PDA

View Full Version : Making the Module



Pippa the Pixie
2019-01-04, 08:42 PM
So I've been a DM for years, though only using pre made adventures. I have tons of RPG adventures, including a treasured box of old Dungeon Magazines. I've taken each adventure and altered and re-used them countless times. In the last couple of weeks I started a new D&D game. We ran through the Keep on the Borderlands, Sunless Citadel, and The Lost city adventures. But now I had been thinking of making my own, original adventures. So I talked to my players about the idea, and they thought it was great. But they did bring up the idea of making and adventure module static vs being made for their characters.

So that is the question. In the past, all the adventures I have used, being published ones, have been the static type. If that is the right word? What I mean is that the adventures were made generic, and knew nothing about the characters. But now, if I make an adventure module, I can static free(?) it, and make it for the characters. It's tempting, and sounds like a good idea. Though some of my players mentioned it could cause problems, but were a little vague about what. I don't want to cause any problems, but wonder why an adventure made for the characters would be bad, and it what ways it might be bad?

JNAProductions
2019-01-04, 09:21 PM
Two initial thoughts on why it might not shake out super well:

1) Too forced. It might be TOO suited to the characters, and not feel "real", which, yes, is a little silly, but all the same, could impact the fun.

2) What if a player wants to switch characters? They get bored of their Paladin, and want a Rogue, or decide to go more magey. If the adventure is designed for that Paladin, suddenly it doesn't work as well.

Pippa the Pixie
2019-01-06, 10:03 AM
1) Too forced. It might be TOO suited to the characters, and not feel "real", which, yes, is a little silly, but all the same, could impact the fun.

This is what I worry about, not that it would feel forced, but more it will feel cheep and set up.



2) What if a player wants to switch characters? They get bored of their Paladin, and want a Rogue, or decide to go more magey. If the adventure is designed for that Paladin, suddenly it doesn't work as well.

Few of my players switch characters much. I only knew a guy who switched characters every other week once and that was years ago. But even if that did happen, it would just go back to the classic published module.

That is the twist: what is better? Having this tailored and set up for the characters or just having things set and having the characters just adapt to it?

Quertus
2019-01-06, 10:55 AM
So, um, if your players explicitly asked for generic, non-tailored modules (go them!), then why not just ask them?

If you've been playing and twisting and reusing modules for years, the easy answer is that they probably want you to reuse your modules, too.

The better answer is, that they want you to publish your modules. Heck, if they don't, I do. If nothing else, post them here once your group has run through them.


1) Too forced. It might be TOO suited to the characters, and not feel "real", which, yes, is a little silly, but all the same, could impact the fun.

Agreed.


what is better? Having this tailored and set up for the characters or just having things set and having the characters just adapt to it?

I'm very much about the "how the **** do we make this work" minigame.

Jay R
2019-01-06, 10:56 AM
When problems come up in play, you fix them in play.

I always leave at least one potential hook in my backstory that the DM can use or not, as he or she chooses. Some write adventures to it, and some don't.

My current character has a quest (or a delusion; I haven't ruled that out) about which he knows nothing. I'm currently role-playing trying to find out more about it. I can either do that forever, or the DM can build a quest. Either way, it helps drive my character.

The only danger is this: use it to offer the player and PC more than you take away. You can threaten their parents, or an old lover, but they should have the opportunity to rescue them. You can destroy their ancestral cottage, but they should wind up with a castle at the end. Make sure that by the end (assuming they succeed), both player and PC will be glad it happened, and satisfied with the outcome.

LordEntrails
2019-01-06, 05:36 PM
Tailor it to the players. But do so in story and plot, not in mechanics.

i.e. re-read all of their backstories and see what hooks or implications of those backstories you might be able to incorporate. Don't follow or answer every lead you find in them, but use them for inspiration. Maybe a character has a backstory of a sailor and he left because he did not get along with the crew. Well, now one of those crew members who remembers was always full of braggadocios is now a pirate that they hear about threatening the trade routes they have to travel. Maybe a 'mentor' of some sort died in a cataclysm or fighting some evil somewhere and it ends up being tied into your plot.

But don't (or atleast not often) make bad guys that are explicitly vulnerable or immune to the characters weapons/attacks. i.e. the barbarian has a flaming great axe, but not every NPC should have resistance/immunity/vulnerability to it. But, maybe a few moderate/easy challenges either require an unusual spell/ability of one character (i.e. climbing proficiency, or immune to everything but fire damage, etc) or are immune to one of their "goto" combat tools (i.e. immune to magic missiles, or flaming axes).

But tailoring the story, you can bring in the emotional connections, and you can force the players to use all the tools in their toolbox, not just the max damage one. And, on occasion, you can make that special item shine. Just make sure you do the good and bad in relative equal portions to each character.

Mr Beer
2019-01-06, 07:19 PM
I do both but I mostly use modules because it's a lot easier than doing all the work myself. My own stuff is probably more fun for me but it's also a lot more demanding so time constraints are a thing.

Spiritus
2019-01-06, 09:15 PM
Agreeing with everyone else who is saying to use their backstories. Or, for that matter, use the history you have built up with these characters! Have the story hook be "that princess you rescued has been kidnapped" or something.

Pelle
2019-01-07, 05:22 AM
Tailor it to the characters motivations, not their abilities.

If a player wants their character to become chieftain of the orcs, or get revenge on his own family, or rescue the giants, or join an elitist wizard order, then you need to make a module that gives them the chance to achieve that. What element of the setting that the players/characters want to interact with informs what the module is going to have to be about.

Quertus
2019-01-07, 10:39 AM
But they did bring up the idea of making and adventure module static vs being made for their characters.

Though some of my players mentioned it could cause problems, but were a little vague about what. I wonder why an adventure made for the characters would be bad, and it what ways it might be bad?

Ah, I misread the OP, and thought that the players were adamantly against tailored modules. Oops. :smallredface:

OK, so, how can tailoring fail - that's the question? Well, in lots (and lots) of ways.

Let's start with the basics: tailoring for someone who wants generic (hi!). Really, this is a misnomer, because I have one (OK, several) of the reasons below, but I find it easier to communicate as a "no. just no.", than to try to explain all the details.

So, let's hit the next basic: wrong tailoring. You spent all this time and effort tailoring something... that the party didn't appreciate.

