Hooks

[DangerousPuhson]

I dont see hooks as a tool to orient the DM to the adventure, that is the Background's job. Hooks are a tool to help the DM start the adventure.

I think the issue I'm having in understanding your position is that both terms ("orient" and "start" the adventure) are kinda synonymous to me. You have to orient yourself in order to start something. So when you say:

"Hooks: Cliff notes for the DM to start the adventure."

, to me that means the same thing as when I say Hooks are used to orient the DM.

Your examples help, but they are also a bit muddy (ex. hook example #4 is what I'd consider a "rumor" rather than a hook - actually, it appears to be a rumor acting as a hook). From what I can tell, you seem to distinguish rumors vs. hooks by their different in-character means of delivery, rather than their content - is that fair to say?

 

[squeen]

I want to add a rumor for us conspiracy theorists:

"The King's men were secretly behind it. Sammy was just a patsy. They wanted the boat stolen as an excuse to invade the island."

 

[Malrex]

I think the issue I'm having in understanding your position is that both terms ("orient" and "start" the adventure) are kinda synonymous to me. You have to orient yourself in order to start something. So when you say:
, to me that means the same thing as when I say Hooks are used to orient the DM.

Your examples help, but they are also a bit muddy (ex. hook example #4 is what I'd consider a "rumor" rather than a hook - actually, it appears to be a rumor acting as a hook). From what I can tell, you seem to distinguish rumors vs. hooks by their different in-character means of delivery, rather than their content - is that fair to say?

Orient---the overall summary of the adventure, from beginning to end.
Start--beginning the interaction with the players about the adventure.

I think in-character delivery is more interesting for rumors, yes, but paraphrasing can work too. These were just quick examples.

Would you read verbatim my hook #4 or any of those hooks to your players? Because if so, then I think we are getting close to 'railroad' territory. Hooks should come out naturally through play/interaction and rumors instead of just reading them to the player. That's why it's my belief that they are better suited as a DM tool. That's just my opinion and it's ok if we disagree. Those that don't roleplay much probably wouldn't see such a great need for hooks as maybe they just read them to their players or just tell their players what adventure they are doing that night, I'm not sure, I don't play that way.

 

[Beoric]

Hook
1. King Richard hires the party to stop Sammy the Sailor and offers 100 gp and a golden flagon with emerald seals on it (500 gp). (Flowery prose may be the wrong thing to say--mainly more specifics and color, like the name of the king, and the flagon. This is an obvious and boring hook).
2. Sammy hires the party to stop anyone from trying to recover the stolen ship. He offers high ranks in his new pirate operation for good work. He believes a party of heroes is coming soon and lets the PCs borrow one of his ships to ambush them.
3. Kahlva the druid is pissed because his favorite tree was used to make the ship. He offers 100 gp to the party to sink it. Only when the ship is sunk and in a watery grave will his grief be over.
4. The sage Ulapus can barely get a sentence out without drooling over himself. He has a need for giant squid ink though and willing to donate his 3 story tower for anyone who brings him a barrel full. He last heard a sailor claiming to have seen a giant squid near an island to the north.

I think my issue with hooks as they are normally presented is that any important relationship with an NPC should be developed, and any part of an adventure that is inherently interesting should be run, not summarized. In other words, I prefer situations to "hooks". Your example is a good one for illustrating what I mean, because many of the hooks are competing and mutually exclusive. So,

1. King Richard needs somebody to recover the good ship Dauntless, which has run aground on a reef, and was carrying important diplomatic missives. He can't assign the task to his guard, because he is will aware that some of them are on the take from Sammy. He is willing to offer 100 gp and a golden flagon to anyone he thinks can do the job.
2. Sammy the "Sailor" (a pirate), is being paid handsomely by the Duke to stop anyone from recovering the ship, and is willing to give a high ranking position in his organization to anyone who can do so. Unfortunately, his lieutenant's sister was on board when it ran aground, and wants her to be rescued. If someone else is able to do the job, maybe they also have the skills to replace Samy's lieutenant.
3. Kahlva the druid is pissed because his favorite tree was used to make the Dauntless. Only when the ship is sunk and in a watery grave will his grief be over. He will give 100 gp to anyone who sinks it.
4. [The Sage element is good how it is.]

So now choosing a "hook" is part of the adventure, with the questgivers competing to hire the party. This also works with my personal preference that adventures be character driven.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Would you read verbatim my hook #4 or any of those hooks to your players? Because if so, then I think we are getting close to 'railroad' territory. Hooks should come out naturally through play/interaction and rumors instead of just reading them to the player.

No I wouldn't read that verbatim. It is, however, just a rough paraphrasing of whatever you do say to the PCs, easily transcribed into an in-game conversation or statement. For instance:

4. The sage Ulapus can barely get a sentence out without drooling over himself. He has a need for giant squid ink though and willing to donate his 3 story tower for anyone who brings him a barrel full. He last heard a sailor claiming to have seen a giant squid near an island to the north.

