PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How do you actually start an adventure?



NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-08, 01:15 AM
So I'm planning on getting into DM'ing (Pathfinder to be precise) but there's one thing that stumps me. How do you actually START the adventure? I got the overall plot, setting, bad guys, quest givers etc. in order, I just have a serious issue figuring out how to go about writing the first few bits of the first adventure to get the group going. Does anyone have any guides or tips for this specifically? It's basically going to be a "find the McGuffin" style thing, I'm just having issues figuring out how to do it. So yhea, help or suggestions? I've tried googling this multiple times but my google fu tends to fail me when I try to focus on how to actually do the creative writing part for just a single adventure... :/

VoxRationis
2014-04-08, 01:22 AM
Well, the first few adventures might not be related to your plot; I don't know about the specifics of your campaign, obviously, but four fresh-off-the-line 1st-level adventurers wouldn't be King Genericus' first choice for your typical save the world mission.
As for the first few adventures, you might fiat that the characters are all connected by friends, family, or circumstance before play even begins.
You could have some form of external force (law enforcement is a common one) bring them together.
Alternatively, perhaps they are all members of an organization dedicated to guarding the MacGuffin, and when the villain sacks the place and takes it, the PCs, for various reasons, are the only ones left.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-08, 01:27 AM
Well yes, the motivation isn't the issue. It's planning out how things should (roughly) run after they get the quest itself. I just have absolutely no clue on how to plan out a quest or how to get the characters from point A to B to C. This is an overall issue with any adventure/quest I've tried to write in the past (and indeed my own short stories in general) so I have nothing to fall back on or even to begin looking at here. It's also the thing that's ultimately made me not try DM'ing for the past 5 years or so cause I've only ever found vague answers that makes it seem like everyone pulls it out of their rear-ends, but logic dictates this can't be true. So how do you manage and plan events after the goal of the quest becomes clear?

Yora
2014-04-08, 02:38 AM
One thing that is always important is that the players, and especially the GM, know what the party is actually trying to accomplish right now. When you're in doubt, ask the players what they hope to accomplish when they go to a certain place, even if you know they go there because the last boss villain they defeated had a map that leads there. By having the players explain what they want to achieve, it becomes a lot easier for everyone to understand how they could do it, and under what conditions they will have succeeded or failed. The PCs don't go to a ruin in the forest "to explore every room and kill all the monsters". They go there with the goal of "learning why that NPC had a map pointing there". When you create your adventure, try asking these questions and it should be a lot easier for you to know what things and NPCs need to be in the dungeons.
Similiar, when you plan for the party to find a specific NPC, their actual goal is not "questioning him and forcing him to tell everything he knows", because they found a letter adressed to him with the last boss enemy they defeated. They seek out that NPC to "question him about his relationship to the villain and force him to tell them everything he knows about the villains plan".
The Angry DM did a quite lengthy bit about this (http://angrydm.com/2013/05/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/), but it might be a bit much at once for a new GM. Just try to avoid sending the party somewhere to see what will happen. If ever possible, think about what the party is supposed to accomplish by going to a place and how to make the players understand that this is their goal.

While it is generally preferable to avoid this, you could always have some sage NPC being the PCs employer, who is sending them on errands while he stays at his home trying to figure out what needs to be done next.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-08, 02:48 AM
Thank you Yora, I have tried reading The Angry DM before, but you are right, it is a bit much to absorb, but even if I only end up getting like 25% of it it's better than 0% (which is where I'm at right now on this particular issue) so I will most certainly read it. I also do like your approach because that makes sense, and when you write it out it seems so obvious.

Luckily this is going to be a pbp game (cause I live gaming nowhere...) so I will have time to stay a step a head of the players and adjust my approach, even if it also seems to come with it's own set of unique difficulties. But really, Yora, I do think you may have managed to point me in the right direction, even if I still welcome any and all advice and help I can get here.

Yora
2014-04-08, 03:27 AM
Another thing I've decited to do is to leave behind the approach of starting the PCs in a vacuum and then cover everything they do for every day after the start of the campaign.
I think sometimes it's okay to make descisions for the PCs, especially when it's situations where the players don't really have any choice. Say everything is sitting in a tavern an an NPC walks in and wants to hire them. Can the players possibly chose to not accept that job? Because if they say no, the campaign has ended just as it starts, and the players know that. And that actually happens a lot. So feel free to skip possibly even lengthy amounts of time that would be difficult to actually play out and during which nothing of real importance actually happens. If the PCs take a job as caravan guards or join a pirate crew, it's perfectly acceptable to start an adventure by saying "The group has been traveling for two weeks, during which there have been some minor attacks by bandits and small monsters, that you easily dispatched. But on the 16th day of your journey..."
This is likely to be more fun for everyone than to have the players set up a camp and place guards 15 times and have them fight 8 encounters with wolves and goblins.

I wrote a short and rambling piece (http://spriggans-den.com/?p=169) a few days ago, about concentrating on what's really important for the story. Most campaigns are not going to be year long epic quests, but more like three to five sessions covering two or three adventures. So don't waste too much time on establishing the world and having things slowly build up in the background, with conspiracies brewing in secret to be revealed at a much later time.
The players are here now and play time is valuable, so don't waste it and go straight to the cool parts. Don't plan your adventurs like novels, TV shows, or CRPGS, but instead more like movies. Star Wars and Indiana Jones obviously come to mind immediately.
Star Wars is actually a great example because of its opening crawls, that have become a cliche by now. But it's actually a brilliant idea. Imagine how much time would have been wasted on scenes of senators conspiring against the Emperor and founding a secret organization of rebels who slowly build hidden bases and try to buy weapons in secret. And then their spies find the plans to the Death Star, but some of them are cought and the Emperor sends Vader to personally go capture them. That would have taken forever and would have been a whole story of its own. But instead the series just starts with three very brief paragraphs saying "Look, there is this evil Empire and some good guys are trying to overthrow it, but are heavily outnumbered. They got the plans to a superweapon, but got caught." It saved so much time and trouble and instead jumped straight to the point where the real action begins.
Don't feel forced to start a campaign in a tavern with a bunch of 1st level characters with 0xp, who don't know each other and have no connections at all. Feel free to simply establish some facts just by telling them to the players. Tell them they are all caravan guards who had been working together for two years until their employers went bencrupt last month and now they've come to a merchant to start a new job. And as long as it doesn't contradict anything that has been established before, make up new things as you go. Have some NPCs appear who worked with the PCs in the past, even though they didn't exist in the campaign until 5 minutes ago. As long as you are not rewriting important parts of the PCs backstory, the players will be just fine with that.

DonEsteban
2014-04-08, 03:41 AM
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you are asking for, but here is a great series of essays about how to design adventures (and not plots) and how to link scenes: Node-Based Scenario Design (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/8122/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-collectors-edition)
Even if it's not what you were looking for, it's a great read.

Knaight
2014-04-08, 05:18 AM
I'd recommend avoiding specific plots, quest givers, etc. entirely. Instead, get the players to make characters with actual goals, who have an actual reason to stick together, hopefully because at least some of their goals actually overlap. Difficulties involved in getting a group of strangers who all have no goals in life to band together and do things tend to emerge from the whole "group of strangers who all have no goals in life" thing, so if character creation can sidestep that pitfall you've basically got things started for you.

Thrudd
2014-04-08, 07:14 AM
Well yes, the motivation isn't the issue. It's planning out how things should (roughly) run after they get the quest itself. I just have absolutely no clue on how to plan out a quest or how to get the characters from point A to B to C. This is an overall issue with any adventure/quest I've tried to write in the past (and indeed my own short stories in general) so I have nothing to fall back on or even to begin looking at here. It's also the thing that's ultimately made me not try DM'ing for the past 5 years or so cause I've only ever found vague answers that makes it seem like everyone pulls it out of their rear-ends, but logic dictates this can't be true. So how do you manage and plan events after the goal of the quest becomes clear?

