General Discussion
- Thread starter Beoric
- Start date
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
From what I gather from when I used to follow MilTwitter, I think they really build wargames that way for scenario simulation. With custom rules depending on the variable and equipment.
I noticed a notation on the hexes which showed when it was easier to move from one hex to another. Like the lines on the hex edges denoting which beaches were possible to land on. I like that, I'm going to adopt it as a slower-than-a-road-but-faster-than-most-cross-country notation.
I noticed a notation on the hexes which showed when it was easier to move from one hex to another. Like the lines on the hex edges denoting which beaches were possible to land on. I like that, I'm going to adopt it as a slower-than-a-road-but-faster-than-most-cross-country notation.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
A random thought I had, for making modules that can easily be dropped into a campaign. Make your area map no larger than 24 miles across - that is, no larger than the size of a single "large" hex, using the smallest scale in common use. And don't imply that there is unusual terrain extending beyond the boundaries of the map.
I say this because of how difficult I find it to integrate area maps into my campaign, where the area map takes several hexes, and I have to find a location with (for example) mountains on two sides, and large forests on the other two sides, without redrawing my campaign map.
Bryce talks a lot about usability at the table, but I have more trouble with usability in the campaign. For this quality, I think the old TSR modules are generally superior to OSR efforts. I can drop Hommlet into most of the nations in my campaign world - pretty much anywhere I want to start a campaign. I really struggle to find a home for most OSR efforts, although @Malrex's modules are often an exception).
I say this because of how difficult I find it to integrate area maps into my campaign, where the area map takes several hexes, and I have to find a location with (for example) mountains on two sides, and large forests on the other two sides, without redrawing my campaign map.
Bryce talks a lot about usability at the table, but I have more trouble with usability in the campaign. For this quality, I think the old TSR modules are generally superior to OSR efforts. I can drop Hommlet into most of the nations in my campaign world - pretty much anywhere I want to start a campaign. I really struggle to find a home for most OSR efforts, although @Malrex's modules are often an exception).
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Thanks Beoric!
I just stumbled upon a video about 'how long should an adventure be?' The dude, Matthew Colville? was saying that adventures should be short, and not the big ones....and that he was surprised that most people on his twitch were just used to adventures being the big, hard bound books that Wizards was pumping out. He said it leads to a campaign fizzling because the adventures are so long, players forget what or why they are doing something and he believed the TSR modules were superiour because they were short and players could accomplish something. Anyways, sorta reminded me when Beoric is basically saying 'how big of an area should an adventure be.'
I like the smaller areas...like a valley or canyon or something that has a natural barrier. As a kid, I was used to lumping short adventures into a bigger campaign, but I guess that isn't done with the newer players because they are just used to the big adventures. Found it interesting to watch.
Anyways, I agree with Beoric about the TSR modules. There are some adventures out there that people think are great....and I admit they are creative, but I always scratch my head and wonder where the heck would I place it in my campaign? Even Palace of Unquiet Repose is a bit of a struggle as all the gods are dead, etc. but I think it doesn't delve into that too much and can be tweaked pretty easily.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
lol, try jamming the massive wilderness areas in S4 and WG4 into your own world! Previous to my heartbreaker, I built a massive hexcrawl, sandbox island roughly the size of Britain with the purpose of jamming all my favourite printed adventures into it and letting the characters drive their own campaign. What I ended up doing in a lot of cases was shrinking the scale of the Wilderness portions (old adventures loooove to use giant 12+ mi hexes). In almost all cases the trek would be just as much fun at 1/6 the scale, and will fit neatly into the appropriate generic biome with a minimum of alteration.
In cases where the whole point is that the players must trek across 200 grueling miles of tundra to save the horse clans or whatever, you can usually break the map into pieces and distribute the Points (A, B, etc.) at appropriate distances in your own world map.
Like Malrex said, that leaves the real problem with all of these, which is adaptation. Old Greyhawk adventures were set in a generic, earthlike, magical medieval world, so they transfer easily to most campaigns. Later adventures start introducing world-specific crunch that can be very difficult to transplant without significantly altering your campaign world.
I guess I'm feeling defensive (due to the ridiculous size of my own work), but as a consumer, I LOVE getting a big book with a ton of usable content, lush artwork, and professional layout/design. I've definitely seen people shitting on 100+ page adventures in the comments section of Bryce's reviews, but (possibly unfairly?) written them off as miserable old bastards. Now I'm actually curious though, what's selling more successfully at the moment; short and sweet or long and delicious?