A guard worryingly approaches his colleague. You easily overhear the pair talk in dismal tones: 'The sage Ulapus can barely get a sentence out without drooling over himself.' 'Poor old guy...' 'Says he has a need for giant squid ink though, and he's willing to donate his 3 story tower to anyone who brings him a barrel full' 'Holy moley, that's crazy!' 'Yeah, apparently some sailor claims to have seen a giant squid near an island to the north'. 'Ooh, that sounds too dangerous for me...'

Now is that a rumor, or a hook? Is a hook just a rumor described to the DM?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Post Script:

@Malrex I hope you don't mistake my tone for hostility. These questions I ask are more of a Socratic method of consensus-building that I do in order to fully explore a topic. I don't ask them out of disbelief over what you say, or incredulity over your way of thinking - I merely ask because I seek answers. I do apologize if it comes off as dismissive of what you say.

@Beoric I likewise endorse a patronage system, provided they aren't mandatory to an adventure.

At the twilight of my 3e days, I ran a group of 5 players (+/-1 at any given time) through the Age of Worms adventure path (Dungeon Mag campaign by Piazo). About midway through the campaign, the party is basically railroaded into taking freaking Mordenkainen (renamed as "Manzorian") as their patron, who then became the main questgiver for the latter half of the thing. I wasn't a fan.

Sidenote: I accidentally added a recurring BBEG to that campaign when I used the wrong sort of Devil from the Monster Manual, one who was way too strong for the party. They had good times with him, I tell ya.

 

[Beoric]

@Beoric I likewise endorse a patronage system, provided they aren't mandatory to an adventure.

At the twilight of my 3e days, I ran a group of 5 players (+/-1 at any given time) through the Age of Worms adventure path (Dungeon Mag campaign by Piazo). About midway through the campaign, the party is basically railroaded into taking freaking Mordenkainen (renamed as "Manzorian") as their patron, who then became the main questgiver for the latter half of the thing. I wasn't a fan.

Ugh. I'm all about player agency, and AoW is not that. None of the Dungeon magazine adventure paths were.

That's a good example of lousy hooks, BTW. I was trying to adapt Life's Bazaar, where the hook is an attack by several people on the person who was supposed to be the questgiver. My players were like, "Yeah, I don't know what's going on here, I'm just going to watch and see." (In fairness, there is a certain about of PTSD from our old DM from decades ago, who generally punished any acts of kindness.) They did help the dude limp home after he was thoroughly trounced, and he give them the rumor of the missing kids from this orphanage. But because they didn't trust the questgiver, instead of going to the orphanage and looking for clues, they staked out the place for several days. This is a once and a while campaign with a friend who is out of town, but I'm pretty sure the next time I run it I'm going to have to decide that, while our fearless heroes have been dithering, the kids have been sold into slavery and are irrevocably lost in the underdark, and the slavery ring is going to just keep on kidnapping people.

I was a player in a 4e adventure where the questgivers are these dudes who randomly show up on a flying barge, insult the party, and demand that the party accompany them. I'm thinking, first of all, fuck you, and secondly, I'm not getting into a flying vehicle with a bunch of randos who are clearly tougher than me without knowing a lot more about what is going on.

Yes, I know, these are examples of what I was suggesting above, with playing out the getting of hooks. But what I was suggesting was not a railroad. If you must railroad your players into going on an adventure in a particular way, best that happens off-screen.

 

[squeen]

I'm prepping a small adventure meant to be a travel distraction or roadside lure as the party travels outdoors towards their destination. The basic idea is that an elder giant beaver will approach the party either in the nearby farmstead or while they are camping and ask for assistance recovering their lodge from a lizard men home-invasion.

The approach will probably be deterministic (i.e. forced) but if it was a published adventure, it might just be a random table entry.

There will be an offer of reward, and the beavers might be identified as allies of the homesteaders who have already helped the party. I'll have the whole beaver lake, partial underwater lodge/steading fully written up and ready to go --- the PCs can choose to help or just walk on by.

Is the approach for aid a "hook"? Or just an encounter? I've never made any sort of distinction.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Is the approach for aid a "hook"? Or just an encounter?

Hook delivered via encounter.

Though if there's basically a zero likelihood that the party will ever be conflicting with these beavers nor deviating from the delivery of the hook, then it's more like an "interaction" than an "encounter", per se.

