PDA

View Full Version : Things not to do when writing an adventure



Yora
2016-08-12, 04:28 AM
Most adventures that people are writing seem to be pretty bad and not really helping GMs to run a game but rather making it more difficult. What things do you keep seeing in adventures that just seem like bad ideas and a general nuisance?

The monster attacks on sight and fights to the death.

Magic items or enchantments that prevent players from using their spells that would be most helpful in the situation.

Magic items that become unusable when their current owner dies.

Box text.

High level NPCs who appear to save the day when the players are unable to win.

Skill checks that have to succeed or the adventure can't continue.

Underwater adventures.

nrg89
2016-08-12, 04:50 AM
The monster attacks on sight and fights to the death.

Depends on the setting. In a dungeon crawl I would expect a lot of this, it's not like you could reason with the Reapers in Mass Effect or the demons in Diablo.


Box text. If it's supposed to represent letters or signs I don't mind it. If it's an NPC speech however, maybe just make a list of quotes that suits the character in mind and explain his or her stance on issues related to the adventure and let the GM improvise.


Magic items or enchantments that prevent players from using their spells that would be most helpful in the situation. Depends on the group, the system and to what extent. If you can't cast invisibility maybe this is to promote the thief, but you don't want the rest of the party on the sidelines so be careful.

Now, this is very hard to pull off in a way that doesn't feel contrived, unfair, like cheating or annoying. But if the focus is to promote creativity then maybe you could sell it to your players. Maybe.


Magic items that become unusable when their current owner dies.

High level NPCs who appear to save the day when the players are unable to win.

Skill checks that have to succeed or the adventure can't continue. The first feels contrived, the last two removes agency and the third has the added bonus of smothering creative solutions. Atrocious, no doubt about it.


Underwater adventures.

I've actually played in one I loved. I absolutely loved it! However, we also spent time above the surface.

My examples of bad adventure content would be:


Bad descriptions of the area. Please, use graphics and make the placement of things simple to understand by indicating them on the map, not the "west of the northernest area" BS that's standard.

No clear goal, just a list of events. This can only end up on the railroad.

Loredumps from books or NPCs. Show, don't tell, lore and dole it out in small doses. I know you love your world but you thought of this in days or weeks and wasn't concentrating on something else at the same time. Let the players play and notice the lore between the lines.

BWR
2016-08-12, 05:35 AM
All of Yora's points have been used in my games at some point, and in various published modules or games run by friends, and have worked just fine. A number of them should be used very sparingly and carefully, certainly (I have experienced bad instances of some of these points, let me be clear), but I can't think of many elements I would put in the 'Never do this' category.

The closest I can think of is hard railroading along the lines of the GM/module/adventure basically using the PCs as puppets and accepting little to no input from the players and no deviance from the script.

GloatingSwine
2016-08-12, 06:17 AM
Depends on the setting. In a dungeon crawl I would expect a lot of this, it's not like you could reason with the Reapers in Mass Effect or the demons in Diablo.


No, but eg. animals might only attack you if they feel threatened and could be avoided by skirting around them and not making aggressive moves, and in a fight they might well run off if they've lost unless they have something specific to fight for like defending young.

Having animals that behave like animals not videogame mobs makes the world feel more worldy, (just, y'know, make sure you're giving XP for resolving encounters not killing stuff).



Magic items or enchantments that prevent players from using their spells that would be most helpful in the situation.

That might be acceptable if the party can reasonably find out about it and if finding out about it exposes some other weakness they can exploit because then they'll feel clever.

Mastikator
2016-08-12, 06:38 AM
Enemies that attack the players because they are the bad guys. How about some actual motivation?

Adventures that are written like books. Especially when only one solution to the problems is allowed.

Adding unnecessary elements that break suspension of disbelief and don't add anything.

Macguffins. Ok maybe that's just me, but I hate Macguffins.

Âmesang
2016-08-12, 06:46 AM
A railroading plot that goes from Point A to Point B to Point C with no chance to deviate. My players hated the "Test of the Smoking Eye" chapter from Shackled City; there just wasn't enough motivation to go slumming in the Abyss for some magical MacGuffin described by some shading looking character that they just have to have* in order to beat the adventure.

…speaking of which, it's fun seeing handouts written all fancy like, but it'd also be nice seeing those same handouts reprinted in plain text so a person could actually read them. I can see why people abandoned "Þ," "Ð," "Ƿ," "Ȝ," and "ſ" ages ago.

*Well, not really, since they do offer other means for winning… which sort of makes the whole chapter %&#$'n pointless!!

Yora
2016-08-12, 06:53 AM
Quest givers who are more qualified than the party and not actually busy with anything important while the players are on their quest.

nrg89
2016-08-12, 07:06 AM
Quest givers who are more qualified than the party and not actually busy with anything important while the players are on their quest.

I seem to have forgotten what collection of realms does this a lot, I'll come back to you on that one. :smallwink:

This is also a cliche practiced in many settings based on an existing property. Basically, you're the main protagonist's bitch and that's not fun. I want to feel like Solomon Kane, I don't want to goddamn take care of his backlog.

And not to veer too much into a systems discussion, but if the NPCs can be powerful without kicking a lot of ass (they follow different rules than the PCs, perhaps) this problem is not as prevalent.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-08-12, 07:08 AM
(Fight to the death)

Depends on the setting. In a dungeon crawl I would expect a lot of this, it's not like you could reason with the Reapers in Mass Effect or the demons in Diablo.

Depends on the monster, the location and circumstances - for instance, if you're threatening their young, I'd expect pretty much anything to fight to the death.

(Magic not working)


Depends on the group, the system and to what extent. If you can't cast invisibility maybe this is to promote the thief, but you don't want the rest of the party on the sidelines so be careful.

I think it's ok if you use it sparingly - for instance, if there's some ceremonial site that needs a puzzle solving to get access to the next area, then it might well have protection to keep people who don't know the puzzle solution out and stop them randomly blasting holes in walls. But in that case I think you'd need to make sure the PCs have every opportunity to know spells won't work first, then be creative when they try it to check rather than just saying "nope".

I guess there's also the case where a recurring bad guy drops an anti-magic shell or something similar to facilitate their own escape - IMO, so long as the PCs can survive whatever speed bumps in the way, and it becomes the bad guy's signature tactic so the PCs can try and work out a way around it to defeat them, then again, that's ok.