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
The relevant portion of both S4's and WG4's area maps are all mountains. I don't have difficulty finding a big area of mountains where I can drop them. The scale is a bit big, but there is no time crunch for the wilderness portion, so the scale can be changed; also, 0e/1e/Basic overland travel speeds are always unrealistically fast, so it often doesn't make a big difference when I use my own travelling rules. I usually change the scale on the B1 overland map as well, to make it bigger.
(BTW @Malrex, I often have to change the scale on your area maps and detail maps for them to make sense. I assume you play TotM style?)
I agree with your adaptation comment. I would really like to figure out a way to use Palace of Unquiet Repose, but a lot of its elements are very specific and difficult to translate to my game world without a lot of work. Same goes for a lot of the NAP stuff; it's great, but I will never even try to use use most of it.
I expect you like hardbacks because, IIRC, you like reading modules. I only read them for the purposes of preparing to use them, and get frustrated with walls of text.
I find both hardback and softback books difficult to use for my purposes. The TSR modules, with physically separated (or separatable) maps and separate illustration booklets, were easier to work with. ATM I prefer PDFs, which I print in sections, generally one section with the text and key, and another reference section with maps, new monsters, new magic items, etc. Each section is "bound" with a staple in the corner, unless it is too big for that, in which case I have a Cerlox binder. I can write all over them, and if I want to use them in a different way in a different context I can just reprint them and make different notes. I dislike writing in bound books.
grodog
Should be playing D&D instead
Agreed, whole-heartedly. Modules, to be useful, need to be modular and portable, since (as of the old 1999 or 2000 player survey) many (most?) campaigns were run in homebrewed settings. (I’m not sure how that data has evolved over the last 25 years, but WorC certainly kept polling the customer base).
I tend to think of settings in these scales:
- local (Hommlet or Nulb or Hardby, etc.); ; in GH, this is a 5/6 mile hex
- regional (environs around the City of Greyhawk, including Castle, Chateau, fens, roads, bridges, etc.); in my GH, or in the Wilderlands, this is a 5 mile hex
- meta/uber/bigger regional (the Sheldomar Valley); in GH, this is a 30 mile hex
- continental (the Flanaess, although technically it’s a sub-continent, so you could insert another layer in the hierarchy if desired); in GH, this is a 30 mile hex (or even if I’m dealing with the Oerik map)
Regional is about as large as a published sourcebook can really go and remain modular, and that can still be tough, depending on the terrain dependencies: you can add some of Gabor’s Erillion+ lands to your game, but it’s difficult to add them all to another setting (published or homebrew). So islands (or sub-continents, I suppose) are sort of a cheat here, if you can safely add them over the edges of what’s known without disrupting the rest of the established setting.
That’s the approach we took with Valus back in 2003-4: http://diffworlds.com/valus.htm There is more to that world, but you can, in theory, drop Valus into Greyhawk, FR, the Majestic Wilderlands, etc. It’s small/local enough in scale and scope to be relatively plug-and-play, while being large enough (in theory) to offer distinct setting elements and challenges vs. the rest of the standard setting/world.
Allan.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I have a weakness for making wilderness maps. I use to many symbols....less is more, but my brain can't do it well, so I tend to make smaller areas, but then the scale may not make as much sense? Although...It may also not be me as Jon and I work together a lot and if its one we work on together, sometimes he draws the maps (and I digitize them).
Ya, I don't like adventures that take a lot of work to fit in my campaign. Maze of Blue Medusa, Deep Carbon Observatory...all these adventures people rave about, I don't like them because I can't really use them. I think they are creative and not trying to come off as bashing them, but they just dont really work for my playstyle (I could only read about 4 pages of Blue Medusa before just putting it down).
I used to like reading modules, but don't buy much anymore because I don't want to steal ideas and/or I seem to always look for flaws or how they could be improved--which is NOT why I want to read them, but I can't seem to help it anymore. And I'm usually backlogged trying to playtest my own stuff. But every once in awhile, Ill buy something from an author I like or if I think it will give me some sort of inspiration.
I like PDFs as well as I've become more of a minimalist at home and don't like books hogging up space anymore.
If I could partner with a printing press and/or figure out how to make detachable modules like TSR, I'd do it because I like those too, but I think that gets in the realm of high risk and having to order a certain amount and store them and we aren't really there yet.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
You definitely got me there, but don't get me wrong; I don't enjoy walls of text either. I'm in it for the content, not the novelization. Maps, tables, mini-quests, mini-games, alternate systems, new classes, new monsters, new magic, new crunch, appendices. I like a creator who has enthusiastically vomited up a rainbow of innovative ideas and art, and somehow knitted them all together into a coherent work. I may never run "The Dark of Hot Springs Island" or "Veins of the Earth", but they were an absolute delight and inspiration to read. That said, I couldn't get through "Maze of the Blue Medusa" either, but maybe that's because I can't find it in hard copy for less than a million bucks and I hate reading PDF's?