Next up: spotlight issues. You've got this cool, custom-tailored adventure... that leaves one player with nothing to do. Or that puts one player constantly in the spotlight. Or that you specifically designed to rotate the spotlight, but your players took the wrong cues, and now you can't make people happy with their spotlight time without ruining the game.

Next up is ego. If you think you've done a great job tailoring the adventure, your own ego is much more likely to get in the way of seeing what's really going on, and taking the correct actions.

And, of course, there's issues with being too tailored. Not just "the Chosen One" syndrome, but what if one of the PCs dies? What if a new player joins the game? This perfectly tailored game is suddenly perfectly tailored to the wrong group.

-----

Now, all that having been said, I'm all about tailoring the way that the adventure and the world evolve to the party's actions. And, arguably more importantly, allowing the PCs to leverage their actions.

Allow me to quote myself from the last time I got into a discussion about tailored encounters vs tailored outcomes:

Basic context, IIRC, is that there's big'ol orc army threatening the boarder towns, and, while at the Capitol to seek help, the party runs across some thugs that the GM just put there as a completely unrelated to the plot "shrug, this would there" fluff encounter, that they fully expect the PCs to slaughter without difficulty.

Suppose the Fighter does go first, and cleaves through all the thugs in one attack. Maybe this means that the party gains a reputation of "don't mess with these guys", and maybe the town guard shows them fear and/or respect.

Or maybe the Fighter used subdual damage, and then turned them in (respect from the town guard), interrogated them (plot hook), or even let them go (reputation, favor from the thieves guild, future plot hook).

Maybe no-one in the party took Diplomacy, so getting the King to help them on their quest is impossible. Maybe they decide that this is ok. Or maybe they decide that they really need the king's help. So maybe they decide to curry favor with another noble, to intercede on their behalf. Or maybe they try to leverage their reputation with the town guard. Or maybe they hire a diplomat to speak for them.

Or maybe the Wizard goes first, and takes out all the thugs with one spell. Maybe this has a very similar consequence chain to the Fighter doing so... except that, when they go to see the King, the guards seem very wary, and the wizards is required to be bound, gagged, blindfolded, whatever, so the party gains additional information that the King fears and despises powerful wizards (a fact that they can use in future negotiations).

Or maybe the Rogue goes first, and subtly flashes the thugs some secret sign saying, hey, I'm one of you guys, I paid my dues, don't **** with us. Then he "convinces" the thugs to stand down. If the Rogue isn't a local, maybe he now owes a favor to the local guild. Then, when they go to see the King, maybe the party gets the "clearly very diplomatic" Rogue to be their spokesperson, which could lead to some interesting role-playing opportunities... or to the Rogue suggesting one of the alternative approaches I mentioned earlier.

Or maybe the Cleric goes first, screams obscenities to his god, and cracks one of the thugs' skulls open before one of the other PCs ends the encounter.

Or maybe one of the thugs goes first. Maybe he happens to score a crit, or fumble, or otherwise distinguish himself such that the party takes a liking to him, and promote him to a Named NPC.

Point is, there's a lot of possible fun games that can result by simply not tailoring encounters to the party

Knaight
2019-01-07, 12:27 PM
Don't make a module. Part of the benefit of being able to make one is that you can plan far less in advance, one session, maybe two, and be far more adaptable than full modules let you get. Similarly you absolutely should tailor, if not to the characters at least to the specifics of your setting.

SirGraystone
2019-01-09, 09:05 AM
A lot depend of what they mean between generic and tailored to the group. I'm a strong believer in using characters backgrounds as story hooks, a cleric with an apprentice background can have worked in the local temple, then the quest giver is not some random priest but his old mentor. A fighter with a noble background can be the nephew of the lord in the Borderland Keep maybe even the heir of the keep.

But a module shouldn't be build completely around one character, I had a druid lizardfolk in a group and for him I converted an adventure in a marsh with lizardfolk tribes, with corrupted eggs, a black dragon and a few other surprise, then because of work scheduling he had to leaves the game and I had all that work for nothing.

Jarawara
2019-01-09, 07:33 PM
The way I prefer to use modules is to take the module and add it into my campaign *before* the actions of the module begin. Thread the city and it's inhabitants into the campaign as if it were just backdrop, then have the hammer drop later.

Case in point, this one module was a story of three brothers who had been exposed to a curse and were driven mad. One became mindblanked, another was mostly sentient but had turned murderous, and the third was the true villain that had to be defeated.

The first brother is only a guide to lead you into the story; he is otherwise irrelevant. The 2nd invites you in to a dinner party where his intentions may become known (either before, or after, you become his next victim). And from that, the clues to the third brother can be found, leading you to the final confrontation. Several other NPC's in town had also be interacted with, as usual.

Only problem is, who actually cares about all this? You encounter a mindblanked guy and so you decide to follow him home? Yeah, maybe. If your players are generally kind and helpful. Otherwise they will want to take the mindblanked guy with them elsewhere, make him their mascot or pet. Some guy invites you to dinner and so we're now doing a social roleplay scene? Yeah, maybe. Or maybe your players instead refuse to go, then go anyway, spy on the dinner party from afar and then decide to rob the place and make off with the hot maid. Well, she's a ghoul so maybe not. Or maybe... they will anyway, and take her with them to make her a mascot or pet.

Chances that they ever even know to look for the third brother are... slim. Unless your players are cooperative and are focused on following all the leads you give them, specifically trying to help the DM resolve the story, and only if the clues are strong enough to direct you on your way, a module can fail simply due to the player's lack of interest. This is not their story, and they don't have anything invested in this. Maybe they pull the hero route to save the town, but relying on a "maybe" can lead to disappointment.

So.... I put the town into my campaign setting, but the three brothers haven't encounted the curse yet. Brother's are introduced as NPC's, though not particularly prominent, and not closely involved in the rest of the campaign storyline. 2nd brother is mayor of the town, and helps the party with organizing a multi-town defense against the Hillman raiders, as part of the main campaign. They go to 3rd brother for assistance with brewing herbal cures and researching arcane knowledge. They even travel for a time with him. Best of all, one of my players takes a liking to the 1st brother, and they begin dating, and he becomes a semi-regular NPC in the party.