Don't think of it as a story. I suggest not planning out how things will run or how characters will get anywhere (besides where they start). Plan out the setting, and let the players explore it. If the adventure is about recovering an artifact, give the players some clues about where to find it and let them figure out how to get there. You design the setting, place the NPC's and monsters, draw the maps, write up the encounter tables, and whatever else is needed. Then let the players go at it and describe to them the results of their actions. You may have certain events keyed to certain locations or times, like a monster that lives in a certain place, or a battle that will happen on a certain day. You may have NPC's and monsters which have their own motives and will aid or hinder the characters if/when they encounter each other. For the most part, the players direct the action, not you.
Only after the adventure is over and the characters have recovered the artifact and returned to safety (or all perished in the attempt), do you have a story.

Lorsa
2014-04-08, 07:43 AM
An adventure can start in many ways. Since you have all the relevant NPCs I can only imagine the question is "what is the first location/situation in which to begin the game?". That is very hard to answer without knowing your players and their preferences.

Maybe they'd enjoy starting in the middle of a fight and having the explanation as to why they were there later?

Maybe they'd prefer a more relaxed starting point and be in a tavern just having heard a rumour about the McGuffin and listening to another group make plans for how to retrieve it (and the amazing reward) on the table behind them?

Perhaps one of the characters have simply been given the quest from an authority and you start with them on the way to the supposed location?

You could even start with them walking down the street one day, and an injured guy runs up to them, tells them to "please deliver this message to Lord whatshisname, the fate of the city depend on it" before he stumbles to the ground and dies.

Everything is possible really.

Rhynn
2014-04-08, 08:15 AM
It's planning out how things should (roughly) run after they get the quest itself.

That's always asking for trouble, ultimately. It can work, and often does work, but at some point it's going to run into frustration.

Anyway, some examples from my games:

- You were part of a caravan headed to this city, but a sandstorm scattered the caravan in the desert. You've found each other and banded together to try to find shelter and water. Trudging through the trackless sand waste, you come upon ruins jutting out of the dunes...

- You've all come to the Tournament of Flowers. Tell me why you're all traveling together? [Some participating in contests happens.] At the feast, a merchant sitting next to [PC #1] asks him for a favor...

- You're all out working in the fields, when a young boy comes running up, yelling that bandits are attacking an outlying stead.

- You're old friends, meeting up at the tavern in your old home village. On the way, [PC #1] came upon the dead body of a Plainsman barbarian and next to him lay a staff wrapped in hides. Approaching the village, he's stopped by some goblins...

- You're all members of the Silver Knights of Silverymoon, riding patrol around the Nether Mountains in the wake of reports of orc attacks. You stop at Jalanthar...

- You've all been captured by slavers and taken to the slave pits of the city, where you are to be thrown into the arena. If you win, you'll live to fight again and again... until you don't win.

- [PC #1] is the eldest son of an old knight, but a bastard; now that his father has died, he's gotten the help of a nearby lord in overthrowing the heir before he is confirmed as the new ruler of the fief by his liege. You've approached the motte-and-bailey fort stealthily, and are laying out your plans of attack...

- You're LAPD detectives in 2020. Here's your current case...


Some others I've planned/written up but haven't used yet:

- It's an ordinary day at the manor, when suddenly... orcs!

- You're the family and servants of the lord of the manor, and are accompanying him to attend his liege, the Duke, at a feast. [Some traveling through the countryside that introduces the "neighborhood;" meeting the Duke and his household.] As the feast is winding down, a man in the robes of a priest enters. The guards stop him, but finally the Duke permits him to approach and speak. After they are done speaking in quiet and urgent whispers, the Duke stands up and announces that he needs a service performed...

- You're [viking-types] on a ship headed to raid the coast over here. After a rough sea voyage, you've sighted land and are nearing the beach.

- You've all been invited to meet an old friend at his house; some of you directly, some of you by other PCs (at the old friend's suggestion). [This is how all 90% of Call of Cthulhu scenarios start, really.]

Airk
2014-04-08, 09:54 AM
To sortof reinterate on a key point - you CAN'T plan (even roughly) how things "should run once the quest starts", even assuming your PCs are sporting and take on your quest. You can make educated guesses about how things are LIKELY to go, and what sorts of things there "are" in the areas you suspect the PCs are likely to be visiting, but that's as far as you should take it.

To use the stereotypical example, perhaps the Fellowship is setting off on the quest for Mount Doom. You know a few routes they could take, so you take down some notes about what's going on in Moria (Dwarves dead 5 years ago now, Balrog awake. Orcs, but most of the place is still empty), in Lorien (Elves may need some persuading, but can be very helpful), and Rohan (Wormtongue has Theoden more or less under Saruman's thumb. Other key leaders are defending the realm more or less without his permission) etc. You'll need stats for the monsters they're likely to run into (Moria Orcs, Wargs, Saruman's Uruk Hai, etc.) and an idea of the personalities of key players (Galadriel, Wormtongue, Theoden, Saruman, Eomer) but not necessarily the minor ones (Haldir (aka 'border patrol elf #3'), Eothain (aka 'Eomer's lieutenant') etc.) Then you let the players go. And maybe they decide to go over High Pass instead, so you come up with some nasty weather, and maybe throw some goblins at them to kill time so that you'll have until next session to make up what's going on in the Vales of Anduin. Or maybe they say "Screw this, we're going to the Grey Havens to commandeer a ship to Belfalas." in which case you may need to do some serious improv. Fortunately, if your playing a play-by-post game, everything the players do will take FOREVER so you'll have plenty of time to make stuff up.

But in all seriousness. Lay the situation (as they understanding) out before the characters/players and let them decide "how it's going to go from there."

Red Fel
2014-04-08, 10:05 AM
To sortof reinterate on a key point - you CAN'T plan (even roughly) how things "should run once the quest starts", even assuming your PCs are sporting and take on your quest. You can make educated guesses about how things are LIKELY to go, and what sorts of things there "are" in the areas you suspect the PCs are likely to be visiting, but that's as far as you should take it.

To use the stereotypical example, perhaps the Fellowship is setting off on the quest for Mount Doom. You know a few routes they could take, so you take down some notes about what's going on in Moria (Dwarves dead 5 years ago now, Balrog awake. Orcs, but most of the place is still empty), in Lorien (Elves may need some persuading, but can be very helpful), and Rohan (Wormtongue has Theoden more or less under Saruman's thumb. Other key leaders are defending the realm more or less without his permission) etc. You'll need stats for the monsters they're likely to run into (Moria Orcs, Wargs, Saruman's Uruk Hai, etc.) and an idea of the personalities of key players (Galadriel, Wormtongue, Theoden, Saruman, Eomer) but not necessarily the minor ones (Haldir (aka 'border patrol elf #3'), Eothain (aka 'Eomer's lieutenant') etc.) Then you let the players go. And maybe they decide to go over High Pass instead, so you come up with some nasty weather, and maybe throw some goblins at them to kill time so that you'll have until next session to make up what's going on in the Vales of Anduin. Or maybe they say "Screw this, we're going to the Grey Havens to commandeer a ship to Belfalas." in which case you may need to do some serious improv. Fortunately, if your playing a play-by-post game, everything the players do will take FOREVER so you'll have plenty of time to make stuff up.

This, very much so.

Don't plan out a linear story; no plan survives contact with the players, and no player wants to play a story where the outcome is predetermined. Instead, you create a world and a chronology, and let the players muck it up as they will. In fact, expect them to! Create your geography, your empires and civilizations; create your internal power struggles, wars, and devious plots; and know that your players may join in with some, derail others, or completely ignore them all in favor of starting a agricultural commercial empire.

The trick to starting is to have an immediate goal. The "you all start in a tavern" cliche exists for precisely that reason; people sit around and talk in taverns, so it's pretty easy for the PCs to hear about something that needs doing. An alternative is to request that the PCs start the campaign with goals of their own. By way of illustration, in the game Ironclaw, all PCs are required to start with at least one Goal, usually something minor, such as "Get out of town," "Find a job," or "Pay my debts." This is something that's written right on the character sheet at the start of play.

