running an NPC can be distilled down to one that is A) predictable, and B) realistic, yes? Is that what you're saying here?

 

[Two orcs]

Believable is more accurate than realistic, after all this is a fantasy game containing some people that can't exist. Just like tactical situations require transparency to allow maneuvering so do social interactions. What is more important for the player's enjoyment though I suspect is the stickiness of believable characters, if the players buy into the idea that it's a real person it cuts straight to their hard wired social neurology (or the reverse, I'm not sure which causes which here).

 

[Beoric]

what do you consider a successfully-run NPC to look like?

Interesting question. I think I have different criteria depending upon whether the NPC is someone they have an ongoing relationship with, or someone where the relationship is largely confined to the encounter.

When there is an ongoing relationship I take it as successful if the players start talking about the NPC like a real person. I like it when they get emotionally invested in the NPCs, and the absolute best is when they seem to forget they are talking to me (which is pretty rare but has happened).

Encounter NPCs I judge largely by interactivity. Can the players interact with the NPC in a natural way (well, natural for the circumstances), and is there a potential in-game benefit for them to do so? At a minimum the NPC should convey something about the world and the people who inhabit it, although I prefer it if NPCs also have the potential to have a more concrete impact than that. NPCs that have nothing useful to say are a waste of my time and my players' time, so I try to make it clear who is an "extra".

 

[The1True]

Yeah. Enough of this.

Sorry man, I genuinely thought you were coyly withholding a juicy piece of WOTC gossip here.

 

[Osrnoob]

I really like the NPC descriptions in Bone Marshes.

He gives you the basis to tell how the character will react to basic events and you can often go from there.

The Mud Women is a good example or Azimech

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I think we need to define something before I can respond in earnest: what do you consider a successfully-run NPC to look like? How do you know you have built a successful encounter with an NPC, and most importantly, by what measures are we to ascribe "success"? I think our answers may differ.

I don't have one single standard at the level of their function in the game, which is what I think you're asking for? I would agree with two orcs that I want players to be able to apply their folk theories of mind to the NPC rather than to me as the referee, regardless of what function the NPC is intended to serve (whether making the world "come alive", being a major antagonist or ally, providing a clue or quest, etc.). Rather than "realistic" or "predictable", I prefer the term "intelligible" - I want PCs to feel that they can successfully decode (to a greater or lesser extent) the beliefs, desires, and character of NPCs and then interact with them on that basis. They won't always do so reliably, and the concerns of these people may be very alien in content or focus from our own (thus why I don't use "realistic" or "predictable") but I strive to make that decoding possible.

Similarly to Beoric, when those qualities aren't relevant to interacting with the NPC or when I apprehend that the PCs aren't interested in a particular NPC, I tend to aim for greater and greater degrees of abstraction (e.g. "You go shopping for a sword. Spend your gold." if they aren't interested in haggling with merchants).

 

[squeen]

Reading The Pit in the Forest (slowly), I will say I don't agree with this:

Treasure assumes an xp-for-gold model and a B/X-like xp chart, but (taking a leaf from Tomb of the Serpent Kings) it assumes 10 xp per gp so that the treasure piles aren’t ludicrous.

I think the intent is well-meaning (I'm going to have to look closer at the Serpent Kings), but you know what I'm going to say, right? Leave the treasure piles small, use the silver standard for the local economy, but just let level advancement be slow---that's a good thing.

At some point, your team will hit the mother-lode and shoot up a level...don't rush it. Patience young Skywalker! Enjoy the journey.

(Incidentally, you know what I'm not against? Finding magic in the dungeon that bumps your level. Now that's treasure!)

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

My experience after adopting various 1 coin = 1 XP schemes over the years has been that the practical effect is to disincline me from offering coin-based treasure and offer more object-based treasure instead. I often seclude coinage's presence to various patrons and quest givers who pay PCs for task completion, while what they pull out of the dungeon are rare items and weird magic which they either do on behalf of a patron or with the goal of speculatively reselling.

 

[squeen]

You are saying use small, high-value objects to prevent the necessity for "Tenser's Floating Disk" or other coin-logistics conundrums for the party?

 

[Two orcs]

Logistics are the heart of the challenge! Why mourn a 20gp pack mule falling to a wolf attack? Because that's 20,000-40,000 coins less you'll be carrying back home. In the big firefight in the movie Heat, why is the scene tense? Because the robbers are burdened at first by gym bags full of cash and later their wounded comrades. Without the heavy bags no risk being encircled by the police, and no temptation of dropping the cash, your buddy or both to make a run for it.

By putting down money on logistics characters can punch above their weight class and make more money than their personal power would suggest. Wilderness encounters bother you? Hire a small army for your wilderness treck. A local lord bothers you? Hire a medium army. Risking your life is all or nothing (depending on Raise dead rules) but spending money on adventure allows players to choose their own risk.

 

[squeen]

That is a great scene in Heat.

 

[squeen]

I don't see the XP in Serpent Kings, but found this particular insightful. The key to understand most things is historical context.

Tomb of Horrors and Death Frost Doom are both reactions to something, but what they are reacting to doesn’t really exist as a published product.