In addition, a player asks to bring in a new PC, and she, on her own volition, suggests that the PC will be the daughter of the 3 brother's sister. I didn't know they had a sister until now, but hey, I like the idea, and so now it be!

So now, when they approaching the town, fresh after a long overland travel, and they encounter a mindblanked stranger in the woods, it's not just some random scare - it's the boyfriend of one of the PC's. And they get to town, the funeral scene is of one of the childhood friends of the other PC. And when they are invited to the dinner party, this would actually be dinner party #3 at the same place - allowing they to spot the changes in the personality of brother #2.

And who could be behind all this madness? There are clues to be found, but not needed... they have already traveled with the alchemy expert and sage of ancient arcane, brother #3.

The only problem is, how do face off against the evil villain, when he's been a trusted friend for so long and related to members of your own party.


Well, they are murder-hobos... they found a way. :)


*~*~*~*

So, in reference to OP - when designing a module, try to make the module "generic", as making it too focused on the PC's can make it look to cliché. But try to build the links of that module into your campaign long before you are ready to run it. Build off of storylines that have been ongoing, and thread it all together. Add various links to put it all together.

The main villain of DIE HARD 3 is the brother of the main villain of DIE HARD 1. There doesn't need to be any other connection to the two movies - the villain just sees a change to avenge his brother's death while doing his own money-making scheme. But to John McClane (or to the PC's point of view), the first movie just happened to him, the second movie was directed specifically at him. Yet really, they were both just the same - some bad guy covering a money heist under the cover of terrorism.

Another way you can connect it is to have a random but unique magic item, found earlier in a previous adventure, be a key to unlocking a mystery that leads to a later adventure. I once had a mini-adventure where the PC's stopped a ceremony of witches at a Stonehenge like place, and much later found a metal object with similar carvings on it. They went back to Stonehenge and found that pressed against the center stone it opened a passage below - there had been another adventure there all along, but now they were involved in the tribal war of witch covens, had a witch PC, and so exploration of this tomb was far more pertinent to the PC's than just some random pre-made adventure.

Heck, I once saw that a villain (that had survived one adventure), looked surprisingly like the villain of another premade module. So they became one and the same, allowing the PC's to go on a new adventure, but have a shot at the same recurring villain. Just don't get attached to your recurring villain. First adventure was all about the PC's just finding loot and killing critters. By the 2nd adventure, it became all about killing that SOB recurring villain so that he was dead, dead, dead! And the PC's made sure of that!


The adventure you make can (and probably should) be made "generic" enough for anyone to play, but if it's linked into the ongoing campaign well enough, your players will see it as specifically designed for them.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-09, 08:34 PM
Don't make a module. Part of the benefit of being able to make one is that you can plan far less in advance, one session, maybe two, and be far more adaptable than full modules let you get. Similarly you absolutely should tailor, if not to the characters at least to the specifics of your setting.

This is my preference. Advantages in my eyes:

* much less wasted work when the party decides to go *zig* instead of *zag*.
* much more adaptable to the party's actions in the moment, rather than having the burden of all that plot
* you can adjust your focus (even if you don't adjust the actual events) to the things the players enjoy with more fluidity
* you can adjust your adventure to the setting much more freely--even letting the players make persistent marks on the setting you'd never imagined.

My general process is to create a bunch of seeds (short campaign-arc descriptions) and let the players choose which one to follow. Each seed has a basic "here's what's going on" writeup ahead of time, but none of the details are planned. As I go, I plan the pieces that they're heading toward, always asking "what are you going to do next session?" at the end of each mini-arc within the campaign.

An example of a seed I used was
Seed: A village in <Country> has gone dark. The last person to visit the town before it stopped sending word said something about digging up ancient battlefields or relics. Go find out what's going on and stop it.

Private synopsis: A chaos cult has manipulated a rebel group into digging up an ancient battlefield/tomb in search of weapons and treasures to use against the government. The town is possessed by the spirits of the dead and is being used as a distraction."

Beyond that, I only knew what the area was like--names, races, customs, etc. Everything else I planned about a session or two in advance.

Pippa the Pixie
2019-01-13, 08:55 PM
Don't make a module. Part of the benefit of being able to make one is that you can plan far less in advance, one session, maybe two, and be far more adaptable than full modules let you get. Similarly you absolutely should tailor, if not to the characters at least to the specifics of your setting.

I don't really get how the just play style works.

Like the characters pick something to do.....the module I have ready. Now sure this is metagaming or whatever as the players know about the module. So, for the next couple game sessions the characters will run through the module.

So the other way is what? Random Encounters?




An example of a seed I used was
Seed: A village in <Country> has gone dark. The last person to visit the town before it stopped sending word said something about digging up ancient battlefields or relics. Go find out what's going on and stop it.

Private synopsis: A chaos cult has manipulated a rebel group into digging up an ancient battlefield/tomb in search of weapons and treasures to use against the government. The town is possessed by the spirits of the dead and is being used as a distraction."

Beyond that, I only knew what the area was like--names, races, customs, etc. Everything else I planned about a session or two in advance.

Is there some advantage or even difference in this way? The non- module way?

I'd do A and B too. But I'd have the Deadly Darkness module in front of me filled with all the details.

So like my module would have encounter 1: the ghostly guards. On the main road to town there are some possessed folk pretending to fix a wagon as guards. They try and talk the PCs away, but attack if they must. And I have all the rules and stat blocks needed.

So, the non-module way you have nothing? So, you roll a random encounter? And if you do, do you pause the game play to look up stuff?

Or you you say just like the module does that the undead army has guards watching the road and have their stats and description ready....well, are you not making a module then?

JNAProductions
2019-01-13, 08:56 PM
It takes skill to improvise well.

The main advantage is less prep time-how long does it take to make all those encounters? And how many are going to be missed and never used?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-13, 09:22 PM
Having a set module
a) encourages a certain approach to things (including sequence and actions), thus encouraging railroading.
b) raises the barrier to adaptation to "off-script" actions.
c) wastes tons of my time (which since I run two groups and work full time...)

With the seed + progressive enhancement model, I give the players a lot more freedom while still giving them direction. Because my turnaround loop is only a session or so (instead of having to rewrite the whole darn module when they break something critical), I can adapt much more freely and thus am much more willing to say "yes, but..." or "yes, and..."