Edit:

Quest givers who are more qualified than the party and not actually busy with anything important while the players are on their quest.
If they're more powerful than the PCs, they'll have their own enemies - political ones who'll want to take their place or prevent them from taking theirs, historical ones who want revenge and so on. It may well be that not doing anything important (or being seen to be not doing anything important) is more important, and taking the weeks or months it would take to go off and do whatever would be a really bad idea.

Yora
2016-08-12, 07:18 AM
Don't put the major reveal of the adventure into the title.

Looking specifically at you, Against The Cult Of The Reptile God.

Khedrac
2016-08-12, 07:42 AM
Other things to avoid:

Monsters that to fight require just the right spell or magic item (that the PCs are unlikely to have), but said spell scroll or item is placed in a room just after the monsters (or just before, in a system where identifying items is non-trivial - I'm looking at you D&D pre-Artificers' Monocles).

Creatures that cannot get into their location (i.e. bigger than the doorway) without a sustainable environment for them to have grown large there.

Or worse, creatures that don't fit into their location (yes I have seen hydras (15' cubes) in 10' tall rooms in D&D adventures).

Puzzles that the adventure writer has decreed there is only one way to solve.

Super-hard (and valuable) doors (designed to stop the party just cutting through), especially when the wall can be cut through easily.

Encounters that directly break the rules of the game.

Too many logic puzzles unless you know all the players enjoy them.

GloatingSwine
2016-08-12, 09:35 AM
Don't put the major reveal of the adventure into the title.

Looking specifically at you, Against The Cult Of The Reptile God.

You don't have to have a major reveal. I mean you can run a nice straightforward smash and grab adventure, there's a Cult of the Reptile God, you're Against them, start Againsting.

Yora
2016-08-12, 11:48 AM
Yes, but that particular adventure is an investigation about why people are disappearing and act strange if they come back.

The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun wasn't a problem back when nobody had heard the name Tharizdun before. But now that he has gotten kind of famous it wasn't such a smart name either.

TheFurith
2016-08-12, 12:01 PM
Super-hard (and valuable) doors (designed to stop the party just cutting through), especially when the wall can be cut through easily.

This reminds me of a pair of 1'x10'x20' solid adamantine doors I stumbled upon once. The DM was quite upset when we decided we could care less about the quest and that we were now in the business of hiring everyone we possibly can to dig those things out....

NRSASD
2016-08-12, 03:19 PM
Why do people also put in admantine/mithral doors anyways? As a dungeon denizen, I'd far rather use that metal for weapons and armor. Besides, if you actually want to keep people out, use 10ft thick stone doors in an antimagic field instead. Sure the PCs could mine through it, but they better be ready to spend a couple of days digging.

The Glyphstone
2016-08-12, 03:52 PM
Why do people also put in admantine/mithral doors anyways? As a dungeon denizen, I'd far rather use that metal for weapons and armor. Besides, if you actually want to keep people out, use 10ft thick stone doors in an antimagic field instead. Sure the PCs could mine through it, but they better be ready to spend a couple of days digging.

Because the idiots in the dungeon next door did have big impressive adamantine doors, and now the PCs knocking at yours have adamantine weapons they can use to just cut through stone even without magic.:smallsmile:

BRC
2016-08-12, 04:12 PM
"Your princess is in another castle"


This is a personal pet peeve, but sending the PC's off on some adventure with no chance of them actually achieving anything.

Like, don't get me wrong. Adventure Hooks don't need to be 100% honest. PC's can lead themselves into wild goose chases, they can pick up new goals during the quest, the quest may be far more complicated than they thought.

But you shouldn't send them out, and have them return empty handed, minus some gold and loot.

If the PC's hear that the Macguffin is in CASTLE DEATHROCK, and they proceed to conquer Castle Deathrock, the following are acceptable options.

1) The PC's find the macguffin. Huzzah.

2) The Macguffin isn't there, but the PC's get information as to its real whereabouts.

3) The Macguffin isn't there, but the PC's move forward on some cause they care about even more.

4)The Macguffin WAS there, but something that happened during the course of the adventure keeps it from the PC's grasp (They took a short rest outside the final vault room, giving the guards a chance to escape with the Macguffin, they caused the cliff under the castle to crumble, sending it tumbling into the ocean, the Macguffin was a book, and they lit the place on fire).

The following is NOT acceptable

5) No Macguffin. HA, silly PC's, thinking that they would find the Macguffin at Castle Deathrock, just because the DM dangled a plot hook in front of them saying "Go to Castle Deathrock and get the Macguffin". This was all an ELABORATE PLOT by the VILLAINS who are SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU ARE!

KillianHawkeye
2016-08-12, 04:58 PM
The following is NOT acceptable

5) No Macguffin. HA, silly PC's, thinking that they would find the Macguffin at Castle Deathrock, just because the DM dangled a plot hook in front of them saying "Go to Castle Deathrock and get the Macguffin". This was all an ELABORATE PLOT by the VILLAINS who are SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU ARE!

To be fair, this really is the kind of thing that might be done by an extremely smart and devious sort of villain (like a Lich), especially if they have a lot of time on their hands and the inclination to set up complicated death traps even when they have no specific enemies in mind to eventually set them off (again, see: Lich).

Example:
Rumor says "CASTLE DEATHROCK is a fortress created by the vile necromancer Malevolous to keep safe his vast hoard of treasures. In the innermost vault supposedly lies the wizard's phylactery, the source of his eternal unlife."
But really Castle Deathrock is a huge decoy that the lich has been working on for hundreds of years (including the spreading of all the rumors surrounding the treasure vault and his phylactery), designed for the sole purpose of killing foolish heroes who would seek to challenge him and to get all their fancy magic items. The phylactery is actually magically hidden on the lich's secret moon base that absolutely no one has ever heard of.

See also: The Tomb of Horrors.


Obviously, this is something that you'd want to do only sparingly, but I think you can get away with doing it under the right circumstances.

BRC
2016-08-12, 05:01 PM
To be fair, this really is the kind of thing that might be done by an extremely smart and devious sort of villain (like a Lich), especially if they have a lot of time on their hands and the inclination to set up complicated death traps even when they have no specific enemies in mind to eventually set them off (again, see: Lich).

Example:
Rumor says "CASTLE DEATHROCK is a fortress created by the vile necromancer Malevolous to keep safe his vast hoard of treasures. In the innermost vault supposedly lies the wizard's phylactery, the source of his eternal unlife."
But really Castle Deathrock is a huge decoy that the lich has been working on for hundreds of years (including the spreading of all the rumors surrounding the treasure vault and his phylactery), designed for the sole purpose of killing foolish heroes who would seek to challenge him and to get all their fancy magic items. The phylactery is actually magically hidden on the lich's secret moon base that absolutely no one has ever heard of.