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
So The1True, Beoric and Squeen basically all said in a roundabout way that these adventures may not be used but was a good read. Are they a different bracket of 'adventure'? Why has everyone gushed about these adventures and yet no one plays them? Is there a play-by-play for any of these adventures written somewhere?
I think I skimmed through Veins of the Earth (the art style bothered me) and I think there was some cool ideas in there. I don't remember it being an adventure, but more of a source book, like Wilderness Survival type book for underground.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
You are correct about Veins--not an adventure. Patrick's stuff (like his blog) gushes with creativity, and since back then--he and Zak (an LA artist/hipster)--were leading D&D into a more "mature" direction. It flattered to deceive the reader that D&D could be something is never was, and unfortunately(?) never could be. (Because RPG dice-based sex is not a thing?) The failure was the lack of actionable mechanics and details. Without Patrick's creative mind filling in content out of thin-air, the action-able details would never materialize. The whole Artpunk product-line was more like reading a book and thinking "Hey! Maybe I can steal some of that for my game." That ultimately was a far-cry away from buying a usable adventure.
In many ways, Byrce (although he gushed on Maze at the time) was the blow-back against useless story content. Bryce was taken in by Patrick's imaginative prose, which was next-level above the very rote and pedantic language of most D&D products (i.e. his elusive evocative pillar), but was also too pragmatic about adventure utility to fall for the purple-prose camp of the lesser Artpunk imitators. It was all Art Film aesthetic, and the OSR got taken in by the hollow, moody, "deep", veneer.
OSE and the dreaded bullet-pointers rode the reactionary/utility wave back way too far.
NAP is an attempt to strip away the window dressing of modern Artpunk (i.e. the layout and imagery), while preserving some of the artistry of language, while adhering to the integrity of playable content (without the creative showmanship gimmicks of "new" this-and-that).
Bryce & Prince are both lovers of literature, and it shows.
Ultimately good D&D comes down to finding a great DM who:
(a) has played the game long enough to understand what's fun for players and what falls flat
(b) is massively creative themselves (relative to their players) and can generate inifite interesting content
Adventure writing is mostly an economic exercise. They exist at the appentizer-only end of the RPG spectrum.
In many ways, Byrce (although he gushed on Maze at the time) was the blow-back against useless story content. Bryce was taken in by Patrick's imaginative prose, which was next-level above the very rote and pedantic language of most D&D products (i.e. his elusive evocative pillar), but was also too pragmatic about adventure utility to fall for the purple-prose camp of the lesser Artpunk imitators. It was all Art Film aesthetic, and the OSR got taken in by the hollow, moody, "deep", veneer.
OSE and the dreaded bullet-pointers rode the reactionary/utility wave back way too far.
NAP is an attempt to strip away the window dressing of modern Artpunk (i.e. the layout and imagery), while preserving some of the artistry of language, while adhering to the integrity of playable content (without the creative showmanship gimmicks of "new" this-and-that).
Bryce & Prince are both lovers of literature, and it shows.
Ultimately good D&D comes down to finding a great DM who:
(a) has played the game long enough to understand what's fun for players and what falls flat
(b) is massively creative themselves (relative to their players) and can generate inifite interesting content
Adventure writing is mostly an economic exercise. They exist at the appentizer-only end of the RPG spectrum.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I haven't read Veins of the Earth or Hot Springs Island. I have read the preview of MotBM, a couple of times actually, found it unusable, and didn't particularly enjoy reading it, either. I don't read things just to read them, I read them with a view to using them.
I have trouble with a lot of 2e favourites because the wall of text makes it harder to get to what the thing is actually about, and I don't have the patience. If it doesn't show me that it's going to be useful relatively quickly, I will look elsewhere. If it is recommended by a couple of decent reviewers I might give it more time, but it still needs to be useful to be worth it.
This is probably because I read I have read a few adventure paths in detail, poring over the walls of purple prose, trying to find the essential elements that linked the modules together, so I knew what I needed to keep (or replace) and what was essential, only to learn each time there there was nothing essential in any of them. Every module, pretty much every element of every module, was utterly superfluous, entirely replaceable, and essentially empty. This is, to be clear, Shackled City, Age or Worms, and Scales of War, a combined seventy levels of "adventure." Now I'm jealous of my time, and modules need to prove themselves to me quickly.