As for encounters, I'll plan forces. I know the undead have patrols--those patrols will generally be about <here> at a certain time. If the party is there, they encounter a patrol. If they take a different route, they might avoid them altogether. I know how each atomic group will react to changes (because I know who they are once I'm close enough to the point where they can matter), so I don't have to plan all the details in advance. I don't use random encounters at all--the time limits for my groups make that a bad idea.


As an example, a party of mine (I have 2 running) were faced with a situation. 4 factions in an area, plus a sealed tower they were all interested in.
+ Intelligent undead want a power source from the tower (and are quite desperate), and are at odds with the cultists and neutral (but wary) with the other two.
+ Cultists are split--one subgroup wants control of the undead, the other wants the power from the tower for a different purpose. They're neutral or at a standoff with the other two.
+ Demons/tainted humanoids don't want anyone to get to the tower (because their master is secretly using it as a beacon). They'll attack anyone who approaches visibly.
+ An underground aberrant faction (literally) wants the tower situation resolved and wants everyone else to stay out of their territory but otherwise doesn't care what they do.

The party could have approached the tower by working with 3 of the factions, each with different consequences. They first approached the underground faction and were asked to resolve the situation. If they'd have just gone and done it, no one else would have known they existed (and would probably have turned on each other, thinking the other was at fault for taking their tower power). Instead, they decided to go talk openly with all 3 of the other factions first. Each one except the demons basically made the same request--go handle the tower and bring us the power. The demons told them to stay away or they'd attack. They then went and shut down the tower and crucially didn't bring the power to anyone. They then say they're going through the demon area.

How do I react to this? A module would only have one or two possible paths, and any other path would invalidate large segments of the further plot. Instead, since they finished the tower at the end of a session and I knew where they're going next, I can plan for how they will react. Any fool will know that they were responsible for it, which means that all the factions (except the underground one) will be out for their heads. This makes all of the various forces in the region hostile to them on sight. However, it also messes with the demon faction in a couple of different ways--first the master needed that beacon to maintain control of the demon faction in that area (because of some heavy-duty timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly stuff going on there). So without the beacon, the demon forces are in disarray. Second, the undead are now totally desperate for energy so they've mobilized to raid the humanoid allies of the demons to serve as "food." Thirdly, unhappy groups in the demon area are likely to provide covert support for the party if they come through and the area might be possible to turn against the demon master totally (thus catching the cult and the undead between two fires, since the party's allies are on the other side).

I have basic "unit encounters" built for each of the factions and can drop them in where appropriate, plus stat blocks for the bosses of each local faction and their guards. I don't have stat blocks or maps for what happens once they pass through the demon area into the demon master's territory--that depends on how, where, and what they're looking for. I have a general idea as to the terrain (urban), the forces (demons and demonic humanoids), and the attitudes (c.f. Orwell's 1984), and I have a good idea of the final end-game dilemma, but I don't know what options will be available to resolve that dilemma.


At any point, I know
a) the long-range plans and personalities of the major players
b) a varyingly-detailed set of forces and dispositions
c) map information at the high level, the mid level, and the next stop they plan to make at the detailed level.
d) general setting data so that I can improvise consistently.

I tried writing more detailed mini-modules, but except in the most static situations they always became outdated within the first few minutes of play and thus represented tons of wasted work.

Knaight
2019-01-13, 09:46 PM
I don't really get how the just play style works.

Like the characters pick something to do.....the module I have ready. Now sure this is metagaming or whatever as the players know about the module. So, for the next couple game sessions the characters will run through the module.

So the other way is what? Random Encounters?

That's not remotely how even a deeply improvisational style works, but that actually isn't what I was recommending. Instead I was recommending planning less in advance. This works better as an example, so say that I'm making a module, The Golem Cult. It starts with an offshore cult abducting people from a large fishing village and a nearby tribe, both of which are blaming the other. The PCs are imperial investigators sent in to find out why these barbarians are abducting villagers.

There's some really obvious splits here. The PCs could fail to figure out what's really going on, and end up embroiled in a war between the tribe and village - potentially on either side. They could figure out what's going on and pursue the cult. In this example I'm making a module, so I get to prepare both of those situations. Now, let's push forward a bit. Those abductions are ritual sacrifices to unleash an army of golems, which creates more splits. If the PCs figured out what was up they might be able to stop things in time, take the cult out, and report back to imperial headquarters successfully. They might be too slow, and get to flee from an impending golem army, which at least will have a united front up against them. If they never figured out what the cult was up to earlier though those golems are probably hitting two cultures at war with each other, for a massive mess.

All of that will easily bleed over into multiple sessions though, so if you don't plan as far ahead you can only plan what's relevant to you. If at the end of the first sessions the PCs have discovered the cult, failed to stop it in time, but escaped with some captives from both village and tribe you don't need to do any prep for the failed detection case. If they then decide to get both peoples together and ask them to help buy time while they run back to imperial headquarters, you don't need to plan much detail for staying and fighting. If they then totally blow their attempt to get them to send in an army and instead end up having to go back to the front in disgrace and trying to lead a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the cult and their golens you don't have to make any plans for the imperial army fighting the cult.

A module designer making something for publication though? They'd either have to change the structure of the module to forcibly reconverge (thus making PC actions less significant), or they'd get to plan out a lot of different branches, most of which would reconverge. Yet another alternative is making a module which requires a fair bit more from the GM, where you detail all of the factions likely to get involved, prepare a bunch of sample encounters, make a flow chart or three for likely developments (e.g. what the cult's scheme is doing), and let the GM handle it all - but that's just a halfway point towards individual session prep, and still likely leaves more prep overall.

Florian
2019-01-13, 10:44 PM
I don't really get how the just play style works.

Like the characters pick something to do.....the module I have ready. Now sure this is metagaming or whatever as the players know about the module. So, for the next couple game sessions the characters will run through the module.

So the other way is what? Random Encounters?

A module is a fixed and fully fleshed-out scenario, nothing more. It can only ever work when your players agree to buy in and willfully participate in it, because the module is the whole content for the gaming session.

The other option would be the thing that we generally call "sandbox"-gaming, in which the GM generally uses the setting as a map and after the initial setup phase, the players have to come up with ideas what their characters want to do in it. You generally start with some "hooks" and see which ones are interesting to your players, how and why they approach them, then start to work out the details when you actually need them.