See also: The Tomb of Horrors.


Obviously, this is something that you'd want to do only sparingly, but I think you can get away with doing it under the right circumstances.
Oh, it's a perfectly valid thing for a dastardly and cunning villain to do. From a narrative standpoint, it's fine.

But, it's not Fun. And all things must be subservient to making a fun game. Spending two sessions chewing through Castle Deathrock, only to find it's the ancient lich version of "Somebody Wrote "Gullible" on the Ceiling" sucks. It's not fun, it doesn't really add anything to the story, and it just makes the PC's feel frustrated.

And Frustration is probably the most toxic headspace for a group to get stuck in.

Leith
2016-08-12, 05:06 PM
Example:
Rumor says "CASTLE DEATHROCK is a fortress created by the vile necromancer Malevolous to keep safe his vast hoard of treasures. In the innermost vault supposedly lies the wizard's phylactery, the source of his eternal unlife."
But really Castle Deathrock is a huge decoy that the lich has been working on for hundreds of years (including the spreading of all the rumors surrounding the treasure vault and his phylactery), designed for the sole purpose of killing foolish heroes who would seek to challenge him and to get all their fancy magic items. The phylactery is actually magically hidden on the lich's secret moon base that absolutely no one has ever heard of.


Still more interesting than saying "nope" and giving the PCs nothing.



But, it's not Fun. And all things must be subservient to making a fun game. Spending two sessions chewing through Castle Deathrock, only to find it's the ancient lich version of "Somebody Wrote "Gullible" on the Ceiling" sucks. It's not fun, it doesn't really add anything to the story, and it just makes the PC's feel frustrated.


I could be fun if it is well done and not dragged out. The first adventure WotC wrote for 5e D&D was just following a bunch of cultists around trying to get their loot and find out what their plan is but every time you catch up to them you get squat. That's frustrating. When it comes to the ol' switcheroo you have to actually switch something for something, not nothing.

That's my addition; I hate it when a campaign has the heroes chasing a macguffin or trying to kill the villain and they repeatedly come within a hairs breadth of realising their goal only to be robbed of success by the story. I've run games like that and I think people only tolerated it because I made it a fun ride.

MrStabby
2016-08-12, 05:20 PM
One-upmanship.

Campaign X had an evil guy in it but I will write one MORE evil. It had a powerful sorcerer in but mine will be even MORE powerful and so on.

Being a slave to it's theme. Sure it might be an adventure about a cult to a thunder god but if everything is immune to thunder/lightening or does that type of damage then some players get screwed over for the whole adventure.

In a similar vein having certain players practically sit out climactic fights. Flying boss when no means of flying have been given to players. A major villain immune to backstab damage and no way to reapply it and so on.

Everything being about the main plot. It's a wide world out there. Not every bad guy is part of the evil organisation and good guys you meet may have other priorities.

Tiktakkat
2016-08-12, 05:55 PM
Back during Living Greyhawk there were a number of rules for writing that are always relevant.

1. One paragraph/100 words of boxed text or less.
Seriously. If players want to be read to they will buy an audiobook.
If you really need to infodump them with background, then give them a handout.

2. Don't tell people what their characters do or feel.
That includes boxed text that begins "As you enter the room", or "The sight terrifies you", or anything similar. Let the players decide when they enter a room or whether a scene scares them.

3. Follow the rules.
This covers a number of things:
No "auto-escapes" for bad guys. If a villain cannot get away within the rules then they die. Do not give them plot immunity just because you want the PCs to encounter them multiple times.
No auto-surprise encounters. The PCs may not be able to make the Spot or Listen check required, but they must at least have a chance.

4. Required Class Abilities/Feats/Skills.
Players must be able to resolve encounters without having a specific class ability, feat, or skill. If you use something like requiring a turn attempt or the Track feat, always include a way for a party to get past the challenge if they do not have a character with a cleric or ranger.

5. Give them the full mission.
Don't force the players to play 20 questions to get critical information about the mission. A skill check for actual hidden information is fine, but the key elements must be conveyed.
The handout for an infodump from the first point can be useful here.

6. No pop culture references.
Not as critical in home games since you can expect what your players will pick up on, but it wears quickly in mass market products.


Also:


…speaking of which, it's fun seeing handouts written all fancy like, but it'd also be nice seeing those same handouts reprinted in plain text so a person could actually read them. I can see why people abandoned "Þ," "Ð," "Ƿ," "Ȝ," and "ſ" ages ago.

*Well, not really, since they do offer other means for winning… which sort of makes the whole chapter %&#$'n pointless!!

That's not really writing but graphics and layout.
However I agree 100%, particularly as I get older and my vision gets worse. It would really be nice to read everything in the product.
Even some maps can be a pain when they focus more on looking "pretty" than being easily readable.

DigoDragon
2016-08-13, 08:25 AM
Don't build an encounter that must hinge on one specific PC or their abilities. Example: the party needs to convince a skilled blacksmith to repair an important plot item, but the GM sets it so only the party diplomancer can convince the smith. Cause if the diplomancer isn't with the party or decides on a different course of action, then what?

Lorsa
2016-08-13, 09:08 AM
Assume the same adventure appeals to everyone, or that all players act equal.

Basically, the best adventures are written for a specific group with specific characters, not a generic "group", and as such are a one-use only.

There are dungeons and locations and settings that can be used more than ones by multiple groups with great success though.

Yora
2016-08-13, 09:47 AM
No, I would say the best written adventures are the ones that still work even if the group acts differently than the writer's group. You have to write it in a way that leaves it up to the players what kind of people they want to play and how they react to things they encounter. This works much better with site-based adventures. These can be considered a success even when the players laid waste to everything and are the last ones standing on top of of a pile of smoking rubble. When the game can only continue when the players do certain things, the risk of the players feeling like they have to do something they don't really want to is much higher.

Telok
2016-08-13, 10:46 AM
Check what your traps do. Don't dump a "go drown yourself and/or kill your allies" poison on the party that lasts 600 rounds, especially if mote than half the PCs have a 50/50 or less chance of success.

Keep traps consistent. If a type of trap can be spotted and disarmed either keep it that way or tell the customer why it changed. Do not have the same type of trap sometimes be disarmable and sometimes not.

Keep traps and hidden things fair. Don't make there be a "one true way" to find something. Don't rely on the party having the exact limited use ability going at the exact right time.