Things like MotBM are in a different class from this, though. They are meant to be works of art on their own, without play. Like, MotBM's map is pretty, but utterly useless in terms of navigation. I have no time for that. Truth be told, I usually find concept adventures more novel than actually good.
I also don't find them enjoyable to read. People who write modules aren't necessarily good fiction writers (cf. Gord, and the Krynn novels). If it isn't even really good as fiction, and it isn't good as a gaming supplement, then it does nothing for me. And if I want inspiration from fiction, I can read or watch actually food fiction from actually good artists. Hell, I get more ideas from randomly reading a page in the 1e DMG than I do from reading unusable modules.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Glad you added that.
Like the much maligned "Dungeoneer's Survival Guide" even? Yeah, it's true, it's not really an adventure, so a bad example on my part.
Given that most of this OSR stuff involves rules crunch that doesn't carry over well to later editions, it's fine if the ideas are fanciful since I'm going to have to come up with the crunch anyway. I like inovative shit, which is frequently more concept-y than directly useable.
I'm not a big fan of the wall of text, but as Malrex has mentioned in the past, he appreciates a bit of context up front, and I don't think he's alone. A bit of story gets the reader-the DM- in the mood, and it gives them the backstory/lore. Whether the players ever dig it all up or not, doesn't matter, it's important for the referee to know the WHY's in case there are questions or deeper investigations. Boxing it all up into a half-hour long read aloud is an unforgivable sin, but if the party investigator wants to do some research between sessions before they blindly delve into the bowels of castle Doomblargh, you've got a few paragraphs to copy-paste for them.
I think there's more than one kind of consumer.
Some of us want something short, sweet, and uncomplicated story/background-wise that they can drop into their ongoing campaign. This consumer doesn't want extra lore that's going to make the adventure difficult to drop into their own milieu, they're buying the adventure because they're pressed for time and don't want to read mountains of extra fluff, and they probably don't want to centre their campaign around the adventure, so they don't want it to be too long.
Some of us mostly create our own stuff, so conceptual works are less likely to threaten, and more likely to feed our own creative process.
Some of us like a big shiny book with ALL the trimmings. Let's face it, most of us are playing once a week if we're lucky. There's more cool stuff out there than we could ever hope to play. Might as well pick up a product that is a delight to read, a pleasure to own, and is full of stuff we can cannibalize. It helps if I can read the book and dream of running a new campaign.
Further along that spectrum are people who are mostly just reading stuff or following some group along on Twitch. In which case, lots of story and easter eggs. I remember reading the Dragonlance novels and then going back and reading through the adventures. Even back then as an ultra-munchkin I knew I was looking at a total railroad, but it was cool to see the characters' stats and the maps and extra artwork as well as pick up the backstory of interesting peripheral characters.
I think I've been the first three types at one time or another. I've never knowingly sought the fourth type, but I definitely have some doozies in my collection.
Aw, I kind of liked Shackled City
and I've been looking all over for a complete set of PF1e Kingmaker for less than a bajillion dineros. I get where you're coming from though. Half the book is adventure (and even that is full of the dreaded WoT), and the other half is fluff you're never going to use.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I try my best to convert the crunch. In particular, I try to make the level of risk the same. If I just, for example, swap 4e hobgoblins for an equal number of 1e hobgoblins, or use 4e standards for finding/removing traps or their lethality, the character of the module is changed. Unfortunately, my perfectionist conversions take time.
Agreed, and in this (along with pretty much everything else) I am not their target market.
However, I also like context, and I like backstory and information that players can find before they start the adventure. I just would rather it was in a concise, summary form, rather than a lengthy narrative of poorly written purple prose.
And I think I have said before, I would greatly welcome a section that outlined the important beats that needed to be understood for the module to work properly. Basically, the hard gates, soft gates, information/items that the players will need to progress, and elements that will be necessary to any future module in a series. Bonus points if it acknowledges what can be freely changed without messing anything up.
I saw a use for Life's Bazaar (level 1) and Thirteen Cages (level 16) in a campaign. Was surprised that there was nothing in between that couldn't be left out (possibly excepting Secrets of the Soul Pillars). Had to read the AP more than once, because I thought that must be impossible, and I must have missed something. (I'm skimming them now, and it's worth noting that all of them have backstory, and very little of it if discoverable by the PCs, or has bearing on the actual adventures.)Aw, I kind of liked Shackled City
Maybe it's fine that they are all self-contained, given that it's a periodical and people might miss issues. But it would have been nice if they had called out that none of the modules were dependent on each other, and they could be freely omitted. Instead, they billed the whole "Adventure Path" as one mega-adventure, which heavily implied some sort of interdependence. And I lost many hours of my life reading wall-of-text.