Personally, I recommend using the Varisia region of Golarion for first-timers wanting to try that style, because you have a truck-load of material, locations and NPC already completely detailed.

LordEntrails
2019-01-14, 12:00 AM
I don't really get how the just play style works.
As others have not, nope :)

Here are some good articles with advice and discussion on adventure creation;
- https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots
- http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7949/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-1-the-plotted-approach
- http://www.gnomestew.com/game-mastering/gming-advice/pc-agency/
- http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/sandbox/Make%20a%20Fantasy%20Sandbox_111005.pdf

Darth Ultron
2019-01-16, 09:21 PM
The other option would be the thing that we generally call "sandbox"-gaming, in which the GM generally uses the setting as a map and after the initial setup phase, the players have to come up with ideas what their characters want to do in it. You generally start with some "hooks" and see which ones are interesting to your players, how and why they approach them, then start to work out the details when you actually need them.


This is the Random Mess. The players do things at random, and the Dm just makes stuff up right in front of the players at random. It's a popular, easy way to play. Whatever the players random do, IS the path. As the details are only made after the players random do something, the game naturally have very light details.

Of course the ''sandbox" game requires a huge player buy in: they have to accept the randomness and light details of the game.

JNAProductions
2019-01-16, 09:31 PM
This is the Random Mess. The players do things at random, and the Dm just makes stuff up right in front of the players at random. It's a popular, easy way to play. Whatever the players random do, IS the path. As the details are only made after the players random do something, the game naturally have very light details.

Of course the ''sandbox" game requires a huge player buy in: they have to accept the randomness and light details of the game.

Just because you personally lack the skills to make a good sandbox (whether through lots of prepwork or great improv skills) does not mean it's a lesser gaming style, or will be light on details.

While it will, by its nature, be lighter on details, that doesn't make it light on details-just less detailed than the exact same amount of effort put into a more linear game.

And it's not random, if done well. The world is established, and the characters that are played will have their choices be affected by that and the world will, in turn, be affected by the choices the players make.

LordEntrails
2019-01-16, 11:38 PM
Just because you personally lack the skills to make a good sandbox (whether through lots of prepwork or great improv skills) ...
I don't think you should be making this personal...

Anyway, to the point, sandbox games can be immersive and detailed. And they don't ahve to have much if any randomness involved in them. If the DM knows their setting intimately and has developed power groups, motivations, and events going on in the background, then the party has to option to explore and influence detailed plots that may shape the world.

If, all the DM has done is create a map and uses random tables to generate encounters in each hex of exploration, then yea, that's pretty shallow.

Florian
2019-01-16, 11:56 PM
I think there're basically two very different approaches to sandbox gaming: Known World vs. Unknown World.

For the Known World approach, the players must have a certain amount of the knowledge about the setting and lore behind it. For example, the Varisia region of Golarion is highly detailed and offers a surprising amount of things you can tackle, so itīs fun to play there with folks that can straight up say what their concrete character goals are.

The Unknown World approach would be something like the classic Wilderlands of High Fantasy. One major part of the activity is exploration, pushing back the "fog of war", so to speak, finding out what is out there and coming up with something that you can do with it.

Pelle
2019-01-17, 04:17 AM
The Unknown World approach would be something like the classic Wilderlands of High Fantasy. One major part of the activity is exploration, pushing back the "fog of war", so to speak, finding out what is out there and coming up with something that you can do with it.

And even if it is unknown (to the players), it doesn't have to be random.

To me it seems like a lot of the most vocal sandbox proponents are also vocal proponents of random procedures. I wonder if there is something missing in translation. I like sandbox games, but I want the GM do decide what is where (both as GM and player), not randomly rolling. There's no sense of exploration when you know that what you find in the next hex is only the result of random dice. Then the world don't make sense, and it's impossible to make educated guesses about what you can find.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-18, 10:52 AM
Just because you personally lack the skills to make a good sandbox (whether through lots of prepwork or great improv skills) does not mean it's a lesser gaming style, or will be light on details.

It's not like it takes any skill to do a sandbox game:

Players: "We want to fight orcs and our characters walk north!"

DM: "You guys see orcs!"

Players: "Fight!"



And it's not random, if done well. The world is established, and the characters that are played will have their choices be affected by that and the world will, in turn, be affected by the choices the players make.

If done well, it's not a sandbox: it's a module. Once you have established a ton of stuff in the game, you have made a module.


If the DM knows their setting intimately and has developed power groups, motivations, and events going on in the background, then the party has to option to explore and influence detailed plots that may shape the world.

Exactly, if the DM well....makes a module, then sure the game is not random.

Florian
2019-01-18, 04:31 PM
@DU:

Excuse my language, but when it comes to "player driven" aka "Sandbox", you're an idiot.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-18, 06:17 PM
@DU:

Excuse my language, but when it comes to "player driven" aka "Sandbox", you're an idiot.

Why do you say so? Because you disagree?

Maybe it might be better if you just make the case for your side?

The question is how to make a Module, or game play for a session.

Now the Module way is the DM making people, places, things and placing them in a setting with a story, plot and lots of details.

The other way is...well, some other way. The sandbox way loves to endless talk about the players choosing to do something...but, ok, what happens after that? It can't be " the DM making people, places, things and placing them in a setting with a story, plot and lots of details", as that is how you make a Module. So...describe this other way then?

LordEntrails
2019-01-18, 11:01 PM
Why do you say so? Because you disagree?

Maybe it might be better if you just make the case for your side?

The question is how to make a Module, or game play for a session.

Now the Module way is the DM making people, places, things and placing them in a setting with a story, plot and lots of details.

The other way is...well, some other way. The sandbox way loves to endless talk about the players choosing to do something...but, ok, what happens after that? It can't be " the DM making people, places, things and placing them in a setting with a story, plot and lots of details", as that is how you make a Module. So...describe this other way then?
Because your definition of sandbox is very narrow. Because when we describe something as "sandbox" that you don't think is sandbox, you call it a module.

It's a matter or terminology/definition/connotations. You are free to define a word anyway you want, but this one you need to understand that not everyone defines "sandbox" the way you do, and I would say maybe only 1-in-100 gamers or fewer do. Therefore, do not tell us we are wrong when we use the more common definition. And, please, when we define what we mean as "sandbox" don't go and tell us "no, you are making a module".