Do some basic reality checks and tell the customer about exceptional circumstances. Waterfalls are loud, if you're requiring a perception test to hear one say why. If your party's genius wizard can't understand the magic ritual book after two weeks but the npc can in an hour then say why.

Use the game's reward system to lead players through the module. If the reward system can't do that (e.g. xp/loot for fighting but nothing for saving the town/rescuing the princess/exploring the dungeon) then give very good reasons to follow the module path. If there's better rewards for ignoring the plot then the players will do that.

Don't expect players to act on information they don't have. Do expect them to try to keep their characters alive. Always expect revenge.

2D8HP
2016-08-13, 11:50 AM
Judging by how popular Pathfinder and other Superhero RPG's are my taste probably goes against what the majority of players like, but I prefer low power lever level PC''s who are down on their luck, in a Swords and Sorcery setting.

“In the Year of the Behemoth, the Month of the Hedgehog, The Day of the Toad......"Your almost at the location the old map you found says the treasure house lays".The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)
:biggrin:

"A village hires you to protect them from bandits".
The Seven Samurai (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai)
:smile:

What I don't like is "you are an agent of The Avengers/Control/Harpers/MI-7/Superfriends, and you have received an assignment to save the world, now write a backstory of how you came to be an agent of The Avengers/Control/Harpers/MI-7/Superfriends".
Age of Ultron (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron)
:yuk:

I want to role-play out how my PC "turned hero" in interactions with sympathetic NPC's and/or antagonists.

For me they are just too many "superheroes save the world" adventures, and not enough "becoming a hero" or "loot the Dungeon" adventures. And a don't like all these GET SMART like "Factions"!

Âmesang
2016-08-13, 12:36 PM
To be fair, Age of Ultron is a sequel to a film that was the culmination of a number of films about people becoming heroes (whether starting from humble beginnings, like Steve Rogers, or learning some humility, like Tony Stark and Thor Odinson).

Khedrac
2016-08-13, 01:13 PM
Back during Living Greyhawk there were a number of rules for writing that are always relevant.

3. Follow the rules.
...
No auto-surprise encounters. The PCs may not be able to make the Spot or Listen check required, but they must at least have a chance.
Heh - I had forgotten that one. When I came to LG most of the players I knew were complaining about auto-surpise in adventures, but then I got to run one where no-one complained - the party got to auto-surpise some monsters!
(I wonder if it was written because of all the complaints.)

All in all that is an excellent list.

Kami2awa
2016-08-13, 02:00 PM
Don't write adventures where the plot hinges on one of these:

- The villains steal an important item from the PCs. The players will find a way to protect it that the villains can't bypass without GM fiat.

- The players get captured and must escape a prison. The encounter intended to capture them will either end up with them fighting to the death or they will defeat it and not be captured.

And as an extension of both of these:

- Anything that hinges on the PCs failing. It's fine for PCs to fail at challenges (otherwise, they are not really challenges) but requiring them to fail to proceed is doomed to break the adventure. If the PCs find a clever way to succeed - and they likely will - you will have to either railroad them into failure or completely rewrite the adventure.

BTW, it's fine to have these as part of an adventure if they aren't compulsory to finish it. For example, an enemy thief can sneak into the PCs' camp to steal from them to put them at a disadvantage, but the PCs are likely to detect and stop the thief. The PCs can get caught by the town guards and locked up for whatever crimes they inevitably committed, but this should not be key to proceeding in the adventure.

And if you must use one of these devices, DON'T USE THEM MORE THAN ONCE PER CAMPAIGN!!! Even if they work once, the second time the players will not fall for it.

And a positive one, to finish this post:

- Don't be a slave to originality. A lot of writers in any creative medium get stuck on the idea that everything must be completely original. Certain plots, like a collect-the-set or find-the-macguffin, are widely used because they work well across many genres.

hymer
2016-08-13, 03:11 PM
- The villains steal an important item from the PCs. The players will find a way to protect it that the villains can't bypass without GM fiat.

You could write a scenario based on that, but you should have the villain make the attempt to steal the item towards the end of the previous session. That way you can write the scenario knowing your premise holds, and you can let the PCs thwart the attempt if they're smart or lucky enough. If they do so, the next session will likely be about why the villain wants that particular item, so you'd have to write that.

Better still, detail the villain's lair early on. You're 90% likely to need it before the end of the campaign anyway, and you can place the item in the strongbox, the treasure vault, under the villain's bed, or whereever it would make the most sense. Then you can have the villain try to steal the item, and whether they fail or not is acceptable. The PCs may raid it (for any number of reasons, some of which you can rpovide them with in various hooks) before they can take the whole place. Or later in the campaign they'll roll in there guns blazing for the final showdown. All the better if they do both. Going back to a place you've been before is an all too rare pleasure.

Lorsa
2016-08-14, 03:05 AM
No, I would say the best written adventures are the ones that still work even if the group acts differently than the writer's group. You have to write it in a way that leaves it up to the players what kind of people they want to play and how they react to things they encounter. This works much better with site-based adventures. These can be considered a success even when the players laid waste to everything and are the last ones standing on top of of a pile of smoking rubble. When the game can only continue when the players do certain things, the risk of the players feeling like they have to do something they don't really want to is much higher.

The site-based adventures of which you speak would probably fall under the "dungeon/location/setting" category that I mentioned. Those are much more likely to work for a large variety of groups, and can more easily be adapted by the GM than "follow this railroad" adventures that are far too common.

Final Hyena
2016-08-14, 10:07 AM
You know that awesome idea you have for an NPC, the guy who's super cool and everyone loves? Give him a personality that makes him likeable instead of a blank slate with a superiority complex. Nothing is more frustrating than a boring **** that the entire rest of the world loves in spite of his complete lack of charisma.

The Insanity
2016-08-15, 09:01 AM
Make the adventure with a specific PC party in mind.

Alcibiades
2016-08-15, 09:28 AM
Every piece of advice in here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5785/roleplaying-games/so-you-want-to-write-a-railroad).

hymer
2016-08-15, 09:28 AM
Make the adventure with a specific PC party in mind.

Is that thing to do or a thing not to do?

The Insanity
2016-08-15, 10:01 AM
Is that thing to do or a thing not to do?
What do you think? Context of the title and question in the OP points to "don't do".

Yora
2016-08-15, 11:32 AM
An adventure wouldn't be really useable for me if my players can't play it because they don't have the right character.

(Which is also why I like the really old D&D editions which don't really care about how much power the party brings to the dungeon. They just have to be more careful and clever when they have little and can go full frontal assault if they have a lot.)