There are bits of Life's Bazaar that I really like, and I'm using it right now (or I will be, if the hyper-cautious PCs ever stop pixel-bitching and actually chase a lead; at this rate, all the kids will be sold off, and Terrem will be returned to the orphanage, before they ever find their way to Gelve). But that dungeon is a slog of a hackfest. I find a lot of late-edition adventures are greatly improved by imposing a reaction table and morale checks on most of the "attack immediately/fight to the death" encounters.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Heh, I love reading these quotes. I remember when first trying to publish something--The Willlowmere Vagabonds and The Nevermore Mines, there was this fear? or hesitation of basically summarizing the whole adventure in a paragraph or 2 at the very start of the module. It seems like that would make sense? but...there was this hesitation for some reason--like somebody would get all the spoilers up front. Instead, there was this long backstory...But...a quick summary---THAT is what is needed for a DM. They NEED to know wtf the adventure is all about up front. Concise, to-the-point, and short. 1-2 (3-4 sentence) paragraphs..that's it. I'm working with Ray right now (author of Peril of Olden Wood) and mentioned we need this summary up front. His new adventure that is coming (Beware the Cannibal King) is fantastic, but has a shitload going on...it's imperative the DM knows wtf is going on up front with no bullshit. Otherwise, is his adventure's case, it's too big and a DM is going to get lost.
THEN
Ya...I like to have a short backstory with more info. Let's use "In Search of the Unknown" as an example:
"Many years ago two wealthy adventurers, Rogahn the Fearless and Zelligar the Unknown, built a hidden complex known as the Caverns of Quasqueton. From this base, they conducted their affairs away from the prying eyes of civilization. While of questionable ethical standing, the two drove back a barbarian invasion and gained the support of locals. Eventually, they gathered their own army and went on an expedition against said enemies, where they met their demise."
Now some may argue that this paragraph is pointless because the players will never really find this info out when exploring the dungeon...correct? Backstory...blah blah... Sure, the players may learn some of this through rumors, but basically it's just fluff. But when I DM, I find this tidbit pretty crucial. It creates a bunch of questions--what sort of 'questionable ethical standing'? 'Who were the barbarians?' "Which locals went to join the war?'...why was Rogahn called the Fearless (oh maybe this is why his room doesn't have any traps, etc.) All this fluff is a 'welcome mat' for the DM to convert, twist, adapt the adventure to their own campaign--and I love it. I can add a weird weapon in the adventure---well that is what the 'barbarians' used or maybe there is some prisoner in the dungeon (a local who joined the war but decided not to fight). Basically, it allows my creative brain to come up with reasons of why this place is here and creates questions for how I can make it fit and most importantly--make the adventure/world FEEL like a bigger place for the players.
Ill pick on Palace of Unquiet Repose....the gods are dead...ok...well shit, that's going to take some work for me to fit that in my campaign (Prince acknowledges that and gives tips on what to do if your gods aren't dead, etc.--and good on that because---) BUT--that's the kicker right? I don't like...actually, I HATE adventures that FORCE me to enter someone else's campaign world because that is the only way to use the adventure. Like Beoric, I find these adventures completely useless and still baffled why people gush over them---although, I guess some like to have a railroad in all aspects but I just don't like to DM that way---Id rather give as many choices to the players as possible...killing my own darlings. I have a hard time orchestrating that if there are too many specifics. Some specifics are easy to change (the king of the city's name, etc) but other things make it close to impossible. In fact, my brain just turns off because I realize I'm reading someone else's campaign and that is not the reason I bought the adventure.
Aye, like In Search of the Unknown--it's a quick paragraph. Some of the backstory can be fed or developed more in the rumor table as well or SHOULD be.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yeah man. The DM's in our group just do an Int or Wis check whenever it seems appropriate for monsters to be reexamining their life choices. I do miss reaction and morale even if they were pretty arbitrary at times.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Coming at it from the complete opposite end, I've considered putting in an Appendix with a brief summary of how the playtesters experienced the sandbox. I think it would help a DM see how things could go down, especially in a larger sandbox where all the interconnections are buried in the main text. I know I value the hints scattered in T1 about Gygax's campaign.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
The backstory in B1 is absolutely useful to the players. First of all, it is called out as something they can know/discover. Secondly, there are several treasures in the module that are called out as being identifiable as belonging to Rogahn or Zeilligar, and that there may be repercussions if it is sold. The backstory is a warning to players, and fodder for the DM to build further adventures around. I think B1 is a great example of what can be done to make backstory relevant to actual play.