As the GM, you'll be hard-pressed to impose objectives on your party. You can lead a horse to an adventure hook, but you can't force him to slay a dragon. Encouraging your players to come up with their own goals allows you to start the adventure at their pace. Once they've gotten to work attempting to overcome their initial obstacles, you can start introducing them to the world, its history, its people, and its conflicts. By subtly introducing plot elements while the PCs go about their business, you can create the ability for the PCs to join in any number of plot elements.

That's how you get them started. Let them start themselves up; when they find out about the plot on their own instead of being spoon-fed, they'll be much more invested in it.

ElenionAncalima
2014-04-08, 10:12 AM
Have the players created charcters/backstories yet?

Generally, there are two ways to shape how the adventure will start.

Top down:
-You decide how you are going to bring the party together and you inform the players that there will be a built in assumption that there characters have gotten to this point.
-It is up to the players to figure out why their character has arrived at this point.
-Pro: You get a lot of control over how things start and you know your players will follow your hook.
-Con: You have to start from scratch and players may not like their options.

Bottom Up
-Players build characters and write backstories.
-It is your job to figure out why those characters would be invested in your story.
-Pro: Players can give you more direction and inspiration regarding how things will kick off.
-Con: Players may give you a group of people who don't really fit in your adventure or wouldn't typically be working together.

In this case, since it sounds like you aren't sure how to start, looking to the players for inspiration may not be a bad idea. You can have the party start out working towards one of the characters minor goals and then start leading them towards your campaign's main story (although, beware that they may not go where you want them to, as others have said).

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-08, 10:40 AM
"You were drafted into the army" and "here's your 1st mission" are classics. They explain why you have a bunch of armed ragtag misfits in one place and tell them in no uncertain terms what they have to do, or face unpleasant consequences.

Yora
2014-04-08, 10:45 AM
That's how you get them started. Let them start themselves up; when they find out about the plot on their own instead of being spoon-fed, they'll be much more invested in it.
It sounds all pretty and fancy, but how would you actually pull it off in practice? Starting with "the PCs sitting in a tavern" and telling the players they are now free to do whatever they can imagine isn't going to cut it. At best one of the players will start asking around if there's any quest giver nearby and the party will do whatever that NPC might tell them to do. And then you're right back at square one, having to come up with a backstory for the quest, NPCs involved in it, and some interesting encounters and unexpected complications.
If the players have character goals like "find my brothers killer" or "I want to run my own thieves guild, it's really the same thing. You need to create quest specific NPCs, encounters, and so on.

The only way it somewhat works if there's a famous ruin or dungeon nearby, and the players decide to check it out. Because it appears to be obvious that they are supposed to do that, since it's the only thing there is to do. Once a campaign has been going for some time, the players might become able to tell you what kind of adventure they want to do next. "We destroyed the raiding party that has been harassing the region, now we want to travel to their homeland and find out what chief they had been working for" or "we claim this pirate ship for ourself and start exploring these islands for old ruins" are great things that players might set as their own goal. As GM you still have to create that barbarian tribe (and possibly even two or three more that live in the same area), some islands with ruins that actually have mysteries to uncover, and lots of NPCs and encounters. Using generic floorplans and random encounters won't make fot exciting adventures.

Players can come up with hooks for adventures, which frees the GM from making up a good reason why the PCs would care about the quest in the first place. But you still have to create the rest of the adventure.

Beleriphon
2014-04-08, 01:00 PM
It sounds all pretty and fancy, but how would you actually pull it off in practice? Starting with "the PCs sitting in a tavern" and telling the players they are now free to do whatever they can imagine isn't going to cut it.

Basically the first session isn't an adventure, its a discussion of the world and characters. Its a way to figure out what everybody wants and expects. I find it also builds buyin from the players.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-08, 01:02 PM
To sortof reinterate on a key point - you CAN'T plan (even roughly) how things "should run once the quest starts", even assuming your PCs are sporting and take on your quest. You can make educated guesses about how things are LIKELY to go, and what sorts of things there "are" in the areas you suspect the PCs are likely to be visiting, but that's as far as you should take it.


That is what I was trying to explain that I needed help with, but using slightly different words. I don't plan on detailing out every single step the characters take and word they say, if I wanted to do that I'd be writing a novel (actually I wouldn't, cause I'd still be running into this same problem, cause gods knows I've tried. :p ) not trying to make something that's fun for a group of people.

But you can't just not have some direction and sequence of events in mind, right? Sure the players may decide to ignore them completely (even if I'm not sure I'd recommend turning air pirates when there's a bunch of pissed of, rampaging dragons around, but hey if they feel like doing that we'll see what we can do. :p ), but if there's no direction or incentive in place at all nothing will get done either. And if there's no challenges and twists and turns in place there won't be much of an adventure either. My problem lies in figuring out what events may happen, how many alternative routs and destinations I need to plan out, and how detailed I need to make certain things compared to others.

@Knaight and Thrudd. While that sounds great, it also sounds very much like a sandbox game. Which I admit I think I may enjoy playing in and running at some point, but it also seems like some more advanced DM'ing. Let me get comfortable with my training-wheels first, ok? :) As for avoiding the "wandering murder-hobos with no goals in life" situation I do have a plan for that, which will somewhat restrict character creation, but hopefully not enough to be off-putting, but enough to make sure that the characters are at least respectable members of society. But I really don't want to try the sandbox approach yet, but sure, if people decide to wander off and explore something else then that's okay too, I don't want to glue them to any rails either.

@DonEsteban. That is actually pretty spot on. I remember seeing it some years ago but for some reason didn't pay it any attention. But yes, that is amazing, and very much what I need! http://twilight.ponychan.net/chan/arch/src/130649728613.gif

@Yora. If that is short and rambling I'm a little bit scared, cause that's awfully well written for a ramble! :p

@All. Thank you guys. I think I have enough material to figure this out now, a long with a few thoughts and concerns to keep in mind that I may not have thought of before, so thank you. As always you guys amaze me with your swift replies and seemingly bottomless supply of insights and useful links. And no, that's no sarcasm, I mean it. I'm just scared to think of what would have happened if I had written my first post at a more sensible hour (aka not 3 am) so it had actually been more organized and made more sense... :p

VoxRationis
2014-04-08, 01:07 PM
In my current campaign, I gave all the players somewhat railroaded backstories that ended up with them getting in the same place (using things like family connections, war, and mysterious organizations to guide them there). However, once they were there, I have only the notes for the agendas of various NPCs and about the setting to guide them. Currently, they're working for one king, but I could easily see them switching sides at some point.
Give quest hooks, but don't expect them to follow them. Have at least two possible adventures for each session, and prepare to improvise more.
This is a lot of work.

kyoryu
2014-04-08, 01:28 PM
I don't worry about it.

Have a larger overall issue that's going to define your current campaign-level arc.

Come up with relevant NPCs *for the characters to interact with*.

Drop in a few monster-of-the-week episodes to kick things off, where the MotWs are related either to the campaign issue, or the characters.

In resolving those, the PCs will inevitably butt into various factions and individuals. Find out who people find interesting, and use them more heavily.

A Spark in Fate Core is *great* for getting a campaign start going, and it's mostly system-agnostic. http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/117868/A-Spark-in-Fate-Core?term=spark+in+fate+core

To get characters "started", I like using "plot grenades" - things that demand a response, but do not demand a *particular* response. Getting investment from players is helpful in figuring this out, which is also where things like Spark come into play.

Airk
2014-04-08, 01:41 PM
That is what I was trying to explain that I needed help with, but using slightly different words. I don't plan on detailing out every single step the characters take and word they say, if I wanted to do that I'd be writing a novel (actually I wouldn't, cause I'd still be running into this same problem, cause gods knows I've tried. :p ) not trying to make something that's fun for a group of people.

But you can't just not have some direction and sequence of events in mind, right? Sure the players may decide to ignore them completely (even if I'm not sure I'd recommend turning air pirates when there's a bunch of pissed of, rampaging dragons around, but hey if they feel like doing that we'll see what we can do. :p ), but if there's no direction or incentive in place at all nothing will get done either. And if there's no challenges and twists and turns in place there won't be much of an adventure either. My problem lies in figuring out what events may happen, how many alternative routs and destinations I need to plan out, and how detailed I need to make certain things compared to others.