The Insanity
2016-08-15, 12:55 PM
An adventure wouldn't be really useable for me if my players can't play it because they don't have the right character.
Can't play it, how?

Sith_Happens
2016-08-15, 04:47 PM
Magic items or enchantments that prevent players from using their spells that would be most helpful in the situation.

This can be done well, but it can't be contrived and it absolutely has to be brief.

For the shining example of failing at both of the above, see Dragonlance's Key of Destiny adventure path, where the MacGuffin the party receives just before reaching 9th level, and that they're expected to have with them all the way through 20th level, is permanently Dimensional Anchored with no reason given for why that is. Because heaven forbid the writers have to stop padding the adventure with wilderness encounters. Don't worry though, the Dimensional Anchor does make a specific exception for the extraplanar dragon graveyard that the MacGuffin's entire purpose is to get you into (though it does have some other moderately-useful powers to use along the way).:smallannoyed:


This is a personal pet peeve, but sending the PC's off on some adventure with no chance of them actually achieving anything.
[...]
5) No Macguffin. HA, silly PC's, thinking that they would find the Macguffin at Castle Deathrock, just because the DM dangled a plot hook in front of them saying "Go to Castle Deathrock and get the Macguffin". This was all an ELABORATE PLOT by the VILLAINS who are SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU ARE!


That's my addition; I hate it when a campaign has the heroes chasing a macguffin or trying to kill the villain and they repeatedly come within a hairs breadth of realising their goal only to be robbed of success by the story. I've run games like that and I think people only tolerated it because I made it a fun ride.


- Anything that hinges on the PCs failing. It's fine for PCs to fail at challenges (otherwise, they are not really challenges) but requiring them to fail to proceed is doomed to break the adventure. If the PCs find a clever way to succeed - and they likely will - you will have to either railroad them into failure or completely rewrite the adventure.

See: every last Cthulhutech adventure.:smallyuk:


2. Don't tell people what their characters do or feel.
That includes boxed text that begins "As you enter the room"

Doesn't that just mean you wait for them to enter the room before reading that part?:smallconfused:

Tiktakkat
2016-08-15, 05:38 PM
Doesn't that just mean you wait for them to enter the room before reading that part?:smallconfused:

Theoretically, sure.
Functionally, no.

If the boxed text does not come with a preamble that says directly:
"When the PCs enter the room, read the following."
Then some DMs will look at the room number, look at the shading (or whatever is used to indicate boxed text), and just read it verbatim.
Why?
"Because that is what the boxed text says. It says, "As you enter the room", therefore you enter the room. Period."

Do not assume anyone running or playing the adventure knows your intent in writing any particular passage.
Write precisely what you mean, with additional explanation as needed.

Aside from things that might seem obvious like this, it also helps avoid putting things like locks and traps after the boxed text, when the PCs have already taken actions past where such thing would affect them.

I would note this is an issue with the Delve Format of later WotC adventures, where the room description is JUST a raw description, then you need to flip 5-20 pages to get the encounter which has additional boxed describing what is trying to kill the PCs, leaving the players going "Shouldn't you have mentioned that first before going into details about the furnishings which aren't trying to eat our faces?"

Honest Tiefling
2016-08-15, 05:52 PM
This thread has made me want to write an adventure called 'Descent into the Demon Temple' and make all of the NPCs some mortal race that worships a demon. Technically, the title is still accurate.

2D8HP
2016-08-15, 06:53 PM
"You notice how the light from a multiple candle chandelier glimmers on the gold and silver threads in the tasteful tapestry's that line the walls of the room as the Minotaur clubs your head bloody".

"Shouldn't you have mentioned that first before going into details about the furnishings which aren't trying to eat our faces?"
:confused:

Tiktakkat
2016-08-16, 10:21 AM
"You notice how the light from a multiple candle chandelier glimmers on the gold and silver threads in the tasteful tapestry's that line the walls of the room as the Minotaur clubs your head bloody".

:confused:

More like:

"The light filling this dingy chamber comes from two arrow slits along the far wall, a lantern hanging from the ceiling above a round table with four chairs near the center of the room, and low braziers filled with orange coals in each corner. Rough pallets stinking of sweat lie on the floor near each brazier, and a large chest rests against the back wall, between the two arrow slits."

Then, 11 pages later:

"Three ugly hyena-headed creatures and a human in a fine-looking breastplate sit around a table, gambling at dice. As the door swings open, they stare up in alarm, then fumble for their weapons as they rise from their seats."

Note that: 11 pages later.
So while the DM is flipping through the book, the players are already talking about wandering around the room, searching for treasure, when "SUDDENLY!" the inhabitants are mentioned.

Kami2awa
2016-08-17, 07:05 AM
Descriptions should always be short - avoid "purple prose". It might be good to look at advice on describing places in written fiction.

Having said this, I have had players who didn't let me get beyond "it's a 10x10' room" before interrupting to announce what their PC would do.

hymer
2016-08-17, 10:02 AM
What do you think? Context of the title and question in the OP points to "don't do".

I think both could make sense. If you're playing a West Marches-style shared sandbox, you shouldn't write areas with specific PCs in mind. That would be counter to the whole idea.
But if you're running an intrigue-heavy, plot-driven campaign, you should certainly tailor what you prepare things to the PCs with their huge backstories and peculiar goals.

Alcibiades
2016-08-17, 11:14 AM
I think both could make sense. If you're playing a West Marches-style shared sandbox, you shouldn't write areas with specific PCs in mind. That would be counter to the whole idea.
But if you're running an intrigue-heavy, plot-driven campaign, you should certainly tailor what you prepare things to the PCs with their huge backstories and peculiar goals.

What we're talking about here are adventures written for publication or sharing, i.e. adventures intended for various other GMs to run themselves. In that context, writing with a specific party composition in mind is a bad idea.

Admittedly the title and OP aren't completely clear on that.

hymer
2016-08-17, 11:50 AM
What we're talking about here are adventures written for publication or sharing, i.e. adventures intended for various other GMs to run themselves. In that context, writing with a specific party composition in mind is a bad idea.

Admittedly the title and OP aren't completely clear on that.

I think someone on page one started talking about something you should do. Made me even more confused. :smallsmile:

Cealocanth
2016-08-18, 10:07 AM
Underwater adventures.

These can be done well. The issue is that most people are not familiar with all that the ocean has to offer, and thus they end up being bland and boring. If you build an intricate, in-depth alien world that mirrors coral reefs or the twilight abyss in our world, the adventure can be just as entertaining as a trip to the elemental planes, or the Hells.