 

[Malrex]

No I wouldn't read that verbatim. It is, however, just a rough paraphrasing of whatever you do say to the PCs, easily transcribed into an in-game conversation or statement. For instance:



A guard worryingly approaches his colleague. You easily overhear the pair talk in dismal tones: 'The sage Ulapus can barely get a sentence out without drooling over himself.' 'Poor old guy...' 'Says he has a need for giant squid ink though, and he's willing to donate his 3 story tower to anyone who brings him a barrel full' 'Holy moley, that's crazy!' 'Yeah, apparently some sailor claims to have seen a giant squid near an island to the north'. 'Ooh, that sounds too dangerous for me...'

Now is that a rumor, or a hook? Is a hook just a rumor described to the DM?

I'm not taking your tone as hostility at all. I enjoy discussing design, it's one of the reasons I come here. I know what works for me, but I also know this game is played in different ways so others have ways that work for them--its all good. It's interesting to explore that because if everyone bashed hooks and complained about them, I'd probably eventually not add them because people don't use them or like them AND there is a threat of another negative mark on a review. But I usually set up my own hooks when Im running adventures if none are provided.

I think I can agree with you that....in my opinion, yes...a hook can act like a rumor for the DM. I think thats a rough but decent way of explaining my thoughts. My hook examples, obviously, it may be hard to use all of them at once (except, Beoric made a good point of them competing with one another--which is EXCELLENT, and should be done as much as possible...more player choice). Isn't it a little easier to have some examples of how hooks could compete with one another when some are listed in an adventure?--for me, it just helps make the adventure/world feel more alive. But I think they are important to add because I try to design by Bryce's philosophy that people may just grab an adventure and have a prep time of 5 minutes....but me personally, I usually read an adventure once or twice beforehand and have my own hooks or expand on the hooks provided. I'm a prepper. And I do agree that some (most) hooks can suck, but I still appreciate them and think they are important for DMs who lack time. I feel like hooks are more dry and lack the spice/color that a rumor has. It presents a quick avenue for the DM to start the adventure or set the tone. Also, hooks usually are just true...not true or false like rumors are.

I'm prepping a small adventure meant to be a travel distraction or roadside lure as the party travels outdoors towards their destination. The basic idea is that an elder giant beaver will approach the party either in the nearby farmstead or while they are camping and ask for assistance recovering their lodge from a lizard men home-invasion.

The approach will probably be deterministic (i.e. forced) but if it was a published adventure, it might just be a random table entry.

There will be an offer of reward, and the beavers might be identified as allies of the homesteaders who have already helped the party. I'll have the whole beaver lake, partial underwater lodge/steading fully written up and ready to go --- the PCs can choose to help or just walk on by.

Is the approach for aid a "hook"? Or just an encounter? I've never made any sort of distinction.

I think we need to start a glossary...lol.
Beoric touched on this above, and at first I was going to say this may be more a situation than a hook. But if you have the underwater lodge fleshed out, then it may be a hook for a side adventure or hook delivered via encounter like DP said.

Situation--for me, this is organized much like a Background. No nonsense. It explains a situation and describes maybe some options that could happen. It needs more explanation than just a random encounter. For Vermilion or city adventures, I have a bunch of situations in there, things that could happen and/or could escalate other things that are going on during the timeline. For dungeons, it's a bit harder to put them in, although one could be there between some faction trouble or something. Wilderness it's easier to sprinkle some situations in too. But if the situation leads to a dungeon or whatever, then I would characterize it more as a side quest/trek (which I love adding, because I like to have a bunch of choices for players).

 

[The1True]

A playtest is a one-shot by definition. So cut with the pretense and just talk to them as playtesters instead of trying to roleplay this stuff via hooks.

Do you not need to test your hooks as well, though? Probably, Malrex benefited by the players' unexpected reaction to the rumours by tweaking things that he might have otherwise sent to the final product.

 

[The1True]

Here's my two cents:
My players are looking for the railroad. They're looking for the central narrative, because they know if they keep it in sight, they'll reap the most benefit from the written material (most interesting NPC's, fully realized encounters, best treasure etc.) They don't usually jump on the train, and frequently take long side-journeys, but they like to know where it's going and stay at least parallel to it.

The Hook tells the players where the boarding platform is, and where the train might be going. It's their choice whether they want to buy a ticket or just steal some ideas from the itinerary.

The Rumours tell the players what to prepare for. Some of these tips will be red herrings.

 

[squeen]

@The1True : I think that is a great point. Often players do not fight the current unless they can foresee it's going to end badly for them.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think the question remains: do published adventures need a hook?

As True says, the players are already seeking some kind of unwritten guidance for what to do - they already want to bite the line, hook or no hook. So when dealing with a published module (or at least, when the party understands that they are dealing with a published module), it's assumed the players will latch on to the clear path ahead with minimal baiting. If we play the Tomb of Horrors, I don't have to make the Tomb particularly enticing - the players know that's where the adventure is, and only the truly disruptive would try and go somewhere else. Hooking the party into is as easy as saying "you are standing outside the fabled Tomb of Horrors...".

