Things not to do when writing an adventure

[Yora]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Quest givers who are more qualified than the party and not actually busy with anything important while the players are on their quest.

[nrg89]

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.

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]

(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]

Don't put the major reveal of the adventure into the title.

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

[Khedrac]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[BRC]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


"A village hires you to protect them from bandits".
The Seven Samurai


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


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]

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]

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]

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.