Sith_Happens
2016-08-18, 10:30 AM
These can be done well. The issue is that most people are not familiar with all that the ocean has to offer, and thus they end up being bland and boring. If you build an intricate, in-depth alien world that mirrors coral reefs or the twilight abyss in our world, the adventure can be just as entertaining as a trip to the elemental planes, or the Hells.

The other key thing is you need to ensure the PCs will be fully prepared for any and all of the difficulties that normally come with being underwater.

mikeejimbo
2016-08-18, 12:04 PM
I like published adventures to be broad strokes rather than a lot of detail, with suggestions and advice given for customizing it to the particular party, or fitting it in to a wider framework. Or even, since I play a lot of GURPS, switching the genre.

Let's say I'm writing an encounter about a bank heist. I'd write it in a modern setting from the point of view that the players are the investigators trying to stop it. I'd detail the layout of the bank and the general plan that the bank robbers have that the PCs are trying to thwart. Then I'd write about what happens if they don't stop it, and suggestions for various ways that it could be stopped, such as by discovering it beforehand and apprehending the criminals before it even happens, to protecting the bank in a high-stakes action-packed shootout. I'd mention that the details should be altered by the party makeup. If they're "action cops" like out of a Die Hard movie, then the robbers come packing more heat. If they're super sleuths, the bad guys leave more of a paper trail. There are niche roles even in modern action - if one of the PCs is a computer genius, then the bad guys leave a digital paper trail in their planning. Or if it comes to the shootout, the computer specialist has to go keyboard-to-keyboard with the bad guys' hacker, protecting the bank's security system from them.

I'd then provide a few general notes for adapting all this to sci-fi, western, and possibly even fantasy genres.

Presuming I haven't hit my word count (I wouldn't want to go too much over 4000 for where this would be published) I might even turn the tables and suggest some incentives for why the PCs might instead be the robbers.

I also really like adventures that introduce optional new rules or stats. Going back to my earlier example, I might write up a more involved (and highly cinematic) hacking/counterhacking system to run, and provide a box of stats on the robbers' sweet arsenal. This way, GMs can get use out of the adventure even if they aren't running it straight up. Maybe someone picked up the magazine it was published in for an adventure about drug lords, but is browsing through when the box detailing the guns catches his eye and he says "oh man, my gangsters must have those" and he continues reading it and sees the hacking subsystem and says "ooh our hacker would love running through this to find the details of the gangs' distribution." Bam, added value. He subscribes to the magazine.

Yora
2016-08-20, 04:31 AM
Don't assume that the players will find secret door because there's something big or important behind it. While finding optional content is great and exciting, putting 60% of the content behind a single secret door isn't such a smart move.

Cluedrew
2016-08-20, 08:40 AM
Never plan plot.

This is a mindset thing but never plan a plot. Plan events if you have to but those are not plot. Plot is what the players leave behind them (not to be confused with destruction) not what is waiting for them. The events you plan are not, and have no guaranty of ever being plot. And even if they do happen the players will probably put a spin on it that you were not expecting. Let the plot unfold, and if you are writing an adventure you can create plans that the plot will unfold from, but those are not the plot nor can you know what the plot will be.

Telok
2016-08-20, 08:23 PM
This can be done well, but it can't be contrived and it absolutely has to be brief.

For the shining example of failing at both of the above, see Dragonlance's Key of Destiny adventure path, where the MacGuffin the party receives just before reaching 9th level, and that they're expected to have with them all the way through 20th level, is permanently Dimensional Anchored with no reason given for why that is. Because heaven forbid the writers have to stop padding the adventure with wilderness encounters. Don't worry though, the Dimensional Anchor does make a specific exception for the extraplanar dragon graveyard that the MacGuffin's entire purpose is to get you into (though it does have some other moderately-useful powers to use along the way).

Ug, yeah. I ran across that with a newish DM and the D&D 5e adventure Out of the Abyss. Party starts off in an anti-magic jail cell at level 1. Wouldn't be to much of a problem except that nothing in the adventure told the DM to mention the anti-magic, there's no way to detect it beyond wasting spells and figuring out yourself why there's no effect, and it's the only anti-magic space in the whole adventure which is for some reason located in some podunk backwater unimportant minor outpost. The jails in major cities don't have anti-magic cells in the adventure, just this one litte unimportant outpost.

When you're playing it's sort of "Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense." moment.

Solaris
2016-08-20, 08:44 PM
One of my worst-received adventure arcs involved the players being trapped in a gladiatorial arena and having to fight various weird monsters. The sin was twofold: Firstly, that they were trapped as slaves (although it was better than a TPK when a raiding mission went bad and they got overwhelmed by mooks), and secondly that it was boring. I hadn't taken much time or put much research into making the arena fights much more interesting than running them through a local bestiary, and I hadn't designed any contingencies beyond "and then they broke out".

Don't forget contingency plans when you're writing adventures.

Don't skimp out on researching historical counterparts when you're mining for ideas.

Don't have more than a couple of fights that go along similar lines; change things up and provide varying situations for encounters that require players to interact rather than just roll dice.

And somewhat unrelated, but on a similar note, random encounters shouldn't be. Nobody likes running into a couple of randomly-generated mooks out in the wilderness when there's something more interesting at the destination. If you must have random encounters, then put as much effort into designing those as you would any of the 'real' encounters in a dungeon. Whatever you do, don't be boring.

Cealocanth
2016-08-20, 10:59 PM
Don't keep what's cool about the setting secret from the players. Some secrets are okay for big reveals, but for the love of the gods let players in a pirate game play pirates.

Thrudd
2016-08-21, 12:03 AM
One of my worst-received adventure arcs involved the players being trapped in a gladiatorial arena and having to fight various weird monsters. The sin was twofold: Firstly, that they were trapped as slaves (although it was better than a TPK when a raiding mission went bad and they got overwhelmed by mooks), and secondly that it was boring. I hadn't taken much time or put much research into making the arena fights much more interesting than running them through a local bestiary, and I hadn't designed any contingencies beyond "and then they broke out".

Don't forget contingency plans when you're writing adventures.

Don't skimp out on researching historical counterparts when you're mining for ideas.

Don't have more than a couple of fights that go along similar lines; change things up and provide varying situations for encounters that require players to interact rather than just roll dice.

And somewhat unrelated, but on a similar note, random encounters shouldn't be. Nobody likes running into a couple of randomly-generated mooks out in the wilderness when there's something more interesting at the destination. If you must have random encounters, then put as much effort into designing those as you would any of the 'real' encounters in a dungeon. Whatever you do, don't be boring.