LordEntrails
2019-01-18, 11:03 PM
Oh, and please folks, lot not devolve into personal attacks. This thread will go no where useful if we do.

JNAProductions
2019-01-18, 11:20 PM
Perhaps there's an element of confusion here. Module=/=Linear.

I'll agree with Darth Ultron-if you FULLY sketch out the world, all the people, all the wars and goings-on and all that, that's a module. But if the players are still free to go where they please, do as they will, and have an impact that way, it's a sandbox module.

It is NOT a random mess, nor is it linear.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-19, 12:52 AM
Because your definition of sandbox is very narrow. Because when we describe something as "sandbox" that you don't think is sandbox, you call it a module.

Odd as my definition of sandbox as ''random anything" is quite wide. For a Module the DM makes up, or used pre made stuff, before the game starts. So the DM knows almost all the needed information and detail for the game play.

As a Sandbox game is different, well, that means by definition it can't be ''like a module", as then it would just ''be a module".




It's a matter or terminology/definition/connotations. You are free to define a word anyway you want, but this one you need to understand that not everyone defines "sandbox" the way you do, and I would say maybe only 1-in-100 gamers or fewer do. Therefore, do not tell us we are wrong when we use the more common definition. And, please, when we define what we mean as "sandbox" don't go and tell us "no, you are making a module".


Well, it would help IF you could describe your definition of sandbox.

How about we use a very simple example: A Haunted House.

As a Module DM, I would:

1.Make a history of the house: who lived there and why is it haunted. And a reason to go there.
2.Make a map of the house and the area around it.
3.Then I will go from location to location and make encounters(of many types).
4.Then I will go through and connect everything to make sense.
5.Using all the above I will put everything together to make a plot and story

So, how does the Sandbox DM do it?


. But if the players are still free to go where they please, do as they will, and have an impact that way, it's a sandbox module.

I guess I will never get this definition of a sandbox game. Ok, the players are ''free''....and then what?

Yora
2019-01-19, 03:04 AM
Anyway, to the point, sandbox games can be immersive and detailed. And they don't ahve to have much if any randomness involved in them. If the DM knows their setting intimately and has developed power groups, motivations, and events going on in the background, then the party has to option to explore and influence detailed plots that may shape the world.

If, all the DM has done is create a map and uses random tables to generate encounters in each hex of exploration, then yea, that's pretty shallow.

The general argument for having some or a lot of randomness in what players encounter is that GMs are biased. As a GM, you always have preferences or tastes for what you think would be fun or best to happen next to the players. One thing that results from that is that you will unconsciously cause patterns in what you make appear, based on what the players are doing and how they are doing. This can be judged undesirable.
The other thing is that players know that you decide what they encounter. If things go easy, they suspect that you made it easy for them. If things are too hard to overcome and characters are killed, they suspect that you made it hard for them. Whether you decided that this should be, or you did it unconsciously. This also can be judged undesirable.

This is where the randomized content comes into place. There are clear established procedures for when a random encounter check is made, how high the chance for an encounter is, and an existing table that says what the odds for the various possible encounters in the current place are, and the randomized amount of creatures in an encounter.
When you follow these procedures, you don't let your bias influence whether things will be easy or hard for the players. And the players know that their odds of success don't depend on what the GM thinks is the best outcome for the current adventure. The players have an understanding that the fate of their characters depends on the randomness of dice and their own decisions to press forward or turn back and go somewhere else. They know that it won't depends on whether the GM wants them to succeed or fail.

The big question is always how much randomized content you should have in relation to the amount of fixed content, so that there is a sufficient amount of randomness to get this effect.
Some people have published content that is almost completely randomized with almost no fixed content. Whether this would be fun to play without the GM adding personally created fixed content is rather debated. Lots of people think that it isn't, and I don't either.

Florian
2019-01-19, 03:34 AM
Then there's the "Gygaxian Naturalism"-approach to it. In this case, you try to fine tune the tables in such a way, that the placement, type and frequency of encounter will match with the target environment (you try to simulate), hopefully providing a firing output.

Florian
2019-01-19, 04:24 PM
@Darth Ultron:

You're still asking the entirely wrong question, therefore the answer wouldn't mean anything to you, basically akin to "What does the sky taste like? Lemon".

Darth Ultron
2019-01-19, 06:17 PM
@Darth Ultron:

You're still asking the entirely wrong question, therefore the answer wouldn't mean anything to you, basically akin to "What does the sky taste like? Lemon".

Maybe enlighten me to the right question?

Pippa the Pixie
2019-01-19, 06:37 PM
The general argument for having some or a lot of randomness in what players encounter is that GMs are biased. As a GM, you always have preferences or tastes for what you think would be fun or best to happen next to the players. One thing that results from that is that you will unconsciously cause patterns in what you make appear, based on what the players are doing and how they are doing. This can be judged undesirable.

I have thought about this. I know I have a couple, like the jump scare. I've played a lot of horror, and love horror movies. So I put jump scares in my games, monsters and such that just pop up. Knowing about it, I can watch for it and take it out.

What to do if I don't know about it? How do I stop being me? Is there some trick to do?





The other thing is that players know that you decide what they encounter. If things go easy, they suspect that you made it easy for them. If things are too hard to overcome and characters are killed, they suspect that you made it hard for them. Whether you decided that this should be, or you did it unconsciously. This also can be judged undesirable.

With a published module, players know that for the most part it is just what is written on the page. I don't alter too much. This makes the part where if I write a module, it will be all on me. So, again, how do I watch out for this, and what do I do about it?



The big question is always how much randomized content you should have in relation to the amount of fixed content, so that there is a sufficient amount of randomness to get this effect.
Some people have published content that is almost completely randomized with almost no fixed content. Whether this would be fun to play without the GM adding personally created fixed content is rather debated. Lots of people think that it isn't, and I don't either.

I'm not sure I like the idea of random content at all. The whole point of a module is to have a game plan.

Florian
2019-01-19, 10:33 PM
@Pippa the Pixie:

Depends on the size and scope of the module and its type. Something linear or purely site-based doesn't really need it. Once you get into mega-dungeon or hex campaign territory, where there is a high chance that a lot of potential encounters will be missed out, using a randomizer for minor stuff makes a lot of sense to avoid bloating up the page count. If you compare, say, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft with Vault of Larin Karr and Sword of Air, the scope goes up really fast, from one castle, to an entire valley to more or less four kingdoms. It would be foolish to expect the same level of detail found in Ravenloft in the others, or the same level of freedom found in Sword in Ravenloft.