I guess then that I'm confused. Are you trying to get advice on what happens on how things "should run once the quest starts" or are you looking for advice on how to get the players/characters to take the bait in the first place? Or both?

The latter should be relatively easy if you have an answer to the former. If one of the PCs has a vendetta against his brother, the duke, odds are you'll need to know something about the duke, his habits, or his fortress. If one of the PCs is a treasure hunter, odds are he'll chase after the first likely pile of loot. If one character has great respect for his mentor, he'll probably accept a 'secret mission' from him. All of those tell you, pretty much, what you might need to prepare.

For getting things started? You need to get your players to make characters who bring goals to the table. Burning Wheel bases a large part of the game around requiring the players to do this, but even informal goals are better than nothing.

Yora
2014-04-08, 02:27 PM
But you can't just not have some direction and sequence of events in mind, right? Sure the players may decide to ignore them completely (even if I'm not sure I'd recommend turning air pirates when there's a bunch of pissed of, rampaging dragons around, but hey if they feel like doing that we'll see what we can do. :p ), but if there's no direction or incentive in place at all nothing will get done either. And if there's no challenges and twists and turns in place there won't be much of an adventure either. My problem lies in figuring out what events may happen, how many alternative routs and destinations I need to plan out, and how detailed I need to make certain things compared to others.
In that case read this: The Angry DM - Four Things You’ve Never Heard of That Make Encounters Not Suck (http://angrydm.com/2013/05/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/)
It's long, but very very good. I only found it yesterday, and it has been imensely eye opening. It's part of a lose series of articles, but you can just read this one without having read the others. The key concepts here are "dramatic questions" and "descison points". Page 3 to 6 are gravy; page 2 is where really all of the meat is.

BWR
2014-04-08, 03:05 PM
You can always use the direct approach: "You are headed to X to do Y, for reasons Z+"
A bit hamfisted, but it will get everybody on the same page and tell them what they need to know.

Yora
2014-04-08, 03:36 PM
The creative GMs gut is instantly rebelling at the thought of just telling the players what their characters are doing, but it's actually not nearly as bad as it sounds.
Think of it this way: "The adventure is about the PCs getting a job as mercenary guards to escort a caravan, which gets raided by strange humanoids in the desert with the PCs being the only survivors who have not been taken captive. The rest of the adventure is about following the raiders to a ruined city, trying to rescue the captives, and keep the evil cultists from awakening an ancient god through human sacrifices." It's a decent and solid adventure that can possibly develop into many different directions. But whatever happens, the PCs must take the job as guards and they must successfully keep the traders safe until they have reached the middle of the desert. This must happen, and everything the players will do that could possibly conflict with it will be instantly negated by the GM putting the adventure back on track. And the PCs know that!
A player may mention as a joke that they should keep loking for other alternatives to this job, but nobody will actually believe that there are several choices to pick from.
And because of this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with starting the campaign right at the moment the humanoid cultist start attacking the caravan. There wasn't actually any meaningful choice for the players to make until this point. Maybe one or two players might reflexively revolt against the thought of the GM telling the players what job they had accepted and how well they had been doing this job for two weeks. But the GM did not take away any choice from the players, because up to this point there wasn't any choice to make. So maybe allowing the players to buy all their supplies for the journey before the start and playing out every single encounter on the road might slightly affect the amount of arrows and potions they have the moment the raiders attack. But what does that matter in the long run?

If you have really great ideas to fill the two weeks of travel with interesting, meaningful, and fun descisions for the players to make, there is of course no reason to not play out the whole journey. But if your good ideas really only start at the desert attack, then the adventure also should only start at that point. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Which for very many campaigns happens to be precious time. You don't want the campaign come to a stop right before the PCs explore the burried temple of the sleeping god and then be thinking "if we just didn't spend those first three sessions doing boring stuff."

VoxRationis
2014-04-08, 04:31 PM
I agree. If you really think some of your players might have a problem with such a conceit, ask them beforehand. I think most reasonable people, however, will agree to a basic assumption that gets them where the adventure can really pick up. If there's an important IC reason why they shouldn't---why would a druid be in the market square of the capital city when X adventure-starting event happens--try to work it out with those individual players, and then end up in the same place, but with the conflict resolved. The snooty wizard could be a caravan guard because he's a good friend of one of the people in or working for the caravan, and his friendship is stronger than his distaste for walking. The druid could be in town to petition the king to cut back on logging operations in the northern forests. That's easy to take care of, creates great role-playing opportunities, and gets everyone in the same boat with a minimum of fuss.

Thrudd
2014-04-08, 08:16 PM
@Knaight and Thrudd. While that sounds great, it also sounds very much like a sandbox game. Which I admit I think I may enjoy playing in and running at some point, but it also seems like some more advanced DM'ing. Let me get comfortable with my training-wheels first, ok? :) As for avoiding the "wandering murder-hobos with no goals in life" situation I do have a plan for that, which will somewhat restrict character creation, but hopefully not enough to be off-putting, but enough to make sure that the characters are at least respectable members of society. But I really don't want to try the sandbox approach yet, but sure, if people decide to wander off and explore something else then that's okay too, I don't want to glue them to any rails either.

@DonEsteban. That is actually pretty spot on. I remember seeing it some years ago but for some reason didn't pay it any attention. But yes, that is amazing, and very much what I need! http://twilight.ponychan.net/chan/arch/src/130649728613.gif


Running a sandbox game is really not more advanced, in many ways it is actually easier than the alternative. A sandbox game doesn't mean the players have no common goals or motivations, it means that you don't restrict their participation or choices.
If you've read the Alexandrian article about Node based design and the three clue rule, that is exactly what I'm talking about. You give the players hints about different places they can go, and they decide how to get there. Regardless of how linear your adventure is, you still need to prepare the surrounding environs (or read about them if you are using a published setting). You should have an idea about all of the locations and people the characters can easily reach from their starting point, at least a brief outline, just in case they get lost or go someplace you don't expect. Unless you plan on railroading the players from one prepared scene to the next, they will explore their surroundings and ask questions about people and places, and you will want to have answers for them.

It is true for any type of game that the players need to design characters with built-in motivation to participate in the type of game you plan on running. With characters that have motivations which fit your planned campaign, you don't need to worry about getting them into the adventure. It sounds like you already have this. You only need set the opening scene, drop the clues, and away they will go.

Rhynn
2014-04-08, 11:47 PM
You can always use the direct approach: "You are headed to X to do Y, for reasons Z+"
A bit hamfisted, but it will get everybody on the same page and tell them what they need to know.

I don't think that's hamfisted at all. For some games - like any game of Conan d20 - it's not just functional, it's awesome and fitting. Nobody knows or cares what Conan has been doing between adventures, they care about the set-up to the latest one.

The GM sets the bounds and starting conditions of the scenario; the players get to come up with the details of their character's participation (the why, the how).

If you use it every time, it necessiates episodic play (which is fine, but not everyone's preference all the time), but it always functions as a campaign starter. Once the campaign is ongoing, you might not use it; the players might not like it if they're looking for agency on where and what their PCs are doing all the time; and it might feel "broken-up."


Running a sandbox game is really not more advanced, in many ways it is actually easier than the alternative. A sandbox game doesn't mean the players have no common goals or motivations, it means that you don't restrict their participation or choices.

Amen. I've found running sandbox campaigns far less work-intensive than more "traditional" (modern era) scripted adventures. Focusing on pre-game backgrounds, locations, and characters instead of in-game events and sequences and possibilities is just less mentally demanding, for me.


If you've read the Alexandrian article about Node based design and the three clue rule, that is exactly what I'm talking about. You give the players hints about different places they can go, and they decide how to get there.