"Being boring" is less about designing your encounters and more about how you present them. Random encounters are great for making your world feel like a real, living place. What needs to be designed properly are your encounter tables and your system for randomly determining if and when encounters take place. Then you let the dice help you simulate a believable environment where the players experience what it is like to live and travel through this fantasy world. Whether the encounter is boring or not depends on how well you know your world and how you improvise according to the environment and the results of the dice. Every encounter is a "real" encounter. They may be random, but they should all belong and be appropriate for the place and time where they occur, because you put thought into the design of your world.

Yora
2016-08-21, 02:07 AM
I would say stay away from random encounters if you don't fully understand how they work and what purpose they have. Random encounters as padding to stretch out the play time of the adventures is certainly something not to do.

Random encounters work when the party can take efforts to avoid them and gains very little benefit from fighting them. Patrolling guards in a dungeon who carry no valuable treasure on them and who will be encountered when the party stays around too long or makes loud noise are the default for what random encounters are for.
Random encounters during wilderness travel work best if they are optional mini-quests. I think those in the first Dragon Age game are a pretty good example of how those could look. But "2 ogres are attacking, roll initiative" is certainly not.

AMFV
2016-08-21, 04:12 AM
I would say stay away from random encounters if you don't fully understand how they work and what purpose they have. Random encounters as padding to stretch out the play time of the adventures is certainly something not to do.

I disagree almost completely. Sometimes it's important to have non-plot elements or things that are not tightly tied back into the plot. Otherwise it all starts to feel forced. Random encounters also give you time to focus on plot elements while your players are dealing with the encounter. Sometimes they can help with pacing.



Random encounters work when the party can take efforts to avoid them and gains very little benefit from fighting them. Patrolling guards in a dungeon who carry no valuable treasure on them and who will be encountered when the party stays around too long or makes loud noise are the default for what random encounters are for.
Random encounters during wilderness travel work best if they are optional mini-quests. I think those in the first Dragon Age game are a pretty good example of how those could look. But "2 ogres are attacking, roll initiative" is certainly not.

It's a pacing thing. In Dragon Age, you can meander around all the time and sit and pause, or I can save and quit. You can't really in a group setting. The whole point of a random encounter is to decrease the plot density, which can get overwhelming if a DM rushes things. I did that a lot when I was just starting out before I realized that it was good to put some not so significant padding in there. That's what random encounters are, they're just easy fun that can go in the middle of plot relevant stuff. Also part of the huge advantage of them is that you can do some stuff that's tonally slightly different. If your PCs are involved in messy intrigue all the time, a bandit attack can break up the monotony.

Edit:

Actually...

I disagree with literally all of these:


Most adventures that people are writing seem to be pretty bad and not really helping GMs to run a game but rather making it more difficult. What things do you keep seeing in adventures that just seem like bad ideas and a general nuisance?

The monster attacks on sight and fights to the death.

That makes perfect sense for Undead Guards, constructs, and a large category of monsters. Anybody who is cornered that doesn't believe they'll get a fair shake if they surrender. There are a lot of reasons why somebody might do that. Mind-control, for example would also illicit that.



Magic items or enchantments that prevent players from using their spells that would be most helpful in the situation.

It's not doing this that's the problem, it's overusing it. When you do it sparingly it can show the players that A.) The stakes are higher, and B.) Their opponents are capable of thought and planning. If I just play the enemies as robots that never respond or counter my players strategies, then it's not very believable, and it's less fun for me.



Magic items that become unusable when their current owner dies.


Again, it depends, in some cases it makes sense. Or it could start a side-quest to make the items usable or what-not.



Box text.

Can be just fine, it's just a formalized description. It also can put some flowery prose in there and what-not. Yeah, if it's overused it's awful, but occasionally it's just fine.



High level NPCs who appear to save the day when the players are unable to win.


Having this happen on occasion isn't a problem. It's just when it's not believable or when it happens frequently enough to be irritating to the players. Sometimes getting rescued can be fun, just so long as it's not a constant thing.



Underwater adventures.

There's not really any issue with underwater adventures.

Pugwampy
2016-08-21, 07:05 AM
The monster attacks on sight and fights to the death.

Huh ? I am sorry did you not want loot and XP ?



Underwater adventures.

I wanna to visit Mermaid town .

Cluedrew
2016-08-21, 07:28 AM
Huh ? I am sorry did you not want loot and XP ?You don't have to kill them to get XP. Loot can be nice.


I wanna to visit Mermaid town .Me too, but I have to agree changing the environment so significantly is rarely done well. And I think that is what they are talking about.

Kami2awa
2016-08-21, 08:51 AM
You don't have to kill them to get XP. Loot can be nice.

Me too, but I have to agree changing the environment so significantly is rarely done well. And I think that is what they are talking about.

Yes, underwater adventures either become frustrating because so much changes (no potions, no fire magic (no fire at all, in fact), combat is at a great penalty, and so on, not to mention that you can't breathe!) or there are contrived reasons why this doesn't happen.

Of course, an underwater part of a land-based (or ship-based) adventure can be great. Consider a flooded section of a dungeon with aquatic monsters, a diplomatic visit to an underwater town as part of a larger quest, an encounter to fight off an underwater monster that attacks a ship, or the lake challenge from the Triwizard Tournament in Harry Potter. The underwater scenes in the Phantom Menace are actually, dare I say, pretty cool. You could also have the entrance to an (air-filled) dungeon be underwater, guarded by an aquatic beast - good place to hide something, especially if the dungeon's creator was amphibious or didn't need to breathe.

Bucky
2016-08-21, 09:17 AM
Random encounters work when the party can take efforts to avoid them and gains very little benefit from fighting them. Patrolling guards in a dungeon who carry no valuable treasure on them and who will be encountered when the party stays around too long or makes loud noise are the default for what random encounters are for.

Floating encounters that can be encountered anywhere if their conditions are met can be a good idea.

Random encounters that can be encountered anywhere if a d100 roll hits them are generally not.

Thrudd
2016-08-21, 10:08 AM
Floating encounters that can be encountered anywhere if their conditions are met can be a good idea.

Random encounters that can be encountered anywhere if a d100 roll hits them are generally not.