Then as Malrex says, the hook can be used to orient the DM as much as it does the players, and if we look at it through the lens of a DM tool, perhaps we can better see its purpose. But in the case of something like ToH (which admittedly does not cover all or even most cases), the DM usually doesn't need that orienting - they can just plop the party down with the understanding that "This is an adventure site; the players will be exploring it. End of orientation". I think for modules that aren't so superficial as to be understood at a glance there is benefit to a hook, but ultimately any DM worth their salt can workaround its absence.

I think the necessity of hooks are subject to the adventure - some require a hook to clarify for the DM and engage the players, but most probably don't. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that reviewers need to ding every module that doesn't include a hook though... they are seemingly more optional than I first believed.

 

[Malrex]

Now I'm a bit curious if it's the DM style/way of starting an adventure.

For me, I try to create a world and if I'm using published adventures or whatever, I sorta plunk them across the lands and use hooks/rumors to entice players. Once they choose where they are going, I kinda fake it until I make it---meaning, get them there and start it...but then have time between sessions to better prepare.

So, for the Tomb of Horrors, I would definitely need to do something to entice the players to go there instead of going elsewhere.

But then there is the style of grabbing a module and just plunking it on the table and saying ok, here is the adventure tonight. In that case, then no, you probably dont need any hooks.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Now I'm a bit curious if it's the DM style/way of starting an adventure.

I don't think it's inherent to a particular DM style. I'd say it's more a "campaign style" thing.

If your campaign operates on being evident about its intentions, generous with it's rumors, and buy-in from the players is forthcoming, then hooks become functionally unnecessary - the party will be led where you lead them (as poor as the practice may be).

Likewise if your campaign is a collection of singular modules threaded together in a common narrative, a premade hook will only serve as an obstacle to be sidestepped in favor of the more pertinent.

If you run a sandbox (as you describe your own game), you need to lead the players to places - and you're right that you can't as easily just 'plop' them in front of the dungeon in a sandbox, that they need to go there on their own volition. And you're also right that hooks facilitate moving the party in this way. However, this re-affirms my secondary contention that hooks are unnecessary where rumors will suffice.

Rumors are an easier and better-suited tool to deploy within a sandbox. They can be read verbatim, and are delivered organically in-world. The party can collect them and choose among them. They can be true or false, or anywhere in the spectrum between (can you fake a hook?). They effectively do the work of a hook, but are much more delicate/less intrusive about it.

So in that vein of thought, the question remains: what then is the point of a hook, if it is unsuited for the self-evident, sidestepped for the extant, and so effectively replaced by the rumor?

 

[Malrex]

Lol...we keep goin in circles.
Hooks summarize risk and rewards (and for the DM).
Rumors provide info that can be true or false (for the player).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I had a bit of an epiphany this morning about hooks - their use is for when the party is skirting the fringes of a dungeon/adventure, and you need to finally "yoink" them into the place (like hooking a fish that's just taste-tasting your bait).

I think it's less about DM summary and giving options for the party, and more about booting the players in the butt when they are right at the front door. Rumors can lead them water, but a hook makes them drink, so to speak.

Example: The party has heard of a neat site (rumors) and they go there, but they are just milling around the area, taking their time, inspecting, debating, etc. Suddenly a flaming ogre (hook) runs out of a nearby cave screaming something about a dragon in his kitchen.

Again, highly use-specific, definitely not required for all adventures... but I do see their purpose now (or at least, I see the way they can be most useful to me).

 

[EOTB]

Do you not need to test your hooks as well, though? Probably, Malrex benefited by the players' unexpected reaction to the rumours by tweaking things that he might have otherwise sent to the final product.

No, I don't need to test my hooks because I'm not going to run one shots. And I'm not particularly interested in writing for people who want to run one shots. They can adapt my material.

And if they can't come up with a hook, they shouldn't be running one shots, or two shots or any other shots.

 

[Beoric]

No, I don't need to test my hooks because I'm not going to run one shots. And I'm not particularly interested in writing for people who want to run one shots. They can adapt my material.

And if they can't come up with a hook, they shouldn't be running one shots, or two shots or any other shots.

Fair enough, but you aren't writing for noobs. New DMs have to learn how to get players interested in their prepped material. And new DMs generally learn what an adventure is supposed to look like by reading modules. And modern modules usually have a section with hooks, and those hooks are usually lame-ass overused tropes that are teaching a style of play that isn't conducive to learning how to run campaigns; they are usually the first step on a linear journey. They are not teaching DMs how to find interesting ways of providing information to players, and they are certainly not teaching players that they may need to do a little work for the information. Standard hooks aren't interactive.

Like I said above, I don't use published hooks. But I think if someone is publishing a module and does include hooks, it would be better if those hooks provided decent examples as to how a DM might introduce a module into a campaign.