Yep. A good sandbox isn't infinite in size, or empty. A good sandbox is bounded and littered with stuff: 30x40 6-mile hexes with a few dozen adventure locations is a great starting sandbox, and it will grow during play as it needs to. You start the players out somewhere with something interesting (like a dungeon, maybe even a megadungeon or megadungeon-to-be) nearby, maybe give them some rumors (rumor tables rock) as hooks for adventure locations, and let them loose. You can have tons of hooks and such lying around; whenever they get around to this village here, they find it plagued by a werewolf; this village has been hit by raiders just before they first arrive there; etc.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-10, 12:00 PM
Sorry I'm not ignoring this or anything, I'm just out of town for the rest of the week and while this place has a nice mobile site tablets aren't super fun to write on so I'll make a more detailed reply on Sunday or Monday when I get home.

Yora
2014-04-10, 02:27 PM
Sorry, this isn't all about you. We're talking amongst ourselves and you're invited to leech off some of our wisdom. :smallwink:

Amen. I've found running sandbox campaigns far less work-intensive than more "traditional" (modern era) scripted adventures. Focusing on pre-game backgrounds, locations, and characters instead of in-game events and sequences and possibilities is just less mentally demanding, for me.
Yes, but I think that's mostly because they tend to be heavily overscripted. Trying to cover up the fact that it's all actually pre-scripted and railroaded is a lot of work, and you need to prepare all kinds of contigencies in case the players do something they are not supposed and you need to get them back on trail.
Sandbox is easier than that.
But you can also still have an open ended linear quest-adventure that is even easier than a sandbox. In a sandbox you need to prepare all kinds of pre-existing infrastructure and a range of optional things for PCs to do. But you can also avoid a lot of that by telling the players at the start that this is going to be the expedition to the Monkey Temple. There will be no pirate hunting, no monster hunting in the dungeons of Stonecastle, and no scouting of the orc border. Just expedition to the monkey temple. Now along the river to the Monkey Valey, inside the Monkey Valey, and the Monkey Temple itself, you can still have some other groups of explorers or cultists running around and doing their things. But it would be a very tiny tiny sandbox than might be useful for only five or six sessions before it's completely explored and all treasures found. The players want to team up with the other explorers? Sure, no problem. They decide to just sneak into the temple and steal the idol and avoid fighting the high priest and his demon gorilla entirely? Why not, it does not have to happen as you assumed it probably would. It doesn't wreck all your other plans for the adventure if you leave it open ended.

Rhynn
2014-04-10, 04:49 PM
Honestly, I don't see any real difference between module-style adventures (what you describe, basically: "here's the adventure location") and sandbox campaigns except scale. It's the same principles: create locations, characters, and pre-existing situations, with some thought to how certain things might play out, and that's it. The G1-G3 modules are awesome examples of this on all counts.

Those adventures are going to need to be connected somehow, and making the campaign open is easier than making it scripted or pre-planned.

Again, a sandbox needs to be scoped right, at least in the start; "Waterdeep and the Undermountain" can be a great scope for a sandbox, especially if you plan on expanding it as the needs of play dictate and time allows.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-10, 07:28 PM
Lol fair enough Yora, I was just leaving a short reply cause some posts were directed at me, and I want to give them a more through reply later, that's all. :-)

Aldo what's the G1-G3 adventures? They sound like something I may want to look up.

Airk
2014-04-10, 10:14 PM
Lol fair enough Yora, I was just leaving a short reply cause some posts were directed at me, and I want to give them a more through reply later, that's all. :-)

Aldo what's the G1-G3 adventures? They sound like something I may want to look up.

Three old arse AD&D modules known collectively as "Against the Giants". I wouldn't bother looking them up. They're super bland fare by today's standards.

Rhynn
2014-04-10, 11:28 PM
Three old arse AD&D modules known collectively as "Against the Giants". I wouldn't bother looking them up. They're super bland fare by today's standards.

There has to be something wrong with a person's imagination to think they're bland. They easily stand up to any D&D 3.X adventures.

Yora
2014-04-11, 03:17 AM
Yes, GDQ is super bland by todays standard. (There's 4 more adventures in the series.) But I think of all the oldschool modules, they still stand out as being by far the most interesting with the most potential for being made into something fun. GDQ has a decent idea, which is something usually not found in those. (All others seem pretty much unsalvagable to me.)

Airk
2014-04-11, 08:11 AM
There has to be something wrong with a person's imagination to think they're bland. They easily stand up to any D&D 3.X adventures.

What? There's supposed to be something super awesome about "There are giants, go kill them?"; All these modules are is a collection of maps, statblocks and loot.

I'm not going to contest the 3.X adventures because A) I think that's a stupid claim to try to argue and B) I never bought any 3.X adventures, so I don't know anything about them, but if I were to not be bored playing Against the Giants now, it would have NOTHING to do with the modules.

The modules are bland. This is not to say they cannot be made fun, but it IS to say that they're not worth seeking out as a way to inject fun into a game.

Rhynn
2014-04-11, 11:27 AM
What? There's supposed to be something super awesome about "There are giants, go kill them?"; All these modules are is a collection of maps, statblocks and loot.

If you can't contextualize the modules for your campaign, that's your problem. They are awesome for the meat of a D&D adventure: they have great challenges and environments.

I'm currently working on two versions that would both make epic campaigns: a FR version where domain-holding PCs have to strike back against the leaders of the giant army ravaging their lands, then pursue the masterminds behind this and other threats; and a fantasy Viking setting where the PCs travel into Jotunheimr, Muspelhemr, and then down through the earth into Hel's domain to defeat her (and her dokkalfar minions). These aren't even modifications (except where I'll probably replace manticores, etc. with more Norse monsters), they're just placing the modules into a campaign - which is what you're supposed to do with modules.

The way the masterminds tie into other modules (A1-4) is cool, too; I'm going to use that by adapting A1-4 for Faerûn - it'll probably end up as the PCs essentially leading the Lords' Alliance against the Luskan High Captains (I don't know for sure yet, since I don't know what the PCs are going to be doing exactly), since calling the Slave Lords teh High Captains is a really easy way to adapt it.

There's even a published example of a contextualized G1-3: The Liberation of Geoff (from the Silver Anniversary series); the GQD single publication does much the same.

I'm honestly at a complete loss what one could be looking for in a D&D adventure that isn't present in these modules (and other great modules), unless one is looking for scripted event-by-event / scene-by-scene adventures (which are just fundamentally bad, on principle).

The key is that you, as DM, have to provide the context for these old modules. They're meant to fit into your campaign, no matter what world it's set in, but that means you'll have to do a few minutes of thinking to figure that out.

Maybe I'm weird, but I think "evil underground masterminds send their giant minions to conquer the lands of men" is a pretty epic campaign seed.

Airk
2014-04-11, 11:38 AM
If you can't contextualize the modules for your campaign, that's your problem. They are awesome for the meat of a D&D adventure: they have great challenges and environments.

No, my problem is that coming up with the crap provided by those modules is way easier than bending those modules around to contextualize them.


I'm honestly at a complete loss what one could be looking for in a D&D adventure that isn't present in these modules (and other great modules), unless one is looking for scripted event-by-event / scene-by-scene adventures (which are just fundamentally bad, on principle).

I dunno. NPCs? Motivations? A sense of this being part of a world and not just some monsters the party has to go kill? Maybe I've just outgrown "Oh, there are some evil monsters here and you need to slay them because they are bad."



The key is that you, as DM, have to provide the context for these old modules. They're meant to fit into your campaign, no matter what world it's set in, but that means you'll have to do a few minutes of thinking to figure that out.

Again, why would I bother? They're doing the easy part for me. There's no flavor. Nothing creative in these modules.

My basic point still stands though, I think: These modules don't contain anything that actually helps you get a story going. These modules can provide a "story" (for certain low values of 'story') if you are prepared to do the work to make them fit in, but they don't provide anything useful in that regard.

I don't see why anyone would pay for maps and stat blocks, if they're looking for a jolt of creativity.

And, for the record, I consider using these modules as a part of a Norse campaign to be a bit of a joke, and fundamentally an example of what's bad about modules. "They've got GIANTS in 'em! That totally makes them suitable for something that's supposed to feel Norse!"