It's more like a d100 of all the creatures, animals or people that live in this region, which you could possibly see as you're traveling through.
You might see a troll in troll country, you might run into a patrol of hobgoblins near the hobgoblin fortress, you might meet a bear in the mountains or a yeti or a roc or a stone giant. As long as you also follow the rules for surprise, initial encounter distance, social reaction of intelligent beings (when it makes sense, bandits aren't usually friendly to travelers carrying treasure), and morale, this makes for an exciting game for both players and DM. An awesome adventure will give you tables of possible encounters that make sense for the theme and environment and guidelines about how often wandering monsters should be checked for in a given region, and as a bonus might connect some of the wandering monster results with lairs and locations found around the map. Like: bandit lair - a gang of 20 bandits uses a cave as their hideout. If bandits are encountered as wandering monsters, subtract that number from those who are found here. 1d10 bandits will be out hunting at any given time, etc.

Appropriately themed pre-planned encounters that you "randomly" throw in as a narrative pacing mechanism in between set-pieces isn't the same thing, and not for the same sort of game.

mikeejimbo
2016-08-21, 12:12 PM
And a positive one, to finish this post:

- Don't be a slave to originality. A lot of writers in any creative medium get stuck on the idea that everything must be completely original. Certain plots, like a collect-the-set or find-the-macguffin, are widely used because they work well across many genres.

Oh yeah, I was going to touch on this to second it. Don't fret too much about reusing tropes and clichés. They exist for a good reason. Admittedly, I only have one published adventure under my belt ("Not Your Average Grave Robbing" in Pyramid #3/92 (http://www.warehouse23.com/products/pyramid-number-3-slash-92-zombies)) but that one was a fairly blatant adaptation of Frankenstein.

Pugwampy
2016-08-21, 12:43 PM
You don't have to kill them to get XP. Loot can be nice.

I am a monster killing DM . Killing things for XP is pretty much a house rule and yes 9o percent of the time my monsters dont run away unless a player dropped a nice magic goodie . :smallbiggrin: I do not believe its wrong to play this way . Personally I think enemies running off all the time irritates players .

Only other way for XP is to impress DM .



I make nice prop decorative battle scenarios and interesting villains . DM wants blood sacrifice in his name and players want XP and loot .

Cealocanth
2016-08-21, 01:27 PM
I am a monster killing DM . Killing things for XP is pretty much a house rule and yes 9o percent of the time my monsters dont run away unless a player dropped a nice magic goodie . :smallbiggrin: I do not believe its wrong to play this way . Personally I think enemies running off all the time irritates players .

Only other way for XP is to impress DM .

I personally prefer awarding XP for completing obstacles, but I tend to play a different kind of game. No point awarding XP for monster killing in a game that's mostly about political intrigue and diplomacy. XP for winning a political debate or completing a heist or something works far better in those kinds of games.

However, when the game is actually about monster hunting, XP for kills makes sense.

Faily
2016-08-21, 04:04 PM
I am a monster killing DM . Killing things for XP is pretty much a house rule and yes 9o percent of the time my monsters dont run away unless a player dropped a nice magic goodie . :smallbiggrin: I do not believe its wrong to play this way . Personally I think enemies running off all the time irritates players .



YES!

*ahem*

Yes, it is irritating when the enemy escapes. I think it is perhaps my least favoured outcome of a fight (yes, I'll even accept my character death over it). An enemy defeated, well, that gives a sense of accomplishement. An enemy that surrenders can provide information, roleplay-drama (do we kill him? let him go? leave him?), and still that feeling of "yay, I won!".

An enemy that escapes though, that's an annoyance. Will they come back for Round 2: Electric Boogaloo? Gone forever? Do I have to prepare myself for facing him again and stock up with all sorts of anti-escape stuff? Then there's the sense of defeat, but with no resolution. A death of a PC at least gives a resolution to failing to overcome a challenge. An enemy escaping... sure it might feel sometimes like you drove them off, but again, it doesn't give any sense of conculsion to the challenge.

This is probably just me though, and while I admit that reoccurring villains is a thing and can be done well, enemies running off just usually irritates me.

Friv
2016-08-22, 10:46 AM
My personal #1 Thing Not To Do is any variation on the following statement:

"If the players do kill Bob, just replace him in all future scenes with his cousin George. George is exactly like Bob, but has +2 to all stats and bears a grudge against the people who killed his cousin."

Lord Torath
2016-08-22, 11:36 AM
YES!

*ahem*

Yes, it is irritating when the enemy escapes. I think it is perhaps my least favoured outcome of a fight (yes, I'll even accept my character death over it). An enemy defeated, well, that gives a sense of accomplishement. An enemy that surrenders can provide information, roleplay-drama (do we kill him? let him go? leave him?), and still that feeling of "yay, I won!".

An enemy that escapes though, that's an annoyance. Will they come back for Round 2: Electric Boogaloo? Gone forever? Do I have to prepare myself for facing him again and stock up with all sorts of anti-escape stuff? Then there's the sense of defeat, but with no resolution. A death of a PC at least gives a resolution to failing to overcome a challenge. An enemy escaping... sure it might feel sometimes like you drove them off, but again, it doesn't give any sense of conculsion to the challenge.

This is probably just me though, and while I admit that reoccurring villains is a thing and can be done well, enemies running off just usually irritates me.Suppose you're attacked by a pack of wolves. They're hungry, and you look like dinner. But the wolves just want dinner. They harbor no particular animosity toward you, so they don't want to eat you specifically. You're just convenient. As soon as you demonstrate (by killing one or two, or waving fire/magic around) that you're not convienient, they may be convinced that you're too hard. After all, they just want dinner. You're not worth dying over. So it makes sense that they won't fight to the death. You presumably don't have anything personal against the wolves either, as long as they look elsewhere for dinner. So there's no point in tracking them down and exterminating the whole pack.

Same thing goes for bandits. They don't want to die, they just want your loot. It doesn't even need to be your loot; you're just currently convenient. They don't want to die for your loot, because then they can't spend it. If they decide you're too powerful, they'll retreat and leave you alone. Next time you pass through, they'll recognize you, and probably not even try to ambush you, just quietly watch you go past from their vantage point in the bushes. If you do decide to track them to their lair, they still don't want to die. If you kill the leader and demonstrate your willingness to kill the rest, any who manage to flee will likely try to find less dangerous ways to make a living. If the DM's smart, he may even have you recognize one struggling to run a farm some time later.

The giant moose that mistakes you for a rival come to steal his harem? He can't mate if he's dead, so he's more than willing to flee if you prove stronger.

The Elite Death Squad sent out by Lord Nasty? They're more afraid of what Lord Nasty will do to their families to punish them for cowardice than they are of you. They will fight to the death.

So make the random encounters flee when it makes sense, and fight to the death when it makes sense. Having every encounter fight to the death makes your world less believable.