There's no real answer to your other questions. There's a pervasive school of thought that's more or less about pitting the players against the setting, with the GM being a purely neutral arbiter of the rules, the original authors and publisher know best and so on. Pure rubbish. Now is a good time to grab your monster manual or bestiary, flip through it and have a critical look at what creatures you have never used so far and see what you can do with them.

LordEntrails
2019-01-19, 10:43 PM
Odd as my definition of sandbox as ''random anything" is quite wide. For a Module the DM makes up, or used pre made stuff, before the game starts. So the DM knows almost all the needed information and detail for the game play.

As a Sandbox game is different, well, that means by definition it can't be ''like a module", as then it would just ''be a module".

Well, it would help IF you could describe your definition of sandbox.
To me, a sandbox game is one without pre-set plots. Where a plot is defined as; "A plot is the sequence of events in a story." (Jason Alexander (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots))

A sandbox does not have to be random, it has to be unscripted or no set plot(s). A module can be sandbox or not, and even really doesn't seem to be the right thing to talk or compare about. I think of sandbox more in terms of a setting.

A sandbox is a setting that has power groups, themes, environments, motivations, etc. To see a more thorough definition, look at this link I posted near the start of this thread; http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/sandbox/Make%20a%20Fantasy%20Sandbox_111005.pdf
It's not a definition, but rather how to make a sandbox and should give you a good idea of what I consider (and I think is the more common interpretation of the word).


How about we use a very simple example: A Haunted House.

As a Module DM, I would:

1.Make a history of the house: who lived there and why is it haunted. And a reason to go there.
2.Make a map of the house and the area around it.
3.Then I will go from location to location and make encounters(of many types).
4.Then I will go through and connect everything to make sense.
5.Using all the above I will put everything together to make a plot and story

So, how does the Sandbox DM do it?

Well, if the link above doesn't describe it better, here's a simple approach;
1. same. Except the reason is one the players can ignore or not even know of.
2. same
3. Decide who/what lives in the house. What are their motivations? What do they care about? Why are they there?
Done, until the players actually enter the house or interact with it. Then the DM says, oh hey, the ghost would respond this way if the players did that. Or the rats respond... Or....
(5. Notice no plot? No script the characters have to follow to get to the end?)


I guess I will never get this definition of a sandbox game. Ok, the players are ''free''....and then what?
The players live in a world, with stuff going on. Some of it is just happening around them, and some of it may happen to them. They chose most of what happens to them, they chose what situations they get involved in.

If you didn't check out the Alexandrian article above, here's another link to it; https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

Florian
2019-01-20, 04:19 AM
Maybe enlighten me to the right question?

The right questions are:
1 - What are the differences in storytelling between different gaming models?
2 - Why are things created sometimes identical, other times differently between different gaming models?
3 - What do you want to achieve with different gaming models?

At the core, a sandbox is pure setting information without any plot or meta-plot and very few expectations attached to how the game will develop.

In context of this particular discussion, a "sandbox module" can be any detailed location that offers opportunities to explore and interact with and is still created without any plot or meta-plot and with few expectations how it is handled.

The whole point is not to create a campaign (as in, pre-defined series of adventures and encounters that will line up to tell a story), but rather a campaign world (as in, enough interesting opportunities to explore and interact that this will form a string of events).

A single Haunted House might be an adventuring location that can also be found in a sandbox and you craft it similarly, but you don't enforce a reason to go there, prep a plot including it or really do anything more than to announce its presence, making it clear that it is an option.

Itīs not the right gaming model for players with a strong consumer mentality. You canīt just be passive, wait for the GM to present you everything on a silver platter, roll some dice, otherwise get the story told. In contrast, it is the right gaming model for players who want to tell a story. Itīs a choice to declare a character to be a dedicated frontiers explorer or undead slayer, then go out and look for some frontiers to explore or undead to slay.

@Pippa the Pixie:

Ok, let's get back to the point about gaming styles. Plot = pre-planned chain of events. So a plot-based module is more or less a story in reverse, the GM knows how it will end and tries to steer the players towards re-telling it step by step. This is also the source of the vague discomfort your players are feeling, as quite a lot of GMs fall to the error and create plot lines about one or all of the PCs being the "chosen ones" or imagining in advance that the Paladin will naturally beat the Lich Dragon or things like that.

Therefore the suggestion to not create a plot-based module, but rather a site-based one, following the usual sandboxing standards. For example, come up with a region of sufficient size to allow for serious traveling and sport one major and some minor settlements, throw in one big and a lot of very small dungeons and encounters and see what your players are up to when itīs them who have to tell the story.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 08:38 AM
Itīs not the right gaming model for players with a strong consumer mentality. You canīt just be passive, wait for the GM to present you everything on a silver platter, roll some dice, otherwise get the story told. In contrast, it is the right gaming model for players who want to tell a story. Itīs a choice to declare a character to be a dedicated frontiers explorer or undead slayer, then go out and look for some frontiers to explore or undead to slay.

@Pippa the Pixie:

Ok, let's get back to the point about gaming styles. Plot = pre-planned chain of events. So a plot-based module is more or less a story in reverse, the GM knows how it will end and tries to steer the players towards re-telling it step by step. This is also the source of the vague discomfort your players are feeling, as quite a lot of GMs fall to the error and create plot lines about one or all of the PCs being the "chosen ones" or imagining in advance that the Paladin will naturally beat the Lich Dragon or things like that.

Therefore the suggestion to not create a plot-based module, but rather a site-based one, following the usual sandboxing standards. For example, come up with a region of sufficient size to allow for serious traveling and sport one major and some minor settlements, throw in one big and a lot of very small dungeons and encounters and see what your players are up to when itīs them who have to tell the story.

I think there's a middle ground between "full sandbox" and "pre-written plot". As you said, sandboxes only work for certain types of players.

I like to split things into two categories: Goals and Means. Each of these might be player-driven or GM-driven (or a mix). In the extreme, you end up with 4 cases (in principle):

1. Sandbox: Player-driven goals, player-driven means.
2. Player-driven goals, GM-driven means. This one seems weird to me.
3. GM-driven goals, Player-driven means. This, at the broad scope, is where most of the good modules sit and where I play mostly.
4. Linear: GM-driven goals, GM-driven means. In the extreme case of zero player buy-in, this is a railroad.