Yora
2014-04-11, 12:56 PM
I wouldn't run GDQ either, but it's an idea I'd like to use for my own campaign. Which is lot more than can be said for all the other classic modules.
Not that I would run any of the adventures by Paizo (Dungeon and Pathfinder) either, but there are actually dozens among them that have an interesting idea.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-04-11, 03:09 PM
I was just curious about them since they sounded like they may have been a good example of what a finished adventure could/should look like. You know just to use as a guide of sorts more than anything else, but perhaps there are better adventures to use for that (opinions on expedition to the demon web pits? ).

Thrudd
2014-04-11, 08:24 PM
The disagreement about the early B/X and AD&D style modules is one of overall gaming philosophy. IMO, the GD series and others, like T1 and some B and X series, are the type of thing I appreciate having published for a D&D game. The most time consuming part of being a DM is creating maps, keys, and encounter tables, building dungeons and populating them with tricks and traps and challenges.
The point of a module is not that it is an entire campaign with a complex story arc, it is a location and some challenges you can plug into your campaign, with a basic plot in case you want to use them as a one-off adventure. The G-series shows the strongholds of three types of giants as well as a bit of their way of life using other monsters as servants and slaves and pets. The D series gives you a section of the underdark ecosystem, the Kuo-toa, Svirfneblin, and Drow societies, and a Drow city complete with social hierarchy. Why the players need to go there and infiltrate those places are really up to you. They present you with a basic plot element, powerful monsters have formed an alliance through the clever manipulation of secret masters who desire to use this army to destroy their enemies. Changing the motives of the different parties involved, or creating a more complex political situation involving the kingdoms of your own world are easy.

The "story" is what happens when the characters get to the location and do whatever they will do. You can't plan it in advance or design it, only set the parts in motion and see what happens.

Of course, there is a completely other type of game, where the DM does create an entire story with scripted scenes and plot-twists, right up to the end. The players are expected to follow along, guessing and discovering what the DM has planned and acting as the characters they have invented, who normally have detailed backgrounds and personalities which the DM has used to give them motivation to participate in the planned story. Maps and keys and tables are not as important in these games, if they are used at all. The old D&D and AD&D modules are not made for this type of game, if that is what you are playing they are mostly useless to you.

RedMage125
2014-04-15, 06:00 PM
There's a lot of hate out there for starting in a tavern, but I think it's a classic. I try to determine WHY the party is in the tavern.

I'm also a fan of having the very first low-level adventure tie into the main plot of the game by some kind of tangent. For example, my current 4e game I run will have the final Epic-tier End Boss be the god of death (modified stats from Vecna from Open Grave). The party will encounter minions of this god in heroic tier, paragon will feature growing awareness of the more in-depth plans of this god. And Epic tier will be directly foiling his schemes, as well as plotting to lessen his power.

The very first low-level adventure featured a town besieged by goblins. The goblins have been attacking the town for some time, and the town is having trouble keeping up and stopping them. The mayor has put out a call for help for any adventurers to come and stop the goblins, offering a reward. Each player invested enough in their backstory to explain why they were there, some of them knew each other in their backstories, most did not. However, the adventure began with them meeting each other in the tavern whilst they waited for the mayor to meet with them and give them more details.

The goblins, for their part, were a small band of about 20 or so. After beating them, they found a note that showed that this band was part of a larger army of goblins. They tracked down the leader of the overall band, to find that he was allied with a deathlock wight, and he was a kind of necromancer himself (death master template). The party is about to start Paragon tier, and has already deduced that the goblin leader from back at level 1 was an acolyte of this death god. but it won't be until further into Paragon tier that they will see the big picture of how much the death god's power and influence has grown and how his cults are spreading.

Airk
2014-04-16, 08:50 AM
There's a lot of hate out there for starting in a tavern, but I think it's a classic. I try to determine WHY the party is in the tavern.

I think there's a lot of hate for it because it's a pretty ineffectual starting arrangement.

If you put PCs in a tavern, you run into the following:

#1) Some PCs start trying to do "tavern things" (eating, drinking, hitting on bar wenches) and often won't bite on your adventure hooks.
#2) Adventure hooks in a tavern environment are pretty much limited to people trying to hire/recruit/otherwise beg assistance from the PCs... or someone setting the tavern on fire. The first category is a pretty weak hook.
#3) Being in a tavern doesn't do anything to bring the party together. This isn't a problem if the party is already a party, but if they're not, it's a train wreck.

It's almost always better to handwave the whole "recruiting" process and do as someone else suggested and say "You tell me why you signed up for this job."

Yora
2014-04-16, 09:08 AM
Also, there's a lot of hate for most "classic" game elements from the 70s. Even I hate most of them, and I play OSR games.

BWR
2014-04-16, 09:12 AM
You can make taverns work.
"While on the way to [biggish city in setting], you stop at the **** and Bull inn. An unremarkable place with normal evening activities: drinking, eating, complaining about the weather. Apart from the average farmer, you see [nr of players -1] other travelers. While ordering your 3rd pint a breathless farmer tears open the door and yells "Orcs! Orcs are attacking the village!"
What do you do?"

Rhynn
2014-04-16, 09:13 AM
Also, there's a lot of hate for most "classic" game elements from the 70s. Even I hate most of them, and I play OSR games.

I don't think starting in a tavern is really classic or OSR in any way - I can't think of any modules off-hand that start that way, for instance. (Although many do include rumors, often easily acquired at taverns.)

If anything, the really old-school adventure starts are "you heard a rumor about a place with treasure and now you're there" (In Search of the Unknown, Tomb of Horrors) or "you were on an expedition somewhere, everything went wrong, and now you're in a dungeon" (The Lost City, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). Then there's "the local lords have hired you to perform a task" (A series, GDQ series).

Airk
2014-04-16, 09:53 AM
If anything, the really old-school adventure starts are "you heard a rumor about a place with treasure and now you're there" (In Search of the Unknown, Tomb of Horrors) or "you were on an expedition somewhere, everything went wrong, and now you're in a dungeon" (The Lost City, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). Then there's "the local lords have hired you to perform a task" (A series, GDQ series).

Yeah. All of which work much better than meeting in a tavern. I think "You meet in a Tavern" is actually just the "When I was a kid and a sucky GM, this was the best way I could think of to start a game." opener.


You can make taverns work.
"While on the way to [biggish city in setting], you stop at the **** and Bull inn. An unremarkable place with normal evening activities: drinking, eating, complaining about the weather. Apart from the average farmer, you see [nr of players -1] other travelers. While ordering your 3rd pint a breathless farmer tears open the door and yells "Orcs! Orcs are attacking the village!"
What do you do?"

This falls into the same category as "someone sets the Tavern on fire" that I mentioned. Maybe it's one step earlier, in the sense that it's basically "Someone is GOING to set the tavern on fire if you don't do anything." :P It does work, but I don't think it's a good "standard opener".

Thrudd
2014-04-16, 11:07 AM
If you want to RP the players actually getting the rumors which get them to the start of the modules, sometimes that will happen in a tavern (like in T1, the tavern is a good place to meet various townspeople and overhear rumors).
But still, it is best to have the players start as a party already to avoid the awkward "You see a grumpy dwarf sitting in the corner, drinking two mugs of ale at the same time (wink wink, it's another player). What do you do?" The answer to which inevitably is "I ignore him, because I have no reason to care about the dwarf in the corner. I am focused on my quest for vengeance against my family's killers."

Rhynn
2014-04-16, 12:01 PM
Yeah. All of which work much better than meeting in a tavern. I think "You meet in a Tavern" is actually just the "When I was a kid and a sucky GM, this was the best way I could think of to start a game." opener.

Yup, exactly. It's not "classic" or "old-school," it's just what a lot of people remember being the norm early on because being a terrible GM is the only way to start on the path to being a decent and then a good one.


If you want to RP the players actually getting the rumors which get them to the start of the modules, sometimes that will happen in a tavern (like in T1, the tavern is a good place to meet various townspeople and overhear rumors).
But still, it is best to have the players start as a party already to avoid the awkward "You see a grumpy dwarf sitting in the corner, drinking two mugs of ale at the same time (wink wink, it's another player). What do you do?" The answer to which inevitably is "I ignore him, because I have no reason to care about the dwarf in the corner. I am focused on my quest for vengeance against my family's killers."

Yeah. For T1 and other modules with rumors, the start I'd use is "you've all heard of this place with treasure, and you've arrived at the nearby town." Then the PCs get to ask around for information, etc., but very important they 1. are already a party and 2. have a goal already.

Airk
2014-04-16, 12:35 PM
Yup, exactly. It's not "classic" or "old-school," it's just what a lot of people remember being the norm early on because being a terrible GM is the only way to start on the path to being a decent and then a good one.


The humorous thing for me is that I NEVER did this. Not because I wasn't an awful GM (because I was!) but because my baseline assumption was that the players were in a PARTY! And they were going on an adventure! I mean, WTF were we doing there otherwise? So it never even OCCURED to me to, well, start before we got to the dungeon, most of the time.

Which means that when I started reading about RPGs on forums, and everyone was like "'You meet in a tavern...' is the standard opener." I thought to myself "WTF? Who does that?"

RedMage125
2014-04-16, 03:16 PM
I think there's a lot of hate for it because it's a pretty ineffectual starting arrangement.

If you put PCs in a tavern, you run into the following:

#1) Some PCs start trying to do "tavern things" (eating, drinking, hitting on bar wenches) and often won't bite on your adventure hooks.
#2) Adventure hooks in a tavern environment are pretty much limited to people trying to hire/recruit/otherwise beg assistance from the PCs... or someone setting the tavern on fire. The first category is a pretty weak hook.
#3) Being in a tavern doesn't do anything to bring the party together. This isn't a problem if the party is already a party, but if they're not, it's a train wreck.

It's almost always better to handwave the whole "recruiting" process and do as someone else suggested and say "You tell me why you signed up for this job."

...
That's pretty much what I said.
"The town of Leetah is under attack by goblins. Nearby towns are getting the news from messengers that the mayor of Leetah has requested aid from any adventurers to come help with the goblin problem. The proffered reward is 120 gp and 2 potions."

The players all had their own backstories that gave them a "why am I an adventurer in the first place?" answer. They all answered the call and met in Leetah's tavern while waiting for the mayor.


You can make taverns work.
"While on the way to [biggish city in setting], you stop at the **** and Bull inn. An unremarkable place with normal evening activities: drinking, eating, complaining about the weather. Apart from the average farmer, you see [nr of players -1] other travelers. While ordering your 3rd pint a breathless farmer tears open the door and yells "Orcs! Orcs are attacking the village!"
What do you do?"

I've done something similar. My other favorite way to use the tavern is with an event that has popped up in my campaign world over the years. Something called The Silver Hunt. The Silver Hunt is an event held every few years at the Fortress of Krenshar Pass. The lords of the keep have a heredity enmity with lycanthropes, and the Marching Mountains against which the keep sits are frequent hunting grounds of the followers of Ragashak (god of beasts, slaughter, and winter). The Silver Hunt invites many adventuring groups to participate, and each group is given at the least a silver daggger for each member, althoughnthe alchemists at the keep can silver any weapon for a reasonable price. The goal is to hunt and destroy as many lycanthropes as possible, with the ultimate goal of destroying at least one shrine to Ragashak. The group who is the most successful is declared the winner, a cash prize is awarded, a feast is held, and there is no small amount of prestige that goes with winning.

Now the geography of the area is such that the keep is largely self-sufficient, so there are no properly maintained roads that go to it. The town of Wayfare is the closest settlement, and so is frequently the last stop people make before making the cross-country trip to the fortress. Wayfare thus profits very well in years when the Silver Hunt is held, because of all the adventuring groups that stop by on their way. Their tavern is famous around this time, because many disparate adventurers who were not previously in group of 4 or more (the minimum to participate in the Silver Hunt), meet at Wayfare's tavern and decide to adventure together. Some of those groups that have met and began adventuring together in Wayfare's tavern have gone on to win the Silver Hunt.

And so, the adventure begins, with all players knowing in advance about the Silver Hunt, and each of them is en route to the Fortress, hoping to meet up with or form a group at Wayfare's tavern so they can go on and win this prestigous event. But Wayfare is currently having a problem. Gnolls have been terrorizing the town as of late. The tavern is mostly empty as the players all meet and decide to group together, as most of the citizens of the town are at the Town Hall this evening, discussing what to do about the gnoll problem. Shortly after the party members all meet and decide to go on together, a cry is heard from the streets. A young boy is running through the streets for his very life. His father is the town herbalist, and a band of "dog men" have actually come inside the town and are attacking his family. He is running to the Town Hall, and his route takes him past the tavern.

Airk
2014-04-16, 03:33 PM
...
That's pretty much what I said.

That's odd, because it seemed to me that you said "There's a lot of hate out there for starting in a tavern, but I think it's a classic." which is pretty much the opposite of explaining WHY there is a lot of hate for it.



"The town of Leetah is under attack by goblins. Nearby towns are getting the news from messengers that the mayor of Leetah has requested aid from any adventurers to come help with the goblin problem. The proffered reward is 120 gp and 2 potions."

The players all had their own backstories that gave them a "why am I an adventurer in the first place?" answer. They all answered the call and met in Leetah's tavern while waiting for the mayor.

So the characters go to a town that is "under attack by goblins" and then just...cool their heels in the tavern waiting for the mayor to come find them? Does anyone else think this sounds a bit...odd?

Rhynn
2014-04-16, 04:03 PM
So the characters go to a town that is "under attack by goblins" and then just...cool their heels in the tavern waiting for the mayor to come find them? Does anyone else think this sounds a bit...odd?

It's pretty much exactly what we said above: terrible. There's no reason for it and plenty of problems with it. It'd make much more sense to, you know, go to the mayor's office or house or whatever, to get hired and briefed and whatnot. If the PCs then feel like, say, trolling taverns for rumors, sure, whatever, but the tavern scene serves no purpose in itself, and most things you can shove in there are awkward.

Not that I don't like a good tavern scene, just not as a cold open. Heck, with the awesomely overdetailed (I dislike boxed test and overdescription, but with Ed Greenwood just does it so dang well) Volo's Guide to the Dalelands, I've run campaigns that were basically high fantasy pubcrawls... (If only I'd known what "festhalls" really were! Although the hints were laid on pretty thick...)

Jay R
2014-04-16, 04:36 PM
I tend to start with some excitement (a goblin raid, a house fire, etc.), in which they save, or are saved by, or work with, somebody who wants to hire them.

The start can be as simple as "You hear a woman screaming in the alley."

Rhynn
2014-04-16, 04:58 PM
I tend to start with some excitement (a goblin raid, a house fire, etc.), in which they save, or are saved by, or work with, somebody who wants to hire them.

Oh, that reminds me - I did actually start a D&D 3.X Dragonlance campaign in a tavern, upon a time. The session started with the tavern catching on fire... (The PCs ended up rescuing children from the flames, and were asked to help figure out who started the fire, etc.)

I guess you could also skip the goblins outside of Solace and start DL1 in the Inn of the Last Home. (Although either the party needs to be a party already, or you need to give all of them specific reasons to be running away from the goblins.)

RedMage125
2014-04-18, 05:42 PM
That's odd, because it seemed to me that you said "There's a lot of hate out there for starting in a tavern, but I think it's a classic." which is pretty much the opposite of explaining WHY there is a lot of hate for it.

Sorry, I meant in terms of "tell me why you signed up for this job"



So the characters go to a town that is "under attack by goblins" and then just...cool their heels in the tavern waiting for the mayor to come find them? Does anyone else think this sounds a bit...odd?
[/quote]
There's only 20 or so goblins, and they've been making hit-and-run attacks on the town and outlying farms. The town is peaceful when the players arrive, and they only wait for the mayor for a short while. Goblins actually DO attack while they'e meeting with the mayor, so their recruitment is quick and the job starts immediately.

So...any more snide denigration of my proffered suggestion to the OP?

Or do you have something constructive to add to the thread?