Case 3 (or variations) is where I find most players enjoy things the most. And the goals can break down into several scopes themselves, which may be more or less player-driven:

1. Campaign goals. Slay the dragon. Stop the war. Etc. These are the big broad goals of the whole scenario, the central conflict. And these might be looser than prescribing an end-point--they may be "there's a war going on and you're positioned to make a difference for either/both sides."
2. Adventure goals. These build together to make the whole campaign. If you're going to stop the war, you might find yourself interfering in battle X or negotiation Y.
3. Immediate goals. This session, we're doing Z.

My games tend to have a relatively specific location ("the ruined city of Godsfall" or "the Pactum Battlefield and its surrounding area" are the two locations for my current games, neither one of which involves significant travel) and situation ("there's a bunch of factions including cultists, undead, demons, hungry spider things, and a Great Old One trapped in the middle of the city; everything's on the cusp of going critical", or "rebel anarchists are looting a battlefield/containment field with things trapped in it") but the means and the short-run goals are up to the players. So they know the basic campaign goal (a guiding "quest"), but the exact parameters are up to them.

Pure sandboxes, in my experience, tend to feel disconnected when heavy use of random elements is involved. Randomly generated dungeons (more-so than encounters) tend not to cohere with each other, so the world is mostly reactive and the players have to do the moving and shaking. And since the interactions between pieces of the world are more limited (in part due to necessity to keep things sane for the DM), poorly done sandboxes are a murderhobo's dream. Go there, kill that (village), move on. They can avoid this, but require specific players and a lot of work from the GM's side.

I find the intermediate case much less work and more fulfilling. But that's my personal opinion, YMMV.

jayem
2019-01-20, 11:51 AM
Sandbox and Railroady (I know we're speaking about modules) both require similar amounts of improvisation, but in a sandbox it's about what happens when you do that whereas in a railroad it's about why you can't do that.
In either case you can substitute some of the improvisation by additional planning, get away with it if the players are robots, or minimise it by having a very bland/walled environment.


So to go back to DnD's wargame roots, in a fictional knockof of the first half of 20th century period. The Germans equivalents are invading 'France'.
In a WW2 based railroady module, no matter what you do you have to lose somehow. Else you won't get the cool D-D situation near the end. Even if the GM has to invent extra reserves/fudge rolls (although the sensible GM or Field Commander will have made sure the army is strong enough).
In a WW1 based railroady module, no matter what you do you have to stop the Germans somehow. Else you won't get the slow grind. Even if the GM has to ...
In a sandboxy module if you lose (and then escape) it will be more like WW2, if you win (but can't push back) then it will be more like WW1, if you totally lose then I guess you look at 1870. On the plus side the GM can just see what happens, however now the GM has to frantically plan what the German's do next (although the sensible GM or Field Commander will have half an idea)

(of course there's lots of debate, and the way you set up the sandbox will have vast influences over which it ends like.)


One big advantages with sandbox style is that neither the DM or players have too much invested in a particular outcome.

One corresponding risk for the overly custom module is that you invest even closer in a particular outcome (Not only are you planning for the party as a whole to do W you've planned for the Druid to do XYZ)

__Long Term Planning__
You need the main problem. If it's to be interesting this has to be much stronger than the players right now, although if it isn't it's not the end of the world, just a very short module.

So you need the big bad (you may as well stat him up) and a few adjectives (is he reckless/cautious, etc...)
his top henchmen, and his 'armies' (ideally with some variation, and some 'average' stats)

You need some half idea of his general campaign, where are each of his armies going (and roughly how fast). Draw some arrows on the map representing his plan.

You need the forces of good, where are the important ones, why can't they alone stop the villain

Penultimately you need some potential opportunities for the PC's, main hazards/obstacles to each opportunity and a weak spot in the hazard
(N.B. Broadly speaking the harder the 'hazard' the more forewarning there should be, and things should be roughly in proportion. However not all opportunities should be easy for all parties, some the players may never find out about. If Elrond only speaks (at first) to Elves, that's fine. But either let the players know before they set off on their trek or be willing to create some Elves near Rivendell who will intercede after you... )

__Midterm Planning__
What of the villains actions are likely to hit the party first. Make sure there is one that occurs in a reasonable time, make sure that it is one that the players can 'handle'.
Flesh this out in more detail.

Some of the opportunities are going to be more tempting than others (to your party), again flesh them out in more detail. Some opportunities give less chance for stalling, again flesh these out in more detail. Opportunities that they haven't heard of and being with two sessions walking down random encounter alley do not need such thought.

__Post Sess N Planning__
Put yourself in the main bad guys shoes, how does he react to what's happened (if he knows)? The stuff that's happened off screen, do the PC's hear of it?
...
Put yourself in the local bad guys shoes, what is he doing?

Put yourself in the Players shoes, what are you at all likely to do

Flesh things nearby to an appropriate level of detail. Things that the player will (almost certainly) encounter should now be detailed to the relevant stats, things a bit further away you might not even know class&level (the wood has wolves in it).

Darth Ultron
2019-01-25, 05:10 PM
One big advantages with sandbox style is that neither the DM or players have too much invested in a particular outcome.


This is simply not true. The investment of a person in the game is detached from the play style. After all, too many players are invested in ''my character must auto win" no matter what type of game they are in.

I guess the module railroad type game gets the ''bad'' wrap because it wants the players and characters to DO something linerer and constructive and fun and adventitious.

While the sandbox game is considered ''good"(''greatest game 4evers!") because the players just have to show up and do random things and make an ''emergent'' afterwards mess of a random somewhat story.

Friv
2019-01-25, 07:29 PM
This is simply not true. The investment of a person in the game is detached from the play style. After all, too many players are invested in ''my character must auto win" no matter what type of game they are in.

I guess the module railroad type game gets the ''bad'' wrap because it wants the players and characters to DO something linerer and constructive and fun and adventitious.

While the sandbox game is considered ''good"(''greatest game 4evers!") because the players just have to show up and do random things and make an ''emergent'' afterwards mess of a random somewhat story.

It legitimately boggles my mind that anyone still engages with you.