VoxRationis
2014-04-18, 09:34 PM
I think the Holy Grail of integration between plot, characters, and campaign is to have a good reason within the plot of the campaign to tie in each of the characters. As it is, many parties seem like a bunch of people who together fill one character's role in a plot (The Hero) and all the other characters, both main and supporting, are NPCs. I would love to be able to tie in the PCs in a more narrative way. Sadly, PCs in my group, both when I am and when I am not DMing, have a high casualty rate, and tend to be all over the place thematically, so this isn't really practical for me. Not to mention the challenge of doing this without railroading.

neonchameleon
2014-04-19, 01:03 PM
1: In character creation ("You all come together because ...")
2: In combat (You are all in the local tavern and molotov cocktails come in through the window. Everyone who doesn't retreat screaming from this raid or look to join up with the militia is a PC).
3: Six months ago (cue scenario involving escaping from the Reavers by stealing a ship). You've been together ever since.

Jay R
2014-04-19, 01:32 PM
While giving some leeway for character creation, I've started my last two campaigns by telling them enough about their backgrounds that it was easy to start the adventures.

Current 2E campaign, spoilered for length:
You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.
They were sent as guards with a trading caravan, which started their adventurers.

------------------------

In my earlier original D&D campaign, "The Staves of the Wanderers", each player was originally told this, as party of the character creation and word intro:
You have spent the last few years as a servant and student of a patron who is a high level wandering adventurer. Your character has been traveling with your patron for a long time, and has been trained up to where you are about to be first level.

After the character were created, each player received more information, tailored to the PC. This is what the multi-class elves received:
You have spent the last few years as a servant and student of Eilinel Isilvendë, an elven maiden who is a fighter / thief / mage. In game terms, you have been a 0th level character, and have been receiving the training necessary to start the game as a 1st level character with no experience. (You are free to decide how many years you have been with her, since it will have absolutely no effect on gameplay.) You met her under the full moon, and have followed her ever since.

You know about the legends on moon elves – elves so attuned to the mystical influence of the moon that their powers are enhanced thereby. You suspect that Eilinel Isilvendë is one such (or of pretending to be) – “isilvendë” being Elvish for moon maiden. You asked her once, and she laughed and said, no, she was not, but has given no details about her former life. All you really know about her is that she wanders at all times, finding elves and others to help, and the she is always out wandering under the full moon.

Eilinel has a wooden staff, roughly six feet tall, capped in silver. She has shown absolutely no willingness to discuss the staff, although it is clearly quite important. You have never seen her without it.

In the last few months, she has seemed distracted, and increasingly weary. She has just announced that you are traveling west, and has given no reason.

The entourage is about 4-6 other elves, all 0-level characters. The baggage is mostly carried by a couple of horses, and you have any reasonable camp gear (recognizing that you are elves, and comfortable in the out-of-doors).

There were seven such patrons, an old party, all of whom carried a staff, and they were meeting each other again for the first time in decades. The patrons could tell a great event was coming, and in fact, all seven died in the second episode, leaving the staves to the PCs to take over the mission.

[Each player was given a description of his or her patron. If they had compared notes, they could have picked up some very important clues, but they never did.]

Selnique
2014-04-22, 02:53 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but my players/gaming group has a tendency to throw convention out the window when it comes to adventures. I've pretty much given up trying to run an adventure from a to b to c to etc. I have learned to just create "hooks" to intriuge them, and let them basically do it as they go. One of the first campaigns I ever designed on my own, they got rid of the wererat menace like I expected and instead of sticking around for a while and taking care of the reel problem (the pirates and "siren" who were looting ships) they moved on to the actual campaign, which they solved in about three sessions of play because they killed the lord who was working with the demons. Now, grant you, it was supposed to happen, but they were supposed to have to do a lot more legwork to figure it all out. But no, they talked to him once or twice and then just went off with his head because they, I quote, "just didn't like him, he seemed off."

I've found myself taking the sometimes paranoid and crazy ideas my players come up with and just role with them. My players don't like being railroaded, that's a big thing. I just populate my world with random quest hooks, give myself basic ideas of baddies that are involved, and then let them roll.

Qwertystop
2014-04-22, 04:24 PM
I like this (http://www.leftoversoup.com/archive.php?num=410) one, personally. Only works once.

EDIT: I mean, sure, it's basically the same you-all-meet-in-an-in-and-suddenly-goblins. But that's why you only do it once - the whole point is the suddenness, so make it as good as possible.

Totema
2014-04-22, 04:47 PM
I spend a session having everyone build their character. They are free to discuss among themselves what classes to pick, what their party roles will be, what their backgrounds are, etc. They are to ask me if anything doesn't jive with my house rules. That usually takes a couple hours; when everyone's done, I have them explain who their character is and why they want to adventure. Then I explain their immediate surroundings, usually the town they are in, and ask them what they are doing. And from there the adventure starts.

BeholdenCaulf
2014-04-24, 08:38 AM
I always, always, ALWAYS have my campaigns start in a pub

The PCs are usually brought together by an overheard conversation or a mysterious patron

It's sort of become a running thing that we all find amusing

:)

Loxagn
2014-04-24, 05:06 PM
Well, different stories offer different opportunities to begin with.

Starting your game en medias res is rarely a bad idea. Kicking things off in the middle of the action gets attention, starts the players off already pumped, and gives you the option of giving the party an adventure hook right off the bat.

An example from one of my own games that worked fairly well, in my opinion:

For their own reasons, the various party members had migrated to a port town. They were awakened in the dead of night (at the various locations they had decided to bunk down for the night) by the sound of explosions and screaming. It took some private sessions with individuals, but with the properly-planted leads, the individual party members ended up forming into their own smaller groups and chasing down the bandits responsible for the raid, a bit of coordination that led them all to the same location, the town square where the leader of the raiding party was commanding his forces from. With that bit of pre-game, we were able to kick off the first session with a fight, a group of strangers working together for the first time against a mutual enemy.
Introductions came later, after things had calmed down a bit, but general consensus was that it was a great deal of fun and it all felt very organic. This is of course a very specific example, and not all groups react as positively to an adventure hook as this one did (this example in particular seems to lend itself towards Good-aligned 'heroic' parties), but an opening that's exciting and dramatic will nearly always be preferable to "So you all start in a tavern."

It might seem odd to think of it this way, but approach it like a sales pitch. You have only so long to grab their attention and 'sell' the game to them, so you want it to be fun and exciting right from the start. In this instance, it doesn't hurt to take some inspiration from video games; game designers who're doing it right know that first impressions are everything. Take, for instance:
Final Fantasy VII: Straight to the action. A mission to infiltrate and destroy a power plant.
Skyrim: Straight to the action. Your execution is interrupted by a dragon attacking the town.
Mass Effect 2: Straight to the action. Your ship is being attacked by an unidentified vessel.
This is by no means the perfect or only way to start the game, but it is very rarely a bad way to start it.

VoxRationis
2014-04-24, 08:08 PM
It might seem odd to think of it this way, but approach it like a sales pitch. You have only so long to grab their attention and 'sell' the game to them, so you want it to be fun and exciting right from the start. In this instance, it doesn't hurt to take some inspiration from video games; game designers who're doing it right know that first impressions are everything. Take, for instance:
Final Fantasy VII: Straight to the action. A mission to infiltrate and destroy a power plant.
Skyrim: Straight to the action. Your execution is interrupted by a dragon attacking the town.
Mass Effect 2: Straight to the action. Your ship is being attacked by an unidentified vessel.
This is by no means the perfect or only way to start the game, but it is very rarely a bad way to start it.

Of course, if you're trying to get a party together, at least two of those are much different stories.
In Skyrim, you may very well play the entire game alone, though I suppose if the entire party got together for the first dungeon, they might stick together after exiting it just for mutual defense and later out of habit.
In Mass Effect 2, most of the game is spent trying to get the party together, and only severe railroading got the first three people to work together (if it had been a TTRPG when I first played, I would have ditched EDI, Miranda, Jacob, and the new Normandy the moment I set foot on Omega).

Your basic concept is good, though.